Reasons why abortion is unchristian.

[SolomonVII]

Arikay,
Yes, you did change the quote.
Sheep's statement was "don't abort me because you are too young to have me", and your was 'don't abort me because your body is too young to have me.' There is a difference, which I have already pointed out.

As far as dodging what you meant, implicit in my reply to Cassandra would be a response to you post seemed to be saying. The integrity of a woman's body is of paramount concern.

If a woman is in clear and moral danger because of a preganancy, extraordinary means should and must be taken to save her. Ectopic pregnancy is definetely such a case, as may be the case of a pregnant child whose body would be destroyed through the continuance of the pregnancy.

 

[TScott]

It wasnt an issue in the 4th century. Each one probably had around 20 children Therefore, one more wouldnt be a burden to them. They had absolutely no reason to get an abortion.

It most certainly was an issue in the fourth century. It was an issue in the first century as well when the scripture of St. Peter's that condemned abortion was written. If it wasn't an issue, explain why scripture was written that condemned it. That makes no sense, Intrepid.

 

[Arikay]

Um, your body is too young, fits under the header "your too young"
If he ment because "society says your too young to have me but your body isn't" then he should have been more specific.

Out of curiosity, is a womens opinion and mind of paramount concern?

Arikay,
Yes, you did change the quote.
Sheep's statement was "don't abort me because you are too young to have me", and your was 'don't abort me because your body is too young to have me.' There is a difference, which I have already pointed out.

As far as dodging what you meant, implicit in my reply to Cassandra would be a response to you post seemed to be saying. The integrity of a woman's body is of paramount concern.

If a woman is in clear and moral danger because of a preganancy, extraordinary means should and must be taken to save her. Ectopic pregnancy is definetely such a case, as may be the case of a pregnant child whose body would be destroyed through the continuance of the pregnancy.

 

[TommyS]

An absolutely true story, with which I was personally involved:

About 6 weeks into her pregnancy a young woman feels unsually tired, and has more than the expected abdominal discomfort. She's found to be very anemic and has some enlarged lymph nodes. She's diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. This is very treatable with radiation and chemotherapy, and can have a good prognosis. But how will radiation and chemo affect an early pregnancy? If it doesn't actually cause an abortion, there is a significant chance of fetal damage. Or it may increase the chance of complications like infection, or major hemorhage. She could chose to forgo treatment for several months until the fetus is viable enough to be delivered early. But delaying treatment might reduce her chance for successful remission. Very qualified oncologists, who are experienced in treating cancer in pregnancy can only give probabilities and educated guesses--there is no simple black and white answer. Perhaps she could wait to be treated after delivery, and still go into remission. But would anyone fault a decision to terminate the pregnancy and get early treatment? And in any event, isn't this a decision for her, and her family, and her doctors? And if we ever do criminalize abortion, how are exceptions going to made for these hard cases? I suppose there may need to be a hearing, with lawyers, and a judge who will have to grant permission. Is no one concerned about involving the government/judiciary in what should be a very personal and private medical matter?

Jayem,

May God's peace be with you. What was this woman's decision? Or has she made it yet? In either case, I will pray for her and for her child. That is a sad case and it is a pity that she had to go through it.

But your story has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is deliberately killing the baby. If she was to choose radiation and chemo, she is not deliberately harming her child. The damage that might come to the child is an indirect harm, not a direct harm. But personally, if I (was a woman firstly) was in her situation, I would bring the baby to full term or at least to where doctors can safely take him out and keep him alive. Then I would get radiation and chemo. I would go through anything to let my child live. Even to the point of death. But that's my opinion. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[SolomonVII]

Um, your body is too young, fits under the header "your too young"
If he ment because "society says your too young to have me but your body isn't" then he should have been more specific.

Out of curiosity, is a womens opinion and mind of paramount concern?

All butterflies are insects, but not all insects are butterflies. Before changing Sheep's quote to better fit your Trojan horse of an argument, wouldn't it have been more fitting to ask him the case of, say, eight year old impregnation would be included?

In a Christian world, free will means that a woman's mind and opinion very much matters.

 

[JCBeliever]

This is not completely true.

Even if we are now human beings, that doesn't imply that fetuses were human beings; a seed is not a tree.

The fetuses have always the DNA, but the different organs apper at different stages.

Do you believe a baby and an old man are both human beings?
They are only at different stages of development.
The distance between fetus and baby is MUCH shorter than the differentce between baby and old man.
Using this logic it's easy to see thta a fetus is as much a human being as you and I.

