Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[flicka]

What exactly is someone suppose to do about it? Seriously! I do whole heartedly think that people need to just deal with what happens, if dealing with it means that you persecute the offender, thats fine and dandy, whatever you need to do, do it. I just don't see how "dealing with it" is blaming the child and destroying it. That is pretty much my entire argument against abortion and that is why I think it is wrong. I do most certainly believe that bad things happen to everyone and everyone just has to move along and deal with it. What is so wrong about me saying that? Why am I chastized for saying the truth? You make it sound like I'm totaly wrong when no one can really offer up another reasonable course of action. Something bad happens, you just deal with it, plain and simple.

I don't feel like I'm totaly crazy here, I've talked it over with my wife and we are in total agreement on the subject. She isn't the type of person who would let me impose my thoughts on her.

Well. I'm not going to say your totally wrong and if that is honestly your belief then you have every right to say it and act accordingly. However, your rights end with you...they cant be forced on people who don't share your personal convictions.

If my 12 yr old daughter became pregnant as a result of a rape you can bet I would have her get an abortion and I have no fears of how God or anyone else sees it because that is my personal conviction.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I guess I missed your post(s) attempting to link the two concepts. I disagree tho with the fundamental idea of killing an unborn child being self defence because the child is not willingly attacking the mother. The unborn is not at fault for existing while self defence killing is for the purpose of defending yourself against a willful attacker/agressor.

I didn't come up with the comarison someone else did, Farther back in the thread. I have used it though.

 

[Caprice]

If my 12 yr old daughter became pregnant as a result of a rape you can bet I would have her get an abortion and I have no fears of how God or anyone else sees it because that is my personal conviction.

It is your perogative as a parent to do that (it would also not be your daughter's sin to deal with if you ask me if you made the choice). The fact that you have no fear of it doesn't necesarily make it right, but I suppose the concept of right has been lost in this discussion... or perhaps never existed at all.

your rights end with you...they cant be forced on people who don't share your personal convictions.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, it seems to me that every day we are forced into actions based on the convictions of others. We can argue our own convictions but we aren't always the one in charge of the situation.

I guess what comes to my mind with this is the fact that abortion offends me, but taking care of a "rape baby" offends you. You win in respects to this argument and my convictions are pushed to the side.

The fact that I'm not directly affected by your theoretial situation or your decision in that situation does not mean that I do not care and that I am not offended by it. People argue political correctness all the time but honestly I've noticed that everything that would is politically correct to someone else is the exact oposite to me. Why do I suffer at the expense of this political correct-ness when the idea behind it is equality?

This issue (and many others I think) really boils down to something more imortant than abortion but no one wants to sees that, they just see the topic at hand and argue argue argue it into the bloody ground til no one wants to discuss it any further. This isn't about you, or twelve year old rape victims, or the theoretical rape-baby itself. It is about a general concept of reality and morality that everyone wants to ignore for their own convenience. Life is not intended to be convenient -- God doesn't promice an easy road. Honestly I'm not sure I'd care to exist at all if life weren't a challenege every day.

Anyway, I've said what I have to say in this thread I think... at this point anything more would be merely repeat data. My opinions and thoughts don't change your view any more than yours do mine.

Edited to add: Well, I just looked back and realize now you're not professing to be of any particular religion, so you can take out all my references to God and just remember that no one, no entity, nothing at all promices an easy life for anyone. Morality can exist without a God, for what use would laws be without a concept of morality? Why sacrifice what is important (life itself) for convenience?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Well, I have never seen a child horrified by the pictures. Nope, never. I have seen adults who think their kids might get upset. The kids are usually either sympathetic and VERY interested and curious or they simply show no interest at all. All of the complaints about the pictures come from adults.

Yep. I can tesify to that, my daughters saw me looking at the pictures and, watching the film. My oldest daughters comment was that she was going to take the baby to the doctor, get a new head and make him feel better, so he could learn to talk. She autmaticly understood that the baby was one like she was only 4 years ago, her only concern was for the well being of that baby. I told her some reasons why a mother might kill her baby, and she wasn't in the least bit concerned about that, she just wanted the baby in the picture to feel better. She said she wanted the baby to be able to cry. Maybe poeple should take a lesson from the children themselves. I know that some poeple on this site will dissagree to me letting my daughters see such graphic pictures, but I will hope not ever to withold the truth from them. Neither of them were scared or horrifyed by it. Instead my daughter kept asking me why someone would kill a baby. I'm ready for whatever cruel things you have to say about exposing them to that, but no matter how cruel anyone might think that is, just imagene if I had aborted my daughter instead.

