Abortion

jazzbird said:

So you don't believe that it is a person from the very beginning? Just wanting to clarify.

Click to expand...

I believe that it is a person within hours, thats why the hormone is secreted within hours. Just wanted to clarify!

Psalm 139:15-16, "My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth {Wrought in a place as dark, as obscure, and as much beyond the power of human observation as though it had been done low down beneath the ground where no eye of man can penetrate.} Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them."

God's eye is on the unborn child.

What we have here is a semantic war between those who demand the right to destroy children for any reason, or no reason, and those who would defend the right of the unborn to live. In many cases abortion amounts to nothing less than child sacrifice on the altar of hedonism.

Never mind the Clintonesque maneuvering over the definition of is. In the United States no person may be put to death without due process of law. Except, of course, infants who are inconvenient. That is barbaric and utterly indefensible.

Just curious for those who are prolife...are any of you for the death penalty?

mark kennedy said:

I believe that it is a person within hours, thats why the hormone is secreted within hours. Just wanted to clarify!

Click to expand...

Thanks. It sounded like you were saying it wasn't a person until after the first trimester.

transientlife said:

Just curious for those who are prolife...are any of you for the death penalty?

Click to expand...

Honestly I support the death penalty but I am aware that the innocent will be caught in the mechanism of the legal system. I hate that. I would like to be as dogmatic as the Catholic Jesuits that both abortion and capitol punishment are murder, but I really can't do that in good conscience. Sorry if that seems like a contradiction but I still believe that if you shed the blood of man then by man your blood be shed. Still I believe that snuffing out the unborn fetus is a sick form of birth control, maybe I'm being sentimental or soft hearted, I can live with that characterization though.

I'm prochoice (but I dont think abortion is the way to go) but I ride the fence on the death penalty issue...I am just curious to see the different viewpoints from the prolifers...

transientlife said:

I'm prochoice (but I dont think abortion is the way to go) but I ride the fence on the death penalty issue...I am just curious to see the different viewpoints from the prolifers...

Click to expand...

I'm right there with you on both matters.

Pro-choice, bit iffy on the death penalty, but like the guys who were involved in 9/11 and bali and said they are happy and want to do it again, those sort of people I go more on the side of the detah penalty. I'm pro-choice doesn;t mean I like people having abortions but I will not think ill of them because of it.

transientlife said:

Just curious for those who are prolife...are any of you for the death penalty?

Click to expand...

In Genesis 9:6 the shedding of human blood is sternly prohibited. “Your blood of your lives.” The blood which belongs to your lives, which constitutes the very life of your corporeal nature. “Will I require.” I, the Lord, will find the murderer out, and exact the penalty of his crime. The very beast that causes the death of man shall be slain. The suicide and the homicide are alike accountable to God for the shedding of man’s blood. The penalty of murder is here proclaimed - death for death. It is an instance of the law of retaliation. This is an axiom of moral equity. He that deprives another of any property is bound to make it good or to suffer the like loss. --Albert Barnes

This principle has not changed. In Matthew 26:52 Jesus warnes Peter that "Those who take the sword (i.e. without authority to do so) will die by it".

Arguments of unintended consequences notwithstanding, the death penalty is Biblically sound.

Those of you who say you support abortion, or if you prefer, 'pro-choice', would do well to consider the far reaching implications of it. It is not simply a matter of privacy or personal right.

I think the applicable analogy is that someone leaves a baby on your doorstep in a blizzard. you cannot get the child to anyone else for the next few weeks. Do you leave it to die outside simply because it was forced on you?

Click to expand...

Okay, no - it's not remotely the same thing. Being 'asked' by circumstance to be a steward of an infant for a few weeks is drastically different from being asked by circumstance to bear a child and then give it up.
Firstly, one is a few weeks, another is nine months. Huge time difference there. Also, carrying a child means just that, having it your body messing with your hormones, making you sick in the moring, warping your inner organs, you're tired most of the time, you crave bizzarre foods, you are easily upset and agitated and that puts a strain on any and all personal relationships you may be having at the time. These are things you can't hire a babysitter for and you can't escape them until the baby is born (which is a whole 'nother issue) So... no, I don't think the two compare at all thank you.

I see. Inconvenience justifies killing.

