Abortion

[DXRocker73]

Ok... I've been out a few days at a Catholic conference, so I just skimmed over the last few pages of posts since my own last post. So I apologize if I may leave something out or touch on something long since covered.

Here is my total view on abortion, and why. Including references.

I'm pro-life. Meaning I find abortion to be murder. I don't believe a mother has the right to murder the baby in her womb any more than a mother has the right to murder her two year old.

I find abortion to be murder based on facts. Scientific, medical, and logical facts. Religon has nothing to do with my belief on abortion.

I often wonder why people are so quick tp point the finger at my religon as being the reason for my opinion. I really have to ask just what are they talking about. Perhaps it's because Catholics believe the 5th Commandment out of the Bible is Thou shalt not kill. But very few would disagree with that line of thinking, so I wonder why people are so quick to blame the Church.

This, is murder (Or murdered, to be exact. Same difference.):

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

That is murder, out of the dictionary. The first two, apply to abortion. Very much so. Even if abortion is legal, it is still killing abother human being. Which makes the law hypocritical to itself. Did you know, that if a preganant woman is murdered, the convicted killer can be so under two counts of murder? For the woman and baby in her womb. Now if that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

If I were to define murder my own way, I'd say it was it was the killing of an innocent human being or one that is incapable of self-defense. Babies can't defend themselves, they don't choose the fate of abortion, it's murder.

Now, just so we cover some bases, let's ask a few questions...

First of all, is the baby in the womb, alive?

Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.

Next, is the baby human?:

Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.

One thing I'll comment on here, is the mere logic of this question. Seriously people, name one woman who's ever given birth to anything but a human. Can you? I doubt it. Humans give birth to humans, dogs give birth to dogs, lizards give birth to lizards. There's no such thing as inter-species breeding.

To say a baby in the womb of a human mother, is not human, is hilarious! Pure simple logic without the science tells us that a baby in the womb of a mother is human. Next question...

Is the baby complete?:

Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.

Dr. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, said that seven days after after fertilization: ". . . the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mother’s menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which foetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months.
"We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort deter-mines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less it if is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his birthday, for unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus.

"This, then, is the foetus we know and, indeed, we each once were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for be-fore and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient.

Is the baby a person?:

"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."

Good question, just what is a person... can you tell me?

Next question...
Does the baby in the womb, feel pain?:

At eight weeks of age...

By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.

Now note that the answer to all of those questions were made out of fact, based on science. They are not my, nor the opinions of the pro-life.

Now all questions aside, this next part is for the Americans, no wait, not just Americans, but those who live upon the blessings of Western Culture itself. Did you know that not only is abortion un-Constitutional, but goes against everything western culture ever stood for? Here's a writing on that:

For two millennia in our Western culture, written into our constitutions, specifically protected by our laws, and deeply imprinted into the hearts of all men and women, there has existed the absolute value of honoring and protecting the right of each human to live. This has been an unalienable and unequivocal right. The only exception has been that of balancing a life for a life in certain situations or by due process of law.

• Never, in modern times — except by a small group of physicians in Hitler’s Germany and by Stalin in Russia — has a price tag of economic or social use-fullness been placed on an individual human life as the price of its continued existence.
• Never, in modern times — except by physicians in Hitler’s Germany — has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition necessary for the continuation of that life.
• Never — since the law of paterfamilias in ancient Rome — has a major nation granted to a father or mother total dominion over the life or death of their child.
• Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve their own personal, social or economic problem. And yet, if this is human life, the U.S. Supreme

Court Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in other nations do all of the above. They represent a complete about-face, a total rejection of one of the core values of Western man, and an acceptance of a new ethic in which life has only a relative value. No longer will every human have a right to live simply because he or she exists. A human will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to others. This is a momentous change that strikes at the root of Western civilization. It makes no difference to vaguely assume that human life is more human post-born than pre-born. What is critical is to judge it to be — or not to be — human life. By a measure of "more" or "less" human, one can easily and logically justify infanticide and euthanasia. By the measure of economic and/or social usefulness, the ghastly atrocities of Hitlerian mass murders came to be. One cannot help but be reminded of the anguished comment of a condemned Nazi judge, who said to an American judge after the Nuremberg trials, "I never knew it would come to this." The American judge answered simply, "It came to this the first time you condemned an innocent life."

