Is Abortion Murder?

[happyfreak14]

Should parents have the right to abort a foetus based purely on its sex?

Most, especially strong feminists, will indignently say "of course not; that's outrageous!"

But, hey, pro-choice is pro-choice- you either support it or you don't- so if a mother decides to abort purely on the basis of gender, then what business is that of anyone else?

Another question to ask is:

Should parents have the right to discard their foetus a day before it is due to be born?

Again, the answer is usually an outrageous "Of course not!!".

And my answer is similar: abortion is not murder ONLY if you believe that life begins at birth (that is, not at conception). So whether a foetus is one second old or 9 months minus a day old isn't relevant if you believe in pro-choice.

The Chinese have it right: the birthday of a person is measured by when they were conceived, not by when they were born.

except that you're assuming having an opinion on abortion is an all or nothing proposition, which is ridiculous.

first, you automatically assume that 'pro-choice' means 'actively encourages abortion as the first resort under all circumstances'. no one I have ever met, or even heard of, actually believes that.

then you assume people will have a problem with abortion based on gender, which some probably will not. it would be interesting to watch you try that on somebody and have them say "yes, they should, I would have no problem with that."

then you assume the people can only believe life begins at conception or at birth, when in fact, most of the pro-choice people I know are against very-late term abortions, because it isn't one or the other.

turn it around. I suspect a lot of pro-lifers would disagree if you told them that they have to be against abortion even with stuff like ectopic pregnancies because hey, pro-life is pro-life.

 

[Ave Maria]

except that you're assuming having an opinion on abortion is an all or nothing proposition, which is ridiculous.

first, you automatically assume that 'pro-choice' means 'actively encourages abortion as the first resort under all circumstances'. no one I have ever met, or even heard of, actually believes that.

then you assume people will have a problem with abortion based on gender, which some probably will not. it would be interesting to watch you try that on somebody and have them say "yes, they should, I would have no problem with that."

then you assume the people can only believe life begins at conception or at birth, when in fact, most of the pro-choice people I know are against very-late term abortions, because it isn't one or the other.

turn it around. I suspect a lot of pro-lifers would disagree if you told them that they have to be against abortion even with stuff like ectopic pregnancies because hey, pro-life is pro-life.

Exactly. Its not an all or nothing position. To say so is ridiculous.

 

[Servant222]

except that you're assuming having an opinion on abortion is an all or nothing proposition, which is ridiculous.

But it is- either you take a life or you don't. Black or white, all or nothing.

first, you automatically assume that 'pro-choice' means 'actively encourages abortion as the first resort under all circumstances'. no one I have ever met, or even heard of, actually believes that.

No- I'm not making that assumption at all.

then you assume people will have a problem with abortion based on gender, which some probably will not. it would be interesting to watch you try that on somebody and have them say "yes, they should, I would have no problem with that."

I agree- there are lots of people who do in fact abort on the basis of gender, and don't have a problem with that. But most pro-choicers that I have asked this question to express strong opposition to allowing abortion based on gender.

Most hospitals in North America and Europe will not reveal the sex of a baby, or are very reluctant to do so- presumably, because they don't want this to be a reason for abortion. But if a country has a pro-choice attitude, as most of them do, then they are being hypocritical if they won't let a mother know the sex of her foetus, and won't accept abortion based on gender.

then you assume the people can only believe life begins at conception or at birth, when in fact, most of the pro-choice people I know are against very-late term abortions, because it isn't one or the other.

Of course- most people are revulsed by the thought of a late term abortion. Or even worse, the philosophy of some societies that feel that even a newborn baby isn't really a human being yet and can in good conscience be left to die.

But you can't have it both ways: if you accept that people should have the right to decide when a foetus is viable, then you have to accept all matter of interpretation on this. I maintain with this, and with the question of euthanasia, us human beings shouldn't be deciding when life is worthy or not- that should be up to God.

turn it around. I suspect a lot of pro-lifers would disagree if you told them that they have to be against abortion even with stuff like ectopic pregnancies because hey, pro-life is pro-life.

