Abortion (again)

[Outspoken]

Why do people treat premature babies as humans and not their counter parts? The only difference is that one is inside a women and the other is not? Just another reason why I think abortion is wrong.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/8623/

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well abortion for me first off is not a question of life or whether or not the fetus is human: everyone knows it is.

What it is to me is a question of personhood. Personhood is basically the definition of one being granted the most basic of state protection.

Cows for example are live, and they can feel pain, but they are not considered agents that have achieved personhood so are not protected by the state.

I also know that morality is the very basis of law: I just don't see abortion as immoral. In fact I see the violation of freeedom and privacy orchestrated by pro-lifers as immoral.


In regards to personhood I draw the line after birth. This is because A) It is the state that best protects right to privacy, procreation and woman's freedom and B) It's the most efficient place to draw the line.


It seems many pro-lifers wish to draw the line to when the woman is pregant but such is difficult as we cannot really moniter such. Also think of what this entails.


1) A radical alteration in our legal system.


No longer does one have to be born to become a US citizen, one merely has to be an embryo. That means anyone who crosses the border pregant automatically makes a US citizen.


2) Active monitering and rights to a fetus.


Now if a woman has a miscarriage it doesn't end there, because such is potential murder, manslaughter or at least child "negligence". The woman can thus be legally investigated causing lots of emotional pain and loss to privacy.

Birth thus seems like the best place to draw the line.


Ultimately this comes to a matter of value judgement though, as there is no strict definition of personhood.

In the end one must just choose whether one is more favorable towards a woman's freedom, a woman's privacy, sexual freedom and efficient standards or: a fetus. The choice for me was pretty easy.


The whole Christian argument though seems to be based on the idea that the fetus has a soul and God wants it to be born.

Miscarriages throw the latter into some question(as it can be asked why does God kill a fetus if he wants it?).

But that can be mainly aknowledged as God's juristiction not man's.


In which case I have to point out that such a statement, while very much believed is a matter of pure religious faith, and it is unfair for the religious to impose their will upon those who disagree. Such is a violation of freedom of conscience.


I also have to ask then on what basis the religious do adopt the stance they do.

How do they know a fetus has a soul? How do they know such a soul can be affected by earthly manipulations like abortion?

How do they know God's Plan will be in any way impeded instead having God perhaps get around it? Perhaps God in His infinite wisdom anticipated the abortion and planned according to that.

The whole pro-life movment thus violates Freedom of Conscience and makes a boatload of theological presuppositions which I do not currently find sufficient to outlaw abortion.

 

[admtaylor]

How do they know a fetus has a soul? How do they know such a soul can be affected by earthly manipulations like abortion?

How do they know God's Plan will be in any way impeded instead having God perhaps get around it? Perhaps God in His infinite wisdom anticipated the abortion and planned according to that.

The whole pro-life movment thus violates Freedom of Conscience and makes a boatload of theological presuppositions which I do not currently find sufficient to outlaw abortion.

Psalm 139
12
Even the (1) darkness is not dark to You,
And the night is as bright as the day.
(2) Darkness and light are alike to You.
13
For You (3) formed my inward parts;
You (4) wove me in my mother's womb.
14
I will give thanks to You, for [1] I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
(5) Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.

In the end one must just choose whether one is more favorable towards a woman's freedom, a woman's privacy, sexual freedom and efficient standards or: a fetus. The choice for me was pretty easy.

First of all when a pregnancy occurs there's more than the woman involved. Secondly to relegate human life to a word such as efficient is disgusting. Efficiancy is a word for business, life is not business.

Lastly I would say that God does know that abortions are going to happen prior to them happening. This does not in any way mean that it's His will. Nothing in the Scriptures shows that taking a defensless, innocent life is the will of God. The souls of those who have been aborted have been taken in by God in His Kingdom. They would be pure and blameless victims of mans free-will, or sin. The further we sink into the normalizing of this practice the more blood covers the hands of this country. God's displeasure with our acceptance of such untoward actions I'm sure will be shown. If our country continues down the path it has set itself, I fear for the future of it.

The whole pro-life movment thus violates Freedom of Conscience

You meant to say Freedom of quieting our Conscience, didn't you?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yoir scritpure first off is very open to interpretationm hardly overwhelming evidence even from a scriptural point of view.

Second merely nit picking and labeling a single word I use as "disguisting" is hardly an argument, especially when you beg the question and suppose a fetus is a person before hand. That is circular reasoning. Unless you wish to declare a human being automatically a person by virtue of its mere dna, in which case any skin cell, kidney or arm is a person by virtue of it having human dna.


