Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Archivist]

I don't think everyone is equally unhappy. I think that many believe Roe v Wade is a good thing.

In the poll, options 2-4 with about 45%, reflect the general concepts of Roe v Wade. I voted for number 5.

On the other hand, can you define a ruling/law/view that would have been better in terms of not leaving "everyone equally unhappy"?

What I'm seeing in this discussion, though, is taht those who chose option 5 seem to be willinng to compromise at number 4. Those who chose option 1 don't seem willing to compromise at all.

And, yes, compromuise is usually something that leaves everyone equally unhappy.

 

[ecco]

In any case, we do live in a world ruled by God, and when we die we go before God to be judged. And God already told us - in the same book that he told us life begins at conception - that killers are thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment.

It is your opinion that the world is ruled by the Christian God. That is not a view shared by the majority of humanity. It is certainly not a view shared by me.

So, you can kill babies and take your chances, or you can do the right thing and not have to worry about it.

Well, I have never killed a baby and I certainly don't advocate killing babies, or anyone else. I think the fact that we are OK with 10,000 Americans being murdered every year by guns to be a tragedy.

If you mean that I am OK with preventing conception or aborting a fetus, then yes, I'm OK with that. I have far more compassion for an adult woman than I have for a small cluster of cells.

And finally, I don't worry about your hellfire and brimstone at all.

 

[Cearbhall]

What I'm seeing in this discussion, though, is taht those who chose option 5 seem to be willinng to compromise at number 4. Those who chose option 1 don't seem willing to compromise at all.

Yep. I only chose 5 because there really isn't a functional difference between 4 and 5. Most everyone who gets late-term abortions is doing it for medical reasons, and I assume they would still be allowed to do so under 4 since they can at 2. Might as well strip away the red tape for these suffering families and go to 5, but it doesn't matter all that much. The options don't specify this, but that's basically the way it is now. They need medical evidence to get a late-term.

 

[ecco]

What I'm seeing in this discussion, though, is taht those who chose option 5 seem to be willinng to compromise at number 4. Those who chose option 1 don't seem willing to compromise at all.

And, yes, compromuise is usually something that leaves everyone equally unhappy.

I chose option 5, but I'm quite happy with Roe v Wade. My only problem is that there are many loopholes in the decision that allow States to make abortions all but impossible.



BTW, you are correct about the "first breath" thing. At some other times "quickening" (fetal movement) was also considered the point of "ensoulment". It seems, regardless of some of the opinions stated, that neither scripture nor interpretation of scripture is very precise regarding life and abortion.

 

[Albion]

What I'm seeing in this discussion, though, is taht those who chose option 5 seem to be willinng to compromise at number 4.

Why would you assume that, considering that the #5 people who have commented as well as voted essentially ruled out #4 in their remarks?

I would think that it's the pro-life people who chose 2 or 3 who might have compromised on 4 if necessary.

Only a third of the respondents favor the situation as it is now. That may be the most significant finding so far.

 

[Dave-W]

It is your opinion that the world is ruled by the Christian God. That is not a view shared by the majority of humanity.

That is debatable. Some stats I have seen show that about 25% of the world population self-identify as Christian; with about 30% self identifying as Islamic. Islam claims that the God (allah) they worship is the same as the Christian and Jewish God.

If you accept that as true, then you have about 55% of humanity worshiping the same God.

 

[Albion]

Yep. I only chose 5 because there really isn't a functional difference between 4 and 5. Most everyone who gets late-term abortions is doing it for medical reasons, and I assume they would still be allowed to do so under 4 since they can at 2. Might as well strip away the red tape for these suffering families and go to 5, but it doesn't matter all that much. The options don't specify this, but that's basically the way it is now. They need medical evidence to get a late-term.

Which, in practice, means nothing at all. Not if you're willing to shop around until you find a doc who will abort any child so long as the woman says it distresses her to be pregnant.

 

[Vicomte13]

And, again, no one in this thread is talking about murdering babies.

The whole thread is about murdering babies. Abortion is the murder of a baby in the womb. That is why no compromise is possible.

 

[Vicomte13]

Not true. The punishment for causing an unintentional miscarriage is different than causing harm to a living person. So now we're stuck interpreting how to apply that to cases where the women wants an abortion, but it seems hard to imagine that would suddenly change the fetus from property into a living person.