There will always be some instances where a Christian will have great difficulties in deciding what should be done. But let's not let the unusual cases deter us from taking a pro-life stand for the vast majority of instances where abortion is an issue.

 

[Servant222]

Exactly. Its not an all or nothing position. To say so is ridiculous.

Mmmh, a civil discussion shouldn't include your second sentence. Perhaps an edit would be in order- I'll then edit on this end too.

Thanks.

 

[happyfreak14]

But it is- either you take a life or you don't. Black or white, all or nothing.

whether or not a specific person gets an abortion is yes or no, but a persons position on the acceptability of abortion in different circumstances is not, and it's the position, not the event, that was being discussed.

No- I'm not making that assumption at all.

that's kind of how it looked to me. I apologize if I was mistaken. it just irritates me when people make out the pro-choicers are advocating abortion. no one (or at least almost no one) thinks abortion is a good thing. some of us just think it's sometimes necessary

I agree- there are lots of people who do in fact abort on the basis of gender, and don't have a problem with that. But most pro-choicers that I have asked this question to express strong opposition to allowing abortion based on gender.

Most hospitals in North America and Europe will not reveal the sex of a baby, or are very reluctant to do so- presumably, because they don't want this to be a reason for abortion. But if a country has a pro-choice attitude, as most of them do, then they are being hypocritical if they won't let a mother know the sex of her foetus, and won't accept abortion based on gender.

exce[pt that again, pro-choice is not all or nothing. I am pro-choice, and I think the mother should know the sex of the baby, but I also think that sex-selection abortion should be discouraged as strongly as possible without keeping anyone with a better reason from getting an abortion.

Of course- most people are revulsed by the thought of a late term abortion. Or even worse, the philosophy of some societies that feel that even a newborn baby isn't really a human being yet and can in good conscience be left to die.

But you can't have it both ways: if you accept that people should have the right to decide when a foetus is viable, then you have to accept all matter of interpretation on this. I maintain with this, and with the question of euthanasia, us human beings shouldn't be deciding when life is worthy or not- that should be up to God.

we're deciding anyway. by declaring it a person at conception you make just as much of a decision as we do by declaring it a person at any other time. my point was that you said

abortion is not murder ONLY if you believe that life begins at birth (that is, not at conception)

which is incorrect. if you believe that it becomes a person at eight weeks then abortion is still not murder before that time, despite the fact that you believe life begins before birth.

There will always be some instances where a Christian will have great difficulties in deciding what should be done. But let's not let the unusual cases deter us from taking a pro-life stand for the vast majority of instances where abortion is an issue.

the rare cases are significant because even if only for them, abortion should remain legal. I have no problem with you politely, lovingly, and honestly discouraging abortion; I just don't think that the rare cases should be denied an abortion just because cases exist where it's not appropriate. (and yes there are cases where it's a difficult decision, but ectopic pregnancies should not really be one of them. if you abort the woman lives, if not she dies, the fetus is dead either way.)

again, my apologies if I misinterpreted your previous post. I didn't mean to be rude.

 

[Servant222]

Where did the 8 week figure come from- isn't that just a human-made arbitrary standard? I once worked in a 3rd world country where the locals accepted people's right to abandon their newborn infants if they weren't males- why would their standard be any more or less acceptable than anyone else's?

I'm saying that by allowing conception, God has decided that a baby deserves to live, and only under the most extraordinary circumstances should we intervene in that decision.

Surely, the millions of abortions that are allowed today for no good reason, other than convenience, must be disappointing to God.

 

[Servant222]

Well, I know before conception, biologically, it is not a person.

But since after conception, a foetus has the entire genetic makeup needed to potentially make that baby into another Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, or Leonardo da Vinci, I'd rather be awfully carefully about interfering with what God has made.

