Questions of Life

It is kind of lame and ridiculous when pro-abortionist women imply, "if you don't take responsibility for the consequences of my sexual life and its pleasure, then I have every right to kill the innocent, defenseless child that is conceived as a result of it as long as it is in my womb and you can't rescue it from me."

All that pregnant woman needs to do for her child is to eat a little more and put up with a little restriction in movement in the last stages of pregnancy. The child in the womb needs no more to grow. Nature has provided it with the means to take care of its needs while in the womb.

The mother who didn't want her child, could give it up for adoption or simply leave it safely dressed in the emergency department of a hospital as the most desperate act, instead of taking its life in the name of her "reproductive freedom" which robs an innocent, defenseless child of its
life.

Millions of women the world over go about their pregnancies like the most natural thing in the world because the female body has been created to bear children as part of its normal cycle in life.

It is typical that a pro-abortionist dodges the question of an unborn child's right to its life. By redefining when a growing child in the womb has a right to live, the morality of abortion is side-stepped.

A growing child in the womb by any other name is still a growing child in the womb.

There was a time when the growing child did not exist, i.e. before the ovum which got implanted in the mother's uterus (before she even discovered she was pregnant and decided to abort the child) was fertilized. From that point it grew steadily at its genetically pre-determined pace and would have been born if the mother had not opted to kill it.

Anon:
If you did have an abortion, what do you say to the child who missed a chance at its life? What do you say to the world who misses what your child could have contributed to it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for Butterfly3, but I can answer your question for myself.

I didn't abort a "child." It was not yet a child. Therefore, speaking to it would be a waste of time and breath.

As for what I would say to "the world," I have no obligation to "the world" to bring into it a child that I cannot care for. As for what it could have contributed, there's no way to know when you get pregnant what kind of person the zygote will become. While it is true that it might have become another Dalai Lama, it could also have become another David Berkowitz. So perhaps I did "the world" a favor by aborting it.

Butterfly3 ---

How many abortions did you have?

What were the reasons for it?

If you did have an abortion, what do you say to the child who missed a chance at its life? What do you say to the world who misses what your child could have contributed to it?

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)

Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest;

6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and

93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)

Anonymous:

Here we are almost a day later, and I am STILL waiting for you to answer my question:

How many children have you adopted?

Why is it that Christians b*tch and b*itch about abortions but they never bother to adopt any kids themselves? Why are you people such complete and utter hypocrites?

Hey Anonymous, I'm REALLY curious...

How many adopted children do you have?

I'm going to guess that, like a typical "pro-lifer", you don't have any.

I eagerly await your answer.

Anonymous:
If dependency is the justification for abortion, the same can be applied to born children as long as they are dependent on their parents, and considered adults at the age of 18 by law.
***************************************************************************************************

Go back and re-read my post. I said "as long as it is dependent on MY METABOLISM" - after a certain point, its metabolic systems are sufficiently developed that it could survive on its own.
That's not the same kind of dependency that children have on their parents after they're born and as they're growing up. Once a baby is born, it is no longer dependent on its mother's body to provide it with oxygen, remove its waste materials, or provide it with nutrients. It can breathe and eliminate on its own, and anyone can feed it.

It is estimated that there were about one hundred thousand abortions per year pre Roe vs Wade. Post Roe vs Wade 1973 that figure jumped to 1.4 million per year.

The exponential jump came in spite of availability of artificial contraceptives and scientific advances - ultrasound, fetology, neonatal pediatrics.

Possible reasons?

Sexual revolution starting in the late sixties. The biological disadvantage a woman has in her sexual behavior because of pregnancy was being ironed out with contraception and abortion.

Abortion was redefined to suit the need - an unborn child became merely a clump of cells/parasite that a mother may dispose off at her will.

If dependency is the justification for abortion, the same can be applied to born children as long as they are dependent on their parents, and considered adults at the age of 18 by law.

Medical science has no doubt that life of a child begins at conception. Think of a born child and simply work its life backwards. At what point does it cease being a child in development?

Before conception the child didn't exist. After that it is in a continual state of growth and continues to grow and develop many years after its birth. On what basis does anyone draw the line about when the child was not a human being in development?

An abortionist has the protection of the law to abort healthy fetuses in healthy women even if it is against medical ethics.

A woman uses the same law to have her unborn child killed and is protected by the law of the land. Since the unborn child is not registered anywhere as a civic entity, it can be treated as being non-existent as far as the law of the land is concerned, except in cases of inheritance laws or harm done by another to the mother that harms the child. In other words if anyone acknowledges the unborn child legally, as in an inheritance law, or anyone OUTSIDE harms the child it is treated as wrong. The mother is allowed to treat her unborn anyway she likes as long as the unborn child has not been legally claimed by anyone and the harm is not done by an outsider.

So much for the unborn child being only a clump of cells that the mother can dispose off at will.

The clump of cells may not be disposed off at the mother's will if a legal claim has been made on the clump of cells, neither is any outsider allowed to harm the clump of cells if the mother is against it.

Sorry, Lep... I hated to use you as an example, but you're someone that people on On Flame... er... Faith know well.

As for throwing women who have had abortions into jail... I offer the following:

IF one considers abortion as murder, and an abortion provider as a murderer, then the woman would be the equivalent of someone who hires a contract killer. After all, she is paying for the service of terminating a life. So, what penalties do people who hire "hit men" face?

