ARTICLE: Abortion Holocaust?

[STR Ambassador]

Lynching of Blacks by the KKK. Jewish genocide under the Third Reich. Abortion in America. Do these three have anything in common?


The American Holocaust
by Greg Koukl

Early this fall, the campus of the University of Kansas was rocked by a controversy that made headlines in the national press. Two pro-life groups--the Center for Bioethical Reform and Heartland Life Network--had posted a "pictorial essay" at a prominent crossroads on campus.

Three panels of a seven-by-fourteen foot billboard made the point. The first panel, a photo of a lynched African American, was captioned "Racial Choice." The second, a concentration camp photo of human bodies stacked like cordwood, read "Ethnic Choice." The photo on the third panel was the most controversial. Clearly visible next to the American dime included for perspective were well-defined forms of a severed arm and foot, the remnants of a first-trimester abortion. Underneath were the words "Reproductive Choice."

The comparison between abortion and other forms of genocide--the lynching of African Americans and the systematic ethnic cleansing of Jews by Nazis in Europe--was more than many could take.

Though neither sponsoring group is activist in the classic sense--their principle goal is public education--their presence on campus stimulated a fury resulting in two unprovoked assaults recorded in the press. One Catholic seminary student was punched in the mouth by an African American student. In another incident, the 17-year-old daughter of the President of Heartland Life Network was nearly run down while she carried one of the panels through the parking lot. She was pulled to safety at the last moment, the sign slipping from her grasp. The sign was run over as the car sped by.

An American Holocaust?

The deepest offense was felt by Jews and was a topic of conversation on mainstream talk shows even on the West Coast. Calling the 1.4 million abortions per year--most done during the first trimester--a holocaust is an offense to the memory of six million Jews that perished at the hands of the Third Reich.

Such "extremism" has alienated even some moderates who, though not strictly pro-life, are deeply concerned with the morality of abortion.

In a general appeal to moral intuition, KABC radio talk show host Dennis Prager in Los Angeles argued it was self-evident that the destruction of first-trimester fetuses was not equivalent to the murder of Jews. Mothers don't grieve over the death of a miscarried fetus the same way they'd grieve over the death of a child, Prager argued. Ergo an abortion, especially one done early, is not the equivalent of homicide.

Further, would Jews consider it a holocaust if six million Jewish fetuses were aborted? Many recoil at such a thought. The comparison of abortion with the Holocaust insults the memory of those who suffered under the Third Reich.

Two Thoughts

I want to pass two thoughts on to you. The first is my own, and the second was volunteered by a caller to my radio program.

First, the illustration posed appeals to an intuition, that the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazis is obviously more heinous--especially to the Jews--than the same number of abortions would be.

But the appeal begs the question. The fact that abortion doesn't seem as bad as concentration camps and gas chambers is misleading because it depends for its force on a tacit denial that the unborn are bona fide human beings. If they are, then who would say that taking the life of the same number of youngsters (in this case very young) is not the moral equivalent of taking the lives of the same number of adolescents and adults? In fact, generally we're more shocked by the taking of young life than old, though we would hold that both are equally valuable in their humanity.

There does seem to be a sense, though, in which we could decry the tragedy of the abortion holocaust, yet say that the Nazi Holocaust was a greater evil. This was the contribution of my caller.

Both are holocausts and unspeakably evil, purely on the merit of the number of human lives sacrificed. However, in the case of the Jewish Holocaust, the evil is compounded by the circumstances under which it was done.

Aborted human beings die relatively quickly and, by comparison, with little or no mental anguish. (This is certainly not always true, but that's another issue.) Jews, on the other hand, were treated like animals--terrorized, persecuted, raped, beaten, and then eventually murdered. The second crime is truly worse than the first, not because the unborn were not human, but because of the barbaric conditions under which Nazis exterminated undesirables.

An illustration may be helpful here. What if one million day-old children were vaporized in an instant through some high-tech weapon of mass destruction? Would that qualify as a holocaust?

I choose the details carefully to eliminate the possibility of suffering for those killed. Further, the collateral moral damage is minimized. There are no orphans left behind, no important posts in society left vacant, no long-term relationships destroyed.

Clearly, not all holocausts are equal. The numerous examples of ethnic cleansing in this century are made more egregious by the additional suffering, loss, and assault on human dignity they entail. Still, I suspect most would consider the destruction of one million day-old infants a moral catastrophe, a holocaust of significant magnitude simply because valuable human beings were wantonly destroyed.

Two Types of Value

Appealing to the grief one feels at the loss of a fetus vs. the loss of a child, a spouse or a friend misses a very important distinction. There are two ways that a thing can be valuable.

To value something simply means to acknowledge its worth. Any particular thing can be valued--considered worthwhile--for one of two reasons. First, a thing can be valuable to me. The computer I now compose with, my particular friendships, the fishing rods in my boat locker, my choice of clothes, or my fondness for Puccini arias are examples. These and a host of other things and ideals reflect my personal, subjective values. Others may not share them, but instead have their own set. This is called instrumental value.

Sometimes, though, we don't value things we ought to value. What some have called the crisis of values in this country reflects not the absence of any values at all. Instead, Americans don't value the right things. They don't value things that have genuine worth in themselves--honesty, personal responsibility, or other human beings, for example.

This is the second sense of value. Some things are merely valuable to us. Other things have worth in themselves. We call this intrinsic value.

Often things share both kinds of value. I may weep over the drive-by shooting of a friend because I have lost a dear companion, but also because of the wanton sacrifice of a human life valuable in itself.

The feeling of grief over something lost does not, by itself, capture these distinctions. Therefore, grief is not a useful guide to determine if something lost was innately and intrinsically worthwhile. I might grieve the passing of a family pet, but not shed a tear over hundreds murdered in Kosovo. My grief merely signals a thing's value to me, and not its intrinsic worth. Indeed, most don't feel grief over the Jewish holocaust, though they recognize its intrinsic moral tragedy.

It's true, a mother may not morn a miscarriage the way she morns a lost child. It also may be true that Jews do not feel the same sense of loss over six million abortions as they feel over the death of the same number of their kinsmen. But this by itself tells us nothing about the innate worth of either.

Our grief is a signal that something valuable has been lost. What grief does not show is whether the thing had worth merely to us, or whether it had value in itself. That must be determined a different way.

The Real Issue

This brings us to the most important question in the entire debate: What is the unborn? You must answer that question before you can answer the questions: How should we treat the fetus? What protections ought we give it? How far should we go to protect it?

Until we answer that question, we can't make any judgment about the morality of abortion or the moral consequences of any protest against it. If it's possible that an unborn child is as fully human in his or her essential nature as you and I, then he or she deserves the same legal protections--and legal sanctions against abuse--you and I enjoy.

That's the hard truth, and that's why the deep thinking ought to be addressed to this question. Unfortunately, this vital issue is almost never discussed in the public square at large.

California Homicide Statutes

Ironically, the California homicide statutes offer us some insight here. Some observers denounce the use of the word "murder" to describe the destruction of a fetus. Yet this "rhetoric" is completely consistent with California law.

Under the category "Crimes against the Person," § 187, murder is defined this way: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." [emphasis mine] After the definition, we find among the exceptions: "This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act....The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus."

This exception in the California statute leads, of course, to a very troubling concern. The foundational moral concept underlying all homicide statues is that human beings have innate value. Destroying a human being is the most serious of crimes. We condone it only in extreme circumstances, e.g., self-defense in the face of lethal attack, capital punishment, and war. Even then there remains a sense that killing is deeply tragic because of the intrinsic worth of the human whose life is taken.

Here's the problem. The only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the state of California is the consent of the mother. How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the unborn human inside her?

However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can't hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide. It's murder. Those who do so are prosecuted.

On the fundamental issue, then--the innate value of unborn human beings--pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law's general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers are not inconsistent; the law is.

Ethnic Cleansing in the Womb

There's another problem. Disqualifying the unborn's claim to life because of some physical characteristic--such as its primitive level of development or a congenital defect--is precisely what ethnic cleansing is about.

Ethnic cleansing is appalling for one simple reason: Valuable human beings are eradicated merely because of some physical "inadequacy." The person is condemned for his ethnicity. His features--skin, hair or eye color, shape of face, blood ancestry--are different from the accepted norm.

Most often abortion kills the unborn human for the same kind of reason. Though clearly a human being--a fact established by science--she does not have the physical characteristics or attributes that qualify her for protection. She's unwanted and in the way, and so she's eliminated.

If it's wrong in the first case, it's wrong in the second case. The rationales are identical. The motive is the same. And in both cases the result is the death of a valuable human being.

Picture This

Whether it's a wise tactic to compare the victims of racial or Nazi injustice with the injustice of abortion is a debatable matter. It may not be the best way to win people over, and tactical considerations are important.

However, we live in a culture that thinks and learns visually. This profoundly affects how people resolve moral issues. The word "abortion" has lost meaning in the prevailing atmosphere of choice and personal autonomy. Sometimes we must visually awaken moral sensibilities to move the debate from the abstract to the concrete: from choice to the death of the child.

Photographs can do that. The question is not, "Are the pictures emotional?" They are. The real question is, "Are the pictures accurate? Are the pictures true?"

The photos on the first two panels used on the billboard at the University of Kansas are not new. You can find them in history books where they serve to inspire the conscience of young students to oppose injustice. Those photos tell a true story. But so does the photo on the third panel. The tiny limbs are unmistakable. They belong to a very small human being.

Do these photos have anything in common? Yes, I think they do.

When others complain about the extremists with the signs, you point out that displaying the picture is not what's most offensive. What ought to offend us is what's captured on the photo.

Yours for the truth,


Pensees
Sowing the Seed Recklessly

I had no way of knowing that someone was reading over my shoulder. I'd quickly found my seat on the small, commuter jet and buried my nose in a Christian book.

"What are you reading?" A lady's voice floated timidly over the top of the seat. I chatted with her a few moments about the Lord, wrote out the title on the back of my card, wished her a pleasant trip and plunged back into my study.

Three weeks later she showed up at the church bookstore, titles in hand. Within a month she'd become a Christian.

In New Testament times, farmers didn't sow in neat rows. Instead, they pitched handfuls of seed among the furrows, scattering it recklessly in the breeze. Some seeds flourished, some failed; it was the ground that made the difference.

Many times I'd talk with folks about the Lord at church, in a restaurant or on the tennis court. They'd nod with appreciation, but depart unchanged. Months later I'd find out it was seed carried by the wind of the Spirit to an unnoticed bystander that bore the fruit.

The Parable of the Sower has taught me not to prejudge my audience. Instead, like the sower of old, I scatter my seed, letting it fall where it will. I never know who will be listening in or reading over my shoulder. I never know what small, seemingly insignificant seed will bear fruit to eternal life.


Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

[Queen]

Gee.....could you be more dramatic???

Good sex education, and the teen pregnancies in the USA will be a lot less....but NO.....talking about sex is...yuk, bleh,.....Stupid!!!

And who are we to judge a parent that has an abortion because the embryo is severly handicapped. Or a woman who is raped........or a woman who has 4 children and hardly money to support these kids? If the USA had a better social security sytem, those chidren would be alive today.

[dizzle]

We are we to judge a mother who kills her four living children because she cannot afford them, or they are ugly or they are fat, or not intelligent. If the US had a better welfare system she would not be driven to murder.

think logically Queen and don't justify murder... after all who are you to judge the STR post? You seem to have no problem judging but don't allow that luxury to others. The fact is that judgment is necessary, otherwise how are we to say anything is wrong.

[Queen]

We are we to judge a mother who kills her four living children because she cannot afford them, or they are ugly or they are fat, or not intelligent. If the US had a better welfare system she would not be driven to murder.

think logically Queen and don't justify murder... after all who are you to judge the STR post? You seem to have no problem judging but don't allow that luxury to others. The fact is that judgment is necessary, otherwise how are we to say anything is wrong.

You call it murder. And I never said that she had four abortions.I said if she has five children and got pregnant again......she must be able to have an abortion. And indeed, I judge. I judge because many people scream hell and murder without even knowing the background of the woman who undergoes the abortion. They are called murderers and they are not respected in any way. So, yep..I judge to protect those who are judged by people who aren't perfect either. If you respect life so much, why eat meat, squash flies or other bugs and hunts. You, after all believe that they are ALL God's creatures and live and death lies in the hand of God.....leave all to him...and do not condone any form of "murder". Don't make a difference between any form of life. THAT would be logical!

