Abortion: What is your belief

[Natman]

Unfortunately, I cannot vote with the choices given. I believe that the only viable reason for an abortion would be to save the life of the mother in the event of eminent death. Otherwise abortion is murder.

 

[gbear]

I find it interesting that the gods of the people that the Lord wanted His people Israel to utterly destroy many times demanded the sacrifice of new borns.

Baal worship included a small statue of the god that was heated to red hot and then firstborn infants were essentially BBQed on the outstretched arms of the statue. Although abortion is probably considered less gruesome than this... still, a living soul that God has destined to enter into the world is willfully destroyed.

Some of these gods were gods of pleasure... when an unwanted child arrives on the scene as the result of simple sexual lust and desire for this kind of pleasure... who is the sacrifice made to when the child is disgarded in abortion??

There is also an awful lot of guilt and shame to deal with for a woman that submits herself to such a procedure... it may not have full force right away but it will definitely affect her spiritually, emotionally and yes, possibly even physically.

Jesus loves the little children... all the little children of the world... red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight... Jesus loves the little children of the world.

 

[Lisa0315]

Erm, if you look at the quote that you took from my post I don't believe that you'll find the word murder in it anywhere. The murder issue hinges upon the personhood of the fetus. You can't murder someone who isn't a person. Since I don't believe that an embryo is a person, I don't believe that abortion is murder. This has been argued about a million times before, so I'm not going to argue it further here, as I'd see that as hijacking what began as a simple poll. My personal decision not to have an abortion in no way illegitimatizes someone else's decision to have one.

The poll is not intended to be simple. Feel free to debate away. I put it here in P & E for a reason.

 

[Lisa0315]

Unfortunately, I cannot vote with the choices given. I believe that the only viable reason for an abortion would be to save the life of the mother in the event of eminent death. Otherwise abortion is murder.

Noted. I wonder if I can add an option once a poll has commenced. I will try and get back to you.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Unfortunately, I cannot vote with the choices given. I believe that the only viable reason for an abortion would be to save the life of the mother in the event of eminent death. Otherwise abortion is murder.

No, sorry. It would not let me add an option.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Are you merely arguing that the BC Pill and abortion is wrong (I agree), []

Why do you believe that the Pill is wrong?

Just a couple of notes:
Today "the Pill" is most commonly (almost always?) the mini-Pill, often, ah I'm too lazy to look this up I believe the phrase is "tri-cyclic".

One version of the mini-pill prevents implantation somewhere (from memory so if you have numbers from an actual peer-reviewed paper please provide them) around 25-30% of the time.

There is no reason I am aware of to think the original Pill prevented implantations.

About 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages. Requiring all women who are having sexual intercourse to have monthly pregnancy tests followed by months of bedrest would prevent a significant number of miscarriages...

 

[paleodoxy]

There is no reason I am aware of to think the original Pill prevented implantations.

Most people agree that it is rare, but that it still happens.

My rule of thumb: when in doubt, don't.

 

[paleodoxy]

Unfortunately, I cannot vote with the choices given. I believe that the only viable reason for an abortion would be to save the life of the mother in the event of eminent death. Otherwise abortion is murder.

Hi, Nat! Good to be talking to you again.

Respectfully, I never have been able to understand this position.

Here, in fact, is a recent post I wrote on this question at another message board:

-------------------------------------

I run into a lot of pro-lifers who do great until they come to the question of risking the life of the mother if an abortion isn't performed.

What's up with that?

The problem with making this exception, in my mind, is that people are trying to live in a world where they are capable of anticipating and responding to all possible contingencies. In other words, rather than acknowledge the limitedness of human capacity (we are only morally responsible for the direct effects of our decisions), we try to play God and anticipate all possible contingencies.


Rather than making decisions based on what we know to be the case (actively terminating a life is murder), we make our decisions based on what will possibly or probably happen under the conditions of x,y,z scenario.

I submit that there will be no end to the moral and ethical dilemmas that we face in life if that's the path we choose to follow.

 

[Natman]

My statement was concerning the "eminent" death of the mother. That would be that death was obviously near, during that cat of childbirth or in the event of a biochemical imbalance produced by the pregnancy that would bring the mother to the point of eminent death.

Even in many of these cases, the child can be delivered prematurely and still have very high probability of survival.

I believe that under those conditions, medical science is very capable of predicting the near outcome.

I am not saying that a doctor would prescribe an abortion right off the bat if there is a chance that the mother may die from the pregnancy or delivery.

 

[paleodoxy]

My statement was concerning the "eminent" death of the mother. That would be that death was obviously near, during that cat of childbirth or in the event of a biochemical imbalance produced by the pregnancy that would bring the mother to the point of eminent death.

Even in many of these cases, the child can be delivered prematurely and still have very high probability of survival.

I believe that under those conditions, medical science is very capable of predicting the near outcome.

I am not saying that a doctor would prescribe an abortion right off the bat if there is a chance that the mother may die from the pregnancy or delivery.

Thanks, Nat.

Just for future reference, your Eminence: that's imminent death

Sorry, I'm picky like that.

 

[JonF]

Anti-abortion laws are one of the few forms of forced morality I am all in favor of. The only exception to this imho would be if it was clear that there was a significant chance the mother would lose her life. I don’t think it is the states place to force a mother to risk her life for her child. But, of course any descent mother would do so. As for the people who think that rape/incest should be an exception, I don’t think they have thought there position out very well. If abortion is a sin, it’s because it’s murder. Killing an innocent can’t be justified by something horrible that happened to someone else.

