Abortion

[JaneFW]

Dreamer, I have no idea who that is. :o In my head, I'm still looking for Tony Benn on my ballot sheet. (British joke)

 

[hijklmnop]

LOL

Jack Layton (1950-2011)

 

[Niffer]

LOL

Jack Layton (1950-2011)

And while I didn't vote for him, he was a good man, and I think was a great leader of the opposition party.
His last letter to Canada was awesome.

 

[McScribe]

As Christians we tend to forget that we live in a fallen world and that we live surrounded by evil. Because the evil is often well intended, confused or deceptive we let ourselves think of it as normal. If we actually lived in a world where goodness was valued, evil wouldn't happen the way it does.

For example: everywhere we see images of children. We're told our society loves children. I don't believe that at all. If our society loved children none of them would go hungry, none of them would be unwanted, none of them would be beaten, abused, locked in closets or taken advantage of. Our society pretends to love children. Jesus spoke to ordinary people as though they were children of Satan. He was right. We should be sad, I agree, but I see the abortion rates as being a natural result of the kind of world, the kind of society we live in.

 

[anunbeliever]

As a once-believer i can understand how Christians hold the life of the unborn as sacred. Even now i regard late term abortions as heinous except for dire medical reasons. However, as an unbeliever i have no problem with early term expertly undertaken abortion.

We're told our society loves children. I don't believe that at all. If our society loved children none of them would go hungry, none of them would be unwanted, none of them would be beaten, abused, locked in closets or taken advantage of.

I agree with you. In fact that is one of the reasons why i am in favour of early term abortion. Why should a child be born unless it will be to a loving parent who wants them and can care for them? This world doesnt need more people (especially if they grow up unwanted or abused). We are overpopulated.

That being said, education and contraception would be much preferable.

 

[Conservativation]

Society loves children is being conflated with "everyone loves children"


also

""Why should a child be born unless it will be to a loving parent who wants them and can care for them? This world doesnt need more people""

Maybe ask a child that's old enough to think clearly if they would rather be dead. I realize there are horrific situations where that me be answered in the affirmative. But malaise in child rearing, unwanted and neglected while very tragic, those kids I assure you will not choose death over a tough life.

If it was in someones power to restrict or eliminate abortions I would favor it, simply because thats my believe on abortion, and for me its not a relativistic thing about economics.

We have no govt that works that way. Thats fine. In the US it would be nice to see states able to address it individually. The president is not really relevant on this. Growing the economy is everything, period, right now. But guess what, even when unemployment was under 5%, the same people were saying the same things, "pro-life doesnt end at birth" and so forth meaning caring for these kids. Point is, there is a segment of society that will be entrenched in irresponsible behavior no matter what the economy is doing, and even if they were showered with government money will still be in poverty and irresponsible. The only way to stop those abortions is legal restrictions, not economics, and these account for the largest demographic getting abortions.

Best to address, straight on, the issues with adoption and such. Its passe to say but its a joke. Also, giving fathers the ability to volunteer to take an unwanted child in the case where there is no marriage would prevent some small number of abortions and put those kids in a wanted environment.

 

[Conservativation]

In the case of the woman whose baby was lost to miscarriage - and what an awful tragedy - the child was unlawfully murdered. Abortion, OTOH, is legal.

unlawfully murdered vs what? lawfully murdered?

You are technically correct, but it is ethically badly inconsistent. If the child isnt a child, and has no rights....isnt that true no matter what? Im speaking narrowly on this one situation not to make broad abortion debate. Abortion is legal, largely expressly because the fetus is not considered a child. It/he/she has no rights which extends to rights to life and protection of life under the law.

the issue here isnt that drunk driving is unlawful and performing an abortion lawful, thats true but not relevant. The comparison is the "victim"...what was specifically different about the victim that made the fetus "victim-able"
in one case and not the other.

 

[Chaplain David]

...The comparison is the "victim"...what was specifically different about the victim that made the fetus "victim-able"
in one case and not the other.[/quote]

The difference is that the fetus (from conception to baby ready to birth) is considered a human being by those states who have the laws that protect them and treat them with the rights of human beings. It is interesting that although in general law is secular, like many other laws, it is based on Christian views, this being about killing (or injuring) unborn children.

 

[JaneFW]

unlawfully murdered vs what? lawfully murdered?

You are technically correct, but it is ethically badly inconsistent. If the child isnt a child, and has no rights....isnt that true no matter what? Im speaking narrowly on this one situation not to make broad abortion debate. Abortion is legal, largely expressly because the fetus is not considered a child. It/he/she has no rights which extends to rights to life and protection of life under the law.

the issue here isnt that drunk driving is unlawful and performing an abortion lawful, thats true but not relevant. The comparison is the "victim"...what was specifically different about the victim that made the fetus "victim-able"
in one case and not the other.

I do not enjoy the idea of abortion. I have personal reasons for that too that I have expressed before when this subject was discussed. I don't believe that abortion is the *best* option for either mother or, obviously, for the child. BUT, I gave the factual answer, based upon law, and that was the question being asked - why is one wrong, why is the other right. It's a question of legality.