 

[flicka]

Well, I have never seen a child horrified by the pictures. Nope, never. I have seen adults who think their kids might get upset.

Great. I guess we can throw those movie ratings right out the window then...no 'R' rated movie violence would be inappropriate for children either.

Bottom line on this subject is some people will never accept it yet you can't force someone to be pregnant against her will either. My take on this (and most other controversial subjects) is: Let your personal convictions be your guide, don't offer your opinion unless asked, help those who you can, and if you can't help them at least don't hurt them with words or actions that will not change anything anyway. I think people who are already here deserve at least as much respect as those who arn't.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Great. I guess we can throw those movie ratings right out the window then...no 'R' rated movie violence would be inappropriate for children either.

That is completly diffrent r rated movies with that type of content is somebodys not so pleasent fantisy(not real). Abortion is real, it happens for real every day, and the pictures are authentic pictures of the victims of this. Oh yeah by the way I am not trying to empose my beliefs on another person, I am here to debate, that would mean that I tell you my opinion and why I feel that way. I am certianly not trying to be rude. I hope I don't come accrost that way.

 

[Fuzzy]

Most people refer to spontaneous abortion as a miscarriage.

Yes they do.

A cancerous tumor is a disease growing on or in ones body. The tumor is made up of the DNA of the operson it is growing on. A fetus is a separate, Uniqu individual, who has a unique DNA structare--that is different from, but can be traced back to the parent. It is physically and biological;ly a different person than its mother. Not a growth of diseased cells.

As far as a conjoined twin--I am not sure what you mean. Yes some twins are conjoined. ???

And cancer cells are cells wherein the genome has degraded or mutated,
giving it a distinct genetic makeup from the afflicted person.
http://press2.nci.nih.gov/sciencebehind/cancer/cancer40.htm

And as far as conjoined twins...
http://www.conjoined-twins.i-p.com/

In the case of a parasitic assymetrical conjoined twin, removal of the twin
is advocated to improve the health/quality of the other. Is that right?
If not, why does it happen?

 

[pthalomarie]

Well, I have never seen a child horrified by the pictures. Nope, never. I have seen adults who think their kids might get upset.

Hmmm....

I wonder what you'd say if a father who showed their kid a porn film said the above. I suspect that you'd have a very, very hard time imagining that a child could see people doing the deed in the most graphic way possible and not be affected.

As Flicka pointed out, if you claim that children can be unfazed by bloody, murdered corpses, then you throw any reason for shielding children from "adult" entertainment out the window. If kids should view dead babies, well, then why not let them view "pretend" dead people? If they're unfazed by the real thing, let them watch one of those videotaped beheadings the terrorists release every week or so. Or sit 'em down for a Friday the 13th movie.

Compared to what you're subjecting them to, pornography is a skip in the park.

And really, how would you know if a kid was horrified? Have uyou interviewed every blessed kid you've ever seen during a demonstration? Don't you know that sometimes the most traumatized people are the quietest?

We get alot of thumbs up and other digits up. We also get donations.

Gee, if there's money exchanged, then it must be legit, right?

I do sidewalk counsel and pray outside of clinics but I also have every legal right and moral obligation to hold the pictures of the aborted humans so people will know what an abotion is.

Demonstrators have a right to show those photos, but by being so cavalier about what they're subjecting children to, they've lost any moral credibility they may have otherwise had.

And besides, what good does it do to show kids those photos?

Since about 1 in 4 women have had abortions,

Where on earth so you get that absurd number?

Just like I said-they have a great impact. People should drive carefully however.

LOL. Let's almost cause an accident, huh?

Out of curiousity, if one of those billboards distracts a driver to the point that they're rear-ended and killed, is the pro-life group whgo put up the billboard accountable for the driver's death?

 

[idunno]

I have found that most of the replys to this tread have been carnial. I speak to christians when I say this. WE ARE FIGHTING SATAN. Not overpopulation, or the down fall of the economy, or for the conveniance or benifits of any human, even the unborn babys. Those things come as a result to satans power to overcome the spirits of people. The answer to this is downright simple abortion is a sin! The only way to truly and effectivly fight the sin of this world is by the grace, power, mercy and diety of the one and only God! If you don't trust your Father to lead you thru the dark (pregnant and dying or not!) YOU WILL FALL INTO THE PIT. Stop thinking about the riches of the world and keep your eyes on Jesus! PLEASE for your sake stop! love.

I don't quite understand one of the last statements. When you said"stop thinking about the riches of the world, did you mean money? Everything else touched my heart, but I am unclear on this subject, because I don't consider wordly riches my goal. Because if I have somthing I usually end up giving it away.

