• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Outspoken

Standing in the Gap
Nov 8, 2002
6,441
16
48
✟29,688.00
Faith
Christian
flicka said:
My post was in responose to those saying a woman should carry a baby even if it put her life at risk because she already got to live and should now give the baby a chance. I stand by my statement. If you would die for you unborn child more power to you, if you would force another woman to that is nothing more than you playing god. And only god can play god.
this is an incorrect statement. if you are saying she should take the baby to term regardless of her own peril, that is not asking her to play God, it is asking her to value the child's life over hers...and on a tangent, I've never talked to a parent that wouldn't give their life for their son or daughter. :)
 
Upvote 0

Fuzzy

One by Four by Nine
Aug 12, 2004
1,538
94
✟24,714.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Outspoken said:
You miss the point. She was acting as a pro-life person by taking the baby to term.
But she can still be pro-choice. Just because she does something doesn't
mean she expects everyone else to do the same thing.

Outspoken said:
I think you might want to change your words there, you misspoke if you are pro-abortion. The correct sentence is...

"All one's ability to answer means is that its mother carried it to term and it became them."


remember according to pro-abortion people its not a baby until AFTER its born.
The American Heritage Dictionary allows "their" as a gender neutral pronoun,
and it can also be used when the referenced noun is implied. The fetus
still has a mother, thus "their" is as usable a term as "its."

And as far as the definition of "baby," here's the American Heritage dictionary
again:
    1. <LI type=a>A very young child; an infant. <LI type=a>An unborn child; a fetus. <LI type=a>The youngest member of a family or group.
    2. A very young animal.
  1. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
  2. Slang. A girl or young woman.
  3. Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
  4. Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
 
Upvote 0

jesusfreak3786

Senior Veteran
Sep 27, 2004
2,252
59
New York
✟25,212.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
kissybug27 said:
Aren't you playing God when you decide to kill an unborn child?
I don't think this would be mispoken at all, but you would have to understand that it isn't derected towards the fact that you in peticular have played God, but that you feel it is right to take a life, which is Gods right. He gives us choice, that is very true. Thats why I call it pro-abortion and not pro-choice. Evryone has the choice to do whatever thier body, finaces, and intellect allow them to do.pro-choice is a much broader spectrum than pro-abortion. Either way killing a 20 year old life, and killing a 20 week old "fetus" should be illigal.
 
Upvote 0

Seeking...

A strange kettle of fish ...
May 20, 2004
864
112
50
Southern California
✟16,564.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Others
Outspoken said:
this is an incorrect statement. if you are saying she should take the baby to term regardless of her own peril, that is not asking her to play God, it is asking her to value the child's life over hers...and on a tangent, I've never talked to a parent that wouldn't give their life for their son or daughter. :)
You are right - you are asking her to value the child's life over hers - but why should she? Why should a pregnant woman who is a possibly a wife, mother to others, daughter, sister, friend, counsellor & etc. with responsibilities and relationships sacrifice her life and what she means to others for a child who has no bonds with anyone yet? Why should she undervalue her life for the sake of a potential?

As for talking to parents giving up their lives - so what. Yes every parent I know would give their life to save the life of any child they have that has been born. I know quite of few who would not die - would not devastate their families for an unborn child. Have you ever known a man who had to make the choice of wife or child during a complicated delivery? Most men put in the position of having to make a decision on the spot would choose their wife.
 
Upvote 0

MJL

New Member
Nov 2, 2004
3
0
✟113.00
Faith
Christian
This first post is absolutely correct, in my opinion. There is life within the womb just as there is the life of a 5 yr old boy. What amazes me is that the posts I have read so far have not acknowledged anything from the Bible regarding this. Doesn't the bible say how God first knew us in the womb??? Meaning that we were important to him even then! And aren't we to try to live holy lives, respecting life? ("Be holy, for I am holy" ??) Well, then why do we think we have the "right to choose" and the right to play God with the taking of lives? I don't care if it's LEGAL. There's man's law, and then there's God's law. Aren't we trying to live by God's standards? I agree with the one post I read... that "There is nobody's life that is not worth living.
Nobody has the right to make such a choice."

Amen!!
 
Upvote 0

jesusfreak3786

Senior Veteran
Sep 27, 2004
2,252
59
New York
✟25,212.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
MJL said:
This first post is absolutely correct, in my opinion. There is life within the womb just as there is the life of a 5 yr old boy. What amazes me is that the posts I have read so far have not acknowledged anything from the Bible regarding this. Doesn't the bible say how God first knew us in the womb??? Meaning that we were important to him even then! And aren't we to try to live holy lives, respecting life? ("Be holy, for I am holy" ??) Well, then why do we think we have the "right to choose" and the right to play God with the taking of lives? I don't care if it's LEGAL. There's man's law, and then there's God's law. Aren't we trying to live by God's standards? I agree with the one post I read... that "There is nobody's life that is not worth living.
Nobody has the right to make such a choice."

