Abortion...

[Elendil]

Well I don't think there is a thread like this, and I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I want to have an abortion discution.

I'm saying, truthfully that there is not ONE good reason to have an abortion. Even if there was (and there's NOT) it would still be murder.

Sometimes people abort if the doctor says the baby has brain damage. I know some people who's doctor told them that. They WOULDN"T have an abortion, and there was nothing wrong with their son at all. I've heard of that happening atlot.

[darkestlight88]

I agree about not getting an abortion. It IS murder and there is too much of that already and for the good of getting rid of those who cause havoc for the rest of us, but there's no need to kill off something that hasn't even sinned ONCE. It doesn't make any sense at all. My cousin's HUGE on getting rid of abortions. I support her. Babies don't deserve to die if someone doesn't want them. They can be put up for adoption. They don't need to die. There's no good in that.

[glamel]

Abortion, termination of pregnancy, termination of someone's life.
Actually they said , well it is a heated argument over and over again, that
A woman has the right whether to get pregnant or abort the fetus,
Another thing is they state what a human is, that is they must have a feeling which is the feeling of happiness, pain, pleasure, love , joy etc.; then they too must know how to communicate and must have mental abilities like a human being. Fetus doesn't have that traits, so it is okay to abort it. They said that a week or two pregnancy is just some blood so basically if you were to abort it, it is not killing ahuman after all. That is why other countries made the Abortion legal.
Actually for me, Abortion is merely killing a child. As a Christian I do believe that everyone deserves to live. I don't know what kind of sick person a woman wanted to kill a part of her. or A man who wanted her partner to abor their child.

[Queen Swanwhite]

Yes, sometimes there are reasons for abortion. If the mother is too young and is too young to give birth, the mother is sick basically too weak, or the child is sick, or it was a,um, accident.. ;) :)

[EveningStar]

Do you folks realize that "disucssion threads" about abortion and, like another recent one I saw, drug use may jeopardize our standing as a "family friendly forum"? That drug use and abortion as topics are as quick to push a TV show from G (all audiences) to something much higher just because they are MENTIONED?

This is a hot button topic. The first sign it shows of going out of control it will be slapped with a lock so big I'll have to wheel it over on a dolly. :cool:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Elendil, I appreciate your courage in starting this thread, and as a firm pro-lifer I agree with you. Unfortunately, these discussions often generate far more heat than light, so I hope it can retain a civil tone - despite the serious nature of the topic. Thus I would encourage all to heed Chakal's warning, and try to keep the tenor of a discussion.

The problem is often one of presuppositions - for instance, is the issue "the pregnancy" or "a child"? You can almost tell which side a person is on by the terms they use. For instance, Queen Swanwhite, you use the example of a mother "too young to give birth". By definition, if a woman is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to give birth - it's how women's bodies work. And if the child was "an accident"? If it's a human inside the womb, is the fact that his creation was not intentional justification for exterminating him?

As you can see, the issues get very complex very quickly. That's why human societies throughout history have closely guarded marriage and intercourse - to avoid just such complications. (Some even maintain that God Himself gave instructions on the topic! :))

[Queen Swanwhite]

[QUOTE=PrinceOfTheWest]Elendil, I appreciate your courage in starting this thread, and as a firm pro-lifer I agree with you. Unfortunately, these discussions often generate far more heat than light, so I hope it can retain a civil tone - despite the serious nature of the topic. Thus I would encourage all to heed Chakal's warning, and try to keep the tenor of a discussion.

The problem is often one of presuppositions - for instance, is the issue "the pregnancy" or "a child"? You can almost tell which side a person is on by the terms they use. For instance, Queen Swanwhite, you use the example of a mother "too young to give birth". By definition, if a woman is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to give birth - it's how women's bodies work. And if the child was "an accident"? [QUOTE/]

Maybe i didn't express myself right. When I say too young I mean, if she gives birth, it will probably ruin her life...say 13 - 16 years. An accident, as in, the didn't want to get pregnant but did. :rolleyes:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Maybe i didn't express myself right. When I say too young I mean, if she gives birth, it will probably ruin her life...say 13 - 16 years. An accident, as in, the didn't want to get pregnant but did. :rolleyes:Ah - but that just pushes the question back a level. Is it just to kill one person so that another's life might go as she (or someone else) has planned? As you can see, it is a complex question.

[Queen Swanwhite]

Well, I'm gonna stay out of this then, cause I know that it is developing into a fight or whatever.
An I never said that abortion was right or wrong.

[PeterPevensie89]

Yes abortion is murder, God views even unborn babies as lives, so it would be the same as killing someone by chopping them up and throwing them in the trash!
Coz I heard that one way people abort babies is to use medical tools to mince the baby up! Is that any differant from doing it to an adult?!

[Queen Swanwhite]

Like i said, sometimes there are real reasons why people should have an abortion. If you were married, and your wife was having a baby, but she couldn't have it becuase if she did, she would die, you would have to get an abortion to live. And God sends aborted (i think thats the right term) to heaven. They're waiting to see their mothers, and I know someone is going to argue. I never siad aborting is right or wrong.

[PeterPevensie89]

Well the bible only says that 144,000 are going to heaven, the rest are going to live on earth.

[Aslan's Son]

I, like many other people in this thread, are pro-life and a Christian. I believe abortion is murder. If a mother doesn't want the baby, give it up for adoption! I'm sure there's someone who'd want it. When the mothers say that the baby is part of their body, they're completely wrong. Scientifically speaking, a baby is its own genetic identity; they have their own sets of genes and what not. Also, the only reason I can think of as to why an abortion would be needed is if giving birth to the baby would endanger the mother's life, its, or both of them.

[Queen Swanwhite]

Well the bible only says that 144,000 are going to heaven, the rest are going to live on earth.

The bible does NOT say that! :rolleyes:

[Señor Puntos]

I would give a load of writing trying to prove my point on the matter, but frankly, I can't be bothered.

I think if women want abortions they should just go ahead, I don't see fetus' as actual living beings with souls. And this thread is obviously gonna turn into a flame war with big words and bible quotes :rolleyes:

[EveningStar]

What bothers me most about the abortion on demand movement is the subterfuge. "Reproductive Health," for instance. Who could argue against health? Or "A woman's right to privacy extends to her body." Which means of course that the baby has neither a right to privacy nor its own body. And the term "pro choice" when the baby doesn't get one. As far as I'm concerned, the Oregon Assisted Suicide Law is the only law on the books that concerns a woman's right to control her own body. Whatever you're going to do, do it honestly.

[Gondorgirl]

have you read the Dr. Seuss book "Horton Hears a Who" ? it's definitely against abortion.

[EveningStar]

Ted Seuss Geissel (Dr. Seuss) was concerned with acceptance. He was light years ahead of his time on social justice issues. He never wrote on abortion, however. The "non-existent" Whos in Whoville represented the people we marginalize and ignore as if the did not matter. Such people, when they all speak up together, finally make the world know "We are here, we are here, WE ARE HERE!"

So before you slam the slue-slunkers and wham the gardinkers, don't take the book out of the context of his other works such as The Lorax and Oh The Places You'll Go.

[Señor Puntos]

I might be and interpreting The Sex Pistols lyrics wrongly but in the song 'Bodies' do they speak out against abortion? I dunno why I brought this up but Gondor[....]girl brought up the Dr.Zuess thing.

[EveningStar]

There were earth tremors before the eruption of Mount Vesuvius buried Pompeii...

RUMBLE RUMBLE RUMBLE...... Look out folks, Mount Lockathread is about to blow. Don't press your luck. :eek:

[waterhogboy]

The bible does NOT say that! :rolleyes:

It does - it says it in Revelations. Some people take it literally, but it could also be a symbolic number.

I would say abortion is wrong because it is murder. The only cases where it can be argued are in cases where the mother could die and certain other cases, which I may not be able to mention for Chakals reasons of 'family friendliness'. But I reckon you know what I mean. Don't wanna make nay trouble though!!! :rolleyes:

[Parthian King]

It does - it says it in Revelations. Some people take it literally, but it could also be a symbolic number.

Actually (to be totally off subject, but someone else brought it up) John the Revelator says he "saw" the 144,000 sealed. It never says these are the "only ones making it into heaven." That has been read into the text by certain sects.

And btw, no serious scholar of Revelation (not "Revelations"--argghhh--my pet peeve) would take this number to be anything by highly, highly symbolic. The Jehovah's Witnesses used this in the beginning of their sect to scare people into joining while there was still "room" (i.e., less than 144,000 members). After they outgrew that number (much to their own surprise), they came up with the "paradise on earth" thing so they could keep growing. This is not opinion I state, but the very printed materials of the sect itself.

OK, back to abortion...

[EveningStar]

Like all great numbers in the Bible, when Christ said not to forgive your brother seven times, but SEVEN TIMES SEVENTY, or 490 times, he didn't mean there would be a 491st time when you could kill him without qualms...

Listen to Parthian King. He has the right idea. ;)

[Gryphon]

Do you folks realize that "disucssion threads" about abortion and, like another recent one I saw, drug use may jeopardize our standing as a "family friendly forum"? That drug use and abortion as topics are as quick to push a TV show from G (all audiences) to something much higher just because they are MENTIONED?

This is a hot button topic. The first sign it shows of going out of control it will be slapped with a lock so big I'll have to wheel it over on a dolly. :cool:
you'd be surprised about how much kids know nowadays Chakal. Also, if we cant teach them these things from a biblical perspective than they might not get it from a biblical perspective at all.

[Gryphon]

Like i said, sometimes there are real reasons why people should have an abortion. If you were married, and your wife was having a baby, but she couldn't have it becuase if she did, she would die, you would have to get an abortion to live. And God sends aborted (i think thats the right term) to heaven. They're waiting to see their mothers, and I know someone is going to argue. I never siad aborting is right or wrong.
there was once a mother who found out she had cancer when she was pregant. she was told she could take treatments that would kill the baby or not take the treatments, have the baby and eventuallly die.

she didnt take the treatment.

she's the mother if a friend of mine. if she didnt give her life for him i wouldnt know my encouraging friend today.

throws things into perspective doesnt it? :o

[onlymystory]

First to echo mod sentiments, this discussion has to stay appropriate. Starting off I am going to lay a couple main rules. Anyone stating only that either abortion is murder or women should have a right to choose will have their posts deleted. that causes nothing but flaming. Have some reasons why. If you think abortion is murder than discuss why. Why do you think it should be viewed as a child not a fetus and how is it murder. Have a calm discussion. If you read a post and want to respond in anger or lash out at someone don't post. Give it time. If we can do that and not just jump in and yell that people are either murderers or taking away women's rights this discussion can stay open. You have opened up a discussion that requires maturity. Let's use it.

[narniawarrior]

adopting is not bad but putting a child in adoption is bad.The people who adopt are some who cant have kids.

[inkspot]

adopting is not bad but putting a child in adoption is bad.The people who adopt are some who cant have kids.
Are you saying it is good to adopt a child, but bad to put a child up for adoption? But surely we could not have one without the other? I know a couple of wonderful kids whose birth mothers abandoned them for one reason or another -- drug addiction which drove them to do illegal things, I guess -- but the babies they gave birth to were placed in loving homes and are now fabulous teens ... I don't think it was any bad thing their biological moms did to give them up.

[Kitanna]

Maybe i didn't express myself right. When I say too young I mean, if she gives birth, it will probably ruin her life...say 13 - 16 years. An accident, as in, the didn't want to get pregnant but did. :rolleyes:
If you thought you were responsible enough to have sex, than you should be responible enough to have the baby. If you choose to put it up for adoption or keep it in the end is up to you. The problem is teenagers think they're mature enough to handle sex, but very few are responsible enough to deal with what could (and has happened afterwards) such as an unwanted pregnancy or some diesease.
While I am a pro-lifer, I must say I think a woman should have the right to abort if she was raped. I can't say what I would do put in that situation, but for some women they can't bear the thought of giving birth to a child that was conceived through rape. It doesn't make abortion right, but I could understand if a pregnancy was terminated because of that.
Outside of rape I don't think there's any reason a woman should have an abortion. It's not fair to get rid of a life just because it doesn't fit your lifestyle and plans. You are in charge of your actions and you should take responsibilty for them.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I'm very strong willed about this topic. I don't think it's right to abort a child, even if he/she has brain damage, birth defects, and other problems. What a lot of people try to argue is that a baby isn't a baby until it's born, which is totally not true. It becomes a human being at the time of conception, not when it's born. I had a cousin who died two years ago, and I think, though I'm not sure, that her mom had the choice on whether to abort her or not becuase the doctor said that my cousin wouldn't live very long. They said she would only live about a year or two years after she was born. Guess what, she lived for fourteen years! The reason the doctors wanted my aunt (my cousin's mom) to abort her was because my cousin had cerebral palsy. She couldn't do anything on her own, and she was sick a lot. But, in spite of all that, my aunt and uncle loved her as much as if she was normal. I loved her too, though she couldn't talk or walk or do anything. When she died, she left a hole in all our hearts, and I'm glad my aunt didn't abort her, because I would have never known her. She touched a lot of people's lives even though she didn't speak. Even if I had a child in my womb when I have kids that may have something wrong, I won't abort it, no matter how hard the struggle. I hope I haven't disobeyed any rules.

[Charn_Tim]

I was going to stay out of this discussion, because it really hurts me deeply to think about this subject, but instead of just giving my thoughts and opinions and feelings, I'm going to post some facts and statistics which I find startling.


The heart starts beating somewhere between 18 and 25 days.
The brain becomes active in the 6th week of pregnancy
By week 9, all structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning. Thus, the fetus or unborn child feels pain at week 9.
By week 11, the baby is breathing fluid and will continue until birth
Nearly all organs and critical growth features are in place by the 10th week. After this it is just a matter of maturation.
As early as 16 weeks, the fetus or unborn child can hear the mother's heartbeat and external noises such as music.
The following three facts are taken from this website (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats2.html):
There were more than 140,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2000. 2nd trimester begins in the 4th month or about 30th week of pregnancy.
In 2000 more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined.
A survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.

Right now (in America at least), abortion is legal at ALL stages of pregnancy, from pregnancy until the unborn baby's body is completely out of the womb.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I agree with that post. I don't really have problems with abortion IF AND ONLY IF, there's a health risk to the mother.

[onlymystory]

I have two stories. First, I was recently watching an episode of Grey's Anatomy (not the best show but i liked this message) One of the interns had discovered she was pregnant and was then assigned to a patient who had cancer. The patient was also pregnant and had two choices. Either get an abortion and live or keep the baby and probably die within five years thus never seeing the child grow up. The intern (who was planning on aborting her baby) kept trying to convince the woman to just get the abortion since there wasn't much hope. At the end of the episode the patient told the intern she was keeping the baby. The intern exploded, "Don't you want to live?!" she said. The patient simply responded, "by having my baby, I am living."
I thought it was nice to see Hollywood portray a different look at that.

Second story: This is a difficult one for me as I'm very close to my aunt. But when my aunt was 16 she had an abortion. She didn't tell anyone and tried to put it behind her. She married in her early 20's and was happy for a few years. But then she and her husband tried having kids. they eventually adopted two kids but my uncle still wanted one of his own. So they went to the doctor to find out the problem. The doctor walked back into the room and said the problem was very simple. My aunt's abortion had complications and she would never have kids. My uncle was in shock. He had no idea that she had ever had an abortion. Six months later my uncle left her with two kids to raise. He was that hurt by what she had done and it hadn't even been his kid. My aunt is still single to this day and often speaks against abortion. She struggles constantly with an addiction to painkillers and has had to be hospitalized nearly every year when the anniversary rolls around. She told me once when she was too drunk to think about what she was saying that everytime that day came around she had nightmares where a little baby girl kept asking why her mommy didn't want her. My aunt to this day can't handle being around babies very well. Both the physical and psychological problems were so overwhelming. My aunt still struggles with that one decision she made almost 40 years ago. Abortion causes so many more problems than people want to talk about. and I have several friends who had abortions and everyone of them has so much mental trauma from it that it breaks my heart.

[Kermit With Sword]

Abortion is wrong in all ways.
everyone deserves the chance to live.
who knows? they might do something wonderful.
why would God make humans if he just wanted them killed?
How would people doing abortion to their babies feel, if their mothers were gonna do it to them?

Just food for thought...

[Monkeh]

I say people can have an abortion, but only under certain circumstances(sp?). Using abortion as a Contraceptive, No.
But I just want to give an example of a case where it is ok (Note. This is entirely made up. Sorry if it Offends anyone or the names are similar. I am just making it up.)

Say 'little Susie' is only 12 or 13(Old enough to get pregnant for some girls). One day, 'Uncle John' see's that 'little susie' is getting older. He starts to play with her, and be her friend. Eventually it leads to something different, and her Rapes her. She is scared and doesn't tell anyone straight away. A few weeks later, 'little susie' goes to mum or dad, or someone else, and tells them what happened. Are you going to be the one to tell her that she has to live with it, that she has to carry the baby to term, and then deliver the baby? If you were going to do that, then there is a good chance you would also tell her that the baby is her's and that she has to look after it when she isn't even old enough to look after herself.

Nobody can tell me that this type of thing doesn't happen. It does. This is not an ideal world. Case like this are being reported almost everyday. And these are only the ones that are being reported. There are also case where the parents are ashamed and don't tell anybody what happened. They keep the girl at home until she comes to term then, take her to the hospital(or sometimes not) to have the baby delivered. Sometimes things go okay. But other times, they don't. Sometimes one, or both of them dies, because it taxes the bodies to much and they can't handle it.

Examples like this are one of the few times I consider Abortion ok.

[Charn_Tim]

Monkeh, I think that's a really good point, but what would you say about the psychological and emotional trauma that would still be associated with ending the life of the unborn baby even if it happened in a terrible situation such as that? Given that not-so-hypothetical situation, would the termination of one life make up for the wrong that was already committed or would it make matters worse?

Of course, I am a male, and I may not be the best judge of how a girl would react in that situation. Maybe one of the ladies would like to speak up regarding this one? In other words, if what Monkeh described happened to you, would you want to respond by getting an abortion? Would that make things better?

The other issue is, how can you tell in a reasonable amount of time whether the pregnancy was actually a case such as one you described or not? Who would judge that?

[onlymystory]

As a girl, I've always told myself that if I was ever raped I would keep the baby and give it up for adoption. But at the same time I don't know if I could follow through on that. I know the concern is for those girls and women who should be going through therapy and trying to heal from their traumatic experience are now having to go through nine months where every time they look down or in a mirror they are going to be reminded yet again of the pain and anguish they went through. I hope I could be strong enough to at least give the baby a chance at life but I don't know if I'd be strong enough. I'd have to trust God for that one.

[waterhogboy]

Hmmmm.... I agree with monkeh. I'll disagree first though!

Kermit - you made a good point about the baby cold grow up to become and do some amazing stuff - however, what if Hitler had been aborted??

Charn tim came up with some interesting facts about times whenparts of the foetus (correct English spelling ;) ) develop. I believe these show that foetuses (foeta??) are living humans. However, I dont believe you can put a 'start' on someones life. Is a baby not a living human before the minute before labour starts?? If not, then why does having a beating heart make you any less alive than someone who doesn't. I belive life starts when the sperm hits the egg.

Secondly, and more importantly, if a woman is pregnant a life is growing. God is the only being who has the authority to take lives so we should not abort babies.

However, I shall return to the point Monkeh made. I agree that abortion is ok in that circumstance. Being raped is hard enough psychologically to then have to raise a child that reminds you of what happened every time you look at them, and knowing what kind of person they're biological father is. However, I wouln't immediately condone a termination. There should be a lot of counselling and support to help the mother make her decision.

Finally, my true feelings are that, in any situation, whatever the mother decides to do, she needs peoples support. It can be damaging enough choosing to abort a baby, without having people sticking their noses up in disgust at what shes done. Christ would never have been like that.

[Kermit With Sword]

Christ Made the commandments saying, You shall not kill.

EDIT: people should look up to this.
seondly i don't know how someone could have the heart to do this. something like that would completely destroy my life.

+ looking at that as a mortal sin...
God made Hitler for his prupose on earth. u can;t say anything against it.
let God decide.

[Gryphon]

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who
were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis,
would you recommend that she have an abortion?






























If you said yes you just aborted Beethoven...

[Kermit With Sword]

nope.
Human Life is Sacred. All men were created equal, and God has a plan for everyone.
Children are a gift. the one true thing, the one thing you'll ever fully own. u gave birth (women not men :p ) and no part of the child belongs to anyone.

[inkspot]

If we look at this from the Christian point of view ONLY and start with the supposition that life begins at conception, then there is never any way any abortion can be termed anything but murder. It's no good saying, "in the case of rape" because the baby (whose life began at conception) is not the rapist. The baby is an innocent human life. You can't say "to save the life of the mother" because the baby is not threatening the mother's life on purpose. The baby is an innocent human life with as much right to life as the mother. If you are Christian who says life begins at conception, then you must oppose every abortion, including the mini-abortion caused by the morning-after birth control pill.

There is a big difference, however, in believing this, in opposing abortion, and stating that women (non-Christian women especially) should be denied abortions. You cannot make them believe the way you believe; you cannot force them to have babies they don't want. Even when abortion was illegal, people could still get them -- so the legality of the thing really doesn't, to my mind, impact the spirituality.

