PDA

View Full Version : Abortion "not a human right"



Pages : [1] 2

GenX
09-09-2007, 05:48 PM
" Pope Benedict rejected the concept that abortion could be considered a human right on Friday and urged European leaders to do everything possible to raise birth rates and make their countries more child-friendly.

The 80-year-old German Pontiff told diplomats and representatives of international organizations that Europe could not deny its Christian roots because Christianity had played a decisive role in forging its history and culture.

"It was in Europe that the notion of human rights was first formulated. The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself," he said in an address at the former imperial Hofburg Palace.

"This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."

LINK (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-07T171141Z_01_L07930016_RTRUKOC_0_US-AUSTRIA-POPE-ABORTION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true)

Crusty
09-09-2007, 05:58 PM
What's the Popes take on smoking while your kids are in the car ?

GRUMPY
09-09-2007, 06:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> make their countries more child-friendly.
LINK (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-07T171141Z_01_L07930016_RTRUKOC_0_US-AUSTRIA-POPE-ABORTION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true) </div></div>

This from the same creep who's job it was to cover up the abuses of the priests of the same kids.

GenX
09-09-2007, 07:06 PM
That's his job, huh?

Do you really want to give off the impression you're that dumb, or do you want to admit your emotions often get the best of you?

GenX
09-09-2007, 07:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crusty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's the Popes take on smoking while your kids are in the car ? </div></div>

Not sure; but I do know he often expounds on the importance of hard work and being a productive member of society. In that sense, I can see why you have no use for him. Those that hold up mirrors to us often are on the receiving end of most our hate.

GRUMPY
09-09-2007, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's his job, huh?

Do you really want to give off the impression you're that dumb, or do you want to admit your emotions often get the best of you? </div></div>


Its been well documented that this was one of his main jobs till he got his present one. So I guess that yes I'd rather be dumb as compared to being an [censored] like you.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-09-2007, 08:05 PM
The pope says it isn't, but I say it is. That's a 1 all draw I reckon.

09-09-2007, 08:07 PM
I say isn't. 2-1.
God says it isn't. Game over.

Larimar
09-09-2007, 08:35 PM
Is it fair to give one being human rights while taking it from another?-Would that then be taking away equal rights and giving it only to those most powerful and in a powerful positions, leaving the weak and defensless to nothing at all?
Many people actually believe it' a women's right issue to be pro choice, when the majority of feminists out there do not feel that way at all.
I wanted to share these few quotes in the spirit of pro life and considering it's a religious forum I thought this would be appropriate as it has the same morals.


""How quickly a 'woman's right to choose' comes to serve a 'man's right to use.'" --Juli Loesch "


""Because abortion undeniably involves a degree of physical and emotional pain, the abortion decision cannot be viewed apart from the factors that motivate it. Those factors-personal problems, social pressure, lack of support from family, society, or friends--suggest that the choice is never a truly voluntary one. It is more likely in fact that women submit to abortions, not so much because they have a choice, but because they feel that in their own circumstances, they have no choice at all.... Abortion does nothing whatever to promote social and economic justice, nor does it compensate for the lack of it." --Elizabeth Moore Sobo "


""Tunnel-visioned pro-abortion feminists cannot see to help [us] develop real alternatives to abortion, programs of support for women with hardship pregnancies, a change in society's attitude toward pregnant women so that young women won't automatically think that, once pregnant, they can never attend college, never pursue a career, not go on living. Pro-abortion feminists are part of the problem--they contribute to a 'pregnancy as disease', 'fetus as cancer' attitude that turns a normal, natural function of a woman's body into something to be attacked with a curette and vacuum. Is this creative thinking? Is this women supporting women? What kind of 'sisterhood' have we wreaked upon ourselves?" --Paulette Joyer "

""[W]e refuse to join [organizations like NOW] totally because they seek to solve the world's ills through the violent means of abortion. Feminists for Life consider the fanatical insistence of certain women's rights groups on abortion to be a sell-out of the feminist cause. They have sold out to the male dominated abortion industry (and it has been documented that the greatest majority of clinics are businesses owned by entrepreneurs) and to the playboy philosophy which sees women as exploitable commodities for male convenience and profit.
"Abortion is the destruction of human life and energy that does nothing to eradicate the very real underlying problems of women. The pregnant welfare mother begs for decent housing, a decent job and child-care or respect for her child-nurturing work. Instead, she gets directions to the local abortion clinic and is told to take care of 'her problem.' How convenient. Much less time and trouble than teaching her about authentic reproductive freedom and reproductive responsibility. Much cheaper than attending to her real problems: her poverty, her lack of skills, her illiteracy, her loneliness, her bitterness about her entrapment, her self-contempt, her vulnerability. After the abortion these problems will all be there and another one added besides: her guilt."

-Source:

http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html

Return of Too Many Daves
09-09-2007, 09:43 PM
Winnie the Pooh says it is. 3v3

Jackie B
09-09-2007, 10:37 PM
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif Wow, Winnie the Pooh says kill the babies? I must have missed that episode. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/no_no.gif

09-09-2007, 11:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Winnie the Pooh says it is. 3v3</div></div>

Ya see? Here we are again,
STarting with different assumptions, and, naturally deriving different conclusions.

I know, to you, god exists like winnie the pooh exists.

SO how about this compromise.
If God doesn't exist, I'm still better off not to allow wholesale abortion f I want the human race to survive.
If God does exist, and it is the God of the Bible, then we also have a moral obligation to forbid abortion.

In either case, it's game over for pro-abortionists.

You can now see the end result of abortion policies in both China and India, where abortions were probably being allowed longer than in the west.

There is a severe shortage of girls happening because boys are valued more highly than girls.

Abortion and birth control is killing the western world. That's one of the reasons our doors are wide open to immigrants. And they are having kids like popcorn. There will be no clash of civilizations. We will roll over with a whimper and cease to exist. Because we do not value children. It's that simple.

1337
09-10-2007, 12:50 AM
Look at it this way

Anti Religion - Human RIGHT
Religious - Your given the power of choice, and its your choice.

God doesn't exist, so it is your right.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 07:46 AM
Abortion is not a threat to human survival. In the West population decline or slowing increase does not put us on the brink of extinction.

Crusty
09-10-2007, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crusty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's the Popes take on smoking while your kids are in the car ? </div></div>

Not sure; but I do know he often expounds on the importance of hard work and being a productive member of society. In that sense, I can see why you have no use for him. Those that hold up mirrors to us often are on the receiving end of most our hate. </div></div>

Wow...

First of all ... I have never made any negative reference to the pope. I merely asked a question. If the Catholic religion is militant about protecting a child’s life from the moment of conception, then polluting that life by smoking next to them in a car should also be a sin.

Secondly ... "on the receiving end of most our hate”? That’s quite a religion you uphold that practices "hate". I didn't read about that in the bible. Tell us more about God's hate...

Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 09:24 AM
Aydeloof, you brought the assumptions to the table with your "god is against it comment". A silly comment to make to atheists. Lets look at your assumptions though. What lines of the bible are against abortion?

09-10-2007, 09:44 AM
Right. So I have a question for you.
One would assume that an atheist has no interest in religion.

Why do you continue to argue in a forum where YOU KNOW that the assumption of the existence of God is always there? And then you are the one who acts surprised when we make that assumption??

If we discuss abortion with your assumptions in mind, it would strictly be a socio-political discussion. You could well discuss that over in the political forum.

I am just saying, if you want to discuss stuff here with ME, you need to work with our assumptions, instead of us always bending to your assumptions.

And knowing our assumptions, you can quit with the silly sayings that compare or faith to believing in winnie the pooh. That, to us, with not only an assumption, but what we regard as something sacred and precious, is dissing our faith. Happens all the time, and people either don't realize or don't care.

We KNOW you don't believe in God. You don't have to parrot guys like DAwkins and others by comparing our faith to the Easter bunny or to orbiting teapots.. we get that.

And why should I try to show you why I believe God forbids abortion. After all is said and done, it won't matter to you because you will just say winnie the pooh anyway.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 10:16 AM
Aydeloof, don't cry. You made the comments about assumptions, it was just ironic that you didn't realise it was a trap that you had dragged us into.

I understood that this was a forum for discussing religion. I believe it is important to do so it has a huge impact on our lives. I really had not realised that this forum was for believers only. Now that you have made your rule clear I'm sure all atheists will ove on. By the way I think it only fair that atheists have their own forum then. Also is this forum for all religions I would you prefer it if only those who precisely agreed with your view came on here?

My question is doesa the bible forbid abortion? So given that you believe what the bible says, are you wrong to believe that the bible forbids it? An honest question. As for why you should respond, you don't have to. You choose to.

And as for my comments about Winnie the Pooh being silly, if you didn't stifle the debate by continuously spouting "God says so therefore it is" then I wouldn't have to make them.

Crusty
09-10-2007, 10:44 AM
This forum has always and always will be about Christianity more specifically the Roman Catholic version of it. No other religious views will be tolerated or accepted.

Much like the political forum is all about Conservatism more specifically American Conservatives. No other views are accepted or tolerated.

Anyone that would dare express opinion the deviates from either perspective is clearly, uneducated, unemployed, and unworthy.

And for the most part the same two prophets attempt to control both forums ramming conservative religious values down our throats on a daily basis.

All in all it makes for a good laugh once and a while other wise it’s usually just a bad sermon.

Arighty … back to the topic at hand … until RWGR tells us all about God’s hate

GRUMPY
09-10-2007, 10:49 AM
Actually according to that guy over in Rome there IS only one catholic church all the rest are false and theres no way that there followers are going to get to heaven.

09-10-2007, 03:38 PM
Like I said before, you KNOW that believers will discuss religion with the assumption that God exists. Sometimes you work with that assumption (for the sake of argument) and sometimes you don't.. (as in your 'winnie the pooh' comment).

All I am saying is, when you enter the religious forum, quit always acting surprised when the believer ASSUMES the existence of God.

I don't want you to leave the religious forum.

But in order to carry on a coherent and consistent conversation, you cannot keep switching hats. Why, on one hand, would you care to hear me justifying my position from a biblical pt of view when you consider it all fairy tale anyway?

And why would I waste my time defending my position when I know that is your position? We discussed this very thing ad infinitum just a few weeks ago. That's why I cut to the chase and said, God says its wrong. Period. Did that upset you?? I was just playing the silly game you started.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 03:55 PM
Because I am tackling an issue from your view point, it maybe that YOU are be misreading your bible. I do not think there is anything in the bible that says ALL abortion is wrong. There are certainly sections which talk about sex selection, and also forced abortion, but nothing that is against pro choice. I may well be wrong, I'd be happy for you to show me that, but shutting down debate with "God says it it so it is" is surely inane and also one of the negative aspect often associated with religion.

Also read the thread again, YOU made the assumption and then when I did the same you pulled me up for it. You simply can't have it both ways.

DogsRule
09-10-2007, 04:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Winnie the Pooh says it is. 3v3</div></div>

I know, to you, god exists like winnie the pooh exists.

</div></div>


Actually...Winnie the Pooh was a REAL bear. She was from White River Ontario. Here is the story on her /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

http://www.just-pooh.com/history.html
http://www.winniethepoohbear.net/history.php


hehe

DogsRule
09-10-2007, 04:11 PM
And in the bible it says "Thou shalt not kill" pretty sure that means anyone, born or unborn.

I'm against abortion

09-10-2007, 05:15 PM
The entire question, whether the Bible addresses the issue of abortion, hinges on whether the fetus is a living being with a human nature.

If it is, then the Bible has a lot to say about it.
If it isn't, then the Bible only addresses the question tangentially.
Sp I copied this argument:

If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans, or human beings like you and I, are valuable aren’t they? From conception, all that’s added to the unborn is a proper environment and adequate nutrition. But those are the same things all of us need. And not only that. There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature. Racism and sexism are wrong because they pick out external differences and ignore the underlying similarity between men and women, blacks and whites. And the concern is for the rights of the woman,that you can vindicate them against the will of the majority, but you can only vindicate your rights if you base them on your human nature. But the unborn also has that same human nature, so shouldn’t we protect him from discrimination just like we protect minorities and women?
eoq

Like I said, if that fetus is a life, it is a human life. If it is a human life, then every prohibition against murder and killing the innocent and the defenseless is applicable.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Precisely, the bible is against killing, and terminating a life. So the issue is when a foetus becomes a life. I am attempting to debate that. Does the bible have views on this, surely this is the critical issue? If not, then to say the bible is against abortion is surely a misrepresentation of "Gods" position.

I am concerned that some are falsely using religion to justify their position. Does God actually say ALL abortion is wrong? I'm not so sure, and if people will continue to make this argument so strongly then we should be sure of this.

GenX
09-10-2007, 06:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The pope says it isn't, but I say it is. That's a 1 all draw I reckon. </div></div>

But you ran away from a debate on abortion when the heat was turned up.

I'll ask you again: what or who gives you the right to deny potentiality of life of a fetus?

GenX
09-10-2007, 06:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's his job, huh?

Do you really want to give off the impression you're that dumb, or do you want to admit your emotions often get the best of you? </div></div>


Its been well documented that this was one of his main jobs till he got his present one. So I guess that yes I'd rather be dumb as compared to being a wonderful and intelligent man like you. </div></div>


Awwww...Grumpster /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

GenX
09-10-2007, 06:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if that fetus is a life, it is a human life. If it is a human life, then every prohibition against murder and killing the innocent and the defenseless is applicable. </div></div>

That's pretty much it, simplified, yet no less powerful.

After contemplating that question for a long time, I'm glad I'm on the side I am.

Larimar
09-10-2007, 07:15 PM
All I know is that I believe once the sperm hits the egg it is fertilized-and is life..

at 6 weeks it has a heart beat-life

at 26 weeks the fetus-or better I calll it a baby as it looks as such-can cry.

I know that scientists have dicovered that the fetus can Dream....


interesting..yet it is inside a belly and ppl don't recognize it as an individual.

I was watching a biography last night. On two girls joined together. ONE body TWO heads.
It was inspiring to say the least..now

I hear ppl say towards abortion rights "It's MY body"
well, what if we did use tht as an excuse? what about those twins joined together? It's both their body's...Do they have aright then to kill each other?


just a thought..

GenX
09-10-2007, 07:18 PM
Agree wholeheartedly, DS

Larimar
09-10-2007, 07:31 PM
Here's my theory on abortion though many will disagree and it certaintly doesn't apply to everyone-However-My belief is th the people who are pro choice-Have A) Never done it, never would do it, or have no idea the turmoil women go through after it. or B)Have done it, lived through the pain, physical AND Emotional, grieve, regret, and wish there were another way-May now feel they have to be pro choice when they really feel otherwise.
and obviously there's a C) Being that the person is no longer in the womb and so no longer in tht position to care-If there are people unwilling to throw two nickles into a "help ppl in poverty jar" b.c the problem is too far away for them to hit home-I can't expect those same people to place themselves in the womb now that they are out.

Like I said, that wont apply to everyone. There are some women out there using it as a birthcontrol method and that would definitely not make sense with my theory. So There are exceptions to every rule..That being said..I know most women that go through with it-grieve for that child immensily afterwards. Yet , they still remain pro choice..why? Maybe out of fear to be hypocrits.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 08:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The pope says it isn't, but I say it is. That's a 1 all draw I reckon. </div></div>

But you ran away from a debate on abortion when the heat was turned up.

I'll ask you again: what or who gives you the right to deny potentiality of life of a fetus? </div></div>

If you remember I dealt with it, but you didn't agree and/or didn't understand.

DogsRule
09-10-2007, 08:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All I know is that I believe once the sperm hits the egg it is fertilized-and is life..

</div></div>

That's not just a belief. Thats a fact. Life begins AT conception.

If I REALLY wanted to get into this whole topic, it would blow a lot of you away. I've done many projects from gr 8 into college about Abortions and I have some brutal pictures, and some amazing ones.