And under the law, a fetus doesn't have rights. It just doesn't. Not until birth. I also find that odd, but it's reality. I can't imagine a world where an unborn child has full rights. I mean, what would the mother be restricted from doing? She might find herself sitting at home every day, and every intake monitored so that she doesn't inadvertantly harm the child. Of course, most expectant mothers are anxious to do all the right things, but that's their prerogative.

 

[hijklmnop]

I agree Jane...I used to see it more as a black-and-white/right/wrong issue...but unfortunately there's a load of grey area involved that can't be easily resolved. I am saddened by abortion as well and pro-life in that I'd love to see abortion come to an end, but if you start getting into making it illegal, giving the fetus *equal* rights and giving the father as much say as the mother, the mother's rights start to decrease. It seems that the more rights the fetus is given the less rights the mother would have. Most mothers choose to elevate their child's rights over their own to some degree, but enforcing that leaves too much room for abuse on the part of women's rights. If you give the father the right to volunteer to take her unwanted child, for example, and made his willingness to raise the child end her right to an abortion, you'd still be forcing her to carry for 9 months and deliver. That sounds cold, but there is a large amount of physical risk and sacrifice involved in pregnancy and childbirth, and you can't FORCE someone to undergo all that against their will. What are you going to do, strap her down and ensure she eats only nutritional food until the baby's born for the sake of the baby's wellbeing?

I don't know how to describe exactly how I feel about the issue. Sad, mostly. Sad on behalf of all the little unborn babies who weren't able to choose life for themselves, who are faultless regarding the circumstances of their conception, but also sad on behalf of all the mothers and fathers who for whatever multitude of possible reasons didn't feel equipped to bring their baby into the world. It's not something most people go into lightly, or escape from consequence-free (emotionally). I don't think it's best for anyone, but these situations can be complicated and IMO it's just another sad reality of our fallen world. IMO the answer lies not in laws that condemn and punish, but in loads more push towards unwanted pregnancy prevention, support for the unexpectedly pregnant, and support for parents who are struggling and their children.

 

[Chaplain David]

A Fetus Has Rights Under Secular Law
​

One of the things I was thinking of putting up a little earlier was research on various aspects of abortion of course anyone can as well.

Yes a fetus does have rights. The Unborn Victims Violence Act (US Code) covers approximately 60 things considered offenses against unborn children. Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, there are 38 states that have laws protecting the unborn against homicidal violence and other things.

Even taken separately any of these laws give at least some rights to unborn victims.

 

[Conservativation]

I do not enjoy the idea of abortion. I have personal reasons for that too that I have expressed before when this subject was discussed. I don't believe that abortion is the *best* option for either mother or, obviously, for the child. BUT, I gave the factual answer, based upon law, and that was the question being asked - why is one wrong, why is the other right. It's a question of legality.

And under the law, a fetus doesn't have rights. It just doesn't. Not until birth. I also find that odd, but it's reality. I can't imagine a world where an unborn child has full rights. I mean, what would the mother be restricted from doing? She might find herself sitting at home every day, and every intake monitored so that she doesn't inadvertantly harm the child. Of course, most expectant mothers are anxious to do all the right things, but that's their prerogative.

Mothers are already chargeable for abusing unborn babies.

And fetus do have rights.

the rights are just terminated when someone else's rights are seemingly held above them. It defies natural law, either the fetus has no rights, hence killing the baby in the accident would not be specifically prosecutable, the accident, the injury to the mother, etc...yes, but a line item charge on the baby, no. Then, natural law hold consistent for abortion.

When you selectively apply rights, its nonsense

 

[JaneFW]

Yes, thanks W for an absolutely useless piece of legislation, which is so messed up, it doesn't actually mean very much.

Cons, if you dislike it that much, by all means be part of the movement to prevent abortion. Y'know? Vote against it, argue against it, carry signs etc.

I just disagree entirely that the woman's rights do not come above the unborn baby's rights. I think that everyone - other than Rick Perry and other extremists - accept that in the case of a choice between the mother's life and the baby's life, the mother's life comes first? I am just making that assumption, hoping I'm right. Also, in cases of rape and incest (and again, other than Rick Perry) most people would accept that the woman has the right to not have to bear and give birth to a baby that was forced upon her (although I will say that I have talked to some women who did give birth to a baby that was the result of rape, and also to one woman who was herself the result of a rape, and very glad to be alive, if utterly confused about the circumstances of her conception, and SO hateful of the man who caused her conception.) So, if a woman has rights above the fetus in those cases, why would she not have rights in the case where e.g. the baby's father has abandoned her? Or she is very young, jobless, future-less - I mean, I'm pretty sure that I have heard a high percentage of men on this forum complain about teenage moms getting pregnant so that they can get benefits, but this is the other side of that. Which way do you want it? Should the teenage mom have her baby and get government benefits, or should she have an abortion? It can't be both ways.

Just some thoughts.

Again, I'm not actually pro abortion. Like Dreamer, I wish it didn't have to exist. But it does.