While I oppose abortion, I do not think there is anything to be gained by making the procedure illegal unless we, as Christians, are willing to step forward and provide both for the expectant mom and for the new baby. Ideally, we could bring mom to Christ, and she would want to raise her baby in the faith. This is the way to stop abortion. This is the ideal way to save the babies. Perhaps if those of us who expend a lot of time and energy trying to have the abortion laws changed would pour that time and energy into crisis pregnancy centers and into sharing Christ's love, we would see a decline in abortions.

After all, nobody wants an abortion.

[EveningStar]

You can't say "to save the life of the mother" because the baby is not threatening the mother's life on purpose.Oh yes you CAN say it in cases where the mother is also not threatening the baby's life on purpose. Otherwise you are saying the Christian religion is the basis for making the decision on whether the baby or mother survives.

If two guys are on a life raft and there is food for one, does the Bible say which one lives and which one dies? Ok, so the baby is a full innocent human being, I grant you. But so is the mother.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

Then the mother should have been more careful. It was her fault that she got pregnant in the first place. Ok in the situation of rape it wasn't the mother’s fault but does that give her leave to just murder a child? Would we allow a mother to kill a child that she was holding in he hands because it for some reason endangered her life? NO! She would be arrested and jailed but abortion slips our minds because we cannot yet see the physical child but the heart is still beating even if you want to ignore it.

[Euphrates]

I'm not sure if this discussion is in its infancy (pun intended) or ending, but I want to make a couple quick comments to inspire critical thought.

What is murder? I think that murder is unjustified killing. So, there are probably some types of killing that are justified. Some of you may think that the death penalty is acceptable, but some may not. It seems that hitting the switch on the train track in order to save the ten people tied to the track, but sacrificing the one person tied to the other track is a justifiable case of killing.

For something to be unjustified (or impermissible), it must be contrary to some right. What rights do people have?

Now, why is abortion murder? Are there any cases where abortion can be justified? If the fetus is threatening the life of the mother? Rape? Incest?

If the fetus has the right to not be killed, and the mother has that same right... how could aborting a fetus that is the result of rape and is threatening the life of the mother be considered unjustified? Does the fetus have a stronger claim to the right than the mother? Why?

Just trying to stimulate conversation.

[Gryphon]

honestly, you all say that the mother is wrong for aaborting a child, im not saying your wronge, but what would you say to the women on this forum that have had an abortion? surley if you take that into consideration you might say something diffrent.

If there is anyone out there that has been hurt by abortion than i am terribly sorry.

you all say you would never abort a baby, but in all honesty you cant say what you'll do in a situation until your faced with it.

i remember i always thought i would defend a friend to the death, when we thought there was an intruder in my friend's house i turned into a sudden coward and backed down in fear. there was no intruder but still, i had discovered what i really would have done, and i am now ashamed. i am diffrent and would in fact give my life for anyone, but i realized that day that you cant say how you'll react to something until you're faced with it.

[Charn_Tim]

There is a big difference, however, in believing this, in opposing abortion, and stating that women (non-Christian women especially) should be denied abortions. You cannot make them believe the way you believe; you cannot force them to have babies they don't want. Even when abortion was illegal, people could still get them -- so the legality of the thing really doesn't, to my mind, impact the spirituality.
inkspot, I respect this overtly gracious attitude, but the problem with this reasoning that I have can best be summarized in the following question: "What if the abolitionists, like Abraham Lincoln for example had this same attitude back in the 19th Century?" Was it wrong of them to tell the Southerners that they were not allowed to own slaves, just because it is against the Christian morality? I don't think it's wrong for us Christians to lobby against terminating a human life-in an attitude of grace and love of course.

[Eveningstarz_4]

Allow me to quote from the Bible..." Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." Jeremiah 1:5 and Deuteronomy 30:19

Every year, the local pregnancy center holds a walk for life that I have been a part of for the past 3 years now. The center offers free ultrasounds so that mothers can get a picture of what their baby looks like before they decide to keep it or abort it. Maybe the center doesn't change the mind of every mother that comes in that door, but they have hope and faith in God for all of them. I know this has been said probably a million times already, but God has a plan for each and every baby. Yes, I believe every baby is innocent and shouldn't be punished for a rapist's or its mother's mistakes because it hasn't had a chance to have emotions, etc. As for a life or death situation, that's where faith comes in. Like I said, God has a plan for everyone He creates. If that's the mother's time to go, then who's to stop Him? And if it's not, well then, God will make it so the mother doesn't die. Adoption is always an option, and you don't have to hurt anyone by choosing that over abortion.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Abortion is wrong in all ways.
everyone deserves the chance to live.
who knows? they might do something wonderful.
why would God make humans if he just wanted them killed?
How would people doing abortion to their babies feel, if their mothers were gonna do it to them?

Just food for thought...

God didn't want us to kill children. It's the sinful human nature that taints our moral conscience. If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned in the Garden of Eden, then more children might still be alive. I'm not entirely blaming Adam and Eve, but sin and Satan get inside us so that we think, "it's okay if I do it just this one time." Like onlymystory said, there are consequences to the choices we make. (not the actual words.) And, if it's too painful to give up the baby, or to even have it, don't have sex until you're married. Period. That's a good way of preventing a lot of emotional problems tied to sexual relations outside of marriage.

[Narnia Man 2006]

I'm very strong willed about this topic. I don't think it's right to abort a child, even if he/she has brain damage, birth defects, and other problems. What a lot of people try to argue is that a baby isn't a baby until it's born, which is totally not true. It becomes a human being at the time of conception, not when it's born. I had a cousin who died two years ago, and I think, though I'm not sure, that her mom had the choice on whether to abort her or not becuase the doctor said that my cousin wouldn't live very long. They said she would only live about a year or two years after she was born. Guess what, she lived for fourteen years! The reason the doctors wanted my aunt (my cousin's mom) to abort her was because my cousin had cerebral palsy. She couldn't do anything on her own, and she was sick a lot. But, in spite of all that, my aunt and uncle loved her as much as if she was normal. I loved her too, though she couldn't talk or walk or do anything. When she died, she left a hole in all our hearts, and I'm glad my aunt didn't abort her, because I would have never known her. She touched a lot of people's lives even though she didn't speak. Even if I had a child in my womb when I have kids that may have something wrong, I won't abort it, no matter how hard the struggle. I hope I haven't disobeyed any rules.
I have an autistic sister and though she is different than us, and sometimes it is hard to understand her, I still love her. My mother hates abortion as much as I do. I am glad Mother never had an abortion; otherwise, Pamela wouldn't be my sister.

[Kitanna]

I live South Dakota and a law was recently passed that makes abortion legal. Now, while I hate abortion, I see this is law is not in everyone's best interest.
When talking to some friends about this issue I compared it to prohibition of the 1920's. The flow of alcohol did not stop when it was made illegal, people found ways to get around it. If abortion were to be made illegal in the US I think a similiar situation may rise. If a woman wants an abortion badly enough no law is going to stop her and if she does it herself there are serious side-effects. Abortion being legal isn't great, but a lot of damage can be done if abortion becomes illegal.
It's the way things are, so unless pro-lifers everywhere are willing to go to all the women thinking about abortion and say they'll support her and help with the baby, there's not much that can be done. It's a person's personal choice and the best anyone can do is try to talk them out of it.

[Aravis Kenobi]

That's what I'm talking about Narnia Man 2006! Exactly my thoughts! You know what it's like. People with disabilities can be the best things that happen in our lives.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

honestly, you all say that the mother is wrong for aaborting a child, im not saying your wronge, but what would you say to the women on this forum that have had an abortion? surley if you take that into consideration you might say something diffrent.

If there is anyone out there that has been hurt by abortion than i am terribly sorry.



I know what you are saying here but my opinions that I stated before were partly formed by talking to women who had had abortions. They told me what a hellish experience it had been for them and the guilt that they had to deal with after the baby was killed. So when I say it is the mothers fault I mean it because I have had more than one tell me that they were wrong and they wish they could go back and save that baby.

[lions mane]

i hope i'm not really on the deffensive here!

well, i think that if a lady wants to get an abortion, it is completely up to her. it is really no one elses business what someone does to their own body and to the (whatever u want to call it, it's late and i can't really think right now) that she is carrying! ya know? i am so for pro-choice! ya know?

[narniawarrior]

Are you saying it is good to adopt a child, but bad to put a child up for adoption? But surely we could not have one without the other? I know a couple of wonderful kids whose birth mothers abandoned them for one reason or another -- drug addiction which drove them to do illegal things, I guess -- but the babies they gave birth to were placed in loving homes and are now fabulous teens ... I don't think it was any bad thing their biological moms did to give them up.Ok now u said that i guess it is good

[Charn_Tim]

No, gabe, I don't know, ya know? :p :D

I would have two questions for you in response to your post:

1) when does life begin? (see my post#31 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6051&page=4&pp=10) for some information if you'd like)
&
2) does a woman have a right to end a human life, even if it's her own (unborn) child?

Once these things are answered, I think some progress can be made.

[lions mane]

No, gabe, I don't know, ya know? :p :D

I would have two questions for you in response to your post:

1) when does life begin? (see my post#31 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6051&page=4&pp=10) for some information if you'd like)
&
2) does a woman have a right to end a human life, even if it's her own (unborn) child?

Once these things are answered, I think some progress can be made.
o.k. tim. i'll answer ur question as best i can! ya know?

the only answer i can come up for this is, do we live in america? where it's basically a free socity where we can do what we want unless it's illegal?

i mean, don't get me wrong, i do think that abortion is a horrid thing to do! but i say it's the mother's choice! don't forget, after doing something like this, the mother will never be the same! she will always wonder 'did i mess up? what would've happened if i kept the baby?' so the mother is basically screwed any way u look at it! ya know?


EDIT: sorry everyone, i seemed to have said legal insted of illegal. :o ya know?

[darkestlight88]

May I ask you on what terms you agree w/ the woman on abortion, Gabe? :)

I do NOT like abortion and I disagree w/ it completely. There is no good reason on the planet whatsoever to kill a being. The child could have actually done some good in our world. So, I might agree if it's a teenage girl who's giving birth but, a married woman getting an abortion is the thing I'm completely against. :eek:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

the only answer i can come up for this is, do we live in america? where it's basically a free socity where we can do what we want unless it's legal?Interestingly, that exact same argument was used to justify slavery. That was once legal in the United States, as well as several other places. The argument for slavery was, "they're my property, I paid for them - what right does anyone have to take them from me?"

You see, the core question is the same, and the issue will not be resolved until it is faced: is that being which is being killed (or enslaved) fully human? If it isn't, then the various appeals to privacy or property rights hold water. But if that being killed (or enslaved) is human, then you have to balance that being's rights against the other rights in question.

[Señor Puntos]

o.k. tim. i'll answer ur question as best i can! ya know?

the only answer i can come up for this is, do we live in america? where it's basically a free socity where we can do what we want unless it's legal?
I don't live in America, and I thought you could do things that are legal.

i mean, don't get me wrong, i do think that abortion is a horrid thing to do! but i say it's the mother's choice! don't forget, after doing something like this, the mother will never be the same! she will always wonder 'did i mess up? what would've happened if i kept the baby?' so the mother is basically screwed any way u look at it! ya know?
I agree with this.....well I kind of do. You're basically saying they're screwed either way, which isn't true.

[Narnia Man 2006]

What is even more upsetting is that one child can change the world; think about that. Just killing a bunch of babies will be written in the Book of Life that God has, abortion is a sin as well as a personal crime.

[inkspot]

Oh yes you CAN say it in cases where the mother is also not threatening the baby's life on purpose. Otherwise you are saying the Christian religion is the basis for making the decision on whether the baby or mother survives.

If two guys are on a life raft and there is food for one, does the Bible say which one lives and which one dies? Ok, so the baby is a full innocent human being, I grant you. But so is the mother.
In the example, the selfless/Christian thing to do is to give your life up so the other may live (from a Christian viewpoint, it is not a question of rights, but of Christ-likeness), and of course, a mother would gladly give up her own life to give the child a chance ...

[onlymystory]

I would encourage people to look at it from the guy's perspective too. (leaving rape and incest cases out of this) But when a young girl becomes pregnant but doesn't feel she's ready for a baby and aborts it no one really consider's the guy's point of view. I realize the girl is the one carrying the baby but I know several guys whose girlfriends got abortions without telling them (or told them and said they couldn't stop them) who would gladly have traded places with her. We talk about how its the mother's right to decide what to do with her child but what about the father? Its his child too. So why don't we ever consider his thoughts? He may not have the ability to carry the child but most guys are caring enough to want to stick it out and make sure their child has a good life. But the world doesn't really consider them. We tend to leave the argument focused on the mother and the child.


Here's a little story too. A man was once having a dream. In his dream he had the chance to talk to God and ask him some questions. The man had a few problems solved but as he was about to leave he hesitated. God asked him what was wrong. The man replied that he didn't understand why God still let people die of things like cancer. He wanted to know why there wasn't a cure for it and why God let people come into power who just caused pain and suffering. God frowned slightly and wiped a tear from his eye. "Follow me," He said as he led the young man into another room. The man walked into a room that appeared to be a giant nursery. There were children all over playing with toys, sleeping, eating and generally acting as children do. God pointed to a young girl playing with what looked like a chemistry set. "Do you see that little girl?" "Yes," replied the man. "who is she?" God looked sadly at the young man. "She was the person to whom I had given the knowledge needed to cure cancer. Thanks to her, no one would need to suffer from cancer ever again." The man didn't understand. "But why is she here, God? Why not send her to earth?"
"I did. I gave her to a young woman knowing that the struggles she would have growing up would cause her to fight for her education and give her the strength she needed to find the cure. But her mother had a choice too, and her mother chose to abort her in order to live her own life." the man looked at God as he continued. "And that young man over there? He was my answer to one of the world's worst dictators. He was going to be a strong leader one that would care for people and teach the world about loving each other. He would never have plunged the world into yet another global war. But his mother decided she was tired of having children."
the man began to cry as God pointed out teachers, doctors, leaders, missionaries and told the stories of what they could have accomplished. He wept as he learned of the people who had died because no one allowed one little baby to live. "How can we stop this?" he asked. "Surely there is an answer." God smiled. "Of course there is an answer. I will send more children who will grow up to do great things and help the world. The key is for the world to give them the chance. If you can convince one young woman to give her child life; well perhaps you'll have provided millions at a chance for a life of their own. The solution is simple. Its in each of you. Each person who already has life. You are the difference." the man began to wake up and as he did he heard the last words God had said to him yet again. "Everyone has a choice to make. What will be yours?"

[Charn_Tim]

oms, that's an excellent story...and great points about the guys perspective. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I wanted to raise one more issue as to why I think abortion should be illegal: even if the mother (this applies to young mothers mostly) doesn't want to have an abortion, she can be coerced into having one by her parents, and there's nothing the law can do to stop it. I've heard of cases where the mother initially didn't want an abortion at all, but the parents would either brainwash her into thinking it's normal and there would be no significant emotional and psychological consequences and literally physically forced her to the abortion clinic to have an abortion. Unfortunately, these cases are not highly anamolous, and if abortion was illegal, this would significantly reduce these types of cases.

[inkspot]

And vice versa, I believe in many states a minor can go for an abortion without the dr having to notify her parents, which I think is not right. If nothing else, it is a medical procedure, and parents should have consent any time anyone is going to operate on or medicate their child.

[Charn_Tim]

Yes, inkspot, that is another issue, although outlawing abortion would largely solve that problem too.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

These are such great points and really solid arguments, but I have a few questions for the pro-choicers out there...you all believe that it is the mothers right to chose or what not but if the child had a voice what would he/she say?
Did y'all know that abortion has been linked to many different kinds of diseases and even cancer? ok one more, if the girl (unmarried) goes and gets pregnant should we enable her to just say "oh my bad, but I am not ready to live with my consequences yet", and exterminate a life just because she wants to have pleasure without the repercussions that inevitably fallow?

A point to ponder...if abortion was illegal wouldn't that help young women and men both to think it over a bit more carefully before plunging into that cycle knowing that they couldn't just erase the inconvenience?

[inkspot]

I don't think so. I am imagining an accidental pregnancy resulting from carelessness or naivete -- kids who think it can't happen to them. These people do not think they will get pregnant, so they do not seriously consider the availability of abortion before they need one. Imagine a couple of teens in a passionate clutch. The girl might think of a condom because that's what our weird culture has trained her to do, but I doubt she would think, "Abortion isn't legal, so I better be careful."

[Señor Puntos]

These are such great points and really solid arguments, but I have a few questions for the pro-choicers out there...you all believe that it is the mothers right to chose or what not but if the child had a voice what would he/she say?
The point is that they don't have a voice because they're not properly alive. They are technically, but they have no soul.
Did y'all know that abortion has been linked to many different kinds of diseases and even cancer?
If the woman new the risks but still decided to get an abortion, that would be her choice.
ok one more, if the girl (unmarried) goes and gets pregnant should we enable her to just say "oh my bad, but I am not ready to live with my consequences yet", and exterminate a life just because she wants to have pleasure without the repercussions that inevitably fallow?
Simple answer: Yes.
But everyone knows it's not as simple as that.

A point to ponder...if abortion was illegal wouldn't that help young women and men both to think it over a bit more carefully before plunging into that cycle knowing that they couldn't just erase the inconvenience?
I ditto what Inky says.

[Parthian King]

The point is that they don't have a voice because they're not properly alive. They are technically, but they have no soul.



How do you know they have no soul?

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

I was just going to ask that same question.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

I suppose the underline question of this all is...when dose a baby become a humane being? if we can answer that question then we can say if abortion is or isn't murder.

[Parthian King]

I just found that odd. And it seems that the reason they have no voice is far less philosophical and far more physiological: They don't have a voice because quite literally they cannot speak.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Another difficulty with allowing abortion is precisely what we're seeing around the world, particularly in the Western nations: the gradual "de-humanization" of other groups of people. Here in the States a perfectly healthy woman was starved to death because her husband wanted the settlement money from a lawsuit and a judge ruled that was legal. In the Netherlands, old people are getting afraid to go to the hospital for small ailments for fear that some bigger problem will be discovered and they'll be euthanized in their sleep. Again, here in the States, a nurse lost her job because she kept going into a room at her hospital where they put slightly handicapped newborns to die. She was giving them basic comfort care - holding, water, etc. - in violation of the hospital's policies.

So you see, Jimmy - once you say one category of human is worthless and can be disposed of for another's convenience, then you never know where it is going to stop. You could be next.

[Parthian King]

I suppose the underline question of this all is...when dose a baby become a humane being? if we can answer that question then we can say if abortion is or isn't murder.

Well, a living fetus is without debate a living being--otherwise why so much technology designed to take the life out of it. That said, if it is a living being, how can it not be human?

[Aravis Kenobi]

Everyone has a soul. Animals don't have souls; people do. Our souls are the things that exist after we're gone. Our soul will either exist in heaven or hell, depending on whether or not we choose to accept the gift of eternal life from Jesus Christ. Hope that made sense.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I suppose the underline question of this all is...when dose a baby become a humane being? if we can answer that question then we can say if abortion is or isn't murder.The biological evidence of this in inescapable and admitted by even the most fervent pro-aborts: the being in the womb is a distinct entitity from the mother from the single-cellular stage. At no time is it "part of the mother's body" - it is contained within the mother's body, but it is a genetically different creature, so much so that it must build elaborate defenses to avoid being destroyed by the mother's immune system.

So, if you're saying that's the question, it's been answered, at least from science's point of view: the moment of conception.

[inkspot]

I agree with PoTW, life begins at conception. This is why I find it odd Christians will allow abortion is okay in the case when the baby is a product of rape or incest, or endangers the life of the mom. Granted, I cannot know how I would feel as the mom in any of the scenarios, but I do know, as an old gal whose girls are big teenagers themeselves now ... I'd risk my life for a little baby, no doubt, and certainly wouldn't kill one to save my own life.

What I wish is that all ladies facing such horrible decisions could have the strength and grace of Christ to give them wisdom.

[xovermyheadx]

I think its the mothers choice..

[Parthian King]

I think its the mothers choice..

Sadly, many mothers choose to kill. I'm glad my mother didn't....

[Eveningstarz_4]

True that it is up to the mother, and true is it that we can't make the decision for her. But true also that we need to put the facts out there...the mothers need facts and truths out there to base her decision on.

[SOS~]

The mothers just like to make them then when they founbd out they kill them.....makes no sense!

[Euphrates]

Despite everyone (and I mean, EVERYONE) ignoring my previous post about the definition of murder and possible rights violated by abortion, I have a couple things to say.
Well, a living fetus is without debate a living being--otherwise why so much technology designed to take the life out of it. That said, if it is a living being, how can it not be human?
There are plenty of living beings that are not human. Pigs, for example, are living beings but not human. I suppose that sperm are also living beings, but they are not humans in themselves.

Also, a living fetus is certainly living by definition, but it is not so clear that a zygote is living. If a zygote is a living being, fertility clinics are killing factories because most of the fertilized eggs (zygotes) are disposed of when no longer needed.
I suppose the underline question of this all is...when dose a baby become a humane being? if we can answer that question then we can say if abortion is or isn't murder.
I'm not sure why this is true. That may be because I'm not sure what you mean by "murder". Does murder only apply to human beings? Can I not murder an eagle or a polar bear?
I agree with PoTW, life begins at conception. This is why I find it odd Christians will allow abortion is okay in the case when the baby is a product of rape or incest, or endangers the life of the mom.
I also agree that life begins at conception, but I'm not sure why that necessarily means that abortion is always impermissible. My previous post may shed some light on my concern, but why is the mother's life less important than the life of the baby? In cases where the child's birth would absolutely lead to the death of the mother, why can we not consider the option of abortion? These seem like cases where the child poses a threat to the mother, even if not through intention. Why does the mother not have the right to purge herself of such terminal threats?

Most of my concerns will likely be answered by people calling abortion "murder" as if that ends the discussion. If it is murder, tell me what murder is and why abortion falls into that category.

Understand that I'm not advocating abortion or "the woman's right to choose" or anything like that. But if you're going to have a discussion like this outside of this forum, you should be aware that "abortion is murder" is not a successful argument in itself.

PS. PrinceOfTheWest, be careful of using logical fallacies to support your position, such as slippery slope arguments.

[she-elfwarrior19]

I dont think that abortion is right, i think its absolutey wrong. You made it and babies' are gifts from God to the parents. No baby has a right to be killed,
The baby has been created and made and now is being killed by abortion. Its just not right there are other ways to get through problems, people cans till have the baby and have someone adopt, maybe someone who is unable to bear children or w/e. But killing a life that has just begun, a babie's life thats ready to start in the world, is wrong i think abortion's wrong.

[Narnia Man 2006]

:sighs: Abortion was a crime; but that was yesterday. If I was a 17-year old girl and I was pregnant, I would have the baby; I would rather die while trying to give birth to a baby than killing it; because other peoples lives are more important than mine.

[Eveningstarz_4]

My previous post may shed some light on my concern, but why is the mother's life less important than the life of the baby? In cases where the child's birth would absolutely lead to the death of the mother, why can we not consider the option of abortion? These seem like cases where the child poses a threat to the mother, even if not through intention. Why does the mother not have the right to purge herself of such terminal threats?


It's pretty simple. The mother has had a chance to live in this world. The baby hasn't.

[Mar]

huhhh i just think its wrong to kill and inoccent child!! :eek: dont you? its just NOT RIGHT.


and i hate when people refur to a living person as a blob of tissue..

[Narnia Man 2006]

It's disgusting as well.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I also agree that life begins at conception, but I'm not sure why that necessarily means that abortion is always impermissible. My previous post may shed some light on my concern, but why is the mother's life less important than the life of the baby? In cases where the child's birth would absolutely lead to the death of the mother, why can we not consider the option of abortion? These seem like cases where the child poses a threat to the mother, even if not through intention. Why does the mother not have the right to purge herself of such terminal threats?This is a red herring. Nobody has ever suggested that a pregnancy must be continued if the pregnancy itself threatens the woman's life. An example would be an ectopic pregnancy: in such cases, the question is between the death of the baby alone or the death of the baby and the mother. In such cases, the abortion is seen as an operation to save the life of the mother, with the regrettable but unavoidable side effect of the death of the child. This has always been understood and agreed upon by all sides of the abortion debate.

Now: do you know how many abortions are performed each year for such reasons? Less than 1%. In the United States (the country whose statistics I am most familiar with), that means less than 15,000 each year - out of 1.5 million abortions. In fact, for all the "hard" reasons - life, health, rape, incest - less than 2% of all abortions are performed. This means that 98% of the abortions in the United States are done simply because the child is inconvenient.

Over 45 million children have died in the U.S. since the late 1960s. The Holocaust wsa 13 million or so. Even Stalin's purges are put somewhere in the 22-25 million range. We've surpassed them both - combined.

[Saruman]

Over 45 million children have died in the U.S. since the late 1960s. The Holocaust wsa 13 million or so. Even Stalin's purges are put somewhere in the 22-25 million range. We've surpassed them both - combined.

This indeed is horrifying, and I remember only a few years back when it was only in the 30 million range. The one comfort I have, a hope to which I cling, is that I will be seeing some 45 million brethren in the Kingdom someday. :)

[Euphrates]

This is a red herring. Nobody has ever suggested that a pregnancy must be continued if the pregnancy itself threatens the woman's life.
While you may not have said this, it has nevertheless been said/suggested by others:
There is no good reason on the planet whatsoever to kill a being.
If you are Christian who says life begins at conception, then you must oppose every abortion...
As for a life or death situation, that's where faith comes in. Like I said, God has a plan for everyone He creates. If that's the mother's time to go, then who's to stop Him?
Abortion is wrong in all ways.
I'm saying, truthfully that there is not ONE good reason to have an abortion.
In addition, my argument is not a red herring if it is understood properly and not misrepresented. I was talking about cases where one must choose between the life of the baby or the life of the mother... NOT cases where one must choose between either the life of the mother alone or the lives of the mother AND child. In the cases I am considering, the abortion is also considered to be saving the life of the mother. These cases are not "agreed upon by all sides of the abortion debate". I am addressing the people who think that abortion is always wrong, no matter what.

It's pretty simple. The mother has had a chance to live in this world. The baby hasn't.
With all due respect, I'm not sure why this matters. The unborn baby is a sinner by virtue of being a human ("for all have sinned and..."). What is so important about allowing the baby to exercise its sinful nature in the world? This doesn't seem like reason enough to prefer the baby's life over the life of the mother.

[*IOWW the Iasc*]

Why is it that all the super controversial topics come up here? :rolleyes:

I will say my part and be off . And if you all reply saying that I am 'Anti-Christian' and should burn in the darkest pits of Hell, then so be it. It is my opinion.

If you are raped and get pregnant, do you want to go through all the pain and suffering to give birth to the child of your rapist? I wouldn't. I want to have a child with the man I love, not the one who I hate.

And I know your all gonna say, "ADOPTION!" but I would rather not go through all that pain if I'm just going to give the baby up.

And I know after reading that your all gonna say, " It would be better if the child was alive then dead!!!!" Once again I go back to the rapist. If a man has that low morale, what do you think the child will be like? Sure it'll get some of your traits too, but the man's traits will still be there.

"It's better to have a living human than a dead one!"
People with low-morale and bad character are a shame upon our society.

"They can learn!"
In an orphanage? Possibility, but not a high one. And even if they do get adopted (very slim percentage do), there is always the chance that the adopters are worse than the rapist.

There should not be a law against abortion, but there should be laws restricting it. That is my opinion and I stand by it.

[onlymystory]

But I could argue that because my dad abused me growing up I should not have kids because the family genes will carry on and my kids could grow up to be abusive. While I am a bit on the fence in the rape and incest cases arguing that the baby should be aborted simply because it might have bad characteristics is an extremely faulty argument.

and also, none of us are going to say you're anti-christian. Several of us girls who are Christians have already stated that we would hope we would keep the baby to term and put it up for adoption. But we have acknowledged that we don't know for sure what we would do in the actual situation. The only thing I know is to trust that God will show me the answer.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

So now that for the most part we agree that the being is inhabited by its spirit at consumption I still have a hard time understanding some of you. If a being possesses a spirit then killing it would be murder…right? I just am having a hard time with this. If I walked up to someone and shot him or her dead on the spot I would be charged for murder but every day millions of lives are being taken in the name of choice?

[Parthian King]

While you may not have said this, it has nevertheless been said/suggested by others:

Most respectfully, Euphrates, the quotations you offer to sustain this assertion can only be applied the way you do by reading that meaning into them. The people can stand up and defend their own words, but even at face value I don't even see a suggestion of what you are saying in many of them. This is a conversation where people don't expect someone else to come along and insist on lock-tight literalness in every syllable they utter, as if it's a court of law or something ("ah ah--you said in NO case--that must mean you don't care about the life of the mother"). Come on now. Most of them are made in the understanding that the reasons people give for aborting an infant are personal lifestyle ones and have little or nothing to do with the mother's health. Statistically, abortions performed to protect a mother's health, or in case of rape or incest are very, very few. It is a concept that is used excessively by an industry that keeps wanting to make money by aborting children as a convenience.

I'll cede the point and say: In the statistically infinitesmal number of cases where a mother's life is truly in danger (cases that are as likely when the woman never even imagined she'd consider abortion as in cases where it was considered), abortion may be a legitimate option, not least because probably both lives would be lost anyway. But in the vast number of cases where abortion is birth control after the fact, it is wicked and unconscionable. How's that?

With all due respect, I'm not sure why this matters. The unborn baby is a sinner by virtue of being a human ("for all have sinned and..."). What is so important about allowing the baby to exercise its sinful nature in the world?

Wow. While we're at it, why keep the human race going at all? Let's just sterilize everyone--that'll get rid of that sinful bunch. I wonder why God sent His Son to save anyone at all when He could have just done this....

All life is good, and is from God--sinful or not. The words you wrote are as stunning as I have ever read by someone who quotes Scripture in the same breath. They stand in diametrical opposition to the spirit of the Word of God in both Old Testament and New.

[Gryphon]

I know what you are saying here but my opinions that I stated before were partly formed by talking to women who had had abortions. They told me what a hellish experience it had been for them and the guilt that they had to deal with after the baby was killed. So when I say it is the mothers fault I mean it because I have had more than one tell me that they were wrong and they wish they could go back and save that baby.
im not saying it isnt their fault, im saying that there are women out there hurting because of it and we should still be there for them, not to condemn them.

[Elendil]

And I know after reading that your all gonna say, " It would be better if the child was alive then dead!!!!" Once again I go back to the rapist. If a man has that low morale, what do you think the child will be like? Sure it'll get some of your traits too, but the man's traits will still be there.

"It's better to have a living human than a dead one!"
People with low-morale and bad character are a shame upon our society.


That is crazy!!! Someone decides how they turn out, its not through genes!!! If they were raised in a home that had good moral, and all that, that is the kind of person that they will grow up learning to be. It is their choice what they do with their own life, not their mother's.


If a woman gets raped, it hurts, lots. (Please belive what I'm saying here, I KNOW!) But it doesn't have to continue hurting. God can take away that pain, and you CAN forgive the person who did it to you. You can contiue your life without the misery of hating someone.
And if you did get pregnet, (not all women do) you don't have to kill the baby. It was not THEIR fault, they had nothing to do with it. They have the right to live!

[Specter]

I have a link to ProLifeSearch.com (http://www.ProLifeSearch.com) here on NarniaFans.com, and am a proud supporter of the right to life movement. I believe that even in the case of rape of incest, that it is better to have the baby than to kill the child. I know that this is going to sound like a strange argument, but bear with me.

You have Bruce Wayne, the man who would become Batman, witness the death of his parents, as a child. Bruce becomes tormented by this, and seeks revenge for the atrocity. It consumes him, and becomes a part of him. It was something that was done to him, death that he could not take back. He wanted the killer dead. What happens? In some of the Batman stories, he does take revenge for it. But that's not enough... he has to keep fighting, because he made a promise to make Gotham better, as his father had wanted it to become. In the latest, he tries, but revenge is taken before he gets a chance, so he leaves, and gets the same motivation. That he must make Gotham a better place, as his father dreamed it to be.

But what does that have to do with a rape victim? Well, quite simply, killing the child won't take the pain away, and when that child laughs, smiles, and cries, when you spend time with that child, playing a simple game or singing songs together, in the end it is a human life that you're dealing with. Just imagine the warm smile of every baby that you've ever seen. The laughter, and how warm they make you feel.

The pain that comes with the choice to end a human life is nothing compared to the joy that the new life can bring. Ending a human life does not take away the fact that the rape happened. I'm sorry, it is true, and it must be dealt with, but having the child (which is less than 5% chance of a pregnancy occuring from a rape) isn't going to cause more pain in your life.

Also, a quick sidenote: Fetus is Latin for Offspring. Offspring is defined as both the progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group and a child of particular parentage. Therefore, using the term fetus to make abortion sound better is out, because "fetus" therefore means "child."

[lions mane]

specter! you think that if a woman is raped she should have the baby? :eek: she could never love the baby the way ti should be loved! ya know? or, do you mean that she should just give the baby up for adoption?

[Impreza]

Pardon me but why should this topic be in this Narnia forum anyway?

[lions mane]

Pardon me but why should this topic be in this Narnia forum anyway?
i guess the maker of the thread thought it should be a topic in the christianity and narnia forum! ya know?

[Señor Puntos]

i guess the maker of the thread thought it should be a topic in the christianity and narnia forum! ya know?
Nice one, detective :rolleyes:
I'm still pro-choice on the matter. I believe the foetus does not have a soul until late into the pregnancy and that it's not really murder.

Perhaps people who are looking for a safe stance on abortion could be in the Regressive part. Against abortion, for killing babys. Don't ask me, some guy called Maddox made it up :rolleyes:

[lions mane]

Nice one, detective :rolleyes:
I'm still pro-choice on the matter. I believe the foetus does not have a soul until late into the pregnancy and that it's not really murder.

Perhaps people who are looking for a safe stance on abortion could be in the Regressive part. Against abortion, for killing babys. Don't ask me, some guy called Maddox made it up :rolleyes:
thank you! i am a bit of a detective huh? ;)

well, we finally have something in common! jk! we both say pro choice! ya know?

[Charn_Tim]

Nice one, detective :rolleyes:
I'm still pro-choice on the matter. I believe the foetus does not have a soul until late into the pregnancy and that it's not really murder.
Jimmy, if you don't mind answering, when do you think the foetus has a soul? At the end of the first trimester? the second? do you think partial birth abortion should exist too?

[lions mane]

Jimmy, if you don't mind answering, when do you think the foetus has a soul? At the end of the first trimester? the second? do you think partial birth abortion should exist too?
uhmmmm tim! i would like to answer that one.

didn't yourself post about the baby getting the heart beat and all this stuff like weeks into the pregnancy? i think once the baby can feel pain and all that fun stuff, it has a soul! ya know?

[Señor Puntos]

uhmmmm tim! i would like to answer that one.

didn't yourself post about the baby getting the heart beat and all this stuff like weeks into the pregnancy? i think once the baby can feel pain and all that fun stuff, it has a soul! ya know?
LM, when you go 'ya know' it becomes impossible to take you seriously, so don't say it in serious discussions.

I think when it develops all its emotions and gets its personality it has a soul, but I don't know when that happens.

[Euphrates]

Most respectfully, Euphrates, the quotations you offer to sustain this assertion can only be applied the way you do by reading that meaning into them.
When people say that there is never any good reason to have an abortion, I take them at their word. It takes some addition of meaning to say that they don't mean what they have said, as you claim. But thank you for conceding the point anyway.
Wow. While we're at it, why keep the human race going at all? Let's just sterilize everyone--that'll get rid of that sinful bunch. I wonder why God sent His Son to save anyone at all when He could have just done this....
This does not follow from my view or from anything I have said so far. You make it seem like my argument can be used to justify mass sterilization of the human race, but this is clearly not true. I'm not saying "get rid of all the sinners!!!!!!!11one1"... I'm just questioning why entering the outside world is reason enough to prefer the baby's life over the life of the mother. I should point out that you also disagree with the argument that I am disagreeing with. In addition to criticizing my response, you may want to consider making a response of your own.
All life is good, and is from God--sinful or not. The words you wrote are as stunning as I have ever read by someone who quotes Scripture in the same breath. They stand in diametrical opposition to the spirit of the Word of God in both Old Testament and New.
Wow. You think I'm stunning. Usually that's a good thing, but in this case I feel like you just don't understand. I'm distinguishing between being alive and being "in the world". Life is good, but that doesn't mean that being in the world is also uniquely good. You think I'm criticizing life, but I'm only wondering why exiting outside the womb adds some goodness to the life of the baby. It appears that you have failed to see this distinction, and have become offended in some degree based on the misunderstanding. Also, please notice that you are responding to a question that I raised, not a point that I made.

But, if I am wrong, and you do understand what I'm asking and still think that I am stunning and in "diametrical opposition" to Scripture, it might help me if you were to show this to be true instead of merely making claims and inflammatory assertions.

What good is it to gain access to the world, but have lost innocence?

[lions mane]

LM, when you go 'ya know' it becomes impossible to take you seriously, so don't say it in serious discussions.

I think when it develops all its emotions and gets its personality it has a soul, but I don't know when that happens.
i say my "ya know?" out of habbit! i don't say it in any other way! it just comes out when i type! and i said this many times before! ya know?

[Charn_Tim]

Yes, gabe, I sure did post that info (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6051&page=4&pp=10) (post 31). So are you saying that once the foetus (i kind of like this spelling) feels pain, then it has a soul? Is there any medical or scientific evidence for this? or is it just an opinion?

Then are you saying that abortions shouldn't be allowed if and only if the foetus has developed the soul? Because this would limit abortions to before the first trimester phase (about 2 months into pregnancy).

[Elendil]

So Gabe, if you're unconsious, can I kill you? You won't feel anything!

[Elendil]

Maybe i didn't express myself right. When I say too young I mean, if she gives birth, it will probably ruin her life...say 13 - 16 years. An accident, as in, the didn't want to get pregnant but did. :rolleyes:

I'd say abortion would pretty much ruin the babies life! Why should the baby have to die, if the mother didn't want to get pregnet? It's not the baby's fault!!!

By the way, my sister (Shadowfax aka Faith) was born at the same age some babies are aborted. She's human!!!

(A foetus devolopes fingerprints at the age of three months, I'd say they have a soul long before then!)

[Impreza]

So Gabe, if you're unconsious, can I kill you? You won't feel anything!

Do u really have an intention of killing people who are unconscious around them? :p

Pain is just a warning system to our body...w/out pain...your body parts will suffer a lot.

[Impreza]

Jimmy, if you don't mind answering, when do you think the foetus has a soul? At the end of the first trimester? the second? do you think partial birth abortion should exist too?

I dont think science can describe soul. Can they? Even if the heart is beating...is there actually a soul in the body? What about people who're in a state of coma?

It reminds me so much of this dialogue...

Neo: If u die in the Matrix, u die here?

Morpheus: A body cannot live w/out the mind!

Another version of the Ghost in the Shell.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'm just questioning why entering the outside world is reason enough to prefer the baby's life over the life of the mother.Before saying anything more, I want to get some clarification here. Euphrates, you keep harping on the phrase "the life of the mother". That phrase is used many ways, so I want to be sure I'm understanding you.

One way it's used is to describe the actual physical life of the mother. One example would be an ectopic pregnancy. This is where the baby implants in the Fallopian tube instead of the womb and begins to grow there. This is physiologically untenable - the Fallopian tube cannot support the growing baby for longer than a brief period, and what growth the baby does actually endangers the mother's life by crowding her vital organs. In this case, the mother's physical life is immediately endangered by the growing baby.

Another way the phrase "the mother's life" is used is in regards to external circumstances. This is the sense of, "She can't have a baby right now! It's ruin her whole life!" In this case, the word lifestyle would be more appropriate than life.

So when you talk about the "life of the mother", in what sense are you using the phrase? The first, or the second?

[inkspot]

n cases where the child's birth would absolutely lead to the death of the mother, why can we not consider the option of abortion? These seem like cases where the child poses a threat to the mother, even if not through intention. Why does the mother not have the right to purge herself of such terminal threats?
I said this, what Euphrates is talking about ... and surprisingly, I said it as one who is not convinced outlawing abortion is the best way to end abortion. My thinking was purely personal: if I were pregnant with a baby whose situation was threatening my physical life, I would not think I had a right to terminate the pregnancy. I would think, rather, the baby's life now took precedence over mine, because this is what mothers do when forced to it: they die to save their children.

(I have not faced this situation and do not really know what I would decide, but the way I feel today, I do not see how being an adult gives me a right to terminate a pregnancy because the baby's birth might threaten my life. I do have a cousin who carried forward an ectopic pregnancy. Both she and her boy survived - thank God! - and now he is a wonderful grown-up doctor ... So this may have influenced my thinking.)

Anyway, it is a red herring in this discussion as most people agree the life of the mother should be the one exception, and as PoTW pointed out, only a tiny percentage of abortions actually are the result of this life-and-death decision between mom and baby, or even of known rape/incest cases. The vast majority of abortions are conducted because the birth is inconvenient for the parents.

[Sunrise]

Inky, I guess this is off the subject, but I am intrigued - how did she manage to carry an ectopic pregnancy? I was under the impression that it was a medical impossibility. Did she have it...um...transferred?

(I'm not asking in doubt, but in amazement, and wondering why I've never heard of any procedure to try and save an ectopic. My mother had one and I remember the emergency surgery/emotional trauma - there was never any alternative treatment proposed, nor the slightest indication that the pregnancy could be saved by any means at all.)

[Parthian King]

When people say that there is never any good reason to have an abortion, I take them at their word. It takes some addition of meaning to say that they don't mean what they have said, as you claim.
Euphrates, this is a rather thin justification for using people's words to paint them as intolerably one-sided and closed-minded, hence creating a straw man that can be toppled. Jesus tells us to cut off the hand that causes us to sin, gouge out the eye that offends, and hate our parents in order to follow Him. Surely you understand hyperbole? If you can, I am confident that you can understand that the majority of these statements were likely made referring to the 98% of abortions POTW spoke of that are gratuitous, and not the 1% where both mother and child will be lost anyway. To play the technicalities game in an open discussion where there is wide variance in age, education, and experience and suggest that there can be no tacit assumptions going into a discussion between forum comrades is inexplicable to me.
This does not follow from my view or from anything I have said so far. You make it seem like my argument can be used to justify mass sterilization of the human race, but this is clearly not true. I'm not saying "get rid of all the sinners!!!!!!!11one1"... I'm just questioning why entering the outside world is reason enough to prefer the baby's life over the life of the mother. I should point out that you also disagree with the argument that I am disagreeing with. In addition to criticizing my response, you may want to consider making a response of your own.