There is no way people can tell me that an unborn baby is unimportant enough and is not human enough, and it's ok to kill them at any stage in the game.

Most people don't even know they are pregnant until around 2-2.5 months. Around this point, the fetus already has fully formed feet (10 weeks).

I am against it wholeheartedly.

09-10-2007, 09:53 PM
TMD, you are right. The Bible does not differentiate the fetus from a born baby. The Bible is not a medical text, as you know, and so that distinction was not necessary. It was assumed that life began in the womb.

If the murder of human life is prohibited, then what is the difference between a 1-month fetus and a born baby?

Check this out.

• The unborn is smaller than the toddler, but toddlers are smaller than adults.
• The unborn is less developed than the toddler, but toddlers are less developed than elementary school kids.
• The unborn is in a different location than the toddler, but toddlers can change environments without changing their value.
• Finally, the unborn is more dependent than a toddler, but toddlers are more dependent than adolescents. And many other born people depend on medications, caregivers, and spacesuits to sustain their lives. They are more dependent than those who don’t need these things.

So wherein lies the reason that a fetus is not considered a human life? There is a continuum here from conception on through birth and adulthood. The only difference is one of degree, not death and life. It is living growth from day 1.

What is the difference between cutting an embryo off from it's life support systems in the womb and abandoning a baby girl at 2 days of age under a bridge in the countryside of China?

(disclaimer: The above is not my own sequence of argumentation)

Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It was assumed that life began in the womb.

</div></div>

I wonder if the bible actually made this assumption or if it is an assumption made by the reader?

09-11-2007, 08:48 AM
TMD, when you read the Bible through, and note how the people of the Old Testament regarded the value of 'the fruit of the womb' as it is so often referred to, one comes away with no other view.

The Psalmist says: "13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (PS 139)

Jer 20:17 uses this language: "For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever."

Cessation of the life of the fetus is referred to as a 'kill'.


There is more of that kind of language throughout... leading us to a pretty clear implication.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 09:26 AM
Yes but does that refer to forced abortion and/or late term abortion. I'm just not sure it is so cut and dry. I think there may be some wiggle room there.

Larimar
09-11-2007, 11:43 AM
I don't want to sound preachy, but to play devils advocate-(which is a weird saying in this convo)

Can we say there is wiggle rooms for ifs ands or buts with Gods laws?

Like, well-I can steal this, IF I don't get caught lol...
or I can steal food if I'm hungry for food..
or I can kill someone b.c they were after me??
Is this room available?
I don't know.
I feel the only time abortion is necessary is if the person does not have the means to carry the child to full term-So Children who are raped and can't handle the pregnancy because of their size and maturity .mental age, or those women who will not survive the birthing of their child. Those are my beliefs and I don't judge ANYONE at all who goes through with it-My heart goes out to them wholeheartedly for the emotional ride they are on or have gone through. However, that being said..with so many parents wanting a baby to adopt who can't concieve one, there is no need anymore to abort if you are able to carry the child to full term. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
There's killing, then there's senseless killing-and I say that for animals also. You can hunt for food, but for no other reason it's just not fair to the life.

This again, is just my beliefs/morals and I wont ever say that anyone should follow it too.
as i know it's a touchy subject.

Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 11:47 AM
Well that's the point isn't it. When the bible is explicit then of course there is no wiggle room. But when it is vague obviously there is wiggle room, since the bible is the only record we have of "Gods Laws" (isn't it?), so any "laws" that aren't explicitly stated are surely a creation of man. In which case it is innacurate to say "God says so".

09-11-2007, 01:36 PM
Okay.. one more time.

Let's try a syllogism.

1. Murdering human life is wrong. God says so.
2. A fetus is considered a human life
3. Therefore God implicitly forbids the murder of preborn human life.

The weakness you see in this syllogism will be # 2. Does the Bible demonstrate that a fetus is human life?

Clearly it does. The Bible makes reference to killing a child in the womb.. (You cannot kill that which is not alive).

Plus the fact that the Bible everywhere exhorts us to take up the cause of the defenceless and the innocent and those who have no voice. Wow.

PLUS, (and this is the biggie) the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply.. how is the policy of abortion on demand not exactly the opposite of being fruitful?

And here is one more biblical text for your consideration just to indicate that God invests the same value in a fetus as he does for a born human being:

Note:
Exodus 21:22-25 22 ¶ "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

This is a a controversial passage, and has been argued about by (of course) pro-lifers and pro-abortionists. I normally do notuse this passage to argue the case, although I tilt towards the interpretation that we are talking about injury to the premature baby, not the mother.

Thus, the killing of the unborn child was a capital crime.
But I must be honest. Bible scholars disagree on this one.

To me, the above syllogism is all the argument I need.

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 03:59 PM
Ok - read the forum. Interesting.

My 2 cents: The only 'religious' part of this discussion is to determine the answer to the question 'When does a fetus become human?' After all, we're talking about human life here only right? Pretty much all of you had a hamburger this year? Seems to me the discussion about when a fetus becomes human would centre around when it's invested with a soul. Assuming that only humans have souls and humans in fact do have souls, of course.

Oh, and by the way - when did the RELIGIOUS forum become the CHRISTIAN forum? Everyone here seems to justify their arguements based on 'god's laws' as per the Bible. What about Bhuddism or Hinduism, etc.?

Personally, I'm violently against abortion, even in the most extreme circumstances. Sorry Dreamspirit, but to my mind if killing other humans is wrong, it's just wrong. Period. You don't make an exception if an innocent unborn child's continued existence may result in an end to your own, regardless of how they got in your womb. That is NOT self-defence - it's choosing your own life over theirs - big difference. I'd think only your god would be qualified to make that choice.

And, by the way, I'm one of those strange animals who believes in God but not in Christianity. So don't bother trying to boot me out of the forum. I've got a religion - it's just not yours Aydeloof.

There, have I effectively insulted everyone on the forum in a totally democratic manner now? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

DogsRule
09-11-2007, 04:07 PM
Pretty valid points, ty


Eta: Out of curiosity, when you say violently against abortion, you don't mean you're one of the extremists who shoot doctors and blow up clinics are you? Because that is WRONG and is the exact same thing you fight against.

Larimar
09-11-2007, 04:21 PM
"Personally, I'm violently against abortion, even in the most extreme circumstances. Sorry Dreamspirit, but to my mind if killing other humans is wrong, it's just wrong. Period. You don't make an exception if an innocent unborn child's continued existence may result in an end to your own, "

I am prolife, however when the egg gets' stuck in the tubal area, it is death for both the fetus and the mother. It is better that one survive over none.

I also agree this isn't solely a Christian forum, though it may be more outspoken by such people-God's law is in many holy books for me. I always believed God gave his word to every culture, every tribe, and every country with laws and guidance that was suitable for their needs and time frames-What was dangerous or deadly to those people at the time..and each has morals that maybe the other has missed. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Just my point of view. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 04:22 PM
No, not THAT violent. I just meant in my mind. Personally I'm against any sort of violence.

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 04:23 PM
And so we're empowered to choose between the child and the mother? Personally, if I was the parent I know what my choice would be. Kill me - leave the child alive. Pretty simple, that one.

Larimar
09-11-2007, 04:35 PM
Tubal pregnancies will result in the death of both mother and child, not just one.

and if a child is raped and she cannot carry the baby to full term it is silly to think God would choose one child over the next. God holds no life more important than the next. There are some grey areas that need to be considered.
However, I am still pro life, I am not pro extremist.
I don't believe in killing a fetus for no reason, or a silly reason if alternatives are availble. If there is a huge huge circumstance where there is no right answer, it's up to the family. There's no need to wait around and hope God takes care of things-God gave the birds food but he didn't throw the worms into the nest.
We always have to make decisions. The life of a baby is no more or less important then that of a raped child,,teenager, or women. Is it a selfish decision if it's a choice between the life of yourself and the life of a baby? sure it is..but if you were in a situation where you could either save a baby from a burning house before it collapsed or a teenagers-how would you measure the value of their life? Can you? Only God can, so by saying the life of the fetus is more important during extreem circumstances- You are also making the assumption God feel stht way.
It is no longer about murder, but about making a medical decition about health.
Most abortions are to terminate life while both could survive and be well...That above would be a totally new discussion about whose life is more valued.
Yes we should let God decide..but if we were to let God decide about the burning house, both would die...
just something to think on.

plus..You cannot tell me if you had an 11 year old daughter who hit puberty- and was raped on her way home from school, became pregnant and the doctor said she will not survive this pregnancy-that you would kill her and not abort...


Remember-if you consider saving the teenager over the baby, tht you murdered the baby-instea of knowing the fire was an accident.
Then yes the abortion of a fetus when there's a life or death issue is murder

If you view the fire as a unfortunate event where decisions were made and one life saved at least(saving one life was not about murdering the other...in any case it never is!)-you could consider the abortion an unfortunate event that was more about the body's choice and health issues then it was about choosing killing-more like, it was a sad situation.

09-11-2007, 04:41 PM
Oh good, another one with attitude..

Nocasa.. where did I try to claim this as my forum or even as a just a Christian forum? If I have done so, I would apologize, sincerely. Please show me.

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 04:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh good, another one with attitude..

Nocasa.. where did I try to claim this as my forum or even as a just a Christian forum? If I have done so, I would apologize, sincerely. Please show me.
</div></div>

It wasn't an explicit claim Aydeloof. But it seems to me it's an implicit assumption in all you have to say. Pleae don't make me give examples ok? My ex-wife drove me crazy with that guff. Read your own stuff with an open mind. And yeah, we ALL have attitudes......

Larimar
09-11-2007, 04:47 PM
I have edited a bit more to my post, to make my point more clear.

Larimar
09-11-2007, 04:56 PM
In any case, most of us agree here on one thing:

Abortion as a birth control method is wrong.
it's always good to find or remember the common ground before a break of war insues. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That above would be a totally new discussion about whose life is more valued.
</div></div>

All lives have equal value. If you define an unborn fetus as 'human' with a 'soul' and therefore as a human life, then it becomes of equal value right? The difference here is that you know your 11 year old daughter personally and love her very much. The fetus inside her (in this example - not real life ok?) is someone you've never met and, given the circimstances the very existence has some unpleasant connotations. But what about that bit where the bible alludes to all lives being equal under the eyes of the lord?

As far as the burning house, I've been in one or two. If there were people alive in there I'd likely die trying to save both. I'm dumb like that. I don't think I could make the choice. I just know that, given the fact that I've lived much more of my life than they have I'd probably have to decide to trade my life for one of theirs if I could.

Ok - I'm getting a sense that this part of the discussion is getting a bit close to the bone..... Honest, I don't want enemies, just want to make you think a bit - maybe play the devils' advocate.... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/warmsmile.gif

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In any case, most of us agree here on one thing:

Abortion as a birth control method is wrong.
it's always good to find or remember the common ground before a break of war insues. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Ok - on this I agree 100%. 1000% Wait....more. I agree more.

Larimar
09-11-2007, 05:14 PM
I don't feel you truly understand the analogy though.

You say all life is equal, yet you choose the life of the baby over that of the mothers-Why?
If we let the mother die, so then does the fetus-Understand so far? To abort a tubal pregnancy we save at leats one life-as the fetus cannot survive without the womb, and the mother cannot survive with it in a that part of her body. (There are cases where it works out, they are just not seen much if at all).
In essence if they were two individuals i na burning building-and you knew (as with the other situation) that you could only save one soul-(let's pretend the baby had a chance too then)
You would rather be indecisive and save none? Would God like that?
What's that story about too many star fish being on the beach, that they couldn't throw them all back in the water-but th the life was important nontheless. Nice moral really.

You can make up your own theories that you would die trying to save both-but now dying you kill all three of you-instead of saving one life, that (like the story of the starfish) would have been greatful-and so would God, I would imagine.

It is important to distinguish between abortions that are made by healthy mature individuals who have a way to survive and adopt out the child, and those who we are asking to sacrific etheir lives out of no fault of their own in many cases.
We need compassion in some places, God calls for it too. Everything can be forgiven, it's the intent that is most important. Is the mother happy ? or is she crying?


Remember, if a young one is raped and the fetus is going to cause her death- the rapist has murdered the child or the fetus-I do not feel the mother is the one who is responsible for this action in the end. That is only my belief though.

I do not feel you are making enemies, at least not out of me..
I enjoy discussing things and using my mind and heart to understand life and people.




ps-remember in the fire situation, just b.c a person cannot save everyone, doesn't make them a murderer-Or else many firefighters today would be one or Dead. Not a good thing.
Life and death choices are difficult to make, but God doesn't say for us to become matyrs-At least not in my own beliefs. We should choose to live for God, not die.

This is all just my beliefs tho /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

peace

NewCasa
09-11-2007, 05:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't feel you truly understand the analogy though.

You say all life is equal, yet you choose the life of the baby over that of the mothers-Why?

<span style="color: #3366FF"> I never suggested I'd make a choice between the two. My point is that we are not qualified to choose the value of one life over another - we're not god.</span>

If we let the mother die, so then does the fetus-Understand so far? To abort a tubal pregnancy we save at leats one life-as the fetus cannot survive without the womb, and the mother cannot survive with it in a that part of her body. (There are cases where it works out, they are just not seen much if at all).

<span style="color: #3366FF">And who's to know that this isn't one of those rare cases? And who said that your god wants these people to live? Maybe the tubal pregnancy is his method to call the mother back?</span>

In essence if they were two individuals i na burning building-and you knew (as with the other situation) that you could only save one soul-(let's pretend the baby had a chance too then)
You would rather be indecisive and save none? Would God like that?

<span style="color: #3366FF"> I don't presume to know what a superior being likes and doesn't likes. Do you? For myself, the choice would be simple. I'd go after the closest one first - then do my very best to rescue the other. No value judgement there - just practical thinking.</span>

It is important to distinguish between abortions that are made by healthy mature individuals who have a way to survive and adopt out the child, and those who we are asking to sacrific etheir lives out of no fault of their own in many cases.

<span style="color: #3366FF"> And yet this new life must be sacrificed through no fault of it's own?</span>

We need compassion in some places, God calls for it too. Everything can be forgiven, it's the intent that is most important. Is the mother happy ? or is she crying?

<span style="color: #3366FF"> Compassion is killing an unborn child? Killing is killing and it is NOT a compassionate act. Period.</span>

I do not feel you are making enemies, at least not out of me..
I enjoy discussing things and using my mind and heart to understand life and people.

<span style="color: #3366FF"> Thanks! Me too.</span>



</div></div>

09-11-2007, 06:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NoCasa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh good, another one with attitude..

Nocasa.. where did I try to claim this as my forum or even as a just a Christian forum? If I have done so, I would apologize, sincerely. Please show me.
</div></div>

It wasn't an explicit claim Aydeloof. But it seems to me it's an implicit assumption in all you have to say. Please don't make me give examples ok? My ex-wife drove me crazy with that guff. Read your own stuff with an open mind. And yeah, we ALL have attitudes...... </div></div>

Explicit, implicit, it's all the same. But I'll ignore it. (everything I have to say? That's bad..)

I agree with your position though. That's good enough for me. Why fight over style.

Larimar
09-11-2007, 06:13 PM
It seems, you have no capacity to find a grey area when it comes to two lives in danger-you take the life of the fetus or none at all.
I do not think it would be fair to save a fetus and kill the mother then-and your solution would be to let both die.
It requires no critical thinking on your part to say that.
It's too easy for someone to "say" they'd sacrifice their own life for that of another-But we have no way of knowing what people -or you specifically would do in that situation. It's very easy to preach when no actions will ever have to be taken.
Fair enough?

Compassion comes from understanding both individual views, you seem to only care about the fetus, but what about the mothers right to life?



You are forgetting that if you choose the fetus you are choosing to terminate and MURDER the mother.
There is no doubt about that.
Either way someone dies.
It's easy to look at it and say the mother is killing the baby, but the other way around, if you consider the fetus a life and it's life is killing your own, you are dealing withthat fetus killing also..ever consider it that way before?

