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

[Nycky]

Please try and see this from my perspective. I was not giving you a detailed cross-section of the social-political climates based upon a collective census of 20th and 21st century surveys by degree of observed sexual and physical violence conducted by objective observers from UN chartered missions with precise records of abuse appropriately categorised and labelled into relevant components.

Big words and convoluted organizations. Cool. The only thing I disagreed with you is about the numbers.

I was saying in some countries maybe, in the US not.

That's just it, you didn't say some other countries but not the US, you said Africa (the word nasty, notwithstanding.) Comes down to a matter of perspective. As I have said, now, repeatedly, I am aware of the current tragedies in Africa; the rates of sexual violence against women is ridiculously high in South Africa and they don't even have war as an excuse. Just as Sierra Leone evokes a personal response from you, the situation in the former Yugoslavia resonates for me, also for personal reasons. You for some reason, my guess is shear cussidness, can't bring yourself to agree, in a public forum, that Europeans have also committed these types of atrocities.

But you saw "nasty" and "African" in the same sentence and launched an animated, thoguh quite misdirected crusade.

Misguided because you did not agree with my ascertion? And, for the record, I don't know you well enough to launch a crusade against you.

As I tried to end in my last post, I'm sure I ultimately agree with your point, so your statistic, while I continue to consider drastically over-inflated, is really neither here nor there, which is why I ignored much of your previous post.

Didn't twist your arm for a response. Must be hard, the need to have the last word. I know it is for me.

G'night friend,
Nyc

 

[Nycky]

Judaism does believe that life begins at first breath, however does this give us the right to kill a fetus? No! Why? Because it is a POTENTIAL LIFE! Traditional Judaism also teaches that there are many layers to the soul, and the fetus gets all but the last layer until it takes its first breath. So, you are still killing a soul when you have an abortion. But because the soul has not yet been completed, it is NECESSARY to kill the fetus if the mother's life is in danger as the mother is "higher" than the fetus. Any other reason, other than that, abortion is looked down upon because there is still the beginnings of a soul in that fetus. Therefore, if you aren't ready to deal with the consequences, then you should keep your pants on!

Couple thoughts, first, I don't believe that you can kill a soul. Depending on your religious/philosophical belief system, the soul is either queued for reincarnation or goes to be with G-d, particularly in the case of an innocent.

Second, a woman's life is not limited to her physical being. Her emotional health is also valuable and an unwanted pregnance has a negatice impact on her emotiona llife.

Last, I don't mean to sound like I am baiting you, but have you adopted any children? Have your friends? If yes, did you adopt older, diabled and hard to place children or perfect babies.

According to the 1988 National Survey on Family Growth, about 2 million women ages 15 to 44 (3.5%) had ever sought to adopt a child. Of these, 1.3 million did not adopt and are no longer seeking.
<LI>117,000 children in foster care are waiting to be adopted.

 

[justaman]

Didn't twist your arm for a response. Must be hard, the need to have the last word. I know it is for me.

Well when someone starts smearing you with personal remarks, yes I do find it kind of hard to just walk away. Take this one for instance:

You for some reason, my guess is shear cussidness, can't bring yourself to agree, in a public forum, that Europeans have also committed these types of atrocities.

When did I say I don't agree Europeans have also committed such attrocites?! OF COURSE THEY HAVE.

But, surprisingly enough, WWII isn't going on anymore. So now, when comparing the US to the worst of the worst I don't say. "Maybe in Germany with all those Nazis, but not the US".

You are still attempting to colour my statement as being racial which is sincerely beginning to **** me off. I don't know how many times I need to say it: Yes, women are raped in the US, yes there are plenty of nasty things going on in Europe, especially in the East, and yes, WWII really sucked, but your 1 in 3 count is more likely to be valid in Sierra Leone or Nigeria than most likely any other country in the world and certainly more than the US. That is the simple fact of the matter and precisely why I described such countries as 'nasty', since I think that word is wholly relevent in describing a country where it is common for its inhabitants to kill pregnant women and take bets on the sex of the foetus!

An apology would be fantastic at this point. I can't remember the last time someone made me this mad on CF, congratulations.

 

[Nycky]

Bold letters don't make what you say any more true than small letters.

When did I say I don't agree Europeans have also committed such attrocites?! OF COURSE THEY HAVE.

When did you say that you did agree? I would have been happy with a "yes, but its worse in Africa."

But, surprisingly enough, WWII isn't going on anymore. So now, when comparing the US to the worst of the worst I don't say. "Maybe in Germany with all those Nazis, but not the US".

