Abortion

[Luther073082]

I hate to interject but did everyone see who Patty Robertson endorsed?

Ruti "Tripple Divorce, pro-choice" Giuliani. (sp?)

Thank you Pat, thank you so much. On top of being a heretic and false prophet you have clearly show us all your true colors.

You are no spiritual leader, you are just out there to get votes for republicans. Please stop mascurading around as a preacher or some kind of spiritual leader because if you where then you would not have comprimised the morals that you preach in order to endorse the Republican's most likely candidate.

For too long you have mistaught and fooled the minds of the faithful with your heresies and false prophesies. Your have done nothing but blaspheme our Lord's teachings and now you comprimise our Lord's teachings because of political expedency. You clearly stand for nothing and your ministry is a ministry of poltics and not of God.

I was holding out hope for you that you where just a misguided heretical excuse for a Christian. But no longer. . .

In my mind I hearby excommunicate you from the Christian faith and consider you to be an unbeliver and servant of the world and possibly Satan. I pray you come back to the teachings of our Lord and stand for his teachings and not the Republican party.

May God have mercy on your soul Pat.

 

[Luther073082]

Before anyone gets mad at me let me clarify the above.

I am angry and excommunicating Pat in my own mind because he has used Christians to his own ends. Mainly money and votes for the republican party. Not because he endorsed a pro-choice candidate.

He teaches that God is pro-life and would not want us to vote for a pro-choice candidate. But then he endorses one, because he is a republican.

You can be a Christian and be pro-choice (Although severly misguided in my mind) or vote for pro-choice candidates.

But you can't claim you are Christian leader, form a "ministry" telling everyone to vote pro-life and then endorse a pro-choice candidate because he happens to be a republican.

He's used the name of Christ to get votes for republicans and that makes him IMO at the very least a blasphemous individual and a servant of this world.

Combine that with his heresies and false prophesies it makes it clear to me that Pat Robertson does not accept Jesus Christ as Lord but rather belives his name is a tool to his own vain purposes.

 

[ciaradawn]

thankyou for clarifying that Luther; I didn't really understand what you were talking about (mainly because I'm not up to speed on political issues). That's not right that he did that. Go figure, politics.

 

[Luther073082]

thankyou for clarifying that Luther; I didn't really understand what you were talking about (mainly because I'm not up to speed on political issues). That's not right that he did that. Go figure, politics.

I've always been very uncomfortable and suspicious of how Pat conducts his "ministry" because of how political it was.

But with this endorsement its now clear that his ministry is only ment to draw votes for republicans and not to serve God. No true Christian would use the name of Christ for something that did not come to God's service. And if he really belives that having a morally clean canddiate who is pro-life is a service to God then he would only endorse candidates that met those qualifications. Ruti Giuliani meets neither.

 

[die2live]

I do not think that argument holds, since I do not accept the validity of 'implicit' contracts, nor even promises. Only considerations exchanged can establish a contract because an 'implicit' contract or even promise have no basis of recompense; and recompensation of a person or his heirs is the ONLY legal system that could exist with real freedom.

Thus, if a child is expelled it is not owed anything. And, consequentially, judgement would be ludicrous since it could only be rendered to the mother of the child.

I don't think this argument holds because the duty of one person to another is not always established by contract.

Legally, no one has the right to take the life of another person unless that person is threatening their physical life. One is allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend their home and property. Even if an intruder were to forcibly enter a person's home and refuse to leave, the owner would have no legal right to take his life or to inflict extensive bodily injury on him unless the intruder were threatening his life or another innocent party's life.

The same should hold true in all cases. Unless the intruding party is threatening the life of the owner (which is not the case in most pregnancies), no lethal force should be lawful.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

The same should hold true in all cases. Unless the intruding party is threatening the life of the owner (which is not the case in most pregnancies), no lethal force should be lawful.

Pregnancy always taxes the mother's body, and it always carries a risk of harm or death. Yes, it is a small risk, but it there none the less. If the woman doesn't want to take that chance, she shouldn't have to.

In order for abortion to work with your analogy, you must first prove that a 12 week old fetus is an independant person capable of feeling pain (the ability of percieve pain at that stage has NOT be proven), breathing, and working independantly of outside life support. Until a fetus's body is able to perform it's major life support functions on it's own, I don't think it's really alive, so it's not murder.

 

[Luther073082]

Pregnancy always taxes the mother's body, and it always carries a risk of harm or death. Yes, it is a small risk, but it there none the less. If the woman doesn't want to take that chance, she shouldn't have to.

In order for abortion to work with your analogy, you must first prove that a 12 week old fetus is an independant person capable of feeling pain (the ability of percieve pain at that stage has NOT be proven), breathing, and working independantly of outside life support. Until a fetus's body is able to perform it's major life support functions on it's own, I don't think it's really alive, so it's not murder.