Ponder well the words of George Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it."

Pro-choice, is a lie. Babies do not choose to be killed, the mother chooses to have the baby killed, the doctor chooses to perform the abortion, the baby has no choice whatsoever. So inevitably, pro-choice, is a name hypocritical to it's own cause. It's pro-choice-of-the-mother to murder a baby.

Pro-choice, is also pro-abortion. When you are "pro" something, you are for it. If you are for abortion, you're pro-abortion.

There is only one moral in the pro-life movement, only one. And that is the moral that murder is wrong. But very few would argue with that moral, even pro-choicers. I must say it is quite hypocritical to be against murder, yet for abortion, especialy since thay are the exact same thing.

You still think abortion is moral? If so, then I want to see your justification.

Dictionary excerpt from dictionary.com

All abortion information is from the online book: WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke courtesy of abortionfacts.com

 

[burrow_owl]

interesting. your analysis of what it means to be human commits you to the granting of full rights to someone born w/o a brain, or one who is fully brain-dead.

Personally, I really don't think someone without a brain that can only live on a respirator, etc., can really be said to be a full human being, but maybe that's just me. EEEEnteresting.

 

[Ryder]

How many aborted babies do you think were missing their brains anyways?

I think this reminds me of a Ravi Zacharias sermon where he mentions that reality is defined by language. You can either believe that what is is exactly what God says is (that would be knowing truth) or you can re-invent reality (albeit a false one) by renaming it's parts and thereby changing their meaning and inter-relations. When you call brutally killing an unborn baby 'exercising your right of choice' you re-define the terms God laid out, you now act lawfully and good within 'your' reality... problem is, I got news for you buddy, you aren't God, and your reality is nothing but words spoke into the dark. Try God's version, it's a whole lot better! Now we all mess some of it up, but as long as we believe what God says Jesus is, there's hope.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Ok... I've been out a few days at a Catholic conference, so I just skimmed over the last few pages of posts since my own last post. So I apologize if I may leave something out or touch on something long since covered.

Here is my total view on abortion, and why. Including references.

I'm pro-life. Meaning I find abortion to be murder. I don't believe a mother has the right to murder the baby in her womb any more than a mother has the right to murder her two year old.

I find abortion to be murder based on facts. Scientific, medical, and logical facts. Religon has nothing to do with my belief on abortion.

Your site seems a bit biased. 0.0 I'll leave the science stuff to people who understand it and can explain it. I just hope you got permission to use the information you quoted:

(c) 1998 Heritage House 76, Inc. Do not replicate any of the information on this site without express written permission of Heritage House 76, Inc. or the original contributor.

Pro-choice, is a lie. Babies do not choose to be killed, the mother chooses to have the baby killed, the doctor chooses to perform the abortion, the baby has no choice whatsoever. So inevitably, pro-choice, is a name hypocritical to it's own cause. It's pro-choice-of-the-mother to murder a baby.

Pro-choice, is also pro-abortion. When you are "pro" something, you are for it. If you are for abortion, you're pro-abortion.

The way you keep using 'baby' one might think you're making appeals to emotion ^_~. When people see 'baby' they think "fully, developed human with personhood status" it is the mother's rights we are discussing because it has not been established when the fetus gains personhood status. Until such time it's really just a parasite.

