abortions

Hank · Sep 28, 2002

Originally posted by seebs
Hank, forbidding premarital sex does not do *ANYTHING* to keep abortion from being a problem:

1. Some people who are married use abortion as a form of birth control.
2. Not all sex is consensual.
3. Not all children are fully obedient to their understanding of God's law.

All three of these can result in cases where the question of whether or not abortion is acceptable must be considered, even if premarital sex is frowned upon by your culture or religion.

Fair enough.

To one, are those couples aware of more suitable methods?
To two, would the women be forced to carry this child?
To three, tell me about it. So what happens when the kids get into this huge mess? Do we want children giving birth to children?

Hank · Sep 28, 2002

Originally posted by tericl2
Really? I wasn't aware of that. Biology isn't my strong suit!! That is interesting though. I find it strange that so many are so adamant about science having all the answers (origins, etc.) but would ignore such scientific opinion as this. Very interesting indeed!

 Join the club. I am just going by my nose here also
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Lifedefinition-04-01.html
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9a.html

To me with my limited knowledge I say
The DNA of one human cell contains all the information for a full grown adult. Thus I personally consider life when the first division of the zygote has occurred. Yet this can and will be argued with abortion topics upwards and downwards with abiogenesis topics.

Hank · Sep 28, 2002

Originally posted by Miss Shelby
Which is a shocking testimonial to how desensitized our culture has become to the flagrant disrespect for human life.

She can put the baby up for adoption.  If she wants to keep the baby she could very well be in for a tough road to hoe.  However, it is not appropriate for her to kill her child simply because her child is inconvenient.

And before you launch into a sermon about people who have had it tough, believe me I know.  I know what it is like to live in poverty with a mother who had no job skills, no motivation and no help from outside family.  Her husband was a ba stard who left her to fend for herself. Not only that, he left his children. Abandonded them.  We didn't hear from him for years.    Would I be better off today, had she had an abortion?  I don't think so.  I am living  proof that  your excuses hold no water.  

Michelle

Our culture respects life very much. I don't think that what I think reflects the culture of society.

OK, I will give no sermon

One will not get an abortion just out of convenience. There too is a specific process involved. No one walks in a clinic there without having weighed the alternatives first.  And no one walks out of there a happy camper either.

As for your case, you don't have to answer, it's an emotional subject, but do you think your mom loved you?
What happens to children who are neither welcome nor loved? Our case load is not limited to the below poverty line. Rejected, neglected and abused children come from all walks of life. 

Miss Shelby · Sep 28, 2002

What happens to children who are neither welcome nor loved? Our case load is not limited to the below poverty line. Rejected, neglected and abused children come from all walks of life.

Our case load, huh? As if you don't have some personal stake in this?

Is it your position, then, that a rejected, neglected and abused children  should have  simply been aborted, and then.....alas.... there is no  problem?  No heavy case load?

Michelle

Mid · Sep 28, 2002

What happens to children who are neither welcome nor loved?

Excuse my crudeness, but to prevent this, these people should keep thier legs closed and their zippers up.

stillsmallvoice · Sep 29, 2002

Hi all!

Hmm, lessee...

Hank posted:

...then premarital sex is also forbidden, is it not?

Yes. Orthodox Judaism very much frowns on premarital sex (and believes in early marriage).

Thus abortion would not be an issue, with proper parental supervision.

Um, like I said, no orthodox rabbinical authority would sanction a non-therapeutic abortion under any circumstances whether the parents were married or not. I'd like to think that incidents of premarital sex are relatively small in orthodox Jewish society, and always have been.

As far as what we believe about non-Jews vis-a-vis abortion, we believe that whereas we are bound by 613 precepts in the Torah, non-Jews are bound by only 7 (see the first 2 sections on http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm). I believe that the ban on non-therapeutic abortions is also applicable & is subsumed under the ban on murder for Gentiles.

What happens to children who are neither welcome nor loved?
Excuse my crudeness, but to prevent this, these people should keep thier legs closed and their zippers up.

Not crude at all; 100% correct!

Children who are neither welcom nor loved could/should be put up for adoption. DW & I have adopted two wonderful boys (thank God!!!!) here in Israel (private adoptions are very illegal here; all domestic adoptions here are under the sole & exclusive jurisdiction of the government's Child Welfare Service); we would not have waited nearly as long as we did if there were more children available for adoption (the number of abortions here is way too high).

Be well!

ssv

Hank · Sep 29, 2002

Originally posted by Miss Shelby
Our case load, huh? As if you don't have some personal stake in this?

Is it your position, then, that a rejected, neglected and abused children  should have  simply been aborted, and then.....alas.... there is no  problem?  No heavy case load?

Michelle

No. My position is that whoever is willing to abort a pregnancy has a high probability to neglect the child after birth.
The case load had nothing to do with that argument; it was to show that poverty has little or nothing to do with child abuse per se.

Hank · Sep 29, 2002

Originally posted by Mid
What happens to children who are neither welcome nor loved?

Excuse my crudeness, but to prevent this, these people should keep thier legs closed and their zippers up.

... and exactly how would one legislate that?

Hank · Sep 29, 2002

Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
Not crude at all; 100% correct!

Children who are neither welcom nor loved could/should be put up for adoption. DW & I have adopted two wonderful boys (thank God!!!!) here in Israel (private adoptions are very illegal here; all domestic adoptions here are under the sole & exclusive jurisdiction of the government's Child Welfare Service); we would not have waited nearly as long as we did if there were more children available for adoption (the number of abortions here is way too high).