Amen!!

I second that amen!!!!!!!!
 
Upvote 0

Seeking...

A strange kettle of fish ...
May 20, 2004
864
112
50
Southern California
✟16,564.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Others
MJL said:
This first post is absolutely correct, in my opinion. There is life within the womb just as there is the life of a 5 yr old boy. What amazes me is that the posts I have read so far have not acknowledged anything from the Bible regarding this. Doesn't the bible say how God first knew us in the womb??? Meaning that we were important to him even then! And aren't we to try to live holy lives, respecting life? ("Be holy, for I am holy" ??) Well, then why do we think we have the "right to choose" and the right to play God with the taking of lives? I don't care if it's LEGAL. There's man's law, and then there's God's law. Aren't we trying to live by God's standards? I agree with the one post I read... that "There is nobody's life that is not worth living.
Nobody has the right to make such a choice."

Amen!!
I have an old question that I am not sure has ever been answered. How can life in the womb be so important to God, and abortion so abhorent, when so many pregnancies end in miscarriage?

I would also like to know where this "playing God" line is. Medical science intrudes upon the natural course of everyone's life and has for quite a while. An abortion is playing God on a lesser scale than a NICU - but you wouldn't want that to go away, would you?
 
Upvote 0

Monica02

Senior Veteran
Aug 17, 2004
2,568
152
✟3,547.00
Faith
Catholic
pthalomarie said:
And I'll repeat my question to you in my last post to you:

What is the correct reaction children should have to the photos?

You've attempted the very bizarre juggling act of, on one hand, insisting that the photos can and should shock people, and on the other hand emphasizing the cavalier disinterest children have towards the photos as evidence that they're not worth complaining about.

It's clear that this is a hard corner to get out of. If the point is to shock as many people as possible, then you admit that there is merit to those who say that the photos are traumatic to children. However, if those young people who laugh and play unfazed by the photos are giving you the intended reaction, then you admit that the phgotos don't work, and then they're unneccessary.

I do not think that I ever used the word shock and I never said all children have a cavalier attitude. I said that my experience has been that children are either very interested and sympathetic or they show no interest at all. I also said that I have never seen a child horrified by the photos. I also said that adults are the ones who sometimes are horrified and flip out.

I am not in a corner.

The point of the demonstrations is to show the reality of what an abortion looks like. Abortion is offensive and therefore the signs are offensive.

People (children and adults) react in all different ways. I have seen women crying, women and men looking down at the sidewalk. I have seen people go grab a poster and join in on the demo. I have seen people open their wallet adn hand us cash. I have seen people hit a member of our group and get arrested. I have seen middle fingers up and thumbs up. I have seen school kids crowd around too see the photos. I have seen parents cover their childs eyes. I have seen parents stop and explain to thier children what the picture is. I have seen parents and their children participating in the sign holding.

I do not know what you mean by "correct reaction" A person, child or adult can and do react any way they want too, as evidenced by the previous paragraph. People are affected by the signs or they would not react to them. Because some people do not react to them does not mean that the demonstrations are not effective. Most people look and many people react noticably to them. Adults have different reactions and so do kids. I hope people will see them and realize that abortion is the violent taking of an innocent little life.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,439
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟617,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Outspoken said:
this is an incorrect statement. if you are saying she should take the baby to term regardless of her own peril, that is not asking her to play God, it is asking her to value the child's life over hers...and on a tangent, I've never talked to a parent that wouldn't give their life for their son or daughter. :)

But the choice to have an abortion if her life is threatened needs to remain with the pregnant woman. No one else should be making that choice for her.
 
Upvote 0

kissybug27

Active Member
Oct 27, 2004
188
17
48
Tennessee
✟510.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Archivist said:
But the choice to have an abortion if her life is threatened needs to remain with the pregnant woman. No one else should be making that choice for her.

Well, I don't know how to explain what it is that I'm thinking about this. But I'll try. Is there a law against beating your wife? Yes there is. If these domestic violence laws were never made then how many women would be beaten today? We have laws to protect us. Where is the law that protects an unborn child? There is none.

What I mean by this is that what we permit to happen will happen. Some men believe they have a God given right to beat their wives. If these laws were not in place I believe alot of women who are not being abuse would be being abused because they would have no protection under the law. By making abortion legal we are allowing the murder of innocent children. Like I said what we permit to happen will happen.

A women or a young girl can go down to any abortion clinic and killed their child and no one ever has to know. I know that alot of prolife people believe that rape and incest should be the only reason for abortion. I don't believe this but ...but....if they are going to allow abortion I think that should be the limit. If I had the choice I would say non at all. But thats just me.

The problem that we have is that so many women are using abortion as a birth control.....let's have our fun and if we get pregnant I'll just go down and have it sucked out. There is no value on life here. We have made it to easy to get out of trouble. Before you know it insurance companies will be covering abortions ....if they ain't already.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

jesusfreak3786

Senior Veteran
Sep 27, 2004
2,252
59
New York
✟25,212.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
kissybug27 said:
Well, I don't know how to explain what it is that I'm thinking about this. But I'll try. Is there a law against beating your wife? Yes there is. If these domestic violence laws were never made then how many women would be beaten today? We have laws to protect us. Where is the law that protects an unborn child? There is none.

What I mean by this is that what we permit to happen will happen. Some men believe they have a God given right to beat their wives. If these laws were not in place I believe alot of women who are not being abuse would be being abused because they would have no protection under the law. By making abortion legal we are allowing the murder of innocent children. Like I said what we permit to happen will happen.

A women or a young girl can go down to any abortion clinic and killed their child and no one ever has to know. I know that alot of prolife people believe that rape and incest should be the only reason for abortion. I don't believe this but ...but....if they are going to allow abortion I think that should be the limit. If I had the choice I would say non at all. But thats just me.

The problem that we have is that so many women are using abortion as a birth control.....let's have our fun and if we get pregnant I'll just go down and have it sucked out. There is no value on life here. We have made it to easy to get out of trouble. Before you know it insurance companies will be covering abortions ....if they ain't already.

God bless
write on sister! I feel the same way.
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fuzzy said:
I'm claiming that the Supreme Court found fault with laws regarding abortion.
Since not everyone has the same morality, or religious guideline, or set of
ethics, or personal influences, we have to go with what everyone can agree
with, which in American society is a codex of laws created either by ourselves
or our elected representatives.
What you've just said was not the position of our founding fathers. You needn't dig very deeply through their writings to find that they believed that there exists a transcendent objective moral standard found in the Christian Scriptures to which we were obligated to strive to mirror in our laws.

As for you, though, do you genuinely believe that general agreement among the population is an appropriate basis for law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aimejl
Upvote 0

Fuzzy

One by Four by Nine
Aug 12, 2004
1,538
94
✟24,714.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A. believer said:
What you've just said was not the position of our founding fathers. You needn't dig very deeply through their writings to find that they believed that there exists a transcendent objective moral standard found in the Christian Scriptures to which we were obligated to strive to mirror in our laws.
And the framers of our government recognized that they could not anticipate
everything the future might hold, so they refrained from explicitly forbidding
or mandating things. I'll readily agree there are points in scripture that have
universal appeal, and have been incorporated into our laws. But some of these are guidelines to be found in any religion or philosophy. And the way our
government is structured, it allows flexibility and for changes over time. Our
founding fathers recognized they couldn't predict or allow for everything, so
they made the Constitution adaptable. If you lay down a specific rule, people
will find specific ways around it.


A. believer said:
As for you, though, do you genuinely believe that general agreement among the population is an appropriate basis for law?
Yes, I do. And I suspect you're going to counter that the Supreme Court,
with it's comparitively miniscule number of Justices, has been changing the
law for a population of millions. So, I'm going to counter-counter that
the Supreme Court, whose members are ratified by the people's elected
representatives, only listens to cases that have been brought to them
BY THE PEOPLE, after the litigants have taken their case through lower
courts. The laws are created and enforced on most levels by elected
officials. Who elects? The population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aimejl
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fuzzy said:
And the framers of our government recognized that they could not anticipate
everything the future might hold, so they refrained from explicitly forbidding
or mandating things. I'll readily agree there are points in scripture that have
universal appeal, and have been incorporated into our laws. But some of these are guidelines to be found in any religion or philosophy. And the way our
government is structured, it allows flexibility and for changes over time. Our
founding fathers recognized they couldn't predict or allow for everything, so
they made the Constitution adaptable. If you lay down a specific rule, people
will find specific ways around it.
I'm not talking about the founding fathers considering Scripture "universally appealing." I'm talking about them considering Scriptural morality God-ordained and therefore transcendent and universally binding.

