Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Vicomte13]

Archivist,
I have to agree with Vicomte... the subject you bring up concerning abortion (and compromise) is essentially about murdering an innocent and helpless person who happens to reside in their mother's womb. Those who justify abortion do so by dismissing the personhood and/or humanity of an unborn. Most say its just killing while the rest say it's not even that because it is just a blob of tissue or such. Those who condemn abortion do so on the ground it is a full fledged person being killed and since they are innocent of any crime (let alone sin) the act is one of murder. As for compromise one cannot ever say live and let live to an abortionist (or one who uses their services) because by definition they don't let live... they take an innocent and helpless life!

Spot on once again.

 

[SkyWriting]

Abortion is murder. Compromise that.

People get pregnant who are unable to carry a baby to term
or care for it afterwards. Even the abortion doctor was upset.
I saw it on his face.

 

[Vicomte13]

Vicomte,
Sorry I didn't mean to seem to disagree with you but rather was coming at the same thing from a different perspective apart from scripture. Stiill I agree with your implied point that in the end envoking scripture is necessary because divine revelation trumps all our other means to knowledge... although it does not dismiss valid reasoning or knowledge from natural revelation. It merely supports and clarifies. So amen to your point!

Oh, I didn't take it your disagreeing with me. It is quite clear that you and I are singing in the same choir here. I'd say that you're trying to reason with pro-abortion people using a variety of means, including appeals to legal reasoning. I don't think that people who don't believe that God exists, or at any rate has revealed himself, can accept any reasoning that comes a priori from the necessity to obey God. But people who believe in God or know he exists cannot disregard God any more than they can disregard gravity.

This makes for an unbridgeable gap. Another poster up thread was trying hard to get to a secular pro-life position. I don't think that an anti-abortion position makes sense from a secular viewpoint. Of course secular people want the convenience of abortion. Of course abortion is economically advantageous to those of few means. Of course abortion reduces the crime rate. Of course people want to abort children whom they know will be severely handicapped. There are no particularly good secular arguments against any of those things.

The reason not to do it is because God created us and gave a law against killing, for reasons we cannot see because we cannot see the spirit world unless it is shown to us (and it rarely is, and is only shown to a few), and we cannot understand the full implications of things until we're dead. So we have to trust - "faith" really means trust.

Seculars cannot trust that which they do not believe exists, and it makes no sense for them to restrict themselves from commonsensical things in order to satisfy what they perceive as our superstitions about Bronze Age myths.

They're wrong, but they don't know they are wrong, and unless they are touched by God and awaken to the world of spirit, they cannot ever know. Which is why no compromise is possible and the effort to protect unborn babies will always come down to political brute force. Whichever way it comes down, the losing side will feel oppressed.

 

[Vicomte13]

Is your interpretation of scripture infallible?

Does God exist?

 

[Vicomte13]

Well then call the cops on me. Because by crushing that acord I violated the law, which states that I must seek council permission before removing any tree on my property.

"Excuse me, police? Yes, Kylie crushed an acorn and I demand that you arrest her!"

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/live/trees/pruning-and-removing-trees

On the other hand, the Bible says that a person is not alive until they draw their first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense. (SOURCE)

See also http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/3/19/1285933/-Bible-Life-Begins-at-Breath-Not-Conception

 

[Vicomte13]

The word "Breath" or "wind" in Hebrew is also the word "Spirit". That is why some people translate Genesis 1 as a wind from God on the face of the waters, and others translate it as the Spirit of God on the face of the waters.

Every time you read that breath is required, you are reading Hebrew saying that God breathed his spirit into man.

Fish breathe in Scripture, but plants do not.

 

[Vicomte13]

People get pregnant who are unable to carry a baby to term
or care for it afterwards. Even the abortion doctor was upset.
I saw it on his face.

People who cannot care for a baby can give it away for adoption, not murder it.

 

[Vicomte13]

You openly want a theocracy rather than the U.S. Constitution, then?

 

[Vicomte13]

I seem to be screwing up this quotation function tonight. Sorry.

 

[Grandpa4]

We cannot have compromise on legalized murder, which is what abortion is in most (if not all) cases. The only times it can be justified (in my opinion) is in the case of rape (especially of children), or if the woman could lose her life if she bears the baby to term.

 

[Vicomte13]

As I said before, there are limits as to the number of characters I can include in responses.

I understand. Your question was asked under the broader rubric of possible compromise on abortion. Here's a compromise I will offer: no abortion, and much higher taxes and wealth redistribution (to come out of our aggressive overseas military operations) in order to pay for all of those babies that will be born when we outlaw abortion, and ensure they are well provided for.

Obviously if abortion is banned, we will require a much heavier social welfare state, heavier taxation, and a general shift of priorities away from world empire towards taking care of our own people.

So there's a compromise: a lot more taxation and a heavier government, as the cost of preserving the lives of the babies and giving the women who are, right now, economically desperate and seek abortion, a much greater margin of comfort so that carrying their baby to term is not a sentence of poverty.

And that, by any other name, means a whole lot more socialism. Which I dislike. And it means a much smaller military and global role. The price of protecting life is high. It would require us to be a different country than we are. It would mean giving up a lot of things that I value. But life is more precious. So there is the compromise I AM willing to discuss: a much heavier social welfare state to provide lives not in poverty and crime to 2 million extra babies a year.

 

[Cearbhall]

We cannot have compromise on legalized murder, which is what abortion is in most (if not all) cases.

Why, though? I fail to see how this is a given.

 

[Kylie]

People who cannot care for a baby can give it away for adoption, not murder it.

That's not for you to decide, is it?

You never have any right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

 

[Kylie]

We cannot have compromise on legalized murder, which is what abortion is in most (if not all) cases. The only times it can be justified (in my opinion) is in the case of rape (especially of children), or if the woman could lose her life if she bears the baby to term.

And if you ever get pregnant, then you can make that decision for yourself.

But you do not have the right to use your opinions to dictate what another person can and can't do with their body.

 

[Vicomte13]

That's not for you to decide, is it?

You never have any right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

Of course I do. Law is determined by power.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Of course I do. Law is determined by power.

So you're saying that you have the power, or at least want it, to determine what women do with their bodies?

That's terrifying.

 

[Belk]

Does God exist?

It is normally considered polite to answer a question prior to asking one of your own.

 

[SkyWriting]

People who cannot care for a baby can give it away for adoption, not murder it.

Teens can get pregnant who are unable to carry a baby to term
and give birth to it. Sorry I wasn't clear.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-03NHbFj2D...ltXd9elMoRU/s1600/Copy+of+Kids+2011+010_2.jpg

There are also mentally impaired (and average kids) who get pregnant
in grade school. Granted, you usually have to experience these situations
before you think differently.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course I do. Law is determined by power.

The system we use is majority vote of people who represent our views.
It's found in scripture.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think abortion at least ought to be regarded as "makruh", if not "haram". Meaining disliked, rather than forbidden entirely (in Muslim terms).