If you get into an accident and are on life support, then its ok if I come kill you. Because you can't function outside of life support. . . therefore you are not alive.

And why does she have to prove that the fetus is capable of feeling pain? If you define human life by the ability to feel pain then I for one think that is a shallow definition and also leaves open a lot of adults who for one reason or another can not feel pain right now.

And if the mother is worried about the risks carried with pregnancy then she should not have sex. Sex has its risks a child is one of those risks as are STD's. Whatever I do in my life I accept the risks for, no matter what it is. I accept the risk that my house may suddenly explode. I accept the risk that i may be killed a car accident when I drive to work. If I do not want to accept the risks for something, then I do not do it.

This is the problem I have with the whole thing. People act like they should be able to have sex without going through the risks involved. If she is unwilling to accept the risk of pregnancy then she should not have sex under any circumstances. And yes that means she should not get married and remain celibate. If he is not willing to accept the risk of having a child and caring for it, in the same way he should not have sex. And yes that should mean he should not get married and remain celibate.

In my opinion having sex signs off on saying you are willing to take these risks.

 

[ciaradawn]

Not everyone is smart enough to think things through like that; I know how that sounds, but for some people it's true. It's just not a perfect world and babies are sometimes born into the most horrible of circumstances. I know your reaction is going to be that "well doesn't that child deserve a chance at least?" well yeah, but what's the likelyhood that the kids gonna be a resposible citizen as opposed to a gang member?

 

[Luther073082]

Not everyone is smart enough to think things through like that; I know how that sounds, but for some people it's true. It's just not a perfect world and babies are sometimes born into the most horrible of circumstances. I know your reaction is going to be that "well doesn't that child deserve a chance at least?" well yeah, but what's the likelyhood that the kids gonna be a resposible citizen as opposed to a gang member?

I agree, if a gang member gets shot we shouldn't even treat them. Let em die.

In fact why don't we just go kill all the gang members now?

 

[ciaradawn]

I agree, if a gang member gets shot we shouldn't even treat them. Let em die.

In fact why don't we just go kill all the gang members now?

I don't know where you get off, but just because you try to make someone sound stupid doesn't make you any smarter or any better or any more right than anyone else. You can't justify your opinion by putting other people down.

 

[Luther073082]

I don't know where you get off, but just because you try to make someone sound stupid doesn't make you any smarter or any better or any more right than anyone else. You can't justify your opinion by putting other people down.

I apologize if it appears as though I'm trying to make you sound stupid. But I was making a point none the less.

I really can't condone taking someone's life because they might or even probably will become bad. I really can't condone taking someone's life because they will be poor. How in the world would you think the argument "Well they will probably turn into gang members anyways" would change my mind or the mind of any reasonable person?

 

[die2live]

Pregnancy always taxes the mother's body, and it always carries a risk of harm or death. Yes, it is a small risk, but it there none the less. If the woman doesn't want to take that chance, she shouldn't have to.

In order for abortion to work with your analogy, you must first prove that a 12 week old fetus is an independant person capable of feeling pain (the ability of percieve pain at that stage has NOT be proven), breathing, and working independantly of outside life support. Until a fetus's body is able to perform it's major life support functions on it's own, I don't think it's really alive, so it's not murder.

I pretty much agree with what Luther said, but I'll throw in my thoughts as well. It may not be proven that a fetus feels pain at less than 12 weeks, but it has been proven that it responds to touch, so it is logical to assume that pain receptors are in place. Here are some articles discussing the issue:

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2a-pain.html

So, basically, while it may not be proven, the evidence strongly supports the fetus's ability to feel pain as early as eight weeks.

About the risk, that's where the "reasonable force" comes in. It is not reasonable to take a life when the risk to one's own life is so negligible. Legally speaking anyway.

Not everyone is smart enough to think things through like that; I know how that sounds, but for some people it's true. It's just not a perfect world and babies are sometimes born into the most horrible of circumstances. I know your reaction is going to be that "well doesn't that child deserve a chance at least?" well yeah, but what's the likelyhood that the kids gonna be a resposible citizen as opposed to a gang member?

The lesser of two evils is still evil, particularly when there is a non-evil third option available (i.e. adoption). If a person cannot or does not want to provide for his/her child, then adoption is the only right answer. That person should not feel that it is their responsibility to care for a child if they are not able, but neither should they feel justified in taking the life of that child if they are not able. Simply because it is wrong to parent does not make it right to abort.

 

[Antigone]

Head-butting into the debate

If you get into an accident and are on life support, then its ok if I come kill you. Because you can't function outside of life support. . . therefore you are not alive.