I dont understand how abortion can be unbiblical,
Of all the 600 Laws in the Old Test...none mentions abortion.
If it was a big deal to God..why does he not mention it?
Yet we have strict Laws about other things seemingly less important

If the Bible specifically mentioned every single unchristian thing it would be to large to put on any shelf.
Abortion, as you've heard of it, is the destuction of the most innocent of humans, infants. Jesus Christ is more than apalled an the genocide of 40 million children in this country.

Jesus did say that anyone who would hurt any of these little ones it is better a milestone is tied to their foot and they are casted into the sea.
Jesus was telling us that we must respect infants and their rights and not kill or abuse them because they are the most innocent of people. Jesus says we must be pure like infants to enter His Kingdom.

Remember Jesus came into this world to save lives, not that we would destroy lives at our inconvenience.

 

[Arikay]

Ugh, your not getting this. His statement was all encompassing, thus in your analogy his statement was "insects." Now if he would like to clarify his statement and reply to my scenario, he can, but since you aren't him and I don't think you can read his mind, I wouldn't suggest replying for him.

Thats good, since it often seems they get ignored in abortion discussions.

All butterflies are insects, but not all insects are butterflies. Before changing Sheep's quote to better fit your Trojan horse of an argument, wouldn't it have been more fitting to ask him the case of, say, eight year old impregnation would be included?

In a Christian world, free will means that a woman's mind and opinion very much matters.

 

[SolomonVII]

Ugh, your not getting this. His statement was all encompassing, thus in your analogy his statement was "insects." Now if he would like to clarify his statement and reply to my scenario, he can, but since you aren't him and I don't think you can read his mind, I wouldn't suggest replying for him.

Thats good, since it often seems they get ignored in abortion discussions.

Well Akiray, even with my limited ability, I really am getting exactly what you are saying. But by changing the quote, you were changing the entire character of what was being said. If that were not true, why change it? to keep with the analogy, you were focussing only on the butterflies, and ignoring all the other insects that may have been included.
In fact, by focussing only on one of the many points that Sheep brought up, you were not really engaging in a discussion, but merely looking for the weakest link in the argument.
Ugh.
Oh, and my first post in this thread, now long forgotten, very much dealt with what a woman might be typically thinking the nature of a fetus is.

 

[Arikay]

Why does it feel like this is pointless? I think I know why.
Ok, one last time.
Here is the quote,
"Don’t abort me because - Your too young to have me."
notice it just says "your too young" this can include the body as well as the mind, since he doesn't say. How hard is this to understand?

I was only replying to one because others were replying to others, however If you would like me too.

"Don’t abort me because – It’s legal."
Since abortion happened when it was illegal, I doubt anyone has an abortion for no other reason than just because they legally can.

"Don’t abort me because - I'm a mistake."
This really depends on the situation. Not knowing the situation the argument paints with a very broad brush. In certain circumstances the women or family might think an abortion is better than the destruction it might have upon many people.

"Don’t abort me because - My father raped you."
Again, paints with a broad brush. Depending on the rape victim having the child could cause permanent damage to their mind and hurt their family which in turn could hurt the development of the child. Sometimes the descruction of a Victims life is not worth it.

"Don’t abort me because - I have genetic defects."
Another broad brush (this is getting common). This has already been discussed, to add to that, if the baby has a genetic defect that will cause it to suffer and then die a week after birth, an abortion would be saving the baby from unneeded pain.

"Don’t abort me because - Your too young to have me."
Already addressed. Whether it will be understood I don't know.

"Don’t abort me because - I will just be adopted."
I agree with this, that adoption should be looked at before abortion, depending on the circumstances.

"Don’t abort me because - I'm inconvenient."
I agree.

"Don’t abort me because - You can."
I agree.

"Don’t abort me because - I want to live."
Except for the people who commit suicide.

Well Akiray, even with my limited ability, I really am getting exactly what you are saying. But by changing the quote, you were changing the entire character of what was being said. If that were not true, why change it? to keep with the analogy, you were focussing only on the butterflies, and ignoring all the other insects that may have been included.
In fact, by focussing only on one of the many points that Sheep brought up, you were not really engaging in a discussion, but merely looking for the weakest link in the argument.
Ugh.
Oh, and my first post in this thread, now long forgotten, very much dealt with what a woman might be typically thinking the nature of a fetus is.

 

[SolomonVII]

Why does it feel like this is pointless? I think I know why.
Ok, one last time.
Here is the quote,
"Don’t abort me because - Your too young to have me."
notice it just says "your too young" this can include the body as well as the mind, since he doesn't say. How hard is this to understand?

I was only replying to one because others were replying to others, however If you would like me too.

"Don’t abort me because – It’s legal."
Since abortion happened when it was illegal, I doubt anyone has an abortion for no other reason than just because they legally can.