Wow. You think I'm stunning. Usually that's a good thing, but in this case I feel like you just don't understand. I'm distinguishing between being alive and being "in the world". Life is good, but that doesn't mean that being in the world is also uniquely good. You think I'm criticizing life, but I'm only wondering why exiting outside the womb adds some goodness to the life of the baby. It appears that you have failed to see this distinction, and have become offended in some degree based on the misunderstanding. Also, please notice that you are responding to a question that I raised, not a point that I made.

But, if I am wrong, and you do understand what I'm asking and still think that I am stunning and in "diametrical opposition" to Scripture, it might help me if you were to show this to be true instead of merely making claims and inflammatory assertions.

What good is it to gain access to the world, but have lost innocence?

Now we get to the substance of the exchange. Unfortunately, your response has done very little to allay my fears about your position. Really, you are bringing up two issues: 1) Is birth and a subsequent chance to live life out on earth really better than conception followed by slaughter before birth? (you seem to think not), and 2) Since the unborn is of sinful stock, shouldn't that fact come into play as we determine its value? (you seem to think that it should).

The biblical view of human life, Euphrates, beginning with the Creation narrative in Genesis and extending to the visions of John in Revelation, is that it is good. God wants people to be born and live on earth, to play out the drama of human existence for His glory. Ultimately, even those who reject Him are worked into His plan of eternal glory and purpose. Without exception, God condemns infanticide and murder of every kind, the only caveat being the wars of Yahweh and capital punishment--the majority of biblical references to the latter being for murder itself. Human life and history is precious, and only God Himself can determine its value. The entire drama of biblical history supports the view that God finds pleasure in human life lived out. So to answer the question--YES, it is better for a child to be born, grow to adulthood, love and relate to others, choose to serve and glorify God (only God knows who will serve Him and who will reject Him), then enjoy Him forever. That many (nay, the majority) ultimately rebel and reject Him doesn't seem to phase God in His determination to carry out this plan. Since it doesn't phase Him, I take as a direct affront to His sovereignty any suggestion that we should somehow even ask this question when determining the fate of another human being. Taking your last statement to heart, one would think it best to conceive then kill as many unborns as possible so as to populate Heaven with innocents! God can do without that kind of help. Pushed to this limit, the philosophical underpinnings to this position could justify suicide (the quickest way to stop anyone from sinning anymore, to be sure), though I doubt seriously you have considered it that far.

Second, (and this I feel, if possible, even more strenuously than the last point) is not that you defend the physical life of the mother (you can answer POTW's question in its own turn; for now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt). What stuns me is that you even bring the relative sinfulness of an unborn child into the discussion at all:
The unborn baby is a sinner by virtue of being a human ("for all have sinned and..."). What is so important about allowing the baby to exercise its sinful nature in the world? This doesn't seem like reason enough to prefer the baby's life over the life of the mother.
We consider human life of supreme value apart from its sinfulness because it represents imago dei--the image of God--and is intrinsically precious. However you come down in the debate of mother's life vs. unborn's life, the mention of an unborn's prospective sinfulness at all as a factor in determining its value is completely out of bounds. That territory is only for Holy God to tread upon. The Apostle Paul would be stunned to hear that his phrase "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) had been used in any way to mitigate the value of an unborn infant who had never sinned in the least (in spite of being conceived in sin), especially when he made that statement only to follow it with this one: "and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). That you view a human being's birth and subsequent life as "exercising its sinful nature in the world" is almost unbelievable in any discussion, and is stunning (there's that word again, but I cannot find another) in a discussion where we are remotely touching on whether another human being lives or dies. To "take you at your word," one would think Inkspot is willing to risk her own life specifically because she wants more sin in the world, or is at the very least oblivious to the fact that that is the primary fallout of her decision! People fight for a child to live, and good women weigh this carefully, because in their heart resides the tiniest fragment of that great love that God has as Father and Mother toward all His children. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us--meaning God the Father loves everyone as much as He loves Jesus. He's not out to condemn, or devalue, or kill sinners. When considering our sin, He did not say, "Wow, what's the use in letting these creatures 'exercise their sinful nature in the world'." No--He sent His only Son to die and give us life. Sinners are of supreme value to Him.

So you see, Euphrates, my problem with your position is not that you think that the physical life of the mother is as valuable as the child's. If you want to argue that, that's fine (though to use this argument I think it would always have to be accompanied by the statistics POTW mentions). At the same time, if a mother chooses to run a risk, that's her decision, too. But my problem with your position is what you say the get there. You aren't arguing for the mother, which is legitimate and would be the basis of any response I would mount if I were to make one as you suggest. You are arguing against the child, creating a qualitative comparison between two beings (both of whom are stamped with imago dei) with an end that the child come up less weighty! You are saying the child's life is no more valuable if it is born, and the child is only going to contaminate the world with sin anyway! (I''ll refrain from my adjective again, but again, I almost cannot believe what I am reading here!) This mindset is unbiblical and dangerous, because instead of reaching the desired end by exalting human life as representing the image of God, it denigrates it. From there, God alone knows where we will end up. Oh, wait, we are already there...

[inkspot]

Inky, I guess this is off the subject, but I am intrigued - how did she manage to carry an ectopic pregnancy? I was under the impression that it was a medical impossibility. Did she have it...um...transferred?

(I'm not asking in doubt, but in amazement, and wondering why I've never heard of any procedure to try and save an ectopic. My mother had one and I remember the emergency surgery/emotional trauma - there was never any alternative treatment proposed, nor the slightest indication that the pregnancy could be saved by any means at all.)
I was fairly young at the time (she was young, too, her first baby!) but I was still more or less a child, so I did not at the time, understand the medical parts of it, nor how they managed to bring a live baby out of this unfortunate mess which did nearly kill the mum. They prematurely delivered her baby (how, I do not know) in a very painful procedure which could have killed one or both of them. (The mum was so traumatized by this delivery, she did not even want to see the poor pitiful baby for a week! I would not recommend this to anyone, but it did influence my thinking, especially watching her son grow up to become so charming and productive an adult.)

It was a horrifying experience for my cousin, and probably for the poor baby, too, had be been able to tell about it. But I think: if she'd had the abortion, there would be no Stevie ... and this makes me sad.

I never heard of anyone else taking this route, and I do not think it is a sin in any way to terminate a pregnancy of this type because there's no hope for baby or mum if it is allowed to play out -- I don't know how Sandy survived, either. It's one of those anecdotal things which is true, but unusual, and happened to influence my thinking because it happened in my family.

[Sunrise]

Wow. Sounds like a true miracle. What a blessed family! :)

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

Did y’all know that abortions are preformed in the first second and third trimester? That means that those who say that we only get our souls later on in the pregnancy are still saying that the baby has a soul when it gets aborted.

Inkspot I think that is such a god thing about the pregnancy! Praise God!

here is a great link (http://www.hscca.org/articles/aretheunbornhuman.html) for those who are interested.

[inkspot]

Indeed, the horrifying procedure known as "partial-birth abortion" can kill a viable baby at any stage; it is practically infanticide. Even the American Medical Association has condemned it as not good medicine, because it can cause more complications for the mom than it can prevent. If I am not mistaken, this hideous procedure, at least, has been outlawed in the USA, hasn't it?

[Queen Swanwhite]

I'd say abortion would pretty much ruin the babies life! Why should the baby have to die, if the mother didn't want to get pregnet? It's not the baby's fault!!!

By the way, my sister (Shadowfax aka Faith) was born at the same age some babies are aborted. She's human!!!

(A foetus devolopes fingerprints at the age of three months, I'd say they have a soul long before then!)

I'm saying, if she was too young, she would either have an adoption or an abortion. I know it's not the babies fault! But, the baby still as a soul when it's dead. Just because it doesn't live on earth, doesn't mean it doesn't have a soul. Aborted babies go to heaven.

[Señor Puntos]

I'm saying, if she was too young, she would either have an adoption or an abortion. I know it's not the babies fault! But, the baby still as a soul when it's dead. Just because it doesn't live on earth, doesn't mean it doesn't have a soul. Aborted babies go to heaven.
Yeah, every mother should get their baby aborted so it can go to Heathen the easy way :rolleyes:

[Parthian King]

Indeed, the horrifying procedure known as "partial-birth abortion" can kill a viable baby at any stage; it is practically infanticide. Even the American Medical Association has condemned it as not good medicine, because it can cause more complications for the mom than it can prevent. If I am not mistaken, this hideous procedure, at least, has been outlawed in the USA, hasn't it?

Unfortunately, Ink, I believe that though lawmakers have passed laws against it and the president has signed them, judges keep striking them down as "unconstitutional."

[Charn_Tim]

yes, partial birth abortion is unfortunately and mind-bogglingly still legal in the US

[onlymystory]

there are a lot of mind-boggling and stomach turning things about the US unfortunately.

[Sunrise]

Did you know that during a partial-birth abortion, if the abortion doctor "oopses" and the head of the baby leaves the birth canal, the doctor is then legally required to do treat the baby as a live birth and turn it over to neonatal pediatrics to do everything possible to save its life? Because once the entire baby is out, you can't kill it. Regardless of the mother's wishes. Six inches of space makes the difference between a living child and an unwanted "fetus".

There is just no logic to the issue at all. The root problem, as we see so often in such things, is money. Abortion will not be outlawed, save by some miracle, because it's a multi-million dollar industry.

I believe we have been warned that the "love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

I'm also reminded of a fact: Pro-abortion advocates always bring up the small percentage of abortions performed to save the mother's life as grounds for keeping abortion legal.

What they fail to mention is that, even prior to Roe v. Wade (the case that legalized abortion in America), such abortions were not illegal, nor would they be if abortion were made illegal again. That particular argument is nothing but a smokescreen. To be pro-life means to be pro-life in every case, not just the baby's. No rational pro-lifer would say that a mother should sacrifice her life for the child (which, in the majority of such cases, would not survive anyway.)

And Inkspot, it is rare for me to disagree with you, but I do not support the argument for keeping abortion legal to prevent illegal, dangerous abortions. We have laws against burglary, rape, and murder, yet these things still happen. The fact that they happen does not mean we should make them legal. While hearts and minds do need to be changed, people underestimate the power of the law to mold thought. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."

The number of abortions in the US skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. As of 1992 (the publishing year of the book I am using as reference), there were fifteen times more abortions annually than in the year prior to Roe. It has probably gone up since then. In countries where abortion is legal and easily acquired, there appears a societal pressure to avail oneself of it that previously did not exist. Women have been socially influenced and conditioned to accept it because, "the law says it's okay."

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, that may be the "official protocol", but the reality is far different. A baby that survives an abortion, whether by hysterotomy, saline, or D&X (partial birth), is considered a "complication", and set aside to die. That's part of the reason the D&X was developed - to try to insure that by the time the last part of the child emerged, he would be dead for certain.

[Eveningstarz_4]

With all due respect, I'm not sure why this matters. The unborn baby is a sinner by virtue of being a human ("for all have sinned and..."). What is so important about allowing the baby to exercise its sinful nature in the world? This doesn't seem like reason enough to prefer the baby's life over the life of the mother.

It is important to allow the baby to have a chance to change. True that we are all sinners, but that doesn't mean that a life should be stamped out just because the baby will just be another sinner. One of the main points of living is to learn what's right and wrong and to get a chance to choose between the two. There have been so many hard-core sinners out there that have made a complete u-turn at some point in time. Sure, we don't change so much that we're perfect, but we at least get somewhere close to that, you know? Everyone deserves a chance at that. What would be the point of giving us free will if we don't get a chance to exercise it? Don't think of babies as "just another sinner." think of them as a miracle...a piece of hope.

[Sunrise]

Actually, that may be the "official protocol", but the reality is far different. A baby that survives an abortion, whether by hysterotomy, saline, or D&X (partial birth), is considered a "complication", and set aside to die. That's part of the reason the D&X was developed - to try to insure that by the time the last part of the child emerged, he would be dead for certain.

Not being a doctor, I admit I don't know official protocol - the above was simply something I read.

The fact that the medical establishment could call a still-living baby a "complication" makes the point even better, though.

[inkspot]

Inkspot, it is rare for me to disagree with you, but I do not support the argument for keeping abortion legal to prevent illegal, dangerous abortions. We have laws against burglary, rape, and murder, yet these things still happen. The fact that they happen does not mean we should make them legal. While hearts and minds do need to be changed, people underestimate the power of the law to mold thought. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
Yah, I didn't make my point very well: I don't think abortion should be legal because of the possibility of people still getting them if they are illegal. I understand the rule of law and all. I just feel like, Christians are a remnant of Americans now, not the driving force, and pro-life Christians are an even smaller segment of society, and maybe our efforts could be better used by helping moms in crisis and providing for unwanted children, so a woman who knew she had little chance of providing a good home for a child would know there were good people who would provide for her baby should she have him. Changing hearts is where it's at on this subject, and I don't see pro-life protests doing that. But I could be wrong.

There has been so much activism, I wonder if the fervor, time and money spent on protesting a bad thing could be re-invested in trying to head off the bad thing before it becomes a possibility. I don't know.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, there have been people who've changed their minds on the topic due to the perseverence and persistence of pro-life protesters. Of course, we're not talking about destructive people here (a much smaller group than the mainstream media would have everyone belive), but folk like sidewalk counselors and prayer protesters. Believe me, I've heard some interesting stories.

The argument that abortion shouldn't be outlawed because it's primarily a moral issue is specious. Slavery is a moral issue too, as is child labor. I don't hear anyone protesting the laws forbidding those. Also, there was a time that abortion was not outlawed in America. It was a coalition of (ready for this?) early feminists like Susan B. Anthony and the American Medical Association who passed laws outlawing abortion in the United States. The argument they used was that women who didn't want to be oppressed shouldn't go oppressing the children they carry.

[Sunrise]

Yah, I didn't make my point very well: I don't think abortion should be legal because of the possibility of people still getting them if they are illegal. I understand the rule of law and all. I just feel like, Christians are a remnant of Americans now, not the driving force, and pro-life Christians are an even smaller segment of society, and maybe our efforts could be better used by helping moms in crisis and providing for unwanted children, so a woman who knew she had little chance of providing a good home for a child would know there were good people who would provide for her baby should she have him. Changing hearts is where it's at on this subject, and I don't see pro-life protests doing that. But I could be wrong.

There has been so much activism, I wonder if the fervor, time and money spent on protesting a bad thing could be re-invested in trying to head off the bad thing before it becomes a possibility. I don't know.

Point taken. The thing is, there are a LOT of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers well-equipped to educate, provide for, and help women through pregnancy, even setting them up with adoption services if they desire, all to give them an alternative to abortion. But because abortion is seen as a quick and simple solution, most women considering it do not bother to look at any alternatives, and probably aren't aware that such services exist (certainly they aren't given any media attention). Typically they are terrified, misinformed, and willing to believe whatever the abortion clinic tells them about how easy and painless it will be, and how they can just go on with their lives afterwards and never have to worry about it again. So I think pro-life protests are still necessary, if only to attempt to make a woman think twice about her decision, and consider alternatives.

Making it illegal would force these women to look for alternatives rather than submit to an illegal procedure, or, better yet, force them to take more responsibility for their behavior before the unwanted pregnancy ever occurred.

Also, true Christians may be in the minority in America (no argument there, despite how pious we pretend to be), but the majority of Americans still do not support convenience abortion. Its continued state of legality is made possible by a small and vocal minority and a Congress with its hands deep in the pockets of special interest groups (as so many abhorrent things are these days.)

I don't have much hope that outlawing it will ever happen. But I fervently believe it would be the right thing to do.

[Sunrise]

It was a coalition of (ready for this?) early feminists like Susan B. Anthony and the American Medical Association who passed laws outlawing abortion in the United States. The argument they used was that women who didn't want to be oppressed shouldn't go oppressing the children they carry.

Gotta love the AMA. Their official position in 1871:

"There we shall discover an enemy in the camp; there we shall witness as hideous a view of moral deformity as the evil spirit could present...Men who seek not to save, but to destroy; men known not only to the profession, but to the public, as abortionists..."

Interesting how viewpoints change once something becomes lucrative...

[Parthian King]

I don't have much hope for this society as is, either. But it is not ours, really, to project things as they "probably will be" given the current societal trajectory, but rather to be faithful.

When I think of the opposition and the hopelessness that faced abolitionists, I am heartened. Their task was no less daunting than ours. Wilberforce pleaded for years in the British Parliament without effect. But it finally took. And our English brothers finally shamed America to the point that, with the Civil War (into which the British were loathe to commit themselves over the salvery issue even thogh they needed Confederate cotton desperately) slavery bit the dust. But it was Wilberforce's "hoping against hope" and faithfulness that made it possible.

We never know. That's why it's better to obey as we perceive obedience, and cry out though it sems nobody hears. If wesave one life, says the Talmud, we've saved the world entire.

[Euphrates]

So when you talk about the "life of the mother", in what sense are you using the phrase? The first, or the second?
The first. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I'm talking about the mother's being alive.

Parthian King, you have continually misrepresented what I have said in order to draw outrageous consequences. You have said that I am in opposition to Scripture, don't value life, support mass sterilization, painting people as "close-minded", use logical fallacies, playing word games, and more. It is posts like yours that cause threads to be closed and locked. Please stop the personal attacks and don't mischaracterize what I have said. You are ignoring what I have said and substituting your own meaning in order to show that I am wrong. This makes discussion impossible.

My question: what unique good is added to life by being in the world?

Also, my argument is not a red herring because it is not drawing attention away from abortion. And it is not a straw man because I am not distorting people's positions in order to defeat the argument.
It is important to allow the baby to have a chance to change.
Change from what to what? We can never change from being sinners by nature. It seems like the first change would be from "innocent" to "sinning". Why does this give us reason to prefer the life of the baby over the life of the mother? I agree that life is good and that we should protect life whenever possible, but that includes the mother's life. I'm still not sure why the baby's life should be preferred over the mother's life.

[Eveningstarz_4]

you make a good point. no, we never change from being a sinner. but we have the ability to change into the person God wants us to be. hmm...maybe an example would be good...lets say a baby is born into a broken home. the father drinks, and the mother takes her frustration towards him out on the baby and its older siblings. the baby grows up, thinking that that is what love is. so the now-young-adult is always getting into trouble...fighting, drinking, drugs, that whole thing. some may say that that is who this person is always going to be like. a troublemaking athiest criminal. BUT that person can change. he/she CAN come to a point in his/her life where they realize that they need Christ. and in that realization, that person accepts Him into his/her heart. from that point on, you're looking at a changed person. everything that he/she did in the past is gone, and the new Christian has come. yes, they will make more mistakes. but at least that person had a chance to live.

[inkspot]

You have said that I am in opposition to Scripture, don't value life, support mass sterilization, painting people as "close-minded", use logical fallacies, playing word games, and more. It is posts like yours that cause threads to be closed and locked. Please stop the personal attacks and don't mischaracterize what I have said. You are ignoring what I have said and substituting your own meaning in order to show that I am wrong. This makes discussion impossible.
Here is what PK is reacting to: your stance seemed to be it is no tragedy if the baby is aborted, because the baby is a sinner anyway.

If this is what you meant, then every allegation PK threw at you is true, because that is a flagrantly anti-biblical stance.

Nowhere in Scripture will you find anyone who was not depressed to the point of suicide (and speaking against God's will and plan) saying it would be better if babies weren't born.

God punished Onan not for terminating a pregnancy, but for not allowing one to begin!

So if what you meant by your statement was: abortion is not that big a tragedy because the baby who would have been born is just a sinner, then PK's responses were very right on, as far as Orthodox Christianity is concerned.

If your stance is that it's better for no more babies to be born because babies are sinners, then you are indeed in favor of mass sterilization (because no one can give birth to a baby who is not a sinner) and you do not value life as much as some here because you are saying no life of a sinner is worth the birth of the sinner.

Do you see how PK could draw these conclusions? It is not logical fallacy, it is very easy to deduce from your stance:
1. It is no tragedy if a baby is aborted, because the baby is a sinner.
2. It is just as well if sinners aren't born.
3. Since every child born is a sinner, no child should be born.
4. The life of sinner is not worth the birth of said sinner.
5. Mass sterilization will save us from any mroe sinners being born.

This can all be built upon your first suppostion that it's no tragedy if a baby is aborted.

If this isn't what you meant, you can maybe explain it again?

[Rhyanidd]

I've just finished reading through the thread and I hope I am not just repeating what every one else has said..

I'd like to say that my little brother has Cerebral Palsey, and he is 'A load'. He needs certain special things. I'm bringing this up because a few years ago, when I was in my 'rebellious, emotional early teen years' I remember resenting my little brother, and the attention he got and I remember wishing (yes, wishing, horrible as it sounds) that my mother had had an abortion. I had wished that on my own brother. Looking at that now, I know that I would have been devestated. I loved my little brother before he was born, later I grew resentful, but the love was still there. I must say that if I did not have my brother than my father never would have said "He can't do anything..do you know why he stays happy all the time? Its because he has God, and he knows, somehow that men will never explain, that we will eventually go to a better place."(yes my brother is always happy) I attribute my coming out of my rebelious years to that. Because at about the same time I started to see the light..though it was still a few years before I became a Christain.

