Question to religious "pro-lifers" (only, plz).

[Kieran]

I am ready to let you face the consequences of the choices that you as an adult face. If it were my choice, I suppose I would end abortion, but this is a pluralistic society and I don't have that choice.

I'm not about to bomb clinics, have no signs in my yard, and attend no protest marches or anything like that. I just don't support abortion in any form.

[miko2d]

RDSaustinTX: "Thou shalt do no murder". WAAAY different.
Thrawn: If "Thou shalt not murder" implies legal killing is okay, ie. execution. Then abortion wouldn't be a sin as it is legal, right?

 Please, not that highjack too - if only because it was beaten to death on this board.  We all are perfectly aware of the distinction. Since here I am speaking about an unborn baby, there could not possibly be any distinction between two terms.

 Killing is a physical action and murder is a legal/moral term for certain kinds of killing. The Bible does prescribe the killing of murder kind (in original hebrew version). Quite a lot of transgressions are punishable by killing while murder is proscribed. And it's not based on legal ground either but on moral one.
 When God dictated Ten Commandments he definitely did not base his definitions on american law post Row vs. Wade.

 As far as christian religion is concerned murder is a killing of an innocent. Since every unborn is an innocent, terms "kill" and "murder" are absolutely interchangeable in my question.


RDSaustinTX: We are conceivably talking about something a tad more traumatic

 We are talking here about huge, enourmously traumatic discomfort which will leave scar for life. Maybe even risk death to the mother. Except the commandment does not say "Thou shalt not murder unless to prevent huge discomfort."

 You do not have to come up with qualifiers and excuses for me - I am perfectly capable of those myself - but I am not a christian. I suspect neither are you. I am not denigrading the points you make - I am just interested in position of true christians.

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

 In my understanding you can not be "more" or less christian. Either you are or you are not. Some christians may be too weak to abstain from sin - being humans and tainted with the original sin, otherwise theire would be no need for Christ or divine Grace, etc., that does not mean they can fudge their definition what a "sin" is for political expediency.
 Neither does one play chances or horse-trade with God. One stands firm for one's principles and God will provide. One does not support the current law or any other law repugnant to your faith. Plain and simple.

RDSaustinTX: Oops. Sorry. How did we make out?

 Bad. If she keeps the baby, you have no say and pay support for life. If you hastily sign the birth papers or are married to the mother and the baby is determined not to be yours - you are legally the father and pay support for life anyway, "in the best interests of a child", even if biological father can be found with a reasonable effort. You cannot demand genetic testing if the mother objects. That's the law in the US. Please no more on that issue here.

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

 Politics by it's nature is based on compromse. Some religions may allow compromises - even christianity does in many cases (conceiving children by raping kidnapped women by God-chosen people was approved on some occasions) but in this particular case - 10 Commandments - I see no room for compromise. God may compromise. One does not compromise with God. You may not achieve your political goal in the nearest election but to abandon it as hopeless would be admitting that you do not rely on God.
 God does not require one to perform impossible or illegal - "Render to Cesar", etc... Just to do what one can.

Kieran - OK, we have two guys here so far who are christians as I imagine principled christians should be. One would expect there to be more...

 miko

[RDSaustinTX]

that does not mean they can fudge their definition what a "sin" is for political expediency

 
Well, shucks, who is saying it ain't sin???
 

Politics by it's nature is based on compromse. Some religions may allow compromises - even christianity does in many cases (conceiving children by raping kidnapped women by God-chosen people was approved on some occasions) but in this particular case - 10 Commandments - I see no room for compromise. God may compromise. One does not compromise with God. You may not achieve your political goal in the nearest election but to abandon it as hopeless would be admitting that you do not rely on God.

 
Miko,
First the general response again. Are we talking about personal actions by professing Christians or the laws they support???
You mention the big 10. Where does this particular, vehement exception come from? And golly, where does your view of compromise fall on vain speech, bad-mouthing parents, sabbath-breaking, adultery. All explicitly forbidden (big 10) and yet widely tolerated?
 
You're right, under the soteriology one does not compromise with God - but he wildly compromises with his saints, and definitely expects them to peacefully tolerate other sinners. As I understand this, you say it is unchristian to support a law which would reduce abortions by a large proportion, but still allow some exceptions.
 
Again the dichotomy here is whether you are talking about civil law or a personal decision.  As regards the latter, I think you are correct. But your criticism of any compromise in terms of their political action is pure borderline logic. Is this biblical? I mean, your insistence in this particular situation must be founded on something I don't understand.
 
So my general question is: Why can't a Christian be able to discern an advantage to a law which drops evil-doing (real or perceived) by a couple orders of magnitude? Like YOU said so concisely, to do what one can.
 
My specific question is this: Where is raping kidnapped women condoned? (Hey you do a little hi-jackin of your own)
 
mullah:confused:
 
to Kieran: "OK, we have two guys here so far who are christians as I imagine principled christians should be. One would expect there to be more"    
 
Did Kieran identify himself as Christian?

