Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Abortion is Murder
Show More
Loading...
Flag Bei1052 July 13, 2010 12:32 AM EDT

Jul 12, 2010 -- 8:14PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Yes, Bei, I am sure.  But knock yourself out.  Do some research.



Link #1


Link #2


Yeah, I Wikipedia'd it. At any rate, never tell someone to "do some research" when you haven't done any yourself.


...And because I never grow tired of saying this, the majority of abortions aren't done for any medical reason at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Nunco. Zero.

Flag Tolerant Sis July 13, 2010 9:32 AM EDT

The very idea that 'stricter laws and punishments' are needed highlights one important fact, Bei, my dear.  That honor killings are already ILLEGAL.


You have not proven that honor killings are legal anywhere.  My point stands.  Now, maybe you want to do some real research next time.

Flag Tmarie64 July 13, 2010 10:20 AM EDT

Wiki, dear, is NOT considered an authoritative source.  Didn't you notice that ANYONE can add/change information? 


Research REPUTABLE sources...  The "research" you do at wiki FAILS.


Jul 13, 2010 -- 12:32AM, Bei1052 wrote:


Jul 12, 2010 -- 8:14PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Yes, Bei, I am sure.  But knock yourself out.  Do some research.



Link #1


Link #2


Yeah, I Wikipedia'd it. At any rate, never tell someone to "do some research" when you haven't done any yourself.


...And because I never grow tired of saying this, the majority of abortions aren't done for any medical reason at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Nunco. Zero.





Flag faith713 July 13, 2010 2:17 PM EDT

Jul 12, 2010 -- 8:14PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Yes, Bei, I am sure.  But knock yourself out.  Do some research.




Legal doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal as well as infanticide.

Flag Tolerant Sis July 13, 2010 2:50 PM EDT

I didn't suggest that it did, Faith.  You started bleating about legality when you erroneously stated that honor killings are legal (they aren't - anywhere in the world).  


And no, not everything that is legal is right, just as there are things that are illegal that are perfectly moral choices.  


Abortion is not anybody's first choice, Faith.  And whether it is moral or not depends on the personal morality of the woman involved.  She has to take the medical risk, which the boy-child Bei poo-poohs, but as a man, that can be expected, since he will never, ever be in that situation himself.  So he's just clueless and heartless.  He might grow up one day and be faced with a difficult choice of his own, and develop some kind of empathy, but I wouldn't count on it.  He's too invested in his little moral outrage.


But we don't force anyone to accept any medical risk, not even to save the life of someone's already born and breathing child, if they decline to do so.  We can't force a parent to donate so much as a pint of blood to save a baby's life.  We can't force a parent who is a perfect bone marrow match to take the slight medical risk that it would take to give a child suffering from leukemia a transplant.  We can't even force a parent who is directly responsible for his child's predicament - a father who drives drunk with his daughter in the car and causes her to need a kidney transplant urgently - to do so, even though he can probably manage fine with one kidney himself.


So until we are willing to do such things, forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy against her will (a much greater medical risk than any of the above and quite a bit riskier than poor Bei will ever know) is completely immoral.  


It would be great if every fetus were wanted, if every woman were healthy and in a position to be able to welcome a child, if every already born and breathing child already had a home and a loving family.  But that's not the world we live in, Faith.  Do what you can for the already born and breathing ones ... they need you a hell of a lot more than a 10 week old embryo does.


 

Flag Bei1052 July 13, 2010 7:33 PM EDT

Jul 13, 2010 -- 9:32AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


The very idea that 'stricter laws and punishments' are needed highlights one important fact, Bei, my dear.  That honor killings are already ILLEGAL.


You have not proven that honor killings are legal anywhere.  My point stands.  Now, maybe you want to do some real research next time.





Okay, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you didn't click on either of those links? Taken from the first link:


The law as it stands appears to condone the practice of honour killings.   Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code states that "he who  discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery  with another, and he kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is  exempt from any penalty".



Emphasis mine. What's the point in me linking to things if you're not going to read them. At any rate, your contention-- that honor killings aren't legal anywhere-- is false.


And to TM, of course Wikipedia isn't a reputable source, which is why I didn't link to it ;)

Flag Tolerant Sis July 14, 2010 8:18 AM EDT

Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the news, but since it affects women, that's not surprising, Bei.  Jordan, in the last year, developed the strictest laws in the Islamic world; already, ten men have been sentenced to more than 20 years for 'honor killings' there.


I am not saying that such things don't happen; they do with depressing regularity, just as women and children are abused by mates and parents everywhere in the world with depressing regularity and little is done because 'domestic violence' is somehow considered a lesser crime than any other kind of assault.


That's what happens when you make women second class citizens in their own countries, which is exactly what abortion rights activists want to prevent in the US.

Flag faith713 July 14, 2010 11:55 AM EDT

Jul 14, 2010 -- 8:18AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the news, but since it affects women, that's not surprising, Bei.  Jordan, in the last year, developed the strictest laws in the Islamic world; already, ten men have been sentenced to more than 20 years for 'honor killings' there.


I am not saying that such things don't happen; they do with depressing regularity, just as women and children are abused by mates and parents everywhere in the world with depressing regularity and little is done because 'domestic violence' is somehow considered a lesser crime than any other kind of assault.


That's what happens when you make women second class citizens in their own countries, which is exactly what abortion rights activists want to prevent in the US.




Abortion "rights" activists are supporting a step backwards for women. How does making legal the killing of one's child elevating women? The original founders and supporters of women's rights were against abortion:


When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.


 


Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned...Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?...Perhaps there will come a time when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.


 


as well as our founding fathers:


 


The care of human life and not its destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.


 

Flag Tolerant Sis July 14, 2010 1:58 PM EDT

Is abortion legal in the countries where honor killings are common, Faith?


Here's a clue ... no.  Many honor killings are done because the woman has fallen pregnant!  She is a second class citizen in her country, and her fetus is killed along with her, so the lack of the availability of abortion is hardly a 'pro-life' stance in those countries.


Women who do not control their own bodies and destinies and reproductive futures are slaves to the men that control those things for them.  It's really that simple.

Flag faith713 July 14, 2010 7:11 PM EDT

Jul 14, 2010 -- 1:58PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Is abortion legal in the countries where honor killings are common, Faith?


Here's a clue ... no.  Many honor killings are done because the woman has fallen pregnant!  She is a second class citizen in her country, and her fetus is killed along with her, so the lack of the availability of abortion is hardly a 'pro-life' stance in those countries.


Women who do not control their own bodies and destinies and reproductive futures are slaves to the men that control those things for them.  It's really that simple.




And two wrongs don't make a right. It's really that simple.

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees July 17, 2010 6:20 PM EDT

Jul 7, 2010 -- 12:02PM, faith713 wrote:


Jul 3, 2010 -- 12:53PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


I certainly think that if one believes what this thread title decrees then they are certainly obligated to obey their conscience in that regard....


 


 




With that logic, stopping infanticide is also blasphemy since God allowed it?


Remember, humans are fallible.



  I am indeed well aware of that. Smile


I am also well aware that humans are made in the image and likeness of god. So if Infanticide exists, not only did omniscient omnipresent omnipotent omni-genesis allow it, the Bible declares it committed it.


How are humans expecting themselves to live to a higher moral standard than god when we're made in god's image and likeness?! As you are the living testament to the genetics of both your mother and father so to are we created made in the image and likeness of a father in heaven.


So says the word, no!? We can not be less than perfection that created us from it's power. A perfect being can not create something imperfect and in it's image and like-ness.


 

Flag faith713 July 19, 2010 11:49 AM EDT

Jul 17, 2010 -- 6:20PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


Jul 7, 2010 -- 12:02PM, faith713 wrote:


Jul 3, 2010 -- 12:53PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


I certainly think that if one believes what this thread title decrees then they are certainly obligated to obey their conscience in that regard....


 


 




With that logic, stopping infanticide is also blasphemy since God allowed it?


Remember, humans are fallible.



  I am indeed well aware of that. Smile


I am also well aware that humans are made in the image and likeness of god. So if Infanticide exists, not only did omniscient omnipresent omnipotent omni-genesis allow it, the Bible declares it committed it.


How are humans expecting themselves to live to a higher moral standard than god when we're made in god's image and likeness?! As you are the living testament to the genetics of both your mother and father so to are we created made in the image and likeness of a father in heaven.


So says the word, no!? We can not be less than perfection that created us from it's power. A perfect being can not create something imperfect and in it's image and like-ness.


 




The original creation was "very good"(Genesis 1:31),
not perfect. Our perfection can only be completed in Him.


 


www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFDl-KWu-XQ

Flag Jesusismypersonallordandsavior July 19, 2010 12:28 PM EDT

I'm Pro-Life because I care about Women and because my conscience is against murder. More then 97% of Abortions are not because of rape, health or incest. I cry until the day the U.S.A. comes back to the Lord, any Nation that kills its children is in trouble. And for the openly Pro-Choice people, have you ever been with a woman who is in terrible emotional and physical pain and remorse because of their decision of Abortion. I wonder how many of the so-called pro-choicers in this forum have even had an Abortion of a living baby. It really makes me upset that Obamacare will have full funding of Abortion, I am so saddened that planned parenthood or planned butchers of babies gets all the tax-payer money they do. I'm not sorry for having my faith and being Pro-Life.

Flag Bezant July 19, 2010 1:45 PM EDT

Jul 19, 2010 -- 12:28PM, Jesusismypersonallordandsavior wrote:


I'm Pro-Life because I care about Women and because my conscience is against murder. More then 97% of Abortions are not because of rape, health or incest. I cry until the day the U.S.A. comes back to the Lord, any Nation that kills its children is in trouble. And for the openly Pro-Choice people, have you ever been with a woman who is in terrible emotional and physical pain and remorse because of their decision of Abortion. I wonder how many of the so-called pro-choicers in this forum have even had an Abortion of a living baby. It really makes me upset that Obamacare will have full funding of Abortion, I am so saddened that planned parenthood or planned butchers of babies gets all the tax-payer money they do. I'm not sorry for having my faith and being Pro-Life.





Hello Jesus-Lord-Personal-Saviour


All respect due, and I hate to sound like an arse, but I'm not convinced a lick of your argument because you make some pretty blatant assumptions.


One--don't assume the other side's ignorant of your argument. As you can guess I'm pro-life, but I used to be pro-choice. Go figure.


Furthermore, since abortion is as widespread as you say certainly one pro-choice supporter on this forum has had an abortion.


Two--don't pass judgement on your opponent's "moral decay" unless you want to leave yourself rightly open to crossfire. Pro-choice supporters overwhelmingly detest murder and many claim that they, unlike pro-life supporters, care about women's welfare. What constitutes as "murder" and women's "welfare" for everyone is a different story.


Three--if you want to openly express your abhorrence of abortion I don't know what good it serves, but if you want to make emotional appeals they'll scarcely convince the other side.


Four--the U.S. has a relatively solid pro-life movement. It's not as strong throughout Europe.


edited by Justme333 to conform to local board guidelines

Flag Tolerant Sis July 19, 2010 2:24 PM EDT

Jul 19, 2010 -- 12:28PM, Jesusismypersonallordandsavior wrote:


I'm Pro-Life because I care about Women and because my conscience is against murder. More then 97% of Abortions are not because of rape, health or incest. I cry until the day the U.S.A. comes back to the Lord, any Nation that kills its children is in trouble. And for the openly Pro-Choice people, have you ever been with a woman who is in terrible emotional and physical pain and remorse because of their decision of Abortion. I wonder how many of the so-called pro-choicers in this forum have even had an Abortion of a living baby. It really makes me upset that Obamacare will have full funding of Abortion, I am so saddened that planned parenthood or planned butchers of babies gets all the tax-payer money they do. I'm not sorry for having my faith and being Pro-Life.




 ... okay.


Look, kid, let's start with why abortion is legal in the first place.  You say in one breath you detest abortion and in the second decry government health care.


Okay.  So how do you think you'd feel if you were told that you HAD to go through a particular medical course of action because the government said so?


That is, after all, what you are advocating for more than half the population.  No one should have to undertake any medical risk, whether you think it's a big deal or not (and as a male get your head around the reality that you will never, ever know) against their will.  


The Court, in its wisdom, decided that privacy in medical care trumps your right to force women into childbearing against their will.  Strike one.


Second, have you ever done anything to help children who were already born and breathing? I am the adoptive mother of now five children, as well as the biological mother of one.  Three of those children have serious and lifelong challenges.  I tried to foster several others whom I could not help.  All of them were products of families that didn't want them and didn't love them.  Are you a foster father? Have you ever adopted? Have you so much as served as cookie-man at a cub scout jamboree? 


No?   Strike two.


Third, I have a young woman of my acquaintance who is a friend of one of my daughters.  She lived with us for seven months because her oh-so-christian parents threw her out of the house when they learned she was expecting a baby.  She tried to commit suicide twice, ultimately managed to have a miscarriage at five months by throwing herself off a railroad bridge (managing to break both legs in the process).  Her parents sued us (the suit was later dismissed with a curt word from the judge).  We kept her with us until she could walk again, and then she ran away.  My daughter heard from her a month or so later.  She was living with a guy in California that was a friend of the boyfriend who impregnated her, but hasn't to our knowledge finished school, entered college, or had a life.  She is scarred for life, my dear, but not because she had an abortion ... she is scarred because she had uncaring christian assholes for parents.  


Strike three.


A few other stupid and typical prolify misconceptions:


There is no such thing as an abortion of a 'living baby'.  Abortions are procedures done on women and their embryos or fetuses.  


Obamacare (?) does not pay for abortions, laddie.  Your pastor lied to you.  And not for the first time.


I am sick of the tax funding of churches like yours, too.  Your churches don't pay taxes, so I have to pay more for you to spew your hate and vitriol.  


It's a two-way street.


 

Flag faith713 July 20, 2010 11:20 AM EDT

Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Okay.  So how do you think you'd feel if you were told that you HAD to go through a particular medical course of action because the government said so?


That is, after all, what you are advocating for more than half the population.  No one should have to undertake any medical risk, whether you think it's a big deal or not (and as a male get your head around the reality that you will never, ever know) against their will.  


