Jesus was pro-abortion....

[jseek21]

Yesterday at 05:22 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #119

WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA

As of today, this year, ~37,650,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.

Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.


LET'S DO SOME MATH.....

In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants anti-choicers plan on enslaving women to produce? A "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)


[size=2.5]WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN[/size]

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! But only at the EXPENSE of the woman. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks). Just my opinion, of course....

You have GOT to be kidding me.

I was adopted. I was not adopted at the time of birth, but some time afterwards. Let's see, would I rather be dead right now? Nope, can't say I would.

Was it tough for my birth mother? heck ya! She didn't have much money, wasn't living with her parents or anyone else, and had to work for everything. But she knew that I was a child, HER child. And she saved me. Then a wonderful family adopted me. She loved me enough not to kill me, and my family loved me enough to provide where she could not.

Let me ask you this in response to the adoption vs. abortion statistics (which are also false): There are thousands of Americans living on welfare. Many elderly have their healthcare paid through our high insurance rates. The mentally ill are put into institutions which are paid for by taxpayers. These are a burden on us. Would it be right to kill them?

Lastly, I am a pro-lifer who works with many well known pro-life organizations and NONE of them see women as incubators. Many of these groups are run by women. What it comes back to is humanism (the idea that we should put man and man's intentions over God and anyone who gets in our way, including our own children) and the degeneration of humanity (where we no longer count human live as important). Whatever happened to the human race? We come to a point now where we will kill our own children for our happiness. Just like in The Crucible, where people sent their own children to their deaths for their happiness, we do the same.

Few people wish to turn women into slaves and incubators. Many people want to turn children into "live not worth living" due to their family's situation.

-Dr. Jonathan Morgan

 

[jon1101]

Yesterday at 06:22 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #119



Actually I can, it all has to do with development. For instance, a fertilized egg is not a human BEING in any shape, form, or fashion. Of course, every fertilized egg, even under optimal conditions, does NOT result in a successful pregnancy and the odds are that a fertilized egg will simply be flushed out of the mother without implanting (nature is very "wasteful' in this regard). Is this "murder"? No, for the same reason that burning the plans for a house is not the equivalent of arson of a house. Even if the zygote (what the dividing egg is called before it implants in the uterus) manages to stake a claim to a friendly uterus, it will be 5 months+ before it has developed to have even the remotest chance of surviving outside the mother.

You arguments here really rely on your answer to the personhood question, so I'll specifically address that question rather than these arguments. Still, I would like to point out that the fact that something happens in nature (the flushing of a zygote) is not justification that we as people carry out that same action. As Dawkins insightfully points out, nature is a state of pitiless indifference, and I hope that we has human beings continue to rise out of that state in favor of ethical behavior. Of course, figuring out what is and is not ethical is no easy task.

I'll take a shot at that question, which essentially asked what I call the "personhood" question (my "standard answer" one might say to it). My apologies for the length, but this question does not have a simple answer.......

Very true, and I do not believe that personhood can be objectively defined since, as far as I can tell, it is something that we ascribe to ourselves. Still, I believe that there are certainly "better" definitions: the definitions that do not deny personhood via arbitrarily drawn lines of separation.

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? [snip]

I think this is the single most important point you made. Indeed, I once believed that the presence of brain waves was the defining feature of human people, but recently I've thought this "line" to be rather superficial. Looking back on my development as an organism, and accepting my own personhood as an axiom, I find it hard to define the origin of my personhood based on my abilities or my development. After all, wasn't the zygote simply me in my most primitive, undeveloped form? Why did my ability to create electrical currents in my developing brain alter my metaphysical standing from worthless organic matter to human person? What, in short, is so defining about brain waves?

I understand that brain death marks the end of human personhood, but it does not logically follow from this that brain birth marks the beginning. I submit that, when I am eventually brain dead, I will not be a non-person because some electrical currents have ceased, but because my development as an organism, the development started when I was conceived, will have ceased. Brain death is simply the tell-tale sign of this event.