There are plenty of living beings that are not human. Pigs, for example, are living beings but not human. I suppose that sperm are also living beings, but they are not humans in themselves.
Are you saying that when a Human Male and a Human Female come together they create a pig? Well I am glad that that didn't happen to me...(that was meant half sarcatically)


And I know after reading that your all gonna say, " It would be better if the child was alive then dead!!!!" Once again I go back to the rapist. If a man has that low morale, what do you think the child will be like? Sure it'll get some of your traits too, but the man's traits will still be there
I believe in Nurture over Nature...when it comes to humans...animals are different matter..but we aren't talking about animals are we?

specter! you think that if a woman is raped she should have the baby? she could never love the baby the way ti should be loved! ya know? or, do you mean that she should just give the baby up for adoption?
How do you know that a woman couldn't love the child the way it should be loved? When you see a baby's smile it is a powerful thing (I am speaking from expierence..though I've never been pregnent)

I dont think science can describe soul. Can they? Even if the heart is beating...is there actually a soul in the body? What about people who're in a state of coma?

It reminds me so much of this dialogue...

Neo: If u die in the Matrix, u die here?

Morpheus: A body cannot live w/out the mind!
How do you suddenly "lose" your soul if you are in a coma? I don't understand that reasoning. That reminds me of a Star Trek where they say "There is a spark of life inside the human mind, replace that entirely with a machine and its gone" ok so yes, we need our minds, but while there is still hope can't we continue to hope? Why just because the percentages are against us must we give up? In many battles (fictional and real) the odds are always against the "good guys" or "main characters" yet they often manage to come through, a coma is simply a battle in the body...now back to abortion...


and is stunning (there's that word again, but I cannot find another)
(to lighten the mood before I get serious) Try a thesarus ;)

Yeah, every mother should get their baby aborted so it can go to Heathen the easy way
Ya know you are right...we should go back in time and abort Jimmy since thats what he wants.... :)

Now, OMS, I really liked your points about the fathers of the babys (excluding rape and incest). All the guys I know would never have engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage, but, if by some fluke, they were found to be the father of the child. I would want them to have the chance to raise that child. Because they would make great fathers. And men should have that chance.

Ok, guys I think I understand your points.

My view on the matter is, Abortion in any circumstance is wrong.

If the girl is engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage (of her own free will) then she has NO excuse as was said before (I forget by who) should we allow her to say "Oh, my bad, but I'm not ready to deal with the consquences right now." I don't think we should. Basically we are telling girls and boys (becuase the men are responsible too) that they can do whatever they want and then somebody else will deal with the consequences, Please do not teach my generation this!

If a child is conceived from rape, but the girl HAS the love and support of her family: Then the love of her family should it easier, I agree with the people who have said "we need to support not condem" this is true, support goes a long way. Instead of condeming the girls who decied to have an abortion we need to reply with something like "Alright." We don't have to approve, and we can let them know that. But we don't have to break their hearts again and again by refusing to accept them again. <--I feel like I rambled there..yell at me if I did and I'll fix it :o

If a child is conceived from rape, but the girl DOES NOT have the love and support of her family: This is a much harder situation. I would like to say that I would still have the child and put it up for adoption, but I don't know that for sure...I just think girls need to know there is an alternative.

If a girl doesn't have the love and support of family yet has love and support from an organization then I think that would help too.

If the child is threatning the mothers life (physical life not social life) then I can understand the fear. Yet I would like to quote a man whom I have grown to admire though I know very little about him.

This is a true story it was in Readers Digest one month: There was a little girl who needed a liver transplant, no children donars could be found. For an adult to be the donar the adult had to be under 110 pounds. A man from the fathers highschool said he would do it. His wife, and the mother and father, were suprised, because the risks were very high, However this man said "I've had 30 years to live.. Sailor hasn't had one..." I admire this man, he had no obligation to this child, he wasn't even a friend of the father, he only vaguely remembered the name from highschool, yet he was willing to die. Why can't mothers do this for a child that is partially theirs?

I do not know what I would do in any of these situations, but I think I can honestly say in every single one of these cases I would put the child first. Because I've held babys, my niece is the most precious thing in the world, and I remember the wonderful, warm feeling I had when I held her, I can only imagine how much moreso that feeling will be when the child is my own.

[SusanoftheSouthernSun]

Ok first to the coma comment. My mother got sick and due to some injury to her organs, she could not longer produce natural insulin, becoming diabetic. No one knew and she got sick. She slipped into a coma and I could not be there when I first found out (I was over 1,000 miles from home). And she had a soul then and always. So saying being in a coma means no soul is wrong.

I am against abortion, yes there are times when I can see an argument (life threatening to the baby and mother). However, most are from those who just do not want to face the responsibility. If you are old enough to have sex, you are old enough to accept responsibility.

I have a few friends that are adopted because they could not be kept and they turned out very well. Loving families, even if they remember the troubles from before then. And my brother's girlfriend has been from foster family to foster family with her two sisters since the father is a drunk and their mother says she loves them but does not want them. So what are they doing? The oldest sister is going to college in August, the youngest is still young, but she turned out well. My brother's girlfriend is the middle child and she will be in college in August of 2007. She wants to be a doctor. These kids have had nothing but bad thing after bad thing happen (some things I know of and won't repeat) and they are managing. Yes, I know these are just some cases, but just because a family may be broken does not mean the kids will turn out that way.

I will always be a prolife supporter. Adoption instead of abortion.

[jesusfreak]

ok. Abortion is the worse desion you could make. God made that baby and it deserves to live even if the mother can't take care of the child or she doesn't deservite. God loves that baby and knows exactly what's going to happen to that child as it grows. It has a future. God knows who that baby will marry, how kids he/she will have. The mother should have no say in if the baby should be killed. God "owns" that child's soul and even if that baby is killed by abortion it will be in heaven with God, but it should have a chance on Earth at least.

JesusFreak

[Euphrates]

Here is what PK is reacting to: your stance seemed to be it is no tragedy if the baby is aborted, because the baby is a sinner anyway.
I never said that the abortion would not be a tragedy.
If this is what you meant, then every allegation PK threw at you is true, because that is a flagrantly anti-biblical stance.
It is not what I meant. It is not what I said. It is only what Parthian King misrepresents me as saying.
If your stance is that it's better for no more babies to be born because babies are sinners, then you are indeed in favor of mass sterilization (because no one can give birth to a baby who is not a sinner) and you do not value life as much as some here because you are saying no life of a sinner is worth the birth of the sinner.
Right, but that is not my stance. Look at what I have said and see if I advocated anything about it being better for all babies to not be born.
Do you see how PK could draw these conclusions? It is not logical fallacy, it is very easy to deduce from your stance:
1. It is no tragedy if a baby is aborted, because the baby is a sinner.
2. It is just as well if sinners aren't born.
3. Since every child born is a sinner, no child should be born.
4. The life of sinner is not worth the birth of said sinner.
5. Mass sterilization will save us from any mroe sinners being born.
But this is not my stance!! It is a logical fallacy because I said none of those things. He has distorted my words to create a straw man that is easily defeatable. Instead of using his misinterpretation, please look at what I wrote.
This can all be built upon your first suppostion that it's no tragedy if a baby is aborted.
Again... and again and again and again if I have to... I never supposed that it is not tragedy if a baby is aborted. Never. Never.
If this isn't what you meant, you can maybe explain it again?
Explain what I meant by what? I am really very confused at this point. Maybe you should read it again. I was wondering if entering into the world added some unique good to the baby's life. Does being in the world (as opposed to being in the womb) add goodness to the life of the baby? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER! It is NOT a rhetorical question. But from this question (it seems) normally reasonable people have personally attacked me and attributed views to me that I have NOT advocated.

[jesusfreak]

ok first of all Euphrates I think you got it all wrong... God loves all people...those babies are sinners, but Jesus died for them when he died on the cross. Abortion is completely wrong and if you think it's ok your brain must be made of pudding...im sorry but abortion is the wrongest thing i've ever heard. Euphrates you don't know what you're talking about, you should read the Bible a little more closely and get into your brain that all people are sinners, God loved and loves them and us and he sent HIS ONE AND ONLY SON TO DIE FOR US SO THAT CAN BE WITH HIM IN HEAVEN WHEN WE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Euphrates]

ok first of all Euphrates I think you got it all wrong... God loves all people...those babies are sinners, but Jesus died for them when he died on the cross. Abortion is completely wrong and if you think it's ok your brain must be made of pudding...im sorry but abortion is the wrongest thing i've ever heard. Euphrates you don't know what you're talking about, you should read the Bible a little more closely and get into your brain that all people are sinners, God loved and loves them and us and he sent HIS ONE AND ONLY SON TO DIE FOR US SO THAT CAN BE WITH HIM IN HEAVEN WHEN WE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree that God loves all people. So I'm not sure how I got that wrong, since we agree. I also agree that Jesus died on the cross. The argument that "abortion is wrong and if you disagree you're dumb" is not an argument at all, but it is a fallacy, and it is funny. Your claim that I don't know what I'm talking about does not add anything to the conversation and is only a personal attack. I read the Bible very closely, but I agree that everyone should probably read it more closely. I know that all people are sinners (with the exception of Christ) and God loves us all and Jesus died for us. But you still haven't shown me how I am wrong.

Also, jesusfreak, do you believe that abortion is not an acceptable option even if the birth of the baby would surely kill the mother? Or are you another one of the people that I am imagining? :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The first. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I'm talking about the mother's being alive.Thank you for clarifying that. I will reiterate my earlier statements: 1) such cirucumstances are extremely rare, and should not be used to justify abortion at large, and 2) every pro-life stand admits that if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, it is morally acceptable to end the pregnancy to save the mother's life. Intent is everything here: why is the operation being performed? If it is to save the mother, with the unfortunate but unavoidable effect of killing the child, that is not the same thing as aborting the child for convenience. It goes without saying that every reasonable effort to save the child's life should be made, if survival is possible.

My question: what unique good is added to life by being in the world?The good of another life made in God's image. The existence of the child itself is God's statement that He desires that good in the world. Never forget: God is never surprised by any pregnancy, and He never regrets any child coming into being. He may regret the circumstances the child is born into, which is why He's given us laws to create and protect the proper circumstances, but He never regrets the child himself. Any time a man and woman come together and create a child, God's creative act is there to bring that child into being. This sometimes defies our understanding - "how can a child being born there, then, to those people be good?" But we must take God at His word: if He says, "Let there be a child", then the child is good. Yes, even as the result of sin, such as adultery or rape. Yes, even into disease and poverty and neglect. Yes, even with his own sin-damaged nature and all the wickedness he could do in his lifetime. This thread is full of personal stories of children born into difficulty yet rising above them, and of the people who learned to love better by helping them do that. Even the possiblity that one more voice will be added to the heavenly choir, that one more soul will say "Yes" to the salvation bought so dearly on that barren hill 2000 years ago - that is the good that is brought into the world by each new life. It is a good that not even the worst sin or circumstances can overcome.

[jesusfreak]

I absolutly agree with PrinceOfTheWest. Everything said was absolutly true.

[Euphrates]

1) such cirucumstances are extremely rare, and should not be used to justify abortion at large
I have not used these cases to justify a broader conception of abortion. They are rare, but they still exist and should be discussed.
2) every pro-life stand admits that if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, it is morally acceptable to end the pregnancy to save the mother's life.
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by a "pro-life stand". Are you talking about official platforms/philosophies of organizations? Or are you saying, more strongly, that no pro-life person thinks that the baby's life shold take preferrence over the mother's life in these cases? Just so you know, I know of many pro-life philosophers that think the birth should take place even if that means the mother will die. If you have access to JSTOR or lexisnexis I can give you citations/referrences. More locally, though, there is at least one person on this thread who has actively said that the baby's life should be chosen over the mother's life in cases where such a decision must be made. And there are many others who expressed the same view, but have not returned to support it or clarify their positions.
The good of another life made in God's image.
But I'm not talking about the good of the life. What good is added by being outside of the womb (in the world)?
The existence of the child itself is God's statement that He desires that good in the world.
What justification do you have for this? In any case, if you're right, the existence of the mother is God's statement that He desires her in the world. What reason do we have to choose the baby over the mother?
Even the possiblity that one more voice will be added to the heavenly choir, that one more soul will say "Yes" to the salvation bought so dearly on that barren hill 2000 years ago - that is the good that is brought into the world by each new life. It is a good that not even the worst sin or circumstances can overcome.
An additional voice in the heavenly choir is not unique to the baby being in the world, unless you think that the aborted baby will not have access to heaven. Saying "yes" to salvation is unique, but the end result is the same if you believe that the baby would go to heaven. Also, what if the pregnant mother was not saved? Saving her life, instead of the baby, would allow her to say "yes" to salvation and result in two people saved through Christ.

Why is the chance to experience the world a uniquely good thing? And why does it justify saving the baby and letting the mother die?

[jesusfreak]

I think both PrinceOfTheWest and Ephrates have good points, but i personally don't really know what the right answer is after talking with Ephrates. It's a hard question and a hard dession. I think before the mother does anything she should pray with all her heart for the right answer. It isn't right for the mother to, but isn't right for the baby to die either. It really depends...is the baby going to live after the mother dies, like will it die in birth along with the mother or will it live and grow up? Doesn't the mother want to die for her baby? Does she already love the baby enough to go along with the birth and let the baby live? Or does she love the baby enough to die with him/her if the baby isn't going to make?

Hard dession.

JesusFreak

[lions mane]

So Gabe, if you're unconsious, can I kill you? You won't feel anything!
uhmmm.... i guess you can sis. but why would you want to?

and it's not the same at all!
why would you compare killing someone who has already been alive for 17 years and has enjoyed (for the most part) life to killing a feotus, in the stomach of a lady, who has only been there for like 6 weeks?

it don't make sense! ya know?

[Eveningstarz_4]

Also, what if the pregnant mother was not saved? Saving her life, instead of the baby, would allow her to say "yes" to salvation and result in two people saved through Christ.

Why is the chance to experience the world a uniquely good thing? And why does it justify saving the baby and letting the mother die?

God gave us free will. If He let everyone live long enough so that they only die after becoming a Christian, then we'd be here for a very, very long time. He originally created man to live forever. But because of what happened with Adam and Eve, we can't live as long. There has to be an end point. Sad as it is, not everyone is going to make that decision. It makes God sad too, but He has a plan to carry out and He does not go back on His Word. Like I said before, if it is that mother's time to go, then we cannot stop her from dying. And if it isn't, then God will make sure she doesn't die.

Look at the world around you...the grass, the trees, the sunrises, the sunsets, the night sky, the flowers...God wants everyone to see His creation. That's why He made it so beautiful. Sure, some things in the world aren't as good, but maybe...just maybe...the baby in question could make a difference in those rough areas. Do you really want to deny the baby...and the world...that chance?

For example...Mary. She was really young. She wasn't married yet. She could have said, 'no, I will not carry this baby! What would Joseph say? What would my friends and family say?'. But no, she chose to have that baby, even if it meant losing the one she loved. And look what happened.

[jesusfreak]

I agree with you Eveningstarz_4. everyone free will and everything else you said was true.

JesusFreak

[Elendil]

uhmmm.... i guess you can sis. but why would you want to?

and it's not the same at all!
why would you compare killing someone who has already been alive for 17 years and has enjoyed (for the most part) life to killing a feotus, in the stomach of a lady, who has only been there for like 6 weeks?

it don't make sense! ya know?

It is the same! Age doesn't make a difference!!! Like I said before, my sister was born at the same time as some abortions take place. She's now 11, and perfectly normal. (Kinda ;) ) But she's no different to anyone else!!! So why should babies have to die?
I'm all for CHOICE! Give the BABY a choice, let it live!!!

[Twilightdryadhobbit]

It's been very interesting reading this thread, and coming from a strongly pro-life viewpoint, I like to see people making thier points logically, since much of what people believe that is incorrect seem to come from a lack of logical thinking. (That is just my opinion though, and I do not mean to imply that people on here are not thinking logically) I think one of the larger questions that was asked was: What constitutes murder? What, if anything, would justify it? I would tentatively define murder as taking away the life, or potential for life, of a genetically unique human being. Any justifications I would make for it would be if, A. The person is trying to kill you, or someone else, and you have to stop them to save another's life.

I also have a large problem with claiming that the baby doesn't have a soul until it exhibits a personality, or talks or something. Suppose for a minute you were in a coma, and couldn't speak, or move, or do anything for yourself. Suppose that even your mind was temporarily turned off, unable to function. But also suppose that it was possible for you, in a few years, to come out of it, and become a functioning human being. Would you think it justified for us to kill you because keeping you alive was wieghing on our rescources and time? Would you consider that you had no soul because at that time, you couldn't exhibit signs of it? Putting yourself in the babies place like this, is there really a difference?

Also, how do you know for absolute certain that even handicapped individuals, who cannot communicate or live by themselves at all do not experience life as deeply as we do? No one can really get inside thier heads and live the life that they live. Would we say that they don't have a soul that is as important as we normal people simply because they aren't able to communicate?

Note, I am NOT saying that people on this thread have said that. I'm simply trying to cover as many bases as I can in my discussion. Also, please do NOT take this as a personal attack. I'm not attacking any of you personally, I'm simply stating my opinions in this matter. You are, of course, always free to disagree with me as you wish. If someone didn't, we wouldn't have much a discussion, would we? ;)

[Elendil]

(B/T/W Gabe, I don't really want to kill you!)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by a "pro-life stand". Are you talking about official platforms/philosophies of organizations?
I'm talking about moral philosophers and stands by groups such as the Catholic Church, as well as the legal traditions dealing with abortion. In 1960, when every state in the United States had laws protecting the unborn, all those laws had exceptions for the mother's life, and nobody objected to that. Furthermore, even the most rabid pro-life groups I know of do not take the stand that the mother's life should be sacrificed to allow the baby to live! You're spending a lot of effort arguing against a point that nobody's arguing for. Of course the mother's life should be preserved if it is immediate danger from the continuation of the pregnancy! But by focusing all your effort on that situation, you are discussing something that occurs less than 1% of the time. It's like arguing against speed limits because sometimes throttle cables stick and the person can't control the car's speed. If a throttle cable stuck, you wouldn't be "speeding", you'd be dealing with a malfunctioning car, and you wouldn't get ticketed for speeding. Likewise a situation where you've got to kill the baby to save the mother isn't an "abortion" in the common usage of the term, it's a lifesaving operation with an unfortunate side effect.

Yes, I would like to see at least two citiations of serious pro-life groups (e.g. National Right to Life, American Life League, Operation Rescue, etc.) or churches that contend that the mother should be allowed to die if it will save the baby.

[lions mane]

(B/T/W Gabe, I don't really want to kill you!)
i was just trying to get my point accross ya know?

but, yes. age makes a huge difference!

so.... if u had the chance to save a 5 y/o little girl from dying or stopping a mother of having an abortion which would you choose?

i dunno about you guys, but i'm choosing the 5 y/o no questions! she has already had life and knows what it's like, and would suffer way more to lose it! ya know?

and a foetus can't choose. it doesn't have the mind power (or whatever you want to call it) to choose, if they want to live! ya know?

[Specter]

but, yes. age makes a huge difference!

so.... if u had the chance to save a 5 y/o little girl from dying or stopping a mother of having an abortion which would you choose?
This question is completely irrelevant, as it is something that could never happen. It is a distraction from the issue, and caters to what would seem like an "obvious" answer. But in both cases, a life is coming to an end. It's like like Lex Luthor launching two ballistic missiles, at two different places, each halfway around the world from the other, and both will go off at the same time, and forcing Superman to choose which group of people to save. In both cases, lives will end, so regardless of whether he saves some lives, he still loses.

I have a question to answer your question. When is it ever the choice between a 5 year old child and the life of a child inside it's mother's womb?

And remember: Fetus is Latin for Offspring. Offspring is defined as both the progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group and a child of particular parentage. Therefore, using the term fetus to make abortion sound better is out, because "fetus" therefore means "child."

[Tweetsie]

I personally think of abortion as murder, since the fetus is after all, alive, and now has a chance to live, and by getting an abortion you are murdering it and it's chance to live as we do. As the person who created this thread has said, I believe there should be ONE circumstance where you have a choice. That would be if the baby has brain damage, or some sort of disability that would make it's life more hard and miserable, than.. well, than what life is to us. But other than that, if there is nothing wrong, then there should be no choice for abortion, because as I view it, it is murder.

[Sunrise]

but, yes. age makes a huge difference!


Why is that? A fetus is not a non-human. It is simply a human at a different stage of life than an infant, a child, a teenager, or an adult. Calling it a fetus does not change the fact that it is a baby.

You threw out as an example a six-week-old embryo. Are you aware that at six weeks, an embryo has every internal organ of a fully-developed human? His skeleton is formed, and his brain waves can be recorded. Yes, brain waves, meaning his mind is already functioning. His heart has already been beating for three weeks. If you could get a peek at him, you would see a human - tiny, yes, but identifiable as a human.