So now you have a grey area, where yeah, one person gets to have the say. Is it fair? no...but is it something we humans can comprehend and justify calling someone a sinner for choosing their life first? I think not. I have a very big line between the life or deaths and those women who are capable of doing alternatives..I'm not saying you should change your mind, but I do wantto provoke a lil thought when it comes to looking at both sides of the coin.



Tubal pregnancies are mostly all going to kill both the parent and child. If left.


and just so we are both on the same page
tubals are



What is an ectopic pregnancy?

An ectopic pregnancy is a condition in which a fertilized egg settles and grows in any location other than the inner lining of the uterus. The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (98%), however, they can occur in other locations, such as the ovary, cervix, and abdominal cavity. An ectopic pregnancy occurs in about one in 50 pregnancies.

The major health risk of ectopic pregnancy is rupture leading to internal bleeding. Before the 19th century, the mortality rate (the death rate) from ectopic pregnancies exceeded 50%. By the end of the 19th century, the mortality rate dropped to five percent because of surgical intervention. With current advances in early detection, the mortality rate has improved to less than five in 10,000. The survival rate from ectopic pregnancies is improving even though the incidence of ectopic pregnancies is also increasing. The major reason for a poor outcome is failure to seek early medical attention. Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy–related death in the first trimester of pregnancy."

Tubal pregnancies result in both dead, unless the fetus is terminated. The fetus cannot survive even if the mother chooses to die..no point in that. God created medical alternatives for a reason.

To choose and let someone bleed eternaly and suffer like that is really cruel to me.
And I will say off topic-though this won't be much for the debate.
I do believe the soul of the fetus will return again to have another chance, and i believe the soul floats around the mother until the heart starts to beat and the brain is starting to form. and in other cases, may not enter at all, if they know it won't last. So in essence, tho I don't believe in abortion, I also, believe in pre birth charting and the fact that souls aren't stupid beings. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif That is just a side note of interest..not to debate that or anything, not much to debate-ppl either believe that or something else lol.

SO, now that I brought up a fetus could also be categorized as murdering the mother inside the body in the death situations-could it not be self defense for the mother then.
Or are you against self defense also?

GenX
09-11-2007, 06:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's his job, huh?

Do you really want to give off the impression you're that dumb, or do you want to admit your emotions often get the best of you? </div></div>


Its been well documented that this was one of his main jobs till he got his present one. So I guess that yes I'd rather be dumb as compared to being a wonderful and intelligent man like you. </div></div>


Awwww...Grumpster /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

Actually the word I used was with a capital "C" followed with a "hamp". </div></div>

I think you're hitting on me now /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Larimar
09-11-2007, 06:46 PM
lmao
u guyz r toooo much

Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 07:47 PM
Abortion: Why The Religious Right Is Wrong

By Steven Morris, Ph.D.

"The dead women we saw had either bled to death or they had died from overwhelming infections. Some had tears along the ******l tract where they had used coat hangers to get up into the uterus and break things up--like rupture the amniotic sac... Most of the dead women I saw were in their teens or twenties... The deaths stopped overnight in 1973, and I never saw another abortion death in all the eighteen years after that until I retired." --Pennsylvania coroner (1)

Antiabortionists are patiently chipping away at the right that women now possess to choose whether or not to have an abortion, enshrined in law by the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. Arbitrary waiting periods, harassment, unjust financial burdens and the murder of doctors by 'pro-life' assassins, are considered by many right-wing Christians to be the moral approach to forcing their opinions on everyone else. We may yet return to the 'good old days' of back-alley abortions, and their harvest of abandoned women, mutilated or dead.

This places the well-meaning Christian in a difficult dilemma. Despite the immorality of the antiabortion position, how can the Christian be pro-choice when the Bible and the history of Christianity are antiabortion? However, it is the dirty little secret of the antiabortionist leaders that their prejudice against abortion has nothing to do with the Bible or the alleged life of the fetus.

History

Abortion has been practiced since early times. Plato suggested in The Republic that abortion be used in cases of incest or older parents, and Aristotle recommended abortion as a way to limit family size. (2) The position of the Catholic Church varied over the centuries, and it was only in the 18th century that the teachings of the Church shifted significantly toward the position that the human fetus deserves from conception the care due to humans. (3) It was in 1869 that Giovanni Ferretti (Pope Pius IX) issued a decree declaring abortion sinful and banning it entirely. (2) His reason for doing so was bizarre, and had nothing to do with morality; the change in doctrine originated with the acceptance of the Immaculate Conception. (4) This unnecessary doctrine supposed that Mary (not Jesus) was without sin from the moment of her conception. To emphasize her sinlessness, the rest of us must be sinful (and alive) from conception. In any case, the penalty for all abortions was merely excommunication, not civil punishment.

Since then, the Catholic position has become increasingly irrational. In 1968, the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Giovanni Montini (Pope Pius VI) banned contraception. Surveys in the United States indicate that more than 80% of Catholics of childbearing age do not, in fact, observe the encyclical's teaching. (5) This failure has not deterred Church leaders from trying to make secular government enforce doctrines that the Church itself did not believe for most of its own history.

The antiabortion laws that Rod vs. Wade overturned were not originally adopted to halt "the murder of unborn children," but to reduce the morality rate of women who obtained abortions from midwives, homeopaths and local healers. Because of the lack of modern scientific knowledge in the 19th century, surgical abortions carried a 30% mortality rate from infection. Antiabortion laws were not passed by an overwhelming public vote against abortion, but rather through the efforts of a few powerful groups such as the American Medical Association. Before these laws were passed, advertisements for abortionists were carried in religious publications as well as newspapers and magazines. (6) The AMA's concerns are now obsolete; legal abortions have a mortality rate that is thirteen times smaller than for childbirth. (1)

How did parents regulate the size of their families during the Middle Ages, when the churches controlled what people thought and did? Infanticide. Studies of 9th century manorial rolls at St Germain-de-Pres, of 15th century Canterbury Church courts, of 17th century Somerset parish records, and interviews with women in 20th century Bosnian hamlets all show the same choice. Let the child be born and then let it die. In particular, let it die if it is female. (7) this callous attitude is echoed in the Christian Right today, whose 'Parental Rights' amendment to the Constitution would strip children of legal protection. Fundamentalists may weep for the fetus in its three trimesters, but when the 'fourth trimester' begins, the baby is on its own.

The Bible

It would surprise many in the antiabortion flock to learn that abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. The closest the Bible gets is an accidental miscarriage that might occur when men are fighting with each other (Ex. 21: 22, 23). If the woman dies as a result if the miscarriage, the man at fault must die because he committed a murder; "thou shalt give life for life." If a miscarriage occurs and the woman is unharmed, the man merely pays a fine; no life for life here, as no life was lost.

"Abortion is murder!" cry the antiabortionists, despite the Bible. "Thou shalt not kill!" But they conveniently ignore another well-known passage; "To every thing there is a season... a time to kill, and a time to heal" (Eccles. 3:1, 3). Even if the fetus were alive, the taking of life is Bible-based.

But what is life, anyway? On this subject, the Bible is hopelessly confused. "The blood is the life" (Deut. 12: 23), "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17: 11). But fertilized egg cells have no blood, and it is only when the umbilical cord is cut, after childbirth, that the fetus lives as more than a blood-sustained part of its mother. But then the Bible contradicts itself; it is the breath, not the blood that makes the difference between life and death; "I will... cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live" (Ezek. 37: 6), "thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust" (Ps. 104- 29). To live one must first breathe, after childbirth.

According to the Bible, the fetus is not alive and abortion isn't murder. But what Christian cares for what the Bible says?

When abortions were illegal, hundreds of thousands of desperate women endured back-alley abortions every year. We will never know how many died, a horrific human sacrifice on the altar of Christianity. The Religious Right looks back on this bloodbath and says. "Let's do it again!" The truly pro-life position is to stand up and say, "Never!"

REFERENCES:

1) The Worst of Times by P. Miller, pg. 12, 13, 322, 327. (1993, Harper Collins, New York, NY).
2) Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving by V Masters, V. Johnson & R. Kolodny, pg. 113. (1986, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia PA)
3) The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Edited by J. Childress and J. Marquarrie, pg. 3. (1986, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA).
4) Abortion: An Eternal Social and Moral Issue. Edited by A. Landes, M. Siegal and C. Foster, pg. 3. (1994, Information Plus, Wylie TX).
5) Catholicism, vol. 2 by R. McBrien, pg. 1016, 1017 (1980, Winston Press, Minneapolis, MN).
6) Abortion. By J. Nelson, pg. 44, 45 (1992, Lucent Books, San Diego, CA).
7) A History of Their Own, vol. 1 by B. Anderson & J. Zinsser, pg. 138, 227, 254 (1988, Harper & Row, New York, NY).

Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 07:49 PM
Sorry for cutting and pasting, but this is very relevant. For those who don't want to read it all, this is the key passage.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bible
It would surprise many in the antiabortion flock to learn that abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. The closest the Bible gets is an accidental miscarriage that might occur when men are fighting with each other (Ex. 21: 22, 23). If the woman dies as a result if the miscarriage, the man at fault must die because he committed a murder; "thou shalt give life for life." If a miscarriage occurs and the woman is unharmed, the man merely pays a fine; no life for life here, as no life was lost.

"Abortion is murder!" cry the antiabortionists, despite the Bible. "Thou shalt not kill!" But they conveniently ignore another well-known passage; "To every thing there is a season... a time to kill, and a time to heal" (Eccles. 3:1, 3). Even if the fetus were alive, the taking of life is Bible-based.

But what is life, anyway? On this subject, the Bible is hopelessly confused. "The blood is the life" (Deut. 12: 23), "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17: 11). But fertilized egg cells have no blood, and it is only when the umbilical cord is cut, after childbirth, that the fetus lives as more than a blood-sustained part of its mother. But then the Bible contradicts itself; it is the breath, not the blood that makes the difference between life and death; "I will... cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live" (Ezek. 37: 6), "thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust" (Ps. 104- 29). To live one must first breathe, after childbirth.

According to the Bible, the fetus is not alive and abortion isn't murder. But what Christian cares for what the Bible says?
</div></div>

Larimar
09-11-2007, 11:03 PM
Mayb ethe answer lies not within whether a fetus is a life or not, but what the bible says about the body in general?
The body is a temple? no?
so to kill the body before it is dead, even when there's no soul -would be frowned on , no?

09-11-2007, 11:22 PM
Well, either the Bible is hopelessly confused, or this PhD is.

Mr PhD should be able to see that Ezekiel the prophet is not giving us a definition of life here. But even if breathing were the condition for life, he must know that a baby in the womb will not survive if the mother is being strangled. I am sure he knows that the oxygen that the mother breathes in is a necessity for the child. And that happens from day 1. Just because it does not use its lungs for the transfer has no bearing on whether the fetus is a living being or not.

That's a pretty sloppy argument for a PhD to make. I realize he is not making that argument himself, but he is trying to foist a convenient interpretation on the Bible in order to support his viewpoint, when the context has nothing to do with a definition of life.

Jackie B
09-11-2007, 11:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crusty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This forum has always and always will be about Christianity more specifically the Roman Catholic version of it. No other religious views will be tolerated or accepted...

</div></div>

Wha?!?!? There's ONE catholic on here and how many protestants, atleast five or six. How is it that the forum is always about the catholics??? Sorry if this has already been addressed, Ididn't finish the thread before I posted.

GRUMPY
09-12-2007, 12:15 AM
I just love it when people quote a work of fiction.

09-12-2007, 12:30 AM
Well, ya sure seem interested in it! Otherwise you wouldn't be here, right?

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 01:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just love it when people quote a work of fiction. </div></div>

Imagine the chuckle WE get when some "fiction believer" guy quotes it to us!!!

Return of Too Many Daves
09-12-2007, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But even if breathing were the condition for life, he must know that a baby in the womb will not survive if the mother is being strangled. I am sure he knows that the oxygen that the mother breathes in is a necessity for the child. And that happens from day 1. Just because it does not use its lungs for the transfer has no bearing on whether the fetus is a living being or not.

That's a pretty sloppy argument for a PhD to make. I realize he is not making that argument himself, but he is trying to foist a convenient interpretation on the Bible in order to support his viewpoint, when the context has nothing to do with a definition of life.
</div></div>

Well you know the bundle of foetus may require Oxygen, and may respire but certainly does NOT breathe.

What about the other bible definition concerning blood?

To an outsider when you say a "convenient interpretation of the bible" it seems to me that is exactly what you are doing with your viewpoint. You have been unable to show any mention of abortion in the bible. The passage about a man causing a miscariage when attacking a woman is not remotely relevant. However, it is clear the bible is against taking life (though not to the extent that the church cannot use it to kill when it suits them). So as previously stated the issue is when a foetus becomes a life, and again you are providing no alternative to the bible definitions I have quoted above.

Oh and to Grumpy: whilst I don't believe in God, a) I believe there ARE some important lessons in the bible (as well as some nonsense - but no offence believers), and b) it is better to understand the otherside's assumptions in a debate and in this case I believe the religious prolife movement's assumptions are WRONG.

09-12-2007, 10:16 AM
But TMD, those are not definitions. Breath is a condition of life; so is food. Shall we say that because a fetus does not ingest food directly, it is not a life? And the mother breathes so the baby in the womb lives, right? (I feel like I am repeating myself.)

A fetus has a heartbeat. Now, I am not a biology student, but am I correct in assuming that the fetus heart is beating in order to circulate blood and not anti-freeze? So there is blood in the baby, right? The life is in the blood? But like I said before, these are not medical texts, nor are they definitions.

Once again, in the Bible there is a reference to killing a baby in the womb. How do you kill something that is not alive?

And by the way, thanks for your common sense words to ole Grump.

09-12-2007, 10:26 AM
TMD posted in the Soapbox that we could all learn from Russia.

Russian 'sex day' to boost births

The governor of Ulyanovsk region in Russia is offering prizes to couples who have babies in exactly nine months - on Russia's national day on 12 June.
Sergei Morozov wants couples to take the day off work to have sex. If a baby is born on national day, they will receive cars, TVs or other prizes.

Mr Morozov has declared Wednesday "family contact day" as part of efforts to fight Russia's demographic crisis.

The population has sharply declined since the Soviet Union collapsed.

This is the third year that Ulyanovsk, in central Russia, is offering prizes for babies born on 12 June.

This year, a couple won the grand prize of a sports utility vehicle (SUV).

The initiative seems to be paying off as the region's birth rate has risen by 4.5% over last year.

"If there's a good, healthy atmosphere at home within the family, if the husband and wife both love each other and their child, they will be in good spirits... So there'll be a healthy atmosphere throughout the country," Mr Morozov told the Associated Press news agency.

Demographers estimate that Russia could lose 40 million people - almost a third of its current population - by the middle of the century.

A combination of falling birth rates, emigration and an ailing health care system has led to the decline.

President Vladimir Putin has introduced a scheme to encourage more children.

Women who have a second or third child are eligible to receive $9,000 which can be used to pay for education or home purchases.
EOQ
____________________

Interesting. It does not mention abortion at all. But I just googled abortion in Russia. Have a look: (I cannot vouch for accuracy).

http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol7/kotlyar.html

Induced abortion is and continues to be the principal method of birth control in Russia. The first official abortion statistics emerged only in September 1988.7 For the late 1980's, they show six to seven million induced abortions performed annually.8 The figures for 1992 show only 3.5 million abortions performed annually.9 From first glance it seems that the number of abortions in Russia is significantly decreasing. This is not true. The official abortion statistics are low due to the introduction of mini-abortions, performed by vacuum aspiration or extraction, which were not regularly registered. In reality, in 1992 there were an estimated 224.6 abortions for 100 live births.10
The legalization of abortion, allowing women to terminate pregnancy at state hospitals and clinics free of charge, may suggest that there are few illegal abortions. However, this is dramatically not the case; for every 2-7 legal terminations there is one illegal abortion.11 Even though illegal abortions are punishable by law, in 1990 there were 172 persons convicted of performing illegal abortions; 91 of them repeated the offense and had caused serious consequences for the patient.12
___________

224 abortions for every 100 live births!

Truly amazing.

Yes, we have a lot to learn from Russia.
And the same is happening in western countries.
And soon the east will follow. India and China are already in difficulty.

09-12-2007, 10:51 AM
For my last word on the argument, read this article please (I won't copy and paste it.)

The focal point is this. In the biblical Hebrew language, there is NO distinction between the unborn child and the born child. In English, we use the word fetus.

If the fetus is a human child (what else could it be?) then all that needs to be said about the Bible re abortion is, "Thou shalt not murder".

Time for a syllogism again.
1. In the Bible, a fetus is referred to as a human child. The only distinction is that it is yet in the womb.
2. The Bible forbids the killing of human children. (Thou shalt not kill, defend the innocent.. etc etc.)
3. Thus, the Bible forbids abortion.

Now at least, you can understand why I simply said, many posts ago, God says so.

So, for further reading: (warning.. long article, but pretty thorough)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html

Return of Too Many Daves
09-12-2007, 10:55 AM
Interesting, I can't believe that you cannot see that at best this is a grey area. Because the bible is at best vague in this area I would say "because God says so" is an invalid argument.

09-12-2007, 11:22 AM
It is grey because
1. It is implicit, not explicit
2. You do not see the entire picture; i.e. how historically, abortion has always been viewed and interpreted this way (i.e. that the fetus is a living human child)by both Christians (right back to the first century) and Jews (going all the way back to the era of child sacrifice in the cultures surrounding Israel).

I can certainly understand why it is a grey area to an outside observer looking for a slam dunk proof text.

NewCasa
09-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Implicit, explicit....

Your trouble is that you two are talking at cross purposes. You're using religious arguements instead of moral and practical ones. Try taking your nose out of the bible.

Hey, I've got a great arguement against abortion - I'm adopted. If abortion was fully accepted when I was a fetus I wouldn't be alive today. Great arguement as far as I'm concerned. And it's got zero to do with religion..... Sure convinced me though.

I just never get it when Christians use biblical arguements when trying to prove stuff to non-Christians. Don't you get that they don't really care what's in your book? Takes a high level of arrogance, if you ask me (which, of course you didn't).

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 11:50 AM
You make a good point, but if they really didn't care at all, they wouldn't bother saying "It's a grey area".

The irony of it all is that each and everyone of us was once what some call "non-life", and were, and are now, totally unique.

09-12-2007, 11:52 AM
NoCasa, TMD asked me explicitly to defend abortion from the Bible. Read the entire thread, and put your guns away. I realize that otherwise it could be simply the vain flapping of the gums.

Plus, once again, this IS a religion forum, after all. We discuss religion in here. Look way up top on your webpage. There you will find the words:
Forums » Bulletin Boards » Religion » /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/idea.gif

NewCasa
09-12-2007, 12:02 PM
Not sure I agree Barry. A person can interpret the bible and use it's verses to support or refute points even if they don't believe in it merely as an exercise in rhetoric or in an attempt to argue with a believer on their own territory don't you think?

Non-life. Well, there's the rub. You Christians seem to believe for some reason that life is created from nothing and that the whole process is linear while many others believe that life itself is subject to the rules of physics (ie. Law of conservation of energy) and that the process is therefore circular, so there really would be no period of 'non-life' for a person, merely times in between lives where they are 'non-body.' I've always had a hard time with the linear theories myself.

But I'm thinking that's a subject for a new topic maybe /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NoCasa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not sure I agree Barry. A person can interpret the bible and use it's verses to support or refute points even if they don't believe in it merely as an exercise in rhetoric or in an attempt to argue with a believer on their own territory don't you think?

Non-life. Well, there's the rub. You Christians seem to believe for some reason that life is created from nothing and that the whole process is linear while many others believe that life itself is subject to the rules of physics (ie. Law of conservation of energy) and that the process is therefore circular, so there really would be no period of 'non-life' for a person, merely times in between lives where they are 'non-body.' I've always had a hard time with the linear theories myself.

But I'm thinking that's a subject for a new topic maybe /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Re first point. I don't think I've ever quoted as proof something I knew to be nonsense.

Re created from nothing. I don't believe that life is created from nothing. And I believe life follows the laws of physics.

Sounds like you believe in re-incarnation.

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 12:59 PM
Trivia:
USA abortion clinics operate under less regulation than veterinary clinics.

NewCasa
09-12-2007, 01:07 PM
Re first point. I don't think I've ever quoted as proof something I knew to be nonsense.

<span style="color: #3366FF">Try it sometime - it's fun!</span>

Re created from nothing. I don't believe that life is created from nothing. And I believe life follows the laws of physics.

<span style="color: #3366FF">Well, where do Christians believe life has it's start? Where does the soul come from? </span>

Sounds like you believe in re-incarnation.

<span style="color: #3366FF">I'm agnostic. Note that I did not say athiest. In other words, I believe in a higher power, but I'm still waiting to find out the nature of that power. As far as re-incarnation, it just works for me somehow. No way I could prove that any better than someone could prove the existence of heaven or hell. I guess that's called 'faith' /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool_shades.gif</span>

<span style="color: #3366FF">Oh, and about the higher power. Ironically, what convinced me of it's existence was the set of arguements by Thomas Acquinas (sp?). </span>

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 02:36 PM
The source of the soul is God, we are created in His image. I believe that applies to the soul. It can't be measured or proven in any physical sense.

NewCasa
09-12-2007, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The source of the soul is God, we are created in His image. I believe that applies to the soul. It can't be measured or proven in any physical sense. </div></div>

Ok the source of the soul is god, but at what point in time is or was it (the soul) created? Is it created as a part of the procreation process or are there souls in 'heaven' waiting in line for bodies to inhabit or is there some other process? I know this has kind of gone beyond the abortion discussion, however I'm thinking it maybe have some impications.

Karen-Annie
09-12-2007, 03:08 PM
Oh,I just know I'm going to regret this but what the hey,it's Wed. and it's dampish so I can always claim a rust problem brought it on.Yeah,I know Speedy,it's not an isolated incident with me.

A devil's advocate's question:how can those who voluably expound the anti-abortion/anti-right to die( and/or euthanasia) based on the sanctity of ALL life in the same breath justify the death penalty?Especially those who feel that an occasional innocent person being executed is an acceptable risk in order to get rid of the bad guys.I am not intimating that the innocence of an unborn child vs the vileness of a cold-blooded murderer is in any way equitable.But if you argue the sanctity of ALL human life,are you justified in denoting exceptions?

For the record,I am pro- death penalty with qualifications,I am pro-right to die with qualifications and I am pro-choice but not a blanket approval.

Larimar
09-12-2007, 03:10 PM
I'm pro life, and anti death penalty. I'm not for it, sorry I can't help-But My assumption is that the eye for an eye works there-They ignore, turn the other cheek-and punishment is accepted-Though I feel it's taking too much out of God's hands.

NewCasa
09-12-2007, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Karen-annie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A devil's advocate's question:how can those who voluably expound the anti-abortion/anti-right to die( and/or euthanasia) based on the sanctity of ALL life in the same breath justify the death penalty?</div></div>

I don't even try. I'm against the death penalty too. People just don't have the right to kill each other. Period. My only exception might be self defence or defense of someone weaker, such as a child. And I say 'might' - haven't been there yet - hope never to be there.

Now then, I could've used the 'Killem all and let God sortem out' arguement I suppose...... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/purpbanana.gif

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 03:23 PM
I'm also pro-life, anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty.
I read a lot of sci-fi. One of the technological gimmicks in a very good series I have is a "uterine replicator". The idea is that the entire gestation period is taken over by a machine.
I wonder what will happen when that gap between conception and the (now) 30 week viable fetus is shortened even more?

GenX
09-12-2007, 05:21 PM
"Bravo to the Pope and his recent plea that abortion should never be deemed a "human right." There is no more grotesque construction than positing the destruction of an inchoate human being as a right intrinsic to one's mature condition as a sentient human. There is an animal right, I suppose, for big fish to eat little fish, including their own gullible offspring, but that is hardly the sort of behavior humanity should strive to emulate."

"Benedict makes another novel point when he says it is time to stop regarding a child as a "form of illness." In jarring, unstinting language he goes straight for the cultural jugular. No one can deny that even among the most refined people today it is acceptable to announce that "I choose not to have children." Neither open derision nor silent disdain greets such a pronouncement. Contrast that with the Bible stating that the first, most endemic, responsibility of mankind is to be fruitful and multiply."

LINK (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12008)

adigirl
09-12-2007, 05:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For my last word on the argument, read this article please (I won't copy and paste it.)

The focal point is this. In the biblical Hebrew language, there is NO distinction between the unborn child and the born child. In English, we use the word fetus.

If the fetus is a human child (what else could it be?) then all that needs to be said about the Bible re abortion is, "Thou shalt not murder".

Time for a syllogism again.
1. In the Bible, a fetus is referred to as a human child. The only distinction is that it is yet in the womb.
2. The Bible forbids the killing of human children. (Thou shalt not kill, defend the innocent.. etc etc.)
3. Thus, the Bible forbids abortion.

Now at least, you can understand why I simply said, many posts ago, God says so.

So, for further reading: (warning.. long article, but pretty thorough)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html
</div></div>

So how come God killed children to prove a point? I don't understand that at all.

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Chapter and verse please.

adigirl
09-12-2007, 05:52 PM
Why? Don't you know the stories from the bible? Remember the killing of first born sons? OK how about these:

1 Chronicles 21
Deuteronomy 3
Joshua 6
Judges 21
2 Kings 10:18-27
Ex 11.4ff

I am not trying to be a poop disturber either! I don't believe in a God that works this way. It makes no sense to me!

GenX
09-12-2007, 06:01 PM
Adigirl, what about them? What's your point?

09-12-2007, 06:29 PM
Well, for that matter, the Bible says, You shall not commit murder. Are you saying that God breaks his own law by sentencing everyone to death because "the wages of sin is death"?

Biblically speaking, God is the author/owner/creator of humankind. He holds the keys and decides when a person dies.

So whenever a person dies, whether as a child or adult, He is ultimately the One who allows it to happen. Thus, God takes the life.

Yes, we say it all the time at funerals, "The Lord has given, the Lord has taken. Blessed be the Name of the Lord." It is entirely His right to take a life when He deems it right.

GenX
09-12-2007, 06:41 PM
Adigirl quickly searched the Internet, found some sources she knew little or nothing about, pasted and ran.

The word "impressive" seems so distant here.

Crusty
09-12-2007, 07:25 PM
…yet the phrase "petty little [censored] parrot" seems to be so applicable.

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Adigirl quickly searched the Internet, found some sources she knew little or nothing about, pasted and ran.

The word "impressive" seems so distant here.
</div></div>

Oh yeah, right.

Barry Morris
09-12-2007, 07:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NoCasa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The source of the soul is God, we are created in His image. I believe that applies to the soul. It can't be measured or proven in any physical sense. </div></div>

Ok the source of the soul is god, but at what point in time is or was it (the soul) created? Is it created as a part of the procreation process or are there souls in 'heaven' waiting in line for bodies to inhabit or is there some other process? I know this has kind of gone beyond the abortion discussion, however I'm thinking it maybe have some impications. </div></div>

Interesting question Nocasa. Gotta think about it. Probably cheat, too. I'll pray about it!!!!

Larimar
09-12-2007, 08:35 PM
"Ok the source of the soul is god, but at what point in time is or was it (the soul) created? Is it created as a part of the procreation process or are there souls in 'heaven' waiting in line for bodies to inhabit or is there some other process? I know this has kind of gone beyond the abortion discussion, however I'm thinking it maybe have some impications. "

My belief is that the soul are made from God, like the actual God-so that we can say made in his image AND a little bit of God in each of us. (so all living things are created from pieces of Gods love and "energy"Or what ever substance we should lable it)Yes that means I believe in animals having a soul-or at least something similar to what we lable it-Only a different species of soul but neverthe less an identity.
I believe we were all created @ the same time and we all resided in heaven, or on the other side-until some soul oneday wanted to learn something new-that could only be learned by having a physical bodyand by going through trials and pains. So the body was created and Earth...and so reincarnation for me is possible, to do that cycle of Heaven, Earth, Heaven, Earth, over again to learn. So for me Eden has always represented Heaven or at least a realm on the other side (spirit world) -and the downfall of the sin-biting the fruit was knowledge-we wanted to learn...And that would bring temptations in the physical body..
As we or most of us know the birthing process for the baby is MUCH more scary and frightening looking then death..we come in crying-we leave happy-...
I'm only saying this b.c you asked tho. so that's my personal beliefs.

dancingqueen
09-13-2007, 08:53 PM
I pretty much agree with DreamSpirit on this issue. The only time I think abortion should be aloud is if it will place the mother of that child's life at risk. Otherwise, there is always adoption or surogate mother Even if carrying the child to term will kill the mother, I think awarness should be made about transplanting the embryo in the earlyest stages to avoid that problem from happening. NoCasa, you may be able to hoose your to-be-born child's life over your own, but I ask you with judgment aside, what makes their life more valuable than your own? I don't belive there is a way to tell, but if that is a decision you can make, then you are a braver soul than I am.

09-13-2007, 11:41 PM
I wonder how often that happens anymore? Isn't that kind of rare these days where the choice has to be between the mother and child.

In this case, I agree at least that the mother and father should have the freedom to choose, and of course they do. That's always been the case, hasn't it? It was never illegal to abort a baby to save the mother, was it?

I know that as a husband, I'd sooner keep my wife around if it came down to the choice of losing either one. What a difficult decision! Think about the agony a mother must feel in that situation.

But that's a different category of choice than choosing to have an abortion because "my quality of life will be diminished".

Larimar
09-13-2007, 11:44 PM
"It was never illegal to abort a baby to save the mother, was it?
"

nope, but I think we are discussing ethics, morals, and religious or spiritual perspectives more so than what the law is telling us i right or wrong.

"But that's a different category of choice than choosing to have an abortion because "my quality of life will be diminished". "
exactly, agreed.

GenX
09-14-2007, 04:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You can always count on Americans todo the right thing,after they've tried everything else.Churchill</div></div>You can always count on Canadians to spell "to do" as "todo"-Speedy.

Crusty
09-14-2007, 04:55 PM
Well there are only 100 characters allowed in the signature. I figured you would understand that ... but hey ... take your petty little shot if it makes you feel like a big boy.

At least mine is an actual quote by Winston Churchill.

GenX
09-14-2007, 04:56 PM
I should use a quote Churchill said about Canada...


errr, ummmm, anyways...

GenX
09-14-2007, 04:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crusty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well there are only 100 characters allowed in the signature. I figured you would understand that ... but hey ... take your petty little shot if it makes you feel like a big boy.

At least mine is an actual quote by Winston Churchill.
</div></div>

I'mnotsure that is the issueatall, but it ismorethat you have the typing and languageskills of a tenyearold.

Crusty
09-14-2007, 05:01 PM
wow .. you're funny...like a root canal.

GenX
09-14-2007, 05:18 PM
THAT's original.

Crusty
09-14-2007, 05:19 PM
That wasn't.

GenX
09-14-2007, 05:19 PM
You're on fire today.

Barry Morris
09-14-2007, 07:39 PM
And we wish....

Barry Morris
09-14-2007, 07:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NoCasa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Ok the source of the soul is god, but at what point in time is or was it (the soul) created? Is it created as a part of the procreation process or are there souls in 'heaven' waiting in line for bodies to inhabit or is there some other process? I know this has kind of gone beyond the abortion discussion, however I'm thinking it maybe have some impications. </div></div>

I don't believe there is any evidence of "souls waitng in line" though at least one cult I know of teaches that.