If I ever end up on life support with no chance of getting better, you're welcome to come pull the plug.
Having said that, you're a little brazen comparing an not yet fully developed foetus to a person whose thoughts, memories and personality ARE developed. In my opinion, that difference is quintessential to the debate.

And if the mother is worried about the risks carried with pregnancy then she should not have sex. Sex has its risks a child is one of those risks as are STD's. Whatever I do in my life I accept the risks for, no matter what it is. I accept the risk that my house may suddenly explode. I accept the risk that i may be killed a car accident when I drive to work. If I do not want to accept the risks for something, then I do not do it.

This is the problem I have with the whole thing. People act like they should be able to have sex without going through the risks involved. If she is unwilling to accept the risk of pregnancy then she should not have sex under any circumstances. And yes that means she should not get married and remain celibate. If he is not willing to accept the risk of having a child and caring for it, in the same way he should not have sex. And yes that should mean he should not get married and remain celibate.

In my opinion having sex signs off on saying you are willing to take these risks.

Sex is just not that simple. This whole debate would probably not be necessary if we always made a conscious choice about whether or not to have sex, but life doesn't work that way.

 

[Tuffguy]

Not everyone is smart enough to think things through like that; I know how that sounds, but for some people it's true. It's just not a perfect world and babies are sometimes born into the most horrible of circumstances. I know your reaction is going to be that "well doesn't that child deserve a chance at least?" well yeah, but what's the likelyhood that the kids gonna be a resposible citizen as opposed to a gang member?

Judging someone to death before they have even breathed is completely illogical and downright coldhearted.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

If you get into an accident and are on life support, then its ok if I come kill you. Because you can't function outside of life support. . . therefore you are not alive.

Exactly. Many adults who end up like a 12 week fetus (no lung function, ect) after an accident are taken off of life support and pronounced dead.

but it has been proven that it responds to touch, so it is logical to assume that pain receptors are in place

Nope. Response to touch is a reflex. The stimulation for a reflex only reaches the spinal cord, and it's the spinal cord which tells the muscles to respond. The brain isn't involved in reflex response. If it was, the impulse would take too long to reach the brain and damage may have been done by the time the brain sends a response signal.

However, pain preception is different. In order to precieve pain, the impulse must reach the brain, and the brain interpets it. Pain and reflex are two different things. Reflex is primal and pain preception is more sophisticated. The precence of reflexual movement in a fetus does NOT mean that they are in pain.

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.

Yes, I realize that this study is controversial.
JAMA 2005 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

Also from the British Medical Journal

Conclusion
The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed. An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal. Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence. Legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress. Avoiding a discussion of fetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism21 but a sound policy based on good evidence that fetuses cannot experience pain.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=fetal+pain

So you also have strong evidence that a fetus CANNOT feel pain at at 8 or 12 weeks. I brought up fetal pain because many anti-abortion groups tell women that fetuses feel pain and they act like it's a 100% proven fact agreed on by every doctor and it's not. They twist the fact and then they jump all over Planned Parenthood for allegedly doing the exact same thing that they do.

Thank you for the links. They haven't convinced me of anything, I'm still pro-choice. However, I did read one of them, and part of the other. I'll have to finish it later because I need to go study. It is good to see what the other side thinks, even if you don't agree with it.

Having said that, you're a little brazen comparing an not yet fully developed foetus to a person whose thoughts, memories and personality ARE developed. In my opinion, that difference is quintessential to the debate.

Exactly

 

[die2live]

Exactly. Many adults who end up like a 12 week fetus (no lung function, ect) after an accident are taken off of life support and pronounced dead.


Nope. Response to touch is a reflex. The stimulation for a reflex only reaches the spinal cord, and it's the spinal cord which tells the muscles to respond. The brain isn't involved in reflex response. If it was, the impulse would take too long to reach the brain and damage may have been done by the time the brain sends a response signal.

However, pain preception is different. In order to precieve pain, the impulse must reach the brain, and the brain interpets it. Pain and reflex are two different things. Reflex is primal and pain preception is more sophisticated. The precence of reflexual movement in a fetus does NOT mean that they are in pain.


Yes, I realize that this study is controversial.
JAMA 2005 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

Also from the British Medical Journal
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=fetal+pain

So you also have strong evidence that a fetus CANNOT feel pain at at 8 or 12 weeks. I brought up fetal pain because many anti-abortion groups tell women that fetuses feel pain and they act like it's a 100% proven fact agreed on by every doctor and it's not. They twist the fact and then they jump all over Planned Parenthood for allegedly doing the exact same thing that they do.

Thank you for the links. They haven't convinced me of anything, I'm still pro-choice. However, I did read one of them, and part of the other. I'll have to finish it later because I need to go study. It is good to see what the other side thinks, even if you don't agree with it.