[NUKE]

If you kick a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill a 4 month old fetus, you will be up on manslaughter/murder charges for killing the fetus. ( and rightly so)

If you are a doctor and tear a 4 month fetus limb from limb in an a abortion, you get paid for it.

So what is a 4 month old fetus?  A life or not?

We need consistancy.... we can't have it both ways.

If a fetus is not a life, then kicking a pregnant woman in the gut and killing the fetus should only be an assault charge against the mother.

I am pro life unless the mother's life is in danger .

I don't believe science has agreed upon when life begins, therefore I side with caution and prudence on the issue.

[capt. apathy]

he wish I could remember how said it (here) but the best compromise I've found on the abortion issue is one free abortion with manditory sterilization to go with it.

the main problem most people (well, at least me) have with abortion is the 'abortion of convinience' can't remember your pills? don't like to wear a rubber, just kill the baby to let yourself off the hook.  ya, it's a baby. people only call them fetus' when they are trying to justify killing them.  no pregnant woman says "would you like to feel the fetus kick?".

when you consider abortion in cases of rape or incest, the thought usually is that it's a very tough call.  in an issue so tramatic as that you really have to leave it up to the person involved. they didn't ask to be put in that situation and they need to pick whatever option they can live with.

in general, while I'm very clear as to what I think on abortion. I'm not sure what we (as a society) should do about it.  I don't think it should be completely Illegal.  if someone is willing to kill their own child to simplify their life do you really want them raising the next generation? or can you stop them from drinking, drugging, eating poorly or participating in high risk physical activitys to try to cause the baby harm.

I just wish it wasn't played off as moraly upstanding and just 'a simple procedure'.  it's the murder of a unborn baby to ease your troubles.  people need to have it explained point blank exactly what they are doing. complete with how they destroy (kill ) the baby and everything.  if they still want the procedure then I guess they can go ahead. what kind of parent would they make anyway?

[Thrawn]

capt, it doesn't surprise me much when pro-lifers call a fetus a baby.  It helps have warm fuzzy feeling about a non-viable bit of tissue and helps justify thier pro-life stance.

[NUKE]

capt, it doesn't surprise me much when pro-lifers call a fetus a baby. It helps have warm fuzzy feeling about a non-viable bit of tissue and helps justify thier pro-life stance.

If I kick a woman and kill her fetus , what do you think I will be charged with? any guesses?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Thrawn
capt, it doesn't surprise me much when pro-lifers call a fetus a baby.  It helps have warm fuzzy feeling about a non-viable bit of tissue and helps justify thier pro-life stance.

Thrawn
this was a thread for Pro lifers only .. pls read directions .. now get lost

and THIS will be my last response to this thread

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Eagler
Thrawn
this was a thread for Pro lifers only .. pls read directions .. now get lost

and THIS will be my last response to this thread

No.

[NUKE]

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/

Follow the link for pics of "non-viable bits of tissue "

[Thrawn]

What of it? Looks like non-viable bits of tissue to me, definately not babies.

Nuke, which state?

[LoneStarBuckeye]

Thrawn:

What does "viability" mean?  Is a fetus viable only when it can exist on its own, outside of the womb?  

I know that many people take the view that "viability" is the threshold of life, but frankly I just don't understand that view.  It seems to me to be a fairly impractical and nonsensical measure of life.  

Can we measure viability?  Surely we wouldn't arbitrarily decide that after a defined number of weeks a baby is viable and can no longer be aborted.  A decision as important as life and death must be decided on an individual basis, mustn't it?

More importantly, why is a fetus alive if and only if it is viable?  Surely there are things more fundamental to being alive than being able to survive on one's own.  A patient on life support, for example, is not able to survive on his own, but he's still alive, isn't he?  Even if we could measure viability reliably, I don't think it reflects when one is alive.  (I would suggest that one is alive when he has a soul, but I'm certain you would be unimpressed by that notion.)

That leaves me with two options for when life begins: conception and birth.  As I noted above, I choose the former, because the latter is unthinkable (edit: to satisfy yourself of this, see the picture in Kieran's post below).

- JNOV

[Kieran]

RD-
I think it's pretty safe to say that most people that know me here would put me in the "religious supporter" column.

Thrawn-
"Non-viable tissue"? Who's trying to help himself sleep better at night? If it makes you feel better, I'd probably feel the same way about it regardless of my religious beliefs. Seems only logical to me that it is alive, it is human, therefore it is a baby, only in the early stages of growth. I know the Pro-Choice lobby has to minimize this tiny bit of fact, but that is how it is.

But... as I said earlier in the thread, we all face our choices, and we are accountable for them.

[NUKE]

What of it? Looks like non-viable bits of tissue to me, definately not babies

Your right Thrawn, nothing resembling a baby here:

[midnight Target]

Sick Bastard!