The six-week argument is erroneous, anyway, because most abortions take place AFTER this (many women six weeks pregnant do not even know that they are pregnant yet.) And at whatever age they occur, they do not change the fact that abortion kills a child. So let me turn your example back on you. If you would not kill a five-year-old girl, why would you kill a six-week-old fetus? (Having to choose between them is a false dichotomy - a ridiculous scenario that would never happen.) One day that fetus will be a five-year-old. Why is its life any less valuable simply because that day has not yet arrived? Why is its life less valuable than yours just because you have "enjoyed life for seventeen years" and it has not yet had that opportunity? Is my worth measured by the number of years I have spent on this earth?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I personally think of abortion as murder, since the fetus is after all, alive, and now has a chance to live, and by getting an abortion you are murdering it and it's chance to live as we do. As the person who created this thread has said, I believe there should be ONE circumstance where you have a choice. That would be if the baby has brain damage, or some sort of disability that would make it's life more hard and miserable, than.. well, than what life is to us. But other than that, if there is nothing wrong, then there should be no choice for abortion, because as I view it, it is murder.That's what's called the "quality of life" argument. It's a common one, and one of the avid proponents has been Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University. But Dr. Singer takes it a step further - he argues that the decision to terminate the life should not be delineated by birth (because, after all, what is birth but a change of location?) He contends that for up to 30 days following birth, the option to terminate the child's life should be open to the parents, just in case they decided the child's "quality of life" isn't going to be good enough.

In fact, the termination of handicapped and deformed newborns is already being widely practiced in the West, though it's kept very quiet. Nurse Jill Stanek lost her job because of her testimony (http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm) regarding the practice at Christ Hospital in Chicago.

The difficulty is that once you admit the quality of life argument, then where do you stop? If it's legitimate to kill a handicapped person in the womb, then why not within 30 days of birth? Or a year? Or what if the child is cared for by the parents, but they die when he's ten years old and no relatives can be found who want to care for him? Should he be put to death then?

It's interesting to note that the last society that bought into the quality of life argument and carried it to the logical conclusion was Nazi Germany. Before the Final Solution, they'd already emptied their asylums and nursing homes, executing the handicapped and insane as being "social parasites" living "unworthy lives." They even tried to pass their actions off as works of mercy. We remember where that led.

[Sunrise]

I personally think of abortion as murder, since the fetus is after all, alive, and now has a chance to live, and by getting an abortion you are murdering it and it's chance to live as we do. As the person who created this thread has said, I believe there should be ONE circumstance where you have a choice. That would be if the baby has brain damage, or some sort of disability that would make it's life more hard and miserable, than.. well, than what life is to us. But other than that, if there is nothing wrong, then there should be no choice for abortion, because as I view it, it is murder.

I respect your position, Tweetsie, but I urge you to think twice about making an exception for babies with disabilities or deformities. (And understand, I'm not attacking you - just trying to give some food for thought.)

Just because we define a meaningful life as one in which we are healthy and "normal" does not mean that people with mental or physical disabilities define it the same way. As family members of such people will tell you, many of these kids are some of the happiest, liveliest kids they know. And besides, there's no guarantee that even a "normal" child will have a happy life or be a good person. Hitler was a healthy baby. Beethoven was born into a family of disabled kids and was himself disabled. Who led the more worthy life?

As a matter of fact, Christians are commanded to show love and compassion for the disabled: "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13-14) Sort of seems like God himself has a special place in His heart for these folks.

If we abort babies because of their deformities, why shouldn't we kill off living humans with crippling deformities? After all, they must be miserable. Of course, nobody says things like this, and you are rightfully horrified that I would suggest it - but can you see that it is based on the same attitude: that a person (or baby) with severe disablities would be better off dead than living with his restrictions.

And by the way, doctors can be wrong. My own husband was supposed to be severely mentally disabled, blind, deaf, and dumb because his mother had mononucleosis in her first trimester. The doctors urged her to abort. She refused, and gave birth to a brilliant, talented, gifted child, who is partially deaf. Hardly a life deemed too miserable to continue.

[inkspot]

The unborn baby is a sinner by virtue of being a human ("for all have sinned and..."). What is so important about allowing the baby to exercise its sinful nature in the world?
I took this to mean you thought abortion was not a tragedy. The thing that made me think this was the "What is so important about" phrase: if something is not that important, if it doesn't happen, it can hardly be called a tragedy.

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I know you feel you have explained it, but if you could tell me again how the statement above does not mean abortion is no tragedy in light of the baby's sinful nature?

[Parthian King]

Please stop the personal attacks and don't mischaracterize what I have said. You are ignoring what I have said and substituting your own meaning in order to show that I am wrong. This makes discussion impossible.

My question: what unique good is added to life by being in the world?

Inkspot and POTW have already posted, but since this was directed at me I'd beter respond.

Euphrates, you mistake fervency for calumny. I have read your posts before and you seem like a great guy. I have no problem with you personally. But I have to insist, given the question you pose on the heels of your indictment of me, that you continually confirm that I have not mischaracterized your position in the slightest. It is flagrantly unbiblical, and it is dangerous.

To answer the question (again): The unique good that is added by being in the world is that God says so. Period. That's all we need.

What's more, the very fact that you ask the question with an infant's life in the balance shows you have a serious anemia in your understanding of God's lordship as Creator and Author of Life. You are on ground too holy, indeed where angels fear to tread.

I am not arguing and have never said "Euphrates favors suicide, sterilization, etc." I have said that your position, if thought out to its ultimate conclusion, certainly leads there. My contention is not that you are a bad guy, Euphrates, and it never was. My contention is that you have not thought out the ramifications of your position. What stuns me is that the ramifications are not even that far off--and yet you still don't see them.

[Sunrise]

My question: what unique good is added to life by being in the world?


Euphrates, forgive me if I misunderstand the question, but it seems to me that you are differentiating between life in the world and life in the womb. Are they not one and the same? Does the womb not exist within the confines of the world? If you mean "life" in a general, broad sense, then there is, perhaps, no unique value added to it after birth...but isn't that the point? A life within the womb should be no more, nor less, valuable than one outside it.

While there may be no unique good added to life by being in the world, is it not still a unique evil to calculatingly end that life, whether within the womb or out of it? (Excluding your example of cases in which the mother's life is endangered. I do realize that it is this kind of case exclusively about which you are talking, and I think, based on your previous postings, that you agree that abortion is wrong otherwise, so I'm not sure why there is animosity being traded around here. I think most of the posters agree with you on that particular point. So maybe this whole post is a moot point. I'm only addressing that one question of yours specifically, because it is worded in a questionable way.)

[Sunrise]

Actually, that may be the "official protocol", but the reality is far different. A baby that survives an abortion, whether by hysterotomy, saline, or D&X (partial birth), is considered a "complication", and set aside to die. That's part of the reason the D&X was developed - to try to insure that by the time the last part of the child emerged, he would be dead for certain.

oooh! I found it. It's the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, and you can read about it here. (http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html)

So, the doctors may set aside this "complication", but they are breaking the law by doing so.

[Parthian King]

Euphrates, forgive me if I misunderstand the question, but it seems to me that you are differentiating between life in the world and life in the womb. Are they not one and the same? Does the womb not exist within the confines of the world? If you mean "life" in a general, broad sense, then there is, perhaps, no unique value added to it after birth...but isn't that the point? A life within the womb should be no more, nor less, valuable than one outside it.

While there may be no unique good added to life by being in the world, is it not still a unique evil to calculatingly end that life, whether within the womb or out of it? (Excluding your example of cases in which the mother's life is endangered. I do realize that it is this kind of case exclusively about which you are talking, and I think, based on your previous postings, that you agree that abortion is wrong otherwise, so I'm not sure why there is animosity being traded around here. I think most of the posters agree with you on that particular point. So maybe this whole post is a moot point. I'm only addressing that one question of yours specifically, because it is worded in a questionable way.)

Sunrise, you come close to putting your finger on my quandary about friend Euphrates' position. It does not strike me as odd that he argues for the value of the mother's life, though I agree with PrinceOfTheWest's point that to spend any amount of energy on that one makes little sense either historically or statistically. To keep stressing it when nobody is saying, "Phooey on the mother; the unborn's life is the only one that is important." What is odd to me is his line of reasoning in getting there, and the ramifications of this way of thinking frighten me.

There is intrinsic value in being born. The first command of God to humanity (never rescinded, by the way) is this: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground'” (Gen 1:27-28). God wants humanity to model His image in the world--not just live as a technicality so we can live eternally in Heaven. That, of course, is the final goal, but in His wisdom God has determined plans that must be played out in history.

We are to model Jesus; Jesus was born, lived and loved, and gave Himself. To devalue a child's chance to do that interrupts God's plan and stands against what the Word of God says both explicitly and implicitly.

[Sunrise]

I think many people stress the "safety of the mother" issue because many pro-life advocates are seen as favoring the life of the child over that of the mother. Indeed, it is tempting to allow one's base nature to take over with feelings of anger and outrage toward a woman who would consider ending her child's life. But it WOULD be the wrong attitude. Women considering abortion are very much in need of truth spoken in love, not angry harsh accusations. They also are the ones who will suffer the emotional, spiritual, and psychological trauma after the procedures are done. Truly loving and compassionate pro-lifers understand this and, I hope, act on it, even if it requires letting their emotions cool.

In addition, the pro-abortion movement grossly over-represents the percentage of abortions performed because of life-threatening health issues for the mother. In late pregnancy D&X (partial-birth) specifically, its proponents would have us believe that nearly all such procedures are performed to save the mother's life, when in reality something like 85% of them are elective - mostly to teenagers who were unaware or unconcerned about how far along their pregnancy had progressed. Never mind that in the stage at which D&X is performed (20 weeks or more), a life-threatening pregnancy could be terminated by delivering a living pre-term infant, who would then have a fighting chance at life, however small. So, really, it's a dead argument for D&X. But that's beside the point. I'm getting too fired up!

Basically I'm saying: Misrepresentation of its commonality by pro-abortionists + the appearance of condemnatory attitudes by pro-lifers = an unnecessary emphasis on a relatively rare occurence.

[inkspot]

Let me echo PK, in that I think Euphrates is a great guy and has a wonderful Christian attitude, so no personal attacks are intended.

Here is another strange conclusion which can be drawn, if once we say there is no unique good in being born alive: death is better than life. If we say it is just as well for a baby to die in a state of grace, that is before the age of accountability, and with no opportunity to "exercise its sinful nature in the world," as Euphrates put it ... can we not also say as soon as a person is reconciled to Christ, it would be just as well if he were immediately put to death?

It seems to me this conclusion follows if once we answer Euphrates quesion by saying, "There's nothing uniquely good about being born, since we're sinners." And yet, no one would actually come out and say the death penalty for Christians is really a good thing in their worldview -- that's more a gnostic thing.

But maybe Euphrates is going to better advise us what he was getting at when said, "The unborn baby is a sinner by virtue of being a human ('for all have sinned and...'). What is so important about allowing the baby to exercise its sinful nature in the world?"

[SusanoftheSouthernSun]

Everyone has sinned and none of us are perfect so we are going to mess up. No arguments there. But using abortion as a type of birth control can be horrible. Not just because of the loss of life, but how it will change and effect the lives of others for years. The mother both physically and mentally as well as other family members.

As for disabilities...yes that can be hard. But they should be allowed to live as well. I know of places were people are killed for being blind, deaf, etc, in the 21st century!

God knows the time and place. If we do this, it is as if we are trying to be God by deciding on who should die and why.

This is not a personal attack on anyone, but just something I felt I needed to say.

[Rhyanidd]

I am sorry if these seem to be personel attacks...I DON'T MEAN THEM TO BE!
I have not used these cases to justify a broader conception of abortion. They are rare, but they still exist and should be discussed.
Ok, yes there are times when abortion is nessacary to save the mothers life. Or else one of the both of them could die. NOBODY denyed this, we've said we wish there could be an alternative. Now please stop going back to the 1%, its really frustrating to keep coming back to a point that I thought we were all agreed upon! When you keep coming back to the 1% its like somebody saying in a creation vs. evolution debate "God loves you no matter what" Its infuriating and we just end up chasing our tales. I am not trying to attack you just pointing out what I find annoying.


uhmmm.... i guess you can sis. but why would you want to?

and it's not the same at all!
why would you compare killing someone who has already been alive for 17 years and has enjoyed (for the most part) life to killing a feotus, in the stomach of a lady, who has only been there for like 6 weeks?

it don't make sense! ya know?
Well because you've been alive 17 years isn't that why we would want to kill you?:confused: I mean you've been in the world and know how horrible it can be...so lets get rid of you and get another person in here...maybe they'll do something good you aren't doing....Quite Honestly LM, I think you have a very silly argument...You've had a chance to enjoy life...move aside give some one else a chance, like a game at the fair...just because you've been at the game for an hour does that mean you should stay there the rest of the night and not let another person (whos never played it before) have a chance? I always thought that was more reason to give the next person a chance. Let them have some fun for a bit.
Basically what I am saying is You have had a chance to enjoy life now if you have a chance to let somebody else enjoy then why don't you let them? I'm not asking you to die, just asking you to give somebody else some fun too.

I personally think of abortion as murder, since the fetus is after all, alive, and now has a chance to live, and by getting an abortion you are murdering it and it's chance to live as we do. As the person who created this thread has said, I believe there should be ONE circumstance where you have a choice. That would be if the baby has brain damage, or some sort of disability that would make it's life more hard and miserable, than.. well, than what life is to us. But other than that, if there is nothing wrong, then there should be no choice for abortion, because as I view it, it is murder.
Tweetsie, if you will read my post back a page or two..then you will better understand my stance on this...But I look at killing of a handicapped child just as bad as a normal one. Handicapped children are wonderful gifts from God as well. They touch people's lives in a way that nobody else EVER can..they are just as unique as anybody and just as valuable. I am speaking from the view of somebody who knows several handicapped children...Another point (it may have been adressed before) If we get rid of Cerbral Palsy and other children because of their disability then why not those who are deaf? or blind? or mute? I know deaf people and they are very nice....I think they have just as much fun in this world as anybody who is completely normal...

One question...What is normal? If we are going to only abort brain damaged babies does that count if they just have a slight learning impairment? WHAT IS NORMAL?!

[Rhyanidd]

Also if you are going to argue "They don't feel any pain..." then may I give you 3 scenarios (sp?)that might put to rest that argument...

Scenario 1). Lets say that a man has a sword and swings the sword so fast that it chops off somebody elses head, the sword is swung so fast that the 2nd person doesn't feel anything before he dies. (This is possible...as far as I know). Would we call this murder?

Scenario 2). Its possible to suffocate someone and they feel only as if they are falling asleep, that would mean no pain. If we caught the person who suffocate them would they be charged with Murder?

Scenario 3). Lets say there is a posion that you could slip into somebodys drink and they would die without ever feeling pain. If that person was caught would we call it murder?

If the answer to any of those was yes, then the answer to "Is it murder to kill a fetus that doesn't feel pain?" is yes as well. Because they are just as human.

[Narnia Man 2006]

Also if you are going to argue "They don't feel any pain..." then may I give you 3 scenarios (sp?)that might put to rest that argument...

Scenario 1). Lets say that a man has a sword and swings the sword so fast that it chops off somebody elses head, the sword is swung so fast that the 2nd person doesn't feel anything before he dies. (This is possible...as far as I know). Would we call this murder?

Scenario 2). Its possible to suffocate someone and they feel only as if they are falling asleep, that would mean no pain. If we caught the person who suffocate them would they be charged with Murder?

Scenario 3). Lets say there is a posion that you could slip into somebodys drink and they would die without ever feeling pain. If that person was caught would we call it murder?

If the answer to any of those was yes, then the answer to "Is it murder to kill a fetus that doesn't feel pain?" is yes as well. Because they are just as human.
Good point.... Even if they don't feel pain, it is still murder

[Saruman]

If the answer to any of those was yes, then the answer to "Is it murder to kill a fetus that doesn't feel pain?" is yes as well. Because they are just as human.

Boy do I hate it when people spin things around (not referring to you, my friend RF)...

An argument really ought to be made as to how these people can come to assume that the "fetus" feels no pain in the first place. I assume they must recall a great deal about being in the womb, then, to think unborn human beings will feel no pain? To me, this is what makes the theory of evolution so evil and dangerous: it automatically assumes (as per the faulty and insanely ridiculous drawings of Ernst Haeckel[sic]) that the stages of evolution occur within the womb (after all, evolution was only invented by a man who happened to be comparing the different forms of humming birds...funnily enough, they all still were the same thing: humming birds). It goes hand-in-hand with the idea that we all evolved from animals, that everything really is relative, and that therefore there is no right or wrong. Nada más lejos de la verdad...

I still can't get over the figures that PotW presented regarding the deaths of unborn and/or partially born babies, just within the US alone...

[unleavened]

Abortion makes me sick. It's one of Saten's greatest deceptions.

[she-elfwarrior19]

Also if you are going to argue "They don't feel any pain..." then may I give you 3 scenarios (sp?)that might put to rest that argument...

Scenario 1). Lets say that a man has a sword and swings the sword so fast that it chops off somebody elses head, the sword is swung so fast that the 2nd person doesn't feel anything before he dies. (This is possible...as far as I know). Would we call this murder?

Scenario 2). Its possible to suffocate someone and they feel only as if they are falling asleep, that would mean no pain. If we caught the person who suffocate them would they be charged with Murder?

Scenario 3). Lets say there is a posion that you could slip into somebodys drink and they would die without ever feeling pain. If that person was caught would we call it murder?

If the answer to any of those was yes, then the answer to "Is it murder to kill a fetus that doesn't feel pain?" is yes as well. Because they are just as human.
I agree with you Reeepicheep thats also a very good and interesting point on the topic. I think abortion is murder, just like i mentioned it in my other post in this topic a page or two ago.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

You know it seems to me that we are running is circles...those who are pro choice aren't going to change and vies-versa. I am all for debate and all but there comes a point when it is no longer a debate but a discussion of who can get the last word in and then we have lost the point of why we began.

[Elendil]

Like Curumo said "The baby MAY feel pain!"
Another thing: I've heard LOTS of women who have had abortions, say after that the regreted it, and went into depresson, some even were suicidle!

[Eveningstarz_4]

Like Curumo said "The baby MAY feel pain!"
Another thing: I've heard LOTS of women who have had abortions, say after that the regreted it, and went into depresson, some even were suicidle!

yeah...i've heard that too...why would a mother choose to save her life over the baby's life if it meant living with all that guilt?

[-Forever_Young-]

Well, since I am Catholic, I am totally against abortion. My class and I have been talking about it for a long time, and here's what we said:

1) It is against God to kill any living creation (I don't know about animals) - born or unborn.
2) If you're pregnant and don't want to have a baby, just put it up for adoption after it's born.
3) Wouldn't you be harbored day and night by guilt? After all, you killed a baby. It's wrong, and you probably know it.

So I'm glad abortion is illegal in my state.

[stronger_WM]

Well I don't think there is a thread like this, and I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I want to have an abortion discution.

I'm saying, truthfully that there is not ONE good reason to have an abortion. Even if there was (and there's NOT) it would still be murder.

Sometimes people abort if the doctor says the baby has brain damage. I know some people who's doctor told them that. They WOULDN"T have an abortion, and there was nothing wrong with their son at all. I've heard of that happening atlot.

Ok...what if you got raped by your Father or relative. Would you still have the baby?

You should always have a right to choose, and no men should get to decide if abortion is legal or illegal, because its not them thats pregnant.

And I know a lot of you will gang up on me, but this is something I feel SO strongly for, so I am just going to say what I think.

EDIT:
People that are so CLOSED-MINDED that abortion is wrong, and that there are 'no' reasons, annoy me. I don't yell at people if they truely think its wrong, but for people to say that they don't like anyone that would have one....piss.me.off.

[Saruman]

Ok...what if you got raped by your Father or relative. Would you still have the baby?

You should always have a right to choose, and no men should get to decide if abortion is legal or illegal, because its not them thats pregnant.

This is a harsh and cruel statement you make. Taking away a baby from a man is just as harsh as emasculating him for no good reason. Please don't try to use that as some excuse, because it is wrong on so many levels.

And if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, does it have to be the baby who must be to blame and therefore lose its precious life? The poor child would probably learn to loathe the fiend that dared harm his/her mother. Yet there is a reasonable alternative to aborting the baby from a raped mother who perhaps does not wish to have this child, and that is to give it up to others who would be glad to love the child and nourish it. My heart goes out to every woman that is raped, but I am so blessed and deeply admire the courage of those who, if they become pregnant, are willing to take the child and to love the child. I have heard some stories.

And I know a lot of you will gang up on me, but this is something I feel SO strongly for, so I am just going to say what I think.

EDIT:
People that are so CLOSED-MINDED that abortion is wrong, and that there are 'no' reasons, annoy me. I don't yell at people if they truely think its wrong, but for people to say that they don't like anyone that would have one....piss.me.off.

Well, I hate to say it but it makes the woman who chooses it a very dishonorable person. You can use the "close-minded" argument all you like, but in the end I think you ought to reconsider your own position, if I may be bold enough to suggest it. Your words are cold and cruel towards others. I am sorry if I appear harsh, but this attitude really hurts.

[Specter]

You should always have a right to choose, and no men should get to decide if abortion is legal or illegal, because its not them thats pregnant.
The baby, whether the woman likes it or not, has HALF of the MAN's genes built in to the baby. Thus, the baby is HALF the man's, regardless of whose body it is within.