The rest of your post in similiar circular reasoning i.e. abortion is not part of God's plan...because it's a sin. Meaning: abortion is not part of God's plan because it is not.

You meant to say Freedom of quieting our Conscience, didn't you?

That is guaranteed as well. But then again isn't that begging the question, or must everyone be forced to believe as you do?

Should everyone likewise according to you be forced to become Christian and attend your Church?

 

[admtaylor]

It's not about forcing belief. It's about the overall good for society. Which abortion is not. You approached the subject scripturally. Therefore I answered such. You speak of a subject on my ground and I will use the same to answer.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I approached the subject from many angles, not just scripturally, however you still haven't even proved that abortion was wrong using scripture, let alone showing how outlawing it would be good for society.

I suppose Hindus might think outlawing the slaughter of cows was good for society too, doesn't mean we should take them seriously. That is how it is with matters of faith.

Remember the government is a secular establishment so its rules must have a secular purpose. If you fail to give such a purpose, your argument is purely religious, hence forcing your viewpoint on others is not merely a matter of helping society but advancing your own paticular religious viewpoint.

 

[sojeru]

Hi all, this is from a page i wrote- it sheds light on abortion and bible- not only our modern perspective on how it effects people , mothers and babies.
This is exactly how i view it FROM LUKE 23:38-31 aramaic New testament

“Do not weep for me over this great injustice. No doubt, I will will be crucified- Never the less, small, compared to what will be in the future. You should weep for yourselves as the ones that carry and bring forth children- the child bearers, and weep for your descendants. UNdoubtedly, the days will come in which they will say, “Blessed are those who have an abortion, the wombs that conceived but never gave birth; and breasts that were preparing for feeding but had never nursed.
They will murder children by the millions - for this they will be the first of those who will cry out to the mountains, “Fall on us”… and to the hills, “Cover us And hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne”(read Rev.6:15-16) As judgment falls on them for such deeds. If the Injustice done to me can be justified in their lips while there yet remains some love for life- imagine what will be done when this love is gone.”

(remember to read any English translation from the Greek manuscripts and this will be seen.)

shalom u'Bracha

Ant-Ant

 

[TScott]

I approached the subject from many angles, not just scripturally, however you still haven't even proved that abortion was wrong using scripture, let alone showing how outlawing it would be good for society.

Well, as Sojeru has shown there actually was scripture that delt specifically with abortion. There was also the Apochalypse of Peter that specifically condemned abortion and spoke of a special place in Hell that was reserved for those who had abortions. I think it is clear that abortion was definitely an issue in biblical times. I think the question Christians should ask is this: If there was scripture that dealt directly with abortion, wwhy wasn't this scripture included in the accepted canon? If Christians truly believe that the Early Church Fathers were guided by God when they wrote and collated the scripture, then what conclusion must drawn when they rejected the Apochalypse of Peter, second only to the Gospel of John in popularity among early Christians?

Being against abortion for many reasons is fine. I just think for Christians to be against abortion for religious reasons is on very shakey ground. The Early Church obviously decided it was ok.

 

[uniteforchrist]

How easy it is to deceive people. Here you argue about something you have not a clue about. If you think abortion is about "A womens right to chose" or any the other nonsense you are feed, learn the truth....Christ has said, "The truth shall set you free."

Abortion, birth control, began in earnest in the US in 1921. Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control Leauge which was renamed PLANNED PARENTHOOD in 1942. Margaret Sangers manifesto "The Pivot of Civilization", Bretano's Press NY 1922 p189, in which Sanger states the following:
"Birth control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is realy the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program onf Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science...as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health."

Sangers views for ethnic cleansing came from her association and belief in the Occult worship of Lucifer. The members of Planned Parenthoods board of directors include Hitlers head of the Nazi wugenics sterlization program, Dr. Ernst Rubin. Hitler set up concentration camps to eliminate " what he said were inferior peoples:. Sanger proposed the following: To apply a rigid and stern policy of sterilizaton and "segragation" to that grade of the populatoin whose progency is already taionted...to opportion farm lands and homesteads for these segragated persons where they would be taught to work under copmpetent instructors for the period of their entire lives." Concentration Camps..How much of the populaton does Sanger propose to enslave? nearly half 47.3%.

As Margaret Sangers organization grew, she wrote of the necessity of targeting religious groups for destruction as well, believing that the "dysgenic races "should include "fundementalists and Catholics in addition to Blacks. Sanger said they could gain support because"Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is "calculated" to undermine the authority of the Christian Churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday from the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism."

