Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
-
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 ...
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
If "Thou shalt not murder" implies legal killing is okay, ie. execution. Then abortion wouldn't be a sin as it is legal, right?
-
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....
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Please do not hijack the thread - question of father's rights was discussed extencisvely on this board.
Oops. Sorry. How did we make out? :)
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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" :rolleyes:
Did Kieran identify himself as Christian?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/
Follow the link for pics of "non-viable bits of tissue "
-
What of it? Looks like non-viable bits of tissue to me, definately not babies.
Nuke, which state?
-
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
-
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.
-
What of it? Looks like non-viable bits of tissue to me, definately not babies
Your right Thrawn, nothing resembling a baby here:
-
Sick Bastard!
-
What's wrong with that? It's just a few clumps of unviable tissue... certainly nothing to get upset about.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Thrawn:
What does "viability" mean? Is a fetus viable only when it can exist on its own, outside of the womb.
That's what I think.
Recently a judge in the US state that doctors of a coma patient could stop feeding her at her husbands request. She's been in a vegatative state for 7 years, she's going to starve to death. What about her moral authority?
What IS a human being is a very complex issue. As to why most pro-choicer chose viablility, that was covered extensively in a thread you will find about two weeks back.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What's wrong with that? It's just a few clumps of unviable tissue... certainly nothing to get upset about.
I'm no more upset by it then seeing any other human tissue. Some other people on this board are probably more sensitive to it and as such it was in extrodinarily poor test. Much like that eviserated deer Rip posted.
-
Excuse me, that is NOTHING like the harvested deer that Rip posted.
That IS a murdered baby.
-
I'm no more upset by it then seeing any other human tissue. Some other people on this board are probably more sensitive to it and as such it was in extrodinarily poor test
What if someone came up and kicked your pregnant wife and killed the fetus at a late stage? Would you be no more upset than if she had a wart burned off her face? After all, it's just human un-viable tissue, nothing more.
If I did that, at least the law would prosecute me, even if you wouldn't.
You see Thrawn, that would be considered manslaughter here........ isn't that interesting how the law works?
I mean, on the one hand, it's not a life..... on the other , it is!
So what is it? Let me know please.
-
Maybe to you ammo, but not to me.
If it was late stage Nuke, then I would consider it murder.
Which state is this manslaughter law in, Nuke? Arizona?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm no more upset by it then seeing any other human tissue.
If that's true, then I'm truly sorry for you. My baby boy looked just about like that when I saw him being born.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
If that's true, then I'm truly sorry for you. My baby boy looked just about like that when I saw him being born.
- JNOV
My baby girl was a fair bit larger.
-
Thrawn:
You are hard core. My soul-based argument definitely would have been lost on you. I think you'd need to have one yourself before you could appreciate it.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Thrawn:
You are hard core. My soul-based argument definitely would have been lost on you. I think you'd need to have one yourself before you could appreciate it.
- JNOV
I fear it would have been. I do not believe in a soul in the christian sense. I believe we and every thing are part of an unversal soul if you will, God/Universe/Tao, or what have you.
-
Which state is this manslaughter law in, Nuke? Arizona?
Happens here, and most other states.
Example:
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims (http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html)
Because California law permits murder charges to be filed in the death of a fetus 7 or 8 weeks after conception, and Soltys's wife was about 3 months pregnant, Soltys is being charged with 7 counts of murder. (http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa090501a.htm)
When Susan MacGuire was gunned down a year ago, her unborn child also died. Counting the fetus as a human being, prosecutors charged the woman's ex-husband with two counts of capital murder (http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jan/01082002/utah/165540.htm)
Detroit, murder of fetus (http://www.clickondetroit.com/det/news/stories/news-161470020020814-210820.html)
Iowa code (http://virgil.giant.net/cgi-bin/ialaw/97-code/code?section=707.9)
To name a few......any comments?
-
Yikes Thrawn, that blows me away. You can't spank your child, but you could kill that baby without a thought?
I'm truly out on this thread.
-
Thank you for links Nuke. I would like to point out that the in the first two case the unborn children where both viable outside the uterus so I would definately agree that charges should be laid.
There does appear to be some controversy over the second two cases. Do you know if they were able to make the charges stick?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sick Bastard!
What's wrong MT, don't you like the way a "choice" looks?
-
Showing pictures of extreme late term abortions to make a point is ludicrous. What exactly does it prove? Could have been a stillborn infant for all you know. How far along was that child? Any Idea?
BS!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Showing pictures of extreme late term abortions to make a point is ludicrous. What exactly does it prove? Could have been a stillborn infant for all you know. How far along was that child? Any Idea?
BS!
At least you're disturbed by the picture. The fact that some are not makes a much larger point than I'm sure was intended.