 

[paleodoxy]

BTW,

I don't agree with you, Nat. But your response does make me feel a little better.

I don't believe it is murder to passively allow someone to die IF intervention means actively taking another life. Commission and omission in this case are in two entirely different moral categories, IMHO

So...still not convinced.

 

[BereanWorkman]

As members of the Body of Christ, it is not only a priveledge but also our responsibility to reflect the charector and righteosness of God. We should support what He would support....

 

[JonF]

Respectfully, I never have been able to understand this position.

All it is saying is you shouldn’t force someone to give up their lives for another. What they should do is another issue.

The problem with making this exception, in my mind, is that people are trying to live in a world where they are capable of anticipating and responding to all possible contingencies. In other words, rather than acknowledge the limitedness of human capacity (we are only morally responsible for the direct effects of our decisions), we try to play God and anticipate all possible contingencies.

I really doubt anticipating contingencies is playing God. You also have a few logical errors here: Ad Ignorantiam, Straw man, and an inappropriate dismissal.

Rather than making decisions based on what we know to be the case (actively terminating a life is murder), we make our decisions based on what will possibly or probably happen under the conditions of x,y,z scenario.

Do you carry a spare tire in your car? If you own a house do you have insurance? Do you think it’s ok to vaccinate children for disease?

I submit that there will be no end to the moral and ethical dilemmas that we face in life if that's the path we choose to follow.

I think there will be no end to moral and ethical conundrums till we die or Jesus comes back no mater what we do.

 

[JonF]

As members of the Body of Christ, it is not only a priveledge but also our responsibility to reflect the charector and righteosness of God. We should support what He would support....

Agreed, but in most issues I don’t think we should FORCE non Christians to live the way we do since we only live the biblical ethical life we do because of God. This is why I hold the exception of the mothers life in jeopardy.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Most people agree that it is rare, but that it still happens.

Based on what?

My rule of thumb: when in doubt, don't.

So a woman should have enforced bedrest when she finds she is pregnant?

 

[Sam Gamgee]

woman's right to choose.

 

[paleodoxy]

All it is saying is you shouldn’t force someone to give up their lives for another. What they should do is another issue.

I would be her husband...making that decision.

I really doubt anticipating contingencies is playing God. You also have a few logical errors here: Ad Ignorantiam, Straw man, and an inappropriate dismissal.

Seeing as how you invented two out of three logical "fallacies"...identify the Straw Man in my argument.

Do you carry a spare tire in your car? If you own a house do you have insurance? Do you think it’s ok to vaccinate children for disease?

Speaking of Ad Ignorantium...

For there to be a correlation, there must be things called..um...similar conditions...and whatnot.

 

[Natman]

Just for future reference, your Eminence: that's imminent death

Sorry, I'm picky like that.

Hey, that's okay. Thanks for checking my spelling for me. Heaven knows I need it.


I wasn't certain if I had the it right so I quickly ran it through spell check and it passed. 'Didn't think to look up the synonym.


At any rate, this is one of those situations where I believe that if I were pregnant (which is impossible, thank God), I would probably choose to save the life of the child, primarily because I already KNOW my destiny. However, I could understand the point that a mother could have another child, and, if she is not saved, could come to a saving knowledge of God in the mean time.

 

[JonF]

Seeing as how you invented two out of three logical "fallacies"...identify the Straw Man in my argument.

Did I now?
Ad Ignorantiam: An appeal to ignorance
Straw man: Substitution of an argument for a similar, yet weaker argument
inappropriate dismissal: Dismissal of the argument it self on unfair grounds. Such as it isn’t worth my time, commonly called the pooh-pooh fallacy.

"...identify the Straw Man in my argument

In other words, rather than acknowledge the limitedness of human capacity (we are only morally responsible for the direct effects of our decisions), we try to play God and anticipate all possible contingencies.

Speaking of Ad Ignorantium...

And im supposed to the one who is misusing fallacies? Ad Hominem ring a bell?

For there to be a correlation, there must be things called..um...similar conditions...and whatnot.

Was in response to

Do you carry a spare tire in your car? If you own a house do you have insurance? Do you think it’s ok to vaccinate children for disease

and

Rather than making decisions based on what we know to be the case (actively terminating a life is murder), we make our decisions based on what will possibly or probably happen under the conditions of x,y,z scenario.

First of all I wasn’t arguing correlation, I was arguing by contradiction of a special case. But even if was trying to make a comparative, there is a correlation. Allow me to spell it out for you. We will go with the fire insurance example.
Similar relevant features of the comparative:
You buy fire insurance not based on there actually currently being a fire
You buy fire insurance based on what possible or probably could happen
Owning fire insurance is a only beneficial under certain conditions.

Dissimilar relevant features of the comparative:
One is a specific case, one is a general statement.

Your statement is we should only base decisions on we do know, not what could possible happen. (A general statement). Then you cited a special case of this, worrying about exceptions to abortion. I disagreed with this by challenging your general statement with several exceptions. So unless you are willing to admit that you shouldn’t own fire insurance, carry a spare tire, or vaccinate children your generalization fails, and thus your special case doesn’t follow from it.