Why talk about WWII and incidents of two generations ago instead of the Yugoslavia of six, seven years ago, and small pockets even now.

You are still attempting to colour my statement as being racial which is sincerely beginning to **** me off.

I am not.

I don't know how many times I need to say it:Yes, women are raped in the US, yes there are plenty of nasty things going on in Europe, especially in the East, and yes, WWII really sucked...

Once is fine. Thank you for finally saying it.

...I described such countries as 'nasty', since I think that word is wholly relevent in describing a country where it is common for its inhabitants to kill pregnant women and take bets on the sex of the foetus!

Couldn't agree more, though you refer to murder, not rape in this example. Hearing the story of a woman from the Yugoslavian conflict speak of being repeatedly raped with the barrell of an automatic weapon, feeling the walls of her vagina, her cervix and her uterus shred. Knowing that soldiers the day before pulled the trigger during such a rape emptying their clip full of bullets into a woman you know. Realising that she may well be the lucky one because you will probably slowly bleed to death. I think that stuff is pretty nasty as well.

An apology would be fantastic at this point.

True, when can I expect one? You have called me stupid and implied that I am a liar.

Nyc

 

[jewishprincess613]

Couple thoughts, first, I don't believe that you can kill a soul. Depending on your religious/philosophical belief system, the soul is either queued for reincarnation or goes to be with G-d

You CAN however, terminate a life which is precisely what abortion does, and that is something that we are not allowed to do (except in the case which I previously mentioned). The soul was still beginning to live and G~d allowed that to happen. If it wasn't meant to happen, G~d would not have allowed the fetus to be created.

Second, a woman's life is not limited to her physical being. Her emotional health is also valuable and an unwanted pregnance has a negatice impact on her emotiona llife.

Well, this may be viewed as a rather harsh comment but, she really should have thought about that BEFORE having sex. If you are not prepared to physically AND emotionally deal with ALL the consequences of sex, then people need to keep their pants on, and stay out of the bedroom!

Last, I don't mean to sound like I am baiting you

I don't feel as though you are. It's a rather common question I receive actually.

but have you adopted any children?

As a 20 year old single girl still living with my parents, no I have not adopted children. Nor have I had sex and "accidentally" brought a life into this world before I was ready. I do want to get married in the near future however, and I plan on having many children, and yes, I ALSO plan on adopting as many as I am able to (amount depends on the law, our space, our financial situation, etc). I plan on adopting either locally, or internationally, it really doesn't matter. Young or older, it really doesn't matter. I plan on looking through one of the books the give potential parents, and adopting the children that just feel like mine when I see them, regardless of their race, age, or condition.

 

[Broken Doll]

Define irresponsibility. Is contraceptive failure irresponsibility? I think not. Many abortions are a consequence of ignorance -- lack of information about contraception (getting it and using it,) to include not knowing under what circumstanecs contraception may be rendered ineffective.

Nyc

Yeah, you're right. Most abortions probably are because of ignorance. I meant people that know better and don't use contraception.

Broken Doll

 

[Monica02]

Has the number of abortions in this country increased or decreased since the widespread use and acceptance of artificial contraception?

 

[Nycky]

Has the number of abortions in this country increased or decreased since the widespread use and acceptance of artificial contraception?

Problematic question.
1. Access to good contaception predates access to leagl abortion by half a decade
2. Abortion numbers have only been accurately tracked since it was legal
3. We can only speculate that these two occurances have anything to do with each other.

I know that statistics show that the number of abortions increase a few percentage points each year. They also say that fewer women are getting abortions, so the increase may track naturally with population growth. We don't know how many abortions occured during the five years after the Pill was legalized but before abortion was.

I don't know if this is a leading question? I am going to assume that it is and suggest that denying contraception or legal abortion would return women to a state that it untenable. We can't know for sure how many women died as a result of back alley abortion, more so those who lost the ability to have children. This link an honest assessment of the history of abortion in this country.
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/beforeafter.html

Nyc

 

[Monica02]

Problematic question.
1. Access to good contaception predates access to leagl abortion by half a decade
2. Abortion numbers have only been accurately tracked since it was legal
3. We can only speculate that these two occurances have anything to do with each other.


INyc

1.Legalized abortion was followed by an increase in abortions.
2. Nobody believes that 4000 abortions were performed daily inthe U.S. prior to legaliztion.
3.True , we can only speculate. We can only speculate also about legalized abortion having anything to do with legalized euthenasia, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

My question was simple:

Have abortions increased or decreased since the widespread use and acceptance of contraception?