Be well!

ssv

 Adoption is one option. However the people willing to adopt vs. people aborting is 1:12 according US statistic data of 1998. Or to force people to give birth would generate a surplus of babies. What are we going to do with them?

Mid · Sep 29, 2002

Or to force people to give birth would generate a surplus of babies. What are we going to do with them?

as I said in #45.

Hank · Sep 29, 2002

Originally posted by Mid
Or to force people to give birth would generate a surplus of babies. What are we going to do with them?

as I said in #45.

Have you answered #48?

LadyShea · Sep 30, 2002

Do any of you know any Christians or Pro Lifers who have had In Vitro Fertilization? For every single live birth via IVF 20-25 eggs are fertilized (and become "embryos" by your definition), 4 are implanted, and the rest are washed down the drain.

There are more "lives" being lost in fertility clinics than abortion clinics, yet most Christians ignore this....maybe because most couples using IVF are Christians, or is it because no premarital sex is usually involved so its okay?

Miss Shelby · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Hank
No. My position is that whoever is willing to abort a pregnancy has a high probability to neglect the child after birth.

In first considering this I was going to ask you for a reference for this statement, but then I decided that I don't care because the point is moot.

In a live birth you have live child who has the potential to be neglected.

In the case of an abortion you have a dead child.

Which is worse?

 

Michelle

TScott · Sep 30, 2002

I see two debates here. One is a legal debate: should abortion remain legal?; and the other is a morality debate: is it immoral to kill an unborn human?

Personally, my feelings on the subject are mixed. I feel it is morally wrong, yet I don't want to see it illegal again. We know what it was like prior to RvW and I would not like to see us go back to that.

There are some stats that may help in this debate.

1. The incidence of abortion in the USA is actually quite low compared to other countries.

2. Most women have abortions because of failed birth control.

3. Less than 1% of all abortions are carried out in the third trimester and a vast majority of these are the results of catastrophic problems with the pregnancies and not because the child is not wanted.

Hank · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Miss Shelby
In first considering this I was going to ask you for a reference for this statement, but then I decided that I don't care because the point is moot.

In a live birth you have live child who has the potential to be neglected.

In the case of an abortion you have a dead child.

Which is worse?

 

Michelle

Good question. Note also my phrase 'high probability'.

When it comes to human behavior nothing is absolute. As much as my previous comment  is based on my personal reality I can not answer your question as such without referring back to my personal experience. To me an aborted feces is not a dead child. It's a potential life which never happened. A borne child who is neglected is real. Thus I think a neglected child is worse off.

I know we would now move towards what is life. Life comes in stages.
Conception, development, birth, child hood, adolescent, adulthood.
Religion should focus on avoiding conception, if no child is welcomed by the couple. It would avoid development. If the couple is not willing or unable to raise the child to adulthood I tolerate interrupting development.

I am fiercly opposed to child abuse, as a fanatic I hope my arguments here in the forum are viewed as such.

Havoc · Sep 30, 2002

Just want to throw a wrench into the works here. I am also opposed to abortion. I am a Witch.

Mid, the topic starter, is also (please forgive me Mid ((and administer a good thrashing)) if I've got this wrong) at least Pagan.

One of the most common themes in Christian Fundie Folklore is that all Witches and Pagans view abortion as good and acceptable human sacrifices to Satan.

Am I the only one who sees a discrepancy here?

Miss Shelby · Sep 30, 2002

If I'm understanding you, Hank, you're saying that life starts at conception but it's not necessarily a baby? So even if we detect a clear concise heartbeat at say... 7 or 8 weeks gestation, it's still early enough in the 'life phase' to not really be considered life? Or at least,  not a meaningful life? 

Michelle

Hank · Oct 1, 2002

Originally posted by Miss Shelby
If I'm understanding you, Hank, you're saying that life starts at conception but it's not necessarily a baby? So even if we detect a clear concise heartbeat at say... 7 or 8 weeks gestation, it's still early enough in the 'life phase' to not really be considered life? Or at least,  not a meaningful life? 

Michelle

Something like that. A heart beat does not necessarily constitute life. The heart must pump blood to feed nutrition to the growing cells. It's sound dramatic on TV or in the hospital to hear the heart pumping, but to me this is not a baby yet.

As I said, on a part time basis I witness the utter dark side of our society. Premature births of babies show one first hand that underdeveloped born babies are simply put - premature.

Mid · Oct 1, 2002

Havoc, you are absolutely correct. I am one hundred percent pagan. Celtic at that.
I guess that you have it folks! Two pagans who draw a big red circle with a slash through it for abortion!! We are not that bad then!

Mid · Oct 1, 2002

life starts at conception but it's not necessarily a baby?

that life is a human. It has human genetics and a human soul. Since it is obviosly not an adult because it has not completed the growth process, it is a baby even though it has not been born yet.

abortions

has the Right to be wrong

has the Right to be wrong

has the Right to be wrong

Legend

Spirit of the Wolf

The Narn rule!

has the Right to be wrong

has the Right to be wrong

has the Right to be wrong

Spirit of the Wolf

has the Right to be wrong

Humanist

Legend

Curmudgeon

has the Right to be wrong

Celtic Witch

Legend

has the Right to be wrong

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency