Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[GodLovesCats]

I never want to debate abortion with people who disagree with me on the issue because it just goes around in circles, with "pro-lifers" wrongly accusing pro-choicers of murdering babies (which is obviously a lie) and pro-choicers calling pro-lifers misogynists who only care about controlling girls and women. In rape and incest cases, the latter is true, but most claims I read from both sides of the issue are incorrect unless people are just talking about Psalms 139, Job 10, and child development. I want to know if there is any way people can just agree to disagree on when abortion is only for convenience, when fetuses in the womb are viable, and how women should get rid of unwanted babies they can't take care of. There is no reason to doubt someone is a Christian just because he or she disagrees on this one issue, whatever the opinion differences are. I want to be able to trade views about a Christian issue without a fear that someone will deny my faith in God. I know everyone who reads God's Word would feel the same way, whether the issue is abortion or something else.

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic that does not devolve into crap such as, "You are not a Christian," or stupid name-calling.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I never want to debate abortion with people who disagree with me on the issue because it just goes around in circles, with "pro-lifers" wrongly accusing pro-choicers of murdering babies (which is obviously a lie) and pro-choicers calling pro-lifers misogynists who only care about controlling girls and women. In rape and incest cases, the latter is true, but most claims I read from both sides of the issue are incorrect unless people are just talking about Psalms 139, Job 10, and child development. I want to know if there is any way people can just agree to disagree on when abortion is only for convenience, when fetuses in the womb are viable, and how women should get rid of unwanted babies they can't take care of. There is no reason to doubt someone is a Christian just because he or she disagrees on this one issue, whatever the opinion differences are. I want to be able to trade views about a Christian issue without a fear that someone will deny my faith in God. I know everyone who reads God's Word would feel the same way, whether the issue is abortion or something else.

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic that does not devolve into crap such as, "You are not a Christian," or stupid name-calling.

I can only speak of my experience. In my teens I had an abortion and till this day , 62 years old, there isn't a moment that goes by that I regret killing my baby. I would want to spare anyone that pain. So its OK to disagree and keep it in the light. That being said, if a woman, teen or child, (sadly), vehemently decides to abort, there should be a safe way to achieve it. At that point it is between her and God not the government.
Blessings.

 

[Lost Witness]

I never want to debate abortion with people who disagree with me on the issue because it just goes around in circles, with "pro-lifers" wrongly accusing pro-choicers of murdering babies (which is obviously a lie) and pro-choicers calling pro-lifers misogynists who only care about controlling girls and women. In rape and incest cases, the latter is true, but most claims I read from both sides of the issue are incorrect unless people are just talking about Psalms 139, Job 10, and child development. I want to know if there is any way people can just agree to disagree on when abortion is only for convenience, when fetuses in the womb are viable, and how women should get rid of unwanted babies they can't take care of. There is no reason to doubt someone is a Christian just because he or she disagrees on this one issue, whatever the opinion differences are. I want to be able to trade views about a Christian issue without a fear that someone will deny my faith in God. I know everyone who reads God's Word would feel the same way, whether the issue is abortion or something else.

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic that does not devolve into crap such as, "You are not a Christian," or stupid name-calling.

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

 

[Desk trauma]

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic that does not devolve into crap such as, "You are not a Christian," or stupid name-calling.

Good luck.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

There is no reason to doubt someone is a Christian just because he or she disagrees on this one issue

For many people it is very difficult to understand how someone who knows the living God and who understands that life is a gift from God can be in favor of ending the life of millions of human beings (because even though you say it's no a 'baby', it most definitely is a human being, albeit in an early stage of development).

Though conversations about this topic are often (falsely) polarized because a "pro-choicer" tends to assume that a "pro-lifer" opposes abortions under any circumstances, while many "pro-lifers" tend to assume that a "pro-choicer" wants no limits whatsoever.

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic

If you are not interested in debating whether abortion is right or wrong, which aspect of the topic are you interested in talking about?

 

[mourningdove~]

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic that does not devolve into crap such as, "You are not a Christian," or stupid name-calling.

A 'friendly' discussion about the murdering of innocent babies does not seem very likely.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Where is that verse in the Bible?

