Abortion...and its logical inconsistencies

[rojoloco]

This is something I recently wrote on the topic of abortion. I just started typing my thoughts and this is what came out. I thought I'd share.

Abortion. It’s one of the few words that stir up controversy just by name alone. Rarely does a discussion on the matter end peacefully. Emotions run high and, before long, the discussion morphs into a debate which devolves into a heated argument. While unfortunate, it is to be expected on some level. In fact, many refuse to entertain such discussions as an attempt to avoid an argument. Is this a reasonable solution? Should we just ignore the cases being presented and pretend nothing is wrong?
The reason it’s such a heated topic isn’t because of the nature of those discussing it. It’s because of the nature of the discussion. It’s far more than trying to agree on fashion. It’s far more than debating which cereal tastes the best. Indeed, far more is at stake in this discussion. We’re dealing with human life. Whether or not one wants to admit it, regardless of the outcome, the very basis of the discussion is the topic of human life. Even further, it is a discussion on the sanctity of human life.
Sure, we’ve seen quite a few tangents being presented but, in the end, it always comes back to human life. Always. There is no other topic. Throughout the course of this writing, I would like to cover some of the arguments that have been presented to me over the years in favor of the pro-choice stance. More so, I would like to point out the many flaws and inconsistencies within these arguments. To date, I have yet to find a single “pro-choicer” that is consistent with himself let alone his position.
First, I’d like to address the common argument that our country is already filled with neglected children and that we, as responsible adults, don’t need to contribute to it. This is just absurd when you really think about it. What does acceptance have to do with life? Should we now be authorized to execute those whom we deem undesirable? Many have said it isn’t fair for a child to be brought into the world only to be rejected. Life isn’t fair but that doesn’t mean it isn’t life anymore. It is indeed a sad scenario when there is a young child who is neglected. We see countless stories of small children being taken away by their parents due to deplorable living conditions. If one were to suggest we execute each one of these children as they are discovered, he would be viewed as an even worse monster than the deadbeat parents. Why, then, do we see this as such an honorable option? How can one possibly suggest it’s nobler to destroy an unborn infant in an effort to prevent them from being born into an atrocious situation than it is to destroy a five year old who has been suffering in it for years? Why not end the misery of one and prevent the misery of the other? Where do we draw the line?
Second, I have often heard people say abortion is a solution to overpopulation in our society much like hunting is the answer to overpopulation of a given species in the wilderness. Are we now comparing ourselves to animal control? To be honest, I could think of more than a few people who I deem less deserving of life than the unborn infant who has committed no wrongdoing. For instance, why not let gang wars be a legal form of murder so long as no innocent bystanders get injured? Why not allow people older than a certain cutoff age to be murdered? After all, they’ve lived their prime and are of limited usefulness in most cases so far as a productive standpoint is concerned. Of course, I don’t actually believe either of these and am only using them to make a point. That being said, I have heard some actually suggest the latter option and, in the end, is no better than the pro-choice camp as both are suggesting a certain group is less deserving of life than another particular group of people.
Third, and perhaps one of the most common arguments, we’ve undoubtedly all heard the claim that a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her own body. While this sounds like a very solid point, it is full of many holes. First and foremost, it isn’t her body we’re discussing. It’s the body of the child inside her womb. Nobody is trying to tell her how she is to cut her hair. Nobody is trying to tell her she can’t get a tattoo, sleep with as many partners as she pleases, or reserve herself for only one person. No, all of these are her rights and nobody can strip her of these. The pro-life camp isn’t oppressing her in any of these ways. She isn’t limited in the slightest when it comes to her rights. Yet, despite all this, she constantly claims she is being oppressed. I suppose this all depends on how one defines oppression. If you define it as someone limiting your free actions in any way whatsoever, I would agree in full. Police officers are oppressing her. Lawmakers are oppressing her. In this case, any removal of choice without consequence would be defined as oppression. However, most would agree this is a necessary oppression to prevent us, as a society, from slipping into chaos and anarchy. Because of this differentiation, we must limit the definition of oppression to simply the limiting of one’s rights. Does one have the right to take the life of another? Countless court verdicts shout a resounding no. How can a woman possibly imply her rights are being violated if the only limitation is her ability to destroy the unborn child within her womb? This is not a violation of rights. This is not oppression. If anything, it’s the upholding of the Bill of Rights which promises each person the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life. The unborn infant has this basic human right and no person has the right to take it away. Rights are imbued to us all as human beings regardless of our age. There is no justification for taking away this right without due process in a court of law. Since the infant has committed no crime, any charges against it are to be instantly dismissed. There simply is no case. In the end, it isn’t about a woman’s ability to do as she pleases with her own body. It’s about a woman’s inability to do as she pleases to the body of another. Once she becomes pregnant, it’s no longer about her body. This is just one of many red herrings meant to draw the attention away from the actual issue.