 

[Conservativation]

There is the famous violinist defense of abortion rights, a too clever by half analogy that is painfully contrived to appeal to a certain set of folks

(by the way, I was clear about my feelings on abortion not including my holding signs or protesting or wanting any federal government efforts at all, so those comments were totally random and uncalled for if you read my posts)

If you dont know the violinist argument, google it, its been stated smugly as the end all to the debate on abortion, not the LAW (hopefully we dont take things that are legal as any kind of moral input into whether they should be done or not, after all even porn is legal, and,please no segue into that topic), just abortion generally. They chose a violinist because when you consider the liberal demographic, they will more likely be "moved" by things culturally perceived as in good taste and a refined taste at that. I credit its creator for that slight manipulative choice.

But we (wife and I) wrote what if I say so myself was a fantastic logical and emotional refutation to it for her medical ethics class. She obviously wrote it, but her and I mulled it over and debated and tested and anyway, its not difficult to overcome that violinist argument at all. The argument is basically as you say, its about whose rights trump the others, and it appeals to some sense of "specialness", I mean after all its a classic violinist and what could be more valuable to society than that right? (not)

Fact is if given a couple of slight tweaks it collapses under its own weight, by going from whats presented as an objective argument to a subjective one, and once ANYTHING becomes subjective, its no longer sound basis for moral decisions for Christians. Not specifically about abortion even....just in general, there are few if any equivocations in scripture. When there is subjectivity we have created it.

 

[hijklmnop]

And your fantastical refutation is....???

 

[JaneFW]

I didn't "painfully contrive" anything - I set out my thoughts as they occurred to me. It was a tumble of thoughts, nothing studied and carefully constructed to set people up. I only wish I was that clever.

If anyone else wants to actually discuss what I posted, please feel free.

 

[hijklmnop]

I didn't "painfully contrive" anything - I set out my thoughts as they occurred to me. It was a tumble of thoughts, nothing studied and carefully constructed to set people up. I only wish I was that clever.

If anyone else wants to actually discuss what I posted, please feel free.

Ditto.

 

[McScribe]

Yes, thanks W for an absolutely useless piece of legislation, which is so messed up, it doesn't actually mean very much.

Cons, if you dislike it that much, by all means be part of the movement to prevent abortion. Y'know? Vote against it, argue against it, carry signs etc.

I just disagree entirely that the woman's rights do not come above the unborn baby's rights. I think that everyone - other than Rick Perry and other extremists - accept that in the case of a choice between the mother's life and the baby's life, the mother's life comes first? I am just making that assumption, hoping I'm right. Also, in cases of rape and incest (and again, other than Rick Perry) most people would accept that the woman has the right to not have to bear and give birth to a baby that was forced upon her (although I will say that I have talked to some women who did give birth to a baby that was the result of rape, and also to one woman who was herself the result of a rape, and very glad to be alive, if utterly confused about the circumstances of her conception, and SO hateful of the man who caused her conception.) So, if a woman has rights above the fetus in those cases, why would she not have rights in the case where e.g. the baby's father has abandoned her? Or she is very young, jobless, future-less - I mean, I'm pretty sure that I have heard a high percentage of men on this forum complain about teenage moms getting pregnant so that they can get benefits, but this is the other side of that. Which way do you want it? Should the teenage mom have her baby and get government benefits, or should she have an abortion? It can't be both ways.

Just some thoughts.

Again, I'm not actually pro abortion. Like Dreamer, I wish it didn't have to exist. But it does.

Genuinely caring about children and what leads to having them would be a very good start. This would be what I would do:

1. In the name of sanity, get the sexual orientation stuff out of sex education. That belongs in discussions about ethics or sociology or psychology. Teaching rule of law when it comes to people you don't approve of doesn't belong in sex ed. With this gone, one less controversy.

2. Focus on biology, hygiene and safe sex, underlining the fact that the ONLY way to guarantee totally safe sex is to not have it. Even with a monogamous partner love and commitment are required for safety. Frankly, teens really need to be taught to plan their lives well and learn how to have a good relationship. That's supposed to be part of our job.

3. Scare kids by showing them horrifying pictures of what STDs do. I found this to be very effective in dealing with a group of teens. Not one snicker, not one joke.

Do all these things and there will be little to no controversy about sex ed, that's one way to slow things down.

Second, require everyone who is pro-life to sign up for an adoption program if they want to stop abortions, and do the same with people who are pro-choice. This should include churches that sponsor pro-life programs. Otherwise fine them.

Third: honestly, a society that barely cares about its poor and elderly is hardly going to care about unexpected pregnancy and the fate of children. As Christians we can do a lot to demonstrate care about other people generally. Recognition of Christianity as a religion in 313 AD resulted in official banning of the torturing of slaves as a judicial practice and exposure of unwanted children.

 

[Conservativation]

I didn't "painfully contrive" anything - I set out my thoughts as they occurred to me. It was a tumble of thoughts, nothing studied and carefully constructed to set people up. I only wish I was that clever.

If anyone else wants to actually discuss what I posted, please feel free.

Why must it be about you? I never suggested you painfully contrived anything, I very clearly said the writer of the violinist argument painfully contrived that.
How did it seem as if that was anyone but the author of that argument?

 

[hijklmnop]

I'm still waiting to hear the fantastical refutation.