The Court, in its wisdom, decided that privacy in medical care trumps your right to force women into childbearing against their will.  Strike one.



Courts don't always make just decisions. Once the child is conceived, the mother should be responsible to nurture and protect said child.


Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


 Second, have you ever done anything to help children who were already born and breathing?  


No? Then shut the hell up.  Strike two.



With that logic, if someone speaks out against infanticide then they need to adopt or support any infant they wish to be protected. No? Then .....? Charming.


Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


 Third, I have a young woman of my acquaintance who is a friend of one of my daughters.  She lived with us for seven months because her oh-so-christian parents threw her out of the house when they learned she was expecting a baby.  She tried to commit suicide twice, ultimately managed to have a miscarriage at five months by throwing herself off a railroad bridge (managing to break both legs in the process).  Her parents sued us (the suit was later dismissed with a curt word from the judge).  We kept her with us until she could walk again, and then she ran away.  My daughter heard from her a month or so later.  She was living with a guy in California that was a friend of the boyfriend who impregnated her, but hasn't to our knowledge finished school, entered college, or had a life.  She is scarred for life, my dear, but not because she had an abortion ... she is scarred because she had uncaring christian assholes for parents.  


Strike three.



And how would killing her unborn child help her solve her problems? Some people have abusive parents yet overcome their circumstances without killing their children.


Flag Tolerant Sis July 20, 2010 11:44 AM EDT

Faith, I know that  this has been explained to you a dozen times.  Once an infant is born, it is a person with all rights and responsibilities of personhood and citizenship.  You can't just murder a person without repercussions.  A fetus is not a person, and it is entirely dependent on the ongoing consent of another person, who must allow it to share every single one of her body systems, her food supply, and so forth.  Giving the fetus 'equal rights' with the mother means the mother loses her equality.  There is no legal way around it.  Indeed, if she is forced into childbearing against her will, she is nothing more than a sexual slave.


 

Flag Bezant July 20, 2010 2:53 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2010 -- 11:44AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Faith, I know that  this has been explained to you a dozen times.  Once an infant is born, it is a person with all rights and responsibilities of personhood and citizenship.  You can't just murder a person without repercussions.  A fetus is not a person, and it is entirely dependent on the ongoing consent of another person, who must allow it to share every single one of her body systems, her food supply, and so forth. Giving the fetus 'equal rights' with the mother means the mother loses her equality.  There is no legal way around it.  Indeed, if she is forced into childbearing against her will, she is nothing more than a sexual slave.




Hullo Sis


Topic's debatable and still not for granted. Let's play nice.


I note your distinction between a fetus' physical dependency and an infant's. Obviously infants are more self-sufficient than fetuses.


But when the degree of independence (or lack thereof) qualifies "personhood" -- there's a problem: infants still depend on the "ongoing consent" of their caretakers, but infanticide is illegal.


And that slope's slippery enough to get dangerous. Remember the thousands of mentally retarded, psychologically ill and elderly the Nazi regime exterminated because they were "useless."


Jul 20, 2010 -- 11:44AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


You can't just murder a person without repercussions.




In theory.


Remember OJ?


Jul 20, 2010 -- 11:44AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Giving the fetus 'equal rights' with the mother means the mother loses her equality.  There is no legal way around it.




So a pregnant woman, by right of her birth, is a "person with all rights and responsibilities of personhood and citizenship" -- how does the same status of a completely dependent non-person rob her equality?


Jul 20, 2010 -- 11:44AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Indeed, if she is forced into childbearing against her will, she is nothing more than a sexual slave.




The sex slavery biz is to procure sex, not babies.

Flag Tolerant Sis July 20, 2010 3:41 PM EDT

There is nothing legally debatable about personhood.  There is a clear and very bright line at birth.  Our laws are pretty clear about what that means.  Fetuses do not have any rights that do not proceed from the rights of the woman carrying said fetus.


Faith's obtuse rationale that a ten-week embryonic abortion is equal to the infanticide of an already born and breathing infant is absurd on its face.  Nearly half of all embryos are expelled by that time naturally.  Not a single one of their 'deaths' is investigated for murder (which is a legal term that has an actual meaning, not the airy-fairy meaning of 'the killing of anything I don't want you to kill'), not a one of them is issued a death certificate, never mind a 'birth certificate'.  


And yes, if a woman who is pregnant against her will, for whatever reason, is condemned to carry the pregnancy to term, we remove her right to medical care from her and give it to a creature that happens to be located in her body.  Unless we are willing to do that for any parent whose BORN child needs extraordinary medical care the pregnant woman's rights have been co-opted by a non-person.


Which is frankly unconstitutional.

Flag Bezant July 20, 2010 4:21 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


There is nothing legally debatable about personhood.




I said the "topic" is debatable.


Furthermore a legal debate in both the States and the UK was required to legalise general abortion and their respective definitions on personhood -- i.e. at one point we played by different rules.


"I'll be back."


Pun intended.

Flag jlb32168 July 24, 2010 1:24 PM EDT

Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

No one should have to undertake any medical risk, whether you think it's a big deal or not (and as a male get your head around the reality that you will never, ever know) against their will.


Do you believe that abortion should be available if it is determined that a child will:  A)have Down’s Syndrome?  B)be gay/lesbian?  C)be of the sex the mother didn’t want (e.g. be a female when the couple wanted a male or vice versa)?


If you take exception to any of these cases, then you think that some women should have to undertake the medical risk – big deal or not; furthermore, being a male or female is irrelevant and doesn’t involve getting a head around reality.  If involves advocating for the unborn.


Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

The Court, in its wisdom, decided that privacy in medical care trumps your right to force women into childbearing against their will.  Strike one.


The Court case was decided by seven men.  Apparently “getting your head around reality” translates into “agreeing with Tolerant Sis” or so that’s what it seems to mean since only men who disagree with your opinion aren’t in possession of reality.


Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Second, have you ever done anything to help children who were already born and breathing?


The answer to this question isn’t verifiable or falsifiable so why ask it?  Besides, no one else is required to allot their compassion for children in the same manner as you.  That you make distinctions between children in utero and those post partum is your affair.


Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

She is scarred for life, my dear, but not because she had an abortion ... she is scarred because she had uncaring christian _ssholes for parents.  Strike three.


Your “shut the h_ll up comment was juvenile and unworthy of a response”.  That you lump all Christian parents into the same group as these obviously clueless parents is equally idiotic.  There are plenty of Christians who do exactly the same thing as you so get off your high horse.


Jul 19, 2010 -- 2:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

A few other stupid and typical . . .


I read no further than this idiocy.  You have some good things to say about the need to help pregnant women in crisis, but it will only galvanize your opposition and turn off the moderately minded who find your scathing polemic too nasty for them to stomach.

Flag jlb32168 July 24, 2010 1:33 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

There is nothing legally debatable about personhood.  There is a clear and very bright line at birth.  Our laws are pretty clear about what that means.  Fetuses do not have any rights that do not proceed from the rights of the woman carrying said fetus.


That is incorrect.  SCOTUS has determined that as a pregnancy proceeds, the fetus indeed does have rights that develop.  For this reason SCOTUS gave the states the right to regulate with increasing strictness the right to procure an abortion.


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Faith's obtuse rationale that a ten-week embryonic abortion is equal to the infanticide of an already born and breathing infant is absurd on its face.


That is a matter of personal taste, TS.  You’re free to disagree with it, but you repair instead to shrill, polemic demonizing of those who disagree with you.


Is everyone who disagrees with you an obtuse moron who could be a cast member for "Deliverance"?  Somehow, I think your opinion would be, "Yes, of course!"


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Nearly half of all embryos are expelled by that time naturally.  Not a single one of their 'deaths' is investigated for murder (which is a legal term that has an actual meaning, not the airy-fairy meaning of 'the killing of anything I don't want you to kill'), not a one of them is issued a death certificate, never mind a 'birth certificate'.


“Murder” is not a strictly legal term.  It is also defined as killing somebody with great violence and brutality.  Depending upon one’s view of the unborn, he/she might regard the unborn as a person who was violently killed.  

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees July 28, 2010 12:19 AM EDT

Jul 19, 2010 -- 11:49AM, faith713 wrote:


Jul 17, 2010 -- 6:20PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


Jul 7, 2010 -- 12:02PM, faith713 wrote:


Jul 3, 2010 -- 12:53PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


I certainly think that if one believes what this thread title decrees then they are certainly obligated to obey their conscience in that regard....


 


 




With that logic, stopping infanticide is also blasphemy since God allowed it?


Remember, humans are fallible.



  I am indeed well aware of that. Smile


I am also well aware that humans are made in the image and likeness of god. So if Infanticide exists, not only did omniscient omnipresent omnipotent omni-genesis allow it, the Bible declares it committed it.


How are humans expecting themselves to live to a higher moral standard than god when we're made in god's image and likeness?! As you are the living testament to the genetics of both your mother and father so to are we created made in the image and likeness of a father in heaven.


So says the word, no!? We can not be less than perfection that created us from it's power. A perfect being can not create something imperfect and in it's image and like-ness.


 




The original creation was "very good"(Genesis 1:31),
not perfect. Our perfection can only be completed in Him.


 


www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFDl-KWu-XQ





Genesis 1:27 states: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


While in direct contradiction to your cited scripture of Genesis 1:31 god said in Genesis 6:6


And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


 


When man was made in the image and likeness of perfection, how then does perfection feel grief at his heart for what he, an Omniscient Omnipresent Omnipotent power, made!?


 


   

Flag Gonzo_kitty July 28, 2010 11:18 AM EDT

If a woman wants an abortion simply because it is inconvenient for her to have a child, that is wrong. Don't do the deed if you don't want to breed. Or, you know, at the least take some precautions.


 


On the other hand, if a woman is the victim of rape, incest, etc. she should be able to terminate the pregnancy without stigma. Seriously, if you were attacked and, as a result, were now carrying the offspring of the man who attacked you, would you really be able to go through with it? I think the risk of mental collapse on the woman's part is much too great. And, if the child is born, would she not think of the terrible thing that happened to her every time she looked at the child? No. That is too much to ask of any human.


 


And for those of you who will say, "Put the kid up for adoption." 9 months of carrying a stranger that was put there by a monster...I can't imagine the psychological damage that would do to a woman.


 


I heard that in the future, insurance will cover abortion is cases of rape and incest. I think this is great.

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees July 28, 2010 7:04 PM EDT

Jul 28, 2010 -- 11:18AM, Gonzo_kitty wrote:


If a woman wants an abortion simply because it is inconvenient for her to have a child, that is wrong. Don't do the deed if you don't want to breed. Or, you know, at the least take some precautions.


Abortion, is not an easy proceedure for a woman to undergo. Even in the 21st century where medicine has evolved to such a level as to better insure her safe recovery, things can go wrong. I don't think I have a right to judge a woman who decides to have an abortion. It's her uterus, her choice.
What I think would be consistent with those who espouse a pro-life policy against that choice, while advocating all fertile women have no choice in their reproductive matters, is if those who sought to legally force a woman to be enslaved to the will of advocates citing their personal theology as cause, would expend a 10th of that same energy in adopting the born and homeless, instead.


Too often it's evident that behind that rallying cry to, breed baby breed! There's a whimper when the question is asked; and how many unwanted babies have you given a better quality of life, now that pro-life policy insured their arrival?!


 


 

On the other hand, if a woman is the victim of rape, incest, etc. she should be able to terminate the pregnancy without stigma. Seriously, if you were attacked and, as a result, were now carrying the offspring of the man who attacked you, would you really be able to go through with it? I think the risk of mental collapse on the woman's part is much too great. And, if the child is born, would she not think of the terrible thing that happened to her every time she looked at the child? No. That is too much to ask of any human. 


And for those of you who will say, "Put the kid up for adoption." 9 months of carrying a stranger that was put there by a monster...I can't imagine the psychological damage that would do to a woman.


 


I heard that in the future, insurance will cover abortion is cases of rape and incest. I think this is great.



I agree. I also think the rapist should be castrated and incarcerated for life without parole. And that the Prison system in general needs to be reformed so that those lifers serve their sentence among their own, instead of now being integrated with short timers whom they victimize simply because they have nothing to lose. The same goes for Pedophiles! Life without parole after castration. But in the meantime their seed should be removed from the womb of their victim, if she wills it so.
No woman should be enslaved to pregnancy.

And for the record, in response to someone else who ridiculed TS for bringing up slavery in this matter, enslavement of the female sex by revoking her free will choice and right to reproductive privacy, is by definition enslavement. Such laws make that equal female citizen of America subservient and subordinate to the will of others espousing tenuous agendas against her personal equality. 


If abortion is murder, what's next!? Every miscarriage should be investigated as a potential homicide?! Religion has no place in this matter in any event. America is not a Theocracy, no one god ordains our Government to power, nor is it exclusively revered in this nation wherein the 1st Amendment stands pat.


What is very simple is this. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're a man and you're against abortion, insure no woman ever has you to thank for causing her to make a choice! Get a vasectomy. And if you're pro-life, prove it by adopting the born homeless orphaned and fostered babies who abound as living proof, their mom's were pro-choice!


 


edited by Justme333 to conform to board local guidelines

Flag faith713 July 29, 2010 12:50 PM EDT

Jul 28, 2010 -- 12:19AM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


Jul 19, 2010 -- 11:49AM, faith713 wrote:


Jul 17, 2010 -- 6:20PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


Jul 7, 2010 -- 12:02PM, faith713 wrote:


Jul 3, 2010 -- 12:53PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


I certainly think that if one believes what this thread title decrees then they are certainly obligated to obey their conscience in that regard....


 


 




With that logic, stopping infanticide is also blasphemy since God allowed it?


Remember, humans are fallible.



  I am indeed well aware of that. Smile


I am also well aware that humans are made in the image and likeness of god. So if Infanticide exists, not only did omniscient omnipresent omnipotent omni-genesis allow it, the Bible declares it committed it.


How are humans expecting themselves to live to a higher moral standard than god when we're made in god's image and likeness?! As you are the living testament to the genetics of both your mother and father so to are we created made in the image and likeness of a father in heaven.


So says the word, no!? We can not be less than perfection that created us from it's power. A perfect being can not create something imperfect and in it's image and like-ness.


