Abortion Discussion

[redleghunter]

I probably missed this but what journal was this published in? Journal name, year and volume would be a big help. Many of these are now on line unless they are ancient......just point me to the post#.....

Many liberal news outlets reported on the study last summer.

Of the available women in the sample group only 37% participated and only 85% of that 37% filled out full questionnaires. The drop out rate increases from there.

Add to that the study assumes regret stops after 3 years as that was the duration of the study.

Continue to add women health privacy considerations the study could not pry into any emotional or psychiatric care the 37% sought bit did not mention to the study group.

There are two possible conclusions. The study is flawed; or it is true. If true we have the most sociopathic heartless society since Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[redleghunter]

This comes from #925:

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
You think we exist before we are made?
Douglas Hendrickson

I am sure God does not think the impossible, that we exist before we are made.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..." can only mean God knew there was going to be a Jeremiah, knew of his characteristics, that there would be a great prophet, even before there was anything of him. (Except in the mind of God - God is omniscient, and this is an example of that - that God can know what will happen in the future well before it happens.)

God's knowledge does not mean some sort of pre-existence, except like I already said "in the mind of God."
That does not mean a car crosses a road before it crosses a road (or every Christmas comes every day!) and it certainly does not mean there is a human being even before there is anything in a womb. (Let alone during gestation.)

QUOTE="civilwarbuff, post: 69384040, member: 377216"]Come on now....do we really need to go back to the Hebrew lexicon or can you admit that "knew" means before? Why would you put limits on God knowing all? He is, was and will be....It seems as though you are trying to put him in a box and limit what he knows and when he knows

"Knew" is past tense, that is before. I certainly did not deny that. The knowing is actually foreknowledge. I certainly do not put any limits on God knowing all. Your post doesn't seem to make much sense, address what I actually said; you must be confusing knowing with being, with existing. There is a difference between knowing something, and something existing. Even God's knowing does not imply existence at any time other than the time it actually exists. I gave the extreme example of God's knowing all Christmasses and certainly that does not mean they all exist at one time. Nor does God knowing Jeremiah mean he existed when he did not exist, just like you didn't exist two hundred years ago yet I would not say God did not know you then. I don't know where you get I am putting limits on God's knowing - please give an example of my doing that.

(In case you don't think that we are made in the womb, check Job 31:15 "he that made me in the womb ...")

[I was unable to post this yesterday]

YHWH is Sovereign. As Christians we need to get over that or keep spinning our wheels.

 

[redleghunter]

The 'drop out rate' was 7%. And, had you read thoroughly, you would have noted that the author used a well-known statistical tool which compensates for those missing data points. Are you at all familiar with the aOR mechanism in statistical analysis?

The only people criticising this study's reliability are those whose prejudiced opinions are refuted by its findings!

7% of the 37%. The participation rate is telling in itself.

 

[SteveB28]

Abortion proponent's claims are an interesting thing. When one examines those arguments closely, they are often contradictory claims. I believe this is why pro abortion proponents (those that are morally fine with abortion if that's what a woman chooses) must use many arguments to support their case. But for those that choose life, and in the case of this discussion we're talking about life for those unborn humans in the womb, there is but one main argument.

It's wrong to kill a human being without proper justification.
The unborn in a woman's womb are human beings
Abortion kills a human being.
Therefore abortion is unjust and immoral.

The bodily argument is an example of a contradictory argument that the pro abortion crowd uses. It fails right out the gate.

IF the argument is that every woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body, how is it that they also have the right to pay a doctor to dismember the body of another? They are not doing the procedure on their own body, but on the body of another. Isn't it an irony that the choice of abortion assures that approximately 650,000 females in the United States don’t have the right to choose what they do with their bodies."

Let's see.

If an argument is supported on a number of fronts, this makes it a weaker argument??

Very well.........

 

[civilwarbuff]

Many liberal news outlets reported on the study last summer.

Of the available women in the sample group only 37% participated and only 85% of that 37% filled out full questionnaires. The drop out rate increases from there.

Add to that the study assumes regret stops after 3 years as that was the duration of the study.

Continue to add women health privacy considerations the study could not pry into any emotional or psychiatric care the 37% sought bit did not mention to the study group.