Yes, I do. And I suspect you're going to counter that the Supreme Court,
with it's comparitively miniscule number of Justices, has been changing the
law for a population of millions. So, I'm going to counter-counter that
the Supreme Court, whose members are ratified by the people's elected
representatives, only listens to cases that have been brought to them
BY THE PEOPLE, after the litigants have taken their case through lower
courts. The laws are created and enforced on most levels by elected
officials. Who elects? The population.
Actually that wasn't where I was going with that question at all, although there's much that could be said about that. The point I wanted to make, though, is that if general agreement is an appropriate basis for law, then law cannot be subject to any other standard than popular opinion, and the concept of an unjust law is rendered incoherent. I don't believe that you're honestly willing to accept the ramifications of this view.
 
Upvote 0

Fuzzy

One by Four by Nine
Aug 12, 2004
1,538
94
✟24,714.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A. believer said:
I'm talking about them considering Scriptural morality God-ordained and therefore transcendent and universally binding.
But our founding fathers, and the colonists who proceeded them, were here
due to a failure within the socio-political structure of Europe, be it an inability
to adhere to ruler-mandated religions, or crimes against the nation. As an
extension of that, they recognized one definite flavor of morality was just as
bad as what they had left. Thus, they tried to be as accomodating and
broad-brushed as possiblem, without descending into anarchy.

A. believer said:
The point I wanted to make, though, is that if general agreement is an appropriate basis for law, then law cannot be subject to any other standard than popular opinion, and the concept of an unjust law is rendered incoherent. I don't believe that you're honestly willing to accept the ramifications of this view.
Laws can be changed by those who feel oppressed enough by it changing the
opinions of those who feel the law just. Simply having a law does not mean
there won't be those who feel it's wrong. Perhaps you could point out some
of those ramifications?
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fuzzy said:
But our founding fathers, and the colonists who proceeded them, were here
due to a failure within the socio-political structure of Europe, be it an inability
to adhere to ruler-mandated religions, or crimes against the nation. As an
extension of that, they recognized one definite flavor of morality was just as
bad as what they had left. Thus, they tried to be as accomodating and
broad-brushed as possiblem, without descending into anarchy.
Although you're correct that they were escaping from government oppression, the notion of various "flavors of morality" is utterly alien to their thought. As epistemically problematic as it was, at least early "Enlightenment" thought self-consciously and unashamedly presupposed the teachings of Scripture as the foundation of a moral society. What the founding fathers were determined to avoid was federally imposed denominationalism, not the elimination of Christian-based morality from the legal system. If you believe otherwise, you've been badly misled.

Laws can be changed by those who feel oppressed enough by it changing the opinions of those who feel the law just. Simply having a law does not mean there won't be those who feel it's wrong. Perhaps you could point out some of those ramifications?
"Changing the opinions of those who feel the law just" isn't feasible when dealing with people whose moral standard is their own autonomous opinion and who happen to be stronger and more powerful than those who "feel oppressed enough." In a nation of socialized medicine, for example, healthy people might just begin to resent precious tax dollars being used to sustain the elderly and the severely handicapped and they might just decide that it's more "just" to have their money being spent more efficiently helping the more "productive members of society." They might just start thinking how much more "humane" (not to mention, utilitarian) it would be to simply "euthanize" those people whose "quality of life" is so poor, anyway. Good luck trying to change their opinion if you "feel" the law isn't just.

The reaction of most of the non-Christians who read this example, I suspect, will fall into one of two categories. The first will be, "This couldn't happen. Human nature isn't so cold and callous as for the majority to allow this to happen." The second, I fear, will be "What's wrong with that?" Both responses are the result of what the Scriptures speaks of as "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." The truth, in this case, being the fallen nature of man and the righteousness of God.
 
Upvote 0

Fuzzy

One by Four by Nine
Aug 12, 2004
1,538
94
✟24,714.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A. believer said:
"Changing the opinions of those who feel the law just" isn't feasible when dealing with people whose moral standard is their own autonomous opinion and who happen to be stronger and more powerful than those who "feel oppressed enough."
And yet, it's been done.


A. believer said:
In a nation of socialized medicine, for example, healthy people might just begin to resent precious tax dollars being used to sustain the elderly and the severely handicapped and they might just decide that it's more "just" to have their money being spent more efficiently helping the more "productive members of society."
People already resent tax dollars being spent on anything that sustains someone besides themselves, and we don't have socialized medicine.