 




The original creation was "very good"(Genesis 1:31),
not perfect. Our perfection can only be completed in Him.


 


www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFDl-KWu-XQ





Genesis 1:27 states: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


While in direct contradiction to your cited scripture of Genesis 1:31 god said in Genesis 6:6


And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


 


When man was made in the image and likeness of perfection, how then does perfection feel grief at his heart for what he, an Omniscient Omnipresent Omnipotent power, made!?


 


   




We have the free will to reject God and go our own way. 

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees July 29, 2010 5:24 PM EDT

 


Jul 3, 2010 -- 12:53PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:




We have the free will to reject God and go our own way. 



I think if we're to discuss Deity and the attributes that make it so, we first have to come to an accord as to what is described of that Deity's characteristics so as to discern it as a "supreme being". In this case the Bible tells us that god is: Omniscient (all knowing) Omnipresent (Everywhere) Omnipotent (all powerful) Omni-Genetic (creator of all)


Therefore, it is my contention that we do not have free will. Certainly we can choose to reject god and go our way. However, Omniscience was well aware of our choice, before we were. And it is impossible for us to go on our way, even after we choose to reject god, because god is everywhere present.  And we can not truly exercise freedom under will, when the Bible is replete with references as to what god prescribes as voluntary compliance to his command for obedience unto his own will, while also making it quite clear how severe one will be judged and condemned if they fail to comply.


So neither our will nor ourself is truly free, within the domain of Omniscient Omnipresence that sits in judgement of our limited mortal conscious choices, and then punishes (or rewards) us for what Omniscience would have known was our destiny long before we did.  

Flag Justme333 July 29, 2010 6:57 PM EDT

Jul 29, 2010 -- 5:24PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


 


Jul 3, 2010 -- 12:53PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:




We have the free will to reject God and go our own way. 



I think if we're to discuss Deity and the attributes that make it so, we first have to come to an accord as to what is described of that Deity's characteristics so as to discern it as a "supreme being". In this case the Bible tells us that god is: Omniscient (all knowing) Omnipresent (Everywhere) Omnipotent (all powerful) Omni-Genetic (creator of all)


Therefore, it is my contention that we do not have free will. Certainly we can choose to reject god and go our way. However, Omniscience was well aware of our choice, before we were. And it is impossible for us to go on our way, even after we choose to reject god, because god is everywhere present.  And we can not truly exercise freedom under will, when the Bible is replete with references as to what god prescribes as voluntary compliance to his command for obedience unto his own will, while also making it quite clear how severe one will be judged and condemned if they fail to comply.


So neither our will nor ourself is truly free, within the domain of Omniscient Omnipresence that sits in judgement of our limited mortal conscious choices, and then punishes (or rewards) us for what Omniscience would have known was our destiny long before we did.  




Here is the problem with "coming to accord as to what is described about that deity's character" , this is not the board to discuss any one's Deity, unless it is specifically linked to the abortion issue in each and every post that discusses a Deity.  Please read the sticky post at the top of the board that is titled "Please read before posting on this board" (or some such thing) as to the rules about discussion of religious things.  Now there are boards to discuss those issues, but it is off topic for this board.  Here is a link to a board where it is on topic: Discuss Christianity  community.beliefnet.com/go/forum/view/43....


 


Thank-you,



Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Abortion Debate Board 

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees July 30, 2010 1:31 PM EDT

Thank-you right back, Smile


I clearly misunderstood the OP[Original Post], wherein Biblical scripture was cited by the author of said OP, beneath numerous links to the JW website discussing abortion as it relates to their religious creed.


I mistakenly inferred that since the OP introduced that particular Diety into this forum's topic for debate, that it would then call for expounding upon how the proclamation Abortion is Murder, is reasoned within the context of mortal consciousness that is then made subject to omniscient omnigenetic omnipresence.


My apologies for believing that was a relevent correlary to what was already posted to expressly imply same these last three pages produced after that OP.


I appreciate your input.
Live the Peace,


W.

Flag Bezant July 30, 2010 6:47 PM EDT

Hullo


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


There is nothing legally debatable about personhood.  There is a clear and very bright line at birth.  Our laws are pretty clear about what that means.  Fetuses do not have any rights that do not proceed from the rights of the woman carrying said fetus.




Looks like you reject debate where your opinion disagrees, but you're all for a constitutional government founded on debate.


Two hundred years ago Africans were fair game because slavery got stuff done. The rules since changed.


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Faith's obtuse rationale that a ten-week embryonic abortion is equal to the infanticide of an already born and breathing infant is absurd on its face.




We all agree that the infant has "personhood" (whatever that means) -- and that murder terminates and violates the infant's "personhood."


So personhood is based on breathing independently?


Because Christopher Reeve couldn't breathe on his own for years his personhood checked out?


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Nearly half of all embryos are expelled by that time naturally.




Half of all pregnant women have miscarriages?


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Not a single one of their 'deaths' is investigated for murder (which is a legal term that has an actual meaning, not the airy-fairy meaning of 'the killing of anything I don't want you to kill'), not a one of them is issued a death certificate, never mind a 'birth certificate'.




When my grandmother died of pnuemonia no one investigated her death, either.


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


And yes, if a woman who is pregnant against her will, for whatever reason, is condemned to carry the pregnancy to term, we remove her right to medical care from her and give it to a creature that happens to be located in her body.




It can't go both ways.


You say the fetus lacks personhood because its "complete" dependency on its mother.


And then you say giving a fetus personhood "condemns" its mother to carry it to full term.


If the fetus that weak in reality it's not "condemning" her.


Jul 20, 2010 -- 3:41PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Unless we are willing to do that for any parent whose BORN child needs extraordinary medical care the pregnant woman's rights have been co-opted by a non-person.


Which is frankly unconstitutional.




So unless we can rescue everyone, we can't do it.


Then if we have no homeless people we can have no capitalism.

Flag faith713 August 2, 2010 9:27 AM EDT

Jul 28, 2010 -- 11:18AM, Gonzo_kitty wrote:


 


I heard that in the future, insurance will cover abortion is cases of rape and incest. I think this is great.




I don't want my tax dollars being used to kill any human beings in their mother's womb. I think that is horrible.


 


 


 

Flag Donald August 2, 2010 12:00 PM EDT

Aug 2, 2010 -- 11:12AM, Bezant wrote:


That's completely irrelevant. Fairy tales. Fluff stuff. The Abrahamic God doesn't exist. He's only your imagination.







 


You are right, the Christian god does not exist.  Just like the Easter Bunny isn't real. 


 


But somehow Christians think that their god is not a baby murderer and yet according to their scripture it(god) kills babies all the time for selfish reasons.  You should read the bible; it is full of stories about god killing or giving orders to kill babies and children. 


I think the person that does not believe in giving a woman or girl that was raped the option of abortion is just as guilty as the rapist for torture.  The person that is against abortion for rape is actually sicker than the rapist because they want the woman to suffer for ever. 


Why don't you agree with me since you don't believe in the god of the Bible.  You must have come the conclusion that the Christian god if it existed would be a very mean god and could care less about humans. 


 




Flag Bezant August 2, 2010 1:29 PM EDT

Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:


You are right, the Christian god does not exist.  Just like the Easter Bunny isn't real. 




That was my very sarcastic way of putting it, since you accuse the Abrahamic God of being a killer, therefore acknolwedging His existence, although you claim to believe the contrary.


Can't have it both ways.


Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:


 


But somehow Christians think that their god is not a baby murderer and yet according to their scripture it(god) kills babies all the time for selfish reasons. You should read the bible; it is full of  stories about god killing or giving orders to kill babies and children.


 




Thank-you again for your take on Christian Scripture. Therefore, abortion is justified from a Christian theological perspective, isn't it? In which case more or less two billion (I stress the number) Christians should be on your side.


Of course, it takes the average Catholic semeniarian between five and nine years to become an ordinary (I stress the word) diocesan priest (that is, after all the primary studies), and the Church has the backing of 2,000 years of Scriptural interpration and scholarship behind it. In which case you'd be wrong.


Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:


 


I think the person that does not believe in giving a woman or girl that was raped the option of abortion is just as guilty as the rapist for torture.




Ah. I guess we should convict people for their beliefs (or lack thereof). It's about time we arrested some Canadians, no?


Furthermore, rape and torture constitute seperate crimes. Torturers are not automatically charged with rape.


Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:


 


The person that is against abortion for rape is actually sicker than the rapist because they want the woman to suffer for ever.




And your creds come from where?

Flag Iwantamotto August 2, 2010 3:00 PM EDT

Bezant:  Two hundred years ago Africans were fair game because slavery got stuff done.



One day, I hope to see an analogy that's relevant.


Because Christopher Reeve couldn't breathe on his own for years his personhood checked out?



It's more than any just one thing.  The fetus that doesn't breathe on its own also does not have ANYTHING independent going on.  It must literally be connected to the mother in order to function at the most basic cellular level.  It's one thing when you're just talking about one organ system having issues, but when it's from head to toe without rational thought, then it's completely different.


A more accurate analogy would be someone like Terri Schiavo, who needed practically everything AND had no complex brain function.  If anyone is a meat puppet, those types of folks are meat puppets.  I guess it's a good thing she was practically dead, because the thought that people would keep a body going just to avoid the ickiness of death just riles me up.  Embryos haven't checked into the Personhood Hotel yet.  People with massive organ failure and no lights on in the attic have checked out, even if the air conditioner's still on.


When my grandmother died of pnuemonia no one investigated her death, either.



It's not on her death certificate?


faith713:  I don't want my tax dollars being used to kill any human beings in their mother's womb.



I don't want to pay for others' children's to go to school or for people to go to others' countries and start shooting.  I guess we all have problems.


Bezant:  Of course, it takes the average Catholic semeniarian between five and nine years to become an ordinary (I stress the word) diocesan priest (that is, after all the primary studies), and the Church has the backing of 2,000 years of Scriptural interpration and scholarship behind it. In which case you'd be wrong.



You'd think after all that studying they'd see where God clearly doesn't even like us much when we're "persons", much less "non-persons".  You have to delete a LOT of unflattering attitudes toward humans, born or not, in order to come up with "God wants even little clumps of cells to have the same rights as adults".

Flag faith713 August 3, 2010 8:31 AM EDT

Aug 2, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Bezant:  Two hundred years ago Africans were fair game because slavery got stuff done.



One day, I hope to see an analogy that's relevant.


The analogy is relevant, both devalue humans based on subjective attributes.


Because Christopher Reeve couldn't breathe on his own for years his personhood checked out?



It's more than any just one thing.  The fetus that doesn't breathe on its own also does not have ANYTHING independent going on.  It must literally be connected to the mother in order to function at the most basic cellular level.  It's one thing when you're just talking about one organ system having issues, but when it's from head to toe without rational thought, then it's completely different.


A more accurate analogy would be someone like Terri Schiavo, who needed practically everything AND had no complex brain function.  If anyone is a meat puppet, those types of folks are meat puppets.  I guess it's a good thing she was practically dead, because the thought that people would keep a body going just to avoid the ickiness of death just riles me up.  Embryos haven't checked into the Personhood Hotel yet.  People with massive organ failure and no lights on in the attic have checked out, even if the air conditioner's still on.


Not an accurate analogy, Terri Schiavo was practically dead OTOH an unborn child has just begun to live. 


When my grandmother died of pnuemonia no one investigated her death, either.



It's not on her death certificate?


There are people without birth certificates. Does that negate their personhood?


faith713:  I don't want my tax dollars being used to kill any human beings in their mother's womb.



I don't want to pay for others' children's to go to school or for people to go to others' countries and start shooting.  I guess we all have problems.


As long as it's not your arms and legs being ripped off, then I'm sure you're OK with it.


Bezant:  Of course, it takes the average Catholic semeniarian between five and nine years to become an ordinary (I stress the word) diocesan priest (that is, after all the primary studies), and the Church has the backing of 2,000 years of Scriptural interpration and scholarship behind it. In which case you'd be wrong.



You'd think after all that studying they'd see where God clearly doesn't even like us much when we're "persons", much less "non-persons".  You have to delete a LOT of unflattering attitudes toward humans, born or not, in order to come up with "God wants even little clumps of cells to have the same rights as adults".


We are all made up of cells, what does that fact have to do with how God values every human being equally, including the unborn ones?





Flag Bezant August 3, 2010 11:38 AM EDT

Hello Iwantamotto


Aug 2, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Bezant:  Two hundred years ago Africans were fair game because slavery got stuff done.



One day, I hope to see an analogy that's relevant.




Faith (no pun intended) disagrees.


Aug 2, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Because Christopher Reeve couldn't breathe on his own for years his personhood checked out?



It's more than any just one thing.  The fetus that doesn't breathe on its own also does not have ANYTHING independent going on.  It must literally be connected to the mother in order to function at the most basic cellular level.  It's one thing when you're just talking about one organ system having issues, but when it's from head to toe without rational thought, then it's completely different.




I should add more vinegar to my sarcasm. But while we play.

My mentally retarded uncle might well fail your definition of "rational thought" (whatever that means) no matter how old he gets.


So might a newborn, which everyone agrees has "personhood" (whatever that means) and all the fancy trimmings attatched.


So too a string of really bad politicians. But that's neither here nor there.


Aug 2, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


A more accurate analogy would be someone like Terri Schiavo, who needed practically everything AND had no complex brain function.  If anyone is a meat puppet, those types of folks are meat puppets.  I guess it's a good thing she was practically dead, because the thought that people would keep a body going just to avoid the ickiness of death just riles me up.  Embryos haven't checked into the Personhood Hotel yet.  People with massive organ failure and no lights on in the attic have checked out, even if the air conditioner's still on.




There are problems with your Schiavo analogy. A normal embryo's physical functions ought develop normally; or as you say, embroys haven't checked into the Personhood Hotel yet. Unless by some medical miracle Schiavo would never have recovered, there was no chance of her "developing" normally.



When my grandmother died of pnuemonia no one investigated her death, either.



IWAM: It's not on her death certificate?




TolerantSis said argued that abortion is not murder because naturally aborted fetuses aren't investigated for murder.


