Her Body, Her Choice: Woman on Trial for Terminating 6 Pregnancies

[SithDoughnut]

Well, the difference between animals and human beings is that, we are created in God's image, whether you believe that or not. And to be honest, I'm not that comfortable killing animals, for food or for recreation and sport. I don't devalue the lives of animals and I don't hunt or fish for recreation either. My own pastor hunts game and that really bothers me. Oh yeah, I didn't mention I'm a vegetarian. I can't speak for other Christians on this issue, because that it was my personal choice not to eat meat.

Would you force others through law not to eat meat or harm animals?

 

[yasic]

Would you force others through law not to eat meat or harm animals?

I know it is not aimed at me, but I would if I could.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Luckily neither you nor anyone else can.

I'm kind of hungry now. Chicken!

 

[LyraJean]

I like veal. Is that wrong?

Also is eating eggs like giving a chicken an abortion? After all if you eat eggs you are eating an unborn chicken? Or am I just being silly at this point?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I like veal. Is that wrong?

Also is eating eggs like giving a chicken an abortion? After all if you eat eggs you are eating an unborn chicken? Or am I just being silly at this point?

Chicken eggs are unfertilised, so you're not eating an unborn chicken. At least, I think you're not.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Veal is so good.

 

[kiwimac]

Life begins at conception. Human life is only potential until birth, once a fetus is born then it is a fully human-being but it is NOT fully human until birth (however that takes place.)

 

[katautumn]

How is potential magically bestowed at the time of birth, though? Where do we draw the line? Do we say that a fetus at twenty-nine weeks into gestation has potential because it could live outside of the womb? What is "fully human"? Are we not fully human because of our unique DNA? Is a mentally or physically disabled fetus less of a human being, or do they carry less potential than an able bodied one?

I guess what I'm wondering is why being passed through the vaginal opening somehow makes something human or infuses it with potential. When we deny that a fetus has potential, whether good or bad, or it's human we deny the God-ordained miracle of life. Now, to someone who doesn't believe in the God of Abraham this won't mean a hill of beans, and I'm fine with that. I'm just wondering how Christians can search the Scriptures, understand the nature of God and still deny that the fetus is a unique living human with the same potential (if allowed to thrive and be brought into the world) as a born child.

 

[wanderingone]

God created us as intelligent beings and gave us the ability to create medicines and learn how to repair our bodies. Therefore, I do not believe that it is wrong to apply this knowledge and ability towards physical healing. Medical treatment can be a means through which God brings our healing and recovery. With that said, my ultimate faith and trust is in God, not in doctors or medicine. As with all difficult decisions I may face in this life, I seek God first. He promises to give me wisdom when I ask for it (James 1:5). I believe God's intervention in any physical difficulty should be sought first. And with that, I bow out of this discussion.

So then you would not choose to die rather than have surgery if you had an ectopic pregnancy? I'm not sure when you believe you get to decide on human intervention and when you don't.

Do I do nothing about MS until I am disabled by it because I must seek God first.. or is it appropriate for me to use medication that for many has proven to slow the progression of the disease?

In any case I take no issue with those who are opposed to abortion, I do however have a serious issue with those who believe removing the legal right will somehow reduce the number of abortions. When abortion was legal only with court orders people had abortions.. legally, illegally however they could get them, and nobody decided to reach out to women in those days. Everyone was happy to sputter and speculate about their neighbors behind closed doors until they were faced with legal rights and suddenly people wanted "save the unborn" and provide services to help women "choose life"

Don't believe abortion, fine don't have one, if you care about the "unborn" treat their mothers like humans and not wombs for rent, and don't try to manipulate the sad story of a woman who killed one baby after another into meaning something about abortion.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

My opinion:

[1] abortion should remain legal.

[2] abortion is incompatible with classical political-ethical philosophy which formed the basis of the founding documents.

 

[SuperPhil]

There's nothing rational about killing yourself for no reason.

What about Christian Scientists that let their children die due to medically treatable illnesses? They're following the same irrationality.

For no reason? Are we talking about a specific instance here? Because if you are referring to the post of the mom who trusted God to keep her and her baby alive then there is an absolute reason! THE BABY'S LIFE! If she had thought "rationally" her 16 year old boy would have been dead. I admire that women! That women is blessed by God!

I have never heard of Christians finding biblical backing to what you mentioned about the organ things so I don't really know and won't get into it.

You find it irrational because you only see the here and now. You are living for today! My goal is heaven I live today with joy and thanksgiving knowing that one day all this sin and pain will be gone!

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Well, if it makes you happy today, because you hope for something tomorrow, all the better for you.

 

[lux et lex]

So if these children were aborted a day or two before they were birthed and then subsequently murdered, is that ethically ok?

So aborted before they were birthed and then subsequently murdered? Logic Fail. Try again.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

The political distinction between life and non-life makes no logical sense at all, but who says the law needs to be morally consistent. I mean, in reality, there's no change of property that occurs subsequent to birth. The "whatever" inside the womb is no physically different than outside the womb. The only change has been a change of circumstances. Thus, if after birth the "whatever" is a person, given that no change has occurred, it must logically follow that the "whatever" was a person inside the womb as well.

Moral justifications are silly, though.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

First of all, I feel really sorry for her, they say she hasn't got any mental problems, but the very fact she has killed 6 of her own babies tells me something different, on some level she must be quite disturbed.

Any killing of your own children is disturbing...

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Nice try, Spidergains, but this is a terrible attempt at spin. This is outright lying.

The woman strangled her newborn children, she did not have an abortion. Rather big difference there, in that this article has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or abortion rights.

Feel free to have another go, though.

The big difference was that the baby was outside of her.

The big difference is that it isn't as easy to kill baby outside of the womb because you aren't paying a professional killer to do it.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

This is horrible. The mother must have some sort of mental illness that has yet to be detected. However, shame on YOU spidergains for trying to spin this into an abortion discussion when it clearly is not.

Killing a child in or out of the womb is unnatural and should go against every human instinct.

The only difference is that it is easier to pay the guy at Planned Parenthood $400 than kill the baby yourself and have to look at it.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

This isn't abortion, this is giving birth then murdering the children.

That's totally arbitrary. How about woman can kill the children so long as they don't leave the hospital? It makes no rational sense to say that you can kill the baby so long as it is in the womb, but the second it leaves it it becomes a human being.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

asked whether the babies were alive when she murdered them, Lesage hesitated and said "I cannot answer" before finally adding: "Yes, your honour."

This has to be one of the dumbest questions anyone ever asked of a defendant.

She should have done what pro-abortion groups do and just deny that they were alive. Call them post-natal fetuses or something. They are just a clump of birthed cells.