So, we both....we all are not logical!

Queen

[dizzle]

You really need to think through your points a bit more.

You call it murder. And I never said that she had four abortions.I said if she has five children and got pregnant again......she must be able to have an abortion.

Irrelevant to my point. Why should she not be able to kill her two-year if she cannot have money? You have made no reason why not to. In fact, if you were to become disabled and your family could not feed you, should they be able to kill you.


And indeed, I judge.

You are you to judge.



I judge because many people scream hell and murder without even knowing the background of the woman who undergoes the abortion.

Because the background is immaterial as to whether or not abortion is murder. It may cause mitigating factors to understand why a woman would have an abortion. Such as when a jealous man murders his cheating girlfriend who was rotten to him. Some may understand why he did so, that doesn't make it right, it is a mitigating factor, but the woman is just as murdered.


They are called murderers and they are not respected in any way.

and the babies are called anything but human and not respected in any way. You are losing your focus.



So, yep..I judge to protect those who are judged by people who aren't perfect either. If you respect life so much, why eat meat, squash flies or other bugs and hunts. You, after all believe that they are ALL God's creatures and live and death lies in the hand of God.....leave all to him...and do not condone any form of "murder". Don't make a difference between any form of life. THAT would be logical!

I do not believe all life is equal and do not make any pretense that I do because humans are created in the image of God but I DO protest killing anything gratuitiously. Funny I think babies are worth more than cockroaches. Don't you?

[elysian]

God is the Author of life-

When we consent to the sexual act we open ourselves up to the possibility that life could begin as a result of that act. Even within the protective boundary of marriage certain of us wish to avoid the possibility of pregnancy for many reasons- health, limited resources, already have the number of children we desire, etc. Granted in some instances it is both prudent and good stewardship to take precaution to prevent conception. Yet once conception has occurred there is a new life involved- a life that God has created for a purpose- a human life worthy of our protection and care.

Some may argue: "but so many embryos die spontaneously in the early stages of development, so why would God care if we do away with them ourselves?" Once there is human life our days and hours are numbered by God- we may not understand His purpose in how long someone lives, or how soon someone dies, but it is God's choice. It is not our decision or our place to do away with a human life because of its stage of development- using this logic why not euthanize the elderly and infirm in the nursing homes because they too are dependent and a "burden" on others? Should we become a "Logan's Run" society where those over thirty are done away with so that it it guaranteed everyone is a young, healthy, productive member of society?

Another common argument is "it's my body." It's not your body, it's God's body. You're just using it for awhile. And while we are on the subject of bodies, we are given choices and responsibility over what we do with our bodies. When we have sex we are open to the possibility that a new life may result. Women do get the brunt of the responsibility, but that is how we are created. It means that women have a vested interest in responsible sexual behavior, and being willing to accept the possibility, however remote that pregnancy can result. Actions have consequences.

Your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:16 (NIV)

One of the consequences of abortion is that it hurts the women who have them. When society refuses to disclose the whole truth about what is happening in abortion, not only physically but emotionally and spiritually as well, the women who have abortions continue to become victims as well. Many women do not necessarily "choose" abortion. Often they are strong-armed into it by "well-meaning" boyfriends or parents in the hope that abortion would be a quick fix, they would be getting rid of a "problem" that they don't want to deal with. Some come to choose abortion because they are in a bad financial situation.

Fathers have no say so at all regarding the fate of their unborn children. They have no choice. If a woman chooses abortion the father of the child can do absolutely nothing to prevent it.

It is true that society must do more to help prevent unplanned pregnancy- teaching our kids about abstinence and contraception are a start, as well as teaching the value of keeping sex within the boundaries of marriage. Yet if we value life we must be prepared not only to say it with our lips but to back that up in what we do.

Support crisis pregnancy centers- Make sure there are good alternatives to abortion available for all women in crisis pregnancies- counseling, housing assistance, adoption placement, medical help, etc.

Hold men accountable for their sexual activity- It takes two to tango! Men must step up to the plate in caring for their children not only financially but to make a concerted effort to be involved in their children's lives whether or not they are married to the children's mothers.

[Queen]

To me all life is worth protecting. Why make a difference between a none self aware embryo (I am only talking about the first trimester here) and a cockroach?

I think you have the discussion about abortion going, but to compare a child that is already walking on the earth with a not fully developed embryo is like compairing apples and oranges.

I have seen the sadness of families that were pregnant with a severely hadicapped child. I have seen women who had to decide. Decide if the embryo should develop further and suffer pain and surgery and so on to live the rest of their lives lying in bed, being a vegetable instead of a human being.....or to end the live there. Cause nature fails us sometimes and there are babies born that should have not developed at all.

If a woman decides to lay it in the hands of God and doesn't choose for abortion, even if the child is handicapped and will suffer, who am I to say that she is wrong? Who am I to judge her. I don't, I respect her decission and even think she is very brave to carry it to terms. But I think the same way about a woman who chooses to have an abortion. This yelling and screaming murder is ridiculous and calling it a holocaust is scandulous. It shows lack of respect for women in general. We finally have the right to make these choices and still we are called murderers when we decide for an abortion. I would never want any child of me suffer too long. I would love it so much I will be able to end it's pain......Cause love isn't about keeping a handicapped child alive artificial and let it suffer. That is called egotistical behavior. You find my arguments weak and you decide that a woman who kills a healthy defenceless child of two- years old the same as an abortion. Well, than you have no idea who I really am and never lsitened to me at all. An embryo is life....but what it is all about is the qualituy of life not the quantity. And that is something we forget. A friend of mine worked with handicapped children and parents abandom them completely......no matter what the handicap is. They don't want it because it isn't perfect. THAT is cruel and insensitive and with great lack of respect for life.....NOT abortion. Before it was legal, many women died of wromg treatment and bled to death, because a butcher did the "job". Now we have great medical science and we are able to do it legal and with respect for the woman's body. But you talk about it as if those women don't care a single bit about what they do.......but they suffer and are in pain and mourn their unborns......but sometimes we have no choice. No choice to save that little life from anguish and pain and sadness..................

I have seen results of prenatal tests and I have seen pictures of the most horrific deformities. I have heard the most dramatic stories and I have always considered myself lucky to never make such a decission, because I would not know what to do. I respect life......all life......but then again......who am I to judge, and that is what Koukl does, about so many people....just in the name of God and I think that that is shameless, even a crime against God!

Queen

[dizzle]

Again begging the question Queen.

Grant this one thing for sake of argument - a baby at all steps of developement if fully human and abortion is murder.

Just take that for sake of argument as true.

IF it is true, and Koukl believes it is as so do I - what else should he say????

You keep repeating this and this is horrible for someone to judge and how we cannot see such adn such point of view yet you consistently refuse to judge actions and statement in the framework of the person holding them.

If a mother cannot feed her two year old may she kill it? Please answer that question.

[Queen]

Again begging the question Queen.

Grant this one thing for sake of argument - a baby at all steps of developement if fully human and abortion is murder.

Just take that for sake of argument as true.

IF it is true, and Koukl believes it is as so do I - what else should he say????

You keep repeating this and this is horrible for someone to judge and how we cannot see such adn such point of view yet you consistently refuse to judge actions and statement in the framework of the person holding them.

If a mother cannot feed her two year old may she kill it? Please answer that question.

That is too silly a question to answer. You know exactly what my answer is, but you will just use my answer to prove you are right and I am wrong. But I guess it is hard to decide on this matter who is right and who is wrong. There is just one thing I know and that is how horrific it is that women who had an abortion have to read such [censored] and I am not giving you the change to insult these women even more with my answers. Simple.

I told how I felt and I told you my opinion. Let's just agree on disgreeing on this matter. But maybe you should put away your bible and talk to women who have gone through abortions and are still pro choice.....and not some poor woman who is afraid she will rot in hell because she had an abortion. Talk to pro choice doctors, people who deliver babies and to medical staff who had children in their hands dying in great pain. Talk to a woman who has no money to feed her childern, talk to them. Ask them how they feel and what they feel.......and then judge. Talk to them and then tell me that these pro-choice people are indeed the scary murderers Koukl claims them to be.

Like I don't judge and respect the women who are prolife and choose to NOT have an abortion even if the child is terrible deformed and will die after birth, I don't judge women who have an abortion. Because to me those women deserve the same respect as those who are pro-choice (And I am NOT talking about using abortion as a contraceptive or having an abortion because you want a son instead of a daughter.......but about cases that are truly a good reason to have an abortion)
Queen

[dizzle]

That is too silly a question to answer. You know exactly what my answer is, but you will just use my answer to prove you are right and I am wrong.

Then that should give you a clue that you are wrong. Your reasoning leads to absurd and monstrous results. Answer the question please.

And maybe you would like to "talk" to a baby that was ripped apart in its mother's womb before you talk. Do you think that is pleasant? Your justifications for infanticide are shocking. Financial hardship means it is okay to murder your children. Why stop in the womb? Children get more expensive as they grow.

it gets worse

(And I am NOT talking about using abortion as a contraceptive or having an abortion because you want a son instead of a daughter.....

Why not? Why is that wrong Queen?

[Queen]

Yep, I am a monster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:doh:

See, now you see me as a murdering type. That indeed proves that you don't know me at all. And NO I do not answer the question

Queen

[dizzle]

Yep, I am a monster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:doh:

See, now you see me as a murdering type. That indeed proves that you don't know me at all. And NO I do not answer the question

Queen

You do not wish to answer the question as you see you cannot be consistent. Also I said no such thing about you as a person, but if you don't see that saying it is oaky to kill one's children for financial reasons as monstrous you need soemthing fixed in your ethics for you are behaving in an ethically handicapped manner and have no basis to say that it is not okay to kill one's two year old if one loses one's job.

[Queen]

See.......you are thinking that you can trap me and make me angry. But I said what I wanted to say. So, let's leave it at that.

And I am consitant and ethical..........although.....I am not always consitent :lmbo:, but I don't care.

We are talking here about two completely different things.

Answer this. What if a two year old get's an accident and has severe braindamage. If they operate they can safe it's life, but the child will not be able to live for real.....it has turned into a vegetable. Do you treat that child, or do you let it die peacefully?


Queen

[dizzle]

See.......you are thinking that you can trap me and make me angry. But I said what I wanted to say. So, let's leave it at that.

Now I want you to think consistently and not make monstrous arguements for infanticiide.



And I am consitant and ethical..........although.....I am not always consitent :lmbo:, but I don't care.

The fact that you don't care means you really should not debate then about such things for you have no desire to be logical or have a meaningful discussion outside the realm of "this is what I think and who cares if it makes sense" - that is not a dialog.

And get this straight it is not ethical to say it is okay to kill one's offspring because of a lack of money..


We are talking here about two completely different things.

Mere assertion.


Answer this.

*snip*



Seems to me you have two questions to answer yourself first. Do so and we can dialog. You seem to wish to have your view just stated unchallenged. Things do not work that way.

Please answer the two questions, the second in case you missed it is why is it wrong to use abotion to select the sex of a child. How dare you judge the woman who wanted a son all her life and already have 7 daughters. Doesn't she deserve respect?

[Queen]

Now you are being silly....and like I said. I do not answer the questions, cause I have said it all before. And I did answer your questions in my replies, but I guess you did not read them well enough....or my english is not good enough.

You call it murder because the bible says, "thou shallt not kill/murder".

I think this economical reason for an abortion is getting out of hand. I have told more reasons for abortions. I guess you allow these.

Queen

[dizzle]

Now you are being silly....and like I said. I do not answer the questions, cause I have said it all before. And I did answer your questions in my replies, but I guess you did not read them well enough....or my english is not good enough.

No you consistently refused to answer my questions. Please cut and paste where you did answer.


You call it murder because the bible says, "thou shallt not kill/murder".

Irrelevant.




I think this economical reason for an abortion is getting out of hand. I have told more reasons for abortions. I guess you allow these.

No I do not. But you tend to get very scattered and I am concentrating on one and will move on to the others once this one is dealt with. Please answer the questions or cut and paste where you did.

[studyhound]

Decide if the embryo should develop further and suffer pain and surgery and so on to live the rest of their lives lying in bed, being a vegetable instead of a human being.....or to end the live there. Cause nature fails us sometimes and there are babies born that should have not developed at all.
Hmm I wonder if those people who would have an abortion for reasons of "defects" and "being a vegetable" would be in favor of eugenics, you know thinning out the "undesirable" and "weak", of course if we had been practicing this is the early part of this century, children with polio might have been aborted and we might be speaking German today.