I ought have said that no one investigated my grandmother's death for murder.



faith713:  I don't want my tax dollars being used to kill any human beings in their mother's womb.



I don't want to pay for others' children's to go to school or for people to go to others' countries and start shooting.  I guess we all have problems.


Bezant:  Of course, it takes the average Catholic semeniarian between five and nine years to become an ordinary (I stress the word) diocesan priest (that is, after all the primary studies), and the Church has the backing of 2,000 years of Scriptural interpration and scholarship behind it. In which case you'd be wrong.



IWAM: You'd think after all that studying they'd see where God clearly doesn't even like us much when we're "persons", much less "non-persons".  You have to delete a LOT of unflattering attitudes toward humans, born or not, in order to come up with "God wants even little clumps of cells to have the same rights as adults".




That you'd "have to" do "that" is debatable.


Donald's entitled to his tuppence, blogs, and best-sellers on the Christian theological position of abortion.


But when he says, "Well, you guys don't actually know what you're talking about. This is really what your religion says about abortion" -- that's where he gets wrong.


I don't know your position on abortion, but Christian theologians who try to justify abortion create an uphill battle for themselfes.

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees August 3, 2010 5:21 PM EDT

I've engaged in discussions with Christians on matters such as this. I've found it's an emotional issue for those particular individuals, and they defend that with the Biblical edicts wherein they claim god is opposed to abortion.
However, they were lacking in the ability to cite one verse wherein god said abortion should be outlawed or was forbidden by him. Secondly, it's a matter of consistency. It is impossible to declare a secular political platform built upon a religious codex, within the framework of a free Democratic Republic. America is not a Theocracy. Ergo, an exclusivist religious principle can not be applied under rule of law and be in keeping with the 1st Amendment.


That not withstanding, it's a matter of not only consistency but logic and fairness to intellectual honesty in such a debate as this. The Christians I debated on this matter would say, when it was pointed out that scripture after scripture their argument is made mute by the written proof god is not pro-life. That, contrary to their protestations, life does not begin at conception because of Genesis 2:7. Thus, abortion is a procedure performed in utero and not upon a born child, so it is not murder because the child by god's law in Genesis 2:7 is not a living soul. Nor are they, by secular authority designation, a lawful person upon whom murder can be exacted, because the zygote/embryo/fetus, are not a lawful person until they are born.


And all the while many hard bitten pro-life Christian's insist, when it comes to matters of consistency and Deific principles afforded in practicing what god preaches, that it's god and he can do what he likes with his creation. So in effect, god can abort countless "lives" in the womb and it's pardonable because it's god and god's dominion. But humans must be forced to codify a morality that is then superior to god, in the name of god who could not and does not abide by example.


It's not an argument that can ever be won. It's not a matter of the Bible, god's will, morality or life. It's a matter, amid the pro-life legislation, of control.


What would happen to the equation of a woman's right to privacy, if god and religion was taken entirely out of the picture.


 


Could a debate in this Abortion Forum, proceed? 


We see what happens to women and their reproductive sovereignty, when the pro-life lobby get's even a foothold in rescinding their freedom of choice. We have the Bush Administration that lobbied for and ultimately signed into law the Pharmacists "Conscience Clause". Wherein a Pharmacist can refuse to fill a Prescription if it violates her/his moral conscience.


We have State's who, while unable to rescind Roe v. Wade in it's entirety, pass Bills signed into law that force women to have invasive unnecessary ultrasound proceedures, before they're permitted their right to an abortion.


And all the while, what isn't brought into the discussion is how many pro-life advocates adopt, or foster the born. In fact, what is contrary to the aforementioned consistency in this matter is, the pro-life lobby are on the forefront of protesting sex education and birth control programs in schools. So that "the children that are our future" and full of raging hormones when they hit puberty, achieved at even younger ages than before, do not have children.


So in fact, the pro-life activist agenda lobby for early childhood pregnancy and then advocate child birth to be undertaken, without option, for girls as young as 9. A platform that certainly contradicts child welfare and health, in it's entirety. While condemning the education programs and options that would preclude that from happening.


One can not be about life and not include quality of life, in the equation. Else, they are espousing a platform that defines quantity (Population) and not quality.How many baby corpses would not be found in the bathroom trash at a high school prom, if the student knew there were options available, when their god given sex drive caught their attention!? And fear of talking to their pro-life anti-sex before marriage, parent(s) kept their mouth shut thinking that swelling would just go away if they exacted the same level of ignorance, as was present in their fear of their parent(s) and the inflexible conservative attitudes vested in teaching that child have no other choice but abstinence. The only "Option" promoted by most of the pro-life lobby.And a position I think is very often touted by those who have long forgotten what it was like to be 13 and horny. Chronic ignorance gives birth to chronic ignorance. Just like that high school pregnancy example, nothing can be solved or revoked simply by ignoring it.


The consistency is lacking in the pro-life platform over all. It's sexist at it's worst and ignorance at best. Because god knows ignorance stands to be educated.


 

Flag Donald August 4, 2010 1:18 AM EDT

Italy is 98% Christian with about 95% catholic. Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were granted the right to terminate a pregnancy on demand during the first 90 days. Although a proposal to repeal the law was considered in a 1981 national referendum, it was rejected by nearly 68% of voters.


It would appear that the majority of Christians (Catholics) in Italy don't consider abortion murder. 


 


Fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?


In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


 


 

Flag jlb32168 August 4, 2010 4:35 PM EDT

Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:

You are right, the Christian god does not exist.  Just like the Easter Bunny isn't real.


Oh pleeze, bub – take it to a religiously themed board.


Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:

You should read the bible; it is full of stories about god killing or giving orders to kill babies and children.


I agree.  How is it germane to the topic of abortion? 


Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:

I think the person that does not believe in giving a woman or girl that was raped the option of abortion is just as guilty as the rapist for torture.


And I think that calling your assertion “beyond the pale of absurd-land” compliments it.


I suppose the crime of shop-lifting and the crime of chopping one’s children up to make soup are comparable in their heinousness as well, Hmmm?


Aug 2, 2010 -- 12:00PM, Donald wrote:

The person that is against abortion for . . .


I read no further than this because what starts out as tripe cannot turn to cordovan leather as things progress.

Flag jlb32168 August 4, 2010 5:00 PM EDT

Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

I've engaged in discussions with Christians on matters such as this. I've found it's an emotional issue for those particular individuals, and they defend that with the Biblical edicts wherein they claim god is opposed to abortion.


I’m a Christian – Eastern Orthodox to be specific – and I agree with you that the Bible is ambiguous on the subject.  I should, however, point out that I don’t think that the Bible contains all of God’s revelation.  


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Ergo, an exclusivist religious principle can not be applied under rule of law and be in keeping with the 1st Amendment.


I agree with you.  That is why I do not debate abortion as a religiously driven topic – albeit, if I weren’t religious, I’d probably not have a problem with it.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Thus, abortion is a procedure performed in utero and not upon a born child, so it is not murder because the child by god's law in Genesis 2:7 is not a living soul.


I would have to disagree with you there WA; however, my beliefs are based upon a Septuagintal rendering of Exodus 21.  In the Greek OT version of the verse, a man who causes a miscarriage of an “imperfectly formed child” is ordered to pay a fine as the husband directs.  However, the miscarriage of a “perfectly formed” child is a capital offence.  Clearly the Hellenistic Jews did not view the child in utero as an unliving soul.  Philo was clearly under the impression that they unborn child could be murdered if one reads his writings on the Creation.  I would assume that they regarded the “quickening” as the point when a soul was generated although I can’t be sure.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Nor are they, by secular authority designation, a lawful person upon whom murder can be exacted, because the zygote/embryo/fetus, are not a lawful person until they are born.


Which creates a legal conundrum because Scott Peterson is being executed for two murders – not one.  It is unconscionable that a man can be sentenced to death for the death of an “it”.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

It's not a matter of the Bible, god's will, morality or life. It's a matter, amid the pro-life legislation, of control.


And this is where I see the mean-spiritedness of some Pro-Choicers.  Do you actually think that all PLers believe the way they do because they wish to control women??  Do you actually think that the concern for unborn children is all a ruse?  At last check, those PL marches contained quite a few (if not majority) women.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

We have the Bush Administration that lobbied for and ultimately signed into law the Pharmacists "Conscience Clause". Wherein a Pharmacist can refuse to fill a Prescription if it violates her/his moral conscience.


Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions – even if the woman’s life is threatened.  To deny Pharm. D.s the same rights is to suggest they’re “lesser” doctors.  


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

We have State's who, while unable to rescind Roe v. Wade in it's entirety, pass Bills signed into law that force women to have invasive unnecessary ultrasound proceedures, before they're permitted their right to an abortion.


Why would any PCer be against informed consent?  It seems to me the PC fear is that women might decide against abortion.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

And all the while, what isn't brought into the discussion is how many pro-life advocates adopt, or foster the born.


That suggests that none of them do.  Speak plainly.  How many PCers foster the born?  


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

One can not be about life and not include quality of life, in the equation.


Yes and you’ve not demonstrated how PLers don’t foster the born so the question is moot.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Just like that high school pregnancy example, nothing can be solved or revoked simply by ignoring it.


Kansas was condemned for introducing rather strident PL legislation in the 90s.  Oddly enough, their rates of teen pregnancy went down.  It seems that when one pulls the safety net out from underneath people, they actually behave more carefully.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

The consistency is lacking in the pro-life platform over all. It's sexist at it's worst and ignorance at best. Because god knows ignorance stands to be educated.


Please continue to underestimate the intelligences of all PLers.  It can only work to their advantage.

Flag faith713 August 4, 2010 5:09 PM EDT

Aug 4, 2010 -- 1:18AM, Donald wrote:


Italy is 98% Christian with about 95% catholic. Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were granted the right to terminate a pregnancy on demand during the first 90 days. Although a proposal to repeal the law was considered in a 1981 national referendum, it was rejected by nearly 68% of voters.


It would appear that the majority of Christians (Catholics) in Italy don't consider abortion murder. 


Majority doesn't always stand on the side of justice, eh?


 


Fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?


In vitro fertilization should be banned. Couples who want children should adopt instead, possibly all those "products of rape" that are so disgusting and unlovable (just don't mention to the adoptive parents as to how they were conceived, right?) . Here is one testimony of an adoption:


www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/ingentl...


In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


Abortion is violence against the unborn and two wrongs don't make a right.



 




 


 


 



Flag Weepingangelofthetrees August 4, 2010 8:29 PM EDT

Aug 4, 2010 -- 5:09PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 4, 2010 -- 1:18AM, Donald wrote:


Italy is 98% Christian with about 95% catholic. Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were granted the right to terminate a pregnancy on demand during the first 90 days. Although a proposal to repeal the law was considered in a 1981 national referendum, it was rejected by nearly 68% of voters.


It would appear that the majority of Christians (Catholics) in Italy don't consider abortion murder. 


Majority doesn't always stand on the side of justice, eh?


 


Fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?


In vitro fertilization should be banned. Couples who want children should adopt instead, possibly all those "products of rape" that are so disgusting and unlovable (just don't mention to the adoptive parents as to how they were conceived, right?) . Here is one testimony of an adoption:


www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/ingentl...


In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


Abortion is violence against the unborn and two wrongs don't make a right.



 




 


 


 







Fascinating and yet quite telling. How predisposed you are in declaring women should have no choice at all, in matters of reproduction. No in vitro fertilization! They should adopt instead, if they want a child. No abortion, because abortion is violence against the unborn.


How about Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion!? That's the body exacting a violent expulsion of an nonviable pregnancy from the womb. Is that manslaughter then, that a woman's own biology expelled a child from itself!?


And how about those girls, who are the victims of stranger rape or the rape by incest, who conceive in the process of that trespass upon their innocence!? Some would say forcing that child to deliver the spawn of her rapist, is violence and a second trespass against her person-hood. And that sperm bears the energy, the vibration, of it's depositor, which is a deplorable violent criminal that rapes little girls for his pleasure. Is he to be granted his own image and likeness, in the zygote he deposited into that unwilling womb?!


And certainly majority isn't quite in keeping with consistency in this matter, for it it were those admonished to love thy neighbor as thyself, would let a woman to her right of privacy and her own right to choose her reproductive future. Instead of imagining that dominion belongs to everyone outside herself, who has the opinion her womb and ovaries are righteously in their control! While forgetting as thou judges so to are you entitled to be judged. And if Legislation were inclined to the arbitrary opinions of persons at large and separate and apart from one's self, how imperiled your own rights would be on all fronts at any given moment.



Because there are a great many opinions out there ready to judge how you live with your personal choices, regarding anything at all. From your faith, unto your employment. And if they were given an ear and a vote to elect away your choices, how would you feel, being forced to live up to their ideal quite against your will and yet set forth in the spirit of your best interests, on their behalf!? 


Therefore, do your level best to live your life and leave others who are not trespassing against your self, to their own. Instead of saying in vitro fertilization,  the seeding of a life into a life as it were, should be outlawed and adoption all that is permitted. Instead, why don't you go forth and adopt! And live up to the standard you claim is fitting for all women everywhere who want a child but are not permitted to have them, without they subscribe to your opinions of how that should be accomplished.


If the pro-life front would deposit as much time and money into the born and homeless, into the food banks that can always use more formula, diapers, baby foods, etc... to feed the hungry born, as they do in trying to force everyone to live against their will, quality of life would improve exponentially. And as such the pro-life platform would prove it's metal as empathizing with quality of life. Instead of working, terrorizing and even murdering, in the name of populating life into existence whether it's wanted, fed or has a home,  once it's arrived.


 

Flag Donald August 4, 2010 10:12 PM EDT

Aug 4, 2010 -- 5:09PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 4, 2010 -- 1:18AM, Donald wrote:


Italy is 98% Christian with about 95% catholic. Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were granted the right to terminate a pregnancy on demand during the first 90 days. Although a proposal to repeal the law was considered in a 1981 national referendum, it was rejected by nearly 68% of voters.


It would appear that the majority of Christians (Catholics) in Italy don't consider abortion murder. 


Majority doesn't always stand on the side of justice, eh?


But, the minority is never on the side of fairness and justice.  Of course when you are part of a minority you would say this.  Now, prove it. 


Fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?