"Don’t abort me because - I'm a mistake."
This really depends on the situation. Not knowing the situation the argument paints with a very broad brush. In certain circumstances the women or family might think an abortion is better than the destruction it might have upon many people.

"Don’t abort me because - My father raped you."
Again, paints with a broad brush. Depending on the rape victim having the child could cause permanent damage to their mind and hurt their family which in turn could hurt the development of the child. Sometimes the descruction of a Victims life is not worth it.

"Don’t abort me because - I have genetic defects."
Another broad brush (this is getting common). This has already been discussed, to add to that, if the baby has a genetic defect that will cause it to suffer and then die a week after birth, an abortion would be saving the baby from unneeded pain.

"Don’t abort me because - Your too young to have me."
Already addressed. Whether it will be understood I don't know.

"Don’t abort me because - I will just be adopted."
I agree with this, that adoption should be looked at before abortion, depending on the circumstances.

"Don’t abort me because - I'm inconvenient."
I agree.

"Don’t abort me because - You can."
I agree.

"Don’t abort me because - I want to live."
Except for the people who commit suicide.

Yes, this does aid in an understanding of what your position is.
With your statment it becomes more clear that you would agree that abortion for the sake of convenience would transgress some moral imperative. In other words, the fetus in this case would have some inherent value outside of the parent's and the mother's own wants and desires.

Rather than letting other people answer instead of you, this time you have made a clear statement about where you stand on the issue, and with your agreement on this one statement in particular -ie " Don;t abort me because I am inconvenient", you have implicitly agreed with the Christian belief that a human "I" has inherent value before birth.

Even once the premise of a fetus having value is accepted, pregnancy is yet a dangerous time for the mother, albeit much less so with the advent of modern medical practice. Your points on this are well taken that fetal rights do not supercede a woman's (or a pregnant child's) rights to safety of her person. The ethical and moral details of how the rights of fetus and parent interact will undoubtedly vary somewhat from one individual to another

By focussing on questions of rights and legal matters has thus far only served to polarize the debate. However, by focussing on the moral implications of all aspects of the question, it is very possible that we will find that the values that we hold in common are much closer that the purely political debate would lead us to believe.

 

[Gallego]

The distance between fetus and baby is MUCH shorter than the differentce between baby and old man.
Using this logic it's easy to see thta a fetus is as much a human being as you and I.

Yes, but this is not completely true.

It is true that they are much closer in age, but the baby and the old man have all organs formed.

So, if you use only one thing to distinguish what a human being is but no the other things, you are making a deduction that can be wrong.

Plase, try to watch the whole phenomena

 

[JCBeliever]

Yes, but this is not completely true.

It is true that they are much closer in age, but the baby and the old man have all organs formed.

So, if you use only one thing to distinguish what a human being is but no the other things, you are making a deduction that can be wrong.

Plase, try to watch the whole phenomena

A child's organs are smaller and not as developed as an older man's, so you are not fully correct.
A fetus has organs that are more developed than what you may initally have thought.
Tiny kangaroo fetuses are capable enought to crawl up their mothers into the pouch. Just because human fetuses can't "crawl round" like babies doesn't deduct their humaness. We are placental mammals and our young develope in the female, that's how our species is hardwired.

An embryo, fetus, baby, adolescent, man, old man......these are the developmental stages, fully a human from the beginning to the end.
Just because some of these stages occur within a placenta doesn't deduct the humaness from any of these stages. We are placental mammals.

 

[Gallego]

A child's organs are smaller and not as developed as an older man's, so you are not fully correct.

I am not fully correct and you are not fully correct.

Smaller means nothing, as a fat man has his organs bigger than the ones fron a thin one

Nobody has the truth, and that's why this discussion is neverending in society. Each part is only taken the analogies that are OK for its interests

here there are more arguments (not definitive, of course) for the other side
- a seed is not a tree
- If a baby dies, you must go to the civil register, while for a fetus not. The legal consideration for the fetus has been always different that for a baby

 

[TommyS]

Gallego,

Peace be with you. Since there are two posts currently running about the same thing, and you seem to have picked this one, I will quote myself from the other post. My quote discusses one of your arguments for the other side (a tree vs. a human).


"Everyone,

Peace be with you all. Many people have been arguing that an abortion is not the killing of a human being. Making the comparison that a fetus is not a human just as much as a seed is not a tree. But it seems that we are failing to see what is the difference between a tree and a human life: A soul. At what point do you think a soul is created? At what point is the soul in the human?

For people who make that weak comparison (between a tree and a human), I ask them: When is the soul present in a human? Is it when the brain starts to form in the womb? Or the heart? Or how about the arms? The soul becomes united with the human at the very instant of conception. And so, killing the "fetus" at any stage would be killing the chance for that soul to live on earth.