(And for those who don’t get it FDR was crippled by polio and yet lead America to the defeat of the German (Yes even though he died before he saw it to fruition, dying just before Hitlers own sucide.))

And untold amounts of "defective" people make this world a better place to live, for all of us. through science, literature, humanities, economics, politics, ect, ect, ect.

:studyhound:

[anthrogirl]

You do not wish to answer the question as you see you cannot be consistent. Also I said no such thing about you as a person, but if you don't see that saying it is oaky to kill one's children for financial reasons as monstrous you need soemthing fixed in your ethics for you are behaving in an ethically handicapped manner and have no basis to say that it is not okay to kill one's two year old if one loses one's job.
I think Queen is avoiding the question because it is a loaded one. The issue is far more complex, and is deserving of more thought than a mere general brown-paper bag response that seeks to cover all of the intricacies of the problem. Even the president supports abortion in cases of rape, or when the life of the mother is at stake.

I admire Queen's desire to calmly maintain the integrity of her opinions--for her, the multiplicity of agents informs her of the complexity of the problem (i.e. doctors, women, families, children, body politic, socio-cultural factures). And this is why a patent answer, like pro-life, is insufficient in fully describing the problem.

I know you have thought this topic through intimately, Dee Dee. And I respect you for that. But for some, it is a long and complicated process. Not everyone sees the world in black and white.

anthrogirl

[anthrogirl]

Hmm I wonder if those people who would have an abortion for reasons of "defects" and "being a vegetable" would be in favor of eugenics, you know thinning out the "undesirable" and "weak", of course if we had been practicing this is the early part of this century, children with polio might have been aborted and we might be speaking German today.

(And for those who don’t get it FDR was crippled by polio and yet lead America to the defeat of the German (Yes even though he died before he saw it to fruition, dying just before Hitlers own sucide.))

And untold amounts of "defective" people make this world a better place to live, for all of us. through science, literature, humanities, economics, politics, ect, ect, ect.

:studyhound:
Excellent point, studyhound! I'm studying Down Syndrome right now in my Medical Anthropology class--Rayna Rapp writes: "Down syndrome babies are "wrong babies", marked almost from the moment of birth by medical scrutiny as incurably damaged." (2000:184). The question is: How does a family shift the interpretation of their child?

anthrogirl

[elysian]

We don't always understand why children are deformed or handicapped, but does their deformity or handicap make them less valuable in the eyes of God?

We embark upon a slippery slope when we say - this unborn child should not live because of x-deformity or the possibility of x-deformity. Who is to say that the "perfect" newborn will be "perfect" five years later- he or she could develop cancer or be injured and left disfigured? Would mercy-killing be OK then- to say well, this child needs to be put out of her misery? Who is to say that the "damaged" newborn has no purpose- that a child with a disability cannot touch the lives of others, or that a child with a disability cannot be happy? As the created and not the Creator we do not have that right.

"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'? Isaiah 45:9 (NIV)

Fetal abnormality is not nearly as common a reason for abortion (at least in the US) as abortion for convenience or I would contend abortion by coercion (a woman is pressured into abortion by her parents or her boyfriend.) Yet how do we know God's purpose for that child regardless of deformity? Just as we don't know God's purpose for the seemingly healthy child suddenly struck with cancer or the child disfigured or disabled by injury- we do not have the right to make the decision for death at any stage of development.

There is a danger in the belief that we can pick and choose. Abortion in the US is de facto a form of genocide as African American and poor Caucasian women are overly represented among women seeking abortion. Are we implying that African Americans and poor Caucasians are somehow of less value, that if you're poor you don't deserve to live? Should you deserve to live if genetic tests reveal a propensity for chronic diseases? Should you deserve to live if you are the opposite gender than what your parents wanted, or if you're going to be ugly or disproportioned?

[anthrogirl]

You bring forth some very good questions, elysian. We must not overlook the impact of socio-economic factors when exploring this topic. And with the advent of genetics screening comes the neccessity for ethical discourse...oy vay! It's a doozie, isn't it...

anthrogirl

[studyhound]

Excellent point, studyhound! I'm studying Down Syndrome right now in my Medical Anthropology class--Rayna Rapp writes: "Down syndrome babies are "wrong babies", marked almost from the moment of birth by medical scrutiny as incurably damaged." (2000:184). The question is: How does a family shift the interpretation of their child?

anthrogirl Well they first need to see that down syndrome effects the individuals differently, I personally have known several people who have Down syndrome, one had the working IQ of a third grader at age 21, the other was leaving for college the last time I saw him. Parents attitude has a lot to do with it, the first person I mentioned was suppose to be a living vegetable, but as his parents worked with him and he is now for the most part able to take care of himself, in fact his grater disability was he is deaf and most people don’t know sign language.

WRT abortion Queen made this statement:





Decide if the embryo should develop further and suffer pain and surgery and so on to live the rest of their lives lying in bed, being a vegetable instead of a human being.....or to end the live there. This is comment is both an emotional argument and one that is based on an assumption. The fact that some seemingly healthy children in the womb have to go through surgery after birth is proof that doctors and science cannot predict the life of a child, and we should not presuppose that both the child is not stronger than that, and the science will not advance to help the child live a better life. My best friend’s son seem to be very healthy in the womb and they were so happy, but after he was born it was discovered that he had a tube that connected the kidney to the bladder, that was 10 times to long and was causing him pain as it was putting pressure on his bladder making him feel like he had to constantly urinate. When he was still under a year old he had surgery and is now 3 and a very happy little boy.



Science has progressed to the point that a child that could have been aborted because his heart was to weak and might have died soon after birth was given a second chance by having a infant sized pacemaker installed.



(http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=7759%5D)
Tampa - A baby boy less than 30 minutes old received the world’s smallest pacemaker, about the size of a half-dollar, during a lifesaving procedure March 25 at St. Joseph Women’s Hospital.

The tiny pacemaker raised Kerrick Walker’s heartbeat from only 40 beats per minute to a normal infant’s heart rate.

DR. JEFF JACOBS, A PEDIATRIC HEART SURGEON:
“With the wire on the heart attached to this pacemaker, we can tell the heart how fast to beat, and we set that at a rate of 120, and then the baby can do just fine.”

Kerrick’s mother calls him her miracle baby.

RICA WALKER, THE BABY’S MOTHER:
“We are blessed that he’s able to live and be here. The technology, the surgeons, we’ve come a long way, a long way.”

Walker hopes to be able to take her son home in the next two to four weeks. He will need at least two additional surgeries to repair other problems with his heart, but doctors expect he’ll be able to lead a normal life.





Tampa Bay's 10 News




:studyhound:

[elysian]

You bring forth some very good questions, elysian. We must not overlook the impact of socio-economic factors when exploring this topic. And with the advent of genetics screening comes the neccessity for ethical discourse...oy vay! It's a doozie, isn't it...

anthrogirl

And I will clearly state that yes, I am biased. I spent a very long night years ago with my best friend who was coerced into abortion by the "sperm donor." (I didn't care much for this particular boyfriend!) When she had realized later that day what she had done she literally went into shock- sobbing and rocking uncontrollably- how else do I describe it but I had never seen (nor ever wish to again) such depths of grief and helplessness. There was nothing I could do, no consolation I could offer other than to keep watch through the night and make sure she didn't try to commit suicide.

Yes she was poor- we all were and we all made many of the same bad choices. Not long after this incident (I was 19 and in college) I discovered I was pregnant. My boyfriend (later to be ex-husband) was very hostile to the idea of children and I wondered how I would tell him. I really didn't have to wonder for very long. I miscarried that child at around 11-12 weeks. To this day my parents and my ex don't know about it. Fortunately in Ohio if you are a student and you are over 18 even if you are on your parents' medical insurance your records are confidential, so I was able to get the exam to verify what I already knew had happened (I will spare the gore) and make sure I didn't need further medical assistance, which thankfully I didn't. I was too in shock to tell anyone other than my best friend- she understood. I have just recently come to a point where I can talk about it relatively freely- and this happened in 1988.

I didn't get pregnant again until after I'd gotten married and that was completely accidental. I was really paranoid about taking the Pill (I didn't know then that it has the potential of being abortifacient) but I was also prescribed Seldane-D (no longer on the market) for chronic sinus/upper respiratory problems and my Dr. assured me it wouldn't interfere with the Pill. Unfortunately as was proven in later studies- it did. I was 21 when I got pregnant with my son and I was scared to death first of my (now ex) husband because he was absolutely hostile to the idea of having children, and I was scared of losing this one too.

When I told him of course he went ballistic and the first thing out of his mouth was "you gotta get rid of it." He even conspired with his mother and between the two of them they offered me $1000 to get an abortion. I refused. I will say the following three years were a living hell- (I should have left the ex the minute he and his evil mother started with the bribery attempt but I tried to give him a chance) but worth it. It was even better when I left the ex because he was no help- the ex actually cost me money as the only job he could get was part time at K-mart - and I feared for my son's safety around him. My son's life has been worth it even though his well-being has cost me dearly and continues to cost me, it is a sacrifice of love.

I know that not everyone in a crisis pregnancy is willing or able to raise a child, but there are so many people who cannot have children and would be thrilled to adopt a child. Why not give that child a chance for life?

[anthrogirl]

Elysian, thank you for sharing your story. I think you've illustrated nicely, the constellation of oppositions that a family faces when presented with an "undesirable" pregnancy. And it seems you've resolved these oppositions within your own experience. I applaud your courage.

It's relatively easy, for those on the outside, to offer a simple solution to an otherwise devestating problem--but I think we can never really know unless we are immersed in the situation.

what do you think?

anthrogirl

[ajohnson]

It's relatively easy, for those on the outside, to offer a simple solution to an otherwise devestating problem--but I think we can never really know unless we are immersed in the situation.

what do you think?

anthrogirl

Are you saying that because I'm a man I shouldn't say elective abortions is wrong?

Or that I can't really understand the difficulty some women have in making a decision to destroy an otherwise perfectly healthy human fetus?

Regards,

Alan

[elysian]

Are you saying that because I'm a man I shouldn't say elective abortions is wrong?

Or that I can't really understand the difficulty some women have in making a decision to destroy an otherwise perfectly healthy human fetus?

Regards,

Alan

Men have no say-so. I'm not saying this is how it should be, but this is how it is. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she chooses abortion he has no legal right to prevent it.

In all honesty though, the only side of that coin that I have seen is men who pressure women into getting abortions- and in many instances the woman complies, usually out of fear of violence or other retribution.

Wouldn't it be far easier for a woman to defend her unborn child if society and the law backed her up? How many times is it truly the woman's free and unencumbered choice?

Shouldn't a man have some say-so (aside from strong-arming a woman into a decision for abortion) regarding the well being of his child as well?

[anthrogirl]

Are you saying that because I'm a man I shouldn't say elective abortions is wrong?

Or that I can't really understand the difficulty some women have in making a decision to destroy an otherwise perfectly healthy human fetus?

Regards,

Alan
Not at all, where did you get that? I haven't even adressed the problem of gender.

In fact, I think I've been quite consistent in my earlier post that it is a problem that a family must face.

Of course, while it might be difficult for you to fully understand some of the biological feelings that a woman might have, I think it is certainly possible to empathize with the agony of such an experience.

Some social scientists place the blame on men for the misfortune of women. But that is not what I'm saying. While gender plays a considerable role in body politics, we are trying to understand the human experience, in an effort to narrow the hostile division that has grown over the past several thousand years.

in peace,
anthrogirl

[ajohnson]

Not at all, where did you get that? I haven't even adressed the problem of gender.

I was a little confused because of this;


It's relatively easy, for those on the outside, to offer a simple solution to an otherwise devestating problem--but I think we can never really know unless we are immersed in the situation.


I didn't think it it meant what I read into it so I wanted to clarify. Thanks.


In fact, I think I've been quite consistent in my earlier post that it is a problem that a family must face.

Yes you have, another reason I was a little confused.

Of course, while it might be difficult for you to fully understand some of thebiological feelings that a woman might have, I think it is certainly possible to empathize with the agony of such an experience.

I don't think it's beyond my understanding.

Some social scientists place the blame on men for the misfortune of women. But that is not what I'm saying. While gender plays a considerable role in body politics, we are trying to understand the human experience, in an effort to narrow the hostile division that has grown over the past several thousand years.