In vitro fertilization should be banned. Couples who want children should adopt instead, possibly all those "products of rape" that are so disgusting and unlovable (just don't mention to the adoptive parents as to how they were conceived, right?) . Here is one testimony of an adoption:


www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/ingentl...


In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


Abortion is violence against the unborn and two wrongs don't make a right.



 


Another Christain that belives in torturing woman.  So, what you are saying is the rape and then you tortruring a woman (the two wrongs) don't make a right. 


 




 


 


 







Flag Dondiegodelavega August 5, 2010 3:05 AM EDT

I am against abortion. I consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child no matter what stage of development the baby is in. Any woman who has an abortion should be "fixed" so she can never have children, nor be allowed to adopt. If she mutilates the baby & throws it in the dumpster, her life should be terminated the proper way. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should keep her pants and panties or skirt & panties on and her legs crossed when with a man who wants to get her pregnant. The abortion clinics should be put out of business with the doctors losing their medical license. This is the way I  feel. I will not change.

Flag Marysara722 August 5, 2010 8:00 AM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 3:05AM, Dondiegodelavega wrote:

I am against abortion.


Then don't ever get pregnant in order not to ever have to consider getting an abortion.
Look-at that, I just solved "YOUR" personal problem for you.


<<< I consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child no matter what stage of development the baby is in.  >>>


Well according to the LAW, it's NOT murder.


<<< Any woman who has an abortion should be "fixed" so she can never have children, nor be allowed to adopt.  >>>


Wow.  What an extreme control-freak attitude that is.
So, should "they" be thrown in jail?  Tarred & feathered in the Public Square?
Boiled in oil perhaps?  Better yet, just burn 'em in a pyre.

Boy what draconian attitutdes some in the so-called 'prolife' movement resort to.  Thanks for showing the true colours.


<<<  If she mutilates the baby & throws it in the dumpster, her life should be terminated the proper way.   >>>


You mean to tell us that there is an actual "proper way" to terminate a woman's life?
But praytell just what would "the proper way" consist of for you?

<<< If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should keep her pants and panties or skirt & panties on and her legs crossed when with a man who wants to get her pregnant.  >>>


You mean that men actually inform women BEFORE hand that they want to have sex just in order to get the woman pregnant??? ---Who knew!!!


<<< The abortion clinics should be put out of business with the doctors losing their medical license.  >>>


Why should "the doctors" lose "their medical license" when it's NOT the doctors who want an abortion? --But then again you only want to see women be forced [by you and those who think just like you] into being sterilized if they have an abortion which you view as "murder" and then you call for their deaths if they throw their newborns into a garbage dumpster.  Something is askew here with your two conclusions.


<<<  This is the way I  feel. I will not change.  >>>


Well jolly good for you bud!  I just hope & pray for every single woman out there that you never get to be in charge of all of us, even including those so-called prolife women too.  And why? -Because then it would be YOUR way, YOUR wishes, YOUR deepset desires, YOUR vicious attitude that would prevail and what any individual woman would want for herself & her own life, would matter not in the least to those who shout & spout your type of diatribe as you've so eloquently stated above.

Flag Donald August 5, 2010 12:02 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 3:05AM, Dondiegodelavega wrote:


I am against abortion. I consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child no matter what stage of development the baby is in. Any woman who has an abortion should be "fixed" so she can never have children, nor be allowed to adopt. If she mutilates the baby & throws it in the dumpster, her life should be terminated the proper way. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should keep her pants and panties or skirt & panties on and her legs crossed when with a man who wants to get her pregnant. The abortion clinics should be put out of business with the doctors losing their medical license. This is the way I  feel. I will not change.






Tell me, any woman that had a miscarriage from say a fall should be prosecuted for murder?  What about if she one drink of wine and has miscarriage, murder? 


If a person has a car accident and a woman has a miscarriage should the person that caused the accident be charged with murder? 


 


I suppose we should prosecute a woman who pregnant for attempted murder anytime they do anything that would possible cause harm to the fetus?  For example a woman that smokes or drinks when pregnant.  You want a fetus police force that would have the ability to check a house for anything that might cause a miscarriage and if found you would place the fetus in protective custady until the baby is born. 


 


Don't forget that we should give at least life in prison to any woman that gets an abortion... I guess we should not even have a jury trial according to the Christians. 


 


I got an idea, why don't you move to Iran, they would stone the doctor and woman to death.  After all, you want a religion control country.  A Muslim country or Christian county control by either religion is the same.


 


You are one of the Christians that like to torture a rape victim.   You don't care if a thirteen year old would kill herself over not having an abortion.  After all, attempted suicide would be consider fetus attempted murder and you would lock the girl up in a padded cell until she gave birth.  You would then release her and could care less if she commits suicide after,  This is good Christian logic that believes in a god the murdered millions of innocent babies and fetus by drowning and burning to death (Noah and Sodom). 


 


So, bottom line you should move to Iran where they believe in the same as you and do stone woman to death for abortion. 


 


Christians are hypocrites, they believe in a god that directly murdered babies and children according to the Bible.  They believe in a god that allows millions of miscarriages a year that God could prevent.   


 


Tell me about all the stories of your god tell his generals to kill all the male children and rape the girls!!  Those are good Christian stories about your god that doesn't believe in murder. 


 


YOU DO KNOW THAT YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE MUSLIMS IN IRAN AND WOULD STONE A WOMAN TO DEATH???  No difference between Christians and Muslims, both want some mythical god to control the government..


 

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees August 5, 2010 12:17 PM EDT

The inconsistency in this thread for quality care of life, is tragic.


One side says, no abortions should be performed ever no matter what. And Doctors should lose their license to practice, solely because they perform that one, of many, elective procedures!


Which means, women would die and suffer all over again. As they did when illegal abortion cost two lives. As would be the case when a woman had a circumstance wherein a DNC would be required and her Doctor prohibited by the laws effected by the aforementioned type activists success in making that procedure illegal. At the cost of the License. At the cost of the life of the female patient, doomed to suffer. Because a DNC is much like an abortion. It involves the scraping of the uterine wall. And if there's something there that may be causing her issues, too bad! Die. If it looks  like an abortion, is performed similar to the procedures involved in an abortion, it's close enough to an abortion, so it is forbidden.


Meanwhile, there's a zealous myopic steadfast level of activism alive and well in America that is incapable of understanding; Pro-choice = pro-freedom.  It is not, pro-abortion. It is that platform of proactive right of every free woman, to choose her reproductive destiny. If she's pregnant, she can no longer be forced to marry the father. She can no longer be shamed in public, though the pro-life advocates do effect terror campaigns to do just that, for choosing to have a baby out of wedlock and raise it on her own. She can choose birth control, so as to do her level best to insure unwanted pregnancy is not at issue. A right, a choice, that in the early 20th century was fought against just as ardently as abortion is today. 


Pregnancy, forced against a womans will, is not proactive respect for life. It's terrorism, it's fascism, it's un-American and it will never be permitted to succeed as long as there is breath in one woman's body, who remains stead fast in her intent never to be forced to devolve womans society to that of chattle and slave, to the will of men and the disenfranchised women who believe their choice, must be forced onto other women whether they like it or not. 


The graveyards across the country are filled with women who suffered that kind of terrorism in our past. Spontaneous abortions, miscarriage, that occur now are forbidden to further the science of saving lives in stem cell research, because zeal says tissue must be discarded into the garbage as bio-hazardous medical waste. So much for that respect of potential life, when it's relegated to trash by those who esteem it is worthy of being born by force unless or until the host body evacuates it. And then it's not to serve life, it's to serve maggots in the dump.


 


If you're against abortion don't have one.
It's as simple as that.


But don't dare think for one moment that proactive choice that causes a movement of zealous terrorist hypocritical sexist persons who choose to terrorize, attack, insult and murder in the name of insuring an entire community of free persons submit to that evil and relinquish their god given right to choose, or suffer the horror, shall ever be permitted to succeed without one hell of a fight!


In the time it took to read to this point countless women have miscarried. Countless born babies have suffered and died from disease and starvation. Countless homeless children have fallen to sleep screaming for a cuddle to wrap about their cold shoulders, or a bottle to find it's way between quivering hungry lips.


Where's the proactive movement invested in quality of life to stop that!?


Listen!


There's another suffering baby voice crying to the heavens, as their stomach cramps for the emptiness that is now causing that little body to feed upon itself in order to survive.


Do you hear the proactive zealots stampede to fight to take custody of that little starving born treasure, so that she might be fed and loved finally!?


Neither do I.


But perhaps it's there, beneath the din of the screaming proactive women and men, gathered and shrieking hate for the living grown women making their way past,  from the sidewalk of that clinic just across the alley where the baby dies.


"Murderer!"


"It's a child not a choice!"


"God is watching!"


Too bad he doesn't see that treasure in the alley. Or that dying baby in the dumpster, because mom didn't have a choice but to give birth. And so she proved she didn't want it once it was full term.


Proactive in the name of life. What a tall order to fill. What a great hypocrisy it is, that fails.


 


 


 


 

Flag Bezant August 5, 2010 12:17 PM EDT

Hullo WAOT


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


I've engaged in discussions with Christians on matters such as this [i.e. abortion]. I've found it's an emotional issue for those particular individuals...




What a bold stereotype.


When I was pro-choice (and a Christian, by the way) I milked the emo argument. Now I realise them for what they are: sob stories. Which I don't tolerate.


I was going to hunt down youtube.com clips of emo pro-choice activists but I thought your words better:


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


How many baby corpses would not be found in the bathroom trash at a high  school prom, if the student knew there were options available, when  their god given sex drive caught their attention!?




What's the lesson, then?


1. Don't bother spinning a long argument at the expense of so shallow a mistake as typcasting your opposition.


2. Don't assume your opposition doesn't know your POV. 'Cause I know.


3. Don't make sob stories.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


...and they defend that with the Biblical edicts wherein they claim god is opposed to abortion.




Not true. Pro-Life advocate Stephanie Grey makes a contreversial case that the modern abortion movement "echoes" (her quoted words) the Holocaust and other genocides -- but her argument is devoid of religion.


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


However, they were lacking in the ability to cite one verse wherein god said abortion should be outlawed or was forbidden by him.




Sola Scriptura and literalism are neither universal nor traditional Christian premises. The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and many mainstream Protestant communities reject them.


Furthermore your theological critique is out-of-place, since you say religion is irrelvant to abortion leglislation and inconsistent with the States' seperation of church and state:


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


Secondly, it's a matter of consistency. It is impossible to declare a secular political platform built upon a religious codex, within the framework of a free Democratic Republic. America is not a Theocracy. Ergo, an exclusivist religious principle can not be applied under rule of law and be in keeping with the 1st Amendment.




 


Aug 3, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:


It's not an argument that can ever be won. It's not a matter of the Bible, god's will, morality or life. It's a matter, amid the pro-life legislation, of control.




If that generalisation had creds you would've used them.

Flag faith713 August 5, 2010 12:28 PM EDT

Aug 4, 2010 -- 10:12PM, Donald wrote:




In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


Abortion is violence against the unborn and two wrongs don't make a right.



 


Another Christain that belives in torturing woman.  So, what you are saying is the rape and then you tortruring a woman (the two wrongs) don't make a right. 


 




No, the first wrong was done by the rapist who believed it was his "choice and freedom" to hurt someone that was weaker and defenseless. The second wrong is when the woman "chooses" to kill her son or daughter growing helplessly in her womb.


 


 


 









Flag Donald August 5, 2010 1:03 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 12:28PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 4, 2010 -- 10:12PM, Donald wrote:




In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


Abortion is violence against the unborn and two wrongs don't make a right.



 Another Christain that belives in torturing woman.  So, what you are saying is the rape and then you tortruring a woman (the two wrongs) don't make a right. 




No, the first wrong was done by the rapist who believed it was his "choice and freedom" to hurt someone that was weaker and defenseless. The second wrong is when the woman "chooses" to kill her son or daughter growing helplessly in her womb.






What about the wrong of you wanting to torture the rape victim????


 


And it is torture to force a rape victim to carry an unwanted fetus that reminders her every hour of being raped and hurt. 


 


Why do you believe in torturing a rape victim????  Why do you think it is not wrong to torture someone? 


 


Do you believe in torture because Christians tortured people that they thought were non believers? 


 


So, what do three wrongs make? 


 


Why don't address the torture of the rape victim?????   You keep leaving out the wrong you want to commit by torturing someone for at least nine months and of the possibility of the rape victim dying during child birth. 


 


 


COME ON ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHY YOU LIKE TO TORTURE A RAPE VICTIM…..


 


ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WHY YOUR GOD ALLOWED THE WOMAN TO RAPED……. 


What about the wrong of you wanting to torture the rape victim????


 And it is torture to force a rape victim to carry an unwanted fetus that reminders her every hour of being raped and hurt. 


 Why do you believe in torturing a rape victim????  Why do you think it is not wrong to torture someone? 


 Do you believe in torture because Christians tortured people that they thought were non believers? 


 So, what do three wrongs make? 


 Why don't address the torture of the rape victim?????   You keep leaving out the wrong you want to commit by torturing someone for at least nine months and of the possibility of the rape victim dying during child birth. 


  COME ON ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHY YOU LIKE TO TORTURE A RAPE VICTIM…..


 ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WHY YOUR GOD ALLOWED THE WOMAN TO RAPED…….

Flag Bezant August 5, 2010 1:43 PM EDT




 


 


Don. It's not that serious.


 


Are you satisfied with the legislation of abortion in your country/locale?


If you are, siddown and chill.


If not, can you change the legislation?


If you can change it go fix it instead of preaching online shrill tactics. I can't hear you.


If you can't, siddown and chill.


 


And if you want the challenge pony up and face it off with Christians in a theological debate on the Discuss Christianity board.


The biggest irony is that I've never argued against abortion with a single Scriptural verse;


OTOH, you and Weepingangelofthetrees have used Christian Scripture to discredit my religious beliefs, and preach that you lot know what Christian Scripture "actually" says about abortion, despite that you both (presumably) feel my religion has no relevance with regards to legal abortion anyway...


Talk about hypocrisy.


You lot aren't dealing with some emo fundy here.