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

(source: www.dictionary.com)


I'm pro-choice and anti abortion. So are you ^^ How's this logic work? Well, you choose life. Then again...if you want to decide for everyone else, I suppose that makes you anti-choice. Or...gah! XP

I hate it when people adopt the "all women who have abortions treat it like this: go to grocery store, get abortion, look at drapes" These women should not be condemned or judged. I'll tell you, I used to be fully pro-life until I met women who had had abortions. I don't think any pro-lifers fully understand what women go through. Like those who have to get abortions for medical reasons. The response I've seen lately is "well, there's a chance the baby could've survived" "it should be left it God's hands" etc...

I think anyone who hasn't been in that situation would be fully ready to play the martyr or wait for a miracle. I don't think they realize how scary it is and what an important decision it is. Even abortions for non medical reasons (though I don't agree with them) are serious decisions.

One person I met said she had an abortion because she was scared of her parents--who apparently frowned on permarital sex. Apparently her sister had had a baby and was disowned by her parents and never saw the father again. She had no financial support and even though she wanted to keep the baby she had to give it up.
I don't think her's was the best decision...like I said, we can all say 'if it were me..'

You still think abortion is moral?

Do I think abortions are right? Depends on the given situation. If the life of the mother and/or baby is in danger. If the fetus is dead inside of the womb. If it has developed without a brain. Then yes, I would not be against abortions. If they just couldn't handle the responsibility...well, I would be sympathetic...but I wouldn't support them having an abortion.

I think it should be an option. the LAST option.

 

[Havoc]

Christ IS the answer. It's just that we don't follow Him close enough.

That's exactly my point. IF Christ is the answer we should see a difference. All non-Christians are not following Christ closely enough by definition.

If Christ were the answer and all Born-Again Christians were following closely enough we would see a practically zero divorce rate among them.

If Christ were the answer and half of all Born-Again Christians were following closely enough, we would see a divorce rate among BACs roughly half that of non-Christians.

If Christ were the answer and three quarters of all Born-Again Christians were following closely enough, we would see a divorce rate among BACs roughly one quarter that of non-Christians.

Follow me so far?

Since we see no reduction in the rate of divorce among BACs over that of non-Christians we must conclude (using your reasoning) that, when it comes to family solidarity and values, either...

1. no BACs are following Christ closely enough, which means why bother being a BAC at all, or

2. Christ is not the answer, which means why bother being a BAC at all

 

[Ampmonster]

ummm not all christians are born again christians. that throw any of your figures off?

 

[Havoc]

Nope, the figures where specifically for Born-Again Christians. If you look at BARNA's criteria you'll see that there is no wiggle room there.

 

[onajourney87]

it is the mother's rights we are discussing because it has not been established when the fetus gains personhood status. Until such time it's really just a parasite.

Hmm

I suggest reading this:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htm

Now I've not read all of the previous posts about in this topic, so I apoligize if this is just a rehash of something previously said.

Myself, I am firm believer you can't morally, ethically, nor logically abort a fetus(though I would refer to a fetus as a 'baby', I will refer to a baby as a 'fetus' to keep some one of the posters from accusing my of appealing to emotions).

There are exactly four differences between a fetus and a grown human(if you think there are more than these four, by all means, post them): size, leval of development, location, and the degree of dependancy. I will cover each of these one at a time.

Size
A fetus is smaller than a grown human. Should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of that? Of course not. Nor are we allowed to harm a young child, who is smaller than a grown human, in such a way that they are sure to die. Size doens't mean a fetus isn't a human.

Level of Development
Certianly, a fetus isn't as developed as a grown human. Should we be able to abort it, leading to certain death, because of that? Of course not. We are not allowed to kill a young child because they aren't as fully developed a grown human. A young child's reproduction organs aren't even close to being fully developed until they reach puberty. The level of development of a fetus makes it no less human than a young child.

Location
Because a fetus is inside a mother's womb, should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of it's location? Of course not. My being in front of my computer instead of in Antartica makes me no less human. Why should the location of a fetus make it any less a human?