A woman can, at any point, go in to have an abortion without the man's consent. But let's say, that this woman was walking across the street, to an abortion clinic, and she gets hit by a car. The man that was driving the car didn't see her. Since she was pregnant, though, he gets the fault for taking two lives.. not just one. It's happened before, and it'll happen again, because it is never legal for anyone to harm the baby in the womb outside of abortion. If a man beats his pregnant wife, and she loses the baby, that is also considered man-slaughter. Why should there be a distinction for abortion, even if it is her own choice?

[inkspot]

yeah...i've heard that too...why would a mother choose to save her life over the baby's life if it meant living with all that guilt?
Sometimes the mother has already a child, and a husband, and if it is a choice between losing her, the mother and wife they love, and losing a baby they don't know, then they will want to do without the baby rather than without their wife and mother, and who could blame them? But it is a very rare occurence today for pregnancy to threaten the mother's life in this specific way, and most pro-life people here have said abortion is a valid choice in that circumstance (I think someone said only 1% of abortions are reflected in this scenario).

However: another reason women might have an abortion without thinking about the possible physical and emotional trauma is ... the media and the abortion industry do their best not to let anyone know about any of the risks, physical or emotional. If you go to Planned Parenthood, for instances (which is where a lot of poor women will go for the cheapest medical aid), their whole program is to get you an abortion. That's where the money is, so they are not going to spend much time letting you talk to ladies who had one and regretted it, or considering the alternatives.

So, a young woman might go in, unsure whether she should have the baby or not, and come out reassured that an abortion is a quick and easy way to get rid of her problem. No one mentions to her she might regret the decision for the rest of her life. It's a sad thing.

But listen, if anyone reading all this debate does ever happen to be in the position of an "unwanted pregnancy," you don't have to be freaked out. There are places where you can find help, and not have an abortion. Almost every city has a church-run or Christian-oriented Crisis Pregnancy Center, and that's a good place to start if you find yourself in this position. They can give you facts about abortion, but they can also give you information about what you will face if you decide to have the baby and will be able to help you find an adoptive family if you do not keep the child, or refer you to someone who can help find a loving adoptive family for your baby.

Please consider this option before you consider an abortion! It is really a noble thing to do, and you will be giving the world a healthy new life, and giving some childless family a very great gift ... :)

[Eveningstarz_4]

in adition to that, if anyone on here is from the White Mountains in NH that reads this, the CareNET Pregnancy Center in Plymouth is always available.

Thanks for the info, Inkspot. It's so sad that, among all the bad news that's in the paper and on tv, the side effects of abortion isn't covered.

[stronger_WM]

The baby, whether the woman likes it or not, has HALF of the MAN's genes built in to the baby. Thus, the baby is HALF the man's, regardless of whose body it is within.

A woman can, at any point, go in to have an abortion without the man's consent. But let's say, that this woman was walking across the street, to an abortion clinic, and she gets hit by a car. The man that was driving the car didn't see her. Since she was pregnant, though, he gets the fault for taking two lives.. not just one. It's happened before, and it'll happen again, because it is never legal for anyone to harm the baby in the womb outside of abortion. If a man beats his pregnant wife, and she loses the baby, that is also considered man-slaughter. Why should there be a distinction for abortion, even if it is her own choice?

Listen, I can respect you if you don't like abortions.
But I'm not talking about its not the mans choice if you're in this situation:
The couple is married and the wife gets pregnant but doesnt want the baby. Then it is both the man's and wife's decision with what they want to do.

I'm talking about those men in the senate or whatever that want to have control over what women can do with their bodies and want to maintain power, when really, it is the women's right to have the choice.

[Sunrise]

I'm talking about those men in the senate or whatever that want to have control over what women can do with their bodies and want to maintain power, when really, it is the women's right to have the choice.

There are women in the senate who also oppose abortion. In fact when the feminist movement first started, it was strongly anti-abortion.

This is not a sexist issue. It is a power-play. Those who have the upper hand are currently the pro-abortion crowds, because they are financially supported by pro-abortion special interest groups. So who exactly is trying to maintain power?

If abortion really is murder, then it is wrong. Regardless of whether the person saying so is male or female.

Not attacking you, _WM, just pointing out a flaw in your argument. There's no snark here, just dead seriousness.

[stronger_WM]

All I'm saying is that if anyone should decide that abortion is illegal, it should be women, because its their body. Men have never been pregnant, and have and never will go through rape, or anything like that.

[Specter]

All I'm saying is that if anyone should decide that abortion is illegal, it should be women, because its their body. Men have never been pregnant, and have and never will go through rape, or anything like that.
But that's just it. It is NOT their body. Are you your mother's body? To say that the baby is just part of the mother's body is foolish, because the baby is also half of the father's body as well. To say that you don't want to give birth to a child because of what it might do to your body is both selfish and dangerous, because it is not a natural thing in the course of child birth and pregnancy, and because you're only thinking of yourself.

Both men AND women oppose abortion. Roe, from Roe v. Wade, is Pro-Life now. That should tell you something.

[stronger_WM]

You are basically telling me that the women's body is not all hers. The baby is half hers and half the mans, but its still IN HER BODY.

I am staying Pro-Choice, and you are staying Pro-Life. We are both strongly opinated about our point of views, and we aren't going to change them. This thread is going to end badly, because it is a sensitive topic.

[unleavened]

You are basically telling me that the women's body is not all hers. The baby is half hers and half the mans, but its still IN HER BODY.
Just for the record (and not to be snotty) this post is coming from a female.

The point is that none of this is about the woman's body, it is about a baby's life.

First off, I'm not sure if you mean that women should be allowed to choose abortion, or if you merely mean that women should choose (for everyone) if abortion will be legal.

It seems to me (and perhaps I am wrong) that the arguement "the woman should be able to choose abortion" stamps the label of parasite on the child. But a human life is not a parasite. It is a gift no matter how it came to be. If a human life is taken is taken it is murder even if the life exists in another's body. Murder is wrong. Murder is illegal. Abortion should be too.

This is my view on things. If you see a breech in my logic then perhaps I was wrong about abortion and it is really ok, but I doubt it.

[Saruman]

It seems to me (and perhaps I am wrong) that the arguement "the woman should be able to choose abortion" stamps the label of parasite on the child. But a human life is not a parasite. It is a gift no matter how it came to be. If a human life is taken is taken it is murder even if the life exists in another's body. Murder is wrong. Murder is illegal. Abortion should be too.

Well said, unleavened.

I am staying Pro-Choice, and you are staying Pro-Life. We are both strongly opinated about our point of views, and we aren't going to change them. This thread is going to end badly, because it is a sensitive topic.

Everyone can hold to an opinion, but only one can be correct. :) I repeat myself concerning what you have said regarding men: I think it is both unfair to the man and entirely shameful of you to declare that it should solely be the mother's choice. I can only hope that you might reconsider where you stand on this particular issue.

[stronger_WM]

Everyone can hold to an opinion, but only one can be correct. :) I repeat myself concerning what you have said regarding men: I think it is both unfair to the man and entirely shameful of you to declare that it should solely be the mother's choice. I can only hope that you might reconsider where you stand on this particular issue.

Opinions aren't facts. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' ITS AN OPINION. Its people like you that annoy me. I'm sorry but its true. You are so not OPEN-MINDED because you can't accept that differen't people have differen't views. You have to have respect for other people's opinion, and if they don't want to change their belief they don't have to. RESPECT. You are not right, and I am not right THERE IS NO RIGHT. i Mean sure in my view im right, but I still have the sense to know that other people don't always think that. Especially people in the 'christianity' section. I am Pro-choice, and I'm PROUD of it.

[Saruman]

Opinions aren't facts. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' ITS AN OPINION. Its people like you that annoy me. I'm sorry but its true. You are so not OPEN-MINDED because you can't accept that differen't people have differen't views. You have to have respect for other people's opinion, and if they don't want to change their belief they don't have to. RESPECT. You are not right, and I am not right THERE IS NO RIGHT. i Mean sure in my view im right, but I still have the sense to know that other people don't always think that. Especially people in the 'christianity' section. I am Pro-choice, and I'm PROUD of it.

You become too defensive, particularly over things which I neither said nor implicated.

I do not post here because I delight to get under your skin. I post here because I wish to express my thoughts as to why I disagree with what you have said, and why I believe you are absolutely incorrect. Please do not get defensive, but I would ask that at least explain why you feel the need to be proud of murder. Can you contend that it isn't murder? Are there viable facts to support your position? Or are you pro-abortion because you just want to be and it doesn't matter what the case is?

I clearly accept that you have a differing opinion, just as clearly as I disagree and contend it here in this discussion by taking a look at certain facts and values. As I said, you can hold true to what you think is right, but it doesn't mean you can be right and I can be right, or that neither can be right, when there actually is a right. If you are correct to say that "there is no right," then I assume it becomes okay for me to shoot my mother dead? I wish to understand your logic, at the very least, in this matter.

[stronger_WM]

You become too defensive, particularly over things which I neither said nor implicated.

I do not post here because I delight to get under your skin. I post here because I wish to express my thoughts as to why I disagree with what you have said, and why I believe you are absolutely incorrect. Please do not get defensive, but I would ask that at least explain why you feel the need to be proud of murder. Can you contend that it isn't murder? Are there viable facts to support your position? Or are you pro-abortion because you just want to be and it doesn't matter what the case is?

I clearly accept that you have a differing opinion, just as clearly as I disagree and contend it here in this discussion by taking a look at certain facts and values. As I said, you can hold true to what you think is right, but it doesn't mean you can be right and I can be right, or that neither can be right, when there actually is a right. If you are correct to say that "there is no right," then I assume it becomes okay for me to shoot my mother dead? I wish to understand your logic, at the very least, in this matter.

I am defensive because its something that I truely believe in. I believe in giving women their rightful choice of their own bodies. I am not one of those people that is behind something just because they are, I have reasons. Women need to have choices, abortion is one of those options.

And I didn't say that "there is no right" in everything, there you are just twisting my words. I said that in matters of opinion, there is no right. For things like abortion, religion, if you are a democrat or republican, and other things.

This discussion should just end here, because we've both said what we've needed to say. I just hope that you don't lose respect for me because of this, and there will be no grudge held because of this.

[Rhyanidd]

Stronger_WM...what is your view on abortion if the mother wasn't raped, if she engaged in sex because she could? (I am just curios as to your stance on this...because you seem to only be addressnig the rape victims).

Specter: You are right when you say the child is half the mans, but if he is a rapist then I DON'T WANT HIM HAVING A CHOICE IN ANYTHING! I had to say that because the man having a decision is only "ok" in my view if he isn't a rapist....I'm sorry but rapists are people who need to be locked up not given a choice.

(I'm still pro-life though, don't get me wrong)

Now I will come at rape from my view...putting aside everything I can.

If I were raped I know I would not want to look down and be constantly reminded of what I went through, girls in this situation I can perfectly understand NOT wanting to go through with the pregnancy. It was a horrible expierence! So I think the solution to this is not making abortion illegal (though that may help in cases of where the girl engaged in sex because she could) but rather to make sure that the girls are educated. And not speaking with anybody's voice but their own. We cant let them speak with our voice or with the abortion clinics voice, they need to be give ALL the facts in a NON-OPINIONATED way. That way its easier for them to make a descion...without feeling obligated to any one person who practically told them only their view was right....(I hope what I am saying makes sense)

And that is a problem with my generation. We are tuned into the media, and what they say goes. On everything, clothes, sex, make up, jewlrey, hair, and babys. I've noticed it with friends of mine.

(again hope I made sense..sorry if I didnt and I wasn't attacking anybody's stance!)

[Elendil]

That's true RF...But it is VERY rare to get pregnet from being raped. It's less then 5% likly.
It would be painful having a baby, if you were raped, (like I said before, I KNOW what I'm on about... :o )but the baby would make up some of the pain.

[Rhyanidd]

That's true RF...But it is VERY rare to get pregnet from being raped. It's less then 5% likly.
It would be painful having a baby, if you were raped, (like I said before, I KNOW what I'm on about... :o )but the baby would make up some of the pain.
Yeah, it is rare, but its still true and those people need to be thought about. I would also like to say that a childs smile and love should be the 8th wonder of the world. Seriously, when I look at my niece and know she loves me I get so choked up because she doesn't care about what I might've done, no matter what she will always love me. I know this is a niece so I would like to put it as a child.

If I kept the child I think that the child would never care what his mother did or what happend to his mother to get him. He would probably not blame her but rather WHOEVER did that to her....

[Eveningstarz_4]

Here are some pics for u...im only posting the links because of the graphicness of them...

An aborted baby at 7 months...still shows human traits! (http://i2.tinypic.com/vmvc76.jpg)

for those of you who say the baby won't feel any pain... (http://i2.tinypic.com/vmvf4h.jpg)

[DeplorableWord]

Here are some pics for u...im only posting the links because of the graphicness of them...

An aborted baby at 7 months...still shows human traits! (http://i2.tinypic.com/vmvc76.jpg)

for those of you who say the baby won't feel any pain... (http://i2.tinypic.com/vmvf4h.jpg)

I think we've (or most of us) have all seen pictures of poor aborted babies. Unfortunately, many people, after seeing those horrific pictures, still argue that when you have an abortion, it is not killing a life...

[unleavened]

Opinions aren't facts. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' ITS AN OPINION. Its people like you that annoy me. I'm sorry but its true. You are so not OPEN-MINDED because you can't accept that differen't people have differen't views. You have to have respect for other people's opinion, and if they don't want to change their belief they don't have to. RESPECT. You are not right, and I am not right THERE IS NO RIGHT. i Mean sure in my view im right, but I still have the sense to know that other people don't always think that. Especially people in the 'christianity' section. I am Pro-choice, and I'm PROUD of it.
I know you like to end this discussion, and I promise I do not mean to annoy you. The reason I continue posing on this subject is b/c I really care about the babies. I must also say that I do not think less of you b/c of your view.

I know you probably think me closed minded, but I must say these things for the sake of those children who have been murdered.

I suggest (I strongly believe this, but suggest that you consider) that abortion is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of life and death. (I do not say this accusing you) You seem to be looking at abortion from the woman's point of view. This makes sense b/c you are a woman (I assume?). But not I entreat you: Look at the child's position. Is that woman's comfort more valuable than a human life? Yes, women should have rights to choose. I very much like my right to choose what to dress in, what to eat, what to say. But no man (or woman) should have the right to choose to kill me. The choice granted women (the choice of abortion, I mean) infringes of the right of the child to live. If you ask me, the right to live far outweighs the right to choose.

Again, I do not mean to insult you or wound you. I feel that I must, when oportunity presents itself, speak the truth of the matter. Please, Please do not brush off this post as simply closed minded or melodramatic! I speak out of passion for the lives of chidren.

[SusanoftheSouthernSun]

Oh my gosh those pictures were just...wow.


I am still pro-life and always will be. My mom is part a group that talks to women who are pregnant or have children, helping with many different aspects, financial, supplies, even giving info if they are debating whether to have the child or not. They are pro-life, but they give the facts.

And I would like to add that while I might not agree with all the points that have been shown here, I respect everyone for having an opinion and for sharing them. However, I would like to ask that everyone remember to treat everyone here with respect. No, I am not a mod, but this is a really difficult topic and while we might disagree, let's do so in a harsh or hurtful way. We are all here to discuss, not fight.

[Specter]

Specter: You are right when you say the child is half the mans, but if he is a rapist then I DON'T WANT HIM HAVING A CHOICE IN ANYTHING! I had to say that because the man having a decision is only "ok" in my view if he isn't a rapist....I'm sorry but rapists are people who need to be locked up not given a choice.
Right, and in said cases, the rapist would then forfeit any and all rights to decide on the life of the child.

[Sunrise]

And I didn't say that "there is no right" in everything, there you are just twisting my words. I said that in matters of opinion, there is no right. For things like abortion, religion, if you are a democrat or republican, and other things.


I have to disagree. An opinion that is based on faulty information can indeed be wrong.

A few thousand years ago, everyone was of the opinion that the earth was flat. We don't ridicule them, because they didn't have the scientific knowlege to see otherwise. But if you were to take a person from that era, prove to them mathematically and physically that the earth is round, show them satellite photos of the earth, and send them on an around-the-world trip by boat or plane, and after all this, they still persisted in believing that the world was flat, you could have no choice but to say that their opinion is wrong.

Let's take an example even closer to home. Less than two hundred years ago, a certain portion of the American population was of the opinion that black Africans were not people, but property. By your logic, Abraham Lincoln was mistaken in writing the Emancipation Proclamation. How dare the government, who didn't own slaves, tell its citizens what to do with theirs! Sound familiar? How dare the government, which doesn't own my body, tell me what to do with it!

Well, it's simple. Once my perceived "right" infringes on someone else's right, it ceases to be my right at all. I have a right to drive my car. My car has the capability of going two hundred miles an hour. But if I were to actually exercise my right to drive my car at that speed, I would be arrested for endangering the lives of others.

My "right" to an abortion infringes upon the right of my unborn child. A child is not the property of its mother to dispose of as she pleases, any more than a slave was really the property of his owner (regardless of that owner's opinion on the matter). I may be inconvenienced by having to carry and give birth to the child, but we don't kill people simply because they are an inconvenience (except in the case of abortion.) If we could, I'd never have to wait in line. But my right to do as I like with my own body ends the moment I use it to injure someone else. This is the premise all law is based on.

With all the medical facts at our disposal about an unborn child, what and who he or she really is, any opinion that persists in the belief that the child should be disposed of at the whim of ANYONE else acting upon their supposed right, I can only describe as a faulty and wrong opinion.

You accuse us of being close-minded, W_M. Are you willing to open your own mind on this issue, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you to examine the facts? (Not opinions. Facts.) If not, then you can hardly accuse anyone of close-mindedness without holding up a mirror.

[Parthian King]

Opinions aren't facts. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' ITS AN OPINION. Its people like you that annoy me. I'm sorry but its true. You are so not OPEN-MINDED because you can't accept that differen't people have differen't views. You have to have respect for other people's opinion, and if they don't want to change their belief they don't have to. RESPECT. You are not right, and I am not right THERE IS NO RIGHT.

I have left this quotation impersonal, on the one hand, because my intent is not to dialogue with someone on this point (especially when they appear to have little interest in dialogue). On the other hand, in contrast to what another poster has said in response to these same words (I don't want to offend, annoy, etc.), I have little compunction. I don't care if I annoy or offend, though evoking neither of those emotions is my goal.

These words are patently absurd, mantra though they may be of the postmodern age. How dare I be so blatant here? So offensive? Well, take one step toward stripping those who say such things of their perceived rights, of offending their sensibilities, of stepping on what they think is appropriate, and you are broadsided with a barage of "right and wrong" that would make a starchy Puritan look like a bleeding heart liberal. Never mind the obvious stuff, like robbing such a person in broad daylight, or striking them, or killing them outright--everybody will start screaming about "right and wrong" then. No, you won't have to go that far with the postmoderns who scream for relativism when it applies to the life of an innocent child. Just talk about opinions, points of view, and attitudes--and you are on sacred ground. These ideas are inviolate in this age, and even blood (someone else's of course) is not too high a price to pay. That's why we read these shrill words in this forum. The hypocrisy would be downright amusing if human beings weren't dying for it.

This nonsense about "there's no right and wrong" is just that: Nonsense. If I try to take away the all sacred "opinion" that is referred to by this post--I will be called wrong without hesitation (as Curumo was), proving the inner contradiction of the position. What is odd to me about the dynamic I see is how those who want to preserve life have to tiptoe around such bombastic swill, begging that the other not be offended, while the person with no fear or compuction about the human blood on their hands can rage and scoff to their heart's content. Oh, but there's no right and wrong--just opinion.

[unleavened]

Very logically put Sunrise! I agree with you, needless to say.

PK, I'm not sure you read WM's next post were she said she didn't believe there were no rights and wrongs. What she said in the section you quoted she only ment to apply to this particular issue. Though in general, PK, you are absolutely right. And I adressed the truth of WM's statement portaining to this particular issue in my previous post. So you need'nt think I am agreeing with the statement - just setting the record straight.

[Charn_Tim]

Very logically put Sunrise! I agree with you, needless to say.

PK, I'm not sure you read WM's next post were she said she didn't believe there were no rights and wrongs. What she said in the section you quoted she only ment to apply to this particular issue. Though in general, PK, you are absolutely right. And I adressed the truth of WM's statement portaining to this particular issue in my previous post. So you need'nt think I am agreeing with the statement - just setting the record straight.

unleavened, I think that's why PK left the quote anonymous, and replied in general to the post-modernist belief here that several have shared in this thread. But regardless, what makes WM believe there is no right and wrong in this situation anyway? That's completely absurd. Why should there not be a right and a wrong in this case, where a life hangs in the balance. The very disagreement itself-one side claiming that "there is no right and wrong" and another claiming "abortion is wrong"-undermines her whole argument anyway.

[Parthian King]

Very logically put Sunrise! I agree with you, needless to say.

PK, I'm not sure you read WM's next post were she said she didn't believe there were no rights and wrongs. What she said in the section you quoted she only ment to apply to this particular issue. Though in general, PK, you are absolutely right. And I adressed the truth of WM's statement portaining to this particular issue in my previous post. So you need'nt think I am agreeing with the statement - just setting the record straight.