I'm not working myself up for something that I can't immediately change.


If that's how anyone else wants to play, I'd like to see him or her acheive something out of whining first.


Let me know when he or she actually does.


edited by Justme333 to conform to ROC


Flag Donald August 5, 2010 1:58 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 1:43PM, Bezant wrote:


Don. It's not that serious.


 



 


So, you don't think it is serious that a bunch of people want to impose what they think are religious values on others?


You don't think it is serious that people want to force a rape victim to be tortured in the name religion?


You don't think it is serious to have religion control government like Iran?


What do you think are serious issues to be discussed on a board about religion? 

Flag Bezant August 5, 2010 2:07 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 1:58PM, Donald wrote:


Aug 5, 2010 -- 1:43PM, Bezant wrote:


Don. It's not that serious.


 



 


So, you don't think it is serious that a bunch of people want to impose what they think are religious values on others?


You don't think it is serious that people want to force a rape victim to be tortured in the name religion?


You don't think it is serious to have religion control government like Iran?


What do you think are serious issues to be discussed on a board about religion? 




Did you read beyond my first sentence?


I doubt it. But I'm not surprised.


If I can change something right now I'll get off the computer and fix it.


If I can't, I'm going to pick myself up, hit the nearest pub, buy myself a beer, and finish it. Then I'll order a second. But not a third. And between that I'll do what I can.


The rest of the world can have a heart attack about what it will cry about but can't do smack about. I am content with my beer.


Your displayed emotional arrogance won't cut ice with me.


If you wanna debate, you'll have to play nice(r).

Flag Bezant August 5, 2010 2:13 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 3:05AM, Dondiegodelavega wrote:


I am against abortion. I consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child no matter what stage of development the baby is in. Any woman who has an abortion should be "fixed" so she can never have children, nor be allowed to adopt. If she mutilates the baby & throws it in the dumpster, her life should be terminated the proper way. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should keep her pants and panties or skirt & panties on and her legs crossed when with a man who wants to get her pregnant. The abortion clinics should be put out of business with the doctors losing their medical license. This is the way I  feel. I will not change.




So what's your point?


Are you here for dialogue or preaching?

Flag Mmichael August 5, 2010 2:44 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 3:05AM, Dondiegodelavega wrote:


I am against abortion. I consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child no matter what stage of development the baby is in. Any woman who has an abortion should be "fixed" so she can never have children, nor be allowed to adopt. If she mutilates the baby & throws it in the dumpster, her life should be terminated the proper way. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should keep her pants and panties or skirt & panties on and her legs crossed when with a man who wants to get her pregnant. The abortion clinics should be put out of business with the doctors losing their medical license. This is the way I  feel. I will not change.





Your post proves that you are a "Christian"  In Name Only. On your profile page you identify yourself as "Christian", but your post proves that you have no idea what it means to be a Christian. IF you ever DO allow Jesus into your heart, yes, you WILL change how you feel. And, your hatred for women WILL be removed from your heart.

Flag Donald August 5, 2010 3:58 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 2:07PM, Bezant wrote:


Aug 5, 2010 -- 1:58PM, Donald wrote:


Aug 5, 2010 -- 1:43PM, Bezant wrote:


Don. It's not that serious.


 



 


So, you don't think it is serious that a bunch of people want to impose what they think are religious values on others?


You don't think it is serious that people want to force a rape victim to be tortured in the name religion?


You don't think it is serious to have religion control government like Iran?


What do you think are serious issues to be discussed on a board about religion? 




Did you read beyond my first sentence?


I doubt it. But I'm not surprised.


If I can change something right now I'll get off the computer and fix it.


If I can't, I'm going to pick myself up, hit the nearest pub, buy myself a beer, and finish it. Then I'll order a second. But not a third. And between that I'll do what I can.


The rest of the world can have a heart attack about what it will cry about but can't do smack about. I am content with my beer.


Your displayed emotional arrogance won't cut ice with me.


If you wanna debate, you'll have to play nice(r).





Why don't you follow your own advice???  You are doing nothing about answering any question so get off and have a beer.  Why are you on-line doing nothing about abortion issues? 


 


I try to play nice, you don't want to play at all.  I am trying to determine if your God did in fact murder babies.  I have pointed out why I think he has and all you come back with are what you think are witty sayings.


I am trying to get Christians to understand that their god is a murderer.  You don't defend that your god murdered millions by drowning and by fire.  Likewise, through his wars has approved killing children and raping girls.  This is from the his words in his bible.  Unless you want to say the bible is wrong and Noah, etc. never did occur and is a figment of the men that wrote the bible. 


 You are unable to prove that your god does not approve of abortion nor say that your god not drown babies and burn them to death.  Not can prove that you god does not approve of abortion since he does nothing to prevent miscarriages and allows over half of all egg fertilizations to be aborted.  i.e. God caused or preventable abortions. 


So go off and drink your beer since you cannot through your Bible prove me wrong.  I have searched the bible and abortions are not mentioned.  Unless you try to bend an but other meaning on passages.  Surly a god would have know this issues would came up and directly address it. 

Flag Bezant August 5, 2010 5:15 PM EDT

Hullo Donald




Why don't you follow your own advice???  You are doing nothing about answering any question so get off and have a beer.




I haven't answered your immediately previous questions because you're not looking for dialogue -- you're looking for an audience. More on that later.


I said in previous posts that I do not engage in the shrill polemics, emotional arguments, personal/moral accustations you've -- though not you alone-- consistently displayed.


I also said that you should attempt to bring your God argument to the Discuss Christianity thread, although I don't believe looking at the rules that you can; OTOH, you might do well to create that thread yourself under the abortion forum.



Why are you on-line doing nothing about abortion issues?




Oh I am doing something both online and in my community; I've arranged a seperate thread on discourse, and I'm involved in pro-life activities at home. And in doing both I make an effort avoid typcasting, preaching, and spewing the common sob story -- all of which lead nowhere.



I try to play nice...




And your first post was deleted, remember?


You -- to be fair, not you alone -- have made a number of offensive personal/moral accusations:



To Faith: Why don't  address the torture of the rape victim?????   You  keep leaving out the wrong you want to commit by torturing someone for  at least nine months and of the possibility of the rape victim dying  during child birth. 





...you don't want to play at all.




No. I responded to your first two posts on this forum.


You don't want to play (that is discourse) at all. See below -->.



I am trying to determine if your God did in fact murder babies.  I have pointed out why I think he has and all you come back with are what you think are witty sayings.




You're not "trying to determine" a thing. You seem convinced of your own logic and want to peach it.


How do I know? Best of all your own mouth, Don, which refutes the previous claim for me:



I am trying to get Christians to understand that their god is a murderer.  You don't defend that your god murdered millions by drowning and by fire.  Likewise, through his wars has approved killing children and raping girls.  This is from the his words in his bible. Unless you want to say the bible is wrong and Noah, etc. never did occur and is a figment of the men that wrote the bible.




I need not say more.



So go off and drink your beer since you cannot through your Bible prove me wrong.




I shall.


Because as you've said -- and before you edit this post yourself -- that your point is to get Christians to understand that our God is a murderer. Unsupported nonsense will not faze me very long.


Speaking of unsupported nonsense -- the burden of proof rests on YOU, not I, since you first presented your claim that the Christian God is in fact not pro-life but a murder -- and yet you've failed to present a single Scriptural cred. You're right--you won't find "abortion" in Scripture, but again, the burden of proof rests on you.

Flag Holly3278 August 5, 2010 8:54 PM EDT

Personally, I do not believe that abortion is murder at any stage, not even right before birth.  I do not believe that the fetus becomes a person until it has breathed its first breath of air and is literally no longer a fetus.  That said, if I ever got pregnant, I would not hesitate to get an abortion.  And yes, I am on birth control so I am being responsible.

Flag faith713 August 6, 2010 7:56 AM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 1:03PM, Donald wrote:


Aug 5, 2010 -- 12:28PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 4, 2010 -- 10:12PM, Donald wrote:




In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.


Abortion is violence against the unborn and two wrongs don't make a right.



 Another Christain that belives in torturing woman.  So, what you are saying is the rape and then you tortruring a woman (the two wrongs) don't make a right. 




No, the first wrong was done by the rapist who believed it was his "choice and freedom" to hurt someone that was weaker and defenseless. The second wrong is when the woman "chooses" to kill her son or daughter growing helplessly in her womb.






What about the wrong of you wanting to torture the rape victim????


First of all, the majority of abortions are not from rape. Abortion can cause psychological harm to the woman. So by your logic, why do you want to torture women by supporting abortion?


 


And it is torture to force a rape victim to carry an unwanted fetus that reminders her every hour of being raped and hurt. 


Her fetus AKA son/daughter is also a victim of rape.


Why do you want to kill a victim of rape?


ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WHY YOUR GOD ALLOWED THE WOMAN TO RAPED……. 


God allows us to make our own choices. Stop blaming God and look at your own imperfect heart first.


 





Flag Donald August 6, 2010 2:00 PM EDT

Aug 6, 2010 -- 7:56AM, faith713 wrote:


What about the wrong of you wanting to torture the rape victim????


First of all, the majority of abortions are not from rape. Abortion can cause psychological harm to the woman. So by your logic, why do you want to torture women by supporting abortion?


I don't want to force any woman to have an abortion; you on the other hand would want to force a woman to not have an abortion in a case of rape.  There is a big difference between you forcing someone to do something and me wanting the woman to use her free choice.


You choose to force torture upon a woman whereas I do not believe in forcing a woman to be tortured.   If she considers abortion torture, I do not think she will get an abortion.


Why don't you see the difference?   


Question, would you make any abortion illegal and punishable as murder?  That is, you would punish the woman for murder and all involved as accessory to murder? 


Why do you want to kill a victim of rape? 


I would allow the woman free choice, I do want to kill a victim of rape.  You on the other hand want to possible kill the victim of rape.  She die in child birth or by suicide because of you forcing her to continue being a rape victim and carry a fetus that reminds her every moment of the rape.  .


 


ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WHY YOUR GOD ALLOWED THE WOMAN TO RAPED…….


God allows us to make our own choices. Stop blaming God and look at your own imperfect heart first.


The woman that was raped had no choice.  I guess your God allows for free choice for rapists but not the victim???  Please explain how the woman had free choice in being a rape victim?? 


 





Why do you think my heart is imperfect?  I don't believe in a God that murders babies, you do.  I don't believe in forcing a woman to do something she does not want too, you do.  When was the last time you had a complete scan of your heart?  Maybe you have heart disease and an imperfect heart. 


 


That remark seems like a personal attack like Bezant doesn't like. But I just think it is from a  person that thinks that anyone that does not believe like they do are imperfect.  Sort of like Muslims thinking that all Christians are imperfect.


 

Flag Donald August 6, 2010 2:04 PM EDT

Aug 5, 2010 -- 8:54PM, Holly3278 wrote:


Personally, I do not believe that abortion is murder at any stage, not even right before birth.  I do not believe that the fetus becomes a person until it has breathed its first breath of air and is literally no longer a fetus.  That said, if I ever got pregnant, I would not hesitate to get an abortion.  And yes, I am on birth control so I am being responsible.






Don't you know that use of birth control is against God?  You are supposed to have as many babies as possible so that they can support the church.  Any woman that does not have one a year is not a good Christian. 

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees August 6, 2010 3:42 PM EDT

May 4, 2010 -- 10:19PM, kerry wrote:


Abortion is wrong wrong wrong.




Good for you. Then, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one.


 


But don't dare speak for anyone else, ever and then take that personal opinion and force them to live with it, contrary to their personal opinion and will.


 


By the way, how many born have you adopted?


 


 

Flag Bei1052 August 6, 2010 4:15 PM EDT

Aug 6, 2010 -- 3:42PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Good for you. Then, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one.


But don't dare speak for anyone else, ever and then take that personal opinion and force them to live with it, contrary to their personal opinion and will.



Oh? So if I believe that rape is perfectly justified, then no one has the right to prevent me from raping someone else? If I believe that child sacrifice is perfectly justified, then no one has the right to prevent me from offering up some kid as sacrifice to ? Because I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'd say no. Pro-choicers really need to stop trying to hide behind the "personal beliefs" wall. Either that, or they need to apply that argument equally, in which case we should just rescind the law in its entirety, seeing as how the law forces people to live contrary to their personal opinion and will.


...Of course, that's apparently not that bad of a thing, and is desireable. Except, of course, when it comes to abortion.


By the way, how many born have you adopted?




Doesn't matter. If, tomorrow, the government institutes a mandatory euthanasia program for everyone in foster care, is one only unable to speak out about it if they're going to adopt someone who would otherwise be euthanised? If, tomorrow, my next door neighbor decides she wants to kill her kid, am I only able to speak out about it if I were willing to adopt her child? The answer to both of those questions is an emphatic no. Someone insinuating that speaking out against abortion is predicated on the notion that you have to adopt those who would otherwise be aborted is absolutely asinine, and it makes no efforts not to be. You only have to apply the logic to something else to see how completely ridiculous it is.

Flag Weepingangelofthetrees August 6, 2010 5:15 PM EDT

Aug 6, 2010 -- 4:15PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Aug 6, 2010 -- 3:42PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Good for you. Then, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one.


But don't dare speak for anyone else, ever and then take that personal opinion and force them to live with it, contrary to their personal opinion and will.



Oh? So if I believe that rape is perfectly justified...


Oh my goodness! The contempt you hold for women is in evidence yet again. On the other thread, you equate women with dogs. And now you reference rape as relevant to a woman's right to choose.

Thank god, abortion is legal. Thank god no female who's raped ever has to be forced to carry ther sperm to term that may have been deposited in her by that violent offender,  who trespassed upon her right, her choice, her will and her body and womb. Quite to your objection of course.  And none the less since her choice is, in your world view, permitted by law, she is legally free to choose to abort said sperm/zygote/fetus/rapists deposited parasite,  out of her uterus.


By the way, how many born have you adopted?


Doesn't matter. 


Of course it doesn't.  Your agenda is sexist. Your platform, as you describe it thus far with erroneous irrelevant analogies that equate women to dogs, and female reproductive privacy, right and choice, to violation and rape. 
It's so easy for the hypocritical sexist agenda to command women remain impregnated against their will, at the behest of someone like yourself, who then has the temerity to claim that women should be forced to bear fetus to life, once born it doesn't matter as to the quality of life that born fetus shall then endure.


