Abortion

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
....my mother had to choose between upholding life and enduring hardship, or destroying me and trying to put the pieces of her life together.

I'm sure glad she chose the first option.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Acts, your post about your mom and dad was a blessing to read. I'm so glad they made the decisions they did, and I'm glad you're here. I think when we try to do the right thing in life, God will always bless that and carry us thru. God bless you, Acts.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by DaveKerwin
.
Abortion is never ok.
Doctors can be wrong about the mother's death.
A baby conceived from rape can cure diseases, or do anything wonderful with its life. It does not deserve to die because of someone else's mistakes
Read here if interested
http://www.abortionismurder.com/
Look at the pictures here if you support abortion, get real folks, its murder!
http://www.abortionismurder.com/notconvinced.shtml
I am not up for a debate today, check the pics and see for yourself. Make your own conclusions after a peek into reality!

LOL! A peek into "reality" at the VERY objective abortionismurder.com??? Find me a REAL, somewhat objective website and I'll look at it.

Cure diseases? Huh?

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by VOW
Interesting thread.

The "what-ifs" and "supposedlys" and the heaping upon situations more qualifiers makes for an interesting argument, but is it real? How about some numbers? How many abortions are performed under the hypothetical situations you describe? Roe vs Wade has been around for a long time, how many followup studies have been done for the abortions performed under the hypothetical situations?

Not very many, of course.

What you all don't seem to understand is it's only the very rare cases that I'm talking about! I don't support "convenience abortions". I am not talking about "convenience abortions". I'm wondering about all thos borderline rare cases. I'm trying to discuss the grey area here. Okay?

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
Ummm what else could it be? I'm almost afraid to ask!

Could be considered a collection of cells, up to a certain point.

Or I could look at the terrible thing that happened, and be thankful that I did the right thing and saved the life of an innocent baby, I would rather look at the good that could come out of it. I really don't think I would be any worse off for saving it's life.

If life is created then it most certainly is meant to be, Maybe I didn't intend for the life to be created, but maybe God has a greater purpose for it, a purpose we can't even begin to see.

So God made sure that guy raped you and got you pregnant? God couldn't have thought up a better way to bring that baby into the world?

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
Hi all!

I (an orthodox Jew) quote from a book I have on the (orthodox!) Jewish approach to various medical issues by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich:

"Judaism regards the killing of an unborn child to be a serious moral offense. An abortion may be performed only for the gravest of reasons, and even then, only subsequent to consultation with a competent [orthodox] rabbinic authority...The life of the mother takes precedence over that of the unborn
child. Thus, when 'hard travail' of labor endangers the life of the mother, an embryotomy may be performed in order to save her...The fetus' right to life is subordinate to that of the mother, and hence the life of the unborn fetus may be sacrificed in order to save her...The performance of an abortion may be warranted for purposes of preserving maternal health as well as maternal life. No [orthodox rabbinic] authority permits an abortion which is non-therapeutic in nature. There are early rabbinic authorities who expressly declare that ritual laws such as Sabbath observance and fasting on Yom Kippur are suspended in order to preserve the life of the fetus. Suspension of such significant religious observances is clearly incompatible with indiscriminate license to destroy fetal life. Both the argument that a prospective mother may seek an abortion for any reason because denial of this right would interfere with her 'right to privacy' as well as the argument that the decision to abort is entirely a matter between a woman and her physician must be rejected as incompatible with Jewish teaching...Judaism teaches that man does not enjoy unrestricted proprietary rights with regard to his own body, much less so with regard to the body of an unborn child...The Talmud teaches that embryo is endowed with a soul at conception. Moreover, the Sages taught: 'There are 3 partners in the generation of man - the father, the mother and God.' Accordingly, a decision to terminate pregnancy is not one which is within the exclusive domain of the mother...It is well established that the quality of life to be anticipated if the fetus is carried to term is not, in itself, a sufficient reason for the performance of an abortion...Physical or mental abnormalities do not affect the human status of the individual or his
right to life...Most authorities rule that termination of pregnancy resulting from rape is not permissible. However, the immediate post-coital contraceptive measures undertaken prior to fertilization of the ovum present a different but complex Jewish-law question. Immediate removal of the sperm by means of a suction device...would be warranted."

Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control. I certainly object to government funding for abortions that are non-therapeutic in nature.

However, we would completely reject vigilante violence against doctors, nurses, etc. who are involved in abortions (as well as inciting to violence against them) & to bombing clinics. Opposition to non-therapeutic abortions must be carried out within the bounds of the law.

Questions?

ssv

Sounds good to me. I love Judaism. It's the best religion I've studied so far.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by VOW
To Mallory:

Ask the couple who has been undergoing fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. They have all their hopes and dreams riding on that clump of cells! THEY would call it a life, a baby!

Ask the woman who has felt quickening for the first time. Ask the man who has had his hand on the woman's belly, and felt his child kick.

By your reasoning, if the baby is born with Down's Syndrome, should you not allow it to draw the first breath? What about the women in India who have sonograms, and if it's a girl, they undergo abortion?

How many more steps would it take to refuse medication from a person with a heart problem, or a diabetic, or a child with Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell Anemia?

If all human life is NOT precious, then it's far, far too easy to justify killing off every undesirable, not just a fetus.

When did I say anything about aborting children with diseases? Huh?

Do you people just read the title of the thread then come in here and start preaching to me, is that what keeps happening? It must be the only explanation, since I assume you are all intelligent people.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Hi Mallory,

I guess I was still addressing the concept of abortion as a whole, including the rape scenario (I did address it at the end of my post though).

I understand the reasons why you think it would be unfair for a raped woman to carry the child of her attacker, I really do. But just as it is wrong to sexually attack another human being, it is also just as wrong to try to take the life of the resulting unborn child. Both the woman and the child are innocent.

Once the human life is created, trying to take it away will not make the situation right. It only creates another wrong in an already tragic situation. The point of my testimony was, regardless whether or not my Mom was raped, her pregnancy was as unintentional as a rape victim's. I was an unintentional "mistake" and I had the potential of altering my mother's life forever, regardless whether or not I was the product of a one night stand or a violent rape. Either way, my mother had to choose between upholding life and enduring hardship, or destroying me and trying to put the pieces of her life together.

I'm sure glad she chose the first option.

I wish people would stop addressing the "concept of abortion as a whole", because that's not what we're talking about here. I have not read one post on this thread where anyone claimed that abortion as a whole is fine, that convenience abortions are OK.

I really don't want to get into your mother's situation, because I don't want to insult you. All I'll say is, your mother was NOT RAPED. And I'm glad she chose the first option too.

You really think a two or three month old fetus' life is just as important as the mother's life? It's still a part of the mother's body. It can't live independently of the mother. Therefore it is not an independent living thing with rights. It has the potential to become a baby. But it's not a baby yet.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Yes you could get pregnant, it kinda happens that way, but you don't HAVE to. It is only by God's will that you do. The possibility of getting pregnant was never the issue, only the fact that God allows it.

AND it fits into God's will if you do get raped. Do I have to repeat myself in here?

Yes, you do, because I find that completely incomprehensible. Your God gets people to rape other people? Okay.

The raper intended to harm the girl, but God allows them to get pregnant to accomplish His own purpose. Do you know how many aborted kids might have found the cure for a disease? Or impacted someone else's life for the better? No and you never will. God intends something great for these children and you and your way of thinking want to kill them off before they get the chance.

What if it's "God's will" that someone gets an abortion?

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Don't you see that God doesn't like killing? And he evens declares a law against it in Genesis. The killing of a child cannot glorify God, and therefore cannot be part of His will.

Except if someone kills someone, then we have to kill the killer.

And unless he REALLY REALLY wants the Pharaoh to let his people go.