 

[pthalomarie]

My question was simple:

Have abortions increased or decreased since the widespread use and acceptance of contraception?

Actually, it's a complex answer. In the US, abortion rates have actually decreased over the last dozen years or so (the US rate peaked in the 80's). It used to be just a bit over a million a year, but now the rate is 861,000 per year.

But my understanding is that globally the rate has increased, with Europe contributing the largest volume to the total. I can't verify that claim, though.

 

[Nycky]

1.Legalized abortion was followed by an increase in abortions.

More than likely true, the process was safer and cheaper that before. We cannot know how large an increase however.

2. Nobody believes that 4000 abortions were performed daily inthe U.S. prior to legaliztion.

Perhaps not 4000. But perhaps 2000, or 1500.

3.True , we can only speculate. We can only speculate also about legalized abortion having anything to do with legalized euthenasia, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. When was euthenasia legalized in the US, anywhere?

My question was simple:

Have abortions increased or decreased since the widespread use and acceptance of contraception?

Where, is the corrollary, the if...then condition? One can assume that after the introduction of the Pill, fewer women had unwanted pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregancies should translate to fewer abortions. There is not clear relationship between birth control and abortion.

I'll ask a question; have abortions increased since the opening of the Wendy's restaurant chain (1969)?

The answer by the way is yes. But I don't think that anyone would suggest that square burgers drive women to terminate pregnancies. The issue is much more complicated than that and many other factors, social, economic, political and others come into play.

Nyc

 

[PRINCESSOFCHRIST]

To Me Abortion Is Murder Nobody Has The Right To Kill Something Created By God Except God He Is The Creator Of All Living Things

 

[CrownCaster]

My stance? Abortion is murder 100% of the time. There are NO exceptions. There are NO good reasons to play God. A woman who has an abortion needs to know two things.

1- She has committed murder to one of Gods prescious little ones that He entrusted to her

2- There is forgiveness in Christ for doing so.

Whatever has happened to a person, it is NEVER the baby' fault.

 

[Archivist]

My stance? Abortion is murder 100% of the time. There are NO exceptions. There are NO good reasons to play God. A woman who has an abortion needs to know two things.

1- She has committed murder to one of Gods prescious little ones that He entrusted to her

2- There is forgiveness in Christ for doing so.

Whatever has happened to a person, it is NEVER the baby' fault.

So a woman shouldn't have the right to an abortion even if her life is in danger?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Please let me wade in with an orthodox Jewish view if I may!

I quote from a book I have on the (orthodox!) Jewish approach to various medical issues by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich:

"Judaism regards the killing of an unborn child to be a serious moral offense. An abortion may be performed only for the gravest of reasons, and even then, only subsequent to consultation with a competent [orthodox] rabbinic authority...The life of the mother takes precedence over that of the unborn child. Thus, when 'hard travail' of labor endangers the life of the mother, an embryotomy may be performed in order to save her...The fetus' right to life is subordinate to that of the mother, and hence the life of the unborn fetus may be sacrificed in order to save her...The performance of an abortion may be warranted for purposes of preserving maternal health as well as maternal life. No [orthodox rabbinic] authority permits an abortion which is non-therapeutic in nature. There are early rabbinic authorities who expressly declare that ritual laws such as Sabbath observance and fasting on Yom Kippur are suspended in order to preserve the life of the fetus. Suspension of such significant religious observances is clearly incompatible with indiscriminate license to destroy fetal life. Both the argument that a prospective mother may seek an abortion for any reason because denial of this right would interfere with her 'right to privacy' as well as the argument that the decision to abort is entirely a matter between a woman and her physician must be rejected as incompatible with Jewish teaching...Judaism teaches that man does not enjoy unrestricted proprietary rights with regard to his own body, much less so with regard to the body of an unborn child...The Talmud teaches that embryo is endowed with a soul at conception. Moreover, the Sages taught: 'There are 3 partners in the generation of man - the father, the mother and God.' Accordingly, a decision to terminate pregnancy is not one which is within the exclusive domain of the mother...It is well established that the quality of life to be anticipated if the fetus is carried to term is not, in itself, a sufficient reason for the performance of an abortion...Physical or mental abnormalities do not affect the human status of the individual or his right to life...Most authorities rule that termination of pregnancy resulting from rape is not permissible. However, the immediate post-coital contraceptive measures undertaken prior to fertilization of the ovum present a different but complex Jewish-law question. Immediate removal of the sperm by means of a suction device...would be warranted."

Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control. I certainly object to government funding for abortions that are non-therapeutic in nature.

Jewish law says that once the mother has begun to give birth, her life no longer takes precedence over the fetus & thus killing the fetus, even if ostensibly to save the mother, would, at this stage, be cold-blooded murder & thus absolutely forbidden. No orthodox rabbi would ever sanction an abortion if the mother has begun to give birth or if the doctors said that the fetus is viable, regardless of the mother's wishes.

We completely reject vigilante violence against doctors, nurses, etc. who are involved in abortions (as well as inciting to violence against them) & to bombing clinics. Opposition to non-therapeutic abortions must be carried out within the bounds of the law.

I quote from Be Fruitful and Multiply: Fertility Therapy and the Jewish Tradition by Dr. Richard V. Grazi (published by Genesis Jerusalem Press, 1994):

Nontransplanted embryos fertilized artificially in vitro have no standing as fetuses in Jewish law. Former Tel Aviv Chief Sefardi Rabbi David Halevi rules that "all eggs fertilized in vitro have no standing as embryos...and one may discard them if they were not chosen for implantation, as the law of abortion applies only to procedures in the womb...But in vitro, as was said, there is no prohibition at all."

A similar ruling is offered by former Chief Sefardi Rabbi of Israel Mordechai Eliyahu, who writes that, "all fertilized eggs which are destined to be implanted in the mother's womb should not be destroyed, as a live fetus will yet develop from them. But those eggs which have not been chosen for implantation may be discarded." Neither authority offers any detailed analysis of his legal ruling, apparently considering the position to be obvious and noncontroversial from the perspective of Jewish law and ethics. Indeed, Rabbi David J. Bleich has pointed out that...even an aborted fetus in the early stages of gestation does not require a funeral.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

 

[larryicr]

If it wasn't a life you wouldn't have to kill it.

 

[homewardbound]

I have some questions, the answers to which could change my views about abortion. Can anyone tell me where the Bible states that:

1. A fetus is a potential person, not a real person...
2. The soul is given to the fetus at some point AFTER conception
3. The body does not have a soul until it can survive apart from the mother

My opinion on abortion has always been predicated on the belief that a fetus is a true person, soul included, at conception. If this is wrong, I need to reconsider.

 

[Monica02]

More than likely true, the process was safer and cheaper that before. We cannot know how large an increase however.
Perhaps not 4000. But perhaps 2000, or 1500.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. When was euthenasia legalized in the US, anywhere?

Where, is the corrollary, the if...then condition? One can assume that after the introduction of the Pill, fewer women had unwanted pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregancies should translate to fewer abortions. There is not clear relationship between birth control and abortion.

I'll ask a question; have abortions increased since the opening of the Wendy's restaurant chain (1969)?

The answer by the way is yes. But I don't think that anyone would suggest that square burgers drive women to terminate pregnancies. The issue is much more complicated than that and many other factors, social, economic, political and others come into play.

Nyc

2000 or 1500 perhaps, still less than 4000--oui!

My point is that many pro-aborts are always making the claim that more birth control is the answer to ending abortion. My question is simply being used to encourage people to think about that silly claim.

Regarding euthenasia- there is a big push to legalise it and indeed there have been cases where feeding tubes have been removed-the Shiavo(sp?) case is still in the courts.

 

[Rev. Smith]

I have some questions, the answers to which could change my views about abortion. Can anyone tell me where the Bible states that:

1. A fetus is a potential person, not a real person...
2. The soul is given to the fetus at some point AFTER conception
3. The body does not have a soul until it can survive apart from the mother

My opinion on abortion has always been predicated on the belief that a fetus is a true person, soul included, at conception. If this is wrong, I need to reconsider.

The Bible does teach us that God "knew" many of the prophets and sages "in the womb", and in Genesis we are taught that life is in the blood. This has lead some Christian theologins to conclude that the fetus becomes a person when it attaches to the womb and thus begins to share its mother's blood. For those who hold thus birth control and morning after pills would be morally permissable, but abortion from the womb would not.

As to your third proposition, I can find no authority for that argument - nor do I know of any thorlogin or church that proposes it.

Hope that helps.

 

[homewardbound]

Thanks, Rev. After reading your post, I came across Luke 1:41, where John leaps in Elizabeth's womb when she hears Mary's greeting. I don't know if medical science can explain such a phenomenon, but lacking another explanation, it would seem reasonable that such a response from a fetus could only occur if it had a soul. How else could joy be communicated to a fetus and evoke a response?