Quantity!


Not quality.


What is so tragic is that myopic sexist fascist agenda driven hypocrisy fails to understand that pro-choice is pro-child, because every life has a choice! Whereas the proactive sexist agenda to force women to give birth against their will, isn't ready to commit their life to raising that what is forcibly born into the world. It's not about pro-quality of life. It's about proactive control of women to be forced to become incubators, for men's sperm.


There's no reasoning with that.
And there's no reason to.
Women's right to choose is guaranteed by law.


 


 

Flag Bei1052 August 6, 2010 5:27 PM EDT

You should really try to up your reading comprehension skills.


It's funny how you relegate your argument to one of personal beliefs, and then when someone points out the flaw in such a line of reasoning (i.e., rape should be legal if the rapist believes it should be legal, as everyone else can not do it), you go off on some tangent about fascism (which you still don't understand) and sexism (which is funny, considering how women are more apt to consider themselves pro-life then pro-choice, unless of course you're going to argue that said women are brainwashed by a patriarchal society).


*shrugs*


Oh well. Must be a pro-choice thing when faced with a point they can't answer. Anyway, for one, pro-choice can't be pro-child, since the "choice" aspect in pro-choice sometimes causes the existence of a child to be negated (I said this once already). Number two, and probably more importantly, I suppose the irony in arguing whether or not someone else's life is worth living while simultaneously arguing that no one should be able to decide your life for you in lost upon you. I mean, how can it not be? I suppose the Golden Rule really isn't so golden.

Flag faith713 August 6, 2010 6:48 PM EDT

Aug 6, 2010 -- 2:00PM, Donald wrote:


Aug 6, 2010 -- 7:56AM, faith713 wrote:


What about the wrong of you wanting to torture the rape victim????


First of all, the majority of abortions are not from rape. Abortion can cause psychological harm to the woman. So by your logic, why do you want to torture women by supporting abortion?


I don't want to force any woman to have an abortion; you on the other hand would want to force a woman to not have an abortion in a case of rape.  There is a big difference between you forcing someone to do something and me wanting the woman to use her free choice.


Do you also consider suicide to be a free choice as well? When a mother is so desperate or hurting that she kills her own flesh and blood, you call that a real choice? 


You choose to force torture upon a woman whereas I do not believe in forcing a woman to be tortured.   If she considers abortion torture, I do not think she will get an abortion.


Women have seriously been hurt by their "choice" to abort. Are you truly unaware of that fact, do you really believe ending the life of their child will erase their problems? Actually, women who had abortions have a higher risk of suicide:


"Thus, the actual data suggests that abortion is far more likely to drive an unstable woman to suicide than is pregnancy and childbirth."
 


 "A 1987 study of women who suffered from post-abortion trauma found that 60 percent had experienced suicidal ideation, 28 percent had attempted suicide, and 18 percent had attempted suicide more than once, often several years after the event.(3)"


www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_a...









Flag Weepingangelofthetrees August 6, 2010 8:32 PM EDT

Aug 6, 2010 -- 5:27PM, Bei1052 wrote:


You should really try to up your reading comprehension skills.



Before you critique anyone regarding their reading comprehension skills you should get a handle on your hatred of women and fascist unprincipled sexist intolerance of their freedoms, which you abhor. 


In the meantime, since you imagine choice is only afforded when it's legally permitted, your arguing women should have no right to choose, is moot. We have a choice, by law!


Quite to your chagrin, obviously. Else you wouldn't resort repeatedly to attacks on the female sex, equating them with dogs and bringing rape into this equation, and now lower yourself even further in resorting to personal attacks.
The point of the matter is, your attitude is not befitting the golden rule at all. If it were you wouldn't be surprised at all if I attacked you personally, since you chose to take the first swing. But that's not my style and besides, I feel you've already insulted yourself enough that no one else need say a thing.


Except perhaps one small observation; I thank every Deity known in human history, that I'm not the woman anywhere in the vicinity of your off-line presence. Smile

Flag Bei1052 August 6, 2010 9:31 PM EDT

Aug 6, 2010 -- 8:32PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Before you critique anyone regarding their reading comprehension skills you should get a handle on your hatred of women and fascist unprincipled sexist intolerance of their freedoms, which you abhor.



The above quoted is the perfect example of why you should try perfecting your reading comprehension skills, because that way you wouldn't bothered taking the time to type out the above.


...Oh, and for what it's worth, you still don't know what fascism is. Not that that will matter to you or anything.


In the meantime, since you imagine choice is only afforded when it's legally permitted, your arguing women should have no right to choose, is moot. We have a choice, by law!



That's funny. I do believe I said that, and I'm going to quote myself verbatim here, "If abortion isn't legal, then it isn't a choice. If it isn't a choice,  then your argument becomes moot because it's predicated on the notion  that abortion is a choice". Whenever you want to get around to acknowleding those two sentences, and learning what a conditional is, then lemme' know.


Quite to your chagrin, obviously. Else you wouldn't resort repeatedly to attacks on the female sex, equating them with dogs and bringing rape into this equation, and now lower yourself even further in resorting to personal attacks.



1.) Because asking you whether or not I have to marry my abusive neighbor's wife and take in their kids in dog before I call the police and report domestic violence is equating female with dogs. Uh-huh... Only in your world. But understandably, seeing as how that illustration highlights the absurdity in not protesting an action unless you're willing to work to rectify it yourself, it's unsurprising why you would instead try to holler and scream about something not done. After all, it's much easier to paint the big, bad pro-lifer as a misogynist. That way you can feel good at ignoring his points.


2.) Indeed I did bring up rape. After all, if one isn't allowed to make someone act and live opposite of their own will and opinion, then if Person A doesn't see anything wrong with rape and wants to rape someone, then they should be allowed to do so, as not allowing them to do would would be making them act and live opposite of their own will and opinion, which you state is wrong. After all, that's the logical conclusion of your statement. Don't tell me you don't agree with your original assertion?


:)


Anyway, thank for the reductio ad absurdum. It's such a useful device.


The point of the matter is, your attitude is not befitting the golden rule at all. If it were you wouldn't be surprised at all if I attacked you personally, since you chose to take the first swing. But that's not my style and besides, I feel you've already insulted yourself enough that no one else need say a thing.



Totally missed the point there. If it's not okay for someone to dictate your life for you, then it's not okay for you to dictate the life of someone else. Amazing how you do unto others what you vehemently oppose them doing unto you.


Except perhaps one small observation; I thank every Deity known in human history, that I'm not the woman anywhere in the vicinity of your off-line presence.



So do I. I could only stand listening to someone scream "Fascist! Woman hater! Facist! Woman hater! Fascist! Woman hater!" only so many times a day.

Flag jlb32168 August 7, 2010 3:32 PM EDT

I'm still waiting for Weepingangelofthetrees or Donald to address my posts.  Is there some problem?

Flag Idbc August 8, 2010 7:17 PM EDT

Howdy


My questions are:


 


Is abortion ALWAYS murder? 


Is abortion ALWAYS a sin? 


Should abortion ALWAYS be a crime? 


 


If and when it is murder, is it murder in the first degree, second degree, or third degree? 


If and when it is murder, who should be charged with the murder? 


Should it be only the doctor? 


Should it be the doctor and all medical personal involved in the crime? 


Should it be the doctor, all medical personal as well as the woman having the abortion? 


Should it also include the husband or....male companion if knew about it before it happened? 


Have  A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile


P.S.  I apparently have been under the mistaken impression that equating abortion with murder was against ROC

Flag Bezant August 9, 2010 9:40 AM EDT

Aug 8, 2010 -- 7:17PM, Idbc wrote:


Have  A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You

P.S.  I apparently have been under the mistaken impression that equating abortion with murder was against ROC





Hello IDBC


Your call for "thinking" and "reason" begs too much. Every other post I've read in the past week on this thread is a) a sob Cry story b) a moral accusation jumping between both camps.


"ROC": Republic of the Congo? Clarify.

Flag Idbc August 9, 2010 3:54 PM EDT

Howdy Bezant


Aug 9, 2010 -- 9:40AM, Bezant wrote:

 


Your call for "thinking" and "reason" begs too much. Every other post I've read in the past week on this thread is a) a sob  story b) a moral accusation jumping between both camps.


 


I have faith that faith713, and all those who agree with her will have no problem whatsoever answering the questions I asked.


Aug 9, 2010 -- 9:40AM, Bezant wrote:

"ROC": Republic of the Congo? Clarify.



I meant the Beliefnet Rules Of Conduct.  It was explained to me that you can equate abortion with murder, but you can't say someone who has participated in an abortion is a murderer. 




Have  A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You

Flag Eric_k August 9, 2010 10:26 PM EDT

There is fatality in the choice of an individual or a society to accept abortion as a legitimate option. Once we accept the destruction of human life at any stage after conception, to whom do we now ascribe the authority to tell us when human life cannot be destroyed?

Flag Marysara722 August 9, 2010 10:47 PM EDT

Aug 9, 2010 -- 10:26PM, Eric_k wrote:

There is fatality in the choice of an individual or a society to accept abortion as a legitimate option.


Have there been any "socieites" in the past who DID "accept abortion as a legitimate option"?


E <<< Once we accept the destruction of human life at any stage after conception, to whom do we now ascribe the authority to tell us when human life cannot be destroyed?  >>>


Is there not presently, at times where we DO restort to "destruction of human life as a legitimate option"?


Flag faith713 August 10, 2010 8:40 AM EDT

A legitimate option?


Like this?


formerobamasupporters.com/53336/barack-o...


I call it murder.

Flag Bezant August 10, 2010 10:18 AM EDT

Aug 9, 2010 -- 3:54PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Bezant


Aug 9, 2010 -- 9:40AM, Bezant wrote:

 


Your call for "thinking" and "reason" begs too much. Every other post I've read in the past week on this thread is a) a sob  story b) a moral accusation jumping between both camps.


 


I have faith that faith713, and all those who agree with her will have no problem whatsoever answering the questions I asked.


Aug 9, 2010 -- 9:40AM, Bezant wrote:

"ROC": Republic of the Congo? Clarify.



I meant the Beliefnet Rules Of Conduct.  It was explained to me that you can equate abortion with murder, but you can't say someone who has participated in an abortion is a murderer. 




Have  A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You





AH...I see...


That was my humour, IDBC.


 

Flag Idbc August 10, 2010 12:25 PM EDT

Howdy Bezant


Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:18AM, Bezant wrote:


 


AH...I see...


That was my humour, IDBC.  



 


AHHH....Now I see. 


ROC could also mean Rules Of Christians Wink


That is my humor.   Usually when I am being....humorous I put an emoticon because I know that there are people like me who are not to bright.


Have  A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You

Flag Donald August 10, 2010 9:30 PM EDT

I would like to know if a woman that just got pregnant and discovered she has cancer and either dies or aborts the baby with Chemotherapy is a murderess?  If not why?  It is Ok that the  people who oppose abortion for any reason, torture a rape victim by forcing her to carry to term.  So what would these same do in this case?  I guess they would forbade any Chemotherapy for any pregnant woman even if she will dies because of the law. 


So, would a good Christian murder the woman to possible save the baby?  Don't forget that the woman could die before giving birth.  


After all if the woman selects Chemotherapy then she is a murderer and should also be prosecuted.  Do you also prosecute the nurse that gives the Chemotherapy? 


edited by Justme333 to conform to local board guidelines

Flag Eric_k August 10, 2010 10:25 PM EDT

I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child.

Flag Donald August 10, 2010 11:02 PM EDT

Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:25PM, Eric_k wrote:


I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child.






What does this mean?  It is a meaningless response to the question. 


 


I guess the Catholics' are saying that the mother should get Chemo and if the baby dies it is Gods problem but we should than prosecute the mother and nurse for murder.

Flag Justme333 August 11, 2010 12:19 AM EDT

Aug 10, 2010 -- 11:02PM, Donald wrote:


Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:25PM, Eric_k wrote:


I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child.






What does this mean?  It is a meaningless response to the question. 


 


I guess the Catholics' are saying that the mother should get Chemo and if the baby dies it is Gods problem but we should than prosecute the mother and nurse for murder.





Not exactly - the Catholic Church's position is that the mother, of course, should be treated with what ever her medical team deems necessary to prolong her life - if, in the course of that treatment, the pregnancy is lost, that is an unfortunate unintended consequence.  But if, on the other hand, there are effective treatments available that would not harm the fetus, but the treatment is used that would end the pregnancy, with the intent of doing so - then that is not OK in the eyes of the Church.


Justme

Flag faith713 August 11, 2010 8:18 AM EDT

THE FACTS ARE

  • Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent unborn child.

  •  

  • There are absolutely no medical conditions which require an abortion to save the life of the mother.

  •  

  • If a mother develops a life-threatening condition in pregnancy, such as cancer or an ectopic pregnancy, they will always be treated, even if that treatment causes the unintentional death of the baby. That’s the situation in Ireland where abortion remains illegal. And, according to the UN, Ireland is the safest place in the world to have a baby.

  •  

  • Some rare conditions may require the premature delivery of a child to save the mother’s life, after which all efforts will be made to keep the child alive. Sometimes the baby unfortunately dies but this is not the intention of the operation.

  •  

  • These treatments are not abortions. To suggest that they are is grossly dishonest. It also causes huge hurt and distress to mothers who have lost their babies because of life-saving medical treatment.

  •  


WHAT DO DOCTORS SAY?


The top doctors in the field have never considered these life-saving medical treatments to be abortions. For example, in Ireland, if a mother develops cancer of her womb during pregnancy and needs to be treated with surgery she can have a hysterectomy which will remove her womb. Unfortunately her unborn child will die as a result of this, however, this is not and should never be considered as an abortion.


Does this terminology matter? Absolutely: because no Irish doctor should be told they have performed an abortion and no Irish mother should be told they had an abortion after such an intervention. Abortion doesn’t save lives, it kills babies.