This all requires some critical thinking, folks. I know that it's a strain to go beyond what your pastor or priest says. But give some thought to it. What would be the consequences of ending legal abortion in the U.S.? (I say legal because women will continue to have abortions, just in back alleys and outside of the US.)

Athena:

Clarification - I had two pregnancies, one abortion.

The first pregnancy ended with the birth of my daughter, who is now 18.
The second pregnancy was the one that was aborted.

My belief on the subject in general is that as long as another life form is 100% dependent on MY metabolism to sustain it and cannot live outside my body, I get to decide whether or not it gets to stay in my body.

I thought that this was supposed to be about PERSONAL responsibility. Are you saying that women who have abortions should not be held responsible because it's the "abortionist's" fault? Was the woman kidnapped and forced to have an abortion?

Reason only works when it's in your favor.

Anonymous (August 16, 2008 8:56 PM)

We disagree on emolument. One’s belief on ensoulment will greatly influence there decision. For me I think it starts at conception, other’s do not and as you said this can not be empirically proven, hence a debate neither side can win.

In a country with freedom of religion (including the right to believe God does not exist) it is difficult for me to support laws that are not supported by evidence or experience even the proposed law supports my belief.

In my analogy to a law banning blood transfusions because the majority of the populations was Jehovah Witnesses do you not see the danger of government controlling what we do with our bodies?

This applies whether I agree with abortion or not.

Regards.

The best any religious group can do is to teach their own about the science of the development of unborn child and offer all help possible non-judgmentally, so that the adherents of their own faith do not resort to abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy, even if legal abortion is possible.

To all pro-abortionists out there ---

I do believe there are certain instances when abortion is justified as a lesser evil, an evil nevertheless:

When the mother is an alcoholic, drug addict, mentally ill - conditions that affects the baby directly and compromises severely the woman's ability to be a mother; has disease that could be transmitted to her child, eg HIV infection; congenital deformities that a mother does not feel strong enough to cope with and the child is bound to suffer all its life as a result of them...

Socio-economic status of the mother or her convenience does not count as that lesser evil for even the poorest women around the world bear their children without feeling a need to kill them because of poverty. Poverty is a relative term. Poverty in the US and poverty in Africa mean two different things. Women who resort to abortion are usually less likely to be doing it for reason of real poverty.

Roe vs Wade is about "reproductive freedom" that denies the right of life to a healthy child conceived by a healthy mother.

Athena:

Of course people have to take responsibility when they have unprotected sex. They have to take responsibility when they do all kinds of stupid things, like driving intoxicated, cheating on their spouse, or starting unnecessary wars. So, you're saying that you just want to punish women who have sex? Isn't that special? What about the boys? Are you going to tell them to wear a condom, or just to keep it in their pants?

Okay, another question. If abortion equates to murder, how many years should a woman who has an abortion be put into jail for? Take our friend Lepi, here. She's admitting to having two abortions. Would she get life in prison? 20 years? Or time off for good behavior?

August 16, 2008 3:00 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Athena, there are two reasons a woman who has got her unborn baby aborted does not get sent to jail - 1. She does not abort the baby herself; a health professional does it on her behalf. 2. The health professional has the permission of the law of the land to abort an unborn child.

If the woman on other hand had killed her child after it was born, claiming it was her child would not keep her out of jail.

Since Lepi got her unborn child aborted by an abortionist, she does not have to account to anyone but her God and her conscience, as long as the law is valid.

As to responsibility, it up to the woman to decide whether she wants to have sex with a man who will not take responsibility for their child, should she become pregnant in spite of taking all reasonable precaution.

And btw, avoiding pregnancy does seem to be possible for some people. It is not possible for me to provide intimate details for the women did not discuss it with me, but I know at least two women very well, who managed to have a ten year gap between their two children without even using artificial contraception. They stuck rigidly to a safe margin of safe period and managed to express their sexual love for their husbands in the "unsafe" period in ways that did not risk pregnancy. It would seem when the sexual partners are married and consider marriage is for life, and killing their unborn child is an absolute NO! NO! making adjustments like that seems easier.

Dear RNH -

Your defense of god's genocide in Samuel is a non-starter. You only prove my point, which is: god approves of and demands abortion in some cases. It matters not that the Amalekites were "evil," as you speculate. You are justifying god killing unborn fetuses because they, too, were evil. How in the hell can a fetus be evil?

And comparing what MEN did with bombing in WWII with what GOD did to the Amalekites is patently ridiculous. You're admitting that god is no better than men, that your precious god has no more regard for life, for the lives of children, newborns and fetuses than does your run-of-the-mill human involved in a war v other humans.

And you find such a creature worthy of being worshipped?

You've destroyed any anti-abortion argument you could make on Biblical grounds. You've even bettered me in this regard. In fact, your argument effectively says that as god is no better than men, men can make their own decisions and not have to worry about displeasing god. And, you're also saying that when it comes to abortion, god approves of abortion on some occasions, but since none of us know the mind of god, we can safely go ahead and perform abortions as we (men) see fit, because we have evidence that god does demand them (1 Samuel 15) and no (Biblical) evidence that he is against them.

If we err on the side of doing what we know god does himself, then we need to err on the side of abortion.

Abortion Right = Right to kill an unborn child that cannot defend itself

Spiritual Mongrel:

Anonymous # 1-27 , little joke – there’s plenty of you out there!