Fourth, there are those who simply do not believe the fetus to be a human life. Does this undo the pro-life stance? Is there any ground to stand on if the opposing side simply doesn’t believe the same? After all, we can’t force religion upon anybody. Is an atheist wrong if they don’t believe in God and, as a result, choose to not implement certain practices into their life? This appears to be the case many within this mindset are making. Thankfully, it is just another hollow argument. The evidence is mounted against them as are their inconsistencies. I’ve heard the fetus compared to cancer. They say it’s nothing more than a clump of cells that are replicating into a mass. Since we have no problem removing these living cells during chemotherapy or surgery, it shouldn’t matter if one chooses to have an abortion early on while the cells are still developing and replicating. It doesn’t take much more than a glance to see the flaw in this logic. Cancer, while indeed growing, will always remain cancer. A surgeon will never remove cancerous cells only to find them crying on the surgical table and desiring to be comforted. Those particular cells, while being from a human, will never become a human. The same cannot be said of a fetus. I won’t expound upon this idea as we all know where we started. Every last adult on earth began as this cluster of replicating cells and look at what we’ve become! From this perspective, the fetus is only at another stage of development in its life. A fetus is not an infant. An infant is not a toddler. A toddler is not a teenager. A teenager is not a middle-aged adult. A middle-aged adult is not a senor citizen. However, just because a toddler is not a senior citizen does not mean the toddler is not a human life. The same can be said of the fetus. It is a human being that is simply as an earlier stage of development in the life cycle. Despite this, many will say this isn’t enough to prove anything. This has only opened the door for early term abortions vs. late term abortions using terms such as “point of viability” to justify it. Because of this, we must resort to logic and consistency. While I may not be able to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that the fetus is a human life, the pro-choice crowd is also unable to prove otherwise. Therefore, it boils down to responsibility. Imagine two hunters in the woods that are hunting for deer. Hunter A sees movement behind a shrub but isn’t certain what’s behind it. He’s fairly certain it’s a deer and the law states that he’s able to shoot it. Hunter B says he thinks it’s another hunter but he can’t be sure either. It moves like a person and seems to be exhibiting human tendencies but, due to limited vision, neither one is absolutely certain. Now, imagine Hunter A says he doesn’t agree with Hunter B and wants to take the shot. Hunter B says he’s fairly certain it’s another person and that Hunter A shouldn’t do it. Does Hunter A have the right to take the shot? Absolutely! However, it may not be without severe consequences. If it does turn out to be a human, he is now facing murder charges as well as recklessness with a weapon. Ignorance simply won’t be enough to overturn the guilty sentence. Furthermore, he wouldn’t even be able to claim ignorance as he was warned numerous times by Hunter B. Sure, there was a chance Hunter B was wrong but is the gamble really worth it when it comes to human life? Would you be willing to take the shot if you weren’t absolutely certain whether or not it was a person you were taking out? Basic human responsibility should answer that one.
Finally, we can lay aside all the arguments and take a look at the emotional inconsistencies. There tend to be several categories of emotions. There are those who don’t believe it to be human life and don’t even feel the slightest tinge of guilt or remorse when they have an abortion performed. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who do believe it to be human life and they feel extreme guilt and remorse post-abortion. These, I’m convinced, are the only two consistent categories. The inconsistent categories would be those who do not believe it to be human life yet deliberate based on emotion as well as those who do believe it to be human life yet feel nothing. With the latter, this is simply no different than any other murderer out there as their own conscience has been seared. They fully believe the fetus to be life yet have justified the removal of life (killing) for reasons unknown. In the end, there is no justification for such a person as they would openly admit to “legal” murder. As for the former group, why do they feel emotionally torn if it isn’t a human life? If they truly believe the fetus is just a clump of cells, there should be no remorse. There should be no deliberation. It should be a decision as simple as taking out the trash or mowing the lawn. Deciding whether or not to discard your beloved pair of pants should be more painstaking than whether or not to have an abortion. After all, you spent time breaking those pants in just right and you’ve had them for years. The fetus just got into your body recently. Either get rid of it and move on or decide to keep it, water it, and see what it grows into. Your emotions should only enter the picture after the baby is born for, prior to this, it’s not a life so there is no reason to be emotionally attached. To be honest, this emotional turmoil in the life of one who is pondering an abortion is a sign that she truly does believe the fetus to be a human life regardless what she may claim when asked in public. Her conscience has already betrayed her. At this point, we once again enter the realm of responsibility as made in the previous point.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