- JNOV
-
well, are you not a proponent of abortion? There is the product of the pro-choice lobby's endeavors. Do you support them?
-
so if your not "Christian" , you can get a abortion ??
-
It shows you that there is more to abortion than a nebulous "choice".
Clinton fought very hard to keep a "late term" abortion legal.
Even the "late term" is nice euphemism. It's murder plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
At least you're disturbed by the picture. The fact that some are not
If this refers to me then please stop putting words into my mouth.
"but you could kill that baby without a thought?"
You too, Kieran.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
At least you're disturbed by the picture. The fact that some are not
Thrawn wrote:
If this refers to me then please stop putting words into my mouth.
Thrawn, what about your own words?
Thrawn wrote:
I'm no more upset by it then seeing any other human tissue
-
Thrawn:
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I took "I'm no more upset by it then seeing any other human tissue" to mean that you were not disturbed by the picture. If I was wrong, I apologize.
- JNOV
-
Right, I didn't say it didn't upset me, if I saw a blasted human heart, a dismembered leg, or a cancerous lung, it wouldn't fill me with joy. Neither does the picture of an eviserated deer.
Edit: We same time LSB, np.
-
Right, I didn't say it didn't upset me, if I saw a blasted human heart, a dismembered leg, or a cancerous lung, it wouldn't fill me with joy.
Nice cop out, but you said it didn't DISTURB you any more than seeing ANY other human tissue.
Isn't disturb the same as upset?
You implied that seeing an ingrown toe-nail would not "disturb" you any more than seeing that pic.
-
Stand for what you believe and be proud..... don't hide what you feel just because it seems like you support murder.....be proud.... show all the pics of the murder scenes and proudly stand behind them.
-
Showing pictures of extreme late term abortions to make a point is ludicrous. What exactly does it prove? Could have been a stillborn infant for all you know. How far along was that child? Any Idea?
For an erudite war gamer living in a society that permits partial-birth abortion, you're not very well-informed. Or consistent.
"How far along was that child ?"
:rolleyes:
-
let me explane , you can't make something disappear by making it "illegal" booz didn't go away , weed didn't go away , people still speed, 20yr "war on drugs" drugs still here, etc.
when abortion was illegal we still had abortions.
if you want to stop something , you have to find the cause and take care of that.
the reason for most abortions is unwanted pregnancy, if you eleminate unwanted pregnancys you will end most abortions.
so , you say, "whats your idea , smart guy?", i say creating another human being is the one thing we can do without a license, you can't even go fishing with out a license, i say you should need a license to make a baby , now i know all you people will say "it's my GOD given right to have kids "
i disagree, you should need a license to make another human, and if you make a baby without a license , you will be sterilized, and the "need" for most abortions will go away.
-
miko... I guess neither side is completely rock solid in their solidarity... those of the pro abortion camp will tell you that it is murder only after the fetus can or could survive outside of the mother (about 5 months old)... others in the pro abortion camp will tell you it is ok so long as part of the baby is still in contact with the mother. they can't both be right... it is either a human life or not.
the real question is when does human life begin?
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Stand for what you believe and be proud..... don't hide what you feel just because it seems like you support murder.....be proud.... show all the pics of the murder scenes and proudly stand behind them.
I do stand for what I believe, that's why I won't let you tell me what that is or what I feel.
-
well gee.... thrawn is...... correct. It's not a subject that you can blindly follow one camp or the other in... unless you like following.
lazs
-
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.
It’s not just us pro-life types who use this term. Even your most devout pro-choice, hairy pitted, NOW member calls it a baby when she plans to carry it to term.
And, as far as viability, even a perfectly healthy full term baby is not very viable without intense care. Most children aren't particularly 'viable' till 10 or 12 years old
-
Yeah, I could use a little help with this too...
Some wise person please go here:
Inside The Womb (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021111/#)
Review the pictures in "Gallery & Graphics: Inside The Womb", look at the pics as they trace the fetus from conception to birth....
and tell me EXACTLY when it suddenly becomes a "person".
Because I'd sure like to know EXACTLY when that is. Sure would make all this abortion debate stuff a lot easier.
So, let me know when you have it figured out EXACTLY with 0% chance of error.
Thanks.
-
If the state or Feds can give justification for killing 2 cells or 4 or 8 etc I'm sure with just ever so little rationalization we can justify the 5 billion oh yeah we do watermelon we call it war then its ok to be idiots !@!
-
Good points.
What if I were to say that viable ment "potentially able to live outside the womb"?
This is what a Massachusetts judge instructed a jury to take the word viable to mean in 1999.
Even then I doubt any one this board would be aboul to point out when this potientiality cocurs. Unless someone is an Obstatrian.