Before you as Christians start supporting anything, know the truth. Do not be deceived...WAKE UP.

 

[Molloyboy]

I'm still unsure about the whole abortion idea, whether its right or wrong. Although: God creates the life and then destines it to be killed off, thats what confuses me - why God would create that life if he knows it is going to simply die. I know that everything is done for a reason and good comes out of bad stuff - "God doesnt take us to the edge of cliff to push us of, but instead to show us the view"

Anyway yea....

If the faetus is created through rape does that change any1's views on it being wrong to have an abortion?

 

[TScott]

How easy it is to deceive people. Here you argue about something you have not a clue about. If you think abortion is about "A womens right to chose" or any the other nonsense you are feed, learn the truth....Christ has said, "The truth shall set you free."

Abortion, birth control, began in earnest in the US in 1921. Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control Leauge which was renamed PLANNED PARENTHOOD in 1942. Margaret Sangers manifesto "The Pivot of Civilization", Bretano's Press NY 1922 p189, in which Sanger states the following:
"Birth control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is realy the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program onf Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science...as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health."

Sangers views for ethnic cleansing came from her association and belief in the Occult worship of Lucifer. The members of Planned Parenthoods board of directors include Hitlers head of the Nazi wugenics sterlization program, Dr. Ernst Rubin. Hitler set up concentration camps to eliminate " what he said were inferior peoples:. Sanger proposed the following: To apply a rigid and stern policy of sterilizaton and "segragation" to that grade of the populatoin whose progency is already taionted...to opportion farm lands and homesteads for these segragated persons where they would be taught to work under copmpetent instructors for the period of their entire lives." Concentration Camps..How much of the populaton does Sanger propose to enslave? nearly half 47.3%.

As Margaret Sangers organization grew, she wrote of the necessity of targeting religious groups for destruction as well, believing that the "dysgenic races "should include "fundementalists and Catholics in addition to Blacks. Sanger said they could gain support because"Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is "calculated" to undermine the authority of the Christian Churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday from the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism."

Before you as Christians start supporting anything, know the truth. Do not be deceived...WAKE UP.

I agree that it is very easy to deceive people. Your comments on Margaret Sanger are well known distortions spread by the Rigtht to Life movement in the 1980s. There is absolutely no truth to any of it. I suggest you read an unbiased biography. Sanger actually spoke out against eugenics: "Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state."

 

[uniteforchrist]

Planned Parenthood has in its annual report (see file on website) their awoved purpose which is to build the largest donor base and citizen activists group of ANY organization in the country. Why? They also say in that report that they practically own the Media. Those folks never stop. If anyone doubts their TRUE purpose read Margaret Sangers book, "The Pivot of Civilization." Those words are hers not ours or anyone else. The truth shall set you free.

 

[sojeru]

If the faetus is created through rape does that change any1's views on it being wrong to have an abortion?

a friend of mine- her mother was raped- well, if her mother had an abortion- I wouldnt have that friend to share the story.
EITHER WAY- IT IS NOT OK- IN THE EYES OF HASHEM- it is EVIL , IN EVERY CASE.
However, if the woman that is raped WOULD QUICKLY GO to get herself checked up IMMEDIATELY- then she wouldnt have to worry about an abortion- The doctors would make sure to clean her up before sperm meets egg.
Thay can do that.
Its that simple

Abortion is a greater evil than the killing of Messiah.
Abortion was only done by those that live in the time when there is no love- this is the greater killing.

and to TSCOTT

There was also the Apochalypse of Peter that specifically condemned abortion and spoke of a special place in Hell that was reserved for those who had abortions. I think it is clear that abortion was definitely an issue in biblical times. I think the question Christians should ask is this: If there was scripture that dealt directly with abortion, wwhy wasn't this scripture included in the accepted canon? If Christians truly believe that the Early Church Fathers were guided by God when they wrote and collated the scripture, then what conclusion must drawn when they rejected the Apochalypse of Peter, second only to the Gospel of John in popularity among early Christians?

You are correct, I believe it certain that there were many letters that were not allowed in the canon after the councils of the fourth century.

Some synagogues did not recieve the some of the letters of john (2 and 3) some did, Some didnt accept some of Pauls letters, Some didnt acept 2 peter, nor jude- and hardly anyone accepted revelations but some kept it as good reading.

I personally believe that the "didache" should be in the canon. About the others, im not sure just yet- im studying now though.

shalom u'bracha

 

[admtaylor]

I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this. But, here goes. It's obvious by many posts on these boards that there are many calloused, cold, people in this world. Who profess to care about human life, but support the destruction of a defensless life. I'm sickened by the whole thing. My children are the most beautiful, precious things to me. They've touched the lives of many around them. And to think that there are people out there that support snuffing that beauty and innocence out at will.

What really sickens me are those who say, "I wouldn't get an abortion, I don't agree with them. But I think a woman should have the right to choose."

If a women needs the right to choose, outlaw the practice and give her the right to choose an alley.

 

[Vylo]

It's obvious by many posts on these boards that there are many calloused, cold, people in this world. Who profess to care about human life, but support the destruction of a defensless life

I agree completely. I don't know how you can say you value humanity, and then advocate the destruction of human entities for the convenience of others.

What really sickens me are those who say, "I wouldn't get an abortion, I don't agree with them. But I think a woman should have the right to choose."

There are many things that I wouldn't do, and many things I don't agree with, but I would defend their right to do these things. These things however do not involve the destruction of a human essence for petty reasons and negligence. I cannot condone such actions.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Hi all, this is from a page i wrote- it sheds light on abortion and bible- not only our modern perspective on how it effects people , mothers and babies.
This is exactly how i view it FROM LUKE 23:38-31 aramaic New testament

(remember to read any English translation from the Greek manuscripts and this will be seen.)

shalom u'Bracha

Ant-Ant

The actual passage is:

26As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" '[4] 31For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...age=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on


The Bible is talking about women who cannot have kids, not women who have abortions. This is likely a metaphor for something, as I cannot see God punishing people for merely being unable to have a child.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well, as Sojeru has shown there actually was scripture that delt specifically with abortion. There was also the Apochalypse of Peter that specifically condemned abortion and spoke of a special place in Hell that was reserved for those who had abortions. I think it is clear that abortion was definitely an issue in biblical times. I think the question Christians should ask is this: If there was scripture that dealt directly with abortion, wwhy wasn't this scripture included in the accepted canon? If Christians truly believe that the Early Church Fathers were guided by God when they wrote and collated the scripture, then what conclusion must drawn when they rejected the Apochalypse of Peter, second only to the Gospel of John in popularity among early Christians?

Being against abortion for many reasons is fine. I just think for Christians to be against abortion for religious reasons is on very shakey ground. The Early Church obviously decided it was ok.

Where exactly did Peter say this? Is that a literal statement or an interpretation?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this. But, here goes. It's obvious by many posts on these boards that there are many calloused, cold, people in this world. Who profess to care about human life, but support the destruction of a defensless life. I'm sickened by the whole thing. My children are the most beautiful, precious things to me. They've touched the lives of many around them. And to think that there are people out there that support snuffing that beauty and innocence out at will.

What really sickens me are those who say, "I wouldn't get an abortion, I don't agree with them. But I think a woman should have the right to choose."

If a women needs the right to choose, outlaw the practice and give her the right to choose an alley.

There is a difference between a child and a fetus; a fetus is a potential child. Do you cry for every sperm cell that falls into a toilet? They are technically potential children that never had the luck of finding an egg, does anyone that says its ok "to let sperm die" then deserve to be called a calloused, cold person who supports the destruction of human life?

 

[admtaylor]

The actual passage is:




http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+23&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on


The Bible is talking about women who cannot have kids, not women who have abortions. This is likely a metaphor for something, as I cannot see God punishing people for merely being unable to have a child.

What this prophecy was reffering to is in dispute in the church. Some believe that it referred to the take over of Jerusalem. The people literally had to run to the hills for their lives, because if they didn't they, man, woman and child would have been killed. And Jesus was speaking of how those with child would be under great discomfort during the time. His last statement in this referred to His crucifiction and how if the people would do that now, imagine what they will do in the future.

Some also think it speaks of the end times, when believers will have to take refuge in the hills because of their lack of ability to buy/trade in society and the persecution they will endure during those times.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I agree completely. I don't know how you can say you value humanity, and then advocate the destruction of human entities for the convenience of others.

Usually when they say "humans' they mean "persons" (the two are often times intechangeable) obviously almost everyone, even pro-choicers respect a person's right to life. Whether a fetus is a person and hence human though is a different matter entirely(and lets not forget embryos). That is likewise ultimately a matter of value judgement more then something factual.

A fetus thus is to a human what a seed is to a tree.


In the end then what you are saying is you respect a mindless embryo, more then you do a woman's right to her own life, her future and her privacy. Just because she did what you seem to feel is an act of carelessness(how did you decide btw that the act was careless?).

If I have to choose the future, freedom and privacy of a woman, with actual rights, I choose that over some mindless glob of cells, with only potential rights.