If we look at where life starts in the Talmund the baby has to emerge.

[FONT=Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif]In the Jewish tradition, only a few texts relate to the fetus, and thus to abortion. The Talmud states that for the first forty days, the fetus should be considered mere fluid in the womb (Yevamot 69b). Elsewhere, the Talmud twice (Hullin 55a; Gittin 23b) describes the fetus as "part of the mother" (ubar yerekh imo; the Latin counterpart is pars viscerum matris), which indicates the dependence of the fetus on the mother and, like Exodus 21:22-23, implies that the fetus has no legal personality of its own. The debate in Archin 7a on whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth seems to confirm that the fetus is not an independent entity, since the commentators tend to recommend immediate execution. Further support is lent by the interpretation given in Sanhedrin 76b on Leviticus 24:17: "If one smite any human person, then one is culpable." The "any" is understood to include the day-old child but exclude the fetus, for the fetus in the womb is "not a person," until born. Commenting on this verse, Rashi states that only when the fetus "comes into the world" is it a "person."

The pivotal rabbinic text on abortion is found in Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.

Again, the fetus is not a person when in the womb, but here the fetus becomes a person once the head or greater part of the body has emerged. It follows that when the Talmud in Sanhedrin 72b states that you are not permitted to murder one person in order to save another, the law is simply inapplicable to the fetus, because the fetus is not a person. Furthermore, the Talmud does allow dismemberment of a partially emerged child when the motherís life is endangered, thus according final priority to the life of the mother over the life of the child. These discussions turn on the technical Talmudic concept of rodef. The term for a potential murderer is rodef, a "pursuer" or, in contemporary parlance, a stalker, one who pursues another in order to kill him. Under normal circumstances, a rodef may be killed if this is the only way in which the life of the intended victim can be saved. Two conflicting viewpoints about the applicability of the rodef principle to the fetus are offered by commentators. Some commentators believe that when it is the child who threatens the mother, then the law of rodef applies, even though the rodef is a minor and so not responsible for his or her actions. Others believe that the motherís life is not being pursued by the child, but by "heaven," that is, the mother is dying as a result of natural causes, hence, the childís life cannot be made forfeit on the grounds of rodef, but there is still acknowledgement that the motherís life is to be saved at the expense of the child's life.

More evidence that Jewish tradition does not regard the fetus as a person independent of the mother emerges in the laws of the Sabbath. Many pages of the Talmud are devoted to the question, "Can you desecrate the Sabbath to save the fetus?" It is certainly permissible to desecrate the Sabbath to save the mother, but there is much discussion on the issue of whether it is permissible to do the same for the fetus. In Arakin 7a, the commentators decide that if the mother dies before giving birth, the fetus may be removed from the dead mother on the Sabbath because at that point the fetus is considered a person, that is, no longer dependent on the mother. Here we see that the fetus has intrinsic value because the Sabbath may be desecrated to save it (A knife may be carried on the Sabbath in order to aid in the delivery of a child [Yoma 85b]), but the very fact this point was debated shows that the fetus is considered only as part of the mother except in unusual circumstances and, moreover, that a existing human life has precedence over a potential human life.

not only that but we are born into sin not in the womb since life is not started in the womb
[/FONT]

 

[rojoloco]

Before I dive into my carefully crafted response, I'd like to point out that your entire post is a copy and paste of the article found on this site:

Is Abortion Murder?

In fact, only 2 lines of your entire post actually belonged to you. While it is perfectly acceptable to use information from other sources, please write your own posts when interacting with others. At the very least, cite the source and let us know it isn't your own work. Thanks!

If we look at where life starts in the Talmund the baby has to emerge.

[FONT=Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif]In the Jewish tradition, only a few texts relate to the fetus, and thus to abortion. The Talmud states that for the first forty days, the fetus should be considered mere fluid in the womb (Yevamot 69b). Elsewhere, the Talmud twice (Hullin 55a; Gittin 23b) describes the fetus as "part of the mother" (ubar yerekh imo; the Latin counterpart is pars viscerum matris), which indicates the dependence of the fetus on the mother and,

What is the basis for using the Talmud though? To be straight forward, it isn't inspired text and is merely the writings and opinions of rabbis. While some of it may be useful in better understanding Hebrew traditions, it can't really be used to form any substantial argument if it isn't based on something in Scripture.

like Exodus 21:22-23, implies that the fetus has no legal personality of its own.

While there may not be a personality, this has no bearing on the topic of life. This can be seen in the very passage you are referencing. Verse 22 says, if the woman gives birth prematurely, the man is to be fined but that's about it. The life of the mother and child are both healthy. However, as per verse 23, if there is further injury, there is to be a stricter punishment as life for life. Some have said this only applies to the life of the mother but we can clearly see this isn't the case. This is seen in the fact that it even bothers mentioning the baby being born early but without further injury. If verse 23 didn't refer to both the mother and the child, it wouldn't have mentioned the welfare of the child in the previous verse. Hence, we can see very strong value of life being placed on the unborn child.

Others have tried saying verse 22 is referring to the fetus dying but the mother surviving. They try to say the loss of the fetus is only worth a fine whereas the life of the mother (v.23) is worth life for life. However, this is a weak handling of the text. Below is a copy of John Calvin's commentary notes on the verse:

If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death 3939 It will be seen that the word אסון in the text is translated by C., mors; in A V., mischief. “The Chaldee expounds it, (says Ainsworth,) no death; but it implieth less also than death, as the words following manifest. The Greek refers it to the child; translating, if it be not figured, (ἐξεικονισμένον,) i e., have not the shape and proportion.” only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. But, since it could not fail but that premature confinement would weaken both the mother and her offspring, the husband is allowed to demand before the judges a money-payment, at their discretion, in compensation for his loss; for although God’s command is only that the money should be paid before the judges, 4040 The word determine is added by our translators. Ainsworth’s literal rendering is, “and he shall give by the judges.” still He thus appoints them to settle the amount as arbitrators, if the husband should chance to be too exorbitant. We plainly perceive, by the repetition of the lex talionis, that a just proportion is to be observed, and that the amount of punishment is to be equally regulated, whether as to a tooth, or an eye, or life itself, so that the compensation should correspond with the injury done; and therefore (what is first said of the life 4141 Added from Fr. ) is correctly applied also to the several parts, so that he who has plucked out his brother’s eye, or cut off his hand, or broken his leg, should lose his own eye, or hand, or leg. In fine, for the purpose of preventing all violence, a compensation is to be paid in proportion to the injury. But although God commands punishment to be inflicted on the guilty, still, if a man be injured, he ought not to seek for vengeance; for God does not contradict Himself, who so often exhorts His children not only to endure injuries patiently, but even to overcome evil with good. The murderer is to be punished, or he who has maimed a member of his brother; but it is not therefore lawful, if you have unjustly suffered violence, to indulge in wrath or hatred, so as to render evil for evil. Since this error was rife among the Jews, our Lord refutes it, and teaches that the punishment, which is publicly awarded to the wrong-doer, is not subservient to every man’s private passion, so that he who is offended should make haste to retaliate. (Matthew 5:38.) Nor indeed are these words addressed to them in order to inflame or excite the desire of vengeance, but all violence is restrained by the fear of punishment.

The debate in Archin 7a on whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth seems to confirm that the fetus is not an independent entity, since the commentators tend to recommend immediate execution. Further support is lent by the interpretation given in Sanhedrin 76b on Leviticus 24:17: "If one smite any human person, then one is culpable." The "any" is understood to include the day-old child but exclude the fetus, for the fetus in the womb is "not a person," until born. Commenting on this verse, Rashi states that only when the fetus "comes into the world" is it a "person."[/font]

These are more extrabiblical resources being used to justify a stance though. It isn't being exegeted from Scripture alone. Citing those sources tell us nothing more than how the Sanhedrin interpreted the Law. All we have to do is fast forward to the days of Christ to see how the Sanhedrin and the rest of the Pharisees were not keeping it correctly in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Thus, I cannot take their input is the extrabiblical resources to be straight from God as they simply are not. They may not have counted the fetus as human life but Scripture simply does not say this. It would be like taking the opinions of those today who believe one in a coma isn't alive and should be unplugged. Or perhaps we should follow the belief of those who say the terminally ill have been desprived of true life and therefore support euthanasia. All I'm saying is that we have to stick to Scripture to support the stance. Using extrabiblical sources to validate a stance (when Scripture doesn't specifically state it) is a very dangerous practice.

The rest of the post would only get the same reply I gave above as it relies solely upon extrabiblical sources to form its theology. Therefore, I'll refrain from repeating myself in response to somebody else's article.

 

[HonestTruth]

While I am also troubled by abortion (am myself an abortion survivor), there needs to be some understanding that, contrary to popular views, abortion was legal under the Anglo-Saxon common law. The standard used in order for the practice to be allowed was a term called "quickening":


Quickening - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion was legal under a new standard (one that was and remains consistent with the old standard) - thereby causing the proliferation of abortion in our society - the majority in that case was Republican. When Roe was upheld in the Casey decision it was an ultra conservative Republican majority that sustained it.

Thus, contrary to popular views held by conservatives, it is not liberals or Democrats who are responsible for the proliferation of abortion in our society. It is Republicans who are responsible.

 

[Bjornke]

Psalm 139:13
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Psalm 127:3
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.

Matthew 18:10
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven

Exodus 21:22-23
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.

I think Exodus is the most self-explanatory. Clearly, if a man strikes a woman who is still pregnant and the baby dies, (even though the baby has not been born yet) then the man who struck the woman shall die too. This is, without a doubt, proof, that God values unborn children's live with the same importance as a man's life. This fact cannot be argued whatsoever. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." So thus, if we kill unborn children, then the penalty is life for life. Period.

Also, please note in the New Testament we are told to never despise children. I believe this extends to unborn children too. Thus, abortion is usually done because we don't want a child for our own personal reasons, thus despising the child. Now we have gone against a fundamental teaching of Christ too. Clearly, abortion was not acceptable to Christ either.

 

[Bjornke]

While I am also troubled by abortion (am myself an abortion survivor), there needs to be some understanding that, contrary to popular views, abortion was legal under the Anglo-Saxon common law. The standard used in order for the practice to be allowed was a term called "quickening":


When the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion was legal under a new standard (one that was and remains consistent with the old standard) - thereby causing the proliferation of abortion in our society - the majority in that case was Republican. When Roe was upheld in the Casey decision it was an ultra conservative Republican majority that sustained it.

Thus, contrary to popular views held by conservatives, it is not liberals or Democrats who are responsible for the proliferation of abortion in our society. It is Republicans who are responsible.

While this may be true, please remember, that Republican does not automatically mean Christian. And Christian, doesn't automatically mean Republican. Yes, it may have been Republicans that allowed this crime to be legal, but it doesn't mean they represent the Christian world allowing these crimes.

Do not take this as an attack on your post, just a reminder to those who may point out that we allowed this on ourselves. We did not, by any chance, allow it on ourselves. 99% of all true Christians I have met strongly oppose abortion. Meanwhile, almost half of the ordinary republicans I have met agree with abortion. See, the two do not always equate to each other.

Thank you though for pointing out the cases and related history.

 

[HonestTruth]

Thank you Bjornke for your very good post. It is refreshing to see people approach this troubling subject with sound reasoning as you have done. I suggest that we can end abortion (or GREATLY reduce its presence in this society) if people would only approach the subject as you do.

I would like to make some suggestions as to how to reduce (and hopefully put an end to) abortion. First, we must recognize that the principle reason why people demand this abhorrent practice is the fear of hunger, poverty, and lifestyle inconveniences. But these issues can be corrected as follows:

1) mandate a living wage (Canada has a much higher minimum wage & it works)

2) universal health care reform

3) more parental leave

4) reduce interest rates on realty (remember - usury is sin) to enable more housing

5) rebuilding the infrastructure to facilitate ready transportation of goods, people, & services


A couple of women I knew who had abortions said they did so because either they or their spouses were unemployed and they feared starvation for their families. A society that provides universal health care, parental leave, and sufficient unemployment coverage is one that will see a great reduction in abortion. Merely erasing the law from the books will do nothing to stop this practice - all it will do is to be render it into an underground activity and makes things worse.

Society needs to set aside its partisan differences and to work together to make life better for everyone. Not just for the wealthy elites as so many do. Our Founding Fathers wrote that we need to build up the infrastructure (see letters of Washington, the famous Report On Manufacturers, Gov DeWitt Clinton's actions on NYS canal system, and John Quincy Adams's reports on those early efforts to build the infrastructure). The Founders also demanded that we refrain from foreign entanglements and to fix things up at home before we mind everybody else's business overseas. They never even addressed the issue of quickening because it was rarely used. And it need not be the overburdening issue it is today if we applied reason in correcting society's many ills.

 

[rojoloco]

All of that is still moot because the subject the sanctity of life trumps it. Considering we have technology that far surpasses using quickening as a litmus test, this too is a moot point. I like the law that was almost passed recently (I forget which state) that stated an abortion is illegal if a heartbeat can be detected. Unfortunately, a federal judge put a pause on it. Another state tried saying an abortion clinic could only perform one if it met a certain health code. This was also suspended by a federal judge. Yet another state tried saying an abortion could only be performed if there was a hospital within 30 minutes of driving that could admit patients in the need of emergency treatment. This was also suspended by a federal judge.

 

[HonestTruth]

The point is not moot at all since Roe was within the standards of the common law and has been twice upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[rojoloco]

It's being upheld by a violation of several other laws. To be honest, the Supreme Court has gotten so far away from what the laws were intended to be. Either way, the main purpose of my original post was to show the logical inconsistencies behind the pro-life stance. There simply is no logically consistent way to be pro-choice unless you are also pro-death.

 

[HonestTruth]

It's being upheld by a violation of several other laws. To be honest, the Supreme Court has gotten so far away from what the laws were intended to be. Either way, the main purpose of my original post was to show the logical inconsistencies behind the pro-life stance. There simply is no logically consistent way to be pro-choice unless you are also pro-death.

Pacifists turn that around and say those who are pro war are pro death. when bombs are dropped on innocent children that's every bit as bad as abortion.

 

[rojoloco]

I would like to make some suggestions as to how to reduce (and hopefully put an end to) abortion. First, we must recognize that the principle reason why people demand this abhorrent practice is the fear of hunger, poverty, and lifestyle inconveniences. But these issues can be corrected as follows:

1) mandate a living wage (Canada has a much higher minimum wage & it works)

2) universal health care reform

3) more parental leave

4) reduce interest rates on realty (remember - usury is sin) to enable more housing

5) rebuilding the infrastructure to facilitate ready transportation of goods, people, & services

I can't really say I agree with these. I'll hit them one by one:

1) While I think the minimum wage needs to be something one can survive on (though it may mean working 2 jobs), I don't think it should be raised just so one can live more comfortably in their "beyond their means" lifestyle. People in other countries make far less yet manage to get by in their poverty because they understand what they can and cannot afford. They are also hard working people who know they can't stop working otherwise they'll lose what little they do make. This is not an ideal situation but it shows a vast difference in ethics and expectations. The fact of the matter is that people want to get paid more while working less.

2) I highly disagree with universal health care. First, it severely raises taxes. Second, it lends a disservice to freeloaders everywhere because it only further instills they can have something for nothing. I work hard enough to pay for my own family. I can't afford to pay for the lazy person with 8 kids who doesn't even try to hold a steady job. I'm not saying this is everybody but there's a reason it's a stereotype. There's enough out there that make it a gruesome reality. I think the better answer is to limit what healthcare is allowed to charge. People might think this is limiting a private business but I'd rather see that than the government telling me I have to pay for Jack & Jill next door because they don't have a way to take care of themselves.

3) I can agree on this one to an extent. Many countries offer far more time than we do. Some even offer several years. Of course, this is for several reasons. One, it ensures the mother is there for her children at critical stages. Two, it gives her a chance to decide whether or not to remain a stay at home mom. I think this would be a plus for mothers. Unfortunately, there are many who are so work-minded that they can't wait to get back to work. Then again, I say let these women ruin themselves and allow others to have the extra time they need.

4) Honestly, they're pretty low right now. We have a 3.125% interest rate on our mortgage. We almost had a 2.75% but we failed to lock it in in time. I don't think they can get much lower.

5) I guess I just don't see how this one relates to abortion. Not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying I don't see it and might need it explained further.

Merely erasing the law from the books will do nothing to stop this practice - all it will do is to be render it into an underground activity and makes things worse.

I hear this argument all the time but I think it's bogus. Murder is currently illegal. Thus, we can technically consider all the murders that take place today as being underground activity. Should we make it legal under a set of guidelines to stop it from being so underground? Maybe we can make drugs legal to prevent it from being so underground? Surely, you can see how this is a very weak argument. Laws are set in place to protect people and ensure society flourishes. If one breaks this law, it doesn't mean we make the action legal. It means we hold them accountable. Making abortion illegal protects the life of the baby while also forcing people to choose whether or not to break the law. To be honest, if one chooses to take a coat hanger to herself or find a back alley abortionist, it's no different than if a woman finds a drug dealer in a back alley and chooses to do meth next to a dumpster. In both cases, a person is blatantly choosing to break the law and is trying to do it without getting caught out in the open.

 

[SharonL]

There is a heartbeat after 9 days - it is not liquid nor tissue. With a heartbeat the baby is alive. If anyone does anything to stop that heartbeat it is murder.

 

[rojoloco]

Pacifists turn that around and say those who are pro war are pro death. when bombs are dropped on innocent children that's every bit as bad as abortion.

The big difference is your are comparing an act of nations to the acts of individuals. We don't always have to accept the actions of the government. Sometimes, we're just citizens disagreeing with those we've voted into office. However, one must always accept their own actions. Nobody can perform an action and then say they disagree with it as it's being made. One will only choose that which they most greatly desire. Likes and dislikes aside, desire is where nobody can run away. I hate waking up in the morning for work but I do it because I know the consequences. Thus, though I may not want to, my greatest desire is to go. If it weren't, I would simply stay in bed and suffer the consequences. This is simple logic.

Based on this logic, if one is making a personal decision, it is something they desire greater than anything else at that given moment (again, likes or dislikes aside). Therefore, if one makes the personal choice to have an abortion, they are being pro-death at that moment. If one believes it should be the choice of the woman, they are being pro-death as it doesn't matter to them one way or the other. If they say they would never have one but think it should be the choice of the woman, they are being inconsistent with themselves. Why would they never have one unless they thought it was life? If they truly thought it was life, how can they think it's okay to kill a child unless they are pro-death in certain circumstances (that the mother alone is deemed fit to judge as proper or improper)? In the end, it's filled with logical holes.

Another difference is that pacifists are standing behind a concept or idea. It's a personal belief of how a society should function. There aren't any facts behind it. It's merely a passionate preference that they believe should be forced upon everybody else. Abortion, on the other hand, has many fact behind it and is a very black and white situation as it deals with the life of another. It isn't about the quality of life or even the preferences of how society should view life. It's about the life or death of an individual that has been stripped of all rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Hetta]

There is a heartbeat after 9 days - it is not liquid nor tissue. With a heartbeat the baby is alive. If anyone does anything to stop that heartbeat it is murder.

Wrong.

An unborn baby has a heartbeat as early as near the end of the first month of pregnancy, during week four or week five, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.


Read more: When Does An Unborn Baby Have A Heartbeat? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Four or five weeks = 28-35 days.

 

[rojoloco]

While I can't say with certainty exactly when the hearbeat begins (I know it's pretty early and I think Hetta is correct just from a physical developmental standpoint), I can be certain that the fetus has its own unique human DNA code from the get go. This is a very strong case against those who say the fetus is not a person.

 

[Hetta]

While I can't say with certainty exactly when the hearbeat begins (I know it's pretty early and I think Hetta is correct just from a physical developmental standpoint), I can be certain that the fetus has its own unique human DNA code from the get go. This is a very strong case against those who say the fetus is not a person.

But she was talking about specific legislation based around the heartbeat, and that info comes from ACOG, so it is based upon medicine, not opinion.

 

[rojoloco]

But she was talking about specific legislation based around the heartbeat, and that info comes from ACOG, so it is based upon medicine, not opinion.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. While I think the issue should be resolved at the point of a heartbeat, I am amazed it isn't. However, I think the simple existence of human DNA should be enough to resolve the matter. This is also based on medicine/science and not opinion. We have a multitude of reasons to treat the fetus as a human being yet we ignore some medical facts while clinging to others that might justify the liberal agenda.

 

[Hetta]

It has nothing to do with the "liberal agenda". It's the law. You want to change the law - get busy trying to do that. While the law exists, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about DNA or heartbeats really.

 

[rojoloco]

The law is violating itself in many ways though. Therein lies the problem. It violates its ability to protect life by allowing people to remove the life of another. It violates the Bill of Rights which provides the right to life. Laws can be overturned. It just takes a majority vote. The hard part is convincing people of a necessity to change the law. I feel morals and ethics backed by science and medicine have already given the ammo. In the end, we have laws protecting life saying it's lawful to take the life of another.