You have read a passage that has been mistranslated. What you have read, you have read correctly, but it is not what the Hebrew underlying the translation says. What it says is that if two men fight and hit a pregnant woman and the boys come out of her, that the harm is assessed.

The boys coming out of her is not a miscarriage - "miscarriage" is the mistranslation of the Hebrew - it is, rather, exactly what it says: a premature birth.

So, there's a fight, and a combatant strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to go into labor and deliver her baby - then the harm is assessed. If the woman or the baby are damaged, the combatant who struck her is harmed eye for eye, tooth for tooth, bruise for bruise. If the woman or the baby is killed, life for life.

If there is no harm - not cut, no eyes lost, the baby is born whole and alive, then the combatant who strikes the woman is still fined, by the husband whose wife was struck.

That is what the Scripture actually says. The mistranslation of the word as "miscarriage" causes this mischief.
A better word would be "delivers".

If men fight and strike a pregnant woman such that she delivers, if there is no harm, a fine, but if there is harm, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe, bruise for bruise...and life for life.

If the woman or the baby dies, the man is a killer and he is to be killed.
That is what the Scripture says, and it is completely consistent with life being measured from begetting, Jesus and John both persons in the womb, and God knowing us in the womb.

 

[ananda]

Just like letting "individuals to decide for themselves as to the ethics" of any other crime. Hmm. To obey or not? Do other people have any rights? Hmm. Whatever I want--yeh, that's what should decide it!

Can you present another real alternative? Should I decide what rights you do and do not get?

As long as I do not do anything to harm you in any demonstrable manner, and vice versa, we should be free to live our lives as we wish.

 

[Archivist]

Why would you assume that, considering that the #5 people who have commented as well as voted essentially ruled out #4 in their remarks?

I never said that people who voted for 5 ruled out 4. Given that 5 incorporates 4 that would make no sense.

Only a third of the respondents favor the situation as it is now. That may be the most significant finding so far.

Of course I would expect that we would see a higher percentage choosing option 1 here than we would see in the general population.

 

[Archivist]

The whole thread is about murdering babies. Abortion is the murder of a baby in the womb. That is why no compromise is possible.

No, it isn't. No one is talking about murdering anyone in this thread.

 

[ananda]

Ananda,
We all live under the same moral reality... that as a Catholic I just happen to be blessed with a formal declaration of moral reality in the Ten Commandments in no way means you, or anyone else, don't have to live by the same rules.

As a Buddhist, I happen to be blessed with other declarations of moral reality as found in the Tipitaka, in no way means you, or anyone else, don't have to live by the same rules.

Take a look at the study of Natural Law where moral law is made more explicit and it's connection to the human person is made clearer. All of us have a conscience meant by God to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and as such we are all bound to not kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, etc... Having law clearly in front of you whether formally codified or as seen by your conscience in no way means you can go on a tangent. You cannot decide you are exempt from murder and call it a legitimate choice. There is no compromise with evil and abortion is an unnecessary evil we are all, religious or not, bound to not partake of or support in any direct way. You are free to do good... never evil!

I'm not advocating for lawlessness. Anyone who can demonstrate measurable harm received from another is entitled to restoration through the power of law.

 

[Albion]

I never said that people who voted for 5 ruled out 4. Given that 5 incorporates 4 that would make no sense.

5 certainly does NOT "incorporate" 4.

The position taken by 5 represents no compromises, just like 1 does. So if there's anyone who contemplated answering 4, it's most likely those who instead voted 2 or 3.

 

[Archivist]

They "ruled out" 4 only to the extent that it's not the one they chose to vote for. It represents something of a compromise and answering 5 means to accept no compromises, just as 1 does. Therefore, 5 and 4 are no less incompatible than 1 and 4 are.

Let's see, 1 = no abortion at all for any reason. 4 = abortion in the first trimester, plus in cases of rape, incest or the life or health of the pregnant woman. 5 = abortion at any time. 5 incorporates 4. Neither 5 nor 4 incorporate 1.

To say that 5 and 4 are no less incompatable than are 1 and 4 makes no sense at all.

 

[Albion]

Let's see, 1 = no abortion at all for any reason. 4 = abortion in the first trimester, plus in cases of rape, incest or the life or health of the pregnant woman. 5 = abortion at any time. 5 incorporates 4. Neither 5 nor 4 incorporate 1.

To say that 5 and 4 are no less incompatable than are 1 and 4 makes no sense at all.

I'm not sure if you follow this, but if one position says "no compromise, no limitations on abortion" and the other says, "most abortions will be prohibited"--that's #4--the former certainly does NOT "incorporate" the latter. It is opposed to it.

Therefore, it makes no sense to say that those who voted for 5 would be willing to vote for 4 instead. It might be the answer they'd prefer if 5 didn't exist, although I'd think 2 or 3 would be more to their liking, but we don't know this without asking it directly. In any case, 5 certainly does not "incorporate" 4!

 

[Vicomte13]

He also said He knew us before the foundation of the world.

Yes. So therefore we shouldn't be killing anybody at any point in their lifespan, because God always knew us as persons.

We can't get at pre-formed spirits, but once a baby has been begotten by a man - which is conception - then we can "get at" the baby, and kill it, and if we choose to do so, we are killers, and killers are thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment and do not enter the City of God. Jesus said that twice on the last page of the Scriptures. I call attention to it just so that it is clear what abortion supporters have put at stake. They are staking their eternal souls on a claimed "right" to kill another human being, because they claim that what is in the womb is not a human being.

Scripture says the opposite, but of course atheists and non-Abrahamic religionists don't care about Scripture. Christians should.

 

[Vicomte13]

Scripture tells me that "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." I don't see anything saying that "killers" are thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment.

Then you're not reading the full quote.

Here is the full quote:
And He who is sitting upon the throne said, "Lo, new I make all things"; and He saith to me, "Write, because these words are true and steadfast." And He said to me, "It hath been done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End; I, to him who is thirsting, will give of the fountain of the water of the life freely; he who is overcoming shall inherit all things, and I will be to him -- a God, and he shall be to me -- the son, and to fearful, and unsteadfast, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the liars, their part [is] in the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death."

This is God speaking directly in the second-to-last chapter of the Bible. The list of those left out of the City of God is restated again in the last chapter. "Murderers" appears on both list.

Killers are thrown into Hell at final judgment. "You shall not kill" is a commandment that God formally stated first to Noah, again to the Hebrews at Sinai. Jesus said that the Law shall not pass away until the end. And God, speaking of the end at the very end of Scriptures, twice says that killers do not enter the City of God after judgment. They are thrown into the Lake of Fire for the second death.

Killing a baby is killing. And God clearly described human lives as beginning at their begetting by their father, which is conception. To intentionally kill a baby in the womb is to be a killer, and to be an unrepentant killer is to fail final judgment and to be damned by God to the flames of Hell. God said that.

So, if one wants to worm around to play serpent-tongued word games that pretend that aborting a baby is not intentionally killing a baby, we are all given free will, and we can all play that game for awhile. People foolish enough to believe the deception who then murder children in the womb and, convinced of the justification of their actions, never throw themselves to the ground before God pleading for him to forgive the murder they have committed: they will be thrown into Hell, just as Jesus promised twice on the last two pages of Scripture.

Killers fail judgment and are thrown into the fire.
Nobody can stop a man or woman who is determined to risk his soul for the convenience of slaughtering a baby in the womb. Nobody can stop ANY killer hellbent on killing. But without repentance, no killer can be saved from the fire. Telling God he has no right to exist or to judge at final judgment is not a winning strategy.

Why fight about abortion, then? Partly to save the babies. Partly to save the mothers and the abortion doctors and their allies from stupidly throwing their own souls away because they have been led astray by Satan.

 

[Archivist]

I'm not sure if you follow this, but if one position says "no compromise, no limitations on abortion" and the other says, "most abortions will be prohibited"--that's #4--the former certainly does NOT "incorporate" the latter. It is opposed to it.

Therefore, it makes no sense to say that those who voted for 5 would be willing to vote for 4 instead. It might be the answer they'd prefer if 5 didn't exist, although I'd think 2 or 3 would be more to their liking, but we don't know this without asking it directly. In any case, 5 certainly does not "incorporate" 4!

Choice 1 allows for 0 abortions.

Choice 4 allows for 91% of abortions, plus it includes cases where the life and helth of the mother is at risk and cases of rape and incest, so it would be more think 95% of all abortions.

Choice 5 allows for 100% of abortions.

100% would include the 91% allowed for under choice 4. Thereforefore it certainly does incorporate 4.

 

[Archivist]

This is God speaking directly in the second-to-last chapter of the Bible. The list of those left out of the City of God is restated again in the last chapter. "Murderers" appears on both list.

But "killer" does not appear on either list. Murder and killing are two different things.