-
If we could retrograde the cell count when would we be willing to make the call, where would the judge draw his line in his own DNA? For most of us that call ourselves sane none of us wnat to die why then do we wish to make the call on someone else, why? because it isnt you and your glad it aint!
-
I have refrained from entering this discussion out of respect of mietla.
I'll only add this:
ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONS!
Drop attack mode and answer mietlas questions.
A) God says it's wrong to kill children (fetuses, whatever)
B) MANY Christians will allow abortion in cases of rape or incest.
C) RECONCILE the two. Be a consistent Christian.
I've seen a lot of people jumping on the wagon on attack mode. Now I want to see the very same people being consistent. Please, go back to what the thread was about before the hijack, and answer the questions. If you can or dare.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I have refrained from entering this discussion out of respect of mietla.
I'll only add this:
ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONS!
Drop attack mode and answer mietlas questions.
A) God says it's wrong to kill children (fetuses, whatever)
B) MANY Christians will allow abortion in cases of rape or incest.
C) RECONCILE the two. Be a consistent Christian.
I've seen a lot of people jumping on the wagon on attack mode. Now I want to see the very same people being consistent. Please, go back to what the thread was about before the hijack, and answer the questions. If you can or dare.
Am I the only one who sees this entire topic as a non-issue? I mean why are you trying to hype it so santa?
God also says that it is wrong to kill, but we are allowed to kill in self defence or in a war. I suppose what really matters here is motive. If you kill a baby just because it feels inconvenient, that might be considered worse than if you kill it because your dad raped you. But who am I to judge?
God gave man a free will. We can do whatever we want with that free will. We should be aware of our actions though. I guess Im coming back to motive here.
What bothers me is when people want to kill babies, but they dont want to call them babies. I suppose it is because it makes it easier for them to live with themselves afterwards.
Thus, a baby becomes a fetus or an embryo, and it is stripped of as much of its human traits as possible. The fact that it is a tiny helpless living baby filled with potential is ignored. People say they have an abortion where they remove an embryo, instead of saying that they killed a baby, that they ended a life.
-
Thats the point of the cell count where ya gonna rationalize to God and each other where the drawing of the line in the sand is.
As Einstein said "God has no morales ( sp) " at his/her level its not needed but we on the other hand do. Therefore if you abide by the Bible killing a fetus that has caused you no harm . slighted you in no way shape or form is wrong, its murder.
If your a wait till your on your death bed christian, atheist, or what ever, then claim your remorse you best have only done it once, otherwise you have committed the sin of vain repetition and have yet something else to be contrite about.
Reconcile Gods mind on these matters no thanks Santa I will will back far away from that, God will sort things out as he will. No one here has all the answers, we will always live in the gray areas trying to live or choose not to live to the word.
-
What confuses me is statements like "many Christians think abortion under certain circumstances is just fine"
Not any Christians that I know and I have been a part of God's redeemed for 10+years now. Being that, I have been in chrusch of some sort since and have known many folks. Now I will say this, there are many people that would like to call themselves Christians and will go sit on a church pew every Sunday. But they are certainly not. If they believe that abortion is acceptible then I have doubts to their sincerity.
It seems that non-Christians are the ones that making alot of those statements.
-
I am a non-Christian and am against both abortion and the death penalty.
-
-ammo- -
So we have only three people so far who proclaimed themselves christians - and their position is absolutely what I believed it should be - no abortion, period.
On a side note, it's funny how many people are so ardent for the federal government to respect our right to free speech or "freedom of choice" but those same people are personally eager to deny that free speech and freedom of choice to their fellow human beings by plugging their agenda in a specific thread dedicated to clearing one narrow issue. Very hypocritical.
I would have though people would be happy to learn something new about the world they live in - like what makes those christians tick and what we can expect from them.
lazs2: the real question is when does human life begin?
In the bounds of this thread and for (at least some) christians the answer to this question is given. Life begins at conception. God says this, you chose that, explain the discrepancy... There is no choice for such a christian here. Christian certainly does have a "free will" but it can only be appied to violate or obey the rule, not determine or modify it.
In context of a coercive society/state (like ours) this question is also answered - for legal purposes life begins - and ends - whenever the law says it does.
In the context of science that question is not a valid one - having no sense or possible answer despite being a string of words arranged in a correct grammatical structure. Science does not handle this parrticular situation in a binary yes/no manner. So science can explain how it works but cannot give us a definitive answer that we could use for legel/moral purposes.
In the context of a free society that question is not semantically valid altogether. The situation is easily resolved and I would be happy to cover it in a separate thread later.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
So we have only three people so far who proclaimed themselves christians - and their position is absolutely what I believed it should be - no abortion, period.
[/b]
Just out of curiosity, do you count me as one of those three?