 

[idunno]

Great. I guess we can throw those movie ratings right out the window then...no 'R' rated movie violence would be inappropriate for children either. QUOTE]

Fact. Do you not teace your child that a stanger can kidnap them and use them in any way they wish? Is this not a fact of life. Porno's are not accually two people loving eachother, But instead a luractive business. Abortion is an acualy a fact of life, it is history in the making. These baby's are authentic victims of decision makers, for convienance, or profit. So therefore for the person who said mabye we should let them see porno's, if it were a loving situation maybe we should let them see porno's, but it is not, it is a sadistec fantisy of a sexualy immoral person.

 

[Madcoil]

If I stabbed a pregnant woman in the stomach, and the fetus inside her ceased to grow/died/expired/expulged/became an ex-fetus, would I be a murderer?

 

[Prince Lucianus]

If I stabbed a pregnant woman in the stomach, and the fetus inside her ceased to grow/died/expired/expulged/became an ex-fetus, would I be a murderer?

Well, god did that, and he's not a murderer....

So, using god's standards I would say no.

Lucy

 

[kissybug27]

Ok I don't know where people come up with this stuff but an action taken with the intent to harm is always a sin. And by killing someone who is born or not with that action taken it is murder. If I'm in a car and my car slides and because of that I killl someone it's not murder, that would be classified as an accident. But if someone stabs a women well that would lead me to think they had intent to kill her and if she is pregnant then they are guilty of two murders because...... that child is a living soul, regardless if they knew or not that the women was pregnant. It's like someone who is drunk and driving a car, if they wreck or cause and accident that results in the death of another person or persons, well that is considered murder. They go to jail or worse depending on what state they are in and basically who they killed. And even if in the eyes of the law it isn't classified as murder if you kill an unborn child ....it's still wrong in the eyes of God and you can say that because God did it that it must be ok but thats not true....God gives life and can take it, it is only He who can judge there for the only one who has the right to take a life....first I want to know where in the bible it says that God stabs a woman and killed her child...I have never read this....theres a lot I havent read and am still learning........Please if you have the verse or can tell me where to find it I will read it ..............

One more thing.......I have been chatting for over 3 years and have come to find out that people dont agree on everything.....meaning two christians have different views ............debating is a good thing as long as you keep it peaceful......I try to word my posts where they don't come across hard but have found out in the past week that it doesn't really matter how you word it cause people can't hear what they are reading the way you hear it when you are typing it. Please remember that everyone has a God given right to decide how they feel about something and although we can influcence them to change we can not make them change.


I love God and God loves you therefore through God I love you.

God Bless Ya'll †††

 

[Stringaling]

And cancer cells are cells wherein the genome has degraded or mutated,
giving it a distinct genetic makeup from the afflicted person.

Cancer is still a disease. Not a separate entity. It does not have brain functioning, suck its thumb and fingers, get hiccups( like babies in utero do), urinate, (like babies do in utero), have a heart, liver, lungs, fingernails, eyelashes, a unique set of fingerprints, genitals, a digestive tract, baby teeth buds growing inside gums (although I do acknowledge that some tumors have been found to have grown teeth-but not in the form of a baby), tumors also are not formed from a mother's ovum and a father's sperm, tumors cannot hear, they cannot wiggle, and they cannot develop a personality. Ask any woman that has ever been pregnant and she can tell you that she could tell some of her baby's personality by his sleep cycles and his movements while unborn.

An unborn baby is still a human being worthy of life.

I notice that you cannot use anything but technical terms. By using technical terms we separate ourselves from the humanity of the person. that is why many docters will refer to their patients as "the patient" rather than by name because if they acknowledge that the patient has a name then the patient becomes more human to them and their hearts, or morality or whatever you want to call it will not allow them to treat the patient as impersonally as they do. You are using the same methods to remove yourself from the situation. begin to acknowledge the growing fetus as a baby and deep down inside you you will realize that it is a life and not a paracitic lump of cells. One day you were that tiny "mass of cells" that developed a heart, and even you kicked inside your mother's womb and she knew when you were sleeping, when you were energetic. If every fetus is a worthless thing then it is illogical that the worthless things suddenly gain worth by exposure to air. By growing into a completely independant thing a worthless thing does not gain worth. The value must be there from the beginning.

Until you stop removing yourself from the humanity of these babies by using clinical terms constantly, you will not see the reality of their lives. You intentionally use the clinical terms because a part of your subconscence knows that if you do not then you will not be able to maintain your distance in regards to the life and huminity of unborn babies.

 

[Fuzzy]

I notice that you cannot use anything but technical terms. By using technical terms we separate ourselves from the humanity of the person.

