Abortion Discussion

[SteveB28]

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.

Demonstrate the fallacies please. Show us the weaknesses.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

If true we have the most sociopathic heartless society since Sodom and Gomorrah.

And the amazing thing is some people will actually vote for them, go figure... (I'm having a hard time determining if it's the free abortion or the free college that is attracting those supporters. Hmmm...)

 

[Archivist]

We can agree on these facts:

A raped woman had no choice in her conception of a fetus.

Agreed

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.

Yes, except no one is talking about commiting murder here.

Abortion is not an ideal form of birth control, and perhaps is unethical if it is used purely for birth control.

Yes, but abortion in cases of rape is certainly not birth control.

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.

But even if the woman is given some sort of compensation, that does not eliminate the fact that it is involuntary servitude. She is being forced to labor against her will to benefit another. If she dies in childbirth--and women do still die in childbirth--will any sort of compensation matter? A woman's body rarely returns to its pre-childbirth form. How do you compensate for c-section scars, weight gain, stretch marks, sagging breasts? As I've said before, if she makes the choice to carry the fetus to term that is wonderfuil but she should not be forced to do so against her will.

 

[Armoured]

Demonstrate the fallacies please. Show us the weaknesses.

*snort* good luck!

 

[civilwarbuff]

And the amazing thing is some people will actually vote for them, go figure... (I'm having a hard time determining if it's the free abortion or the free college that is attracting those supporters. Hmmm...)

I think it is just the word "free".

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"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.

"That knife" is you misquoting me? Do you really want to change your mind, change your position, because it is your second point you make to read the opposite of what you first said?

What do I supposedly "see," that you can be untrue both to me and to your self?

I can guess that you think what you have done is as salient as what I have done - that you can simply say the opposite and it is just as good a point. Well, MY POINT, in case you didn't notice, is that what you claim to be an argument is NO ARGUMENT. I do not here make any argument about the status of the fetus nor claim to make any such argument - I tried to point out the untruth of your claim that it is an argument (and also point to in passing "unborn baby," which is constantly thrown out and begs the question.)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

There is one basic problem with this, and it is the failure to see the difference between "human" and "human being."
"... only became human when we had our umbilical cord severed" should read: "became a human being," and then it would be true. To understand better the difference between before birth and after see my post above, #1076. There is a difference of dependencies, but more important a difference of being, there exists an actual animal (human) being only after birth. A new member of the human species. Just like there are never any pigs in a pigs belly - we do not count pig fetuses as pigs, because they are not. So too is a chicken egg not a chicken even if it is fertilized.

Most people are able to tell the difference between a chicken and an egg!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

Half cooked eggs are fetuses, in case you didn't notice.

 

[Archivist]

Most people are able to tell the difference between a chicken and an egg!

Which still leaves the eternal question of which came first.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The reprehensible nature of an abortion exists because we believe that, left to its own devices, a fetus becomes a human life.

"...left to its own devices..." ? Not really. It is the "devices" of a womb (and a woman giving birth).

Notice that he says: "becomes a human life." It is not necessarily reprehensible at all to kill "life" that is not a human being, e.g. rats and pigs and mosquitoes. And human fetuses.`

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Most people are able to tell the difference between a chicken and an egg!

Which still leaves the eternal question of which came first.

But should be noticed to be the answer to what seems to be an eternal question, does the human (fertilized) egg come first.
OF COURSE NOT.

 

[rjs330]

While this isn't something I'll have to worry about, I do wonder how Jesus would feel about people using hell to guilt trip someone else into submission.

He has no problem,with it. He said it's better to cut of your hand than be cast into,hell.

 

[Radrook]

There is one basic problem with this, and it is the failure to see the difference between "human" and "human being."
"... only became human when we had our umbilical cord severed" should read: "became a human being," and then it would be true. To understand better the difference between before birth and after see my post above, #1076. There is a difference of dependencies, but more important a difference of being, there exists an actual animal (human) being only after birth. A new member of the human species. Just like there are never any pigs in a pigs belly - we do not count pig fetuses as pigs, because they are not. So too is a chicken egg not a chicken even if it is fertilized.

Most people are able to tell the difference between a chicken and an egg!

I very well do know how to tell the difference. That's why I can easily detect that you are using a false analogy since there is absolutely no comparison between what is developing in the chicken egg and what is developing in the womb of a woman.

Furthermore, the example of two men who struggle accidentally causing an abortion and the penalty of life for life required clearly contradicts your claim of inequality between prenatal life and post natal life.