I have to believe that, as God has given to mankind the ability to "create" a new being physically, as in, a baby, there must be something He does in the spiritual realm that creates a soul in that child at the same instant that that unique combination of DNA comes together.

GenX
09-15-2007, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to believe that, as God has given to mankind the ability to "create" a new being physically, as in, a baby, there must be something He does in the spiritual realm that creates a soul in that child at the same instant that that unique combination of DNA comes together. </div></div>

wow...how biblically-sound.

great stuff. theological goldmine.

GenX
09-15-2007, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And we wish.... </div></div>

You wish you were on fire, Barry?

Strange, that.

Barry Morris
09-15-2007, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to believe that, as God has given to mankind the ability to "create" a new being physically, as in, a baby, there must be something He does in the spiritual realm that creates a soul in that child at the same instant that that unique combination of DNA comes together. </div></div>

wow...how biblically-sound.

great stuff. theological goldmine. </div></div>

You're supposed to be a Christian, knowledgeable in the bible. Why don't you give it a shot, some "theological gold", I'd be glad to hear it.

GenX
09-15-2007, 11:11 AM
Oh, but how sad I would look discussing the Bible with a "Bible Christian"!

Barry Morris
09-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Let's see, I'm wrong, but you don't know why.

Things that make you say "Hmmmm!"

GenX
09-15-2007, 11:17 AM
Hmmm...where was that bible verse about DNA again???

Things that REALLY make you go "Hmmmmm!"

Barry Morris
09-15-2007, 11:20 AM
Sure.

GenX
09-15-2007, 11:21 AM
Great comeback.

That was quick and easy.

Next! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

09-15-2007, 02:06 PM
Good grief. You guys need serious help.

Karen-Annie
09-15-2007, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good grief. You guys need serious help.
</div></div>

Reminds me of a kindergarten room except in JK/SK there's a higher level of discourse.

Boondock
09-15-2007, 02:55 PM
Well I don't exactly like the whole idea of abortion but I do like the fact that it's a choice that someone can make for themselves and that the religious fanatics haven't yet shut it down to make themselves feel closer to god.

It's my firm belief that nobody should be able to tell you what to do with your own body and that people should mind they're own business and live they're own lives, not try and force moral values on others that might not believe in the same thing. Like I say, I don't agree with it but I do enjoy the freedom.

09-15-2007, 03:14 PM
There are other reason why some 'religious fanatics' would want restrictions on abortions.. like, saving the life of a child...

Boondock
09-15-2007, 03:25 PM
Shouldn't be up to them.

Anyway I'm stayin outta this thread. I gave my "opinion" and I'm not gonna argue.

09-15-2007, 04:54 PM
Oh sure. Hit and run!

Boondock
09-15-2007, 05:30 PM
I've come to the state of mind in the last couple weeks that it's moronic to argue about religion. It's a personal opinion with no facts on either side of the fence to back it up, so why waste time.

09-15-2007, 06:17 PM
It's moronic to argue with morons.
It's another thing to discuss difference of opinion.

Look at the Soapbox any day of the year and you'll find some morons.

It's the people, not religion, that turn good discussions into moronic discussions.

I found it curious that you took a shot at people of faith by impugning a self centred motive to them, and then wanted to run away. Of course you are free to do that.

But do you consider all people who actually believe in one religion or another as fanatics whose only motivation in life is to make themselves feel closer to God by imposing their lifestyle on others?

Note: I am not arguing.

The Berean
09-15-2007, 09:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good grief. You guys need serious help.
</div></div>

Youre a lot of help.

09-15-2007, 10:48 PM
yep.

GenX
09-15-2007, 11:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good grief. You guys need serious help.
</div></div>

I'm the 'lost' Catholic. Shouldn't the "Peace of Christ" man show me the errors of my way?

GenX
09-15-2007, 11:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good grief. You guys need serious help.
</div></div>

Youre a lot of help. </div></div>

TRANSLATION: "C'mon, Aydeloof, we're attacking a Catholic!! Join in!!!"

09-16-2007, 12:17 AM
So Speedy, have you confirmed yet whether that Churchill quote is a false one?

GenX
09-16-2007, 12:01 PM
As far as I can tell it is his quote.

Why?

Barry Morris
09-16-2007, 01:58 PM
From Too Many Daves

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112

"Conservative by the time you're 35"
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

No proof, I'd say.

Speedy's style is really interesting, politicians should take lessons.

09-16-2007, 02:17 PM
Why? Just curious. It's not like you to keep using a quote falsely attributed.

GenX
09-16-2007, 04:15 PM
How's this?

dancingqueen
09-16-2007, 05:18 PM
oh my god you people... so, about them abortions?
some of you people have the attention span of a 10 year old with ADHDS

Boondock, I am not seeing anywhere were the "relgious fanatics" are forcing their belifes on anyone else, if anyone is, I think you are doing so more than anyone else

Crusty
09-16-2007, 06:23 PM
In Church today, the father mentioned a rally on great northern rd ... I missed the date and it's not in the bulletin ... does anyone know anything abut it.

09-16-2007, 09:47 PM
Gasp! Crusty went to church? and it still stands? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Sorry, I confused you with grumpy.

The Berean
09-16-2007, 10:57 PM
It's the Lifechain. Soon.

Strife
09-16-2007, 11:06 PM
I say if people make a mistake then let them do what they want. How would you feel if you were a woman that had gotten raped and now pregnant with that man's child? Wouldnt you want that baby to know its father? I believe that if its your body, then you can control if you want to have that baby or not.

dancingqueen
09-16-2007, 11:12 PM
I personaly don't feel getting raped is an excuse to have an abortion. If it is not already a human life, it is a potential human life and I think that is just as bad. If you can't have the child, give it up for adoption, if you cannot deal with the pregnancy itself then there are plenty of women who would love to be surogate and possibly even keep that child.

Strife
09-16-2007, 11:22 PM
Well if I was a woman than I certainly wouldnt feel great bringing a child into this world without knowing who the father is. There are plenty excuses that I feel are not enough to support an abortion. I guess this is a classic "difference of opinion" thread

Jackie B
09-16-2007, 11:49 PM
The lifechain is September 30th, I believe at 2pm. I'll be there with bells on. :-)

As for for the comments about "people should be allowed to choose what they want to do with their own body"...that would be fine if they were aborting THEIR body. Unfortunately, they're aborting somebody ELSE'S body.

Strife
09-17-2007, 12:43 AM
yes but it is their choice whether or not they want the child. If you dont like kids AT ALL then why bring one into this world. All it will create is a bad kid because the parenting isnt there.

09-17-2007, 08:16 AM
Yeah, bad bad kid. Kill it before it gets bad. That's really smart.

If you don't intend to grow a tree DON'T PLANT THE SEED!

Barry Morris
09-17-2007, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Canadian13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes but it is their choice whether or not they want the child. If you dont like kids AT ALL then why bring one into this world. All it will create is a bad kid because the parenting isnt there. </div></div>

Canadian, did you ever consider that half of those babies aborted are women who will never HAVE a choice???

Crusty
09-17-2007, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gasp! Crusty went to church? and it still stands? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Sorry, I confused you with grumpy.
</div></div>


We're like twins Grumpy and me ... except I go to Mass every Sunday.

Strife
09-17-2007, 10:40 AM
Do you have facts to support that Barry?

dancingqueen
09-17-2007, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Canadian13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes but it is their choice whether or not they want the child. If you dont like kids AT ALL then why bring one into this world. All it will create is a bad kid because the parenting isnt there. </div></div>

Excuse me? being raised by a single parent makes you a bad kid?????

If the mother is not ready to have a child there is always adoption. To me putting a child up for adoption or letting them grow up to be "bad" is better than killing them... JMO

I was prepared to be in agreeance with you on the "difference of opinion" thing, but now you go ahead and say something like that... do you have any data or stats to back your claim up?

Strife
09-17-2007, 10:56 AM
If you had read my statement correctly, I was reffering to if the mother to be did not want kids at all, then it will create a bad kid because that mother is less likely to perform parental activities. I'm not saying that this is always the case but I have seen this happen a few times and have seen the outcome.

Karen-Annie
09-17-2007, 03:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personaly don't feel getting raped is an excuse to have an abortion. If it is not already a human life, it is a potential human life and I think that is just as bad. If you can't have the child, give it up for adoption, if you cannot deal with the pregnancy itself then there are plenty of women who would love to be surogate and possibly even keep that child. </div></div>

Obviously you don't understand the huge emotional and mental trauma that rape does to a woman.Very,very few women would be able to think on the fetus as anything but evil and further violation.Sure,she can give the baby up for adoption......but that does nothing to address the 9 months of pregnancy with every day being a reminder of the crime committed against you and the terror and pain,all the worse if it is a complicated pregnancy.Oh,and there is no way to transfer that pregnancy to a surrogate as you suggest.

No woman who has an abortion under such circumstances should be made to feel she is the evil one.

MaO3
09-17-2007, 03:37 PM
In the case of a rape carrying that child for nine months is for the woman forcing her to re-live the trauma over and over. Every single day, day in and day out for approx. 270 days. Do you not feel that this is Cruel and unusual punishment, for the victim?

While I don't feel as though abortion should be used as a routine form of birthcontrol, I do believe that there are cases where it is the best option for the woman, Rape being one of them.

Crusty
09-17-2007, 04:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if that fetus is a life, it is a human life. If it is a human life, then every prohibition against murder and killing the innocent and the defenseless is applicable. </div></div>

That's pretty much it, simplified, yet no less powerful.

After contemplating that question for a long time, I'm glad I'm on the side I am. </div></div>


I have to agree with this ... and I'm glad I'm on the "right" side now.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 05:04 PM
For those who believe a fetus is human before birth here's my question. I have wondered this for a while.
Being a human most cases you can hear, feel and sense evil around you.
How do you think a fetus will progress as a human in society if during their critical growth and development the only thing they sense and feel is hatred towards them for 9 months?
No love, no bonding, no sense of security nothing.
Personally if I was raped or became pregnant knowing full well I don't want kids I could never bond with it or be at ease during this time frame to be able to give it up for adoption.
So to me if all I ever felt was discuss and hatred I think subconsciously it could create a monster in society don't you?
Just a thought.

With this being said, I wonder how many evil people in this world experienced these types of feeling during their development by mothers,
I wonder if there is a connection in a way with how the mother feels and what she experiences, and how it effects the fetus, during brain development.

Karen-Annie
09-17-2007, 05:18 PM
Interesting question,Popples-and,I confess,one I hadn't thought of before,nor do I recall reading anything about theories or studies on this particular issue.

I'm not in favour of abortions because a baby doesn't fit into one's life-there are too many people out there who would love to adopt that baby.But asking a woman to go through 9 months of a pregnancy caused by a rape IS cruel and unusual punishment.Many such women could/would be suicidal-is her life any less valuable and important than the fetus's?

09-17-2007, 08:18 PM
Using that approach, you would also have to do away with born babes, because many of them experience unfriendly acts of hatred and anger and sadness and evil. Where would one draw the line? What criteria would one use?

MaO3
09-17-2007, 08:25 PM
Rape. Rape is where I draw the line.

My question to you is this, why should a woman who is raped be forced to carry a baby that she neither wanted or willing participated in the creation of? Why should a woman be forced to live with the guilt of "hating(for lack of a better word)" the child she's carrying?

Try to see that part from the perspective of a woman.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 08:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using that approach, you would also have to do away with born babes, because many of them experience unfriendly acts of hatred and anger and sadness and evil. Where would one draw the line? What criteria would one use?

</div></div>

Yes but my statment is for those who did not abort because they felt it was wrong but yet carried it and hated it with no bonding. Maybe by giving birth to it only caused another murder/pedophile,psycho to be born. If somehow a mothers feeling somehow shape a growing babies personality.
Now thats only an IF.
They say a baby can hear and feel your emotions while in you.
But if they grow with no love, no bonding how can they be a good human being?

Crusty
09-17-2007, 09:23 PM
There is no gray area here. There are no what ifs. It is wrong in God's eyes period. There is no interpretation ... in God's eyes it is wrong.

Would have, could have, should have, can be debated all day. Personally it should be a sin to smoke while pregnant or to do anything to harm the fetus; therefore it is wrong to smoke in a car with your children in it ....and so on and so on.

In God's eyes it is wrong. If you believe in God then you should believe it is murder to have an abortion.

I don't get the on going debate

09-17-2007, 09:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yes but my statment is for those who did not abort because they felt it was wrong but yet carried it and hated it with no bonding. Maybe by giving birth to it only caused another murder/pedophile,psycho to be born. If somehow a mothers feeling somehow shape a growing babies personality.
Now thats only an IF.
They say a baby can hear and feel your emotions while in you.
But if they grow with no love, no bonding how can they be a good human being? </div></div>

It's a fact of life that some babies grow up unloved. But that puts the obligation on the PARENT, not the innocent child. Are you blaming the child for the hatred of the parent?

Krysta
09-17-2007, 09:40 PM
But how do you know if its wrong in Gods eyes when we haven't met God?

How do you not know by having an abortion its a way of doing Gods will?
How do you not know its not something he may agree to which is why he gave us the ability to know and learn how to abort?

How do you not know that with all the selfishness, hatred and evil in the world he hasn't already turned his back on all of us?

And even if it is wrong in God's eyes who says we have to please him 100% anyways.
He gave us free will and free choice , doesn't it not say somewhere that he forgives everyone as well?

I believe in God but I don't believe abortion is murder, to me to murder is too kill something that is alive and my views of being alive is to be born.
Inside you a baby can't survive on its own it uses you to survive.
So actually by aborting your aborting or changing a part of you that you dont want.
For it to be murder that baby would need to be its own person which means breathing and eating on its own.
So to me if it can't do that then its not human yet so its not murder.

BTW not meaning to change the subject but what about the animals we kill to eat do you think thats murder and wrong?

I don't agree using it as birth control, or it to be funded by the government.
But I do agree with a woman having the choice to abort.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 09:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yes but my statment is for those who did not abort because they felt it was wrong but yet carried it and hated it with no bonding. Maybe by giving birth to it only caused another murder/pedophile,psycho to be born. If somehow a mothers feeling somehow shape a growing babies personality.
Now thats only an IF.
They say a baby can hear and feel your emotions while in you.
But if they grow with no love, no bonding how can they be a good human being? </div></div>

It's a fact of life that some babies grow up unloved. But that puts the obligation on the PARENT, not the innocent child. Are you blaming the child for the hatred of the parent?



</div></div>
But what if abortion didn't exsist and that parent didnt want to be a parent but was forced into it, this baby developed feeling this hatred towards it. Then this baby grows up being a psycopath whom society ends up having on death row, because he killed someone elses inocent child.

Where an abortion in the begining could have prevented it all from happening.
Who's to say that abortions are not a blessing in disguise?

Also edited to add who are we to say what God wants us to do and what he doesn't want us to do when we are not him?

Who's to say that what he wanted all those years ago is what he wants from us now?

Haven't you ever changed your mind on something and learned to sccept and understand something you hated years ago?

09-17-2007, 09:50 PM
Popples, if your definition of being alive is to be born, because a baby depends on the mother's womb to stay alive, then what does a baby depend upon when it is 1 day old?

Just because an unborn baby is dependent, does not mean it is not alive. Because a 1 day or 1 month old baby is JUST as dependent. Babies cannot live without food and shelter whether IN the womb or outside of the womb.

Do you want to rethink where you draw the line between life and non-life?

What one month old baby eats on its own?? And by the way, babies in the womb need oxygen as much as a 1month old baby outside of the womb. It just uses Mama's lungs to get that oxygen.

Popples, when a fetus DIES in the womb, what has happened? It stops growing, it no longer absorbs oxygen, there is no more heartbeat, no more kicking.

How can something that is NOT ALIVE, die?