A. believer said:
Both responses are the result of what the Scriptures speaks of as "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." The truth, in this case, being the fallen nature of man and the righteousness of God.
And it's a matter of faith as to just how "fallen" Man is.
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fuzzy said:
And yet, it's been done.
Democracies are relatively new, and it's only in very recent times that the notion of a transcendent objective morality has been rejected, and even now, it isn't rejected by the majority, so I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say that it's been done.

People already resent tax dollars being spent on anything that sustains someone besides themselves, and we don't have socialized medicine.
Your response indicates that you don't understand my point. If you recognize a problem with the logical conclusions of your worldview in a theoretical example, you need to rethink your worldview. The fact that we're not facing that situation at the moment is irrelevant.

And it's a matter of faith as to just how "fallen" Man is.
Everything one accepts as a presuppositional truth is "a matter of faith" in the context in which you're using the term. My presuppositional belief (or my faith in the idea) that man is fallen, though, has rational support. Your presuppositional belief (or your faith in the idea) that he isn't does not.
 
Upvote 0

Fuzzy

One by Four by Nine
Aug 12, 2004
1,538
94
✟24,714.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A. believer said:
I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say that it's been done.
The rise of democracies over the last 250 years.
Advances in racial and gender equality in the US.
The rise of a fascist state in Germany between the two World Wars

All examples of an initially small, powerless voice persuading others to
see things its way.

A. believer said:
Your response indicates that you don't understand my point.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the situation you described
doesn't matter, since the net result you predict has already come about,
without your supposed "end of the world" results. Euthanasia, and based on
your scenario, eugenics, has not brought about doomsday, literal or figurative,
since no one who advocates it is mandating it for everyone. They're asking
that it be an option. And look, when some of those options are available,
such as abortion, society still chugged on.

A. believer said:
Everything one accepts as a presuppositional truth is "a matter of faith" in the context in which you're using the term. My presuppositional belief (or my faith in the idea) that man is fallen, though, has rational support. Your presuppositional belief (or your faith in the idea) that he isn't does not.
What do you mean by "rational support?" The Bible, whose authority is
dependent on religious belief, states that Man fell from grace. Various
flavors of Christianity range from Man being redeemable from inherent sin
through sacraments and not sinning any more, to Man constantly being in a
state of sin. Other religions state that Man just "is." Not "good," not "bad,"
just "is." Science's view of Man is that He's a living organism, made of
of water and calcium and iron and carbon, with autonomic functions and a
need to consume foodstuffs, similar to any other mammal.

What do you mean by "rational support?"
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fuzzy said:
The rise of democracies over the last 250 years.
Advances in racial and gender equality in the US.
The rise of a fascist state in Germany between the two World Wars
Apparently I'm unable to make myself clear as to what, I'm saying, isn't feasible. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time for the board these days to continue trying.

All examples of an initially small, powerless voice persuading others to
see things its way.
This isn't what I said isn't feasible.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the situation you described
doesn't matter, since the net result you predict has already come about,
without your supposed "end of the world" results. Euthanasia, and based on
your scenario, eugenics, has not brought about doomsday, literal or figurative,
since no one who advocates it is mandating it for everyone. They're asking
that it be an option. And look, when some of those options are available,
such as abortion, society still chugged on.
Again, apparently you don't understand my point. I never suggested that abandoning Biblical morality would bring about the end of the world. I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that some ways of thinking would provoke a reaction of moral indignation in you. Since moral indignation is incompatible with your stated worldview--it's an incoherent response within the context of that worldview--I was hoping you might recognize a flaw in your worldview.

What do you mean by "rational support?" The Bible, whose authority is
dependent on religious belief, states that Man fell from grace. Various
flavors of Christianity range from Man being redeemable from inherent sin
through sacraments and not sinning any more, to Man constantly being in a
state of sin. Other religions state that Man just "is." Not "good," not "bad,"
just "is." Science's view of Man is that He's a living organism, made of
of water and calcium and iron and carbon, with autonomic functions and a
need to consume foodstuffs, similar to any other mammal.

What do you mean by "rational support?"
First of all, the last view you mentioned is not "science's view," but scientific naturalism's view. Science and scientific naturalism are not synonymous, and scientific naturalism is not a philosophically rational worldview. Second, don't expect me to capitulate to Rationalist epistemological categories that separate a "religious" belief from a "rational" belief. A rational belief is one that is rationally justified, not one dependent upon a Rationalistic epistemology. If you're interested in a rational justification of Christian beliefs, I don't have time to get into such an in depth discussion, but I can refer you to the works of Christian apologists/philosophers who can give a much more cogent defense than I could even if I did have time.
 
Upvote 0