I would say the hostility has grown more in the past 30 years, than the past several thousands years combined. But that's just me. Thanks.

Regards,

Alan

[anthrogirl]

I would say the hostility has grown more in the past 30 years, than the past several thousands years combined. But that's just me. Thanks.

Regards,

Alan
Yes, I agree that it's been more articulated in the last few decades. This articulation is largely a response to the gender divide of the past millenia. BTW, I enjoy your posts.

best,
anthrogirl

[ajohnson]

Men have no say-so. I'm not saying this is how it should be, but this is how it is. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she chooses abortion he has no legal right to prevent it.

Agreed

In all honesty though, the only side of that coin that I have seen is men who pressure women into getting abortions- and in many instances the woman complies, usually out of fear of violence or other retribution.

You need to get out more. There are plenty of non-overbearing men ready to have a mature and adult relationship with women.

Wouldn't it be far easier for a woman to defend her unborn child if society and the law backed her up? How many times is it truly the woman's free and unencumbered choice?

Yes, but no one can make a choice in a vacuum. It is the consequences of those choices that determine which choice will be made - by many people.

I continually try to make a choice based on what is right. What is right morally speaking - and sometimes I don't like the consequenses, but I sleep very well at night.

Shouldn't a man have some say-so (aside from strong-arming a woman into a decision for abortion) regarding the well being of his child as well?

Yes. But if the man is trying to pressure the woman into doing something morally wrong or repugnant - then I hope the woman has the character to do what is right. It's very difficult because (yes, I'm stereotyping) many women are 'people pleasers' - and this makes it even more difficult.

But if the fact that a fetus was a human being (or person, or has personhood, etc.) was taught in high school science classes (like the theory of evolution), then I think it would be easier to 'fight' the pressure of having an elective abortion by some men.

Regards,

Alan

[elysian]

You need to get out more. There are plenty of non-overbearing men ready to have a mature and adult relationship with women.

I have heard rumors of this- and much to my surprise both of my brothers-in-law looked forward to the birth of their children. I did not think this was normal male behavior but perhaps I have only seen the deviant end of it. :lol:


Yes, but no one can make a choice in a vacuum. It is the consequences of those choices that determine which choice will be made - by many people.

True, which is why we as Christian people should help women facing crisis pregnancy and offer them counseling, help with housing and medical care and offer good alternatives to abortion.


Yes. But if the man is trying to pressure the woman into doing something morally wrong or repugnant - then I hope the woman has the character to do what is right. It's very difficult because (yes, I'm stereotyping) many women are 'people pleasers' - and this makes it even more difficult.

Tell me about it. :lol: I lived in fear of my ex-husband for three years because I refused he and his evil mother's bribe. They didn't succeed in swaying me, but I had many friends whose boyfriends and even their parents strong-armed them into it. It was bad enough having my ex and his mother trying to force me into it. I thank God that my parents supported me and were a huge help- I was raised that abortion is simply not an option. My parents never mentioned such a thing to me or even suggested it was worth thinking about.


But if the fact that a fetus was a human being (or person, or has personhood, etc.) was taught in high school science classes (like the theory of evolution), then I think it would be easier to 'fight' the pressure of having an elective abortion by some men.

Agreed. But if she is living in fear of violence or he is her financial support, and she has nowhere else to turn, it is very easy to be strong-armed into it. I have known girls that this is exactly what happened to them.

[Queen]

For the record. I never said a baby has to be perfect. I am handicapped myself.....yep, even got a pacemaker. I am talking about the horrific deformities of i.e. trisomy 18 and trisomy 13.....and other painful killing and horrific defromities.

I know what I am talking about. I have done research about spina bifida (which includes babies born without a brain. I have read books about the many abonormities and or abberration. Quality of life is more important than quantity of life. I rather lead a full short life than a horrible painful long life or a long life vegetating until I die.

We must keep the discussion going about this and watch out for that thin line between a good life and a horrible life or no life at all. Down syndrome is a disorder that is balancing on the thin line and I feel only sadness when a woman has an abortion when her child has Down syndrome. Because their lives can be so full and filled with joy.

What I do recent is the terms holocaust and murder. THAT is shameless and without any respect for any female.......Where is the respect and compassion. Could any of you even care about a woman would had an abortion?

Compassion is important and some show NO compassion at all. No wonder the world is filled with so much hate......it starts with lack of respect.

I am against eugenetics.....Thank you!!

[Abigail]

Queen I think it is a mistake to assume that unless you condone a woman's decision to abort in a given set of circumstances, you are unable to sympathise with her situation.

[Queen]

Queen I think it is a mistake to assume that unless you condone a woman's decision to abort in a given set of circumstances, you are unable to sympathise with her situation.

Is that so? I do not agree with that. But that is okay......:smile:

[studyhound]

For the record. I never said a baby has to be perfect. I am handicapped myself.....yep, even got a pacemaker. I am talking about the horrific deformities of i.e. trisomy 18 and trisomy 13.....and other painful killing and horrific defromities.

Yes there are many of deformities that babies can have but doctors are wrong and test can be in error, and there is a chance the children can live. So rather than a chance at life we dismember them in the womb. Of course the pain of dismemberment is not as bad as deformities, right?


I know what I am talking about. I have done research about spina bifida (which includes babies born without a brain. I have read books about the many abonormities and or abberration.

Without a brain? Does the child have a heartbeat? No activity? If there is no brain then the child is already dead and it’s a moot point, just a miscarriage.


Down syndrome is a disorder that is balancing on the thin line and I feel only sadness when a woman has an abortion when her child has Down syndrome. Because their lives can be so full and filled with joy.
Agreed.


What I do recent is the terms holocaust and murder. THAT is shameless and without any respect for any female.......Where is the respect and compassion. Could any of you even care about a woman would had an abortion?
Well what would you call the death of a innocent person at the hands of another for the comfort of another? And the deaths of millions of children not even for medical reasons but for the woman’s right to skirt her responsibility, and not take care of the life she brought about. (i.e. birth control)

Compassion is important and some show NO compassion at all. No wonder the world is filled with so much hate......it starts with lack of respect.

I really feel for those in these situations, as a father of 2 I had all the fears and worry about my children, and my wife and I made the choice to bring our children to full term no matter the outcome, we even by pasted the fetal testing. The outcome was irrelevant.


I am against eugenetics.....Thank you!!
Note: I did not single you out. Just your comments reminded me of those who support abortion, for cases of Down syndrome, retardation, ECT, ECT.



:studyhound:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Haven't read all of the previous posts. I'm guessing that they involved arguments that have been repeated before on other threads.

The problem with STR's OP is that its statistics depend on the assumption that the newly conceived zygote is a human being.

Now, such a view does not derive itself from the Bible and it isn't from Science since there isn't a def'n of human being that we all accept.

If one considers abortions that took place after the third month of gestation and exclude those that were done because the mother's life was at stake then the numbers drop considerably and you don't have Holocaust numbers of abortions taking place on an annual basis.

here is a good source of abortion-stats.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

88% of abortions take place between the 6 weeks and 12 weeks. I'd bet a higher proportion of the remaining 12% take place before 6 weeks than after 12 weeks and that leaves us with conservatively 6% of abortions taking place after 12 weeks.

If 1,370,000 abortions take place in the US each year then perhaps 80,000 are taking place beyond the 12 weeks of pregnancy and a good portion of those are likely in cases where the woman's health is at stake...

And lets get serious here, there is no way that we're going to be able to redefine when human personhood begins to before the 12th week of pregnancy and keep it that way. The opposition will be too strong and there will be extensive civil disobedience and media-attention like there was in Portugal that will lead to it being likely made legal again.

I think at best defining human personhood at the 12th week and then having measures to discourage abortions is the best one can politically hope for for changes in abortion-law.

Anyone who claims otherwise may be seeking to stir up the abortion-debate so that it will loom large as a political issue in the upcoming election, to the likely advantage of George Bush and the Republicans.

dlw

[RumTumTugger]

To me all life is worth protecting. Why make a difference between a none self aware embryo (I am only talking about the first trimester here) and a cockroach?

I think you have the discussion about abortion going, but to compare a child that is already walking on the earth with a not fully developed embryo is like compairing apples and oranges.

I have seen the sadness of families that were pregnant with a severely hadicapped child. I have seen women who had to decide. Decide if the embryo should develop further and suffer pain and surgery and so on to live the rest of their lives lying in bed, being a vegetable instead of a human being.....or to end the live there. Cause nature fails us sometimes and there are babies born that should have not developed at all.

If a woman decides to lay it in the hands of God and doesn't choose for abortion, even if the child is handicapped and will suffer, who am I to say that she is wrong? Who am I to judge her. I don't, I respect her decission and even think she is very brave to carry it to terms. But I think the same way about a woman who chooses to have an abortion. This yelling and screaming murder is ridiculous and calling it a holocaust is scandulous. It shows lack of respect for women in general. We finally have the right to make these choices and still we are called murderers when we decide for an abortion. I would never want any child of me suffer too long. I would love it so much I will be able to end it's pain......Cause love isn't about keeping a handicapped child alive artificial and let it suffer. That is called egotistical behavior. You find my arguments weak and you decide that a woman who kills a healthy defenceless child of two- years old the same as an abortion. Well, than you have no idea who I really am and never lsitened to me at all. An embryo is life....but what it is all about is the qualituy of life not the quantity. And that is something we forget. A friend of mine worked with handicapped children and parents abandom them completely......no matter what the handicap is. They don't want it because it isn't perfect. THAT is cruel and insensitive and with great lack of respect for life.....NOT abortion. Before it was legal, many women died of wromg treatment and bled to death, because a butcher did the "job". Now we have great medical science and we are able to do it legal and with respect for the woman's body. But you talk about it as if those women don't care a single bit about what they do.......but they suffer and are in pain and mourn their unborns......but sometimes we have no choice. No choice to save that little life from anguish and pain and sadness..................

I have seen results of prenatal tests and I have seen pictures of the most horrific deformities. I have heard the most dramatic stories and I have always considered myself lucky to never make such a decission, because I would not know what to do. I respect life......all life......but then again......who am I to judge, and that is what Koukl does, about so many people....just in the name of God and I think that that is shameless, even a crime against God!

Queen

Quick question Queen are you any more of a human being then you were at age 1 or just after you were born.

think very carefully about this

Queen why are you judging Greg koukl if you feel it is not right.

[dizzle]

I think Queen is avoiding the question because it is a loaded one.

Actually no


A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

And the fact is that I did not dictate to her how she must answer like saying answer only yes or no. She is free to explain any way she desires.



The issue is far more complex, and is deserving of more thought than a mere general brown-paper bag response that seeks to cover all of the intricacies of the problem.

Who is asking for that. I took the proposition she laid out and am inquiring how consistent she will be withthat. Actually I find killing people pretty cut and dried to be a bad thing. Is it at times necessary? War? Self-defense? Sure. But at its core, the issue really isn't that complex. Hardships do not mean hard ethical questions unless one's ethics are happiness, comfort, selfishness, and convenience.


Even the president supports abortion in cases of rape, or when the life of the mother is at stake.

He would be wrong in number one, and in number two it is not a matter of choosing to kill, becauseif the mother is genuinely in danger, one of them will die.


I know you have thought this topic through intimately, Dee Dee. And I respect you for that. But for some, it is a long and complicated process. Not everyone sees the world in black and white.

But i bet all of a sudden if it was your body about to be sucked out of the womb, it would seem pretty black and white all of a sudden.

[dizzle]

It's relatively easy, for those on the outside, to offer a simple solution to an otherwise devestating problem--but I think we can never really know unless we are immersed in the situation.

No one said the answer was simply or easy. I can understand without ever beingn tempted to murder another human being that murder is wrong. As a matter of fact I have been there, and I am consequently the mother of two dead children.

[anthrogirl]

But i bet all of a sudden if it was your body about to be sucked out of the womb, it would seem pretty black and white all of a sudden.
I guess it would depend on if I had awareness at that time.

Look, I'm not disputing your opinion--I'm merely trying to point out that it is a complex problem that requires serious inquiry. But I am an exploratory thinker who wishes to consider all angles before I make a decision, that's all. I respect your right to make decisions in your own way, and I trust you will do the same for me. I know that this is a delicate issue that is wrought with emotion, and that is why I think it is important to consider it carefully.