By using technical terms, which have set definitions, there's less chance
of misinterpretation.

You are using the same methods to remove yourself from the situation.

I'm already removed from the situation by being male. Without really radical
surgery, the closest I'd be involved is my role in conception and fertilization,
and whatever relationship I have to the mother (relationships can fail).

begin to acknowledge the growing fetus as a baby and deep down inside you you will realize that it is a life and not a paracitic lump of cells.

It's a potential life, with a gradually increasing state of independence as
gestation progresses. And until that baby can function independently of the
mother, it IS a parasite, by the definition of the word.

You intentionally use the clinical terms because a part of your subconscence knows that if you do not then you will not be able to maintain your distance in regards to the life and huminity of unborn babies.

I intentionally use those terms because they are the terms I choose to use.
They are defined, commonly accepted, understood, and as close to a
neutral term as one can get on this topic. Or would you prefer I use some
of the more negative euphemisms I've seen and heard over the years?

My stance on the "life and humanity of unborn babies" is that it's a potential
life until it's independent of the mother. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone
else can KNOW what will happen to that fetus/baby. We can make informed opinions, and guesses, and hopes, but we can't KNOW. The final authority of what happens to that baby/fetus HAS to be the mother. She's the one who is most directly involved in its healthy development and what the life of that child will potentially be like.

 

[Monica02]

Hmmm....

I wonder what you'd say if a father who showed their kid a porn film said the above. I suspect that you'd have a very, very hard time imagining that a child could see people doing the deed in the most graphic way possible and not be affected.

I said horrified, not affected. Of course the children are affected.

As Flicka pointed out, if you claim that children can be unfazed by bloody, murdered corpses, then you throw any reason for shielding children from "adult" entertainment out the window. If kids should view dead babies, well, then why not let them view "pretend" dead people? If they're unfazed by the real thing, let them watch one of those videotaped beheadings the terrorists release every week or so. Or sit 'em down for a Friday the 13th movie.

I never said that children were unfazed. I said some were very interested and sympathetic and some simply did not seem at all interested.

And really, how would you know if a kid was horrified? Have uyou interviewed every blessed kid you've ever seen during a demonstration? Don't you know that sometimes the most traumatized people are the quietest?

I said that I have never seen a child horrified. I suppose it is possible that they would later be affected. Hopefully they will remember the photo when they are older and decide not to have an abortion.

Gee, if there's money exchanged, then it must be legit, right?

My point was to show that alot of people support the demonstrations.

Demonstrators have a right to show those photos, but by being so cavalier about what they're subjecting children to, they've lost any moral credibility they may have otherwise had.

So says you. Like I stated earlier, we have alot of support.

And besides, what good does it do to show kids those photos?

The same good it does to show everybody else the truth of what abortion is.

Where on earth so you get that absurd number?

I said ABOUT 1/4. According to stats from the pro-aborts about 1 in 3 pregnancies end in abortion. Alot of these are repeat abortions so a good guess would be that about 1 in 4 women have had abortions. Anyhow, ask alot of the women you know and see how many have aborted. Not a scientific poll by any stretch, but it should be interesting to see the results.

Out of curiousity, if one of those billboards distracts a driver to the point that they're rear-ended and killed, is the pro-life group whgo put up the billboard accountable for the driver's death?

I and the law would blame the person who rear-ended the driver who was killed. Why don't you find a case of this happening and try to take it to court. The person behind the wheel is responsible for their own driving. There will always be distractions, pro-life billboards or otherwise.


Bottom line: Pro-aborts do not want the photos shown because it exposes the truth of what an abortion is.

 

[kissybug27]

I'm already removed from the situation by being male. Without really radical
surgery, the closest I'd be involved is my role in conception and fertilization,
and whatever relationship I have to the mother (relationships can fail).

I'm gonna beg to differ on this one. You are removed because some, not most, but some men remove themselves because they don't want to live up to their responsiblity. You feel you have done your part and nothing else is required. But the fact is is that child that is concieved is just as much a part of the man as it is the woman. I feel that if a woman decided to have an abortion she should tell the father. Now I'm talking about women who are not raped. And I will tell you this....My husband may not have had to carry the either one of our children or go through a combined approx. 72 hours labor with them but he went through just as much emotionally as I did physically. He was a part of my pregnancy not only the conception but thought out. You have responsiblities as a man if you get someone pregnant. You could say I dont want to have anything to do with it but in the eyes of God it is still your responsiblity and if you don't live up to it your are sinning. Ok enough said about that.

It's a potential life, with a gradually increasing state of independence as
gestation progresses. And until that baby can function independently of the
mother, it IS a parasite, by the definition of the word.