There are two possible conclusions. The study is flawed; or it is true. If true we have the most sociopathic heartless society since Sodom and Gomorrah.

I doubt he will point me to the post but from what you described the "study" has real problems. What you get with the low participation rate and dropouts, especially because of the subject, are "hard core" supporters who will say most anything to support their "side". Those who are ashamed of or embarrassed by their abortion don't tend to participate in studies or dropout.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This argument shows the desperation of the pro-aborts for the simple reason that one will say it is a baby at this point, another will say at that point and yet another will say it is a baby at a third chosen point. Which makes it very clear they make up their narrative a s they go along depending on the question they are asked. Like when I held up a photo of an aborted baby that looked no different to a baby that had not been aborted. I asked "Is this a baby?" The chairman, a woman who had had an abortion said "It depends on the situation."

It is silly to suggest that a baby who is in the womb is not a baby until it has been out of the womb for one minute as the baby in the womb is exactly the same as the baby out of the womb at that point. For all the intelligence that the pro-aborts claim to have, they come up with such a weird scenario.

It is not true that what is in the womb (not a baby) is "exactly the same as the baby out of the womb." A primary difference is the real baby has used lungs actually working lungs, breathing the breath of life. It has eyes that have opened when it is no longer parasitically imprisoned in a womb, and many sensory and reflex actions of actually used organs. It is autonomous in that it is, unlike the fetus, not totally dependent for subsistence on a tubal connection to a woman. And most importantly, it then first an animal, an animal being, the member of a species, a human being.

Note: If those who favor abortion do not agree on every point, it is NOT because "they make up their narrative as they go along," only that some have a better and more clear and fuller understanding than others.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Abortion proponent's claims are an interesting thing. When one examines those arguments closely, they are often contradictory claims. I believe this is why pro abortion proponents (those that are morally fine with abortion if that's what a woman chooses) must use many arguments to support their case. But for those that choose life, and in the case of this discussion we're talking about life for those unborn humans in the womb, there is but one main argument.

It's wrong to kill a human being without proper justification.
The unborn in a woman's womb are human beings
Abortion kills a human being.
Therefore abortion is unjust and immoral.

That's no argument - that's just presenting what your position is.
It's major falsity is the second point, that "the unborn in a woman's womb are human beings." It all hinges on that and you are not (here, in your supposed main argument) arguing for that. I would say it is because there are no good arguments for that - it is taken on faith and constantly repeated at every opportunity, the blatant contradiction "unborn baby."
I call it the big lie because it uses this technique of saying something over and over until people are fooled into thinking it must be true.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"That's no argument - that's just presenting what your position is.
It's major falsity is the second point, that "the unborn in a woman's womb are NOT human beings." It all hinges on that and you are not (here, in your supposed main argument) arguing for that. I would say it is because there are no good arguments for that - it is taken on faith and constantly repeated at every opportunity, the blatant contradiction "not a baby."
I call it the big lie because it uses this technique of saying something over and over until people are fooled into thinking it must be true."
Bolded is mine....sorry for the plagarism but as you can see that knife cuts both ways.

 

[Radrook]

Prenatal dependence on a mother's body is a normal part of human development and isn't a criterion which is used by biologists or the medical profession to determine humanness. If indeed it were, then we only became human when we had our umbilical cord severed and were fair game just a few seconds before it was severed.

If the hypothetical is taken further, then we would have to assume that any human who becomes essentially parasitic due to illness or severe injury loses his humanity. Based on that we should have no qualms in disposing of such a person as we would a parasitic embryo or fetus. The truth is that such a policy isn't legal because humans do not lose their humanity nor human rights simply because they become incapable of caring for themselves.

A fetus is temporarily unable to care for itself because it is in its normal HUMAN developmental stage. That inability continues even after birth since if it isn't cared for the newborn will die.
So it is still essentially parasitic. It must feed from the mother's breast. Is that also parasitic?
Totally irrelevant both from a medical and biblical standpoint.

 

[SteveB28]

Many liberal news outlets reported on the study last summer.

Of the available women in the sample group only 37% participated and only 85% of that 37% filled out full questionnaires. The drop out rate increases from there.

Add to that the study assumes regret stops after 3 years as that was the duration of the study.