Exactly

I guess this goes to show that with a connection to the Internet, you can find support for whatever you want. So much for sources.

Well, we're probably at an impasse. Your links have not convinced me either.

For the record, I was not trying to necessarily prove that a fetus does feel pain. I was more trying to show that it has likewise not been proven that it doesn't feel pain. For as long as that fact remains uncertain (which it probably always will, knowing how stubborn people can be on both sides of the argument), I think it's barbaric to justify ripping apart someone because it "might" not feel pain.

In any case, I don't see how feeling or not feeling pain makes a person human.

 

[kingoffools13]

Exactly. Many adults who end up like a 12 week fetus (no lung function, ect) after an accident are taken off of life support and pronounced dead.


Nope. Response to touch is a reflex. The stimulation for a reflex only reaches the spinal cord, and it's the spinal cord which tells the muscles to respond. The brain isn't involved in reflex response. If it was, the impulse would take too long to reach the brain and damage may have been done by the time the brain sends a response signal.

However, pain preception is different. In order to precieve pain, the impulse must reach the brain, and the brain interpets it. Pain and reflex are two different things. Reflex is primal and pain preception is more sophisticated. The precence of reflexual movement in a fetus does NOT mean that they are in pain.


Yes, I realize that this study is controversial.
JAMA 2005 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

Also from the British Medical Journal
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=fetal+pain

So you also have strong evidence that a fetus CANNOT feel pain at at 8 or 12 weeks. I brought up fetal pain because many anti-abortion groups tell women that fetuses feel pain and they act like it's a 100% proven fact agreed on by every doctor and it's not. They twist the fact and then they jump all over Planned Parenthood for allegedly doing the exact same thing that they do.

Thank you for the links. They haven't convinced me of anything, I'm still pro-choice. However, I did read one of them, and part of the other. I'll have to finish it later because I need to go study. It is good to see what the other side thinks, even if you don't agree with it.

Exactly

your argument is that reflex and pain are separate however this is not the case. Reflex and pain work separatly but in fact can happen at the same time, just because your claim is that certain movements equate reflex (a claim that is not proven mind you) it does not mean that beyond the initial reflex action that the body will not then process and feel the pain. Reflex is a first response system for pain. Pain is an indicator for the body, designed to let the body know when something is going to cause it damage, reflexes are the bodies short cut to respond faster, it does not mean it doesn't hurt, it means that a secondary bodily function has been activated.

and for the record your BMJ link is pretty biased and really cant be considered a viable source. It is of note that Brittain unlike America did not have abortion "illegally" legalized like we did, they voted on it, which means a majority of the population was obviously for it. In America the law was changed by the court even though they do not hold the power to make such a decision.

K
O
f

 

[Luther073082]

If I ever end up on life support with no chance of getting better, you're welcome to come pull the plug.
Having said that, you're a little brazen comparing an not yet fully developed foetus to a person whose thoughts, memories and personality ARE developed. In my opinion, that difference is quintessential to the debate.

Well a fetus usually has a pretty good chance of getting off "life support" in a few months.

I see no differences, its a baby. It will most likely become a child through no action of the mother other then keeping herself alive.

Sex is just not that simple. This whole debate would probably not be necessary if we always made a conscious choice about whether or not to have sex, but life doesn't work that way.

The only time you don't make a concious choice is if you are raped. If you got drunk your fault, if you where on drugs your fault. Ultimatly rape is the only time where sex is not the fault of both you and your partner.

Although I will point out that it is considered rape by many people to have sex with someone while they are drunk or high. But I have a lot less sympathy for a person who drank willingly or took drugs willingly and then got raped then I do for a person who was date raped or something like that.

But either way, I'm sorry unless its rape . . . sex is a concious choice.

 

[Psalm32]

Simply ask your friend if she is Christian? If she is, then getting an abortion is rebellion against God, period. Only God has complete sovereignty over life.

If she is not a Christian, then this would be a blessed opportunity to expose her to the truth Christ brought to us.

 

[ciaradawn]

I'm just saying that it happens a lot; gangs and etc... and it's a drain on society, and adoption does not always go well either; same with foster families. If a kid grows up in a bad household they will probably turn to gangs or drugs, and that's not really judging the person before they're born, it's just likely. There is really no good solution and I'm just standing up for those people who choose another path. I personally would never do it, but I still stand by the fact that women should still be able to choose. Yours and my morals and choices are not everyone's. I know it's a far stretch to say that if they're not aborted they will become a gang member... etc... but I'm just saying; not every adopting family is going to be a good family.

Do any of you who don't believe in abortion have friends that have had one? I mean really good friends, not acquaintances. I'm just curious.