Degree of Dependancy
Because a fetus relies on the mother to live, should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of it's dependancy? Of course not. Do we have a right to kill someone who is a diabetic or who requires an oxygen tank simply because they rely on something besides their own body for staying alive? No, it makes them no less human than those of us who don't need any special medications or machines to keep us alive. So, does that make a fetus any less a human?

I believe I have shown how none of these four differences can be used to say a fetus is any less human than you or I. Certianly, a human has rights to live. Therefore, certianly a fetus has rights to live.

If any of this doesn't make sense, or is flawed, by all means, please reply and explain why.

osm

 

[nonny]

I have a question about "location." Do you mind if I ask?(Gonna ask anyway, just skip this if you don't want to reply)

If I get prenant, it will be an ectopic pregnancy. The location of the zygote will be in the fallopian tubes. If I don't abort the pregnancy, I will bleed to death. I guess what I want to ask is, "Do I, as an adult woman, have the right to decide what to do with my body?" Do I have a right to go to the hospital and have it surgically removed thus sparing my life? Would it be considered 'committing suicide' if I opted to NOT have the pregnancy terminated knowing full well I will die?
Just curious....

 

[jayem]

For Osmaker:

I touched on some of these points in an earlier post, but I'll reiterate.

I think your argument is faulty as regards location and dependence. A fetus of course, is physically contained inside the mother's body. It occupies her uterus, and there is an argument to be made that an adult woman, of sound mind, has autonomy over her uterus, just as she does over any other part of her body. Certainly, you would agree that abortion is morally justified in cases of ectopic pregnancy. Everyone knows that an ectopic pregnancy occurs when the zygote implants in the wrong place. Location can make all the difference in the world. And the issue of dependence is more complex than you stated. The fetus makes a direct, physiologic demand on the mother's heart, lungs, kidneys, GI tract, etc. A newborn makes no demand on its birth mother, since it can be cared for by anyone who can nuture it properly. It is the very fact that the mother's physical body is being used that is at the crux of the conflict. There are times when an abortion is medically necessary, and of course, this is because the fetus directly affects the mother's physiology. Some would say that when a women becomes pregnant, she gives up the normal autonomy she has over her organ systems, and gives implied consent to have her body used for the entire gestation. I think this is arguable, and I stated some reasons in an earlier post. Not to get off on a tangent, but a small number of pregnancies do result from rape, and I don't see how anyone can say that this means of conception implies consent. I personally take what I would call the middle ground. A woman retains autonomy over her body (i.e., the right to withdraw consent to be pregnant) up until the fetus is naturally viable. After that point, the autonomy of the fetus must be respected (again, excepting severe medical or life threatening complications.) To address the "personhood" issue, I think a fetus becomes a "person" with rights independent of the mother in two instances: A) when it is born, no matter when that occurs, and B) if still unborn, when it is natually viable (24-25 weeks.)

 

[DaQo'tah]

burrow_owl...


I dont believe that just because a child is sick, before or after birth, that we should slay the child...

There are reasons for all things,,,and if God in His wisdom places a burden onto a child, then thats the way it is...

Perhaps in time the science of birth and for the unborn will be able to help the children that you speak of,,,but for now we can trust fully in the fact the Bible clearly states that God will not give us more than we can handle....

Even if a child is seen by the world as "Hopeless" we of the Body of Christ understand that there are lessons to be learned fromthe very people the world over-looks .

We Christians understand that God can and does speak to us in our suffereings,,,,haveing a sick child is a heavy thing to have to carry in our lives,,,but God can use this too ,,,and you can find rest in the Lord ....and peace...

 

[panterapat]

"1. no BACs are following Christ closely enough, which means why bother being a BAC at all, or

2. Christ is not the answer, which means why bother being a BAC at all"



The extent to which a Truth is adhered to, does not alter the truth of the Truth. The extent to which this Truth affects the world, does not alter the truth of the Truth.