True, you do have a right to your opinion. However, your opinion goes contrary to what the Bible clearly indicates.

Here are other examples of how the Bible views prenatal life.

Examples:

*Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals in the womb (Gen. 25:23; Rom. 9:11-12).

*Samson’s mother was not to drink wine, because her son was to be a Nazirite, who would abstain from alcohol (Judges 13:3-5).

*Jeremiah and Paul both acknowledged that God formed them in the womb and knew them by name (Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15). Isaiah 49:1, 5 affirms the same thing about Messiah.

*John the Baptist recognized Jesus while both were still in the womb (Luke 1:35-36, 39-44)!

This is an amazing text! Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Mary went to visit Elizabeth before John was born. Thus Elizabeth would have been in her last trimester, while Mary was in her first trimester.

Yet John recognized Jesus in those early months of Mary’s pregnancy! I think that this is the strongest passage that a baby in the womb in the first trimester is a person created in God’s image. We are not free to take the life of such a child just because it is not convenient to have a baby!
https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-abortion

In short, it simply comes down to accepting a human's opinion about the status of prenatal human life vs accepting what the scriptures are telling us about the status of human prenatal life. As you must be aware, Christians are under obligation to place biblical principles above human opinion.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"That knife" is you misquoting me? Do you really want to change your mind, change your position, because it is your second point you make to read the opposite of what you first said?

What do I supposedly "see," that you can be untrue both to me and to your self?

I can guess that you think what you have done is as salient as what I have done - that you can simply say the opposite and it is just as good a point. Well, MY POINT, in case you didn't notice, is that what you claim to be an argument is NO ARGUMENT. I do not here make any argument about the status of the fetus nor claim to make any such argument - I tried to point out the untruth of your claim that it is an argument (and also point to in passing "unborn baby," which is constantly thrown out and begs the question.)

Sorry you don't understand the intent of my reply. It is really quite simple.

 

[redleghunter]

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!

Drug trials and physical medical conditions are measurable and observable. When a study focuses on mental and emotional conditions the higher participation rate is necessary. If not you end up with subjective particulars.

Especially when you touted the 95% rate in such a confident tone.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Position Paper from PCofA. It is far too long to post in entirety but here is the link: http://pcahistory.org/pca/

The Word of God affirms throughout the continuity of personhood both before and after birth. Abortion, the intentional killing of an unborn child, is to destroy that continuity. Abortion would terminate the life of an individual, a bearer of God's image, who is being divinely formed and prepared for a God-given role in the world.
The continuity of personhood before and after birth is wonderfully underscored in the way Scripture describes the sovereign activity of God in conception and birth. In Genesis 1:28 God gave man the directive to multiply and to fill the earth. In obeying this instruction, man reproduced human beings who were also formed in the image of God (Gen. 5:1-3). This is not to imply the activity of God ceased. As Eve gave birth to Cain, she acknowledged, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord" (Gen. 4). Psalm 100:3 reminds us that we are the Lord's for He has made us. Psalm 127:3 says, "Children are a gift of the Lord: the fruit of the womb is a reward."
Conception, then, is not a mere human happening. Apart from the sovereign intervention of God, conception (which Scripture designates a divine blessing) does not take place (Genesis 21:1-2; 30:1-2, 22;1 Samuel 1:19; Job 31:15, 33:4). It would therefore be a willful act of defiance against the Creator intentionally to kill an unborn child whose conception is so intimately a Divine as well as a human act. No child belongs only to man. He is God's child. And His Word must govern the protection and care of that child both before and after birth.

They aren't as liberal as I thought....

 

[Root of Jesse]

87 year olds frequently do have some time for various pursuits.

And you'd lose that bet.

I doubt it. Most people don't respond to post-mortem surveys. I know I don't. Every time I've been hospitalized, a few weeks later I get a "How did we do?" survey, and toss them, unless I have a serious complaint.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Drug trials and physical medical conditions are measurable and observable. When a study focuses on mental and emotional conditions the higher participation rate is necessary. If not you end up with subjective particulars.

Especially when you touted the 95% rate in such a confident tone.

Absolutely correct....

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. Thanks to better, widespread education in sexual reproduction. Which many of you lot have tried to impede at every step!

You call abortifacient birth control 'education in sexual reproduction'??? The idea that the Church has impeded sexual education is a myth and a lie.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You call abortifacient birth control 'education in sexual reproduction'??? The idea that the Church has impeded sexual education is a myth and a lie.

But is one they love to believe and spread around....