Pro-Life???

[Resha Caner]

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion. However there is nothing "dehumanizing" about what I wrote. The primary definition of "child" is "a person between birth and full growth." My reference was specifically to a fetus.

First of all, a fetus is a person. Your "definition" is not universally accepted.

Second, what you are saying is that it is not God's role, but society's to define who is and is not a person.

 

[Archivist]

First of all, a fetus is a person. Your "definition" is not universally accepted. Second, what you are saying is that it is not God's role, but society's to define who is and is not a person.

Exactly where did I say that a fetus is not a person?

 

[Resha Caner]

Exactly where did I say that a fetus is not a person?

Then what is your purpose in distinguishing between a child and a fetus? I inferred from your earlier post that for some reason abortion is acceptable because it is a fetus.

 

[Archivist]

Then what is your purpose in distinguishing between a child and a fetus? I inferred from your earlier post that for some reason abortion is acceptable because it is a fetus.

I never said that. Please do not put words in my mounth. I did say that a woman whose life is at risk because of a pregnancy has the right to abort as a matter of self defense.

You were the one who referenced a woman killing her "child." I simply pointed out that the proper term is "fetus." The primary definition for "child" is, once again, "a person between birth and full growth." I have certainly never suggested that a woman should have the right to kill her 15-year-old (unless she were doing so in defense of herself or others).

 

[Resha Caner]

I never said that. Please do not put words in my mounth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. In fact, I chose my words very carefully. So, as long as we are discussing "proper terms", note that I used the word "infer". Had I used the word "imply", then I would be accusing you of making the statement. I would be putting words in your mouth. But "infer" says it was a meaning that I took from your words. It is an acknowledgement that the interpretation was mine.

So, I am not making statements about your post. I am asking for clarification. Do you consider a fetus to be a person?

 

[Archivist]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. In fact, I chose my words very carefully. So, as long as we are discussing "proper terms", note that I used the word "infer". Had I used the word "imply", then I would be accusing you of making the statement. I would be putting words in your mouth. But "infer" says it was a meaning that I took from your words. It is an acknowledgement that the interpretation was mine.

You are putting words in my mouth. You specifically wrote the following:

"what you are saying is that it is not God's role, but society's to define who is and is not a person."

Interesting given that I had to that point never used the term "person." You used that term, not me.

So, I am not making statements about your post. I am asking for clarification. Do you consider a fetus to be a person?

If you read what you have written, you are clearly making statements about what I wrote. Your exact words were "what you are saying." That is a statement, not a request for clarification. If you had asked "are you stating the following" that would be a clarification.

 

[Resha Caner]

Archivist, I'm not going to play he said/she said games with you. I admitted that what I said was an inference. So if you deny that my inference represents your position, I will accept you at your word. If you choose not to accept that, there's nothing I can do.

It is also your choice whether you answer the question. Are you or are you not going to answer the question?

Do you consider a fetus to be a person?

 

[brvhrt]

But to answer that question, I don't think there is really a question there. You save the life of the mother, obviously. The child never really knew life as we know it, the mother actually fears death and doesn't deserve to croak just because there is some kind of complication thing. Doing this is not some kind of shirking of responsibility, its saving someone's life. Its a shame that the baby has to be sacrificed for that but in most of these cases it was just going to die anyway. So why not make the best you can out of a bad situation?[/quote]

What mother with a heart wouldnt gladly sacrifice herself for her child. And, a mother doesnt look at her baby like a clod of dirt, that doesnt know anything. She is a mother and wants her child to have the oppurtunity to live. A mother that fears death isnt made perfect in love. Perfect love casteth out fear. A mother with a conscience avoids immorality.

 

[JourneyToPeace]

What mother with a heart wouldnt gladly sacrifice herself for her child. And, a mother doesnt look at her baby like a clod of dirt, that doesnt know anything. She is a mother and wants her child to have the oppurtunity to live. A mother that fears death isnt made perfect in love. Perfect love casteth out fear. A mother with a conscience avoids immorality.