 

[Miracle Storm]

except that you're assuming having an opinion on abortion is an all or nothing proposition, which is ridiculous.

first, you automatically assume that 'pro-choice' means 'actively encourages abortion as the first resort under all circumstances'. no one I have ever met, or even heard of, actually believes that.

then you assume people will have a problem with abortion based on gender, which some probably will not. it would be interesting to watch you try that on somebody and have them say "yes, they should, I would have no problem with that."

then you assume the people can only believe life begins at conception or at birth, when in fact, most of the pro-choice people I know are against very-late term abortions, because it isn't one or the other.

turn it around. I suspect a lot of pro-lifers would disagree if you told them that they have to be against abortion even with stuff like ectopic pregnancies because hey, pro-life is pro-life.

erm..jmo
but I think you missed his point. .

 

[Ave Maria]

erm..jmo
but I think you missed his point. .

Then what is his point? Care to enlighten us?

 

[April Angel]

He actually said "Thou shalt not murder." There is a huge difference between killing and murdering. If we were not allowed to kill, we wouldn't have any meat!

Maybe that would not be a bad thing. There are so many vegetarian alternatives which are so much more healthy. Just think, by avoiding meat you could avoid colon cancer and other cancers. Blood pressure would be reduced and less people would die from heart attacks in their forties and fifties.

Anyway, getting back to the Bible, the first translation from the Hebrew bible was: "Thou shalt not kill." It was later changed to "You shall not murder" by one Christian denomination. All the others kept the original translation.

The translators got it right the first time. When they translated it directly from the Hebrew bible it came out as: "You shall not kill".

I believe that it would be unchristian to teach my children that God said: "You shall not murder" not "You shall not kill". This is because I believe that taking the life of any living creature is unjust. Also, by making the "You shall not murder" distinction, you are allowing the possibility of manslaughter, diminished responsibility, war, etc, etc, etc. I believe that Jesus came to end violence altogether. All life is sacred. That was the teaching of Jesus.

The alternatives have been horrendous:
1. The Crusades: thousands killed in the name of religion.
2. Rhesus monkeys tortured and killed by religious Catholic doctor for no important reason.
3. Millions of animals "culled" for no important reason, as though they have no right to live on this earth.
4. Millions of unborn babies killed for no important reason, as though they have no right to live on this earth.

I think that Jesus would be horrified.

 

[April Angel]

Mmmh, a civil discussion shouldn't include your second sentence. Perhaps an edit would be in order- I'll then edit on this end too.

Thanks.

Don't hold your breath and don't take it personally.

I've lost count of the times people have referred to my posts as "ridiculous" or "stupid". I even reported one of them but the moderators decided that the person was referring to my post not me (not realising that in cyberspace my post is me), so no action was taken.

So, to help protect my ego, I tend to try to look at the psychology behind people referring to other people's posts as "stupid" or "ridiculous". It helps to note that, in one thread, someone will call your post ridiculous whilst others are repping you for it. Then in another thread someone else's post will be called ridiculous for stating the complete opposite of what you were called ridiculous for in the other thread. It's just differences of opinion.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Maybe that would not be a bad thing. There are so many vegetarian alternatives which are so much more healthy. Just think, by avoiding meat you could avoid colon cancer and other cancers. Blood pressure would be reduced and less people would die from heart attacks in their forties and fifties.

Anyway, getting back to the Bible, the first translation from the Hebrew bible was: "Thou shalt not kill." It was later changed to "You shall not murder" by one Christian denomination. All the others kept the original translation.

The translators got it right the first time. When they translated it directly from the Hebrew bible it came out as: you shall not kill.

I believe that it would be unchristian to teach my children that God said: "You shall not murder" not "You shall not kill". This is because I believe that taking the life of any living creature is unjust. Also, by making the "You shall not murder" distinction, you are allowing the possibility of manslaughter, diminished responsibility, war, etc, etc, etc. I believe that Jesus came to end violence altogether. All life is sacred. That was the teaching of Jesus.

The alternatives have been horrendous:
1. The Crusades: thousands killed in the name of religion.
2. Rhesus monkeys tortured and killed by religious Catholic doctor for no important reason.
3. Millions of animals "culled" for no important reason, as though they have no right to live on this earth.
4. Millions of unborn babies killed for no important reason, as though they have no right to live on this earth.

I think that Jesus would be horrified.

True! Jesus wants to end all violence...it is not for us to decide what is "murder" and what is "killing". If we cause someone to die, we have killed them.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Then what is his point? Care to enlighten us?