But there is one thing that perhaps you have overlooked.

WHAT WOULD THE WORLD BELIKE WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY FOUNDED ON JESUS???????

Jesus is undenibly the most influential "person" to have ever lived. I will put aside for now the spiritual effect Jesus has had on the world through individual hearts being transformed.

Consider what Christianity has given us. The monks of the middle ages saved liturature and culture through the transcribing and preservation of manuscripts and texts. Christianity brought us magnificient works of art- cathedrals, paintings, (the Sistene Chapel) works of literature. Christianity brought about the taming of Man's base instincts and allowed Man to explore and ponder in safety. Christopher Columbus sailed to the new world with the expess intent of spreading Christianity. Christianity brought about the downfall of the Iron Curtin. Christianity founded the system of higher learning, opening universities worldwide. Most every university founded more than (lets guess) 100 years ago, was most likely founded by a Christian institution. Christian Nuns have opened multitudes of hospitals. Christian churches are the largest contributors to charity. This is all just off the top of my head. The list could go on and on.

But the greatest effect of Christianity is the affect it has had on Man's heart, calling him to works of charity and kindness and involking a peaceful spirit.

I don't even want to think how horrendous this world would be without Christianity.

 

[onajourney87]

If I get prenant, it will be an ectopic pregnancy. The location of the zygote will be in the fallopian tubes. If I don't abort the pregnancy, I will bleed to death. I guess what I want to ask is, "Do I, as an adult woman, have the right to decide what to do with my body?" Do I have a right to go to the hospital and have it surgically removed thus sparing my life? Would it be considered 'committing suicide' if I opted to NOT have the pregnancy terminated knowing full well I will die?

I believe that in those kind of cases, abortion should be an option. Especially for a non-Christian. For a Christian... I would hope they would seek God's will on the matter before doing anything as God does work miracles.

And the issue of dependence is more complex than you stated. The fetus makes a direct, physiologic demand on the mother's heart, lungs, kidneys, GI tract, etc. A newborn makes no demand on its birth mother, since it can be cared for by anyone who can nuture it properly. It is the very fact that the mother's physical body is being used that is at the crux of the conflict. [...] I personally take what I would call the middle ground. A woman retains autonomy over her body (i.e., the right to withdraw consent to be pregnant) up until the fetus is naturally viable. After that point, the autonomy of the fetus must be respected (again, excepting severe medical or life threatening complications.) To address the "personhood" issue, I think a fetus becomes a "person" with rights independent of the mother in two instances: A) when it is born, no matter when that occurs, and B) if still unborn, when it is natually viable (24-25 weeks.)

Okay, take a look at this scenerio. You are walking home on a coldish night alongside a road and are carrying a baby. If you decide leave the baby and continue on, it will likely die(and you can be put in jail for doing that). If you continue to carry it home, it will live(okay, yes you may be hit by a car on the way and both are killed, or a blue monster might come and eat you both, but that's not the point). In this case, your personal body is being used to keep that baby alive. In a pregnancy, the mother's personal body is being used to keep that baby/fetus alive. What's the difference?

My point has nothing to do with whether or not the mother gave permission for the fetus to 'use' her body or not. My point is a fetus is no less a human than you or I, and therefore, whether the mother gave permission or not for it to 'use' her body, aborting it is murder.

I know that for some people on this forum, the Bible means nothing as not everyone here is a Christian. But for myself, and fellow Christians on these forums, the Bible is very clear on this issue.

Psalm 139:13-16
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Psalm 22:10
From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Galations 1:15-17
But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

Isaiah 49:1
Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the LORD called me;
from my birth he has made mention of my name.

God Himself makes all fetuses. He knows people before they are born. And He has called or more accuratly, chosen people before they were born.

osm

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Hmm

I suggest reading this:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htm

Oh. Ok.

Now I've not read all of the previous posts about in this topic, so I apoligize if this is just a rehash of something previously said.