Right.

John 15:12-14 (NASB) --

12"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. 14"You are My friends if you do what I command you.

As far as I am concerned as a mother-to-be, I DO want to live and be healthy and strong so that when it is time to deliver my twins, they will know the love of their mother, and will grow up knowing me and all that entails.

My family has had a history of bad pregnancy problems. Miscarriages, complications, trisomy 13, premature infants, very ill mothers-to-be ordered on bedrest, and a few women generations back on my mother's side died in childbirth. The threat's real. These days, it's a lot less LIKELY, and the medical technology these days is amazing.... but it's possible. And I accept that. Perfect love DOES cast out fear. I am learning that.

When it comes right down to it, if I was having severe complications and a doctor hypothetically told me that they could save me OR my precious babies, and I had to make that choice, you BET I'd be telling that doctor to do everything in his/her power to give them life. Even if it meant my death. My family, friends, physicians and the babies' father knows my stance on that, and they've agreed to honour my wishes. I don't fear death or life when I know God's the Author of it.

I just fear life and death when God isn't being honoured in either, because it's futile to live without regard for Him.

Is that an extreme position? No, I don't think so. I loved the babies the moment I knew I was pregnant. My life was no longer about me and my convenience and comfort. It became about protecting them, and keeping my babies as safe as I humanly can while I just keep walking with God.

Our lives are ultimately up to God. He gives them and He can take them... and I am trusting all three of us to Him.

 

[Archivist]

Archivist, I'm not going to play he said/she said games with you. I admitted that what I said was an inference. So if you deny that my inference represents your position, I will accept you at your word. If you choose not to accept that, there's nothing I can do.

You acn call it what you want. What you wrote was more than an inference--it was a direct misstatement of my position. In any event I will move on.

It is also your choice whether you answer the question. Are you or are you not going to answer the question?

I will, although your question is getting off topic.

Do you consider a fetus to be a person?

I stand with the Common Law position, so it would depend on the point of development.

In any event, the point as to whether a fetus is a person or not is moot when it comes to a woman having an abortion to protect her own life. A person has the right to use equal force--including possible deadly force--in self defense.

 

[Archivist]

When it comes right down to it, if I was having severe complications and a doctor hypothetically told me that they could save me OR my precious babies, and I had to make that choice, you BET I'd be telling that doctor to do everything in his/her power to give them life. Even if it meant my death. My family, friends, physicians and the babies' father knows my stance on that, and they've agreed to honour my wishes. I don't fear death or life when I know God's the Author of it.

And I would certainly respect your choice, but I would equally respect another woman deciding to do the opposite in similiar circumstances.

 

[Resha Caner]

I will, although your question is getting off topic.

I answered your original question in post #12. In summary, I said that the "pro life" position would be the one that seeks to save both the mother and the child. It would not accept that any choice needs to be made, but would strive to save both lives until such time as one or both of them are lost. You disagree with that position, so I am trying to further the discussion to pinpoint why we disagree.

As I understand it (no putting words in your mouth - just my understanding of what you've said - so if I am wrong clarify it for me) you believe the mother has a right to protect her life, and that such right extends to the use of abortion.

If that is correct, my next question is intended to better understand your position. So, I think it is relevant. If you disagree, we can take this discussion to a separate thread. But, as it stands, your answer was:

I stand with the Common Law position, so it would depend on the point of development.

In any event, the point as to whether a fetus is a person or not is moot when it comes to a woman having an abortion to protect her own life. A person has the right to use equal force--including possible deadly force--in self defense.

I take this to mean that at some early stage, you would not consider the fetus a person. Then, at some later stage, you would consider the fetus a person. Is that correct? If not, please clarify.

If so, this is my next question: Do you consider abortion acceptable at the later stage when the fetus is a person?

 

[Archivist]

I answered your original question in post #12.

Yes, and I have never said that you did not answer my question.