No, it doesn't. But it's till a bad analogy, and nothing remotely like being raped and getting pregnant, because - though I didn't bother to mention it, assuming it would be obvious - there's in addition to all in my previous post the trauma of having been forced to have sex (FORCED, not being flippant, not being careless, being FORCED) and depending on the age of the expectant 'mother' that's a HUGE burden in itself without the pregnancy to add to it.

Mylinkay Asdara said:

No, it doesn't. But it's till a bad analogy, and nothing remotely like being raped and getting pregnant, because - though I didn't bother to mention it, assuming it would be obvious - there's in addition to all in my previous post the trauma of having been forced to have sex (FORCED, not being flippant, not being careless, being FORCED) and depending on the age of the expectant 'mother' that's a HUGE burden in itself without the pregnancy to add to it.

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you're refering to my post #94 here since you are talking about an analogy.

No, its a very approprate analogy. You can tac on that you lost your husband in the blizzard and thus the child reminds you of that tramatic event, etc..

You're assosating that event with the child, thus with the same logic if anything tramtic is assosated with a child you should be able to murder them to stop you being reminded of that event. I'm sure glad my mom doesn't think that way

"depending on the age of the expectant 'mother' that's a HUGE burden in itself without the pregnancy to add to it"

I totally agree, though it does not excuse murder of a child.

Mylinkay Asdara said:

No, it doesn't. But it's till a bad analogy, and nothing remotely like being raped and getting pregnant, because - though I didn't bother to mention it, assuming it would be obvious - there's in addition to all in my previous post the trauma of having been forced to have sex (FORCED, not being flippant, not being careless, being FORCED) and depending on the age of the expectant 'mother' that's a HUGE burden in itself without the pregnancy to add to it.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought that up because (although it is probably a very rare occurance), pregnancies do sometimes result from rape.

Now, I bring this up because we were just discussing the death penalty. Most of us would say it would be absolutely wrong for the woman who was raped to kill her attacker if it made her feel better. Yes, what he did was wrong and he should be severely punished...but the death penalty? No, that's over the top, right?

So why should the innocent child have to pay with its life for the crimes of its father? We don't support the killing of the raper, why the innocent child that did nothing wrong? Isn't that just doubling the injustices?

Well, despite the insistance of many here, we have still not established that it is in fact murder. Also, children - in cases of most courts - are not considered capbable of being responsible for murder until a certian age (and even then only the most overt acts of actually pre-meditating and bringing a gun to school will get a child charged as an adult) not to mention, most children - such as myself - don't get a real 'say' in the matter. The parents tell them what they're going to do and they're more or less powerless to do otherwise. Scared children listen to their parents on these issues, i know I did.

Losing a loved one is not like being raped. nothing you can say is like being raped as a child. It is probably the most innerself destroying event that can ever occur in a child's life. I think you underestimate the significant psycological damage that results from being raped hugely.

I think we should kill rapists - yes I most certianly do. Maybe not all rapists (date rapists can probably be reformed, as can some other adult offenders - however people who rape children are almost never reformed and so I think they should be put to death)

Mylinkay Asdara said:

Well, despite the insistance of many here, we have still not established that it is in fact murder. Also, children - in cases of most courts - are not considered capbable of being responsible for murder until a certian age (and even then only the most overt acts of actually pre-meditating and bringing a gun to school will get a child charged as an adult) not to mention, most children - such as myself - don't get a real 'say' in the matter. The parents tell them what they're going to do and they're more or less powerless to do otherwise. Scared children listen to their parents on these issues, i know I did.

Losing a loved one is not like being raped. nothing you can say is like being raped as a child. It is probably the most innerself destroying event that can ever occur in a child's life. I think you underestimate the significant psycological damage that results from being raped hugely.

Click to expand...

Again, you're saying because the child reminds you of something that happened you can murder him/her. Under that same logic you can murder your husband if he wasn't there to help you and that will remind you of the rape, you can murder your neighbor who was home but didnt "notice" anything and that reminds you of the rape, etc...

As for the child being alive, I think its well established that at a certain point before it is born it is a human with all those rights, yet NO :anti-life" (per glax's notation) people will stand up and fight for it. and you call yourselves liberals...sheesh.

gladiatrix said:

But then it doesn't quite stir the emotions to use the correct terminology now does it?

