Author Topic: Question to religious "pro-lifers" (only, plz). (Read 2795 times)

miko2d · « **on:** December 02, 2002, 01:28:25 PM »

OK, guys, I totally understand your religion tells you the fetus is a human being - a child - from the very conception and directs you to preserve its life and/or prevent other people from killing theirs.
I mean, you do not have any choice but to follow the imperatives of your faith and I appreciate those of you who restrain yourself to acting within the boundaries of law. While "pro-choice" myself, I believe the Consitution reserves to the states the right to legislate abortion - but that is besides the point.

My question is, why are many of you endorsing so obvious lie when subscribing to the "outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health risk to the mother".

Where does the Bible say "It's OK to kill the kid if the father has misbehaved"? Care to name chapter and verse? (Not the one about suffering for fathers' sins for seven generations - it assumes children being left alive"). Cause if it does, why stop on fetuses, let's kill all children of murderers and rapists. They tend to grow up antisocial anyway burdened with bad genetic predispositions and family environment.
Don't even get me started on arbitrarily determined "health risk". Those words are not really synonyms for "imminent" and "death".
So, how do you reconcile that with your consciense/faith?

I mean, standing up for what you believe in may slightly undermine your chances of political success (it's not like even your watered down "compromise" is likely to succeed anyway), but doesn't integrity and honesty before your own God, if not fellow humans, count for something?

miko

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:54:00 PM »

you are correct, if you follow the letter of the Christian law - you would not be able to abort for any reason

that said - please provide percentage figures of abortions which are performed for your above reasons and the percentage performed as birth control .

are you saying because what (under 3% - if that) some are performed for your reasons, the other 97% (my guess) should be allowed to happen as well - uncontested?

sorry, I don't think so

and this is will be my only response to yet another abortion thread ...

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:09:22 PM »

One of the original justifications for the legalization of abortion was given to be the need of women who had a life-threatening pregnancy who could only get an abortion illegally, in a dark alley, with some half-witted, half-trained, medical quack.

Fair enough. I see the necessity of that. What has happened since Roe v. Wade has been a skyrocketing use of legal abortions for convenience, rather than for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Also, there has been an abandonment of any moral restraint on the part of those availing themselves of abortion. The mind set of some of these women seems to be that anything that relieves them of the responsibility of their own actions is perfectly fine, the rights of the "fetus" be hanged. The very use of the word "fetus" when referring to an unborn child desensitizes the public to the impact of abortion. Society, as well as the unborn child, has been a victim of the legalization of abortion on demand.

Shuckins

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:57:07 PM »

I don't think there's any moral basis for distinguishing between the cases of consensual and non-consensual impregnation. If a fetus is a life, then it's a life regardless of how it came to be.

It seems to me that the only intellectually defensible boundary that exists between life and pre-life is birth. In other words, either the fetus is a life upon conception or it is not a life until it draws its first breath. I don't see how one can pick some point in the middle. The Chinese have adopted the latter perspective to justify terminating "unauthorized" pregnancies immediately before birth; I choose the former.

- JNOV

miko2d · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:40:21 PM »

Eagler: are you saying because what (under 3% - if that) some are performed for your reasons, the other 97% (my guess) should be allowed to happen as well - uncontested?

I absolutely am not saying that. If you are interested in my reasons why I cannot claim any rights to interfere with other families' freedom of action when it comes to their internal affairs, I will be happy to explain them in a separate polite discussion. They certainly are not based on this logical contradiction in some christians' position but on basic libertarian definitions of terms "rights" and "freedom".

In this particular thread I want to understand how people modify the tenet "you shall not kill a human being" by adding "unless his father has allegedely (some rapes are 'rapes') misbehaved and the total killed is under X%".
It's not a matter of percentages but of principle. I have no problem dealing withg people who's principles radically differ from mine. I have problem with lying weasels who have no principles to speak of.

The answers I expected here were "97% saved are better than nothing, so we are willing to compromise and put our signature under law that allows 3% of innocents killed and hope God understands..." or "huh... I did not think of that..." or "wow, that is wrong and should be stopped!" or the clear-cut "I already stand for no abortions, period!" (as per LoneStarBuckeye ) or hopefully something substantial and enlightening.

H. Godwineson: One of the original justifications for the legalization of abortion was given to be the need of women who had a life-threatening pregnancy

That is obviously bogus reason - as was evident to anyone. The woman whos' live is in imminent danger does not get an abortion induced - she gets an emergency C-section.
The "chance of complications" may be fine as a guiding principle for for an atheist scientist but how can it be compatible with belief in God? Unless the mother is obviously dying, how can any christian claim to understand God's plans?

miko

StSanta · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:27:02 PM »

Miko, interesting questions. If I understand it correct, what you're asking is this:

A) God says that all killing of children (fetuses) is wrong.
B) Some (most?) Christians are ready to let a woman who've been raped or gotten pregnant due to incest have an abortion.