I'm not looking for an argument. And I'm not going to engage in one. I am seeking to understand the human condition--from as many perspectives as possible. This is humaness--and trust me, I'm not even close to acheiving it.


sincerely,
anthrogirl

[dizzle]

I guess it would depend on if I had awareness at that time.


Not really. You can see the black and white of it from your position right now. We tend to remove the humanity of the life of which we are speaking, but as one pro-life shirt that impacted said

As a former fetus, I object to abortion.



Look, I'm not disputing your opinion--I'm merely trying to point out that it is a complex problem that requires serious inquiry.

I disagree that the "problem" is complex. The ethical question presented is actually quite simple. Carrying it out may be very hard, but deciding the ethics is not complex. It is quite easy to see htat sucking a baby out of its mother womb is not the right thing to do.

[anthrogirl]

I disagree that the "problem" is complex. The ethical question presented is actually quite simple. Carrying it out may be very hard, but deciding the ethics is not complex. It is quite easy to see htat sucking a baby out of its mother womb is not the right thing to do.

okay.

[Queen]

Well, there is one thing I discovered and that is that people tend to compare certain issues with horrific crimes if they are against it, instead of having solid based arguments. A child is self aware at the age of four years. They start to recognize themselves in the mirror. Some are a bit younger, some are a bit older.

Having a heartbeat doesn't mean you are truly alive. Your brain is the most important organ, if you don't have a brain, you are not a living cretaure that senses emotions, pain, feelings and so on. If you have a brainstem, than you breathe and your heart beats......that's it.

If these are the argumen to prevent abortion then you are mistaken. I never said that I am for abortion. I am pro choice. In Holland abortion is legal, on medical grounds and on psychological grounds. But we have the lowest rate of abortions in Europe. Why?Because we give good sex eductation and women are not ashamed to carry condoms in their purse when they go out on dates. Teenagers are open about their sexual activity and they can go and get contraceptives as easy as painkillers from their physician. We are open about tse things, we don't yell murder and hell.

Why do a pregnancy test if you don't want an abortion anyway? If you leave it to nature or in the hands of God, that is beautiful and I fully respect that. I respect and find these women as brave and compassioned as women who decide to have the child...no matter what.

And pregnancy tests don't rule out disorders, we know to little....yes there are still children born with disorders. Good results on the pregnancy test doesn't mean your childis healthy. It means that they ruled out certain disorders. And yes, tests can be wrong....but that is a very low statistic in pregnancy tests......less than 1%. A lot less!

I am not for abortion. I just have respect and I understand these women. Instead of flamming someone down think twice. I am pro-choice.........but I am against abortion being used as a contrceptive, like I said before (exceptions of course like rape or a 12-13 yo girl and so on).

Murder is something else, the holocaust is something else and eugenetics is something else.........don't mix these up and prove to me that having an abortion when the embryo has exencephaly, anecephaly, trisomy 13, trisomy 18 and so on is wrong. Nature doesn't always provide a miscarriage in the first weeks when there is something badly wrong with the embryo......miscarriage is a natural abortion of a severely deformed embryo.

Queen

[dizzle]

It would be nice if you would answer my questions. You are now apparently backing away from you prior comments that abortion is justified on the grounds of financial hardship. I expect I will not hear such monstruous arguments from you in the future. If you are not backing away from that, then please answer the question. You cannot be expected to make such an outrageous statement and go unchallenged.

We can talk further about the "hard cases" which are not normative. The majority of abortions in the world are not about hard cases they are about convenience and selfishness.

Again here are the questions:

Is it okay for a mother to kill her two year old child if she cannot afford it

Why are you against abortion for contraceptive purposes

Having a heartbeat doesn't mean you are truly alive. Your brain is the most important organ, if you don't have a brain, you are not a living cretaure that senses emotions, pain, feelings and so on. If you have a brainstem, than you breathe and your heart beats......that's it.


here is your ethical handicap Queen. Being a valuable human being is not about what a person can do it is about what a person intrinsically is, otherwise you are led to the logical conclusion that it would be philosophically okay to label some of us as more human than others depending upon what we can do. That is horrifiying.

As it was said in Animal Farm

All animals are equal only some are more equal than others

[elysian]

Dee Dee and Queen-

I must say that I agree with Queen in that we need to bring compassion, healing and hope to women who have been through abortions. Many do not come to terms with the reality of what they have done for months or even years later. Many grieve in secret silence because they are afraid of condemnation, that they will alienate their family or friends, or they believe that they are beyond help and healing. Some, like my best friend, understand and are horrified and grieve from the very beginning. I have seen too many women strong-armed into decisions for abortion by boyfriends and parents to know that it is not always an unencumbered "choice." A woman who is financially dependent upon a boyfriend or even a husband who is hostile toward the idea of having children faces a very real danger of abuse and injury, or at the very least being made homeless. Some parents are more worried about their family's "reputation" than anything else and strong-arm their daughters into having abortions so as not to "embarrass the family." Still other girls fear their parents and don't want to "disappoint" them. The fact that society looks the other way does not help- we need to stress the alternatives to abortion and help women who are faced with crisis pregnancy make good decisions. Still the women who have been there, for whatever reason, are in need of our compassion, and they, like us are in desperate need of God's mercy and grace.

I agree with Dee Dee as well- humanity becomes human at the moment of conception- before that moment we have choices, to abstain, to use appropriate contraception (means to prevent conception.) But after that moment we are speaking of human life created in God's image, that other humans are called to protect and care for.

I know that many people are disturbed about unborn babies with genetic malformations, ("well, if the baby has a defect why not just abort it now" is a stance that some take) but sometimes pre-natal testing is not accurate. Sometimes healthy babies are labelled "defective" for whatever reason. Who are we to take the risk of killing a healthy child out of fear that it may have a defect? What about all the defects that show up later in life that we can't detect prenatally? Should we let that unborn child live if someday he will develop Alzheimer's disease? How can we predict with 100% accuracy who is going to be healthy their whole life and who is going to be plagued by illness? No matter how hard we try we cannot guarantee our children a perfect, pain free life. One of the conditions of life on Earth, the effect of sin on God's creation after the Fall is that there is suffering here on Earth. No matter how it twists our hearts and grieves us, children are not exempt from this suffering. Whether we understand it or not God is the Potter, we are the clay. The good news is that for those who believe there is more to life than this life.

[Ramonda]

I know that many people are disturbed about unborn babies with genetic malformations, ("well, if the baby has a defect why not just abort it now" is a stance that some take) but sometimes pre-natal testing is not accurate. Sometimes healthy babies are labelled "defective" for whatever reason. Who are we to take the risk of killing a healthy child out of fear that it may have a defect? What about all the defects that show up later in life that we can't detect prenatally? Should we let that unborn child live if someday he will develop Alzheimer's disease? How can we predict with 100% accuracy who is going to be healthy their whole life and who is going to be plagued by illness? No matter how hard we try we cannot guarantee our children a perfect, pain free life. One of the conditions of life on Earth, the effect of sin on God's creation after the Fall is that there is suffering here on Earth. No matter how it twists our hearts and grieves us, children are not exempt from this suffering. Whether we understand it or not God is the Potter, we are the clay. The good news is that for those who believe there is more to life than this life.

While we cannot predict the future health of any human being, the future is not what is at issue. There are cases of prenatal diagnosis where there are no doubts and are 100% accurate.

I do believe there is more to life than this life but that doesn't mean that we have to suffer. More important, we don't have to tell another that their suffering is good for them. They have the right to determine that for themselves. That is why it is called pro choice. You get to choose for yourself, another gets to choose for themselves.

I've yet to meet a person who prays that their child will be born with a variety of defects. I have met one who was praying for a down's child. The majority of us pray or hope that our child will be perfectly healthy. I see modern science as one more way that our prayers are answered.

[dizzle]

I do believe there is more to life than this life but that doesn't mean that we have to suffer.

Really says who? Where is comfort and happiness promised to anyone especially at the expense of another?


More important, we don't have to tell another that their suffering is good for them.

Almost any renowned person of character credits suffering for that character, but character building is not comfortable, but anyways, it doesn't matter if it is good for them. It may be much more convenient and less suffereing for a woman to murder her philandering husband then lose it all because of a prenup she signed, but that murder is still wrong. Or are you daring to tell that woman she has a right not to suffer? Says who?


They have the right to determine that for themselves. That is why it is called pro choice. You get to choose for yourself, another gets to choose for themselves.

And where does the choice of the human being that is murdered come into play? Who says you have the right to choose to murder another human being? Would you feel the same way about slavery?

[elysian]

While we cannot predict the future health of any human being, the future is not what is at issue. There are cases of prenatal diagnosis where there are no doubts and are 100% accurate.

I do believe there is more to life than this life but that doesn't mean that we have to suffer. More important, we don't have to tell another that their suffering is good for them. They have the right to determine that for themselves. That is why it is called pro choice. You get to choose for yourself, another gets to choose for themselves.

I've yet to meet a person who prays that their child will be born with a variety of defects. I have met one who was praying for a down's child. The majority of us pray or hope that our child will be perfectly healthy. I see modern science as one more way that our prayers are answered.


Choice ends where conception begins.

But if we believe in God, and know that He is the Creator, we are the created is it our place to say "God, you screwed this up?" No I do not wish suffering on anyone nor do I claim that I want to see suffering. Part of a Christian's calling is to help relieve suffering and to be light and salt in the world. It is a fact that suffering is part of the human condition because of the sin nature that is a part of us. We cannot understand God's purposes fully in this life. He said "take up your cross and follow Me" (Matthew 16:24) but He never promised us we would understand His plan and design.

Some things absolutely do not make sense in our understanding but we do not have the complete vision. We do know from Scripture how God instructed us to live our lives. He commanded us "do not murder." He did not say that it is OK to kill someone to "put them out of their misery." We were not given that decision or that right.

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"? Isaiah 29:16 (NIV)

Even the apostle Paul had this struggle in his life: how do we reconcile suffering especially when we can't see any purpose or reason for it? I do not have an easy answer for that. But as the created not the Creator we do not have the right to make that choice.

[Ramonda]

Really says who? Where is comfort and happiness promised to anyone especially at the expense of another?


I said it. My experience with suffering showed me where much of it was unnecessary. I'm speaking of course about individuals with good health. The expense of another is relative. That is why there is controversy about the abortion issue and none of us are ever going to agree completely.

Legal abortion came into this country about the time that I was having children. I had no desire whatsoever for one because I wanted my children. But I did belong to a relgion that dictated my death over that of the child. Naturally I prayed that I would have only healthy pregnancies and deliveries. I also questioned the rule of the mother's death. Eventually I knew that if that was pointed out without a doubt, that I would die, I knew I would choose myself over the unborn so that my already born would have their mother. Only I could have come to that decision for myself and everybody must follow their own conscience. If abortion is wrong then it is wrong for everybody no matter what. If it is right to save the life of a mother then other choices also have to be respected.

The comfort and happiness comes with making a decision and then moving forward in happiness and not looking back.



Almost any renowned person of character credits suffering for that character, but character building is not comfortable, but anyways, it doesn't matter if it is good for them. It may be much more convenient and less suffereing for a woman to murder her philandering husband then lose it all because of a prenup she signed, but that murder is still wrong. Or are you daring to tell that woman she has a right not to suffer? Says who?



I do give credit for the various suffering that I have experienced as part of my character. In learning that there is no reason for me to suffer over possibilities, my life since then has been mostly joyous and happy. I believe that a happy life in the "lord" makes much more sense than being long suffering as evidence of connectivity.

This topic has nothing to do with philandering husbands. If it were myself I would either forgive or leave. Murder isn't worth any man.



And where does the choice of the human being that is murdered come into play? Who says you have the right to choose to murder another human being? Would you feel the same way about slavery?



Early abortions are not human beings but potential human beings.

Could you clarify what you mean about how I feel about slavery?

[Ramonda]

Choice ends where conception begins.



Only for those who choose that as a determining factor.



But if we believe in God, and know that He is the Creator, we are the created is it our place to say "God, you screwed this up?" No I do not wish suffering on anyone nor do I claim that I want to see suffering. Part of a Christian's calling is to help relieve suffering and to be light and salt in the world. It is a fact that suffering is part of the human condition because of the sin nature that is a part of us. We cannot understand God's purposes fully in this life. He said "take up your cross and follow Me" (Matthew 16:24) but He never promised us we would understand His plan and design.