I caught the post. It does nothing to change what she said previously. For her to set aside--quarantine, as it were--certain issues that are dear to her and place them off limits from moral restraint is precisely the postmodern construct I was referring to. That is pure artifice: First say that opinion and personal perspective is inviolate--making having and exercising an opinion the highest right, and thereby turning defending or denying that "right" into the highest form of moral right and wrong. Next, hand pick which issues we are going to say are not moral issues, but merely issues of opinion. It is all too easy. Once we have established the first, all we have to do is philosophically work in our society to take issue after issue that is inconveniently bogged down by all those religious fanatics who want to talk about right and wrong, and place them in the "opinion" category. Amazing how this person has placed an infant's life with so much dexterity in the same category of which political party you choose, what the best books are, and what is the preferable form of water sports. Hey, there's no right and wrong when it comes to certain things, it's all just opinion.

The blood of millions of infants screams that it has more to do with right and wrong than whether you like plain or peanut.

[nomi07]

i think it would be absolutly wrong to get one...they insert a tub into ur body n suck it out and then put the peices bak togethter just to check u have got them all out....now if thats not wrong i don't no what is...i will NEVER have one thats for sure...it's like MURDER!!!

[lions mane]

i just want to add, that this is a very interesting topic and thread!

but i just think that if the mother doesn't want to bring their child into this world it is completely up to them. specter mentioned something a little earlier about a child not being a mothers (or soemthing to that sense) but that really don't make sense to me. i mean, if the child doesn't belong to the mother while it's in the (can i say?) whomb, then who the heck is responsible for the child?

i just say pro-choice, cause i don't think it's really anyone elses business what a lady does to her body and the child that she is carrying (or in some of your very own opinions) murdering!

[Charn_Tim]

specter mentioned something a little earlier about a child not being a mothers (or soemthing to that sense) but that really don't make sense to me. i mean, if the child doesn't belong to the mother while it's in the (can i say?) whomb, then who the heck is responsible for the child?
Gabe, it makes sense to me, in the same way that this fact makes sense to me: the mother is responsible for an infant's life, but that still doesn't give her the right to kill it. In the same way that a newborn baby is wholly dependent on the mother for life, a unborn baby is too. Why should a distinction be made between the two?

[Saruman]

My friend Gabe, I just wish to ask you one thing: in the declaration that abortion is murder, what makes you conclude that this is just an opinion? You don't view the termination of an unborn human's life as murder?

This is not an issue of pro-choice in the least. If anything, pro-choice ought to be used concerning good things, i.e. I'm pro-choice for Jesus Christ. To say "pro-choice" regarding a woman's right to murder is not at all an excellent use of this term, and really is just a way of sugarcoating an issue that is extremely and significantly serious, something far more than to be reduced to a mere matter of "opinion."

You don't really stop to consider that the child just might belong to Someone who is responsible for forming it in the womb of its mother. This issue is, on the whole, extremely spiritual.

I find myself only echoing Parthian King on this issue, because his words ring very true. This is not to be lightly thrown aside. And in all this discussion it seems to me that people forget about the husband or the man, the other half responsible for procreation. I find it extremely shameful and an extreme disgrace that any woman should declare they alone have the "right" to make such a decision. I don't know if anyone could get any more arrogant than that.

This issue is deep. I only ask others to reconsider thinking why something so heinous as destroying a living being is as nothing. Should the same thing be said about you?

[Elendil]

Hech Gabe! The baby isn't part of HER body, it is a whole nother body inside her!

[lions mane]

uhmmm... there is really no other way to put a womans decision on aborting a fetus as "pro-choice"
and i'm unsure, what the father has to do with anything. they're not the ones carrying the child.... and what if they are no longer there at all?.... what if it was something like a rape and they were only there for that brief (horrible) time in the womans life! should those men be able to decide if the lady aborts the baby?

does this make sense? i hate posting long post (even though compared to some of you guys this is very short), cause i feel like i just babble on and it don't make much sense ya know?

[lions mane]

Hech Gabe! The baby isn't part of HER body, it is a whole nother body inside her!
yes it is..... but do you realise what you just stated? the fetus is still in the mothes body! therefore making it hers to do as she chooses!

[Elendil]

HUH! That doesn't make it her's! Only God has the right to choose what happens to the baby.

[lions mane]

HUH! That doesn't make it her's! Only God has the right to choose what happens to the baby.
if that was true about god then why does he let it happen?

[Elendil]

If a mother chooses to sin, that's her choice. God will judge her for it.

[Charn_Tim]

uhmmm... there is really no other way to put a womans decision on aborting a fetus as "pro-choice"
and i'm unsure, what the father has to do with anything. they're not the ones carrying the child.... and what if they are no longer there at all?.... what if it was something like a rape and they were only there for that brief (horrible) time in the womans life! should those men be able to decide if the lady aborts the baby?

does this make sense? i hate posting long post (even though compared to some of you guys this is very short), cause i feel like i just babble on and it don't make much sense ya know?
Gabe, how can you say you're unsure what the father has to do with anything? that's like saying, "Without the mother, the newborn baby will die, because it's the mother's milk that it needs. Thus, it's wholly the mother's and not the father's at all." That's not true at all! It has half of the father's genes inside it, making it half of the father's. The fact that it is inside of the mother doesn't make it exclusively hers.

You also are mixing two separate cases together: that of a normal pregnancy, and that of a rape situation (which comprises far less than 1 % of the cases).

[Saruman]

Well, the issue of a rapist having any part in the decision has already been discussed, and the answer is very much a good decided no. Yet the father has every right to make a decision in the matter. Apparently you must think very little of the importance of fathers in participating in procreation. I guess their role has just become much of a secondary one, with no value?

Yes, there is a reasonable alternative other than calling murder "pro-choice," and that is calling it murder.

And Gabe, of course you make perfect sense. It is what you think that really makes no sense at all.

As to "why God lets these things happen," it's not in His will that abortion should happen. God created man with the ability to make choices, which has been the base of the argument. He gave the earth over to man. Man chose to sin, and when that happened, we gave this earth over to the devil. God will not stop us from making our decisions. He will seek to guide our decisions, if we let Him, but if people choose not to follow God, then they will make whatever choice they want. But we are certainly going to be responsible for every choice we make. It won't go unforgotten.

[lions mane]

yah tim.... i'm not sure if i want to believe that about the rape being less then 10%, i mean, how many ladys that get abortions (that were raped) do you think admitt to getting raped?

[Elendil]

It is VERY unlikly that you'd get pregnet from being raped.

[Charn_Tim]

yah tim.... i'm not sure if i want to believe that about the rape being less then 10%, i mean, how many ladys that get abortions (that were raped) do you think admitt to getting raped?
well, these are anonymous tests, and I think the error is actually more on the side of them wanting to believe they were raped even though they might not have been, rather than the other way around. It's far more likely that it is an overestimate than an underestimate, given the anonymous nature of the survey.

[lions mane]

Well, the issue of a rapist having any part in the decision has already been discussed, and the answer is very much a good decided no. Yet the father has every right to make a decision in the matter. Apparently you must think very little of the importance of fathers in participating in procreation. I guess their role has just become much of a secondary one, with no value?

Yes, there is a reasonable alternative other than calling murder "pro-choice," and that is calling it murder.

And Gabe, of course you make perfect sense. It is what you think that really makes no sense at all.

As to "why God lets these things happen," it's not in His will that abortion should happen. God created man with the ability to make choices, which has been the base of the argument. He gave the earth over to man. Man chose to sin, and when that happened, we gave this earth over to the devil. God will not stop us from making our decisions. He will seek to guide our decisions, if we let Him, but if people choose not to follow God, then they will make whatever choice they want. But we are certainly going to be responsible for every choice we make. It won't go unforgotten.
but you guys just keep pushing my point right accross the line!

i mean caount how many times you stated "choice" in that paragraph there curumo. and that's basically what i kinda been stating this whole time! it's really the mothers choice what she does with whatever she's carrying in her body!

and thanks, i wasn't sure if i was making much sense!

[Charn_Tim]

but you guys just keep pushing my point right accross the line!

i mean caount how many times you stated "choice" in that paragraph there curumo. and that's basically what i kinda been stating this whole time! it's really the mothers choice what she does with whatever she's carrying in her body!

and thanks, i wasn't sure if i was making much sense!
Gabe, my friend, you've entirely missed Curumo's point if you think that pushes your point across. God also gave man the right to CHOOSE to kill another human being too. But we make laws that punish to curb this choice and make it far less likely that he will choose this. The question isn't whether the mother has the right to do with her body what she pleases; it is whether the fetus has the right to live.

[Saruman]

but you guys just keep pushing my point right accross the line!

i mean caount how many times you stated "choice" in that paragraph there curumo. and that's basically what i kinda been stating this whole time! it's really the mothers choice what she does with whatever she's carrying in her body!

and thanks, i wasn't sure if i was making much sense!

How is it that I've pushed your point "across the line"? It is the choice that is the heart of the issue indeed. It can be defined as something good or something evil as I have stated, and in choosing abortion, the "choice of the mother" becomes extremely evil. If it's cancer, that's one thing. If it's a human life, then it's something entirely different.

What I am saying in all this is that, while the mother chooses to terminate human life, she has become a murderer (though other discussions have been carried out regarding certain extreme cases of life and death, though I personally believe one should be given over to prayer in those instances - the story of my own birth is one such an example). As such, the mother who willingly aborts her unborn child becomes no more different than the terrorist who chose to take part in the events of 9/11.

[lions mane]

and i'm saying it's the womans choice to decide that.

[lions mane]

curumo! you cannot (cannot) compare the people who did 9/11 to a mother aborting a child!
those people were/are evil in every aspect, and one simple woman can't compare to them!

[Saruman]

curumo! you cannot (cannot) compare the people who did 9/11 to a mother aborting a child!
those people were/are evil in every aspect, and one simple woman can't compare to them!

Why not? They are murderers, Gabe, just as those who chose to kill the people going in to work on the morning of 9/11 were. If there is any difference, please clarify it for me.

[Charn_Tim]

gabe, until you can convince us what's so magical about coming out of the birth canal that suddenly makes the unborn baby "human" and with all the normal rights a human being can have, killing an unborn baby is the same as a terrorist on 9/11.

[lions mane]

Why not? They are murderers, Gabe, just as those who chose to kill the people going in to work on the morning of 9/11 were. If there is any difference, please clarify it for me.
well, for one those people were/are evil and did what they did knowing they were ganna destroy lives!

is there any more that i need to say other then that!

a woman isn't destroying any lives, just that of hers.

[Saruman]

Gabe, Gabe, Gabe, I love and appreciate you so much, please understand that! You make a great King over Narnia!

But no, Gabe, think about what it is you just said:

well, for one those people were/are evil and did what they did knowing they were ganna destroy lives

a woman isn't destroying any lives, just that of hers

Gabe...reason with me here. You know it, you know it very well: yes, the mother is murdering a life. No difference. Y punto.

[lions mane]

gabe, until you can convince us what's so magical about coming out of the birth canal that suddenly makes the unborn baby "human" and with all the normal rights a human being can have, killing an unborn baby is the same as a terrorist on 9/11.
i'm sorry but that is absurd. how? how is a woman that has an abortion 1/100 as bad as what those terrorist did that day?

(off topic, but is absurd spelt like that or like this: abserd? or neither? :o )

[lions mane]

Gabe, Gabe, Gabe, I love and appreciate you so much, please understand that! You make a great King over Narnia!

But no, Gabe, think about what it is you just said:



Gabe...reason with me here. You know it, you know it very well: yes, the mother is murdering a life. No difference. Y punto.
i am just ganna totally dis-agree with you.

the only life she is destroying is hers, and i say that cause she may always regret her decision.

and i appreciate you aswell

[Charn_Tim]

well, first of all, it's "absurd" hehe

the terrorists are as bad, because they took a life just like the mother ended a life. You still haven't made any argument as to why the life in the womb is any different in principle from the life outside the womb.

[lions mane]

You still haven't made any argument as to why the life in the womb is any different in principle from the life outside the womb.
it just is! you can't compare the life (or whatever you want to call it) that a woman is carrying and the life of someone who has been living for 20 years!

unless, you can, but it won't be justified. ;)

[Charn_Tim]

it just is! you can't compare the life (or whatever you want to call it) that a woman is carrying and the life of someone who has been living for 20 years!

unless, you can, but it won't be justified. ;)
HAHA, you can't make an argument by saying, "It just is!!" *frustrated* (j/k)

then are you saying that a newborn doesn't have as much of a right to live as you do, and that you don't have as much of a right to live as a middle aged person does? A newborn baby isn't fully developed, and neither is an unborn baby. What makes it right to kill an unborn baby, and not a newborn baby?

[lions mane]

HAHA, you can't make an argument by saying, "It just is!!" *frustrated* (j/k)

then are you saying that a newborn doesn't have as much of a right to live as you do, and that you don't have as much of a right to live as a middle aged person does? A newborn baby isn't fully developed, and neither is an unborn baby. What makes it right to kill an unborn baby, and not a newborn baby?
i must addmitt tim, i am at a lost for words...... i really don't know how to reply to that! ya know?

[Charn_Tim]

i must addmitt tim, i am at a lost for words...... i really don't know how to reply to that! ya know?
okay, man, no problem. I just hope you keep thinking about the issue, like I do, and remember what C.S. Lewis says, "The only reason to believe in something is if it is true." So if you have no justification for why you believe in something, then why believe it...? (kind of rhetorical, you don't need to answer obviously)

[stronger_WM]

i must addmitt tim, i am at a lost for words...... i really don't know how to reply to that! ya know?

Don't worry you aren't the only pro-choice person in this thread.

And I truely think that you cannot compare peopole that have abortions to the terrorists of 9/11

[Queen Swanwhite]

Don't worry you aren't the only pro-choice person in this thread.

And I truely think that you cannot compare peopole that have abortions to the terrorists of 9/11

Of course you can't. They're completly different.

[Charn_Tim]

Don't worry you aren't the only pro-choice person in this thread.
What's that supposed to mean? The fact that there is more than one person who is pro-choice has nothing to do with the truth value or justification of your position. About 500 years ago, almost everyone believed the earth was flat; the fact that people believed this says absolutely nothing about the question of whether the earth was flat or round.

And I truely think that you cannot compare peopole that have abortions to the terrorists of 9/11
why not? Perhaps you can answer this question for me, because no one else has yet: Where should we draw the line as to where "life" begins? - when an individual exits the birth canal? when the heart starts beating? at conception?

[Moe92]

Yes, sometimes there are reasons for abortion. If the mother is too young and is too young to give birth, the mother is sick basically too weak, or the child is sick, or it was a,um, accident.. ;) :)

it doesn't matter if it was an accident. If she had sex then its her fault.

[stronger_WM]

What's that supposed to mean? The fact that there is more than one person who is pro-choice has nothing to do with the truth value or justification of your position. About 500 years ago, almost everyone believed the earth was flat; the fact that people believed this says absolutely nothing about the question of whether the earth was flat or round.


why not? Perhaps you can answer this question for me, because no one else has yet: Where should we draw the line as to where "life" begins? - when an individual exits the birth canal? when the heart starts beating? at conception?

I was just saying that because people in your position gang up on pro-choicers.

I really don't care if people thought that the earth was flat 500 years ago. And really, the way that you are saying that more and more people started realizing that the world was round is like more and more people becoming pro-choice. Its also like that with the acceptance of gays and lesbians. For one thing, you all have made the arguement that a fetus can feel pain. Well for some of its life it can, and for others it can't! If the brain hasn't fully developed that it can't feel pain. And I'm pretty sure a fetus at a couple of weeks or even a month doesn't have its brain fully developed.

[Sunrise]

You may not care what people thought 500 years ago, but the point is that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make their belief correct.

"More and more people becoming pro-choice" is nothing like more and more people believing the world is round. That it is round is a scientific fact, and people were finally convinced of this because it could be objectively proven. They "saw the light", so to speak.

The only light dawning on pro-choicers is the realization that medical technology has made it possible for them to behave in an irresponsible manner with no fear of the consequences. Their decision is not based on fact but on wishful thinking and selfishness.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I was just saying that because people in your position gang up on pro-choicers.
The worst "ganging up" being done is on unborn children. In the United States, abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason in every one of the fifty states. There is no consideration for questions such as the child being able to feel pain, or be conscious, or live outside the womb, or anything of that nature. Court rulings have, and continue to, strike down even the most reasonable restrictions on the practice. Even though other nations permit abortion, none have the wide-open liberalism of the U.S. rulings - all in the name of "woman's choice", with no regard to any other rights that may be in the question (e.g. the rights of the baby, the rights of the father, the rights of society at large.) All these rights are disregarded in the face of the woman's "right to choose".

The last time we saw such a lopsided, narrow-minded focus in the U.S. was over the slavery question. As I've mentioned in this thread before, to the slaveowners, every right was subducted to that of property rights. The slaves were their property, and all other rights fell before that. The rights of the other citizens to determine the type of society they lived in, the rights of the slaves themselves, the rights of other states - all were discounted before the precious "property rights" of the slaveholders.

Make no mistake: abortion will come to an end in the United States, and in other nations as well. The only question is whether we end it ourselves or whether it is ended for us. The longer it takes, the more terrible will be the price. Considering that we barely ended slavery on our own, and even now the price is still high, I dread to think what the price for abortion will be. It's already terrible. I've prayed with too many women screaming in grief as they come to grips with the fact that they killed their own children. One woman I know aborted the only two children she will ever bear - the last abortion irreversibly scarred her womb. That's a common side effect of abortion, but she was never told that. Our state had a law requiring abortionists to inform women of such side effects, but the pro-abortionists filed a lawsuit to block the law. I guess they only want ignorant women making choices. Is that the kind of choice you want, stronger_WM? Choices made in ignorance?

[Saruman]

To Parthian King, aye and amen. And excellent comments, Sunrise and PotW, if I may say.

Of course you can't. They're completly different.

They are not at all different, for to murder another human life, even only one, is comparable to another murdering another. A woman who murders her unborn child has done just that evil thing: she has committed murder. The terrorists on 9/11 murdered at least one person. Therefore, not only is the 9/11 analogy perfect in every way on this issue, I think in many ways the woman murdering an unborn child is just as evil and pernicious - if not worse - than the terrorists of 9/11.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[Queen Swanwhite]

To Parthian King, aye and amen. And excellent comments, Sunrise and PotW, if I may say.



They are not at all different, for to murder another human life, even only one, is comparable to another murdering another. A woman who murders her unborn child has done just that evil thing: she has committed murder. The terrorists on 9/11 murdered at least one person. Therefore, not only is the 9/11 analogy perfect in every way on this issue, I think in many ways the woman murdering an unborn child is just as evil and pernicious - if not worse - than the terrorists of 9/11.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I mean, evil people intended to murder hundreds of people. There was no reason for it. Abortion, may have to be carried out. It is the mother's choice to have an abortion or not, and this is a very sensitive topic, and alot of, not arguing, but debate has been going on, and it's just not on. It's not going to change anything about it. At the end of the day, it is murder, but sometimes it is needed, for the reasons I have already said. It is the mother's choice, so just leave it.

[stronger_WM]

You guys can bombard me with all the facts, all the knowledge, you can call me arrogant for just sticking to my choice, but I am pro-choice, and people need options. It isn't as simple as 'oh im going to have the baby!' and 'oh im going to abort my baby!'. There are reasons and conditions we don't know of unless we go through the experience ourselves.

[Saruman]

I mean, evil people intended to murder hundreds of people. There was no reason for it. Abortion, may have to be carried out. It is the mother's choice to have an abortion or not, and this is a very sensitive topic, and alot of, not arguing, but debate has been going on, and it's just not on. It's not going to change anything about it. At the end of the day, it is murder, but sometimes it is needed, for the reasons I have already said. It is the mother's choice, so just leave it.

But I can't leave it, Queen Swanwhite. The very fact that it is a sensitive issue is all the more reason that it needs to be weighed and balanced.

I understand there are situations in which the mother's life is in critical danger. Personally, I am of the belief that one ought to be given over to prayer instead of seeking to terminate the child (otherwise, I just might not be here today if my mother decided not to pray with a pastor and decided on an abortion, which was the furthest thing from her mind).

You are right: we can debate until the cows come home for all that matter, but it won't change the fact that abortion is, and forever will be, wrong. And I very much wish to echo my brother PotW on this matter:

Make no mistake: abortion will come to an end in the United States, and in other nations as well. The only question is whether we end it ourselves or whether it is ended for us. The longer it takes, the more terrible will be the price.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

You guys can bombard me with all the facts, all the knowledge, you can call me arrogant for just sticking to my choice, but I am pro-choice, and people need options. It isn't as simple as 'oh im going to have the baby!' and 'oh im going to abort my baby!'. There are reasons and conditions we don't know of unless we go through the experience ourselves.
"You people can bombard me with all the facts, all the knowledge, you can call me arrogant for just sticking with my choice, but I am pro-slavery, and people need options. It isn't as simple as "that's a human being who shouldn't be bought and sold"! There are reasons and conditions! Our whole economy would collapse if we didn't have slaves! They aren't really human anyway! You abolitionists don't own slaves, you don't own land, so you can't know unless you experience it yourselves!"