Click to expand...

Maybe I'll just start calling it a baby, since essentially that's what it is anyway.

gladiatrix said:

I guess that is why Joe Scheidler and other leaders of your movement are so into the Use of Inflammatory Rhetoric (Chap. 47-Closed! 99 Ways to Stop Abortion). Then this lot has the profound hypocrisy to try and claim they "don't advocate violence" when that sort of language breeds nothing but violence! You will just have to understand when I find your disclaimers that you don't agree with them a bit disingenuous (Scheidler et al are the LEADERS of your movment, if you don't agree with sort of tack then why do you tolerate them and why are books like his sold on nearly every anti-choicer site with an on-line bookstore?)

Click to expand...

I did not say that I won't associate myself with pro-life leaders. I'm sorry if I don't speak with enough clarity.
I said:

you are equating the horrible hateful words and actions of a small group of "anti-choicers" to all of us. Let me tell you that I find those people despicable.

Click to expand...

This is in response to your accusations that I and all pro-lifers are out to punish all who are involved in abortion by any means necessary. You equate me with those who want to bomb clinics, scream "baby killer" at women walking into the buildings, harrass children of abortion doctors, and on and on and on. What I am asking is that you do not associate me with the small group of fanatics who go to far. You see us all as one homogenous group of hate-mongerers, don't you? You need to learn how to deal with your prejudice and start listening to people as individuals.

As far as Joe Scheidler goes, I do not know everything he's ever said, so I can't tell you whether I completely agree with him or not, but from what I know, he is not as you paint him to be. Here is an excerpt from his chapter on inflammatory rhetoric. You make it sound like he proposes that we all act hatefully and violently toward pro-choicers and abortionists, yet if you actually read it, you will see that's not the intent. The intent, rather is to be able to deal firmly and factually with pro-choicers. As you yourself demonstrate, many pro-choicers are very abrassive, condescending, arrogant and half-truthful in their attacks. Therefore, pro-lifers cannot be feeble and hesitant in their dialogue.

Use Inflammatory Rhetoric
As a former journalism instructor of the "old school" of objective reporting, I have always believed in using accurate, factual descriptions and definitions. That is why abortion is referred to throughout this book as "killing," and why the unborn child is called a "baby," and why a pregnant woman or girl is called a "mother." These are accurate, on-target words for the reality of what we are describing.

But to the abortionists, these are all examples of "inflammatory rhetoric." The abortionists prefer to disguise the reality of what they are engaged in by using vague, evasive words and phrases. They have to mask the monstrosity of abortion. They refer to the child as "fetal tissue" or merely the "P.O.C" (product of conception). It does not sound as barbaric, they reason, to remove fetal tissue, as it does to dismember a live human baby. It is easier to "interrupt" a "problem pregnancy" than it is to "kill" a new human life.

Abortionists thrive on such euphemisms and weasel words. Like things that creep around in the dark, they hate to have the bright light of truth shine on their activities. Many chafe at being called "abortionists," even though they may spend the greater part of their medical "practice" cutting up, salting out, or otherwise destroying human life.

Many abortionists are embarrassed to admit their involvement in abortion, and they wish to keep that phase of their practice quiet. It is important for pro-life activists to take every opportunity to broadcast the fact that Dr. So-and-So violates his oath to protect life. It is important to associate them in the public eye with their profession.

Samples of other "inflammatory rhetoric" that pro-lifers must use at appropriate times to counter pro-abortion jargon are "holocaust," for America’s abortion culture, "abortuary" or "death camp," to describe the abortion clinic, "abortifacient," for pills and IUDs, "fornication," for sex outside marriage, "adultery," for "having an affair."

Inflammatory rhetoric must be used with discretion.Do not always use the strongest terms or you will dilute their force when they are most needed. Inflammatory rhetoric is best used for emphasis. Other accurate but less descriptive terms should be used in most discourse, interviews, talks, and writing. A constant litany of inflammatory terms distracts an audience from the main point of a talk. It may lead them to believe anger and revenge motivate the speaker.

The abortionists consider nearly any reference to reality of abortion, pregnancy, and reproduction that does not fit their description as "inflammatory," just as they regard nearly any form of pro-life activity as "harassment" or "terrorism."