Part of any human is to help relieve suffering. I don't agree that sin has anything to do with it. He did promise that we can understand the plan when we seek the kingdom within.



Some things absolutely do not make sense in our understanding but we do not have the complete vision. We do know from Scripture how God instructed us to live our lives. He commanded us "do not murder." He did not say that it is OK to kill someone to "put them out of their misery." We were not given that decision or that right.



I am all for not murdering. I do not see abortion as murder. I know some do and they must follow their consciences for themselves.



Even the apostle Paul had this struggle in his life: how do we reconcile suffering especially when we can't see any purpose or reason for it? I do not have an easy answer for that. But as the created not the Creator we do not have the right to make that choice.



As somebody who is living 2000 years later than Paul, I have the ability to have more understanding of suffering than he did. I also have the ability to help more people cease their suffering.

[Queen]

It would be nice if you would answer my questions. You are now apparently backing away from you prior comments that abortion is justified on the grounds of financial hardship. I expect I will not hear such monstruous arguments from you in the future. If you are not backing away from that, then please answer the question. You cannot be expected to make such an outrageous statement and go unchallenged.

We can talk further about the "hard cases" which are not normative. The majority of abortions in the world are not about hard cases they are about convenience and selfishness.

Again here are the questions:

Is it okay for a mother to kill her two year old child if she cannot afford it

Why are you against abortion for contraceptive purposes



here is your ethical handicap Queen. Being a valuable human being is not about what a person can do it is about what a person intrinsically is, otherwise you are led to the logical conclusion that it would be philosophically okay to label some of us as more human than others depending upon what we can do. That is horrifiying.

As it was said in Animal Farm

All animals are equal only some are more equal than others

Dee Dee.......If five childern have hardly anything to eat, why make it more diffiocult by number six. I know about the American healthcare......and about the USA social care and frankly....they suck. If you are poor you can rot.....not in Hell, but on this planet.

And if you really don't know my answer to these questions.......too bad. I am not giving you the pleasure of using my answer and twisting and turning it into some bible slapping "truth"

Amen

[dizzle]

Dee Dee.......If five childern have hardly anything to eat, why make it more diffiocult by number six

Can the mother kill the other five too? So you are saying it is not okay to use abotion for family planning but you can use if for financial planning? And you do not see that is monstrous? You do realize that there are people out there ready willing and able to adopt newborns don;t you?


. I know about the American healthcare......and about the USA social care and frankly....they suck. If you are poor you can rot.....not in Hell, but on this planet.

Are you suggesting that poor people would be better off dead?


And if you really don't know my answer to these questions.......too bad. I am not giving you the pleasure of using my answer and twisting and turning it into some bible slapping "truth"

Of course I have not been using the Bible in my arguments but don't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of your outburst. You cannot answer the questions because you cannot develop a consistent ethic from your views. And the pathetic thing here is that this is not an exercise in navel-gazing, very real lives are at stake in these issues. Real babies are getting vacuumed out of real wombs and you say that is fine cause mommy is poor. I have more respect for poor women then to think they have to murder their offspring. You may think you are being compassionate, but you are actually espousing a form of bigotry.

[dizzle]

As somebody who is living 2000 years later than Paul, I have the ability to have more understanding of suffering than he did.

That is ludicrious. Do you think that suffering, like knowledge, is collective? Have you ever endured a world without modern medicine? Without air conditioning? Without regular bathing? If not I doubt you understand suffering more so than Paul who was also beaten numerous times within inches of his life, which I sincerely doubt has ever happened to you.

[Ramonda]

That is ludicrious. Do you think that suffering, like knowledge, is collective? Have you ever endured a world without modern medicine? Without air conditioning? Without regular bathing? If not I doubt you understand suffering more so than Paul who was also beaten numerous times within inches of his life, which I sincerely doubt has ever happened to you.

Yes on the world without most modern medicine of today. Yes without air conditioning even today. I definitely like bathing everyday but didn't have it when younger. Of course kids don't stink generally so that was ok.

True I was never beaten within inches of my life but having been beaten a couple of times it doesn't take collective suffering to know I wouldn't like it. Then again maybe Paul didn't suffer either. There were lots of saints that while they were put to death extremely, felt no pain, only joy. Since neither of us knows of details that far back there is no point in feeling sorrow for him.

Today there are many people that are beaten to death for their lifestyle, their race, or sometimes their money etc. Why worry about Paul whose suffering is over when we have the here and now and the good sense on how to alleviate other people's suffering in the majority of cases?

The point was he didn't have an answer for suffering and I said we can have a better viewpoint than he did and it is because of modern technology in medicine, living and education that we do have more answers from knowledge than Paul. And the connection with god is just as good today as it was then. Greater life style, connection with god, indeed we do have more answers.

[Gilgaron]

Why is conception more justified than birth, anyway?

[Queen]

Dee Dee,

I NEVER claimed anything like that. I said I understand the position the woman is in, the doubt the fear, the horror she is going through. I NEVER said that poor people should die. Don't you put words in my mouth!


No wonder there is so much fucking shit going on in this world......lack of love respect and compassion!

[dizzle]

Dee Dee,

I NEVER claimed anything like that. I said I understand the position the woman is in, the doubt the fear, the horror she is going through. I NEVER said that poor people should die. Don't you put words in my mouth!

You mean like you have been putting words in my mouth saying

I am not giving you the pleasure of using my answer and twisting and turning it into some bible slapping "truth"

and closing your posts with a mocking

amen

Of course you never said that and I never said you did (and that is not what I said anyways - I said that you thought it was okay for poor women to murder their offspring - and I now qualify that with unborn offspring). I in understanding the fear and the suffering do not think that just because someone is poor they should be allowed to murder. And of course I don't think you would or overtly believe that they should but here is the situation we have....

You obviously believe that there is some human value to an unborn child or you would have no compunction against it being used for birth control. However you think that if someone is poor they should be allowed to over-ride this concern. That makes no sense. You have refused to say how it does. There are people ready willing and able to adopt newborns. No one has said there are ideal answers to ever situation. Sometimes as the saying goes, life sucks. However, I will consistently maintain that murder is never an option. Compassion does not require excusal of an abhorrent act. That does not mean we do not understand why, you forget that I have had two abortions and you talk down to me as if I have no understanding of women or fear or suffering or thinking that I would not be able to bring a child into this world.

My point was rhetorical. You have no problem insinuating all kinds of things about people that they have no respect or compassion for women. I am demonstrating that my position that women do not have to be driven to murder their offspring, that they can rise above that, is respectful. So please do not dish out what you cannot take and watch the mouth Queen. I do not apologize for necessary offense - for I think you are advocating the unthinkable - but I always readily apologise for unnecessary offense which I do in this instance seeing how you were driven to profanity. Seeing the inconsistency in our deeply cherished views is difficult, and as a former card-carrying member of Now and Abortion Clinic Front Lines Defender (have you done any of things Queen? and you tell me I don't understand the issues?), I understand this. I just went through an old jewelry box and found my old collection of activist pins such as:

I Vote Pro-Choice
Against Abortion, Don't Have One
and the worst
Phyllis Schafly is a Female Impersonator

So you are not telling me any lines that I don't already know. You may not realize it and you may refuse to realize it but your position is ultimately not respectful to women or children. It expects less than fully human behaviour from women, that there will be situations in which she should be allowed to murder her offspring.

So in short, I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your view. I do not think you beieve the dark side of them for I know you truly think you are advocating the ethical thing. I am pointing out to you that it is confused and jumbled. No one is denying women go through horrible things. But your logic would allow them to kill their born children and one what grounds would you judge them?

[Queen]

But your logic would allow them to kill their born children and one what grounds would you judge them?
And you know nothing of me.
And I don't need someone to tell me to watch my mouth....:lmbo: I am an adult and I talk the way I am....and if I put in some F-words (that is used in many USA movies and shows....so where did I get those words from:wink:) I do that. You're not my Mom. Because I never said that someone just can kill their offspring. So, yea.....I said it. and now you say: so why kill an unborn child. A sucks, the woman has hardly any money to feed her children and than she must also pay tons of money for health care (you know as well as I that having a baby costs huge amounts of money.....and that is only during pregnancy and child birth). Tell me how to cope with that? You have no idea what is happening in the real world, and you have NO idea how much pain these women go through. YOU are really blind for the faults of your so-called great country. If you are poor in your country no-one cares a F-word, because that is not how the USA works, simple. I can tell you stories of some of my USA friends that will make you cry. Your social side of the country is as social as a spider who sees a fly caught in his net.......Your country doesn't care one bit. So, what happens, those women have only one way out. And you tell me they murder their children? HA!!!!

Yes, I understand those women and many more. I understand those women who have abortions after a negative outcome of a test. ho can't afford another baby/child, I understand a 13 yo girl, I understand when a woman's life is at stake, I understand and respect their decisions......I do not call them murderers.....I would be ashamed if I did that. That is shameless, cruel and without lack of respect for a you think God let's Ted Bundy into heaven if he repents and is truly converted....but you call a woman in need a murderer? How the heck are you conservative Christians thinking anyway? Have you any idea what you are saying?

Queen

[dizzle]

And you know nothing of me.
I only know what you post. And that is what I am responding to.


And I don't need someone to tell me to watch my mouth....:lmbo: I am an adult and I talk the way I am....and if I put in some F-words (that is used in many USA movies and shows....so where did I get those words from:wink:) I do that. You're not my Mom.
Queen you will not do that here. Bottom line. In that respect you need to grow up. This is private property and you do not have the right to curse. Adults behave and respect rules. In fact the adult thing to do is not to come back with a belligerent response but to apologize for willfully breaking the rules of this forum.


Because I never said that someone just can kill their offspring. So, yea.....I said it. and now you say: so why kill an unborn child. A sucks, the woman has hardly any money to feed her children and than she must also pay tons of money for health care (you know as well as I that having a baby costs huge amounts of money.....and that is only during pregnancy and child birth). Tell me how to cope with that? You have no idea what is happening in the real world, and you have NO idea how much pain these women go through.
and you have no way of knowing what I know and you just contradicted yourself horribly. You ARE saying a women can kill her offspring, you just draw the line at the birth canal. You continue to talk down to me and what I know or do not know and never engage the issues. I have conceded the pain, the suffering, the hardships. We are now getting to whether or not the justifies elimination of offspring. I notice you have yet to deal withthe adoption issue.



YOU are really blind for the faults of your so-called great country. If you are poor in your country no-one cares a F-word, because that is not how the USA works, simple. I can tell you stories of some of my USA friends that will make you cry. Your social side of the country is as social as a spider who sees a fly caught in his net.......Your country doesn't care one bit. So, what happens, those women have only one way out. And you tell me they murder their children? HA!!!!
Funny how you somehwere else presumem to know more than someone in their own country. this is all irrelevant though as to the real issue as to whether or not it is ethical to eliminate offspring through abortion. Are you judging women who simply change their mind that they want another baby? Why are you judging them?


Yes, I understand those women and many more. I understand those women who have abortions after a negative outcome of a test. ho can't afford another baby/child, I understand a 13 yo girl, I understand when a woman's life is at stake, I understand and respect their decisions......I do not call them murderers.....I would be ashamed if I did that. That is shameless, cruel and without lack of respect for a you think God let's Ted Bundy into heaven if he repents and is truly converted....but you call a woman in need a murderer? How the heck are you conservative Christians thinking anyway? Have you any idea what you are saying?

Queen
When you decide you want to interact with the issues instead of just making outbursts that do not deal with the questions I asked let me know. YOu need to explain why you do not support abortion as a means of birth control. Why don't you respect those women who choose to do that? You need to explain why it is okay to abort a preborn baby but not let a mother kill the one month old. Are you punishing her for taking too logn to make up her mind?and you continue to be doggedly illogical in your posting. Am I lacking respect to Bundy to say he is a serial killer? Do you have any respect for the mental illness or demons that may have been tormenting him? That may very well be true, and that may be mitigating factors but his victims are just as dead. A woman may have mitigating factors as to why she chose abortion (and the collective guilt hangs on us all as legalization and removal of stigma gives her the lie of legitimacy to her actions), but the baby is just as dead. However, there is forgiveness for all. But repentance comes first and it is not loving to imperil the path to forgiveness but denying that anything was done wrong. You in your misplaced love are actually thwarting the healing. I am sure glad that wasn't done to me.