 

[GodLovesCats]

For many people it is very difficult to understand how someone who knows the living God and who understands that life is a gift from God can be in favor of ending the life of millions of human beings (because even though you say it's not a 'baby', it most definitely is a human being, albeit in an early stage of development).

Joe Biden explained the difference during his 2020 primary election campaign. He prefers no women get abortions, but as a career politician and presidential candidate, he values what the Constitution says about giving all girls and women the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.

That is where I am at. If a woman does not need an abortion, I don't want her to get one. But like the current president, I am a patriotic American citizen who believes the government must stay out of every pregnant person's body. What happened to all the federal privacy laws?

Though conversations about this topic are often (falsely) polarized because a "pro-choicer" tends to assume that a "pro-lifer" opposes abortions under any circumstances, while many "pro-lifers" tend to assume that a "pro-choicer" wants no limits whatsoever.

If you are not interested in debating whether abortion is right or wrong, which aspect of the topic are you interested in talking about?

I am just trying to discuss abortion in a friendly way. It is fine if some people think abortion is right and other people think it is wrong. What we need is a conversation that does not turn into all people making up those absolutist lies, which are told by both sides at political debates.

 

[GodLovesCats]

A 'friendly' discussion about the murdering of innocent babies does not seem very likely.

Everyone knows abortion is not murdering babies.

If you want to get mad at people for supporting infanticide, talk to those who actually do it. Nobody wants doctors to kill babies.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Joe Biden explained the difference during his 2020 primary election campaign. He prefers no women get abortions, but as a career politician and presidential candidate, he values what the Constitution says about giving all girls and women the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.

That is where I am at. If a woman does not need an abortion, I don't want her to get one. But like the current president, I am a patriotic American citizen who believes the government must stay out of every pregnant person's body. What happened to all the federal privacy laws?

Do you think women bear any amount of responsibility in getting pregnant (not including rape)? "Bodily autonomy" is a nice catchphrase, but when the woman is actively engaging in the child-making-act without protection one has to wonder why she should not bear the biological consequences at all. After all, the new human being in the womb didn't come out of nowhere.

Here in Europe we have stricter abortion-regulations than most American states. Why, you might ask? Because we think we have the moral obligation to protect the weak in our society. The weakest in society are the unborn children who can not consent to having their lives ended. Who cannot even defend themselves. There are exceptions to be made of course, but we generally believe that the right to life is most fundamental and outweighs the right to "bodily autonomy".

 

[GodLovesCats]

Do you think women bear any amount of responsibility in getting pregnant (not including rape)? "Bodily autonomy" is a nice catchphrase, but when the woman is actively engaging in the child-making-act without protection one has to wonder why she should not bear the biological consequences at all. After all, the new human being in the womb didn't come out of nowhere.

Here is something to think about: Many women who do use contraception often get pregnant anyway. No contraception method is perfect except abstinence. Sexual intercourse is a completely natural act God made for married men and women. Do you think people only do it if they plan to raise children? Or did God make adults sexually active for other reasons, such as bonding in their intimate relationships? And do you know any married women who are celibate? Until a flawless contraception exists, there will be unwanted human beings because celibacy is not realistic or what God intended.

Here in Europe we have stricter abortion-regulations than most American states. Why, you might ask? Because we think we have the moral obligation to protect the weak in our society. The weakest in society are the unborn children who can not consent to having their lives ended. Who cannot even defend themselves. There are exceptions to be made of course, but we generally believe that the right to life is most fundamental and outweighs the right to "bodily autonomy".

First of all, there is no such thing as an unborn child in society. One must be born to become part of society. In America, birth is the constitutional requirement to be called a person (and, by extension, child)

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Section 1 Due Process of Law​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Only removing bodily autonomy from girls and women is legally considered sexual discrimination. Do Europeans not realize this?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Here is something to think about: Many women who do use contraception often get pregnant anyway. No contraception method is perfect except abstinence. Sexual intercourse is a completely natural act God made for married men and women. Do you think people only do it if they plan to raise children? Or did God make adults sexually active for other reasons, such as bonding in their intimate relationships? And do you know any married women who are celibate? Until a flawless contraception exists, there will be unwanted human beings because celibacy is not realistic or what God intended.