Ensoulment is an issue to be discussed. If it could be proven that the soul didn’t enter the fetus until say 3 months then I would argue that the fetus is an extension of the women’s body until that point. For now we can’t know this. Personally I think it is quite plausible that this happens at conception.

It’s been a while but I have seen silent scream. There is no doubt this is an issue and the sharp rise in abortion rates since Roe vs Wade is significant evidence that we haven’t gotten this right.

Life and death issues abound in the world and much of it is brought on by man either directly or indirectly.

The premature ending of any life should be an issue; abortion, starvation, genocide, war. Innocent life is lost everyday. An aborted baby is no different than a child who starves to death or dies of diseases related to malnutrition or dies because they were born into the wrong tribe.

The issue is people’s opinion on when life begins. No one has an issue that killing once life has been established with of course the man made excuses of war, self defense, protect our way of life. We need to work with the medical and scientific community to objectively look at this issue and present the evidence. I have no issue with revisiting the Roe vs Wade decision.

August 16, 2008 10:02 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, had no doubt in his mind that abortion was wrong. Ultrasound and the science of Fetology is proof that life begins at conception.

A human embryo develops only into a human being and nothing else. By law, only an eighteen year old is an independent adult. Does that mean any human being is not a human being until that age? Why should the age of an embryo determine whether it is a human being or not? Who gets to decide? The embryo from the very beginning is a genetically unique human being that is growing at its genetically determined pace.

Ensoulment need not be brought into the picture because the soul is not an entity that can be empirically proven. But if Scripture reference is required Psalm 139 written by King David, who was known as a man after God's own heart and Luke chapter 1 is sufficient.

There is no need to go into commentaries written by anyone because the Scripture is pretty straightforward.

The value we place on human life has changed. That is the real issue here, not science or Scripture.

Of course people have to take responsibility when they have unprotected sex. They have to take responsibility when they do all kinds of stupid things, like driving intoxicated, cheating on their spouse, or starting unnecessary wars. So, you're saying that you just want to punish women who have sex? Isn't that special? What about the boys? Are you going to tell them to wear a condom, or just to keep it in their pants?

Okay, another question. If abortion equates to murder, how many years should a woman who has an abortion be put into jail for? Take our friend Lepi, here. She's admitting to having two abortions. Would she get life in prison? 20 years? Or time off for good behavior?

Athena,

Please stop your neverending rants about SCHIP. As has been already discussed, both President Bush and Mr. McCain voted against the ORIGINAL SCHIP bill because it was absurd.

1) SCHIP coverage would be extended to families with incomes up to 400% above the federal poverty level. That would be $82,600 for a family of four. How absurd is that when 89% of children in the 300%-400% level are ALREADY ENROLLED IN PRIVATE INSURANCE? In the 200%-300% level, it's a staggering 77%. And in the 100%-200% level, it's almost 50%.

2) The vetoed bill allowed persons up to 21 years of age to be included. By law, that's not a child is it? Including 18-21 year old's is another way for Senora Pelosi to say, "We'd like to expand welfare but we'd like to call it something else."

3) SCHIP was originally created as sort of a grant, which required future reauthorization. The Dems get control of it and it becomes what? Say it with me: E-N-T-I-T-L-E-M-E-N-T. We're completely unfunded for social security in 40 years, why not create ANOTHER unfunded liability to put right on top of it? And if anyone votes against it, we'll say they hate children! Our supporters won't know any better! Cha-ching! Cha-ching!

The bottom line is this: If you want to expand welfare or pass laws creating a national healthcare system, then have the guts to call it what it is and let the chips fall where they may. But my guess is that it's a lot easier to lie and deceive when your Jerry Springer watching voters are too lazy to know the difference.

Brambleton:

--> Actually, both pregnancies were the result of having sex. And isn't it fairly common knowledge that most contraceptives have a failure rate? I know specifically for condoms that the effective rate is written right on the box.

The first time, I was on birth control pills with a less than 1% failure rate.
The second time, I was on a different birth control pill, but had ot been told by my doctor that the antiobiotic he had prescribed for me could reduce my body's ability to absorb other oral medications, including my birth control pills. Had I known this little tidbit of onformation, I would have used a backup method of contraception. I am not sexually irresponsible.

--> While I certainly empathize with the difficult situation you were in, why on earth would you put yourself in a situation whereby you could get pregnant again? Together with the fact that you already had a personal experience with contraceptive failure. I'm not trying to sound harsh or insincere, but where is the accountability for the choices we make?

He and I had been dating for several years at the time. Sex had long been a part of our relationship. The time I spent with my daughter and the time I spent making love with my partner were the two most joyful aspects of my life. Why on earth should I give that up just because I was broke?
Again, I was taking precautions that would have been adequate (hed been for years) if my doctor had warned me about the effect of antibiotics on the absorption of other medications.

Anonymous # 1-27 , little joke – there’s plenty of you out there!

Ensoulment is an issue to be discussed. If it could be proven that the soul didn’t enter the fetus until say 3 months then I would argue that the fetus is an extension of the women’s body until that point. For now we can’t know this. Personally I think it is quite plausible that this happens at conception.

It’s been a while but I have seen silent scream. There is no doubt this is an issue and the sharp rise in abortion rates since Roe vs Wade is significant evidence that we haven’t gotten this right.

Life and death issues abound in the world and much of it is brought on by man either directly or indirectly.

The premature ending of any life should be an issue; abortion, starvation, genocide, war. Innocent life is lost everyday. An aborted baby is no different than a child who starves to death or dies of diseases related to malnutrition or dies because they were born into the wrong tribe.

The issue is people’s opinion on when life begins. No one has an issue that killing once life has been established with of course the man made excuses of war, self defense, protect our way of life. We need to work with the medical and scientific community to objectively look at this issue and present the evidence. I have no issue with revisiting the Roe vs Wade decision.

As anonymous 26 says “align conditions to facilitate morality in our midst.” A fair statement but the trick comes in defining what is moral.

The idea of legislating morality is a slippery slope. What if we were all Jehovah’s Witnesses. Let’s make the question more difficult what if we had a majority of the people in America that were? Would we outlaw blood transfusions?

Legislation is typically a weak path.

Real change is done through education, knowledge and civil discussion.

Spiritual Mongrel:
Thanks for your comments. You mention that you cannot legislate morality. Fair enough.

I recently heard that Martin Luther King Jr. addressed that point, "You can't make them love us, but you can stop them from lynching us."

I suspect that they same point can be made here. Ideally, we see an egalitarian justice realised by recognising unborn babies as being created in the image of God, just like the rest of us. We recognise that He not only created them but also died for their sins so that they could enjoy a relationship with Him (through repentance and faith - something I highly recommend to everyone reading this)).

So, as the argument goes, even if we cannot legislate morality, we might be able to align conditions that facilitate morality in our midst. This is a case of that.
Much grace,
StephenS2S

Mr mark-

the best explanation is understanding that the Amalekites were exceedingly evil, had been a people that had attacked Israel time and again, and that GOd knew they were wicked and decided to have Saul exterminate them for good.

It is the same as what we did to Germany in WW2- what we did to them THEY DESERVED. They were exceedingly evil, and do you think our bombs that we rained on Germany killed children? Certainly!

War is hell on earth and God will sort them out.

You fail to understand that GOd has foreknowledge too, and could see what would happen if they were not wiped out.

Sorry dude, you strike out on that one.

Start reading the Bible as the TRUTH, and you will be set free.

Roe vs Wade is about protecting the abortionist. An abortionist is not at fault for the abortion.

That is why fighting the law can never be the full answer to the problem. Changing attitudes of women who resort to abortion is the real battle. Women need to know the embryo/fetus is a developing human being and she is its mother, and should consider the implication of murdering her own unborn child.

Athena:

If anti-choice people care so much about babies, why weren't they writing their "pro-life" President and "Pro-Life" Congressmen about continuing SCHIP? Why aren't they lobbying for government-sponsored pre-natal care for any woman that wants it?

I realize that there are several faith-based organizations that will provide pre-natal care for pregnant women. But, if you really want to stop those supposed 1.4M abortions, you're going to need the government to help.

What I want to know from Sen. McCain is why he voted against SCHIP if he's so committed to caring for children.

August 15, 2008 10:19 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How is it that not once, NOT ONCE, have we heard from a pro-choice person that men and women have a responsibility about the consequences of their sex life? Unless a woman is raped, she is responsible for her sex life which leads to the pregnancy in the first place. Why does the right of her body to abort her innocent child in the womb not extend to right of her body to control her sex life?

If anti-choice people care so much about babies, why weren't they writing their "pro-life" President and "Pro-Life" Congressmen about continuing SCHIP? Why aren't they lobbying for government-sponsored pre-natal care for any woman that wants it?

I realize that there are several faith-based organizations that will provide pre-natal care for pregnant women. But, if you really want to stop those supposed 1.4M abortions, you're going to need the government to help.

What I want to know from Sen. McCain is why he voted against SCHIP if he's so committed to caring for children.

Lepidopteryx:

". . .both pregnancies were unplanned and were the result of contraceptive failure. . ."

--> Actually, both pregnancies were the result of having sex. And isn't it fairly common knowledge that most contraceptives have a failure rate? I know specifically for condoms that the effective rate is written right on the box.

"I became pregnant again. My partner at the time had recently been injured by a drunk, uninsured driver, and was unable to work. I was supporting him, my daughter, and myself on a minimum wage job while going to school. On top of that, I was on medication at the time that was a known teratogen. I was on the student health care plan, which did not include obstetrics. I was barely keeping the rent paid, the lights on, and food on the table."

--> While I certainly empathize with the difficult situation you were in, why on earth would you put yourself in a situation whereby you could get pregnant again? Together with the fact that you already had a personal experience with contraceptive failure. I'm not trying to sound harsh or insincere, but where is the accountability for the choices we make?

Spiritual Mongrel:

"Similarly I would propose that we work on the root causes to why women first get pregnant and two then go the route of abortion. While I disagree with abortion we should find it hard to judge people until we have walked a mile in their shoes.

One of the issues is the stigma to getting pregnant out of wedlock which can cause women, young girls in many cases, to act out of shame and fear both of which tend to lead to unwise decisions. It may well have been a lack of self respect, fear of not belonging or not being loved or any number of reasons young girls have sex; again emotions that do not serve one in making the best decisions. Once pregnant these girls need support, not ridicule.

I’m for doing many things to help stop abortions, legislating control over someone’s body is not one of them."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you speak after walking in the shoes of the unborn child who was aborted?

An unborn child is not part of a woman's body. It is a separate human being growing in her womb. Her action brought that human being into existence. It should not have to pay for her action with its own innocent life.