If you do, then I object to your conclusions from my post.
-
Well, in the context of one man/woman being true to himself/herself, being able to look himself/herself in the mirror in the morning, the question is indeed valid.
Also, it's a decision that each man/woman will have to make for himself/herself, since there is no definitive answer available to mankind.
You can review all manner of scientific data, church opinions, government opinions and even the pictures in Time magazine.
In the end, you will have to decide for yourself what is "right". Surely none of us would deliberately kill a new human life form at its earliest stages?
So, again, each will have to decide for himself/herself.
I've decided that I don't know when "human life" occurs so I'm playing it on the safest side. I know my personal answer and I no longer have to worry about my position on abortion. I know I'm right for me and the guy in the shaving mirror agrees and is content.
YMMV.
-
yep toad... that about sums it up for me... I might also add that I have done some retty bad things in my life but... I like myself better when I don't justify em.
lazs
-
Hortlund,
Your statement is nowhere clear enough to determine your position, so I did not make any conclusions from your post.
I see three people so far who've answered the question straight - and all three fall on the "no abortion, period" side.
LoneStarBuckeye - 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.
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... I just don't support abortion in any form.
-ammo- - Not any Christians that I know... If they believe that abortion is acceptible then I have doubts to their sincerity.
There is also Eagler's statement "if you follow the letter of the Christian law - you would not be able to abort for any reason" but since he does not conclude it with a personal position how he resolved it for himself - instead getting distracted to arguing a point he mistakenly attributes to me, I have no idea where he stands.
It would be interesting to hear the thinking of someone who believes himself to be a christian but does support abortion in limited cases for whatever reasons.
miko
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I am a non-Christian and am against both abortion and the death penalty.
Then you are not part of the set of people I refer too.
-
Haven't read the whole thread, but I read the origional question.
Many Christians believe it is their job to change people. In my opinion, my job as a christian is not to tell non-christians how sinful they are. My job is to reflect God's love for his people, in my choices, and in my relationships.
A non-christian is not going to believe in Biblical law. There is no sense in trying to tell people they are sinning against a God they do not believe in. Therefore, I, as a Christian, can be against abortions for all reasons, but show God's love to a non-christian who chooses an abortion by loving them anyway, and holding their hand through the experience, praying that God will move that person in a way that changes their heart.
I do not condone abortion for any reason, going back to how I, as a christian, should value all human life. But the only people I should openly rebuke for choosing a sinful path would be someone who claims to be a christian, who claims to believe in the Bible.
Furthermore, God, through his son Jesus, will forgive anyone who chooses to turn from their own desires and follow Him. It does not matter to God if someone has had an abortion in the past, murdered 25 people, or for that matter, did nothing but good for people either.
The point is, that the person is cleansed by the blood of Jesus (figure of speech, don't picture us christians bathing in pools of blood here...), not by how much I point my finger at them and accuse them of being a heathen.
The bottom line, is that I feel saddened by people who choose abortion, not anger. Christians who try to make sin fell better by trying to justify abortion in the case of "rape" or some other form of abuse, are weak christians. They would rather try to soften the sin of the person, than trust in the healing power that Jesus can bring to a person's soul. Once again, it is not up to me as a christian, to do anything except show the love that Jesus displayed to the woman at the well (caught in the middle of an adulterous act), Zacchius the tax collector, etc..
-
Originally posted by RDSaustinTX
For an erudite war gamer living in a society that permits partial-birth abortion, you're not very well-informed. Or consistent.
"How far along was that child ?"
:rolleyes:
Do you have any clue what my stance on abortion is?
Put down your thesaurus and try to make valid points in the future.
-
Many Christians believe it is their job to change people. In my opinion, my job as a christian is not to tell non-christians how sinful they are. My job is to reflect God's love for his people, in my choices, and in my relationships.
'Zactly right.
-
Greese: Therefore, I, as a Christian, can be against abortions for all reasons...
Four - on the same side.
Obviously, christian's attitude to people who've commited sin is a very different issue from his doing anything in his power to prevent that sin from being commited - by supporting certain policies/laws through lawfull legislative process. You did not have to elaborate that but we appreciate anyway.
miko
-
Fundamentally, a Christian knows it is impossible to keep anyone from committing sin. We all have free will, and the choices are ours. We can avoid helping someone fall to temptation, but that's about it.
-
So you would not stone but rather comfort someone who've underwent an abortion - even an illegal one.
Does that mean you should not try to outlaw it even if you know the law would be broken occasionally?
miko
-
Look... any citizen has the right to lobby for changes to any law as they see fit. If some people, irrespective of their religious beliefs, decide abortion is wrong and should be outlawed, well, that is their right. Bombing clinics seems a little over the top.