But then, people who kill babies for living are not going to be particularly accurate in describing their trade, or our efforts to shut down that industry.

Click to expand...

Please tell me what is so appalling about what has been said in the above. You failed to mention that there is also a chapter in this book on violence and why it is not to be used. You also fail to mention the violence that has been waged against pro-lifers by pro-choice people. Scheidler again:

This author has been struck, spit on, pushed, and received innumerable death threats, warnings, insults, and crank calls; he has had his sight damaged, tires slashed, office windows cut with glasscutters and broken with rocks, his office painted with roofing tar and his home vandalized. Nearly all pro-life activist leaders can cite a similar list of malicious acts. Some pro-life offices have been fire-bombed. Pro-life pickets and counselors have had buckets of water thrown on them, have had cars driven toward them at high speeds, have been struck by these cars and with clubs by clinic guards. We have almost all been subject to a variety of insults and injuries. Few of these incidents ever get reported, since many police departments are reluctant to acknowledge that they happened. There have been very few arrests of abortionists made, and even fewer guilty verdicts handed down.

Click to expand...

Gladiatrix said:

When you see the problem, you try to skam us with the "uniqueness" argument. The fact remains that IF I made a hundred clones of the person from whom the appendix came, using the nucleus from a single cell from that appendix for each clone, each one would be nothing more than an IDENTICAL TWIN of the donor. Again are you really going to try to tell me that these people aren't also unique human beings, JUST because their DNA is identical?

Click to expand...

The fact remains that your appendix arguement is still superfluous because though it CAN be used to create a clone, that is not it's purpose or function in life, and a discarded appendix is nothing but a hunk of tissue. It is not a developing organism. This whole appendix thing is the same as these ridiculous assertions by others on this board:

Justaman said:

The exact same thing could be said of you everytime you have your period and you didn't go out and get inseminated. By not doing that, you let that potential human die. Each egg is a specific individual, a brother or sister to the others. When you lose that egg in menstruation, you murder the chance for the human who would have grown from that egg to ever exist. You slay a brother or sister to the others. The personality and identity of the human who could have been will now never exist.

Is inaction a good enough excuse to commit these monthly slaughters? You do realise that each of those eggs would have grown to be a different human right? How can you live with yourself?

Click to expand...

holodoctor1 said:

If you think it is an unborn child, you must think of everything that has the potential for life. If this is true, then every sperm that doesn't make contact with an egg is killing unborn children.

Click to expand...

What pro-choice people seem to fail to recognize is the difference between something that has the potential to develop into new life, and a new life that already is developing. So, let's just drop all this talk regarding unfertilized eggs which are being "murdered" (LOL) each month,and the appendix that is not given the opportunity to become a clone. It's innacurate and it's distracting from the true arguement.

I don't call myself anything other than my name, given to me at my birth (which almost was an abortion) I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm not pro-ignorance of reality either. I'm pro-choice, all kinds of choice. It's a choice to murder someone - now it may not be a moral choice, but it is a choice. It's a choice to have an abortion - again, moral or no it's a choice that should be available because having the freedom of choice doesn't mean much if you don't have options to choose from. Look, we can go roundy round all day. I frankly don't understand why you're all hyped up - as Christians don't you believe that the babies soul goes to Heaven immediately? So what's the issue? That they didn't get to 'live' on earth? A lot of babies who get aborted wouldn't have anything resembling what you and I would consider a 'good' lives.

Mylinkay Asdara said:

I'm pro-choice, all kinds of choice. It's a choice to murder someone - now it may not be a moral choice, but it is a choice. It's a choice to have an abortion - again, moral or no it's a choice that should be available because having the freedom of choice doesn't mean much if you don't have options to choose from.

Click to expand...

Do you hear yourself? You just compared abortion to murder and demanded the right to choose to murder if it suits you.

Look, we can go roundy round all day. I frankly don't understand why you're all hyped up - as Christians don't you believe that the babies soul goes to Heaven immediately? So what's the issue? That they didn't get to 'live' on earth? A lot of babies who get aborted wouldn't have anything resembling what you and I would consider a 'good' lives.

Click to expand...

You don't? The final destination of the spirit does not convey the right to murder under the guise of 'being better off'. Sheesh.