In summary, I said that the "pro life" position would be the one that seeks to save both the mother and the child. It would not accept that any choice needs to be made, but would strive to save both lives until such time as one or both of them are lost. You disagree with that position, so I am trying to further the discussion to pinpoint why we disagree.

We disagree because I believe that any individual has the right of self defense. If the pregnant woman's life is being threatened she has the right to take steps to protect her life including abortion if she so chooses.

As I understand it (no putting words in your mouth - just my understanding of what you've said - so if I am wrong clarify it for me) you believe the mother has a right to protect her life, and that such right extends to the use of abortion.

Correct. I think I was clear on that in my last post when I wrote that "A person has the right to use equal force--including possible deadly force--in self defense."

I take this to mean that at some early stage, you would not consider the fetus a person. Then, at some later stage, you would consider the fetus a person. Is that correct? If not, please clarify.

Abortion after quickening is, according to Blackstone, "a very heinous misdemeanor" but not homicide. Because the Common Law isn't clear on the status of a fetus after quickening, I'm not qualified to make that determination (I'm certainly not going to second guess Blackstone, Coke or Bracton). In any event that determination isn't necessary beacuse a pregnant woman has the right of self defense when her life is threatened. That right exists whether or not the fetus is seen as being a person.

Are you saying that a person does not have the right to self defense?

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you saying that a person does not have the right to self defense?

No, but this onion has many layers that are yet to be peeled. For example, self defense does not necessarily include the right to deadly force. Second, even if American law (and we both live in the U.S., not 16th century England) allowed private citizens to use deadly force, there is a question of whether Christians should excercise that right. Just because something is legal does not mean God approves of it.

Abortion after quickening is, according to Blackstone, "a very heinous misdemeanor" but not homicide. Because the Common Law isn't clear on the status of a fetus after quickening, I'm not qualified to make that determination (I'm certainly not going to second guess Blackstone, Coke or Bracton). In any event that determination isn't necessary beacuse a pregnant woman has the right of self defense when her life is threatened. That right exists whether or not the fetus is seen as being a person.

Maybe so, but we're not done with peeling the onion. For now let's assume there is some point at which you would accept the fetus as a person - even if it's only 5 minutes before rupture of the membrane. Note that I have not yet addressed the issue that considers the fetus is not a person. We'll get to that.

I then ask, do you accept the statement from the Declaration of Independence that all people have an inalienable right to life?

 

[Archivist]

No, but this onion has many layers that are yet to be peeled. For example, self defense does not necessarily include the right to deadly force.

Wrong. If you are threatened with deadly force, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. The only question--and this varies from state to state--is how far you have to retreat before using deadly force.

Second, even if American law (and we both live in the U.S., not 16th century England) allowed private citizens to use deadly force, there is a question of whether Christians should excercise that right. Just because something is legal does not mean God approves of it.

Which is why the choice to abort has to remain with the pregnant woman whose life is at risk. That determination is between she and God, not you.

Maybe so, but we're not done with peeling the onion.

No, we are pretty much done with this onion.

For now let's assume there is some point at which you would accept the fetus as a person - even if it's only 5 minutes before rupture of the membrane. Note that I have not yet addressed the issue that considers the fetus is not a person. We'll get to that. I then ask, do you accept the statement from the Declaration of Independence that all people have an inalienable right to life?

The Declaration of Independence does include those words, however the legal and constitutional status of the Declaration is ambiguous. It is part of the Organic Law of the US (along with the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance) but it generally carries no weight.

 

[Archivist]

I then ask, do you accept the statement from the Declaration of Independence that all people have an inalienable right to life?

BTW, even if the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence were accorded the weight of law, rights cannot be extended to the point where they threaten others. As Justice Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

 

[Resha Caner]

I never claimed the Declaration had the force of law. I asked whether you accepted that premise. Since, as I understand it, common law depends upon the the ideas of precedent, relevance, and abrogation I was suggesting the Declaration as more relevant to this conversation than English common law - which you seem to hold in high regard.

So, your post seems like an attempt to avoid answering the question.