Crusty
09-17-2007, 09:56 PM
Good point... Aydeloof

Krysta
09-17-2007, 09:59 PM
yes but a baby outside of the womb may need someone to be dependant on but it can be anyone, not just forcing the responsibility on one individual.
How ever to me to be born is too be alive. I don't believe a life starts before then.
Its JMO though.


"Popples, when a fetus DIES in the womb, what has happened? It stops growing, it no longer absorbs oxygen, there is no more heartbeat, no more kicking."

We as humans decided to classify it as dieing as many believe the are alive.

To me it is a lost possible life, not meant to be.

09-17-2007, 10:05 PM
Life is too important to be defined by individual opinion.

"To me.."

And that is not JMO, BTW.


Nice talking to you, but I disagree most assuredly.

Jackie B
09-17-2007, 10:07 PM
"How ever to me to be born is too be alive. I don't believe a life starts before then."

So, the day before a baby is born it's not alive? You can see it moving on the ultrasound and hear it's heart beating on the monitor but it's not alive? so is it okay to abort it at 9 months gestation then?

Krysta
09-17-2007, 10:13 PM
Thats good which is why we are all individuals.
We are all entitled to feel differently on subjects.
If we all felt the same and all got along in the world.
we would be boring and we wouldn't have soonet.

Everyones side of a debate will have rights to feel the way they do, neither are wrong its just what you choose is your path and what you believe is right for you as a person.

Then stick with it and live your life with that.

You can voice how you feel on a subject but I don't believe in pushing and forcing your views on subjects on other people.
I say educate and let them decide what right for them.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 10:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jackie B</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"How ever to me to be born is too be alive. I don't believe a life starts before then."

So, the day before a baby is born it's not alive? You can see it moving on the ultrasound and hear it's heart beating on the monitor but it's not alive? so is it okay to abort it at 9 months gestation then?
</div></div>

Yes to me I would say yes. It has been done under certain situations.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 10:21 PM
Don't get me wrong I love babies, I love the idea of birth etc, which is why I had 4 of my own.
But under certain situations I can see myself having to do it without having no resentment or feeling of being a monster for doing so.

Some of my reasons are.
If I were raped.
If having the baby would only cause pain and suffering as well as a soon after death for the baby.
Like if it did not have all its parts to live.

If having the baby would cause me to die due to health issues, and death on the baby anyways. Why make my other 4 children suffer without a mom for the sake of not being right to abort.

If by having the baby will somehow jeopardizes my ability to be a mom for my other children.
To me they are all ready here so they are my first priority.

So these are the only reasons I myself would agree to having one.
But Like I said everyone is different.

Crusty
09-17-2007, 10:34 PM
There is no gray area. There are no exceptions.

Larimar
09-17-2007, 10:58 PM
If one is raped they can tak ethe morning after pill , right? I believe if someone waits any longer than that they are obligated to give the innocent life a fair chance. That's my stance.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 11:02 PM
Morning after pill is the same as an abortion.
Its still ending an unwanted pregnancy.

09-17-2007, 11:09 PM
Popples, I find it very hard to believe that you, having had 4 children, and knowing what it feels like to have that baby doing a tapdance on the inside of your taut belly, would still believe it is not alive, and would be willing to kill it under certain circumstances.

I am astounded. But, it's JMO, and I am entitled.

Is the baby entitled?

Krysta
09-17-2007, 11:16 PM
I'm sorry your having a hard time believing it but its how I feel.

I gave birth to 4 wonderful kids but I myself would terminate a pregnancy under certain situations.

To ask if the baby is entitled I would say no unless you have a way to ask it and it can respond back to you.
I would say you can only be entitled to an opinion if you have one to be entitled too.

Now there's a way for scientists to make millions.
They can find a way to speak with unborn kids and ask them what they want while they are in you.

Jackie B
09-17-2007, 11:21 PM
"To ask if the baby is entitled I would say no unless you have a way to ask it and it can respond back to you."

So I guess the same would apply for anyone too old or disabled to respond back as well?

Krysta
09-17-2007, 11:25 PM
I would say yes. Which is why others make the decisions for them.
No ones knows for sure if its what they want its done on what you think is right.
Remember Terri Schiavo, Many thought it was wrong to let her die while others thought it was what she wanted.
In the end her husband made her final decision for her regardless of what others wanted.

09-17-2007, 11:26 PM
Or even a 2 day old child. Well there you have it folks..
That is how the world thinks.
And that's why believers look for a heavenly city, where there will be no more death, or tears or sorrow... caused by the sin nature that blinds us so...

Larimar
09-17-2007, 11:33 PM
"Morning after pill is the same as an abortion.
Its still ending an unwanted pregnancy. "

Morning after pill is not the same as abortion.

"Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills” They aren’t. First, RU-486 (also known as the French abortion pill, mifepristone, and Mifeprex) contains a completely different drug than the hormones found in the birth control pills used for emergency contraception. Second, emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy, so they work differently than the abortion pill (Find out more about how the “morning

after pill” differs from the abortion pill here.) "

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html

One is to prevent pregnancy another is to kill what is already considered being pregnant I do believe.
I would only believe in using this as a means to help rape victims not worry about aborting later in the stages of pregnancy. If they let the pregnancy go on longer than that they I don't believe in killing the baby.

Larimar
09-17-2007, 11:40 PM
There's more scientific evidence to suggest babies have a want for survival than they do for death... So asking them is pointless it should be assumed the baby wants to be born and live even if there are complications the body will fight until its last breath.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 11:43 PM
"Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills”

I never said they were the same.

From what I Gather those who believe abortion is wrong indicate that life begins the moment the sperm and egg meet.
How do you know this does not happen before you get your butt into the Doctor the next day to take get the pill?
Thus taking can prevent the pregnancy from continuing.
Which is the same as an abortion.

Krysta
09-17-2007, 11:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's more scientific evidence to suggest babies have a want for survival than they do for death... So asking them is pointless it should be assumed the baby wants to be born and live even if there are complications the body will fight until its last breath. </div></div>

But thats still assuming its not proof though.
Just like a pregnant rape victim can only assume at the time she is making her decision it would be the best for her and that baby.
And honestly only they themself would know.

Macs II
09-17-2007, 11:46 PM
Abortions are good ..we need more of them ...less babies born to welfare mothers the better it is

Krysta
09-17-2007, 11:48 PM
Leave it to you Macs to break the tension.
My coffee flew out my mouth lol.

Larimar
09-17-2007, 11:59 PM
I wouldn't personally use the morning after, b.c like you said I do believe it is aborting too-However it's a lot better than letting it go until the cells start to develop into a body-I may be pro life but I've never been an extremist.
I just feel there are better ways to go about things.


A baby wanting to survive is mere biology and science-we wouldn't survive as a specied today if the young wanted death and their body's never fought for survival.

Crusty
09-17-2007, 11:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Macs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Abortions are good...we need more of them ...less babies born to welfare mothers the better it is </div></div>


What we need is an attempt to regain some family values in this country. It is not OK for 15 year old girls to have sex. It is not fanatical to expect your children to wait to have sex until they are married. It is not acceptable to pay 17 years old to be single mothers.

Abortion however is not the answer. Moral values are. It's about time, that abstinence, not vaccinations will stop the spread of STD's.

Abortion is just another from of birth control and that is wrong.

Larimar
09-18-2007, 12:29 AM
Some pro life vids, They show no images or gross images-They seem respectable to show here.


The first one is of a young girl speaking about her unplanned pregnancy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6sgm2MEg1Ds


http://youtube.com/watch?v=3gUJxiQqQVc
Powerful pro life speech-gives some things to think about

Strife
09-18-2007, 02:02 AM
wow....this topic has sure evolved. I guess I'll toss my hat back into the ring. If a woman desires to end her pregnancy that that is her choice. I would much rather hear of an abortion rather than an unwanted child being born and thus, having the possibility of being neglected.

As for the after morning pill. Although science can dictate that it is not abortion, common sense begs to differ. The reason for an abortion is to end a pregnancy. No grey area, no if's, and's or but's. The morning after pill is to end a possible pregnancy whether conception has occured or not. So using that reasoning, the morning after pill is similar to an abortion.

We can sit here all day and night and argue who has the better opinion but my opinion will not change. If there is a god, and I say that because I am atheist, and he meant for abortion to be wrong, than he wouldnt have equipped us with the tools to make it possible.

Larimar
09-18-2007, 02:15 AM
If the egg has not been fertilized it's not an abortion any more than having your period is...If you believe that not having intercourse and having a cycle is killing -Then yah I would see the point your saying that blocking the egg from being fertilized is abortion ( I do not see it as such)..The morning after is supposed to catch it before anything takes place. The sperm doesnt hit the egg then the chromosomes and DNA are not created-Nothing is there.
If the sperm does hit the egg it is an abortion(I don't dispute that, the pill would hav eto be taken right away)-as both the egg and sperm have created everything it needs for life. That's why the pill is taken right away- The sperm does not fertilize right away. If it is fertilized I agree, it's abortion and to me it's wrong.
But there's no scientific evidence to suggest just an egg is a life. If it were we'd have an awful lotta ppl spitting out their chicken eggs . yuck lol.
But as i've already said I personally don't condone the pill, but I can understand it would be a better alternative than having rape victims carry the child into the fetus stage where it is no doubt having a beating heart and then aborting it- which not only is killing the baby but risking the life of the woman as well.

Strife
09-18-2007, 02:37 AM
Under the right circumstances, a sperm can fertilize an egg overnight, thus conception has occured. If you use the morning after pill and it is successful in preventing the pregnancy from progressing, than it is considered abortion. If conception hasnt occurred, than the pregnancy is just prevented rather than aborted. I hope everyone, no matter your opinion, can see my logic in this.

Larimar
09-18-2007, 02:51 AM
I believe we are saying the same thing, that if it's not reached conception it is not abortion. A sperm needs 24 hours to hit the egg at the least, and so in an extreem circumstance if a person cannot tolerate in the leasts a pregnancy after a rape has occured Taking that pill straight away (not the morning after literally) can be a better alternative then waiting fo the egg to develope a brain and heart beat /conciousness. I think we are on the same page that it is abortion if it reaches conception /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I'm against abortion, though If it will happen anyways I feel it's better it be done that day rather than wait until it has a brain with neurons and dreams. I can't imagine why anyone would wantto take an innocent life though, not in an age where there are so many loving parents who can't have children who are wiling to adopt-But never will, b.c the child is not available. Many stories and I know many people who could not fin da child to adopt-Perhaps abortion is the reason, I do not know.

09-18-2007, 07:29 AM
"If there is a god, .. than he wouldnt have equipped us with the tools to make it possible."
__________
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
"Thinking themselves wise, they became fools"

Do you realize how stupid this sounds? If God didn't want me to murder he would not have allowed the development of guns!

What are you smoking??

Crusty
09-18-2007, 08:46 AM
If a woman chooses to have sex then she needs accept the consequences. The debate ends at birth control. If you choose not to use it you need to accept the consequences. The fact that no method is fool proof if you choose to have sex then you still need to accept the consequences.

An [censored] or an attempt at an [censored] has these risks. You don’t get to frivolously say “oops” and end a human life and call it an accident. It’s not right.

Spare me the rape scenario on this one. It’s like the only excuse you can come up and it’s a rarity. Abortions are mostly utilized by women who didn’t “mean” to get pregnant.

You have the freedom to choose, but not to choose abortion. You have to freedom to choose not to have sex, to plan your sexual interactions, to use birth control. If you choose to have sex you need to accept the risks.

Krysta
09-18-2007, 09:13 AM
Rape is more common then you obviously think.
Rape is only one reason to terminate a pregnancy.
I have given others before.

Health issues like tubals, baby not having organs to have a surviving chance.

When issues come up where staying pregnant will only lead to the death of you and thus the death of the baby anyways.

I have met through out the years several different issues of when termination would occur.
My cousin had to terminate due to a tubal.
I have seen rape victims and until you go through their torture you will obviously never understand their daily pain.

I had a friend who had to terminate due to the baby only having 1 kidney no lungs and only 1 limb.
The baby wouldn't of lived a life so why have the family go through the pain of birth and watching the baby die in their arms? Not to mention any pain the baby itself would go through after being full term developed.

No one wll ever make each other change their opinion but I just though I will give crusty some other situations.

I do have others as well.

Crusty
09-18-2007, 09:26 AM
Can we agree most abortions are done because of inadequate birth control methods?

09-18-2007, 09:39 AM
Crusty, I agree with you. It's always the extreme examples that are used as a thin edge of the wedge to open the door to make abortion available for almost any excuse under the sun.

Strife
09-18-2007, 10:41 AM
No form of birth control is 100% effective. There will always be cases where the condom breaks or the diaphragm doesnt work or the baby is born while the woman is on birth control.

What some of you are not understanding is that we all have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies. We have the right to saw off our arms if we wanted to (although highly unlikely, I am trying to make a point). We have control over what foods we eat, we have control over who we have sex with (except in the cases of rape ofcourse). The point I am making here is that a woman has the right to abort her pregnancy if she so chooses. Whether or not her reasoning is right or wrong, who are you to fricken decide?

dancingqueen
09-18-2007, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Karen-annie</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personaly don't feel getting raped is an excuse to have an abortion. If it is not already a human life, it is a potential human life and I think that is just as bad. If you can't have the child, give it up for adoption, if you cannot deal with the pregnancy itself then there are plenty of women who would love to be surogate and possibly even keep that child. </div></div>

Obviously you don't understand the huge emotional and mental trauma that rape does to a woman.Very,very few women would be able to think on the fetus as anything but evil and further violation.Sure,she can give the baby up for adoption......but that does nothing to address the 9 months of pregnancy with every day being a reminder of the crime committed against you and the terror and pain,all the worse if it is a complicated pregnancy.Oh,and there is no way to transfer that pregnancy to a surrogate as you suggest.

No woman who has an abortion under such circumstances should be made to feel she is the evil one. </div></div>

That is a cop-out.
As a human being it is up to you to look at this life inside you as a human child in need of love not your raper's child. Being raped will age a person in many ways, one of these ways will need to be the ability to seperate one from the other. If a person cannot do that it is because they are not trying or not using the resources available to them at this point he lack of love for that child is not on the raper but on the mother.

On another note, because some person rapes a woman is that a behavior that child is responsible for? are they less deserving of a life because their ather was a rapist?
I have never bought into the whole abortion because they where raped thing, I just can't. Sometimes [censored] things happen to good people, and sometimes you have to accept the responsibility untill it an at least be dealt with appropriatly. Take for instance your ex left his dog at your place and your ex was an abusive lout. would you just kill the dog? or take care of it untill you could get an owner or at least drop it off at the humaine society?

dancingqueen
09-18-2007, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Canadian13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you had read my statement correctly, I was reffering to if the mother to be did not want kids at all, then it will create a bad kid because that mother is less likely to perform parental activities. I'm not saying that this is always the case but I have seen this happen a few times and have seen the outcome. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All it will create is a bad kid because the parenting isnt there. </div></div>

this is what you posted, you may not have meant it this way, but that was how I read it.
Is it accurate to say that you may have meant it will create a hurt or unloved child?

MaO3
09-18-2007, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a human being it is up to you to look at this life inside you as a human child in need of love not your raper's child. Being raped will age a person in many ways, one of these ways will need to be the ability to seperate one from the other. If a person cannot do that it is because they are not trying or not using the resources available to them at this point he lack of love for that child is not on the raper but on the mother.

On another note, because some person rapes a woman is that a behavior that child is responsible for? are they less deserving of a life because their ather was a rapist?
I have never bought into the whole abortion because they where raped thing, I just can't. Sometimes [censored] things happen to good people, and sometimes you have to accept the responsibility untill it an at least be dealt with appropriatly. </div></div>

Again I ask why should a CRIME VICTIM be forced to have more of the "power" taken away from her? Why DQ should a woman who has been brutalized and traumatized be forced to endure 9 months of HELL on top of what she's already experienced? WHY?

I've had three children and let me tell you its no picnic being pregnant. I chose to be pregnant, so the pain etc was part of the deal. Why should a woman be forced to go through the pain, the body changing and the sheer trauma of carrying a child and delivering a child when she had NO say in the matter?

Crusty
09-18-2007, 02:08 PM
For the sake of argument, isn’t it the couples decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?

MaO3
09-18-2007, 02:37 PM
Only if its the couple's decision to have sex. If the woman had no say - ie rape then do you actually think the rapist should have a say in whether or not she terminates the pregnancy?

Larimar
09-18-2007, 02:41 PM
"My cousin had to terminate due to a tubal."
I feel there should be a distinguishing line between abortions for medical reasons-Like tubals
and for abortions done for no reason other than to make living more comfy for the "mother". I am 100% against abortions done for birth control purposes, but medical issues is a whole new intent and should be places into a different category on its own. The mother is not wanting to kill the child-Like that youtube vid I gave you all says- the intent is different. Where as with other abortions you want to directly go in and your aim is to kill the fetus or embryo.

I personally do not believe in aborting b.c of Rape-I can understand their views, but I don't find it acceptable. The woman is letting the rapist not only steal a piece of themselves but she is ultimately letting him kill her child too(This DISempowers a woman, takes her freedoms away due to fears , hate, and emotions she never had before- Really this is not having the right to choose freely if you feel so negative to be free to make a choice you need to be rational and have clarity. By aborting I feel the woman gives up her rights. (Read more on these types of views by googling Women Rights-Pro Life)). So he commits the act of rape and to rectify this she commits the act of abortion/killing-So in essense the rapist has created a domino affect of two victims-one of which could be saved. ARe we that selfish a species that we feel we cannot save anothers life even though we are going to hurt? Even when we have already been hurting and will hurt for the rest of our lives? In other words, will not having a baby-and giving it up for adoption- Will this take away her pain? Will this take away her thoughts and her memories? NO it will not.
We really are a selfish species, there's no doubting this. Altruism is lost.

Crusty
09-18-2007, 02:43 PM
Unlike everybody else here, I'm not talking about rape with every post I make. My posts are about the topic at hand ... in the Religious section.

We have established it is against the will of God in the Christian faith to have an abortion. It is considered Murder. We are not discussing rape or what constitutes rape.

If your answer to everything is going to be "What about rape" then we should just cut and paste your answer after every post we make.

MaO3
09-18-2007, 02:50 PM
A tubal in my opinion is not a pregnancy, its a medical condition. The egg has not inbedded so there is no connection to the woman.

It is a matter of life or death for the woman, a tubal will survive a short period and cause the tube to rupture and the woman will bleed to death.

No chance of survival for the embryo.

The following link has a good discription of symtoms and treatment for Eptopic pregnancy
http://www.askdramy.com/ectopic.html

MaO3
09-18-2007, 02:54 PM
When it comes to the religious aspect of it, it is my opinion that should a woman feel in her heart of hearts that she has made the proper decision for her, at her death God will forgive her her sins.
Isn't that what you all preach?

Krysta
09-18-2007, 02:58 PM
Well to get back on the topic of whether God will allow it or not.
How do we know?

Everyone including myself puts so much power in God but he himself has also terminated pregnancy's as it was not his will for them to be born, so why can't we also decide if its our will or not?
Wasn't it himself who whipped out all man kind by flooding them out just because he didn't like how they were.
If we were so bad in our judgement wouldn't he have already done that again?

Why do we live each day of our lives being dictated on what to do when to me I thought you live your life the best you can and each day is a new decision and learn from there.

I think there are things he won't personally like but it won't stop him for loving us as he forgives all.
I can see him understanding every persons reasons for doing what they are doing, regardless if he likes it or not it won't stop his love.
Just like our parents we do things our parents hate but they forgive and try to understand and love us unconditionally right?

Larimar
09-18-2007, 02:58 PM
"A tubal in my opinion is not a pregnancy, its a medical condition. The egg has not inbedded so there is no connection to the woman.

It is a matter of life or death for the woman, a tubal will survive a short period and cause the tube to rupture and the woman will bleed to death.

No chance of survival for the embryo. "
Exactly, it is a medical issue more so a moral or a religious one /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

KDawg
09-18-2007, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When it comes to the religious aspect of it, it is my opinion that should a woman feel in her heart of hearts that she has made the proper decision for her, at her death God will forgive her her sins.
Isn't that what you all preach?</div></div>

Where do you get that information?

Krysta
09-18-2007, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A tubal in my opinion is not a pregnancy, its a medical condition. The egg has not inbedded so there is no connection to the woman.

It is a matter of life or death for the woman, a tubal will survive a short period and cause the tube to rupture and the woman will bleed to death.

No chance of survival for the embryo.


</div></div>

But it is still so called alive is it not?
To many responses I have recieved that no matter what to not terminate or it would be wrong.

To me in this case because I have 4 other baby's, I will never jeopardise my life and those of my children to carry a new one in this world to be raised without a mom.
There are other medical issues that can kill a mother and allow a baby to be born.

I myself took a chance with my last one due to kidney issues, something I would never do again.

Looking at my baby's faces and knowing they could go through life with a new sibling and no mom how could I do that.
My husband wouldn't be emotionally able to look after 5 kids on his own, what kind of a life would they have?

MaO3
09-18-2007, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When it comes to the religious aspect of it, it is my opinion that should a woman feel in her heart of hearts that she has made the proper decision for her, at her death God will forgive her her sins.
Isn't that what you all preach?</div></div>

Where do you get that information? </div></div>

Matthew 18:21 "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? {22} Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." We & God always forgive.

1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us &lt;our&gt; sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Heres a couple of places, Kdawg, again I said it is my opinion.

NewCasa
09-18-2007, 03:28 PM
You people who quote the bible seem to be quoting the parts you like. What about the commandments? Does 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' ring a bell? I don't believe it says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill unless you feel you've got a good reason for it......'

I think it's pretty clear. For once, not a lot of wiggle room in the bible. And, as I understand it, commandments trump parables, right?

Krysta
09-18-2007, 03:32 PM
Yes it does say thou shall not kill but

1. Its does not state when life begins to kill.

and

2. Its kind of hypocritical for him to say thou shall not kill when he himself does it.

Crusty
09-18-2007, 03:38 PM
huh ?

Krysta
09-18-2007, 03:44 PM
God himself is the world largest mass murder. Look at Noah's Arc.

He didn't like how the world was so instead of teaching and trying to change it he just wiped it out and started over.

NewCasa
09-18-2007, 03:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: POPPLES RULE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes it does say thou shall not kill but

1. Its does not state when life begins to kill.

and

2. Its kind of hypocritical for him to say thou shall not kill when he himself does it. </div></div>

1) Abortion either ends a life or it ends the certainty that a life will soon exist. Both amount to the same thing, the only difference being timing, not the fact that life would have existed had a person not performed a deliberate act to end it. The deliberate act of ending a life is killing. Everything else is semantics.

2) Hypocritical? I won't even debate that because who cares? A Commandment is still an order from a higher power - ie. God. Pretty hard to argue with that if you believe in the bible as the word of God and decide to follow that word.

Argue the hypocrisy thing before you decide to become a Christian, sure, but I was using the Christian's book to base my arguement and once you accept the Christian ways you don't start calling their god a hypocrite.

On the other hand, if you don't believe in the Christian's way then sure, this arguement falls apart fast, but you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case. (Although I always thought that it was pretty silly to get cake that you would not be able to eat....)

KDawg
09-18-2007, 04:00 PM
OK. The way I read your post was that forgiveness of sins was an automatic at death.

Krysta
09-18-2007, 04:20 PM
I'm not christian but I do believe in small parts of its teachings just not all.
I belive in parts of many religions which is where I get my own I guess.

So I do get my cake and eat it too. And this time its chocolate want some?
Just bring some ice cream:)

NewCasa
09-18-2007, 04:25 PM
Mmmmm....chocolate. On my way!

dancingqueen
09-18-2007, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a human being it is up to you to look at this life inside you as a human child in need of love not your raper's child. Being raped will age a person in many ways, one of these ways will need to be the ability to seperate one from the other. If a person cannot do that it is because they are not trying or not using the resources available to them at this point he lack of love for that child is not on the raper but on the mother.

On another note, because some person rapes a woman is that a behavior that child is responsible for? are they less deserving of a life because their ather was a rapist?
I have never bought into the whole abortion because they where raped thing, I just can't. Sometimes [censored] things happen to good people, and sometimes you have to accept the responsibility untill it an at least be dealt with appropriatly. </div></div>

Again I ask why should a CRIME VICTIM be forced to have more of the "power" taken away from her? Why DQ should a woman who has been brutalized and traumatized be forced to endure 9 months of HELL on top of what she's already experienced? WHY?

I've had three children and let me tell you its no picnic being pregnant. I chose to be pregnant, so the pain etc was part of the deal. Why should a woman be forced to go through the pain, the body changing and the sheer trauma of carrying a child and delivering a child when she had NO say in the matter? </div></div>

well, I don't mean to sound heartless, but life is not fair, people around the world live with problems because of someone else. It is up to the victim to live with many problems because it is them that it affects.
This is my bottom line on the subject:
I am sure we can all agree that a fetus before being born is t the very least a Potential life. who are we to decide that poential should not occur simply because we feel "reminded of a rape"? Get some balls and deal with it, like people have to deal with Aids and world hunger. Counseling is available for these people and they will help the victim seperate the chil from the rapist. If a woman can't even go to do this for the potential of a child, then IMO she is no worse than the rapist.

MaO3
09-18-2007, 05:39 PM
Sorry but that is a typical response.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Get some balls and deal with it, like people have to deal with Aids and world hunger.</div></div>

Fortunately for women there is an option for them, unlike those with aids etc.


I'm glad we live in a country that allows women to have some say over thier bodies, its thier choice, thier right.

KDawg
09-18-2007, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry but that is a typical response.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Get some balls and deal with it, like people have to deal with Aids and world hunger.</div></div>

Fortunately for women there is an option for them, unlike those with aids etc.


I'm glad we live in a country that allows women to have some say over thier bodies, its thier choice, thier right.</div></div>

Minimizing pain and inconvenience for the woman is the driving force, eh? Sorry, but that's all I read in your posts.

You speak of the "option" women have. What about all the "options" your depriving of that baby in the womb?

dancingqueen
09-18-2007, 05:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry but that is a typical response.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Get some balls and deal with it, like people have to deal with Aids and world hunger.</div></div>

Fortunately for women there is an option for them, unlike those with aids etc.


I'm glad we live in a country that allows women to have some say over thier bodies, its thier choice, thier right.
</div></div>

In the other cases you are also not dealing with another living being, and killing it (or the potential of a living being) for your comfort, that is the ultamate in selfishness

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Minimizing pain and inconvenience for the woman is the driving force, eh?</div></div>

Fits perfectly in a culture that places the self over others, as western society certainly has.

MaO3
09-18-2007, 06:06 PM
Yeap thats me selfish. Let me just say again, I've never endorsed abortion for regular birthcontrol. In this day and age there is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.
I do however beleive that there are very rare circumstances that make abortion a viable option, rape being one of them.

I am the mother of three children who are my life, however if I were raped and wound up carrying the child of a rapist, I would NOT be told by anyone or forced by anyone to carry that child if I did not feel it was the appropriate thing for ME.
Wanna call that selfish I really don't give a sh*t, I call it self preservation.

Again I'm glad I live in a country where women have the right to choose!

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:08 PM
"Choose" what? To not have a baby they had a hand in creating? (I'm not talking about rape or incest here).

A vast majority of abortions today are used for personal gain ("I don't want a kid"; "I'm not ready").

Abortion for medical reasons I can at least begin to meet you half-way. But all in all, abortion today is all about selfishness.

MaO3
09-18-2007, 06:12 PM
I've never endorsed abortion as a regular form of birthcontrol.
In my opinion there is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy today, with education and the availability of birth control.

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:13 PM
Agreed.

09-18-2007, 06:14 PM
"where women have the right to choose!"

You people don't know how to argue.
You just keep repeating the same statements, thinking that by repetition, you will shut your opponent up.

Try giving reasons for your statements.

Why should a woman have the right to kill the baby growing in her womb?

You've already used the rape argument.

Why should a child that is a product of rape not be allowed to live? Because the 'host' was violated? So does a 2nd violation help?

IF the child is a human life, why add murder to rape?

In society, we don't even believe in capital punishment of people who commit murder, yet we believe in the murder of innocent human life in the womb because of a rape.

Oh, wait, we don;t believe in capital punishment until it comes close to home, then we change our principles.. like, who said, "I've got principles, and if you don't like them, I've got others.." /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Krysta
09-18-2007, 06:18 PM
My question is what about that child who is a product of rape?
Ever think of their feelings?
Do you know what it is like knowing you were a result of a rape?
Do you know what it is like struggling daily knowing you were not created out of love but pure evil?

Do you know what it is like questioning daily your every thought and action if its bad because you were made from evil so are you actually evil?

Do you know what it is like to have no facial features of your mother so you must look like your father and what it does to your mother daily seeing her assaultant over and over again.

I have someone close to me who is in this position because of this very reason.

I wouldn't want to go through a life time of pain and embarrassment.

Also Have you ever been brutally raped and have every part of your body and soul victimized.
Do you know what it is like to live 24hrs a day in fear it may happen again or relive what you went through.

To then find out the monster stole part of you to create another version of himself. How could you ever give that other product a chance to survive when its only a piece of you that was stolen in the first place.

I Can't see how any God would want to punish someone and make them continue 9 months of torture and then a painful birth.
I really honestly don't see how in some cases he wouldn't be fine with a mothers choice to terminate, especially since some situations are sad to begin with.

However I do have to agree with whoever said many use it as a form of birthcontrol.
This is wrong, sure your life may be a little uncomfortable but you made it willingly deal with it.

I only agree to abortion under certain situations, since many people out there would love a family.

I also do not agree with abortions being government funded.
I believe this is something that is in most cases unnesessary so you should have to pay for it, not tax payers.

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:20 PM
The State of California has put itself in a pretty big quandary as of late.

They have a law that says a person can be convicted of TWO counts of murder should they kill a pregnant woman.

Well...that is interesting. This is the same State that says abortion is not 'killing' because the fetus is not a viable human being.

Well, is it or isn't it?

The pro-abortion cause is crumbling under its own wrong-headedness and hypocrisy. Technology is also an enemy of the pro-abortion groups.

The day is coming, in the U.S. at least, that abortion will be over-turned as a "constitutional right" as it currently is under the monstrosity known as Roe v. Wade.

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you know what it is like knowing you were a result of a rape?
Do you know what it is like struggling daily knowing you were not created out of love but pure evil?

Do you know what it is like questioning daily your every thought and action if its bad because you were made from evil so are you actually evil?</div></div>

Did you ever think about how wonderful it must be to know another human being loved you so much, before you were even born, that they gave birth to you and raised you, even if the circumstances of conception were terrible?

Can you imagine giving oneself so much that you say, "Although the way you were conceived was terrible and not like I ever planned, still I give myself totally to you, and will destroy the hate of rape with the love of parenting"?

And on a purely non-emotional front, your argument does not stand. Do you know FOR SURE that every birth that was not a rape was done out of love? It is impossible to know. As such, your argument fails.

Krysta
09-18-2007, 06:29 PM
that makes no sence.

no one knows anything for sure so how can you say that every baby concieved out of rape would want to live?

Again because the fetus has someone to decide for them because obviously they can't tell you what they want, you decide for them what you feel in your heart would be best.

Also find me someone who was created out of rape who doesn't have mixed emotions regardless of how mush their new parents loved them.

Also not too many rape victims love the baby regardless of what happened.
It is a violation to them.

Love unfortunately doesn't fix everything in life.
It helps but it doesn't fix it.

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> no one knows anything for sure so how can you say that every baby concieved out of rape would want to live?</div></div>

Popples, let me show you a very basic example of how your argument is really no argument at all, and in fact can be used against you argument:

"no one knows anything for sure so how can you say that every baby conceived out of rape would want to die?["

Krysta
09-18-2007, 06:32 PM
again you make no sence its the same thing

Krysta
09-18-2007, 06:34 PM
like I said no one knows for sure what it wants which is why the carrier (mother chooses for it).
Who's to say their choice is wrong when the fetus never told you so?

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Love unfortunately doesn't fix everything in life.
It helps but it doesn't fix it. </div></div>

By that line of thinking we can say anything that does not fix something, but only helps, is in the end not enough.

So, no more pills for depression.

No more counseling.

No more calling a friend to offer support when things are going really bad.

These things help, but they don't fix it.

Krysta
09-18-2007, 06:37 PM
i agree

GenX
09-18-2007, 06:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: POPPLES RULE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">like I said no one knows for sure what it wants which is why the carrier (mother chooses for it).
Who's to say their choice is wrong when the fetus never told you so? </div></div>

The fetus never tells the mother it does or does not want to taste tequila, but yet most expectant mothers do not consume alcohol during pregnancy.

The fetus does not tell us if it wants to smoke or not, but most expectant mothers do not smoke during pregnancy.

According to your logic, I could beat upon the pregnant belly of my wife, because the baby didn't tell us one way or the other if it liked the beating or not.

We know certain things through their morality.

Though the baby does not tell us, we instinctively (and now technologically) know drinking while pregnant is wrong.

Though the baby does not tell us, we instinctively know smoking while pregnant is wrong.

Though the baby does not tell us, we instinctively know beating on the mother's stomach while pregnant is wrong.

Though the baby does not tell us, we instinctively know killing a viable human being is wrong.

KDawg
09-18-2007, 07:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: POPPLES RULE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">like I said no one knows for sure what it wants which is why the carrier (mother chooses for it).
Who's to say their choice is wrong when the fetus never told you so? </div></div>

That's an excellent point. So why not err on the side of caution and have the baby, instead of killing it?

Larimar
09-18-2007, 07:31 PM
"Do you know what it is like to have no facial features of your mother so you must look like your father and what it does to your mother daily seeing her assaultant over and over again.

I have someone close to me who is in this position because of this very reason."
Please don't take this the wrong way, I know tone of voice isn't easy to hear on a messageboard, but I mean no offense. I just want to say this to give a different perspective on your friends situation, maybe something to think on, though I am aware you will not change your stance.


By endorsing that thought you are simply saying to your friend she is right, that she SHOULD believe this. You may not be meaning to but many people are born because someone was raped and didn't believe in abortion. Not all children will grow up feeling this negative way. To judge how they will feel is wrong (That baby can never get their life back, but the mother can if they choose adoption or to keep the child)
Saying they are better off dead is simply telling your friend she's better off dead and her life has no value.I know in your heart of hearts you do not mean this, but saying it for all unborn babies is also saying it for all born ones too.
If you are saying this is the reason mothers should be allowed to abort then you are also saying you wouldn't mind if your friend were gone(Do you feel that way for sure?). Your friend may have many emotional and psychological issues, however this can be treated, and also may be a result of the beliefs of those around her.There are so many factors that could contribute to how a child sees the world. Even a planned pregancy can have a child growing up hating themselves if in the wrong environment. Either way there's no garauntees. Yet, even in the Biography "The Child called It " (hopefully that's the correct spelling) He overcame what he was born into. In his case his mother was the "sick" derranged one.(I wouldn't be throwing the word evil around lightly incase the victim confuses it towards themselves) The boy never took on the attitude that he was his mother, that he would be abusive also, that he had to take on his surroundings. He overcame it all and is making millions of dollars on his books and has a family of his own.His books help millions of people who may be going through negative things like abuse and it helps them believe in themselves and overcome the life they were born from and into-How can we know what value a soul has on society He was worthy even though he could have become aproduct of his mother(Through beliefs he may have had or through self defeat/self fulling prophecies)-He did not. <u>he became his own being. </u>

I do know that others who have children by being a victim of rape can let their child know every day of their life that they are their own person, they are 50% mommy and 100% God's love and mommy's love. There's no reason to be throwing a word around like evil b.c it dehumanizes those children. And like your friend there are MANY of them out there who would simply be shocked at you saying they should have just died instead of tried to overcome their burdens.(In the simplest form that is what that arguement says, that it's too hard for them to live knowing they were not a product of love. ) instead of saying it's better off to die then to go through that, why not show more positivism by letting your "friend" know how UNtrue those statements are. Letting them know that rapists are not evil, they are sick or mentally ill, and need help but that they themselves(your friend) are perfect and make up their own morals and values.
If I had a friend who was a product of rape, I do know the last thing I would be saying is to abort them, b.c they may feel evil-That just shows them that that is what we are thinking of them...it's sad really. I think they should know that their life is valueable, their friendship is sooooo important, and that they are loved so much. If we know anyone at all who had a mother who did not want them, and instad gave them up for adoption into a loving home-If we say we are pro choise we are also saying we don't mind that they could have been dead. It's true, we can't sugar coat that. It's that very reason I'm pro life is b.c of all the ppl I know and knew who may not be here today if their mother decided to abort-and all the ppl who wouldnt b here today if they were not born to give birth.


This is why I'm personally against aborting even for rape, b.c that does not mean the child will be born into a hateful family-They may be, but so can a planned pregnancy. I also believe it's better to be adopted and have the mother not want you in the womb than to be dead.
It's so very easy to feel sorry for a rape victim, I do feel compassion for them but I also believe two wrongs don't make a right. There are many depressed person in this world who probably wish they had been aborted at birth but it is an illness they have. Depression is a sickness and it can be treated. I do believe every baby should hav ethe right to live, b.c the mother loses nothing but 9 months or less while the baby loses forever-What's worse?
What if you were the baby?
"After all, abortion for rape is executing a bystander for a crime committed by somebody else. What society does something like that?"
Please also remember that more often than not after aborting a child the mother becomes depressed just from that and can often turn to hurting herself or even commiting suicide. If not that they live with guilt for the rest of their lives. Not all mothers to be, but many.
Less than 1% of rape victims get pregnant anyways, so we are dealing with vey rare cases.

On another note:
Are the pro choicers actually familiar with the abortion process? seen the vids? understand it? I feel it's important someone know every aspect to how something is done if they feel it should be done, or feel it's okay. That's just my opinion. There are youtube vids of how they abort. They do show a baby being killed-and if you can't handle watching it-It may be your concious telling a lil something. I will not show that video-For pretty obvious reasons...





Now let's look at Women's Rights. Right to choose? Maybe not...

"Feminism is based on the principle that women have innate worth, inalienable rights, and valuable ideas and talents to contribute to society. True feminism goes beyond mere equality -- insists not only that women be given equal rights with men, but that they be respected for themselves as well. In addition, feminism has always been about more than just women's rights. The same individuals who were key figures in the early women's rights movement were also influential abolitionists, fighters for workers and children's rights, and reformers at all levels of government. At the heart of the women's rights movement has always been the idea that each individual has certain innate rights; that each individual is a valuable, contributing member of society.
The terms 'ProLife' and 'Feminist' tend to be viewed as opposing. But, considering the basic ethic of the value of all individuals that feminism is based on, there is nothing contradictory about a pro-woman, pro-prenatal rights stance. In fact, most early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were strongly and vocally pro-life. Both supporting women's rights and opposing abortion uphold the standard that every individual is deserving of respect. "
The terms 'ProLife' and 'Feminist' tend to be viewed as opposing. But, considering the basic ethic of the value of all individuals that feminism is based on, there is nothing contradictory about a pro-woman, pro-prenatal rights stance. In fact, most early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were strongly and vocally pro-life. Both supporting women's rights and opposing abortion uphold the standard that every individual is deserving of respect.

The terms 'ProLife' and 'Feminist' tend to be viewed as opposing. But, considering the basic ethic of the value of all individuals that feminism is based on, there is nothing contradictory about a pro-woman, pro-prenatal rights stance. In fact, most early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were strongly and vocally pro-life. Both supporting women's rights and opposing abortion uphold the standard that every individual is deserving of respect.
The terms 'ProLife' and 'Feminist' tend to be viewed as opposing. But, considering the basic ethic of the value of all individuals that feminism is based on, there is nothing contradictory about a pro-woman, pro-prenatal rights stance. In fact, most early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were strongly and vocally pro-life. Both supporting women's rights and opposing abortion uphold the standard that every individual is deserving of respect.


http://members.tripod.com/~SLV80/index.html

Answers to many questions on that site that pro choicers may have for the pro lifers.

"Like an animal caught in a trap, trying to gnaw off its own leg, a woman who seeks abortion is trying to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self-loss. Abortion is not a sign that women are free, but a sign that they are desperate."
~Frederica Mathewes-Green, Abortion: Women's Rights and Wrongs"

""Thou shalt not kill."
~ Fifth Commandment ~"



I do respect pro choicem but only for the reason that I follow and respect the law. I do not agree with all laws though I just have to abide by them.

Krysta
09-18-2007, 08:18 PM
All I can say is I believe to be open to anything because you never know until your their position.

Who are we to throw it in their face and judge them, put them down, and degrate them for their decision when we ourselfs have never been put there.
We can all say until we are blue in the face thats not what I would do, and today you may be right but who's to say tomorrow you may feel different.

I really don't think you would want everyone to treat you like crap and tell you how bad you are for feeling and doing what you feel is right for you.

Larimar
09-18-2007, 08:29 PM
I don't feel anyone is degrading those who abort, I certaintly have not done so. However, all I'm doing is saying that I don't support their decision, that is not the same as name calling. I have also given reasons why a fetus may have value no matter how they were born.
Many Mothers who abort feel hurt by their choice and that's something they can never change-The on ething they can change though, is their stance. Lessons can be learned from it.
I don't feel all Mothers who have gotten abortions will feel any certain way, but I am saying with certainty it's only 9 months out of their lives that they need to carry the child-before it can be handed over to a loving family who was not able to concieve. I have never though, put a judgement on them for their decisions. There is a difference between not supporting or believing in something and feeling judgement on someone. For instance, in my last post I said I wouldn't call a rapist evil-but sick..If I am not going to judge the soul of the rapist why would I judge a woman who aborts?
I just do not approve of the act, and I hope that people can learn to see the value in every life, including their own.
Is suicide still illegal? The right to choose what to do with your own body may not have a lot of bearing if it is.

Krysta
09-18-2007, 08:34 PM
Im not sure if it is illegal, I really don't think it makes sence for it to be.
You can't really charge a dead guy.

I don't like it but it is their choice.

I think the soul of a rapist is evil personally.
Look at Paul Bernardo there is absolutely nothing loving about that man and yet a perfect example of a child born without a mothers love.

Larimar
09-18-2007, 08:59 PM
People do not become evil solely b.c of their parents, there are many adults out there who have shown us this, so we know there's more to it-Which is probably brain development andpsychological problems-I know the bible says thou shalt not judge for a reason, and I feel I can't judge someone's soul as evil or not-I can only make assumptions or guess but I will never know if it is their biology-And they are victims themselves to their bodies (In the cases of tumours and brain deficiencies or mental illness) We don't yet understand with all certaintly how the body partakes in decisions and thought forms when understanding right from wrong.
This is one reason I believe in reincarnation and balancing out Karma- I don't believe I can judge the difference between a true evil soul and one that had a problem- At least I can't by their actions. There are more reasons why I do not believe I can judge a soul-and one is because I believe in life charting, and reincarnation. I won't get into why here b.c I don't want to hijack this thread too much-so PM me (if anyone wants to know why in greater detail).
So if I could judge those who I felt ere doig wrong as evil, I would also hav eto judge them using my own morals, I say abortion is as wrong as rape..Maybe worse b.c it's death/murder. Is that woman evil? I really in my heart don't believe so.
Is the inuit who believes in throwing their born babies into the waters to die so that the population isn't too over crowded-Evil? nope..somethings are right or wrong b.c of cultural norms, what they feel they need to do to survive. There may in fact be an absolute truth-but we can't use that to judge who is evil and who isn't.

people may not be black and white-That;s why I don't judge them, but I can judge their actions!!-I do believe RAPE IS EVIL!!!! I just don't judge a soul as evil-sorry. The act is definitely wrong.

So even though I may believe the act of abortion is terribly wrong, I do not feel any hatred for the person. It wouldn't help me to hold in negative feelings and it isn't productive in any case. I also have compassion , and I feel sympathy for them.
There are acts I may not ever feel sympathy for, but I still understand there may be something beyond my scope of understanding that is makingthis person act a certain way. And in a small way that is very sad and unfortunate-It's not a great life they live-for those that can't get joy any other way then by causing pain. It's really sad for them b.c they can't ever feel true love. Instead of hating them I can place action on my own part to prevent things, or to start awarebness or get these ppl help-depending on what that situation is. SO for example, regarding my stance on abortion, I wouldn't hat ethem and throw abomb in an abortion clinic..I would however like to spread educational facts and give them alternatives...I think that's a difference between what hate can do and what compassion can accomplish.. though


That's just my opinion ..(PS- please don't confuse non judgements and non hatred for me feeling it's acceptable. I am against wrongful acts, and I may feel disgust at it or feel it's bad-I just don't want to accumulate negative energy around my own being letting myself hate others-I feel it only hurts me and no one else to do that :)-Though that is always being worked on by me..I'm only human and have emotions too.

dancingqueen
09-18-2007, 11:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MaO3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeap thats me selfish. Let me just say again, I've never endorsed abortion for regular birthcontrol. In this day and age there is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.
I do however beleive that there are very rare circumstances that make abortion a viable option, rape being one of them.

I am the mother of three children who are my life, however if I were raped and wound up carrying the child of a rapist, I would NOT be told by anyone or forced by anyone to carry that child if I did not feel it was the appropriate thing for ME.
Wanna call that selfish I really don't give a sh*t, I call it self preservation.

Again I'm glad I live in a country where women have the right to choose!
</div></div>

so, do you think the hurt and emotional trauma goes away when they have an abortion? You seem to be loosing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to do anything so don't take this personally, I am offering my opinion, I am alowed to do so just as you are.

Strife
09-18-2007, 11:52 PM
I dont think that the hurt would go away but it sure doesnt help when you look at that child and see the face or the genetics of your rapist.

Larimar
09-19-2007, 12:03 AM
They'd still have the choice to give the child to a family who desperately wants a baby and cannot have one. They also may hav ea chance at giving birth to a replica of themselves or parent or grandparent. You shouldn't play gussing games with a life. You can't abort for "What if" factors, especially considering the alternatives in this Country (Adoption). I know of three couples who had their names down to adopt but due to lack of babies available they never got one. They were crushed. One of the couples was offered a chance when they reached their 40's but the couple decided by that time that they were too old to start to raise a baby.
My belief is that if we make people more educated on adoptions and show people how that can change not only the couples life and happiness for the best but also save the life of a child, I think progress can be made. People have no trouble saying Adopt a puppy and save a life, but they have trouble relating that to human kind. I find that odd.

starterwiz
09-19-2007, 12:16 AM
My ex wife aborted a pregnancy beause of a rape before I really knew her. I didn't realize the importance of the event until well after we had divorced.

The realization that this was the "crime of the century' became apparent, after some reflection.

At some point, when one brushes away all traces of grey, there remains the pinnacle of the division between good and evil. There is no grey area... there is only a choice. And whether by hanger or doctor, it's the choice you don't want to make.

starterwiz
09-19-2007, 12:56 AM
OK..I've asked this one before...If you were in charge of a village of 400 people, and an army of 10,000 was marching past you, whose only purpose was to rape and pillage,and you were holding the last survivinging infant...
Would you smother the baby to keep it from crying? or would you let it reveal the whereabouts of your 400 compatriots, surely leading to everyone's horrible death?