However, at the beginning of my existence, a lack of brain function in no way precluded my development as an organism, therefore I am fairly confident that ceasing this development would be unethical. Naturally, the deduction that it is unethical to cease the development of other embryos when given this premise is not difficult, since I, like many others, strongly believe in equality amongst all people. Thus, unless I can show that I was not a person at my earliest stages of development, I do not think it is ethical to deny others personhood.

Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 24th week, (give or take a week) when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th WEEK.


THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7 days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 10 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)


LET'S DO SOME MATH.....

In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants anti-choicers plan on enslaving women to produce? A "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)


[size=2.5]WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN[/size]

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! But only at the EXPENSE of the woman. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks). Just my opinion, of course....

I don't see how any of this material is really pertinent to our discussion, but if I've missed something or failed to make a connection I apologize. My case does not rely on the viability of adoption, I am not really bringing God into this debate at all so I don't see how calling him/her/it unethical really damages my case. I'm certainly not against most forms of birth control.

-jon

P.S. I deleted some of your statement because the post was longer than allowed and I didn't specifically respond to it anyway.

 

[Evening Mist]

Galadriax -- I read and thought about your post, and I appreciate your input. This statement resonated with me:

A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person.

I think that is painfully true. The blatant disregard for my own dignity during childbirth taught me this.



I do believe a fetus is a person, but a person who is dependent on his mother in a unique way. Sort of like a parasite. When a woman bears a child, she is supporting life in a way that people can't do for each other in other circumstances. I think it is a good thing -- an admirable thing -- to bear a child under difficult circumstances. I would even go so far as to suggest that it is immoral to choose otherwise -- immoral to put your needs ahead of the needs of this small person who depends on you.

But by and large, we don't FORCE this kind of morality. We don't force people to lay down their lives for each other. We don't FORCE people to donate organs and blood to help other people, even if we believe they could and should volunteer to do so.

Preventing people from killing each other is one thing -- an appropriate use of the law.

OTOH, demanding that people sustain each other and insisting that they may not withdraw their life-giving presence -- may be beyond the scope of what we should do. People should be allowed to make this kind of life-giving choice freely and without legal cohersion, and should not be condmned by me for choosing differently than I would. However sad it makes me feel.

 

[jon1101]

Today at 03:38 PM Evening Mist said this in Post #123

Galadriax -- I read and thought about your post, and I appreciate your input. This statement resonated with me:



I think that is painfully true. The blatant disregard for my own dignity during childbirth taught me this.



I do believe a fetus is a person, but a person who is dependent on his mother in a unique way. Sort of like a parasite. When a woman bears a child, she is supporting life in a way that people can't do for each other in other circumstances. I think it is a good thing -- an admirable thing -- to bear a child under difficult circumstances. I would even go so far as to suggest that it is immoral to choose otherwise -- immoral to put your needs ahead of the needs of this small person who depends on you.

But by and large, we don't FORCE this kind of morality. We don't force people to lay down their lives for each other. We don't FORCE people to donate organs and blood to help other people, even if we believe they could and should volunteer to do so.

Preventing people from killing each other is one thing -- an appropriate use of the law.

OTOH, demanding that people sustain each other and insisting that they may not withdraw their life-giving presence -- may be beyond the scope of what we should do. People should be allowed to make this kind of life-giving choice freely and without legal cohersion, and should not be condmned by me for choosing differently than I would. However sad it makes me feel.

I absolutely agree that women and men are equals and that using people as a means to an end is fundamentally unethical,* but we must take into consideration the fact that fetuses are individuals who are put into this dependant situation by an act of the mother (rape cases excepted). Those who rely on blood and/or organ donations are in an entirely different situation.

-jon

*I find it interesteding that this philosophy is taken from the second maxim of Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, a philosophy that's first maxim condemns abortion as unethical.

 

[Evening Mist]

jon - I've never heard of Kant's Catagorical Imperitive

I disagree about it being the mother's own fault. That is gross over-simplification.

Is a woman who feels pressured or cohersed to satisfy her husband sexually, acting of her own free will?