See this is what gets me riled. Being the mother of two beautiful healthy little red heads it makes me angry when someone says that my children were once parasites. This is not true. You need to talk to some women who have had children and let them tell you the bonds that are made in early pregnancy. And just to let you know even after a child is born it still needs its mother or someone to be a mother for it. A baby can not function without someone to take care of it. "And until that baby can function independently of the mother" By making this statement you have allowed mothers to murder their children because of the fact that a child can not function independently of a care giver. Babies can not feed themselves change themselves cloth themselves or teach themselves. Yes they can live but for how long. A baby has a soul from conception. God did not mean for us to murder our own young. When we do we are no better then the wild animals that eat their young. I don't know about you but I'm not an animal. Please take this in peace Im not yelling or anything just a bit upset at the way you describe my children.

 

[Monica02]

. My oldest daughters comment was that she was going to take the baby to the doctor, get a new head and make him feel better, so he could learn to talk. She autmaticly understood that the baby was one like she was only 4 years ago, her only concern was for the well being of that baby. .

This breaks my heart.

 

[Fuzzy]

I'm gonna beg to differ on this one. You are removed because some, not most, but some men remove themselves because they don't want to live up to their responsiblity.

The difference is I'm talking about biological/physical involvement with
gestation, and you're talking about emotional/spiritual/intellectual
involvement.

You could say I dont want to have anything to do with it but in the eyes of God it is still your responsiblity and if you don't live up to it your are sinning. Ok enough said about that.

That's YOUR god's view, not necessarily anyone else's. That's also
your definition of sin. There's also legal perspectives on the issue.

See this is what gets me riled. Being the mother of two beautiful healthy little red heads it makes me angry when someone says that my children were once parasites. This is not true. You need to talk to some women who have had children and let them tell you the bonds that are made in early pregnancy.

And in the early stages, it was classifiable as a parasite. It drew nutrients
from you. You sheltered it. You breathed for it. What benefit, other
than emotional happiness, did it give to you?

As far as talking to pregnant women, I've talked to many different sorts of
women, whose opinions varied wildly on any issue that came up, including
the beauty and/or burden of childrearing. Every human has different opinons.
Part and parcel of being independent, sentient animals.

I don't know about you but I'm not an animal. Please take this in peace Im not yelling or anything just a bit upset at the way you describe my children.

You're an animal, a mammal, Homo sapiens sapiens. You don't eat your
young, you don't fly, you may not brachiate, and you probably don't go
minutes at a time without breathing while swimming 20 feet below the
surface of the ocean. But you, and I, are still biologically animals. Special
animals to be sure, but still animals.

It was not my intention to insult your children, or you. I am happy that you are happy with your kids and husband. Really.

 

[A. believer]

Howdy fellow citizens! Whether you are for or against Abortion, I would like to ask everyone for your honest and sound inputs on the following idea.

Abortion is/has been one of the top world-wide issue. I would like to take a moment to briefly analyze the definition of "life," and perhaps see it from a different angle. Also, I humbly ask to be excused from my flaws or any of my assumptions as I am still a student in philosophy. I also ask that you read this as a piece of treat without a critical mind analyzing my mistakes as I am only trying to better understand this subject. Thankyou.

Firstly, I have heard and am aware of the mother's right to choose. There are many exceptional cases in abortion. Some women conceive a child through rape, incest, or simply by a mistake. and for both the sake of mother and the "thing" inside the womb, it is understood that the following action of "abortion" is tolerated.

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

Because the way I see it, the issue isn't the mother's right to choose. I think the real issue is the definition of life. Because if the fetus inside the womb is by definition life, then it rightfully assumes the basic human rights which includes the right to live. The mother no longer has jurisdiction over the life of the baby if infact whats inside is life.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)
Which is greater?

Consider this, though it may sound awfully silly. Does a mother have a choice to "abort" a 5 year old boy? If the fetus is infact life, does it not have the same right as would a 5 year old boy? If so, then the difference between the 5 year old boy and the fetus would be the location. One being inside the womb and one out in the field.

Is it not agreeable that the real issue of abortion is definition of life rather than mother's right to choose? Thanks for bearing with me and I hope for many interesting inputs.

You've hit the nail on the head. The so-called "right to choose" (whether or not to kill one's unborn child) is not some God-given innate right every woman possesses. Rather, it's a "right" bestowed upon American women by the United States Supreme Court (who were, incidentally, going way beyond their jurisdiction by "interpreting the Constitution" in a manner far removed from the intent of its authors.) The abortion debate isn't about taking away some so-called right of mothers--it's about the sanctity of human life.