But as far as what I believe a Christian should do... I agree with Greese, I cannot legislate morality. I cannot make people make the right choices. It is also not my place to judge them, so yes, I would have to treat them with the same respect as I would anyone else. It doesn't mean I have to hang around with them or be best friends, but I must not put myself in the place of judgement.
Homosexuality is an example of something that traditional Christians abhor, yet Christians would be wrong to turn their backs on homosexuals.
-
OK, Kieran, your moral position is even closer to what I would prefer - being against abortion but refusing to participate in legally outlawing it.
If abortion is legal, your tax money will be used to pay for it. What's more, there will be people profiting from that money and interested in creating more demant for their services, etc., so by making your money available you may be promoting it - though very indirectly.
I also believe that historically morals and traditions were legislated in a course of development of our western civilisation and 'unlegislating' them should be done carefully, but that's another topic.
miko
-
We would try to outlaw it, by voting against things we are opposed to. Using the legal system (appropriately) and democracy is our way of speaking out, just like anyone else. The people who shoot abortion doctors in the guise of christianity in order to try to stop abortions are insane, and do not represent the majority who do not get the attention. Even the bullhorn brandishing street preachers that (though they may be "non-violent") are ever ready to condemn every sinner that walks in front of them are missing the point.
-
Yup, what Greese said. Christians have the right to avail themselves of the rights of citizenship like anyone else. It is exactly for the reason you state that I would be convinced to become active against abortion- I don't want to support it in any way. My tax dollars going to it definitely is support.
That said, I vote for Pro-Lifers and am content with that. I have enough causes at the moment, and none that I can drop for another.
-
Kieran, ammo, Greese and the other consistent Christians. While I may not agree with your position, I must say I admire you for sticking to your faith as you do.
-
We all have free will
Now, that's an interesting point, but it sure ain't biblical :)
-
but...it is unfortunately necessary that abortion is legal at least until all the idiots decide to start taking responsibility for their actions. Hopefully there will be a day when it will no longer be necessary except in situations of life and death for the mother.
I think it is disgusting and repulsive, and would never support anyone doing it, but I also understand that its not a perfect world.
My ex wife's sisters had 6 abortions between them by the time they were 18. That is ridiculous. I have a hard time viewing them as something other than murderers. Or at least accomplices to murder.
funny thing is.....i am not even religious. I just realise that life is valuable and shouldnt be frivilously wasted. (except in the case of enemies of the United States, in which case I say raze them to the ground before they can reproduce)
-
Legality is not the same as morality. How can anyone look at that tiny body and not see its' humanity? Whether you believe in the concept or not, THAT is a sin!
Or does the lack of movement give it the status of a tumor?
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Or does the lack of movement give it the status of a tumor?
Shuckins
tumor with a heart beat
-
Originally posted by Eagler
tumor with a heart beat
mosquitos have a heart beat
-
I see that the picture of the aborted child has been "edited." It must have been too graphic and disturbing for some of the more sensitive posters on this bulletin board. They shouldn't have to confront the truth in such a fashion.
Shuckins
-
How is having free will not biblical? Wouldn't you agree you are free to make your own choices?
Also, what is the point of the new testament if not that we CHOOSE to follow Jesus? Calvinism holds water if you look at it piece by piece, but it just goes against the main point of the bible. Look at the big picture, why would God have us all on puppet strings?
I shouldn't get involved in threads like these.
-
My mistake...just saw it on the first page while re-reading some of the posts. God save us from ourselves.
Shuckins
-
How is having free will not biblical?
Find it for me. There are literally hundreds of verses describing predestination and election.
Also, what is the point of the new testament if not that we CHOOSE to follow Jesus?
To edify and instruct the redeemed.
why would God have us all on puppet strings?
Why does your theology assume God is readily understood?
I shouldn't get involved in threads like these.
Me either :)
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
My mistake...just saw it on the first page while re-reading some of the posts. God save us from ourselves.
Shuckins
That's what we have the government for.
-
:D
-
How I wish I could post something in return to the arguments being put here.
However, that's not what this thread is about. :)
-
RD-
Explain Adam and Eve if there is no free will. God made them eat the apple because he knew the future? No.
God knows how it will all play out, of course, but this does not mean He makes us do anything with our free will. It's still our choice whatever we do.
-
Kieran, assuming God is all knowing, putting two humans in vicinity of that apple tree and then forbidding them to eat from it is really a bit puzzling, if free will enters the picture.
It's akin to writing a computer program where you know what the end result will be, and then condemning that program to be deleted because of what it did.
Adam and Eve might have free will, but God knew that they were gonna eat from the tree - even before he created them or the tree. They may have exercised their free will, but it dinnae matter, as God knew what was gonna happen. had they chosen not to, he'd also known that. Really quite a cool gimmick that covers everything. But, responsibility for the situation should not solely be placed on the 'program' - the programmer has some burden to bear.
Of course, if we assume God isn't all knowing, it makes more sense.
-
Abortion stops a beating heart. It's never a morally correct choice.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Kieran, assuming God is all knowing, putting two humans in vicinity of that apple tree and then forbidding them to eat from it is really a bit puzzling, if free will enters the picture.
It's akin to writing a computer program where you know what the end result will be, and then condemning that program to be deleted because of what it did.
Adam and Eve might have free will, but God knew that they were gonna eat from the tree - even before he created them or the tree. They may have exercised their free will, but it dinnae matter, as God knew what was gonna happen. had they chosen not to, he'd also known that. Really quite a cool gimmick that covers everything. But, responsibility for the situation should not solely be placed on the 'program' - the programmer has some burden to bear.
Of course, if we assume God isn't all knowing, it makes more sense.
Maybe you should just acknowledge the fact that man cannot understand God. If you do believe in God, then you believe that God created man. That means you acknowledge the fact that God is capable of things beyond our comprehension.
If you dont believe in God on the other hand, then I dont understand why you post on this subject...unless you are trying to provoke or redicule, and that makes you on the same level as mrfish (an idiot).
I suggest reading the book of Job.
Or try Kirkegaard if you dont want to read the Bible.
-
Heya StSanta, how ya been?
Sin and evil are not "things" that exist autonomously. They are the result of the "absense" of God.
For example, what is a vacuum? It isn't a "thing" that exists in and of itself but rather is a result of the removal of everything, a void.
Or, how do you cool a room on a hot day? You don't put cold in, you remove the heat.
See?
God created all things. Sin is the result of the absense of Gods perfection.
-
Sorry, been a busy day...
I am a parent. I have seen situations where I watched my daughters do things wrong. I knew they were going to do the wrong thing, because the situation was such they were bound to yield to temptation. I allowed it to happen, and then punished them. Why?
Because they will eventually have to become mature. The situations will come time and again where my children will have to make the right choice, regardless how tempting the other choice might be. No matter how it is sliced, my daughters are going held accountable for the choices they make.
Cruel? You may think so, I don't. In the same manner, I accept God may allow me to be in a situation where I have to make a choice- in fact, He guarantees it will happen. He also guarantees I will never face a situation beyond my ability to cope. These situations are used by God to form me, if I allow them to. Of course I could continue to resist, and refuse to learn the lessons.
You see, I point at myself and say, if I removed everything else from the situation, I still made the wrong choice when I clearly knew the right thing to do. No matter what caused that situation, it was my choice. That God knew what I would do doesn't make it His fault or His choice. He allowed me to make the wrong choice- free will. That doesn't make the choice His fault. This is where a lot of non-believers go wrong in the argument... they assign blame to God for the choices people are allowed to make.
-
First of all, thanks Hortlund, Apache and Kieran for taking your time. I won't argue with your faith but will need some clarification of your position/explanations. Please don't see it as Christian-trashing or anything like that.
Hortlund, I'm not a theist. That, however, does not exclude me from the group pf people ALLOWED to have a serious discussion about it. I'm not an idiot if I critizise or praise aspects of a religion, nor am my intentions malevolent. I'd appreciate it if you gave me credit - I can assure you that if I wanted to attack religion, I'd be much more crude and direct (anyone remember when I had the Crossbuster sign in my signature with the text "Tresspassers will be shot - survivors will be shot again")? And that was for fun.
Kierkegaard is a bit overrated IMHO. Then again, so are most philosophers.
I don't buy the "Man doesn't understand God" bit. We've had clear instructions from that deity in a collection of works called the Bible. Assuming these texts are correct, we were given some mental capabilities and can deduct and understand what is in those text - amongst other things issues related to how God sees this responsibility thing.
Apache, I was under the illusion that the Christian deity was omnipresent. That is, he'll (or is it a better word?) be present everywhere in his creation. Absence of something just says that that something isn't there. I'm absent from the US for instance - it says nothing about what is there. Total absence of everything, as in a vacuum - means nothing is there - not sin. Nothing is nothing. It's a near impossible concept to twist ones mind around, nothingness - but either there is something (be it sin or God or something else) or there is nothing.
God knew exactly what was going to happen, because he'd set it up so it would happen. Who else could have?
Kieran, I'll write a lot now just from the top of my head. Answer what you think is important and ignore the rest :)
:
The difference between God and humans and you and your daughters is that God had a clean slate with endless possibilites. Unlimited were his choices, and all he wished to be would be.