I guess I don't care what standard you use, but please pick one. If you want to use English common law, I'll go with that. If you want to use current American law, that's fine, too. But please specify so that the ground doesn't shift under our feet.

Regardless, I think you already see the point I have not yet stated. Whichever you would pick, there is the idea that a person has rights. So, if the fetus is considered a person at some point, the fetus has rights.

How do we balance the child's rights with the mother's rights? The only situation I know of where a person can lose their rights is if they are a felon. Further, the only situation I know of where people are allowed to use deadly force against other people is if they are engaged in a criminal act - a life threatening criminal act. I simply cannot imagine how we would twist our logic to claim a fetus has committed a criminal act against the mother.

But at the very least, if a doctor determines that the danger is not imminent, shouldn't the woman requesting the abortion be required to go to court to obtain permission? (Remember that these questions only apply to the case where the fetus is considered a person) If the danger is imminent, then the doctor needs the freedom to act - just as a policeman needs the freedom to act. But if there is a procedure that could save the life of both then I think the doctor should be required to use that procedure. Even further, I think there should be ongoing research to determine new and better procedures that would increase the chances of saving both. If I new such research existed, I would take out my checkbook and donate to that cause tomorrow ... I guess that's a good point ... I think I'll check into that.

Can you at least agree to that? That if a c-section or some other procedure would save the life of both, and if the only reason the issue developed is because lives are threatened, that such a procedure should be used? If not, then what rights would you grant a fetus should it be legally declared a person?

 

[brvhrt]

Right.



As far as I am concerned as a mother-to-be, I DO want to live and be healthy and strong so that when it is time to deliver my twins, they will know the love of their mother, and will grow up knowing me and all that entails.

My family has had a history of bad pregnancy problems. Miscarriages, complications, trisomy 13, premature infants, very ill mothers-to-be ordered on bedrest, and a few women generations back on my mother's side died in childbirth. The threat's real. These days, it's a lot less LIKELY, and the medical technology these days is amazing.... but it's possible. And I accept that. Perfect love DOES cast out fear. I am learning that.

When it comes right down to it, if I was having severe complications and a doctor hypothetically told me that they could save me OR my precious babies, and I had to make that choice, you BET I'd be telling that doctor to do everything in his/her power to give them life. Even if it meant my death. My family, friends, physicians and the babies' father knows my stance on that, and they've agreed to honour my wishes. I don't fear death or life when I know God's the Author of it.

I just fear life and death when God isn't being honoured in either, because it's futile to live without regard for Him.

Is that an extreme position? No, I don't think so. I loved the babies the moment I knew I was pregnant. My life was no longer about me and my convenience and comfort. It became about protecting them, and keeping my babies as safe as I humanly can while I just keep walking with God.

Our lives are ultimately up to God. He gives them and He can take them... and I am trusting all three of us to Him.

Wow! My sympathies. Some cases where the doctor is absolutely sure, I wouldnt want to die either. There are too many doing it for the wrong reason. God knows our heart and if we really want a baby or not. For the most part I believe this is taboo. Only God knows if that child would suffer or be healthy. I shutter when I read about china. If they find out early its a girl, I heard they abort so they can have a boy. You can only have one child.

 

[brvhrt]

My daughter Leeah had complications, and we found out later that har baby girl had cerebral palsy. She is six now and also has a rare disease that the doctors dont even know about. She has always been stomach fed, has seizures, and been in hospice twice. My daughter protects her and does everything she can to save her daughter. She is such a good mother, and I"m really proud of her.

 

[JourneyToPeace]

My daughter Leeah had complications, and we found out later that har baby girl had cerebral palsy. She is six now and also has a rare disease that the doctors dont even know about. She has always been stomach fed, has seizures, and been in hospice twice. My daughter protects her and does everything she can to save her daughter. She is such a good mother, and I"m really proud of her.

Aww, poor little sweetie. My prayers are with Leeah and her daughter, and with your family in general. Your granddaughter's blessed to have such a caring, attentive mom.... and a loving grandpa!