Now, with that in mind, and someone still wants to argue when a human is considered a human, then I ask: at what stage of the fetus does it change from fetus to human? And how do you know this is right? If you argue that the fetus must have everything developed that a normal human being has, then what about the people that are born with no ears, or are blind, etc? Do you not consider them to be humans?

Mary our Mother grieves for the unborn. And so should we.
God bless.

-Tommy"


I understand that you are an atheist, and therefore would not agree with my "soul" argument. As for your second argument, legal consideration to a fetus has no correlation to the moral consideration, though it should. You say that "Nobody has the truth, and that's why this discussion is neverending in society." I disagree, ironically. There is a truth to this matter: life starts at conception, no exception. The discussion is neverending in society because some can't agree on the truth.

I will pray for you Gallego. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[slayer-2004]

The way I see it , arguing whether or not the fetus is a baby or not is stupid . Even if logic states that the fetus is not alive - its still going to be alive . By killing it your prevent a chance of life . How exactly is that differant from murder ?

 

[gogoGoddess]

It's simple.

Just thinking that a feto is not a human being

I just don't believe that its anybodys' business what another person chooses to do when faced with such a tremendous decission, remember they have to live with theirself for the rest of their life---doesn't that seem like enough "punishment" for one person?
I'm pro-choice, and I am not anyones judge.

 

[Gallego]

Gallego,



For people who make that weak comparison (between a tree and a human), I ask them: When is the soul present in a human? Is it when the brain starts to form in the womb? Or the heart? Or how about the arms? The soul becomes united with the human at the very instant of conception. And so, killing the "fetus" at any stage would be killing the chance for that soul to live on earth.

Now, with that in mind, and someone still wants to argue when a human is considered a human, then I ask: at what stage of the fetus does it change from fetus to human? And how do you know this is right? If you argue that the fetus must have everything developed that a normal human being has, then what about the people that are born with no ears, or are blind, etc? Do you not consider them to be humans?


I understand that you are an atheist, and therefore would not agree with my "soul" argument. As for your second argument, legal consideration to a fetus has no correlation to the moral consideration, though it should. You say that "Nobody has the truth, and that's why this discussion is neverending in society." I disagree, ironically. There is a truth to this matter: life starts at conception, no exception. The discussion is neverending in society because some can't agree on the truth.

I will pray for you Gallego. God bless.

-Tommy

Hi Tommy,

Yes, I'm an atheist, so soul justification for me is not good.

No soul has ever been found in any body. So this is not demonstrated and cannot be used in argumentation.

You ask at what time does the fetus changes to a human. Well, you have part of the reason, because it is an arbitrary limit in some extent.
It is like the limit to vote.
Are both totally arbitrary? No, not totally.
One is supposed to have gone to school to have mind "minimum" informed.
And for the second one it is supposed to have the brain "minimum" formed to be a human.

For you, life starts at conception

The same for trees?
I will give you an example:
Where I live there is a lot of foreign trees, and native oaks are decreasing. So the government approved a law saying that it is illegal to cut an oak without permission.
But it is not illegal to kill an oak's seed, even thinking that a seed is going to be a tree, and destroying the seed is preventing a chance of life (as slayer-2004 said)

 

[SolomonVII]

I just don't believe that its anybodys' business what another person chooses to do when faced with such a tremendous decission, remember they have to live with theirself for the rest of their life---doesn't that seem like enough "punishment" for one person?
I'm pro-choice, and I am not anyones judge.

You do well to point out that making a decision that goes against one's moral fiber in such an important matter can create enough guilt to last a lifetime.

However, Christ came not to punish, but to save.
In other words, our sins have all been forgiven already on the cross. With sincere repentance, we need not be burdened with the guilt of any sin, no matter how large it appears to be. Turn to the cross, and all sin will be washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb.

For those that consider that removal of a fetus is of no more moral consequence than the removal of a wart, there should be no feelings of guilt, but only a temporary pain and a feeling of relief.

For those however, that believe that even an unwanted fetus has the inherent value of a human life, like any moral decison, there will be consequences for making choice that goes against what your heart is telling you. Thanks for pointing that out ggG.

To reiterate, the guilt of sin need not destroy you.

 

[Gallego]

However, Christ came not to punish, but to save.

This phrase is contradictory, since when you are saving person A and not person B, then you are implicitally punishing B

 

[SolomonVII]

This phrase is contradictory, since when you are saving person A and not person B, then you are implicitally punishing B

I have no idea what you're taling about either, so I guess that makes us even.