Myself, I am firm believer you can't morally, ethically, nor logically abort a fetus(though I would refer to a fetus as a 'baby', I will refer to a baby as a 'fetus' to keep some one of the posters from accusing my of appealing to emotions).

There are exactly four differences between a fetus and a grown human(if you think there are more than these four, by all means, post them): size, leval of development, location, and the degree of dependancy. I will cover each of these one at a time.

Size
A fetus is smaller than a grown human. Should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of that? Of course not. Nor are we allowed to harm a young child, who is smaller than a grown human, in such a way that they are sure to die. Size doens't mean a fetus isn't a human.

Level of Development
Certianly, a fetus isn't as developed as a grown human. Should we be able to abort it, leading to certain death, because of that? Of course not. We are not allowed to kill a young child because they aren't as fully developed a grown human. A young child's reproduction organs aren't even close to being fully developed until they reach puberty. The level of development of a fetus makes it no less human than a young child.

Location
Because a fetus is inside a mother's womb, should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of it's location? Of course not. My being in front of my computer instead of in Antartica makes me no less human. Why should the location of a fetus make it any less a human?

Degree of Dependancy
Because a fetus relies on the mother to live, should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of it's dependancy? Of course not. Do we have a right to kill someone who is a diabetic or who requires an oxygen tank simply because they rely on something besides their own body for staying alive? No, it makes them no less human than those of us who don't need any special medications or machines to keep us alive. So, does that make a fetus any less a human?

I believe I have shown how none of these four differences can be used to say a fetus is any less human than you or I. Certianly, a human has rights to live. Therefore, certianly a fetus has rights to live.

If any of this doesn't make sense, or is flawed, by all means, please reply and explain why.

osm

I think there's a fallacy or something somewhere in here...can't remember the name of it. Is there a list of these things? If there isn't..then..er...cuddles?

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

God Himself makes all fetuses. He knows people before they are born. And He has called or more accuratly, chosen people before they were born.

osm

What's your opinion on natural abortions? And God's role in them.

 

[onajourney87]

Natural as in?

osm

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

As in fertilized eggs that are naturally aborted (this question is really for those who believe life begins at conception) or even miscarriages..though..would those count as natural abortions?

Either way..we're talking when it's naturally aborted.

*hope that makes sense*

 

[DaQo'tah]

God and God alone is the creator of all life...He has the only right to take what he has given...

The Bible has taught us that within the rule of man there are limits,,,as such we have no right to take life except when we have been given such from the Lord above...

All unborn children are the Lord's...and as such, we have to respect the life that has been given to us as a gift, and work to protect this life with the tools of science and med as best we can.

Prayer is the answer to the case where our science fails us,,,not killing because we dont understand God's point in creating a life we would not wish.

Remember Surg Gen Ed Koop's words,,,that in med for the 30+ years he was in it, never once was there a case where a unborn child had to be aborted to protect the life of the mother,,,,its a smoke-screen arguement ...

 

[Teh Wiccan]

Christianity brought about the downfall of the Iron Curtin. [/font]

This might be just me, but I thought it was Gorbachev's economic and political reforms that weakened control over satelite states.

 

[nonny]

Remember Surg Gen Ed Koop's words,,,that in med for the 30+ years he was in it, never once was there a case where a unborn child had to be aborted to protect the life of the mother

How many women died under his care from this guy!! Sheesh! Women die today while giving birth! Let alone all the complications that can and do occur with any pregnancy. I wouldn't see that Dr. for a splinter!

I can say that with a clear conscience as I already posted what my situation would be...thing is, my case isn't unusual at all.

Don't get me wrong, it just seems that Christians want all 'potential life' to be spared. If that's the case, every woman who uses BC, everytime she has a cycle and that egg is lost has committed a 'loss of potential life.' Every time a man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and spills his seed, all those millions of potential human beings die. Anywhoo, just my $0.02.