In the case of you and your daughter you're actually under severe restraint - your biological inheritance disallows an enormous amount of things (including creating universes :)), your social inheritance a lot of others and then there are a lot of laws of physics you can do little about.
You're just a wee little subroutine God has created in his Universe 0.1(b). You do NOT have perfect understanding of how *everything* that is effects everything else, nor do you have an ability to absolutely see the future, the past or the present in its entirety. You follow the limits in the program God has made.
When God knew the instant he came into be (or maybe he has always been as in Christian faiths) what you were gonna do for your entire life - even before he had started to work with Universe 0.1(b), he has to take responsibility for his creation. He knows perfectly well what is going to happen, because he's set it up so it WILL happen. You choose A or you choose B - God already knows. If he doesn't, he isn't ominiscient (which actually would make sense).
Kieran, what I am saying is that you cannot put the blame solely on God OR on people. We, as humans, live in accordance to the restrictions God has put upon us. We also live based on HIS design, not ours. His design may have included free will, but one must look at the circumstances. If you create a car that you know will rust because you've *designed* it so it will rust, you cannot say it's just the cars fault for being out in the rain once too often.
I know you're reluctant to place blame on God - but how about if we call it 'responsibility'? We may not know WHY he did it, but he DID do it, and it had some consequences he surely knew about. They were intentional from his side.
Kieran, regarding oputting you into a situation, but only one you can cope with. I take it that you include the afterlife in this. Lots of Christian missionaries have been put in circumstances way out of their control and as a result been killed. 'Coping' thus must entail something with faith and the afterlife?
Hm I gess I just don't get it.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I don't buy the "Man doesn't understand God" bit. We've had clear instructions from that deity in a collection of works called the Bible. Assuming these texts are correct, we were given some mental capabilities and can deduct and understand what is in those text - amongst other things issues related to how God sees this responsibility thing.
We have had clear instructions, sure. We also have a free will. That means we can do whatever we want. The Bible is fairly clear on what is and what isnt allowed.
But what you are trying to do now is find the answer to questions like "why did God say this or that" or "why did God do this or that", "why did God allow this or that to happen".
I suppose my answer is aimed at that part.
You dont like Kirkegaard, but he has put alot more thought into this issue than I have, and he explains it better than me too :)
Have you tried to read the book of Job then? In my opinion, you will find your answer there.
-
Hello All,
Miko2d questions:
"...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."
"So, how do you reconcile that with your consciense/faith?"
"...doesn't integrity and honesty before your own God, if not fellow humans, count for something?"
Miko2d these are indeed valid questions. The answer is that so many christians put thier will before the Will of God. This rings of hypocrisy. I as a christian am greatly distressed with my fellow christians who subcribe to this lie (not abortion, but of the hypocrisy). Do I believe abortion is acceptable. The answer is no, not by any means or motive, regardless of circumstance.
The Sacred Scriptures states that God knew me before I was in my mother's womb. That being the case I was an individual before birth. Therefore, I existed somewhere form fertilization until birth. I have had a unique genetic makeup since conception, and I believe that I existed as a unique individual since that time. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. Science cannot do this. All I can say is thank God my 18 year old unmarried, pregnant mother didn't abort me. Otherwise I would't have known the thrill of killin your lousy arses in Aces High. :p
I as a physician have had to make a desicion to follow the world or follow God. Many in my profession who profess my faith have taken the easy road. Thats fustrating for it crys of hypocrisy for the average lay person. These individuals have been given great gifts from God. However, they have greater responsibility to God. I believe abortion is abortion. Thats regardless of the circumstances. I don't mean to hijack this discussion, but I have two examples that outta cause some thoughts to develop.
First, Current trends in treating tubal pregnacies include methotrexate(drug) induced reabsorption of the embryo, and opening the tube and removing the embryo surgically. These are the medical communities preferred methods. But there is a third and that is the removal of the segment of fallopian tube (including the embryo). So whats acceptable and whats abortion?
Second, hormonal birth control works in several ways to prevent births from occuring. Birth control is an accurate discriptive term. All hormonal birth control has post ferilization effects( see http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v9n2/ffull/fsa8035.html ). So how do christians justify the use of potientially abortifacient drugs?
Anthony Waldroup, MD
Certified, American Board of Family Practice
-
Thans everyone for replies.
Festus, aren't all three procedires you've mentioned are performed to prevent (almost) certain death of a mother and a fetus would not have been able to develop normally anyway, ratehr than risk or inconvenience to the mother?
So they do not really apply to the question I've asked.
The post-fertilisation control - preventing fertilised egg - the embryo, really - from attaching to the uterus lining or inducing it's reabsorbtion or detachment are different. I would think a christian treat those methods exactly like abortion.
miko
-
Miko2D >>>"So they do not really apply to the question I've asked."