In 2000, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which guides the doctors who care for expectant mothers, clearly stated that life-saving medical treatments for cancer and other conditions were not abortions.
The Institute’s Chairman Professor John Bonner said: “We have never regarded these interventions as abortion. It would never cross an obstetri cian’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to save the life of the mother.”


CAUSING HURT AND DISTRESS


The abortion industry is deliberately causing confusion. They’re trying to terrify women and bully the Irish people. They’re following the line of Nazi propagandists who claimed that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth”.


But this lie – that a life-saving medical treatment is the same thing as an abortion – is also causing huge hurt and distress to mothers who have lost children.


info-wars.org/2010/07/12/pro-life-youth-...


 

Flag Idbc August 11, 2010 12:51 PM EDT

Howdy Eric


Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:25PM, Eric_k wrote:


I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child. 



What about cases that are clear and unambigous?  


A sane adult married woman with no children and  in good health decides that she does not want a child and neither does her husband.   


It is clearly a sin according to the Catholic Church for this woman to get an abortion.   


But should there be a law that makes abortion a crime?


Who should be charged with the crime? 


What should the pentalites be? 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag Marysara722 August 11, 2010 1:09 PM EDT


Talk about playing the semantics Faith.


 


And oh BTW, where were their "cited sources" for their postulation on their website?


I'm oh so curious to 'see' some sort of 'medical' backup to their assertions.

Flag Eric_k August 11, 2010 11:33 PM EDT

Aug 11, 2010 -- 12:51PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Eric


Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:25PM, Eric_k wrote:


I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child. 



What about cases that are clear and unambigous?  


A sane adult married woman with no children and  in good health decides that she does not want a child and neither does her husband.   


It is clearly a sin according to the Catholic Church for this woman to get an abortion.   


But should there be a law that makes abortion a crime?


          [Christ's Church declares abortion an "abominable crime" (see Catechism of the Catholic Church).]


Who should be charged with the crime?


          [All who participate in any way.]


What should the pentalites be?


          [A Catholic who participates in an abortion places him/herself outside of the community of the faith ("excommunicates" him/herself).]


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You





Flag Bezant August 12, 2010 1:28 PM EDT

Aug 11, 2010 -- 11:33PM, Eric_k wrote:


Aug 11, 2010 -- 12:51PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Eric


Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:25PM, Eric_k wrote:


I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child. 



What about cases that are clear and unambigous?  


A sane adult married woman with no children and in good health decides that she does not want a child and neither does her husband.   


It is clearly a sin according to the Catholic Church for this woman to get an abortion.   


But should there be a law that makes abortion a crime?


          [Christ's Church declares abortion an "abominable crime" (see Catechism of the Catholic Church).]


Who should be charged with the crime?


          [All who participate in any way.]


What should the pentalites be?


          [A Catholic who participates in an abortion places him/herself outside of the community of the faith ("excommunicates" him/herself).]


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You








Eric, welcome to beliefnet.


How can I put this in a way that's not sarcastic?


Only CATHOLICS are subject to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion.


IDBC's questions pertained to civil law, etc.

Flag Bezant August 12, 2010 1:30 PM EDT

Aug 11, 2010 -- 12:19AM, Justme333 wrote:


Aug 10, 2010 -- 11:02PM, Donald wrote:


Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:25PM, Eric_k wrote:


I have heard that the Catholic position regarding situations like this is that we must attempt to save both the mother and the child.






What does this mean?  It is a meaningless response to the question. 


 


I guess the Catholics' are saying that the mother should get Chemo and if the baby dies it is Gods problem but we should than prosecute the mother and nurse for murder.





Not exactly - the Catholic Church's position is that the mother, of course, should be treated with what ever her medical team deems necessary to prolong her life - if, in the course of that treatment, the pregnancy is lost, that is an unfortunate unintended consequence.  But if, on the other hand, there are effective treatments available that would not harm the fetus, but the treatment is used that would end the pregnancy, with the intent of doing so - then that is not OK in the eyes of the Church.


Justme





For more explanation, it's that "intent of doing so" versus "without the intent of doing so" that's critical.

Flag Eric_k August 12, 2010 5:19 PM EDT

Bezant, thanks for the welcome.


You say, "Only CATHOLICS are subject to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion." Okay, so let's dispense with the Church's 2000-year-old teaching on the sacredness of human life--we'll just pretend it never existed. And how about those Commandments--you know, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; let's get rid of those, too. No matter that they are foundations of western civilization.


It's not very hard to imagine what life would be like here on earth if we miserable earthlings hadn't been so lucky as to receive messages, instructions--dare I say it?--from above.

Flag Iwantamotto August 12, 2010 6:19 PM EDT

Eric_K:  Okay, so let's dispense with the Church's 2000 year old teaching on the sacredness of human life



From whence did they get the idea, as we don't seem very sacred and worth keeping by the End?


No matter that they are foundations of western civilization.



Meh.  The US was founded on "freedom", but it's amazing how arbitrary that's been in actual practice.  And considering a lot of people came here not for "freedom" but because they were ordered to or needed to financially makes me think "freedom" wasn't always the goal.  Britain basically used North America as spill-over.

Flag Idbc August 14, 2010 11:16 AM EDT

Howdy Eric


If Catholics want to follow the Catholic Teaching on abortion then they are free to do so. 


However the Catholic or more specifially the Roman Catholic Teaching on abortion should apply to only Roman Catholics.  


This  is the Roman Catholic view on abortion: 


www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp


People who are Roman Catholic are against abortion. There are Jews, Christians, even Muslims and Atheist who are against abortion.  


What Non-Catholics are dispensing with is the Catholic Doctrine and Dogmas about abortion. 


Non-Catholics and even some Catholics do not give a rat's ass what Athenagoras, or Tertullian,Hippoltus or Augustine or  Thomas Aquinas belived.  


And believe it or not there are Non-Catholics who do not want to dispense with a prohibition against stealing.  


Prohibitions against murder and theft existed before the Roman Catholic Church existed.  And their were highly civilized socieities that had laws against murder, and theft that were not delivered by Moses or Jesus or Muhammad.  They had laws against adultery.  


Their is a difference between what is a sin and what is a crime.  


Christians and Catholics do not  agree on the abortion issue.   And not even all Catholics agree with Mr. Ratzinger or his precessors on abortion. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile 


 


 

Flag Eric_k August 16, 2010 9:12 PM EDT

Howdy to you, IDBC.


It is true that there are self-identified Catholics--as well as non-Catholics--that do not accept the Church's teaching on serious life matters or have the interest to really study it. Something that needs to be emphasized, though, is that Christ founded his Church on St. Peter with the other apostles and gave them authority to teach the Truth in His Name, which the pope--as the successor of St. Peter--and the bishops--the successors of the original apostles--continue to do, and will continue to do, by the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, throughout time and every moral clime, no matter what may rise up against Her.

Flag Tmarie64 August 17, 2010 9:36 AM EDT

Aug 16, 2010 -- 9:12PM, Eric_k wrote:


Howdy to you, IDBC.


It is a sad fact that many Catholics--as well as non-Catholics--don't take the teaching of the Church very seriously or have the interest to really study it. Something that needs to be emphasized, though, is that Christ founded his Church on St. Peter with the other apostles and gave them authority to teach the Truth in His Name, which the pope--as the successor of St. Peter--and the bishops--the successors of the original apostles--continue to do, and will continue to do, by the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, throughout time and every moral clime, no matter what may rise up against Her.





Eric, I would take the teachings a lot more seriously if they 1.  HAD PROSECUTED THE CHILD RAPISTS.. and 2.  took into account that the world is not as it was when the bible was written. 


At that time people had to have a bunch of kids because mortality rates were high.  Kids died, people died much younger... 


The church, run by old coots who have NO concept of the world outside the vatican, says "You must breed or not have sex.  If you marry and don't breed you are sinning because you're either practicing birth control or not performing your "marital duties"... "


The Church leadership has failed us.  Women most especially.

Flag Bezant August 17, 2010 1:37 PM EDT

Aug 12, 2010 -- 5:19PM, Eric_k wrote:


Bezant, thanks for the welcome.


You say, "Only CATHOLICS are subject to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion." Okay, so let's dispense with the Church's 2000-year-old teaching on the sacredness of human life--we'll just pretend it never existed. And how about those Commandments--you know, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; let's get rid of those, too. No matter that they are foundations of western civilization.


It's not very hard to imagine what life would be like here on earth if we miserable earthlings hadn't been so lucky as to receive messages, instructions--dare I say it?--from above.




Well Eric, you suggest the world would digress to a "regular" (insert time frame) state of murder and theft if the Catholic Church never existed. You'd have to explain to me why my camera got stolen on a Vatican tour and why Saudi Arabia has a relatively low murder rate compared with that of Western nations (*light sarcasm).


That's the reality: only Catholics are bound to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion, and in practise even they can say "F&^k it."


The Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Adventists, keep naming them -- are generally on the same page as the Catholic Church when it comes to abortion -- but none of them are subject to the Church's teaching on it.

Flag Bezant August 17, 2010 1:40 PM EDT

Aug 12, 2010 -- 6:19PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


No matter that they are foundations of western civilization.



Britain basically used North America the world as spill-over.




Flag Bezant August 17, 2010 1:47 PM EDT

Aug 16, 2010 -- 9:12PM, Eric_k wrote:


Howdy to you, IDBC.


It is a sad fact that many Catholics--as well as non-Catholics--don't take the teaching of the Church very seriously or have the interest to really study it.




Non-Catholics are invited to take interest, study, and join.


They don't have to.

Flag Eric_k August 17, 2010 8:33 PM EDT

Tmarie,


The "old coots" who "run" the Church are among the best of men. Your statement that they "have NO concept of the world outside the vatican" simply shows that you have no notion of how and why worthy men are raised up by their superiors. Your statements about the Church's position on sex are inaccurate and do not reflect the lovliness of the Church's teaching which is, basically, that sex is unitive, as well as procreative.


I hope you are merely repeating views you have read or heard from associates. If you willfully hold to those views, then it is understandable that you would think the Church leadership has failed you.  


Bezant,


Your camera got stolen because a needy individual--someone in need of God--thought that he or she could fill their need by obtaining your camera.


My understanding of Saudi Arabia's "relatively low murder rate" is that that country employs some rather severe rewards for crimes. In that regard I think we may be becoming lax and sloppy.


Your statement that "only Catholics are bound to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion" is wrong. Christ, the Son of God, came for all men and left his Church to continue and spread His message and presence to all. How men respond is another matter.


 

Flag Justme333 August 18, 2010 2:30 AM EDT

 This is the Abortion Debate Board - not the Catholicism Debate Board or even the Discuss Christianity Board.  There are several posts here that are discussing only the Catholic Church and are there fore off topic and disruptive.  Further posts along these lines will be removed.  Religious views on this board must be connected to the abortion issue in every post where religion is used. Posters who do not share another's religious views are in no way expected to abide by those views, and any attempt to convince a poster otherwise is called proselytizing and is also grounds for post removal.  All posters, regardless of their religious beliefs, are welcome to post their views on abortion on this forum.

Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Abortion Debate Board

Flag woodzz June 11, 2012 10:01 AM EDT

May 4, 2010 -- 3:01PM, Newtonian wrote:


In the locked thread Older pointed out that abortion is murder, and that the United States is responsible for the murder of millions of innocents.  Of course, so are many other human governments. 


I did not get a chance to post on that thread - so I am starting this thread to confirm that is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. 


www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_01.h...


www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_02.h...


www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_03.h...


www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_13.htm


And concerning teen motherhood:


www.watchtower.org/e/20041008/article_03...


I can take personal attacks - so can older, btw.  However, this is against beliefnet guidelines.  It is also against Scriptural counsel:


(1 Peter 3:15) . . .But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.


So, if you disagree - why not do so in a civilized manner?




Hi Newtonian,


I know this is an old thread.  I haven't read it all yet nor have I found and read the thread it sprang from on the Discuss JW board.  I looked at the links you provided to WT Org articles but none of them show that the WT Org DOES allow abortion of a baby at the time of delivery if the mother's life is in danger.  Did you know that?  I ask because for some reason I was unaware of this until after I left the WT Org and I was surprised.  Has this point been made already here, or in Older's thread?


Woodzz

Flag Donald June 12, 2012 9:17 PM EDT

First off, where is abortion defined as murder under the American legal system?


We are not a Muslim country where we live under religious laws. I know Christians would not mind living under religious laws like most Muslims do, but I don't want to too and lucky for us that we live under laws determine by and for the people.  So, again would you give the law where abortion is considered murder in the country?  I guess there are religious fanatics like the /Taliban that consider abortion murder and stone the women because it it.  Would like like any woman that has an abortion stoned to death?  After all Allah is your god also,  The Jewish, Muslim and Christian god is the same god just different interpolation on how to worship it.


Now, could some of the religious fanatics please tell me where abortion is defined as murder?


First, the Christian God causes abortions and according to you is therefore a murderer. So is God a murderer because he causes abortions (miscarriages are abortions). So, because God is OK with miscarriages/abortions I don't think he/she would consider that he/she/it is a murderer.


Second, why do folks like you think that torturing a woman is good and righteous? A woman gets raped and you want to torture her by making her carry an unwanted baby to term. If it is a teen getting raped, you don’t mind that she needs to drop out of school and that she cannot afford medical care and attempts suicide, you just like to see her suffer because of your belief in some fictitious god that men created,


I guess because your God ordered woman to be raped (this is contained in the Bible that you think is true word of your god) that forcing a rape victim to have a baby is OK because your God likes to see rape. Why don't all the Bible thumpers ever point out the Bible verses where God orders rape and murder? Or point out where God murdered babies and children by drowning them


 


?

Flag Justme333 June 13, 2012 12:52 AM EDT

Wow - I know that this thread has been idle for a couple of years, and apparently people's memories are rather short term as well.  If you scroll up about two posts, you will see the post I posted two years ago concerning religion and this debate board. Those who use religion to support their opposition to abortion cannot continuously use scripture to support their position, but then neither can those who have a problem with religion use the abortion issue to point out their dissatisfaction with religion.  This board is to discuss the abortion issue only - there are numerous other boards to discuss religion. Further posts breaking these rules will be removed.


Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Abortion Debate Board 

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook