Is "Pro-Choice" the right "choice" for a Christian to make? Why or why not?

[Ancient of Days]

"Since you have realized of course there is no argument possibly to be made against my post #356."

Here is the argument: Because of your pride, The Lord rebuke you.

 

[St_Worm2]

"Since you have realized of course there is no argument possibly to be made against my post #356." Here is the argument: Because of your pride, The Lord rebuke you.

Hi AoD, was the above reproof meant for me or for Douglas? (I only ask because it follows on the heels of my last post, #360).

Thanks

--David

 

[Ancient of Days]

We have the same name, hehe. It was for Doug. I admire your humility David! God bless.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, for some reason that I can't figure out lives on an island of one with his beliefs, even though the entirety of the scientific and medical community disagree with him. Textbooks dating back a hundred years even disagree with him, so it's not like this is something new that has come to the forefront of science.

The real unfortunate outcome of Douglas' position though is that since he does not believe there is even a human being inside the womb of a mother in the middle of delivering her baby, the logical result is that abortion *at any stage* is morally permissible. Even the mother who's water just broke could change her mind and say she didn't want the baby and under Douglas' ideas the mother would not be doing anything immoral or wrong by aborting the full term, ready to deliver baby.

Then there is JackRT, who has now for the 5th or 6th just copy/pasted the same non-sense in his post #326. In fact, he can't do anything more than copy/paste that one post that he probably forgot he already did post it earlier in this very thread. To which I once again responded to it in my reply #47

The bottom line is that science has really done a great job for us in that we can literally watch what happens at fertilization. We know that sperm and an egg are parts of our own bodies, without any capacity or ability in themselves to become anything more than sperm or eggs. But when they combine, when fertilization occurs, we have the formation of a new, distinct, individual life. This is when a human being comes into existence.

The abortion debate is not, and has not been for many years about when life begins. We know when life begins. The abortion debate has centered around the term "personhood" and whether or not all human beings should be considered human persons. But as far as when a new human being comes into existence? That's settled science.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas' ideas the mother would not be doing anything immoral or wrong by aborting the full term, ready to deliver baby.

Your false witness is despicable.

I have pointed out to you a number of times that just because abortion is NOT murder does not mean it might well be the wrong thing to do.

Once again I ask you, do you not understand there might be other reasons for correctly thinking some actions are immoral?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

when fertilization occurs, we have the formation of a new, distinct, individual life. This is when a human being comes into existence.

So you buy into the nonsense that a human being, real animal, a member of the species, can be a something without a flesh and blood body?
It is not as though what you are pointing to is an eternal soul that is believed to be independent of the body - you are pointing to a single cell.
SUCH A LOW ESTIMATION OF HUMANITY, THAT A HUMAN BEING, THE GRANDEUR AND RICHNESS OF GOD, WOULD BE VIRTUALLY A NOTHING. Invisible even! A speck of dust. Which may have beings in it, but certainly no human beings.

It qualifies, it qualifies for being "a life," just like the cancer qualifies. That is, it is alive.
Is it a very foreign cancer? With different DNA even?
WHO KNOWS?
It is "one cell" - could go either way.
KNOT SCIENTIFICALLY? Well could be cancer of a person, or just a person. (And when it does become something more than a single cell ...
WELL would be the most diminutive miniature person ever to exist? (You'd think there's more of a person in a picture, actually.)

WELL OKAY, it is nothing more than a single cell - certainly any human being is much more than that!

It is nothing
MORE THAN
a single cell.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, the concern I have is that you intentionally avoid addressing the abortion implications as it pertains to your belief that there is no such thing as a human being at any time existing in the womb. If you want to actually be direct and address the issue then feel free to. Otherwise, stop complaining.

You just now acknowledged that abortion is not murder. You believe that abortion is NOT murder because you do not believe that there is a human being inside a womb. Therefore, can you tell me under what context it would actually be immoral for a mother to choose to abort the unborn life inside her? Set the record straight.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, the concern I have is that you intentionally avoid addressing the abortion implications as it pertains to your belief that there is no such thing as a human being at any time existing in the womb. If you want to actually be direct and address the issue then feel free to. Otherwise, stop complaining.

You just now acknowledged that abortion is not murder. You believe that abortion is NOT murder because you do not believe that there is a human being inside a womb. Therefore, can you tell me under what context it would actually be immoral for a mother to choose to abort the unborn life inside her? Set the record straight.

Oh I see - NOW YOU REVEAL IT ALL.

"... because you do not believe ..."

Once you have the belief,
you can believe the other thing ...

"WHAT A NICE POOF."

 

[SPF]

Again Douglas, what your response is lacking is actual content addressing your position on abortion within the framework of your belief. I don't understand why you're so scared to just be honest about what your position means when it comes to abortion.

I believe I have correctly stated your position in that you do not believe that at any stage of development that there is an actual human being inside a mother's womb. You also stated that abortion is not murder. This makes sense because if there is no human being inside a womb, there can be no "murder" for the termination of that life. That makes sense!

Here is a pretty simple scenario that I think might help clear up any confusion. Jane is 29 years old, and married to John. They have a great marriage, and John is the primary breadwinner of the family. They decide together that it's time to have a child. Jane becomes pregnant and has a very uncomplicated pregnancy. Jane is now full term and her due date is 3 days away. For some reason, Jane decides that she actually does not want the child and wants to live a few more years without babies. She doesn't want to lose any freedoms she currently has. So Jane decides to have an abortion. That's the scenario.

Question 1: Has Jane done anything immoral by having an abortion?

Question 2: If the answer to Q1 is no: How would the scenario need to change for the abortion to become immoral?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Again Douglas, what your response is lacking is actual content addressing your position on abortion within the framework of your belief. I don't understand why you're so scared to just be honest about what your position means when it comes to abortion.

I believe I have correctly stated your position in that you do not believe that at any stage of development that there is an actual human being inside a mother's womb. You also stated that abortion is not murder. This makes sense because if there is no human being inside a womb, there can be no "murder" for the termination of that life. That makes sense!

Here is a pretty simple scenario that I think might help clear up any confusion. Jane is 29 years old, and married to John. They have a great marriage, and John is the primary breadwinner of the family. They decide together that it's time to have a child. Jane becomes pregnant and has a very uncomplicated pregnancy. Jane is now full term and her due date is 3 days away. For some reason, Jane decides that she actually does not want the child and wants to live a few more years without babies. She doesn't want to lose any freedoms she currently has. So Jane decides to have an abortion. That's the scenario.

Question 1: Has Jane done anything immoral by having an abortion?

Question 2: If the answer to Q1 is no: How would the scenario need to change for the abortion to become immoral?

That partly depends on her husband and what the agreement between them was, I would think.

 

[SPF]

Again, you are intentionally not addressing the issue. Also, your statement seems to imply that morality may be subjective. Do you believe that in objective moral values? Why can't you address the issue?

Under your position, which is that there is no such thing as a human being at any time while inside the mother's womb, and that abortion is NOT murder, how can one do anything but assume that your position would imply that abortion is not immoral?

But just for you, let's amend the scenario to say that the husband agreed with the wife that a few more years would be nice, so they decide to abort the full term unborn fetus. According to your view, there is nothing immoral or wrong about that, right?

This is just plain sad Douglas - address the issue of abortion within the framework of the view your advocating. As far as I can tell, abortion, even up to and during delivery, so long as delivery has not yet taken place, would be morally permissible. Right?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"Since you have realized of course there is no argument possibly to be made against my post #356."

Here is the argument: Because of your pride, The Lord rebuke you.

Where is the boasting in #356?

I don't think it's particularly prideful at all - the only thing of myself that I pointed to is that one thing I was saying I had said before.

So, quote something from post #356 that is prideful, or withdraw your false witness.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Again, you are intentionally not addressing the issue. Also, your statement seems to imply that morality may be subjective. Do you believe that in objective moral values? Why can't you address the issue?

Under your position, which is that there is no such thing as a human being at any time while inside the mother's womb, and that abortion is NOT murder, how can one do anything but assume that your position would imply that abortion is not immoral?

But just for you, let's amend the scenario to say that the husband agreed with the wife that a few more years would be nice, so they decide to abort the full term unborn fetus. According to your view, there is nothing immoral or wrong about that, right?

This is just plain sad Douglas - address the issue of abortion within the framework of the view your advocating. As far as I can tell, abortion, even up to and during delivery, so long as delivery has not yet taken place, would be morally permissible. Right?

You are not going to get a further answer from me on that, since I consider that such might possibly be against the rules around here.

Is it not sufficient for you to know it is not the killing of a human being, that it is not murder, and to act accordingly?

I'm not going to tell you what to do.

 

[SPF]

You are not going to get a further answer from me on that, since I consider that such might possibly be against the rules around here.

Is it not sufficient for you to know it is not the killing of a human being, that it is not murder, and to act accordingly?

Yes, that is sufficient. The only reason you wouldn't want to be honest and straight forward about your position is because it is so horrendous that you fear repercussions from the moderating staff.

The fact that you don't believe that there exists at any time, even during delivery a human being inside a womb and that it is not considered murder to kill the fetus for convenience sake is utterly disgusting. Honestly, I suspect you are not a father, have not experienced pregnancy and delivery with a woman, and so perhaps there is some grace for your immaturity.

And as for Ancient of Days who called you prideful. That is abundantly clear to be true. Your stance against the entirety of the scientific world and every biological textbook is evidence enough of pride. Your head is so deep under the sand with your hands covering your ears and eyes its tragic.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes, that is sufficient. The only reason you wouldn't want to be honest and straight forward about your position is because it is so horrendous that you fear repercussions from the moderating staff.

The fact that you don't believe that there exists at any time, even during delivery a human being inside a womb and that it is not considered murder to kill the fetus for convenience sake is utterly disgusting. Honestly, I suspect you are not a father, have not experienced pregnancy and delivery with a woman, and so perhaps there is some grace for your immaturity.

And as for Ancient of Days who called you prideful. That is abundantly clear to be true. Your stance against the entirety of the scientific world and every biological textbook is evidence enough of pride. Your head is so deep under the sand with your hands covering your ears and eyes its tragic.

You are of course mistaken to say that anything I say is against any biological textbook, except perhaps a few with pro-life authors who throw in unwarranted conclusions. You have shown us a few of those!
That some of them don't know much logic and say ridiculous things does not mean anything except that you are easily taken in.

ONE AT A TIME
present us with the actual stance of an actual textbook, and I will likely be able to show you how you are probably mistaken.
You are pretty much false with you grand generalizations as in the above.

 

[SPF]

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: “...human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of
puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the
discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said:
“after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He
stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it
is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

 

[tulipbee]

reporting sexual harassment is the new fad. how is that different than reporting those that abort babies ?

 

[SPF]

reporting sexual harassment is the new fad. how is that different than reporting those that abort babies ?

Your question doesn't make any sense. Abortion is legal. Who are you going to report people who choose an abortion to?

 

[tulipbee]

Your question doesn't make any sense. Abortion is legal. Who are you going to report people who choose an abortion to?

you got a good point ! but God made it illegal. We need to stand with God

 

[SPF]

you got a good point ! but God made it illegal. We need to stand with God

You're certainly right that abortion for convenience sake is immoral because we are killing an innocent human being which possesses inherent moral worth and value.