By definition abortion is the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival. Why would it be incapable of survival? It didn't even have a chance!

In my opinion abortion is wrong unless the woman got pregnant by rape or either her or the baby's life was in danger. Many teenagers have abortions because they had sex, Using it as a birth control is not only wrong but is also teaching young girls and boys that its ok to make big mistakes such as this because we can take care of it.

Imagine if you will, your not being here. You could never make a difference, you would never be thought of or loved. How sad is that? Of course being that you were never born you wouldn't care. Now imagine how your life has played out so far. Maybe you are married? Maybe you just graduated high school and are heading to college? Those are memories; beautiful childhood memories for you, your family and your friends.

You are here on a writers forum, so apparently you want to be a writer, think about the babies who never get the chance to dream.


Now why do I even care what your opinion is of this? Well its not so much about abortion, I've been having the abortion debate for many years now with family and friends. My opinion is only one of millions but my question is when should abortion be called murder?

9 week fetus?
12 week fetus?
20 week fetus?

At 9 weeks the embryo is a fetus. Therefore it is growing, breathing, building so to speak. So is it at 9 weeks that the embryo is human? Does this human, although it cannot speak have rights? Should it?


Mother Teresa says...

[quote]Life is an individual right, not a privilege, for unborn humans Mother Teresa, in her amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Loce v. New Jersey and Krail et al. v. New Jersey in February 1994 - "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign... you must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth."[/quote]

Blind indeed.

How to and what to expect from a critique. It is important to remember when giving a critique that poems/short stories are not etched in stone. Rather they are like clay, not yet fired for the ages. They are malleable and pliant.

If one notices a problem, it should be called to the writer’s attention, but in a way that points toward revision, but also note, that what appears to be problematic to you, may not appear so to another reader. Show the writer how the poem effects you. What you see, think, feel, as you read the piece. Point out the possible editing/spelling errors, but do not correct them for the writer.

Point out what’s wrong: No one wants empty praise. When responding to a poem, do not simply write: “this is good” or “this is a strong poem.” Point out specific lines, metaphors, images, and ideas that work, that elicit a response from you. Explain why these devices affect you.

Finally, you don’t want to destroy the writer’s ego by trashing his work. Writing a good critique requires as much skill and training as writing a good story or poem. It should be a balance of encouragement and constructive advice.

I personally think that a "This is great" comment makes me feel good, but if there's nothing specific about what was great it doesn't help me produce similar work in the future. Similarly, "this sucks" or "I hate this kind of story" is unhelpful because there is no effort to help the writer evolve.

Be as specific as possible, but if you truly can't think of anything positive about the work, then say so because some work just is not salvageable, but then make suggestions of other styles that might be appropriate to pursue.

As a writer, you should look not just at the critique but at who is writing it. This is not to say that someone who hasn't published 50 books doesn't know what he is talking about. And if 40 people love the story and the one who doesn't has no credentials but has constructive advice, I'd pay close attention to that individual's comments because he is likely to represent the people who may or may not buy your book. If he just says, "I hate this" while the others point out strengths, I wouldn't toss your work in the garbage.

The basic problem is that when you give a critique, the person receiving it has no idea of your level of experience and whether or not they should take you seriously. But when you post an opinion, proofread it. If your critique is filled with typos, YOU look like an idiot. I think opinions are helpful. As far as receiving a critique, it all comes down to how thick your skin is.

Questioning Why To Be A Writer?

Writing requires discipline and is difficult at times. It’s one of the most isolated professions in the world. You can write and write, but there’s no guarantee that you will be recognized (published) or paid for your efforts. So why be a writer?

Some say they just want to be creative. Well that’s all fine and dandy, but what’s the point if you don’t share with others and be recognized for it?

Self satisfaction? Sure. I feel great after I finish a piece that I believe has some clout. There are also a million ways to be creative, such as drawing, painting, cooking, organizing, hell you can be creative cleaning the bathroom, so why a writer?