Actually my examples applies indirectly. I am referring to christian physicians whom prescribe oral contraceptives or recommend the above treatments for ectopic pregnancies. Its the hypocrisy that you, I believe, are targeting. And You have a valid point.
Festus
-
I'd agree that, from a strict Christian perspective, contraceptives could be considered against God's will.
-
Kieran, you are aware of how much suffering the Catholic Churchs stand on contraceptives have created?
Would you be pro or con contraceptives, and if partially pro/con, which ones do you approve of/dismiss?
-
St. Santa, whats wrong with suffering. Are you not aware of redemptive suffering. Besides God nor the Catholic Church invented suffering, Al Gore did. ;)
-
I am not Catholic, nor am I necessarily taking the absolutist stand on contraception; I am merely saying there is a religious viewpoint that all contraception is against God. This to me is the biggest hypocracy of the Pro-Life movement.
Edit: We have used contraceptives, and my vasectomy would possibly be considered a form of contraceptive, I suppose.
-
Kieran is right. The pro-life movement suffers from this hypocrisy. But does it change the fact that abortion kills a child? No.
With reguard to artificial contraception, you know all christian denominations forbid the use of artificial contraception at some point in the past. That is denominations before this past century. And most didn't change until the oral contraceptive pill was introduced in the 1960's. The only christian church I am aware of to maintain this stance was the Catholic Church. And as a side note, artificial contraception and abortion has a long long history. Even to the earliest recorded history. The only thing that has changed is the availability of artificial contraception and abortion.
-
festus: Actually my examples applies indirectly.
My words "So they do not really apply to the question I've asked" refer to the lines above it - covering the abnormal pregnancies.
They do not refer to the lines below dealing with chemically-induced abortion.
Kieran: I am merely saying there is a religious viewpoint that all contraception is against God.
Surely not those that prevent fertilisation? At least in conjunction with the commandment of "Do not murder".
Of course there is another one "Multiply", but is surely not as important as the former one. Besides, using contraceptives does not conflict with God's directive to multiply. In any condition there is an optimal number of children that can be grown. Pregnancy, childraising requires resources (wealth, health, time, risk of mother's death, etc.). Giving birth to more children than that optimal number can significally reduce you chances of raising the children to maturity.
Basically, you give birth to 4-6 and you end up with 4 and 16 grandchildren. You give birth to 8-10 and you end up with 2 sickly ones and only 3 grandchildren - that if the mother does not die and all children starve.
I am sure that viewed in thet light non-murdering methods of contraception do not have to contradict even the strictest doctrine.
you know all christian denominations forbid the use of artificial contraception at some point in the past.
Of course the "optimal number of births" is a vildly variable number. In middle ages chances of a child to die from many causes besides shortage of resources were so great that in order to bring up to maturity 2-3-4 children a family could afford, it had to give birth to a dozen. So the procreation-promoting side of contraception rarely came into play and was forgotten.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
festus: Actually my examples applies indirectly.
My words "So they do not really apply to the question I've asked" refer to the lines above it - covering the abnormal pregnancies.
They do not refer to the lines below dealing with chemically-induced abortion.
Kieran: I am merely saying there is a religious viewpoint that all contraception is against God.
Surely not those that prevent fertilisation? At least in conjunction with the commandment of "Do not murder".
Of course there is another one "Multiply", but is surely not as important as the former one. Besides, using contraceptives does not conflict with God's directive to multiply. In any condition there is an optimal number of children that can be grown. Pregnancy, childraising requires resources (wealth, health, time, risk of mother's death, etc.). Giving birth to more children than that optimal number can significally reduce you chances of raising the children to maturity.
Basically, you give birth to 4-6 and you end up with 4 and 16 grandchildren. You give birth to 8-10 and you end up with 2 sickly ones and only 3 grandchildren - that if the mother does not die and all children starve.
I am sure that viewed in thet light non-murdering methods of contraception do not have to contradict even the strictest doctrine.
you know all christian denominations forbid the use of artificial contraception at some point in the past.
Of course the "optimal number of births" is a vildly variable number. In middle ages chances of a child to die from many causes besides shortage of resources were so great that in order to bring up to maturity 2-3-4 children a family could afford, it had to give birth to a dozen. So the procreation-promoting side of contraception rarely came into play and was forgotten.
miko
LOL so I did know this would eventually get off on this tangent. :)
Keiran was just pointing out that there are some that still hold the views that all artificial contraception is forbidden. Particularly the Catholic Church as an official stance. But what you may not understand about this stance is not the abortifaceint nature of brith control, but the fact that any artifical or for that matter natural birth control under certain circustances is forbidden. The reason is because the act of contraception by any means is diretly placing the will of the individual before God's Will. This is better explained here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Festus