B conflicts with A. This means that some Christians are inconsistent, and how can good Christians reconcile this with their faith?

Is this how your question is to be understood?

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:48:16 PM »

Hmmm. Seems I read someplace that more than half the women who claim to be raped, claim to be raped again within a decade. Think about it.

The dichotomy you draw up is not as clear as implied. If the baby is from a forced rape or incest, the woman is forcibly harmed by delivering. If aborted, the baby suffers. Screwed either way, no clean 'redemptive' solution like you want. The idea is to reduce the suffering by innocents and it becomes a nihilistic dilemma.

The qualifications are really added largely out of practicality, as this makes anti-abortion legislation more feasible.

How about the other side of this? What about fathers who don't misbehave? Should a wife have carte blanche to abort a baby even if her husband wants the child? This is the current situation and women have aborted kids to spite or hurt their husbands.

I actually know a couple of 'womyn' who have gotten knocked up and aborted just to be at one with the sisterhood. Keeps 'em fired up somehow.

Do any of you know what the O.T. Law is regarding rape? In most modern cases you could justify stoning BOTH parties.

mullah

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:49:44 PM »

Exactly, StSanta. I understand that discomfort of the rape victim having to carry the unwanted baby to term can be reduced (provided the mother herself is willing to end the baby's life), but for a christian such a tradeoff - comfort for innocent life - clearly contradicts the letter and the spirit of the Bible.

RDSaustinTX - Screwed either way, no clean 'redemptive' solution like you want.

I am not saying here what I want. There is obvious clear solution for a faithfull christian - to preserve a life, even at the cost of discomfort or risk to the mother. It's mandated in clear terms.
Yes, outlawing abortion but leaving that loophole would cause most women to claim they had been raped in order to have an abortion. All the more reason for christians not to profane their faith with political compromises which would NOT do much good anyway.
Please do not hijack the thread - question of father's rights was discussed extencisvely on this board.

miko

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:52:35 PM »

Quote

you shall not kill a human being

Actually, this is better translated as "Thou shalt do no murder".

WAAAY different.

Pro-lifers generally prefer, "Blessed are them who deliver those about to be drawn unto death" I think.

mullah

Thrawn · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:56:02 PM »

If "Thou shalt not murder" implies legal killing is okay, ie. execution. Then abortion wouldn't be a sin as it is legal, right?

midnight Target · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2002, 04:58:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RDSaustinTX
Hmmm. Seems I read someplace that more than half the women who claim to be raped, claim to be raped again within a decade. Think about it.

snip

I actually know a couple of 'womyn' who have gotten knocked up and aborted just to be at one with the sisterhood. Keeps 'em fired up somehow.

snip
mullah

I smell something.....

hard to tell whether its rotting troll or just dead brain cells....

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:00:59 PM »

Quote

for a christian such a tradeoff - comfort for innocent life - clearly contradicts the letter and the spirit of the Bible.

Now wait a minute.

1. Comfort is the absence of discomfort. We are conceivably talking about something a tad more traumatic.

2. Are you debating the actions of christian women or what should be in civil law? If Christians can cut abortions by a million/yr with a law, what is unchristian about supporting that law? The objection that it is not hard enough on raped women?

Is it more Christian, in your understanding, to support the current law?

As regards the 'letters' of religious law, quote 'em plz. Much of what people understand to be canon ain't in there. And vice versa.

Your absolutist logic extended would have the entire Judeo-Christian world in revolt because you can legally shop on Sunday (another one of the big ten, ya know).

mullah

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:04:43 PM »

Quote

I smell something.....

And I read nothing of any consequence (or indicative of live brain cells) in your post.

If the first statement is true, it might be damned relevant. The second statement you quote I KNOW to be true.

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #13 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:06:25 PM »

Quote

If "Thou shalt not murder" implies legal killing is okay, ie. execution. Then abortion wouldn't be a sin as it is legal, right?

Adultery is legal, too.

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #14 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:07:34 PM »

Quote

Please do not hijack the thread - question of father's rights was discussed extencisvely on this board.

Oops. Sorry. How did we make out?

Quote

All the more reason for christians not to profane their faith with political compromises which would do much good anyway.

Miko, is this missing a 'not'??? Seems a Christian might compromise a bunch to 'do much good'.

In democratic culture, profane political compromises is all we got.

By their fruits you shall know them...

mullah