Some say money and of course everyone could write a novel. Whether it’s good or not is another long story, so lets get back to why it is you want to be a writer? Money? Well when you look at the bestsellers lists you might recognize some great names, King, Grisham, Clancy but you don’t recognize all of them. Which in all honesty tells you what? That there isn’t many successfully paid writers such as these. They too were once in your position, asking the questions of why, and wondering whether to give up and move on.

Some say the reason they want to be a writer is for fame. Fame? Not many writers are famous. Take Stephen King for instance, great writer right? Of course he is, I mean his books have been made into movies. King is a private man because he knows that having his face in front of a camera is not the reason he wanted to be a writer. Could you concentrate with numerous phone calls, constant stalking, camera flashes through your windows as you open the curtains to your office to let in a little inspirational natural lighting?

Most of those who want to be writers don’t realize the difficulty involved. The hours of solidarity, research, and writing. The horrific hours of editing the words you once thought were sunshine have turned to rain. Being rich doesn’t make you happy, and fame doesn’t last forever. So we are back to the question of why do you want to be a writer?

For me it’s truly a simple answer. One that I didn’t arrive at easily but I arrived at never the less. I have to be! It’s a simple answer that opens up the door to more complex questions but it’s the only acceptable answer as to why I, myself want to be a writer. So my next question has arrived and nags at my soul. Why?

I knew I had to be a writer but why? There is always the deep creative, emotional pull from within myself telling me to put my thoughts on paper. Something inside insists that I must be a writer. A hour a day, a chapter on lunch break at work, a few sentences while waiting for dinner to cook, whatever it takes to get them down because if I don’t the uneasiness doesn’t allow me to rest. I’ve come to the conclusion that the gnawing at my soul needs to be released, that is why I write.

Everybody is different right? So my next question is what makes my writing different from everyone else’s writing? Now it’s a matter of knowing your craft. Letters to words, words to sentences, sentences in order and punctuation added. Sounds simple right? Oh no, there’s so much more to writing. When you think of the famous writers that most strive to be like, they all have their own unique theme, tone, setting, attitude and so do you. You just have to dive deep into the soul within you and notice the subtle hints you receive from your secrets, fears, fantasies, and then put them on paper. After writing and reading over what you’ve written you might just find your own tone or attitude. Writing can start with a dream, a whim, or a sudden burst of inspiration but where you take it is up to you. Writing like so many other creative things needs to be honed. Once you mature through the years you will find a flow, and writing will become second nature to you. The ache in your soul never goes away. If you have to be a writer then that passion will allow you to create until the end of your existence. You just have to know how to trigger your inspiration when it’s lying dormant.

Recently I was thinking about something that came up in a forum. The title of the thread was “Creativity or Replication” and the question asked was “Do you feel that you are creating or are you simply replicating or reassembling things you have read from other writers?” This is a great question and I was thinking about it and if it pertains to my work. Most of my earliest poetry was immature, and suicide related. I was dwelling on what was in front of me, and not on my inner reality. In my early twenties my work began to evolve as I was learning slowly but gracefully how to look a little deeper. Every now and then I want to go back to that immature writing to get away from my present reality. It’s ok as long as I realize that it’s not all of me, that whatever comes from my pencil during those times will be mediocre and there is no point in doing something unless you’re going to give your all.

Back to the question of creativity versus replication, I’m sure you’ve seen two stories or poems that are so similar that one makes you think of the other. In fact those two authors probably thought at the time that they were writing best sellers, that they were unique and original. Were they looking deep? You will never know about those other writers but if you as a writer look deep enough then your soul will give you a story all your own.

If you have to be a writer, you must pay attention to your soul, develop your craft and you will not be a duplicator but an originator. Although it would be great, you still are not guaranteed to be a success. You had to be a writer and when all is said and done, it’s only when you’ve given into that part of your soul that you are able to say, “I’m a writer” and it was all for the satisfaction of creation.