It would require reading without thinking about how you are going to answer or refute first.
Who knows, you could see the light.

 

[Servant222]

One of the biggest problems with pro-abortionists is that they are in denial about the fact that life begins at conception. To try and counter this misconception, ask pro-choicers the following question:

Should parents have the right to abort a foetus based purely on its sex?

Most, especially strong feminists, will indignently say "of course not; that's outrageous!"

But, hey, pro-choice is pro-choice- you either support it or you don't- so if a mother decides to abort purely on the basis of gender, then what business is that of anyone else?

Another question to ask is:

Should parents have the right to discard their foetus a day before it is due to be born?

Again, the answer is usually an outrageous "Of course not!!".

And my answer is similar: abortion is not murder ONLY if you believe that life begins at birth (that is, not at conception). So whether a foetus is one second old or 9 months minus a day old isn't relevant if you believe in pro-choice.

The Chinese have it right: the birthday of a person is measured by when they were conceived, not by when they were born.

My reason for offering this comment was to point out that pro-choice advocates either willfully or through ignorance fail to address the critical question of when life begins when they argue their position.

So if you think that murder is wrong, I don't think you can support abortion until you define when life begins, and provide biological and Biblical proof that your definition is correct.

Obviously someone who thinks that abortion is o.k., but that aborting a foetus based on gender is not, is saying "I consider one gender to be life, and the other not to be life."

Someone who thinks that abortion is o.k. is saying that a foetus immediately after conception is not life, but that a foetus about to be born is life. They then set some arbitrary limit, like 8 weeks, to define when they think life begins. The trouble is, that is not supported by biology- a baby, at the moment it is conceived, has the entire genetic make-up it needs to grow into a fully formed human being. So the 8 week limit is an entirely arbitrary standard, defined for convenience to allay someone's guilty feelings. It makes no more sense than saying that a child is not a human being because it is not yet a fully-formed adult.

So if you support pro-choice, don't try to use some arbitrary definition of life to allay guilt- instead, admit that you think it's o.k. to kill at times, and then hope that God agrees with you, and provides foregiveness.

 

[Ave Maria]

I have changed my position. Abortion is always murder.

 

[jad123]

I have changed my position. Abortion is always murder.

So are you serious about this or just trying to be funny?

 

[happyfreak14]

she changes her mind from one extreme position to the opposite one every so often. as far as I can tell she's completely serious, but likely to change her mind again shortly.

 

[Servant222]

I have changed my position. Abortion is always murder.

Good for you.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

 

[happyfreak14]

My reason for offering this comment was to point out that pro-choice advocates either willfully or through ignorance fail to address the critical question of when life begins when they argue their position.

So if you think that murder is wrong, I don't think you can support abortion until you define when life begins, and provide biological and Biblical proof that your definition is correct.

Obviously someone who thinks that abortion is o.k., but that aborting a foetus based on gender is not, is saying "I consider one gender to be life, and the other not to be life."

Someone who thinks that abortion is o.k. is saying that a foetus immediately after conception is not life, but that a foetus about to be born is life. They then set some arbitrary limit, like 8 weeks, to define when they think life begins. The trouble is, that is not supported by biology- a baby, at the moment it is conceived, has the entire genetic make-up it needs to grow into a fully formed human being. So the 8 week limit is an entirely arbitrary standard, defined for convenience to allay someone's guilty feelings. It makes no more sense than saying that a child is not a human being because it is not yet a fully-formed adult.

So if you support pro-choice, don't try to use some arbitrary definition of life to allay guilt- instead, admit that you think it's o.k. to kill at times, and then hope that God agrees with you, and provides foregiveness.

I just can't see the 'life starts at conception' idea. why does a one-cell zygot get more consideration that a one-cell sperm, or a one-cell pond-pea? most people have a definition they follow, and most have reasons for it. how is your definition (conception) any less arbitrary than anyone else's?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

At conception, the baby already has all the genetic information, and all it has to do is grow....which it continues to do until adulthood the change at "birth" is that it starts living separate from the mother...but it's alive before, too.