Is a teenage girl who has been systematically taught that her self-worth lies in her sexual appeal to men, acting of her own accord when she jumps into bed?

I am not saying that women never want sex. I'm saying that every situation is unique and complicated. Arguing simple 'cause and effect' undermines the realities that people face.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Beware of ads for fake clinics, AKA "crisis pregnancy centers". Women have a right to comprehensive and reliable information about all of their reproductive options. Fake clinics jeopardize women's health, use deceptive advertising, disguise themselves as legitimate medical facilities, misinform and coerce women, use pregnancy tests to hold women hostage, subject women to disturbing and misleading anti-abortion films, refuse to provide referrals for birth control, and resort to extreme measures to prevent women from exercising their freedom to choose. Moreover it has been documented that these storefront ersatz "clinics" will try to learn the race of the woman's partner at all costs so that if she is white and he is white they can increase the pressure for her to place her child with them for adoption---if he's not and-or she's not they will refer her to a public child welfare agency for that.

 

[Texas Lynn]

News today about the alleged 'partial birth' abortion ban:

It will likely pass the Congress and be signed into law by the President and then promptly be struck down by the courts. Thus the President will endear himself to his base without doing anything but prolonging the stalemate.

Medically, there is no such thing; the term was invented by former Congressman Charles Canady and his staff as a Public relations move.

As long as the antis try and turn the focus away from the woman (about which they care not at all) to the fetus, they can confuse the gullible. This was just the latest in many of those moves.

Doctors are understandably appalled. This will be the first legislation specifically to outlaw a medical procedure. This will fuerther jeoparedize women's health care which, again, is something about which the antis do not care.

 

[jon1101]

Today at 04:13 PM Evening Mist said this in Post #125

jon - I've never heard of Kant's Catagorical Imperitive

That was just an observation without too much argumentative weight.

Edit: if you want to read about Kant's ethics, you can do so here: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/catimper.htm

I disagree about it being the mother's own fault. That is gross over-simplification.

Is a woman who feels pressured or cohersed to satisfy her husband sexually, acting of her own free will?

Is a teenage girl who has been systematically taught that her self-worth lies in her sexual appeal to men, acting of her own accord when she jumps into bed?

First of all, if a woman is coerced then it is rape, and I honestly don't know what the ethical way to deal with rape is. Excepting actual coercion, these are both complicated issues, but I would have to answer "yes" to both as much as I would answer "yes" to any act. The issue of whether or not we are slave to our own psychology is indeed hard to resolve, but, if we take the stance that people just act based off of their psychological state at the time, then there would be no accountability whatsoever. As George Bernard Shaw said, "liberty means responsibility."

-jon

 

[jon1101]

I really appreciate rational discussion of this issue, and I may not always agree with evening mist and gladiatrix but I respect the honesty and integrity with which they debate.

Today at 04:38 PM Texas Lynn said this in Post #127 
antis try and turn the focus away from the woman (about which they care not at all) to the fetus, they can confuse the gullible. This was just the latest in many of those moves. 

This, however, is infurating. YOU cannot tell ME that I do not care about women simply because I have come to a different conclusion than you on this very complicated concern of abortion. You're deceitful tactics are doing nothing but hindering our discussion about this very important issue--the issue of whether or not abortion involves the killing of a person, an issue which you disregard OUT OF HAND. Your unwillingness to defend this action you advocate as ethical quite frankly scares me.

Now, please let us get on with the reasoned discussion into which you refuse to enter.

-jon

 

[supermagdalena]

I agree that at times women are treated without respect, but there are many pro-lifers and even, yes, organizations who do not feel that way and have the utmost respect and love for the women involved. You can not honestly say that all pro-life organizations are that way. It's a "glittering generalization" and a segment of faulty debate, and it's also propoganda. So is insulting and refusing to debate on the basis of avatar and signature, but I won't go there.