Spiritual Mongrel:

"As the saying goes “you can not legislate morality” and giving the government charge over someone’s body seems like we are giving up too much. The wisest of us would have a hard time coming to the “right” decision on legal abortion."

Abortion concerns the life of an innocent human being who happens to be in the womb of its mother who brought it to life with her action over which she had control. It is a life and death issue for the innocent child. Looked at it from the point of view of the child the wisest has no hard time making a decision.

Spiritual mongrel:

"However I would contend that the issue of abortion has some unanswered questions. We know about eyes and finger nails an thumbs sucking in the womb but when does the “soul” enter the body? Is the fetus just an extension of the women’s body until the soul enters the fetus? Unclear. Do we have the right to exercise control over a women’s body? When does the fetus take precedence? Conception? 2 Days , 3 months? 6? All that being said I would consider myself against abortion except in those extreme cases."

Ensoulment is an issue that should not be brought into the discussion about abortion.

Medical science - human embryology and Fetology - is enough to define the development of a human life. The fetus is *not* a part of the woman's body. It is a *separate* human being in development who has inherited half its genetic material from the mother and the other half from its father but is uniquely combined to make it a unique human being which needs the mother for its growth.

Please view the video "Silent Scream" the link to which was posted earlier on this thread. Google terms "fetal development" Fetology and human embryology for more scientific information about the human fetus in development.

Spiritual Mongrel, even if a billion unborn children were aborted elsewhere in the world (mostly as a measure to control extreme poverty), does it make abortion of 1.4 million healthy unborn American babies a good thing? Remember the US is the world's only super power and hardly qualifies for resorting to abortion to control its poverty.

Spiritual Mongrel:

Anonymous (1& 2?)

"I didn’t specify that I was referring to hunger and genocide across the globe.

820 Million are chronically undernourished
Over 9 Million died of starvation and another
As of 2006 - 900 Million live below the international poverty line and earn

Abortions around the world come in around 40 million so about 5 times more people, the majority being children are affected by starvation, hunger and genocide. Therefore grain of sand was an exaggerated analogy, my apologies. Granted hunger is less of an issue in America compared to abortion and genocide is something we are free of in this country. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This discussion as I understood it is about US election and the US law Roe vs Wade 1973 which has seen an exponential jump in the number of abortions.

China has a one-child policy because of population explosion and extreme poverty in large sections of the population.

We were not discussing one-child policy of China.

India has a long history of encouraging contraception and abortion among the poor due to population explosion and extreme poverty of a large proportion of its population. Usually sterilization after the birth of the third child is recommended. However it is precisely the poor who are reluctant to abort their children or get themselves sterilized for they consider children a gift from God and believe with a simplicity of faith that one who has created a mouth will provide food, like the sparrows mentioned by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

But we are not discussing the Family Planning Program of India here.

Anonymous (1& 2?)

I didn’t specify that I was referring to hunger and genocide across the globe.

820 Million are chronically undernourished
Over 9 Million died of starvation and another
As of 2006 - 900 Million live below the international poverty line and earn

Abortions around the world come in around 40 million so about 5 times more people, the majority being children are affected by starvation, hunger and genocide. Therefore grain of sand was an exaggerated analogy, my apologies. Granted hunger is less of an issue in America compared to abortion and genocide is something we are free of in this country.

However I would contend that the issue of abortion has some unanswered questions. We know about eyes and finger nails an thumbs sucking in the womb but when does the “soul” enter the body? Is the fetus just an extension of the women’s body until the soul enters the fetus? Unclear. Do we have the right to exercise control over a women’s body? When does the fetus take precedence? Conception? 2 Days , 3 months? 6? All that being said I would consider myself against abortion except in those extreme cases.

As the saying goes “you can not legislate morality” and giving the government charge over someone’s body seems like we are giving up too much. The wisest of us would have a hard time coming to the “right” decision on legal abortion.

Change, permanent change comes from within. Drunk driving fell sharply not because of legislation as much as advertising against it and the change of that drunk driving is not as socially acceptability as it once was. We still have a ways to go, but progress has been made.

Similarly I would propose that we work on the root causes to why women first get pregnant and two then go the route of abortion. While I disagree with abortion we should find it hard to judge people until we have walked a mile in their shoes.

One of the issues is the stigma to getting pregnant out of wedlock which can cause women, young girls in many cases, to act out of shame and fear both of which tend to lead to unwise decisions. It may well have been a lack of self respect, fear of not belonging or not being loved or any number of reasons young girls have sex; again emotions that do not serve one in making the best decisions. Once pregnant these girls need support, not ridicule.

I’m for doing many things to help stop abortions, legislating control over someone’s body is not one of them. While it is a very important issue, there are many important issues and I think we are too narrowly focused to throw the candidate out with the bath water over one issue.

Spiritual Mongrel, indeed how many children in the US die of malnutrition and genocide? Maybe in your imagination a BILLION per year so that 1.4 million children killed through abortion seems like a sand on YOUR beach?

Spiritual Mongrel:

What always gets me about the pro-life stance is it is such a make or break issue in voting for an elected official. I pose this question to the pro-lifers in the crowd.

How many lives are ended through abortion in America? How many are ended because of poverty? How many because of crime? How many because we went to war? To me if you are pro-life then defend all life, including innocence in other countries and even that of our enemies.

A candidate that would have more of a propensity to go to war or favor big business over the poor but make abortion illegal would indirectly be killing more people than a candidate who would avoid war and work to help end poverty, but supported abortion?

In the big scheme of things abortion is but a blip on the radar when it comes to ending human life. Yes, a fetus can not fend for itself, but how about the children killed by malnutrition, ethnic cleansing. How about the poor against the rich? That is often an unfair fight.

If you consider only abortion then your picking one grain of sand on the beach.

August 15, 2008 5:24 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The statistics may not be accurate but it gives a rough idea. Before Roe vs Wade number of illegal abortions were about a hundred thousand per year. After abortion became legal the figures went up to 1.4 MILLION a year. Abortion began to be treated as routine late stage contraception.

If killing 1.4 MILLION unborn babies per year is picking one grain of sand on YOUR beach...

L'nae:

What is a natural death? Should I be forced to have a feeding tube and "kept alive" by machine? Are saying that the government should make it illegal to pull the plug? Why are your beliefs so grand that they make me torture my loved ones for nothing but your happiness?

August 15, 2008 1:54 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are contradicting yourself, just in case you didn't notice. Natural death isn't about keeping someone alive with machines. The law makes difficult for doctors to pull the plug in many cases even when though the patient is no more than a vegetable being kept alive with a machine. It is religion that asks for natural death in such cases, to pull the plug from the machine that keeps a person "alive."

But in abortion-on-demand it works the other way around, religion sees a healthy baby in the womb with a life ahead of it according to God's plan and that life being snuffed out before it has had a chance to even begin. A law that allows taking an innocent unlived life possible.

What do Xians make of this story in the Bible:

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." - 1 Samuel 15:2-3

(I suggest you read the entire story in 1 Samuel 15, which I will recount herein):

Here, the Lord (ie: God the Father, Yahweh) orders a fine case of GENOCIDE be visited upon the Amalekites, and Saul complies, slaughtering all of the people. BUT, Saul doesn't slaughter the best of the livestock, keeping them as a prize for Israel (he also let King Agag live. I guess royalty got a pass as well). This GREATLY displeases god, who takes away Sauls' kingship.

Notice: following GOD'S ORDERS, Saul slew "both man and woman, infant and suckling," and that PLEASED god to no end! Infants are children and sucklings are newborns, and GOD ordered these children KILLED.

God also ordered ALL of the women killed, and there had to be a percentage of these women who were pregnant. Ergo, their fetuses died with them.

Why did god not order Saul to spare the children, the sucklings and the pregnant women? If god truly cared for children and fetuses, he could have ordered Saul not to kill them all. So Saul - who had no problem disobeying god when it came to slaying livestock - went ahead and slaughtered every Amalekite, every child, every newborn and every fetus, just as god ORDERED. Saul couldn't apply the same "moral" concern to the slaughter of children, newborns and fetuses as he did to livestock.

At the end of the story, Samuel takes over for Saul, kills King Agag after Agag unsuccessfully pleads for his life, and then has Israel burn all of the livestock as an offering to god.

God was finally happy, because EVERYTHING he ordered dead was finally DEAD: the Amalekite men, women, children, newborns, fetuses AND their livestock!

Thus ended the EXISTENCE of the Amalekites, and thus was the god of the OT finally pleased.

I would like one of the Xians on this blog to explain to me how GOD ordering genocide, the killing of children, newborns, pregnant women and their fetuses can be construed into the idea that abortion/killing of children & newborns is against god's will/law? And, please note: god did not exterminate these people through some natural disaster like a flood or an earthquake. He ordered "his chosen people" to get in there and literally hack men, women, children, newborns and fetuses to their deaths, and - most importantly - to SPARE NO ONE.

Thus are the wonders of the "god of love."

I await your reply.

JJ:

WTF?

Anon:
I am a woman who has had both a child and an abortion - both pregnancies were unplanned and were the result of contraceptive failure, and neither decision was an easy one to make.
I found out I was pregnant with my daughter several weeks after her dad and I broke up. I carefully examined my physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and financial resources before making the decision to become a single parent. Do I regret having had my daughter? Not for a minute.

When she was four, I became pregnant again. My partner at the time had recently been injured by a drunk, uninsured driver, and was unable to work. I was supporting him, my daughter, and myself on a minimum wage job while going to school. On top of that, I was on medication at the time that was a known teratogen. I was on the student health care plan, which did not include obstetrics. I was barely keeping the rent paid, the lights on, and food on the table. Another mouth to feed, was out of the question, and I certainly was not in a position to be able to care for a severely disabled child. Do I regret having that abortion? Not for a moment.

I agree that abortion for convenience seems to have no merit but there are cases we abortion could be considered; genetic defects, risk to the life of the mother etc.

I am torn on passing a law against abortion. It would need to be carefully worded but if we do consider murder charges when babies are killed in the womb then the argument can be made that murder is murder when intent is used to end the life, except for the exceptions I noted above.

What always gets me about the pro-life stance is it is such a make or break issue in voting for an elected official. I pose this question to the pro-lifers in the crowd.

How many lives are ended through abortion in America? How many are ended because of poverty? How many because of crime? How many because we went to war? To me if you are pro-life then defend all life, including innocence in other countries and even that of our enemies.

A candidate that would have more of a propensity to go to war or favor big business over the poor but make abortion illegal would indirectly be killing more people than a candidate who would avoid war and work to help end poverty, but supported abortion?

In the big scheme of things abortion is but a blip on the radar when it comes to ending human life. Yes, a fetus can not fend for itself, but how about the children killed by malnutrition, ethnic cleansing. How about the poor against the rich? That is often an unfair fight.

If you consider only abortion then your picking one grain of sand on the beach.

Gaby,

RE "And since when has he the right to deny a child to its right to life? Or to make a child's life miserable by genetic defect? Or to ensure that a child's 'special purpose' is to live in abhorrent poverty and starve to death?"

Your question as to why some children are born with physical and mental problems, or why some are born into poverty is legitimate.

The answer, however, can not be to kill the children. It should be on the conscience of every wealthy nation to help those less fortunate: to work for the elimination of birth defects and poverty, not for the elimination of those with birth defects or born into poverty.

GregF

Athena wrote, "Why don't you try caring for children AFTER they are born, for a change?"

-------

Well, that's what a nurse in Obama's state of Illinois tried to do with a baby who survived a botched abortion -- she held the baby for it's 45-minute life before the baby died.

Obama then voted against a bill that would have permitted the care of these children "AFTER they are born" -- the truth is, Obama will defend the murder of these babies with all his might because he wouldn't want women to be "punished" with an unplanned child.

Anonymous,

I am neither pro- nor anti-abortion. I do believe that a woman should be able to choose abortion up to the 16th week in the pregancy. I am against abortion in the later stages because at that time the child might be viable to live outside the mother's womb. I have heard of infants surviving after being born in the 5th month of pregnancy. Partial birth abortion is abhorrent to me, not because I believe in any god, but because of my own personal ethics.

However, I do not presume the right to legislate how other people feel about the issue. To posit that life begins at conception is ridiculous as far as I am concerned.

In addition, I also believe that people should have the right to ask to be euthanized. Persons who feels that their life no longer has any merit or are in excruitiating pain and will die in a few days, weeks, or months anyhow should be able to end that life. You are you or I so say that they can't???

And, please do NOT reference your god or you bible! I can't stomach either.

What is a natural death? Should I be forced to have a feeding tube and "kept alive" by machine? Are saying that the government should make it illegal to pull the plug? Why are your beliefs so grand that they make me torture my loved ones for nothing but your happiness?

All authority in our age should rest on the evolving understanding of all of the accumulated evidence. You may see that this is not a religious definition of authority. Religion provided the authority in the days when both our evidence and understanding were at a relatively primitive level. Evidence today is that there is no conceivable beginning or end to life. What begins and ends is the particular form the life takes. Protection of this life is a matter of providing opportunity to the life we wish to survive and prosper as it evolves.

Gaby, if speaking for the right to life of an unborn child means being full of crap, it is a crap I am glad to be full of.

Gaby:

Anonymous:

"Every child is a unique image and likeness of God created for a special purpose in this world. Nobody but God has a right to deny that child its right to life."

Says who???? You know what god lookes like? And since when has he the right to deny a child to its right to life? Or to make a child's life miserable by genetic defect? Or to ensure that a child's "special purpose" is to live in abhorrent poverty and starve to death?

You are so full of crap it must hurt!

August 15, 2008 1:07 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gaby, if all mothers routinely chose to abort a child with genetic defects, you would see no child with genetic defects in the world. Don't forget no one is allowed to kill a child with genetic defects after it is born. Ultrasound is a rather new technology which makes detection in the womb possible.

As to starvation and poverty, you would not find poor women opting for abortion for reason of poverty in poor countries.

I'm not God and I do not know His mind. I definitely have no way of telling Him what He may or may not do. God doesn't run the world according to my plan.

Even among animals only a rare animal kills its own offspring. They lack the technology and knowledge to do abortions anyway.

Anonymous:

"Every child is a unique image and likeness of God created for a special purpose in this world. Nobody but God has a right to deny that child its right to life."

Says who???? You know what god lookes like? And since when has he the right to deny a child to its right to life? Or to make a child's life miserable by genetic defect? Or to ensure that a child's "special purpose" is to live in abhorrent poverty and starve to death?

You are so full of crap it must hurt!

Athena, there are about 1.4 MILLION abortions per year in the US. Do you honestly believe there are 1.4 MILLION children born with genetic defects every year? Illegal abortions which was about one hundred thousand per year has gone up to 1.4 million per year. The law and redefinition of the unborn child made abortion like late term contraceptive.

Over and over again the argument in favor of abortion-on-demand has been that a child is a parasite, is not a human person until it is born, and the mother has a right to her body, her reproductive right, financial problems etc etc. That is what abortion right is about, the right to abort a healthy unborn child.

Athena:

Talk to some women who have had late-term abortions some time, and you'll see how painful that choice was. They all wanted to keep their babies, but they had massive genetic defects that would have caused them to die shortly after birth.

Yes, children are a wonderful thing. They should all be well cared for and wanted. I'd rather hear why McCain voted against SCHIP than anything having to do with his position on abortion.

August 15, 2008 11:43 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Athena, you misunderstood my passionate stand against abortion. I did never say that there are no ethical grounds for abortion, and congenital defects is one of them. I am only against healthy babies being aborted by healthy mothers for reasons of convenience. That is what I call dangerous social engineering, for the generation of children growing up in the age of abortion-on-demand would be fully justified in wanting euthanasia for the elderly or anyone who is inconvenient to society. This is a serious moral issue, a moral decay of the highest order, this doing away with a healthy child because one does not find it convenient. Reality about the unborn child is masked in order to justify abortion.

Talk to some women who have had late-term abortions some time, and you'll see how painful that choice was. They all wanted to keep their babies, but they had massive genetic defects that would have caused them to die shortly after birth.

Yes, children are a wonderful thing. They should all be well cared for and wanted. I'd rather hear why McCain voted against SCHIP than anything having to do with his position on abortion.

Athena:

For the umpteenth time - the reason that Obama voted against the "Born Alive" act was 1) because there was language in it that would have been used to challenge Roe v. Wade and 2) there was already a law on the books in Illinois that said the same thing.

Why don't you try caring for children AFTER they are born, for a change?

August 15, 2008 9:37 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Every child is a unique image and likeness of God created for a special purpose in this world. Nobody but God has a right to deny that child its right to life. Every child gets only one chance at life. Everything else comes after that.

Dr. Cope:

Anon/anti-abortionist - nobody really disagrees with your point of view in particular. However and for the record - abortion is a legal right that may be exercised at the discretion of the patient, up to the beginning of the third trimester, at which times legal limits are automatically imposed.

Your arguments notwithstanding, that is the law of the land - and so it shall remain.

August 15, 2008 8:02 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

With due respect Dr Cope, this is an On Faith Forum and issues which intersect with faith are discussed.

As to law of the land, Roe vs Wade did not exist until 1973. The science of Fetology developed after the law came into effect.

Laws are man-made. They can be changed if circumstances and new information demands a change.

That is what this forum is partly about - to discuss issues and suggest changes if they are warranted.

Abortion-on-demand pro-abortionists has redefined human life in the uterus to suit a social convenience. That redefinition needs to change and be brought in line with the reality that the science of Fetology reveals.

Anonymous

You're a boring pest. Why don't you just run along somewhere else? You've made your point,

ok?

For the umpteenth time - the reason that Obama voted against the "Born Alive" act was 1) because there was language in it that would have been used to challenge Roe v. Wade and 2) there was already a law on the books in Illinois that said the same thing.

Why don't you try caring for children AFTER they are born, for a change?

For pro-abortionists ---

Jesus Christ came two thousand years ago to tell us about God's standard. The Sermon on the Mount, which is two thousand years old, is the update on God's commandments. There is no place in it for abortion. Even Hippocrates, a Greek pagan, the founder of Western medicine, knew abortion was wrong and did not permit medical doctors to do it.

Our value of the unborn child has changed. Human physiology and God's image in an unborn child, who has been given the gift of life by God, has not.

Google terms "Fetology" "Fetal Development" "Human Embryology" "Hippocratic Oath" to support your agruments.

If possible speak to experts in Fetology at Advances in Fetology Conference, September 5-6, 2008, at the Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza in Cincinnati, Ohio

http://www.fetalcarecenter.org/professionals/conference/default.htm

Psalm 139 and Luke chapter 1 are Biblical confirmations of the science.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The continuity argument has been used by many writers. Here is C. Everett Koop's version of the argument taken from his The Right to Live the Right to Die. He writes as follows:

My question to my pro-abortion friend who will not kill a newborn baby is this: "Would you kill this infant a minute before he was born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that, or a minute before that?" You see what I am getting at. At what minute can one consider life to be worthless and the next minute consider that same life to be precious? So much for logic.

Here is another version of the argument from an essay by Sidney Callahan.

As embryology and fetology advance, it becomes clear that human development is a continuum. Just as astronomers are studying the first three minutes in the genesis of the universe, so the first moments, days, and weeks at the beginning of human life are the subject of increasing scientific attention. While neonatology pushes the definition of viability ever earlier, ultrasound and fetology expand the concept of the patient in utero. Within such a continuous growth process, it is hard to defend logically any demarcation point after conception as the point at which an immature form of human life is so different from the day before or the day after, that it can be morally or legally discounted as a nonperson. . . .

The same legal tradition which in our society guarantees the right to control one's body firmly recognizes the wrongfulness of harming other bodies, however immature, dependent, different looking, or powerless....

No human can be treated as a means to an end without consent. The fetus is an immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not crimes.

Reference: C. Everett The Right to Live the Right to Die, p. 27. See also the selection from Callahan in the Baird anthology p. 132-33. Callahan's article originally appeared in Commonweal in the April 25, 1986 issue.

http://ivory.lm.com/~jdehullu/abortion/absckoo1.htm

Both Senator Obama (a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood and one who opposed Born Alive Infant Protection Act while a senator in Illinois, not just once but three times for fear it would overturn Roe vs Wade 1973) and Senator McCain should take a good look, no, many good looks, at this video ---

The Silent Scream - Dr B Nathanson MD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek&feature=related

Abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade 1973 was discussed in detail in Susan Jacoby's thread: The Poor Ye Shall Always Have.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/08/the_poor_ye_shall_always_have.html

Senator Obama's stand on Born Alive Infant Protect Act while a senator in Illinois should be discussed as well.

Abortion on demand is social engineering, pure and simple.

The government must

Who says that "life starts at conception?" You?
By what "authority" do you say so? Certainly, not the Bible, which "authorizes" abortion in many instances and doesn't consider children one month old or younger worth counting as human beings, at least if we go by the standard "god" set in counting the population of Israel.