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Mallory Knox

I wish people would stop addressing the "concept of abortion as a whole", because that's not what we're talking about here. I have not read one post on this thread where anyone claimed that abortion as a whole is fine, that convenience abortions are OK.

You really think a two or three month old fetus' life is just as important as the mother's life? It's still a part of the mother's body. It can't live independently of the mother. Therefore it is not an independent living thing with rights. It has the potential to become a baby. But it's not a baby yet.

If "it's not a baby yet", then how can you disagree with convenience abortions? If "it's not a baby yet", you must give us a reason why convenience abortion are wrong. You can't have it both ways, Mallory.

The REASON I am against convenience abortions is because IT IS A BABY. Let's hear your reasoning against convenience abortions, please.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
If "it's not a baby yet", then how can you disagree with convenience abortions? If "it's not a baby yet", you must give us a reason why convenience abortion are wrong. You can't have it both ways, Mallory.

The REASON I am against convenience abortions is because IT IS A BABY. Let's hear your reasoning against convenience abortions, please.

Because it has the potential to become a baby. Because it is life. Because people need to take responsibility for their sexual activities. It shouldn't be taken lightly and performed freely.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Why did you ask for opinions, but then blame the males for offering them? There are many females that feel the same way as we do.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Hi Mallory. I'm impressed that you are willing to address everyone's posts despite the numerous replies you've been getting (must get kind of tiring, huh?).

You really think a two or three month old fetus' life is just as important as the mother's life?

Yes. A human life is a human life, regardless of it's age. Both the mother's and the fetus' lives are just as important. It's scary to weigh the importance of someone's life based soley on their age.

It's still a part of the mother's body.

The fetus is attached to the mother as an independent human organism; it is not a part of the mother (like a vein, tendon, or muscle is). A fetus can be developed and nurtured outside of a mother's body, so it is not a "part" of it. It is an human life, distinct from it's mother.

It can't live independently of the mother. Therefore it is not an independent living thing with rights. It has the potential to become a baby. But it's not a baby yet.

So when is it a baby? When it's able to live "independently of the mother"? My 3 1/2 month old son is still dependant on his mother, so are you telling me that my son doesn't have rights yet? Or are you saying that as long as the fetus is in the womb it is not a baby? If so then when does an unborn child "become" a baby, rather than a "potential baby"? I'm not understanding your logic. A baby can also be defined as an unborn fetus, so again - when does an unborn child go from being a "potential baby" to a "baby"? If you don't know then how can you ever believe that abortion is justified?

Rights are given to humans, not just humans that are independant of their mothers. Fetuses are unborn humans, and you cannot debate that fact. So whether you use the terms "fetus" or "baby", a human is living in it's mother's body. It is a human life. To take a human life is wrong.

I wish people would stop addressing the "concept of abortion as a whole", because that's not what we're talking about here. I have not read one post on this thread where anyone claimed that abortion as a whole is fine, that convenience abortions are OK.

So would you at least agree that abortions are wrong except in extreme, rare cases (like medical complications or rape)? Are you willing to agree that abortions for any other reason is wrong? It would be helpful for you to clarify this.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Yes. A human life is a human life, regardless of it's age. Both the mother's life and the fetus' live's are just as important. It's scary to place weigh the importance of someone's life based on their age.

AMEN!

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Why did you ask for opinions, but then blame the males for offering them? There are many females that feel the same way as we do.

You're right.

I just get annoyed when MEN say that a woman who was raped should suck it up and give birth and deal with it, when MEN say a woman should be willing to die in order to carry a fetus to term, stuff like that. I think you can understand that. But I asked, I shouldn't play the "male" card. I will not do it again. In this thread. Unless someone says something REALLY ignorant.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Yes. A human life is a human life, regardless of it's age. Both the mother's and the fetus' lives are just as important. It's scary to weigh the importance of someone's life based soley on their age.

Not age, really, just stage of development. A tiny two-month-old fetus that has no brain function or heartbeat is not equal to a grown woman!

The fetus is attached to the mother as an independent human organism; it is not a part of the mother (like a vein, tendon, or muscle is). A fetus can be developed and nurtured outside of a mother's body, so it is not a "part" of it. It is an human life, distinct from it's mother.

It is not independent and distinct from its mother if it cannot survive independently and distinctly from its mother.

So when is it a baby? When it's able to live "independently of the mother"? My 3 1/2 month old son is still dependant on his mother, so are you telling me that my son doesn't have rights yet? Or are you saying that as long as the fetus is in the womb it is not a baby? If so then when does an unborn child "become" a baby, rather than a "potential baby"? I'm not understanding your logic. A baby can also be defined as an unborn fetus, so again - when does an unborn child go from being a "potential baby" to a "baby"? If you don't know then how can you ever believe that abortion is justified?

Rights are given to humans, not just humans that are independant of their mothers. Fetuses are unborn humans, and you cannot debate that fact. So whether you use the terms "fetus" or "baby", a human is living in it's mother's body. It is a human life. To take a human life is wrong.

I think it is not a baby unless it can breathe on its own and live outside of its mother without machines. Until then it is a part of its mother.

Look, all I'm trying to say by this distinction, by saying that a fetus is not a baby, is that in the extreme cases where an abortion is necessary you are not "killing a baby". You are still doing something that is terrible, but necessary. Just not infanticide, which is one of if not THE worst thing you can do.

So would you at least agree that abortions are wrong except in extreme, rare cases (like medical complications or rape)? Are you willing to agree that abortions for any other reason is wrong? It would be helpful for you to clarify this.

This is exactly what I have said ALL ALONG!!!!

 

[StogusMaximus]

Hmmmmmm. Let's see how many "what if" situations we can come up with to justify abortion, shall we!

1. A woman is raped, and doesn't want to carry a baby resulting from that rape.
2. A woman is widow with 4 kids, and she will die if she gives birth.
3. A woman gets pregnant from an affair and doesn't want her husband to know.
4. A woman was drugged at a party and involuntarily had sex and became pregnant.
5. A woman got drunk and involuntarily had sex and became pregnant.
6. A fortune teller explains that her child will grow up to be a mass murder.
7. Her dog tells her how left out he will feel if she has a baby, and ignores him.
8. Aliens impregnated a woman, and her child will one day become destroy the human race?
9. She believes that she is a man trapped inside a woman's body.

That is about all I can think of now, anybody else?

 

[Mandy]

There is brain development and a heartbeat in a 2 month old fetus. The heart starts beating around 18 days after conception and the brain develops rapidly from conception as well. At 12 weeks after conception the fetus has everything, all of his/her limbs, heart, brain, etc and after this point the majority of what takes place is simply growth.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by Mallory Knox


LOL! A peek into "reality" at the VERY objective abortionismurder.com??? Find me a REAL, somewhat objective website and I'll look at it.

Cure diseases? Huh?

The reality that I was referring to it this, click this link

http://www.abortionismurder.com/graphics/03_10.JPG

I don't necessarily want you to read their opinions, I want you to see what an aborted baby looks like. I want to make this personal. If you can look at a picture and tell me that there is no real life there, then you are a sick human being. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they can do whatever they want with their own body. A person should not force their opinions on an innocent child that did not ask to be in this world. Click that link and then you describe for me (IN DETAIL) about the "tissue" that gets scraped out of a womb.

 

[StogusMaximus]

Originally posted by Mallory Knox
Not age, really, just stage of development. A tiny two-month-old fetus that has no brain function or heartbeat is not equal to a grown woman!

What if the pregnant woman is in a car wreck and she has severe brain damage, and all of here organs are pretty much destroyed. She is being kept alive by machines only, and her brain function is zero! Her fetus is in perfect shape, no obvious damage.

Now if she gives birth she will surely die, but if she has an abortion, she can be kept alive for an undetermined amount of time.