Remember that as a women you can and should fight for equal rights. But not more rights. Equality is not superiority, it's exactly that--equality. And also, women's and men's roles are equal, but that does not always mean that they play the same roles.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yesterday at 10:59 PM Cancer To Iniquity said this in Post #129 This, however, is infurating. YOU cannot tell ME that I do not care about women simply because I have come to a different conclusion than you on this very complicated concern of abortion. 

Ah, so you admit it's complicated.  Interesting.  The usual anti-abort stance is it isn't, that it's a black and white world. 

I'm speaking of the organized groups and those individuals who flippantly say the solution to the situation is simply for women to keep their legs together.  If you wish to distance yourself from these more power to you;  however, their actions and words matter and must be answered.

You're deceitful tactics are doing nothing but hindering our discussion about this very important issue--the issue of whether or not abortion involves the killing of a person, an issue which you disregard OUT OF HAND. Your unwillingness to defend this action you advocate as ethical quite frankly scares me.

Your attempt to move the focus is a red herring.  The simple truth is no one knows at what precise instant life begins, nor can you know.  I refuse to be bullied into 'how often do you beat your wife?' type tangents which is exactly what you are attempting here and I come from a villiage where we don't eat that kind of bread.  You had better be afraid, son, because this one refuses to submit to your bullying, thereby making me your nightmare as I see behind the bravado you smugly put forth.

 

[supermagdalena]

The usual anti-abort stance is it isn't, that it's a black and white world.

Who are you to be the final word on the "usual anti-abort stance"? Isn't that a stereotype?

 

[jon1101]

Today at 07:40 PM Texas Lynn said this in Post #131

Your attempt to move the focus is a red herring.

No it's not. A red harring is the presentation of an irrelivant tangent in order to divert the focus off of the debate at hand. In this instance, however, my reasoning is relivant to the debate of whether or not abortion is ethical because it raises the question of whether or not a human person's life is ended in the process, which is a very important concern when attempting to ascertain the ethics of an act.

The simple truth is no one knows at what precise instant life begins, nor can you know.

This is merely an assumption.

I refuse to be bullied into 'how often do you beat your wife?' type tangents which is exactly what you are attempting here and I come from a villiage where we don't eat that kind of bread.

"How often do you beat your wife" is a loaded question because it makes a false assumption; my questions have not done this and therefore your calling them loaded is indeed false. If I inadvertantly asked such a question, however, I'd appreciate your correcting me by specifically pointing it out.

You had better be afraid, son, because this one refuses to submit to your bullying, thereby making me your nightmare as I see behind the bravado you smugly put forth.

That was a nice line, but it didn't contain any substance so I'll just leave it be.

-jon

 

[Evening Mist]

Yesterday at 04:58 PM jon1101 said this in Post #124

I absolutely agree that women and men are equals and that using people as a means to an end is fundamentally unethical,* but we must take into consideration the fact that fetuses are individuals who are put into this dependant situation by an act of the mother (rape cases excepted). Those who rely on blood and/or organ donations are in an entirely different situation.

-jon

I'm sorry -- in no way shape or form can I buy the "she brought this on herself," arguement. No person's life is that simple.

If you take this line of reasoning, then you are essentially using the life of her child as a means to punish the woman for her "sin." This is inhumane treatment of both mother and child.

Suggesting that abortion is justified in rape cases but not other cases supports the idea that you (general 'you' directed toward the pro-life movement) are punishing the woman, and not actually concerned for the life of the child.

It paints a "whorelike" picture of women, who have too long born the the whole of guilt for human failures.

"Blame the woman....she made me do it...."

I stand by my opinion. It is sad (and possibly immoral) when one person refuses to lend life-giving support to another person. But it is a worse offense to force a person to lend that support. It is using a person as a means to an end. Forced sacrifice is not sacrifice at all. It is robbery.

 

[jon1101]

Today at 10:16 AM Evening Mist said this in Post #134




I'm sorry -- in no way shape or form can I buy the "she brought this on herself," arguement. No person's life is that simple.

It's certainly not simple, but I really have a hard time coming to any other conclusion.