Continue to add women health privacy considerations the study could not pry into any emotional or psychiatric care the 37% sought bit did not mention to the study group.

There are two possible conclusions. The study is flawed; or it is true. If true we have the most sociopathic heartless society since Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now I am convinced that you haven't read the study, as you earlier falsely claimed.

In several places, the author points out that this is an ongoing study!

The current publication was at the 3 year mark, but the study will continue to at least 5 years, in order to measure precisely the point you raise about "ongoing regret"!

Why is it so hard to be honest?

 

[katerinah1947]

Please, please, please stay on topic here guys... I think this is an important discussion for the Body of Christ as a whole along with society at large to have but the last thread addressing it got overrun with an off topic argument and closed... Please stay on topic...

Here are my basic beliefs on the subject of abortion:

Pro-Life

1. Abortion is murder. It is an affront not just to Christian teaching but to the very foundations of modern society. It takes the rule of law and due process and throws both out the window to allow adults, women like myself in particular, to kill their own offspring for even the most arbitrary of reasons. In most cases it's an evil and barbaric practice that in an ideal world should be criminalized outside of extreme circumstances. To clarify what I mean by "Extreme Circumstances" if there's a higher than 55% chance that the mother will die if she gives birth or carries to term, or if there is less than a 10% chance that the child will be born alive. Even at that point abortion is a necessary evil. It is never right, but there are situations in which it is still better than the alternative and any legal sanctions against it MUST provide exceptions to take those situations into account.

2. We do not live in that ideal world. Therefore whether we believe abortion to be right or wrong our time is better spent creating a world in which abortion is as unneeded and uncommon as possible. What will help that happen? Increased access to preventative birth-control, better and more widespread sex education, more resources for pregnant women regardless or age or background, and much needed reforms to the current adoption and foster-care systems.

3. Until the points outlined above in #2 are accomplished criminalizing abortion would solve very little and create more problems than it gets rid of.

4. I do not fly with the "quality of life" "sick kids shouldn't even be born" argument...

Hi,

Change abortion to killing not murder, except in extreme cases, and 1 makes more sense, as killing and murder are different.

1 change to killing
3 yes
4 yes
2 too complicated for me now

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

Now I am convinced that you haven't read the study, as you earlier falsely claimed.

In several places, the author points out that this is an ongoing study!

The current publication was at the 3 year mark, but the study will continue to at least 5 years, in order to measure precisely the point you raise about "ongoing regret"!

Why is it so hard to be honest?

You quoted an incomplete study?

Wow.

So you gave us half cooked eggs to munch on?

Now I will just chalk that up to an oversight as challenging someone's integrity is frowned upon on this Christian site.

 

[PapaZoom]

Let's see.

If an argument is supported on a number of fronts, this makes it a weaker argument??

Very well.........

Not so. The arguments are weak and many are fallacious; others outright and demonstrably false. It's like throwing many darts at the dart board in hopes of one at least hitting the target, but still missing.

 

[Verv]

But more to the point: no one is required to donate part of their body to someone else. And in pregnancy, a woman essentially donates her uterus for use by another individual. Who also makes a physiologic demand on her heart, lungs, kidneys, and other organ systems. This is completely different from the situation after delivery. A newborn makes no physiologic demand on the birth mother's body at all. It will thrive perfectly well under anyone who delivers proper care. That's the crux of the issue--pregnancy involves a woman's body. It's a well established bioethical principle that adult persons of sound mind have autonomy over their own bodies. That's the basis for the legal doctrine of informed consent. Of course, autonomy isn't absolute. Imprisoned felons surrender much of their autonomy. And persons can be required to submit to drug or DNA testing. But criminalizing abortion from the moment of conception onward, effectively suspends a woman's bodily autonomy without due process.

Look, I get it that abortion is ethically questionable. And actually, I kinda agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than rape, or medical reasons is morally suspect. But laws that revoke a woman's right to make decisions about her own body--even temporarily--are worse. They're just too authoritarian and give too much power to the state. As wrong as abortion may be, criminalization at all stages of pregnancy is a greater wrong. And it's not necessary, because there are other and better ways to reduce the practice.

This is an interesting post, and I am not a man with the luxury of much time, but I will try to respond ot thsi well.