Today's contraceptions are 99% effective. Saying "many women using them get often pregnant" isn't backed up by the data.
The main purpose of sex is to produce offspring. That's how mammals reproduced for thousands of years. Pleasure is secondary, and doesn't remove the biological factor of it.
You are right, until a flawless contraception exists there will be unwanted human beings. But if everyone used contraceptions the number of abortions would drop drastically. And even an unwanted human being doesn't necessarily have to be killed. There are entire lists of people wishing to adopt a child.

First of all, there is no such thing as an unborn child in society. One must be born to become part of society. In America, birth is the constitutional requirement to be called a person (and, by extension, child)

In Europe we don't have such a rule The point of birth is a very arbitrary point. There is virtually no difference between a 9-months old baby in the womb a day before birth and a 9-months old baby outside the womb a day after birth. Please explain why it is okay to end the life of the baby on one end of the birth canal but not on the other.

Only removing bodily autonomy from girls and women is legally considered sexual discrimination. Do Europeans not realize this?

Biology is not sexism Do you really think it is reasonable to blame the government for the fact that children are carried out by women and not by men?
Also, men don't have full bodily autonomy either. Who do you think is being enlisted in times of war? The government has the right to demand the body of their people in order to keep the society alive: the men's bodies to defend it, and the women's bodies to ensure the next generation (with the slight difference that men are forced to put their life on the line while women are not forced to get pregant in the first place).

 

[Kylie]

There is virtually no difference between a 9-months old baby in the womb a day before birth and a 9-months old baby outside the womb a day after birth. Please explain why it is okay to end the life of the baby on one end of the birth canal but not on the other.

The vast majority of abortions take place early on, not at the nine-month mark. And I don't think anyone ever has decided to abort a nine month old fetus. There are late term abortions, yes, but these are pretty much always done because the fetus is dead or there is some threat to the mother's life.

Of course, if you can show me a case of a person nine months pregnant who has decided, nah, I don't want a baby, give me an abortion," I'd be happy to reconsider.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

The vast majority of abortions take place early on, not at the nine-month mark. And I don't think anyone ever has decided to abort a nine month old fetus. There are late term abortions, yes, but these are pretty much always done because the fetus is dead or there is some threat to the mother's life.

Of course, if you can show me a case of a person nine months pregnant who has decided, nah, I don't want a baby, give me an abortion," I'd be happy to reconsider.

That's not the point of my argument My argument is that the point of birth is very arbitrary when it comes to the value of human life. You either have to give up the idea that "you cannot kill someone who hasn't been born yet" or you have to explain why the physical location, namely being on this or that side of the birth canal, is deciding whether a human life is valuable or not.
If you think that a 9-months old baby in the womb shouldn't be killed (aka "aborted") you need to find a new standard by which a human life's value is determined. Not birth.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The vast majority of abortions take place early on, not at the nine-month mark. And I don't think anyone ever has decided to abort a nine month old fetus. There are late term abortions, yes, but these are pretty much always done because the fetus is dead or there is some threat to the mother's life.

Of course, if you can show me a case of a person nine months pregnant who has decided, nah, I don't want a baby, give me an abortion," I'd be happy to reconsider.

Obviously if the woman is pregnant that long, she did want her baby.

Also babies are born prematurely and stay in the NICU if survival is possible at the time of a maternal emergency.

 

[Margaret3110]

I, too, wish that people on both sides were more charitable. I have been on both sides; my views have evolved over time and have been influenced by my experiences as a pregnant woman and mother to a baby with birth defects who spent time in the NICU.

 

[Kylie]

That's not the point of my argument My argument is that the point of birth is very arbitrary when it comes to the value of human life. You either have to give up the idea that "you cannot kill someone who hasn't been born yet" or you have to explain why the physical location, namely being on this or that side of the birth canal, is deciding whether a human life is valuable or not.
If you think that a 9-months old baby in the womb shouldn't be killed (aka "aborted") you need to find a new standard by which a human life's value is determined. Not birth.

How about this. We stop treating it as a part of the mother's body when it's developed to the point where it can survive outside the womb. That's at 24 weeks.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

How about this. We stop treating it as a part of the mother's body when it's developed to the point where it can survive outside the womb. That's at 24 weeks.

If we lived in the Middle Ages without a basic understanding of biology that would make sense, yes. But we don't We know very well that a fetus is a distinct human being with its own, unique DNA. Without question it is not part of the mother's body. Let's put that aside for a second though and just evaluate whether "viability" is a good way to determine whether a human life is valuable or not.

Can a baby survive on its own after 24 weeks? No it cannot. If the mother stops feeding the baby he will inevitably die. If we make "can survive without help" the deciding factor in the value of human life then we would have to approve of infanticide. Viability is also not a specific point. We commonly say "24 weeks", but in reality there have been babies born after 22 weeks who survived and babies born after 27 weeks who died.
The baby needs help to survive both inside the womb and outside the womb, so why do you think that his life should have value only outside the womb?
By the way, I have heard people compare a fetus to a parasite, so just to get this straight: nurturing the fetus is the only and intended purpose of the womb. An unborn human being in the womb is how it's supposed to be.

This is what a fetus looks like after 20 weeks (notice, this is one month prior to your suggested abortion-limit):
At this point in time you can tell whether the fetus is male or female. He has a heartbeat, fingernails, a detailed face, and a brain. Hair begins to grow on the head. Why exactly is this life not valuable?

Baby at 20 weeks

Baby at 20 weeks, phoenix freedom midwife tells you all you need to know about your baby at 20 weeks and what is to come. Your baby is 25cm long and you are half way to your due date!

phoenixfreedom.co.uk

 

[Margaret3110]

If we lived in the Middle Ages without a basic understanding of biology that would make sense, yes. But we don't We know very well that a fetus is a distinct human being with its own, unique DNA. Without question it is not part of the mother's body. Let's put that aside for a second though and just evaluate whether "viability" is a good way to determine whether a human life is valuable or not.

Can a baby survive on its own after 24 weeks? No it cannot. If the mother stops feeding the baby he will inevitably die. If we make "can survive without help" the deciding factor in the value of human life then we would have to approve of infanticide. Viability is also not a specific point. We commonly say "24 weeks", but in reality there have been babies born after 22 weeks who survived and babies born after 27 weeks who died.
The baby needs help to survive both inside the womb and outside the womb, so why do you think that his life should have value only outside the womb?
By the way, I have heard people compare a fetus to a parasite, so just to get this straight: nurturing the fetus is the only and intended purpose of the womb. An unborn human being in the womb is how it's supposed to be.

This is what a fetus looks like after 20 weeks (notice, this is one month prior to your suggested abortion-limit):
At this point in time you can tell whether the fetus is male or female. He has a heartbeat, fingernails, a detailed face, and a brain. Hair begins to grow on the head. Why exactly is this life not valuable?

I always cringe when people compare the fetus to a parasite. That's a truly messed up way of looking at it.

I believe all human life is valuable and that abortion is wrong (with exceptions, such as an ectopic pregnancy, which is not viable and threatens the mother's life) and always tragic. However, I also believe that having the government legislate abortion is problematic for a number of reasons. For instance, a woman who has a miscarriage is in danger of being prosecuted, if abortion is illegal. I talked to a woman once who had had a late-term abortion; her baby's organs were all on the outside of its body. These are tragic, painful, intimate situations, and when we legislate them, we merely add to the pain and invasiveness.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I always cringe when people compare the fetus to a parasite. That's a truly messed up way of looking at it.

I believe all human life is valuable and that abortion is wrong (with exceptions, such as an ectopic pregnancy, which is not viable and threatens the mother's life) and always tragic. However, I also believe that having the government legislate abortion is problematic for a number of reasons. For instance, a woman who has a miscarriage is in danger of being prosecuted, if abortion is illegal. I talked to a woman once who had had a late-term abortion; her baby's organs were all on the outside of its body. These are tragic, painful, intimate situations, and when we legislate them, we merely add to the pain and invasiveness.

Do you believe that any kind of legislation regarding abortion is problematic? I find it more problematic when a society allows to willy-nilly slaughter unborn children out of convenience. At the moment, abortions because of rape/incest and the mother's life being threatened make up about 1,5% of all abortions. Let's say all these shall be legal and fine. What about the other 98.5%?