If you take this line of reasoning, then you are essentially using the life of her child as a means to punish the woman for her "sin." This is inhumane treatment of both mother and child.

Actually, I would submit that I'm treating the child not as a means to and end but as an end in his or herself. I do not wish to punish the woman for mutually consensual sex--that's her and her partner's business not mine--but I realize that when the consequences of this action put another human being in a dependent relationship with the woman, she ought not withdraw that support.

Suggesting that abortion is justified in rape cases but not other cases supports the idea that you (general 'you' directed toward the pro-life movement) are punishing the woman, and not actually concerned for the life of the child.

I'm not at all interested in punishing women for mutually consensual sex between adults. That is an issue of personal morality and not interpersonal morality, therefore it isn't really my business. Whenever considering whether we ought to take the life of the child, however, we are dealing with a "rights" conflict between two individuals. I care very much for the life of the child and seeing his or her equal rights upheld, otherwise I wouldn't even bother discussing this issue.

It paints a "whorelike" picture of women, who have too long born the the whole of guilt for human failures.

I absolutely do not view women as harlots and I think that the responsibility of pregnancy should be shared between the father and mother as equally as possible. Unfortunately, it is physically impossible to equally share the pain and inconvenience of child bearing itself.

"Blame the woman....she made me do it...."

This sentiment comes across all to frequently from some, but I hope I don't come off that way. That certainly isn't what I think at all.

I stand by my opinion. It is sad (and possibly immoral) when one person refuses to lend life-giving support to another person. But it is a worse offense to force a person to lend that support. It is using a person as a means to an end. Forced sacrifice is not sacrifice at all. It is robbery.

And I respectfully disagree. You bring up a very challenging point, but I have a hard time coming to that conclusion.

-jon

 

[Evening Mist]

.

 

[Evening Mist]

8th March 2003 at 02:24 AM Texas Lynn said this in Post #54

What lowers abortion rates is empowerment of girls and women.    

 

I think this statement is 100% true.

I honestly believe that if women and girls were empowered, and children treated with a welcoming and respectful attitude, if entire communities tood responsibility for children instead of just mothers, that the need for abortion would all but dissapear.

I honestly believe this battle is being faught on the wrong front.

Empower and respect women and girls, welcome children with love whever you go and you WILL help to reduce the need for abortion.

 

[jodrey]

I didn't want to read anything beyond the first page, so... I didn't. Forgive me if I say something that's already been said.

Jesus, being who He was, would have known whether abortion is murder, as I'm absolutely sure He knows now. And murder is what it really comes down to, isn't it? At what point does the fetus obtain its spirit and become conscious? Jesus said, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." If, in fact, the fetus is conscious before birth (which might be reasoned considering heartbeat, growth, and movement) then it is a child. We don't know if this is true, but who here really wants to run the risk of having a big rock tied around your neck and dropped into the ocean? I know I don't. There are many options besides abortion, such as adoption. Abortion usually doesn't come up in moral situations; generally it's a result of teenagers getting too frisky and not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions. It's a sad, sad excuse. I've done the abortion debate before and my conclusion has always been that it's wrong and should be illegal.

[edit]"Empower and respect women and girls, welcome children with love whever you go and you WILL help to reduce the need for abortion."

I don't know where you inducted that abortion is necessary, but that's a load of garbage. It has never been necessary, and I don't see what empowering women has to do with this topic at all. If it's murder, YOU DON'T DO IT -- Is that so complicated? A decent person wouldn't kill a born baby, and since we don't know when the fetus gains the spirit it is better to be safe than sorry, and therefore give the baby the benefit of the doubt. Pro-choice is anti-choice.

It would shock me to see someone have the audacity to argue this case for the positive now. There are people out there that just don't have a clue, and it's because they refuse to see it.[/edit]

 

[Evening Mist]

Perhaps you should have read the entire thread. I'm not going to present my position again.

 

[feral]

i don't think jesus would be pro-abortion, but i do think that christians should help others in fixing problems with health care, birth control availability and counseling for those facing a tough choice.