We can agree on these facts:

+ A raped woman had no choice in her conception of a fetus.
+ The uterus and her body are, indeed, her own property. Generally speaking, she should have a right to what happens to her own body barring circumstances such as if she commits murder, where she forfeits her God-given freedoms (or ... rationally produced freedoms if you are an atheist) due to her violation of another, and these circumstances allow punishment.
+ Abortion is not an ideal form of birth control, and perhaps is unethical if it is used purely for birth control.

I think we have consented to this.

I think the last article is precisely why there is an argument that in these circumstances a woman must carry the fetus. The reprehensible nature of an abortion exists because we believe that, left to its own devices, a fetus becomes a human life.

Perhaps we should provide some sort of compensation for women who undergo this trauma of giving birth to a baby that is the product of rape -- recompensation is due.

Just as such... If someone was squatting in a home, the answer isn't necessarily to immediately throw them out of the abandoned home with zero time to prepare another place for themselves. It is to compensate thte owner of the abandoned property, and give them time to get their lives in order before eviction.

There can be precedent for this.

 

[SteveB28]

7% of the 37%. The participation rate is telling in itself.

"Finally, the relatively low participation rate might raise concerns about selection bias. In a review of high-impact public health journals, 63% of prospective studies reported no recruitment information; those that did had participation rates as low as 20% [27]. Another proposed that published participation rates are biased, with studies with lower participation less likely to report participation [28]. 38% enrollment for a five-year study asking women about a stigmatized health service is within the range of other large-scale prospective studies."

Try reading. It really helps most times.

 

[AirPo]

Abortion proponent's claims are an interesting thing. When one examines those arguments closely, they are often contradictory claims. I believe this is why pro abortion proponents (those that are morally fine with abortion if that's what a woman chooses) must use many arguments to support their case. But for those that choose life, and in the case of this discussion we're talking about life for those unborn humans in the womb, there is but one main argument.

It's wrong to kill a human being without proper justification.
The unborn in a woman's womb are human beings
Abortion kills a human being.
Therefore abortion is unjust and immoral.

The bodily argument is an example of a contradictory argument that the pro abortion crowd uses. It fails right out the gate.

IF the argument is that every woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body, how is it that they also have the right to pay a doctor to dismember the body of another? They are not doing the procedure on their own body, but on the body of another. Isn't it an irony that the choice of abortion assures that approximately 650,000 females in the United States don’t have the right to choose what they do with their bodies."

Funny how you left out the fact that a woman has the proper justification.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

How dare you inject common sense in this discussion!

Sorry about that.

In the future I will endeavor to refrain or is it refrain from endeavoring anyway don't worry I won't do it again...

 

[SteveB28]

You quoted an incomplete study?

Wow.

So you gave us half cooked eggs to munch on?

Now I will just chalk that up to an oversight as challenging someone's integrity is frowned upon on this Christian site.

Now the desperation is really showing!

Let me help you understand longitudinal statistical analysis just a little. Unlike yourself, my earlier work life involved it considerably.

In many such projects, and especially those in the fields of health and medicine, reports will be published as various waypoints are reached. The reasoning behind this is obvious. As treatment regimes will often depend upon the indications provided by the study, it is often important that these indicators be established early and consistently throughout the life of the study. Early findings will usually indicate the broad thrust of a conclusion, while the ongoing research provides for finer adjustment.

Take drug trials, for example. Standard research practice will often deliver study findings at 3, 5 and 10 year intervals. In such an expensive and time consuming process, it is vital to gain and maintain feedback as to the efficacy of the drug/s in question.

And so it is with this study. Publication after 3 years gives a broad, overriding conclusion. Further data collection out to the fifth year may provide more detailed insight into women's feelings about their abortions, but is unlikely to overturn the major findings.

Can I assist you further? I'm happy to tutor you in research methodology but, alas, there is little I can do to overturn your biases and prejudices!

 

[AirPo]

Actually you can't because of 1 Cor 2:14; it is the one verse that specifically applies to unbelievers in their unbelief.

.

Sorry dude, that one doesn't apply to me either.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Many liberal news outlets reported on the study last summer.

Isn't that what they're required to do, pick up the flat beach ball and run with it???