You see if abortion is murder, I respect a woman enough to tell her the truth. I don't sugarcoat or whitewash it. That is a lack of respect. Please remember in your postings that I have had two abortions. YOu demand respect for your past but fail to give it to me.

[Queen]

Gosh, I love you....:kizz:

I said all I wanted to say. And let's leave it at that. If this is not enough for you, I am sorry. But I am not going to apologize for who I am...and that F-word was meant in general not said to you personal. I don't see what is wrong with it anyway, but you know I have always respected this here. I said it now and I do not apologize for saying it, because I meant it from the bottom of my heart. If that is not an adult way......so be it. I don't need someone else to tell me to grow up. I AM FINALLY standing up for ME and NO-ONE is going to take that away from me!

So, Deeds, we just have to disagree......it happens in this world . People disagree. But if I have to weigh my words to protect people from bad words, you might think about that as well and not yelling murder and hell because you do not agree with decisions other people make. As an individual we have finally the right to be the boss of our own body. Women have fought for these rights for many years.......and NO religious person should try to push us back to the dark ages...

Queen

[dizzle]

Gosh, I love you....:kizz:

I said all I wanted to say. And let's leave it at that. If this is not enough for you, I am sorry. But I am not going to apologize for who I am...and that F-word was meant in general not said to you personal. I don't see what is wrong with it anyway, but you know I have always respected this here. I said it now and I do not apologize for saying it, because I meant it from the bottom of my heart. If that is not an adult way......so be it. I don't need someone else to tell me to grow up. I AM FINALLY standing up for ME and NO-ONE is going to take that away from me!
Queen, I think better of you than to think that profanity is who you are. Whether or not you meant it is not the reason for the apology. The reason for the apology is that you purposefully and willfully broke a very clear rule. I have no doubt that you meant what you said, but you had no right to say it here. In a very loose analogy, this is my "house" - you are a guest. I request that you not wear shoes in my house. If you decide that it is your right to wear shoes because that is who you are and tromp in my house that is wrong. It has nothing to do with who you are but respecting the rules of others who have the authority to put such in place. That is what I said was immature, not the words themselves, so that we are clear on that.


So, Deeds, we just have to disagree......it happens in this world . People disagree. But if I have to weigh my words to protect people from bad words, you might think about that as well and not yelling murder and hell because you do not agree with decisions other people make.
If abortion is murder and there really is a hell, I would be a monster not to tell people about it.

As an individual we have finally the right to be the boss of our own body.
This has nothing to do with being the boss of your own body. It has to do with responsibility for that very nature of being human. Women reproduce, it is not an invasion, it is an essential part of who we are. And by destroying the baby, a woman is violating the very fundamental right of that baby to have control over its own body as that human body is mercilessly torn in pieces.

Women have fought for these rights for many years.......and NO religious person should try to push us back to the dark ages...
If I were not a Christian and felt the same way would I then be able to do this? You do realize that there are atheists just as firmly opposed to abortion don't you? There are bio-"ethicists" who argue that newborns should be alllowed to be killed and think you are the unenligthened one. This again is not a matter of simple mental stimulation. As I wrote these numerous babies have suffered merciless death in the one place where they should be the safest, the womb of their mother. Abortion warps the very nature of womanhood and robs it. I have much more respect and love for women than to condone such activities.

[Trout]

Queen, the word you are using and the various ways in which you are disguising it, are in direct violation of the forum rules, which you are fully aware of, please do not continue to do so.

[Queen]

That is how you think. I never said I think everyubody who can should have an abortion. I would not know if I could have an abortion, from my biological point of view life is what a zygote is and from my spiritual pov you should respect all life. But respecting life doesn't mean to let it live in the most horrific circumtances. THAT is even more cruel than to kill it. But I also said that I respect women who want to carry their inborn to terms and leave it in the hand of God/nature and medical science if the child should live. I understand those women to and I respect them as much as women who decide to have an abortion, if they know that there kid has an disorder. And the fact that we women can reproduce doesn't mean we have to milkcows and give birth every year for as long as possible. That is ridiculous, stupid and bad for the environment. But like I said, Holland has the lowest rate of abortions. I wonder why, maybe because we allow abortions only druing the first 3 months othe pregnancy. After that babies are born in the natural way. And if someone asks to have a genetics test to decide if it is a boy or a girl, they are send away....(although there are some serious muscle diseases that only boys can get and these parents are allowed to have an abortion if it is a boy...but that is not the same as just a gender test).

Yes, handicapped children are as valuable as healthy children. Damn, I am handicapped myself. I know what it means! But that doesn't mean we have to keep someone alive at ALL costs. Real love is able to let go as well. If I end up with a serious braindamage (living as a vegetable), I hope people will love me enough to let me die in peace.

And I am NOT for abortion, I am pro choice with good reason. I don't want to take away the right and the love from parents to decide what to do with their unborn. They suffered enough.....without somebody judging them like they are murderers. I guess that we also must apply what the bible says about rape? No rights for women!!! No equal rights no saying what happens to their body. Heck, if somewhere is murdered on almost every page it is the bible and all in the name of God. So why not have an abortion in the name of God, because you want the soul of your unborn go to heaven in peace?

Queen

PS: I respect the rules here if I am not treated as a restricted child that can not go near the cookie jar......:tongue: :lmbo: Puberty hit!!!!!

[Queen]

Queen, the word you are using and the various ways in which you are disguising it, are in direct violation of the forum rules, which you are fully aware of, please do not continue to do so.
Can I use @$%@%?? Just asking

[Trout]

Can I use @$%@%?? Just asking
Here are the rules for this particular forum:

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

The answer is no.

[Queen]

okey dokey.......And just a no was enough...:tongue:

[Ghettochild]

when i am a bijillionare i wm gonna buy a billion RU486 pills and shower them all over one of those pro-life rallies...

[dizzle]

And why would you do that? You do realize that the motivation of the huge majority of pro-lifers is a sincere belief that abortion is the murder of babies. Why would you mock something like that? If you disagree oppose it, but really, is a comment like that at all appropriate or in any semblance of good taste or humanity?

[PennyDreadful]

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
That takes care of your cockroaches. And might I suggest that you, as a christian, give those that Christ came to save a bit more respect.

[albert]

Some may argue: "but so many embryos die spontaneously in the early stages of development, so why would God care if we do away with them ourselves?" Once there is human life our days and hours are numbered by God- we may not understand His purpose in how long someone lives, or how soon someone dies, but it is God's choice. It is not our decision or our place to do away with a human life because of its stage of development- using this logic why not euthanize the elderly and infirm in the nursing homes because they too are dependent and a "burden" on others?


This misses the point. We are morally obliged to try to thwart "God's
will" in the form of illness. We do it for adults, why not for embryos?

More embryos (which to you are "unborn human beings") die from
natural, but possibly preventible, causes than from abortion: about
2/3 of them. The fact that many of them are severely abnormal with
low survival probability makes no difference: to you they are
ill/handicapped humans, and we are morally obliged to make the same
efforts to save them that we would make for an adult with cancer.

So if what matters to you is saving innocent human lives then you
should focus your energies on the large numbers (although perhaps a
small proportion) of embryos that could be saved from death by medical
intervention. The consequent inconvenience to women and the violation
of their privacy is a small matter in comparison to all the lives
that will be saved.

But of course neither you nor anyone else wants to do this.
The fact that no-one agitates for medical intervention to prevent
spontaneous abortions shows that no-one really, in practical terms,
thinks of an embryo as a human being.

[dizzle]

The fact that no-one agitates for medical intervention to prevent
spontaneous abortions shows that no-one really, in practical terms,
thinks of an embryo as a human being.

That is just incredibly ignorant.

First of all, there are numerous resources to prevent spontaneous miscarriage and great research into findong out about health issues for preborn babies incredibly early. Second, if I were to be opposed to medical intervention for cancer would it necessarily follow that I do not in practical terms think of cancer victims as human beings? Please use your noodle. And pray tell, are embryos dogs? Carrots? Weebles? What?

They are human beings at the stage of development ALL human beings go through. One does not become a human. One is. One may become a teenaged human or an adult human, but one is human the whole way around. If levels of development are now the standard for humanity, am I more human than a newborn? I am certainly more developed.

The fact that many Christian will not even use the pill because there is allegedly an infestiminal chance that it acts as an abortificiant shows in very rubber meets the road ways what they believe.

[albert]

First of all, there are numerous resources to prevent spontaneous miscarriage and great research into findong out about health issues for preborn babies incredibly early.


1) Yes, but how much of your time and energy is going in to helping them? For every planned abortion there are of order 30 spontaneous abortions. (about 1 spontaneous abortion for each pregnancy = about 30 million per year in the U.S., vs 1 million planned abortions per year; feel free to correct my figures if you know better.) If you really cared about the lives involved you would be putting more effort into supporting the medical treatment of spontaneous abortion than into advocating stricter abortion laws.

2) That research is mostly into preventing miscarriage of fetuses, not preventing spontaneous abortion of embryos, which usually happens without the woman even realizing she is pregnant. But anyway, according to you those embryos are human lives too, and to be consistent you should be advocating screening of all sexually active women to check for the presence of such humans, and treatment to try to save them.


Second, if I were to be opposed to medical intervention for cancer would it necessarily follow that I do not in practical terms think of cancer victims as human beings? Please use your noodle.

It would not necessarily follow. Feel free to suggest other reasons why no one gets hot and bothered about the fate of tens of millions of embryos that quietly die each year in the first days of their lives.



And pray tell, are embryos dogs? Carrots? Weebles? What?
They are human beings at the stage of development ALL human beings go through. One does not become a human. One is.

Saying it don't make it so. But the real issue is law and rights...


One may become a teenaged human or an adult human, but one is human the whole way around. If levels of development are now the standard for humanity, am I more human than a newborn? I am certainly more developed.

You have more rights: right to vote, right to give sexual consent, etc. There is no reason a baby shouldn't have more rights than an embryo, and be treated differently under the law.



The fact that many Christian will not even use the pill because there is allegedly an infestiminal chance that it acts as an abortificiant shows in very rubber meets the road ways what they believe.

"Many" is still a small proportion. The fact that most Christians happily take their contraceptive pills shows that they don't think embryos are human beings. Or: you can suggest another reason...

[dizzle]

1) Yes, but how much of your time and energy is going in to helping them?

I spend no time at all in helping prevent infanticide of born female infants in China. By your logic, I don't believe they are human. Are you going to begin to think consistently or do I have to multiple examples?

Now why don't I spend time doing that? I am one person who can only do so much - there is a reason there is a Body of Christ - each member serves a different function. The fact that I do not spend time on that cause does not prohibit me from saying it is wrong.

I notice you avoided my ohter point in my post about being opposed to treating cancer.


For every planned abortion there are of order 30 spontaneous abortions. (about 1 spontaneous abortion for each pregnancy = about 30 million per year in the U.S., vs 1 million planned abortions per year; feel free to correct my figures if you know better.) If you really cared about the lives involved you would be putting more effort into supporting the medical treatment of spontaneous abortion than into advocating stricter abortion laws.

I am glad you think I have so much time to do all this and power. Support can come in many ways, furthermore that logic does not follow. There is a large difference as you know but are ignoring that there is a large difference between actively ending a perfectly "normal" life (or unknown if normal or not) and the spontaneous miscarriage that happens through factors of nature. If persons were advocating MORE spontaneous miscarriages or passing laws to oppose the treatment of such and prolifes did nothing, your logic would follow. But as it stands it is a sorry excuse to deal with the issue. All prolifers could be inconsistent monsters who eat puppies for breakfast and that does not deal with the point at hand. It makes for a nice diversion you have created though.


2) That research is mostly into preventing miscarriage of fetuses, not preventing spontaneous abortion of embryos, which usually happens without the woman even realizing she is pregnant. But anyway, according to you those embryos are human lives too, and to be consistent you should be advocating screening of all sexually active women to check for the presence of such humans, and treatment to try to save them.

No more than I adovocate the tying down of known pregnant women. You again are missing the distinction between planned elimination and items that are caused by nature. You are posting an extreme straw man so you do not have to deal with the humanity of babies sucked out of their mother's wombs who know full well they are pregnant.


It would not necessarily follow. Feel free to suggest other reasons why no one gets hot and bothered about the fate of tens of millions of embryos that quietly die each year in the first days of their lives.

Answered above. Do you have another straw man you wish to burn for the sake of excusing away deliberate infanticide? As DC Talk has said, what have we become? A self-indulgent people.




You have more rights: right to vote, right to give sexual consent, etc. There is no reason a baby shouldn't have more rights than an embryo, and be treated differently under the law.

You didn't answer the question. Am I more human than a baby? You argument was based upon a supposed lack of belief that a human at a different stage of development was indeed human.



"Many" is still a small proportion. The fact that most Christians happily take their contraceptive pills shows that they don't think embryos are human beings. Or: you can suggest another reason...

Sure, I can name a bunch, but your jumping to that conclusions tells me that you have a chip on your shoulder and it ain't chocolate.

1. They are not convinced by the research and do not think there is an issue, I do not take the pill but I have gone out of my way to consult with multiple Christian and nonChristian GYNs who have assured me that there is no merit to that claim.

2. They are ignorant there is even an issue. I know up until about three or so years ago I was unaware.

3. They are aware and are being purposefully self-ignornat because they are sinful selfish human beings like the rest of us

Wow, and that was with very little thought. I am sure you could have come up with that if you were not looking for a way to excuse the murder of infants.

[ajohnson]

1) Yes, but how much of your time and energy is going in to helping them? For every planned abortion there are of order 30 spontaneous abortions. (about 1 spontaneous abortion for each pregnancy = about 30 million per year in the U.S., vs 1 million planned abortions per year; feel free to correct my figures if you know better.) If you really cared about the lives involved you would be putting more effort into supporting the medical treatment of spontaneous abortion than into advocating stricter abortion laws.

**ALERT*ALERT*Red Herring*ALERT*ALERT**

There are red herring all over the place - grab the fishing poles

This thread is about elective abortions. That is where an otherwise healthy fetus is ripped out of the only place fetuses can survive - a mothers womb.

To equate spontaneous abortions with elective abortions is akin to comparing dying from natural causes (heart attack, stroke, old age etc.) to being murdered

Ridiculous comparison

It would not necessarily follow. Feel free to suggest other reasons why no one gets hot and bothered about the fate of tens of millions of embryos that quietly die each year in the first days of their lives.

See above

Saying it don't make it so. But the real issue is law and rights...

Not true - with this kind of attitude we'd still have slaves and be segregation and women couldn't vote (hmmm) and on and on

The real issue is "What is the unborn?" If it's human (which it is) then elective abortions are murder. And in our society - killing innocent humans is considered wrong. - So we need to change the law.

You have more rights: right to vote, right to give sexual consent, etc. There is no reason a baby shouldn't have more rights than an embryo, and be treated differently under the law.

Yes but she isn't 'more' human now and neither are you - you're the same human today as you were 10 years ago.

"Many" is still a small proportion. The fact that most Christians happily take their contraceptive pills shows that they don't think embryos are human beings. Or: you can suggest another reason...

1.4 million isn't a small number in anyones economy

Regards,

Alan

[dizzle]

**ALERT*ALERT*Red Herring*ALERT*ALERT**

There are red herring all over the place - grab the fishing poles

This thread is about elective abortions. That is where an otherwise healthy fetus is ripped out of the only place fetuses can survive - a mothers womb.

To equate spontaneous abortions with elective abortions is akin to comparing dying from natural causes (heart attack, stroke, old age etc.) to being murdered

Ridiculous comparison


You got that right! How dare anyone be in favor of murder laws if they are doing everything they can to force people to get screened for any disease they might possibly get.

I know! I know!!! They don't believe those people are human. :doh:

[albert]

I spend no time at all in helping prevent infanticide of born female infants in China. By your logic, I don't believe they are human. Are you going to begin to think consistently or do I have to multiple examples?

In the case of infants in China, there are some coherent reasons a pro-lifer might advance for not getting deeply involved: hard to influence laws and public opinion there, better use of resources to apply them in this country, etc. But few-day-old embryos are dying in droves here in the U.S., under our laws, under our medical system, under our noses. If pro-lifers think embryos are fully human, isn't it striking that such negligible effort is being made to help them against natural dangers, as compared with the effort to protect them against intentional damage. I am still waiting to hear a reason why that is.



There is a large difference as you know but are ignoring that there is a large difference between actively ending a perfectly "normal" life (or unknown if normal or not) and the spontaneous miscarriage that happens through factors of nature. If persons were advocating MORE spontaneous miscarriages or passing laws to oppose the treatment of such and prolifes did nothing, your logic would follow.
...
It makes for a nice diversion you have created though.
...
You are posting an extreme straw man so you do not have to deal with the humanity of babies sucked out of their mother's wombs who know full well they are pregnant.


To equate spontaneous abortions with elective abortions is akin to comparing dying from natural causes (heart attack, stroke, old age etc.) to being murdered


This goes back to the error in the original post. Just because someone will die by natural causes doesn't make it OK to do nothing to help them. If your rationale for outlawing abortion is that "humanity/right-to-life begins at conception" then you should be in favor of strong measures to help those lives when they are in danger, whether from natural or man-made causes.


I am not trying to distract you with straw men. I am not trying to argue that it is wrong to be pro-life. But I am dissatisfied with a particular rationale for being pro-life, namely "humanity/right-to-life begins at conception". My problem is that this rationale seems to lead to much more sweeping moral claims than simply outlawing elective abortion. I am hoping you can clarify for me why you embrace some of the moral consequences but not others.



...you're the same human today as you were 10 years ago.


You didn't answer the question. Am I more human than a baby? You argument was based upon a supposed lack of belief that a human at a different stage of development was indeed human.


I don't think you are more human than a baby, any more than I think that
a 70 year old is more adult than a 40 year old. Both are adults, and
a 10 year old is not. You are a human being, and an embryo is not.



with this kind of attitude we'd still have slaves and be segregation and women couldn't vote (hmmm) and on and on

Not all efforts to extend rights are morally right. Is outlawing elective abortion like the civil rights movement or like the animal rights movement? If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that everything goes back to the moral/legal status of the embryo.

[dizzle]

I am still waiting to hear a reason why that is.

You need to go back and read the posts.

1. You are wrong that there is negligible efforts (and when confronted with that you go to your inane argument of why don't we insist on screenlingn of all sexually active women)

2. There is a difference between natural causes and unnatural causes

Neither of these have anything to do with the views of pro-lifers on the human status of the embryo.


This goes back to the error in the original post. Just because someone will die by natural causes doesn't make it OK to do nothing to help them. If your rationale for outlawing abortion is that "humanity/right-to-life begins at conception" then you should be in favor of strong measures to help those lives when they are in danger, whether from natural or man-made causes.

who says nothing is done? That is your straw-man, and has already been addressed on the thread.


I am not trying to distract you with straw men. I am not trying to argue that it is wrong to be pro-life. But I am dissatisfied with a particular rationale for being pro-life, namely "humanity/right-to-life begins at conception". My problem is that this rationale seems to lead to much more sweeping moral claims than simply outlawing elective abortion. I am hoping you can clarify for me why you embrace some of the moral consequences but not others.

But you are not interacting rationaly with the points made already. I have no issue with you being dissatisifed with a particular rationale but the way you are going about it is indeed using extreme strawmen.



I don't think you are more human than a baby, any more than I think that
a 70 year old is more adult than a 40 year old. Both are adults, and
a 10 year old is not. You are a human being, and an embryo is not.

Here is the crux then Albert not the silly argumentation you used above. And you have not interacted with my piont on this, especially since you claim to be so fond of moral consequences.

As I said

And pray tell, are embryos dogs? Carrots? Weebles? What?

They are human beings at the stage of development ALL human beings go through. One does not become a human. One is. One may become a teenaged human or an adult human, but one is human the whole way around. If levels of development are now the standard for humanity, am I more human



Not all efforts to extend rights are morally right. Is outlawing elective abortion like the civil rights movement or like the animal rights movement? If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that everything goes back to the moral/legal status of the embryo.[/QUOTE]

Yes we can agree on that. I may be a bit scarce coming up. I tend to irresponsibily hop on threads where there are other ones that I have committed to that are languishing. Also I am going to start a home remodel in a week so you can begin to pity me now. Maybe you will participate on my home remodel thread in Home Ec.

[ajohnson]

If pro-lifers think embryos are fully human, isn't it striking that such negligible effort is being made to help them against natural dangers, as compared with the effort to protect them against intentional damage. I am still waiting to hear a reason why that is.

There is a line between what's good for society and personal liberty. You're advocation the state's right to contol all women of birth bearing age who have ongoing sexual relation to be controled in such a way as to protect them from all harm and therefore the human, not yet conceived, would be protected? Oh, please get a grip.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. And if you are serious - what pray tell is a solution you see? Or is it only on the backs of pro-lifers. Is this how you can justify elective abortions in you mind?

This goes back to the error in the original post. Just because someone will die by natural causes doesn't make it OK to do nothing to help them.

We (as a society) don't do 'nothing'. Do I really have to go into details about the advancement of medical cures and treatments on a myriad of diseases? Or will you concede your point is invalid?

If your rationale for outlawing abortion is that "humanity/right-to-life begins at conception" then you should be in favor of strong measures to help those lives when they are in danger, whether from natural or man-made causes.

We do. Ever hear of OSHA safety standards? What more do you want to do?


I am not trying to distract you with straw men. I am not trying to argue that it is wrong to be pro-life. But I am dissatisfied with a particular rationale for being pro-life, namely "humanity/right-to-life begins at conception".

Then let's discuss this. After all this is what the thread is about.

My problem is that this rationale seems to lead to much more sweeping moral claims than simply outlawing elective abortion. I am hoping you can clarify for me why you embrace some of the moral consequences but not others.

What other 'sweeping moral claims' is this. Let's us go here instead of your nonsensical claim that we need to protect all women from any harm because they might/might not be pregnant and we have a moral obligation to see all pregnancies come to full term, blah, blah, blah statement.

I don't think you are more human than a baby, any more than I think thata 70 year old is more adult than a 40 year old. Both are adults, and a 10 year old is not. You are a human being, and an embryo is not.

And why not? What makes an embryo a non-human and a 9 month old unborn child a human? And at what point does an embryo become human and why?

Not all efforts to extend rights are morally right.

Agreed

Is outlawing elective abortion like the civil rights movement or like the animal rights movement?

Neither, it's more like extending to humans, the human right not to be killled because of being innocent or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Hope this wound right)

Edit rephrase - It's wrong to kill innocent human beings and an unborn child is an innocent human being. This is the right we're advocating.

If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that everything goes back to the moral/legal status of the embryo.

Actually if we can agree on "What is the unborn?" Then the moral/legal status is taken care of.

regards,

Alan

[albert]

I am more able to understand ajohnson's replies to my points than DDW's,
so I'll just address them.


That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. And if you are serious - what pray tell is a solution you see? Or is it only on the backs of pro-lifers. Is this how you can justify elective abortions in you mind?


I am not trying to justify elective abortion in general. I don't want to get into a discussion of fetuses with heartbeats and little toes etc: maybe it is wrong to kill them. That is another discussion. But it seems to me that embryos are a straightforward case, where insisting that they have full humanity/right-to-life would naturally impose a moral obligation to make a substantial effort to save the tens of millions of them that die every year.
This obligation is not on the backs of pro-lifers in general, but it is on the backs of those who claim that even embryos have full humanity/right-to-life.


We (as a society) don't do 'nothing'. Do I really have to go into details about the advancement of medical cures and treatments on a myriad of diseases? Or will you concede your point is invalid?

My point, made above, is a simple point of moral consistency, and is not invalid. Currently, a negligible amount of medical cures and treatment is aimed at saving fertilized eggs that fail to implant, or that spontaneously abort soon after implantation. Tens of millions of tiny fertilized eggs and embryos are quietly flushed down American toilets every year: the women who conceived them never even knew they were there inside them. If every one of these embryos were a human being then this would be a major public health disaster.


Ever hear of OSHA safety standards? What more do you want to do?

I don't think embryos are human beings so I don't have do do much!
For those who claim they are human beings, and who want to outlaw IVF and other medical research that involves killing embryos, I would like them to show some moral consistency and display a proportionate interest in the tens of millions of embryos that die of "natural causes" (ie "disease" as we call it when natural causes threaten human life) every year. I would expect them to spend a substantial proportion of their pro-life lobbying and advocacy efforts on things that are clearly aimed at helping those embryos. It is not up to me to specify what those would be, since this is not my crusade. But here are some possibilities:
(1) pressing for research specifically aimed at saving embryos from death by "natural causes"; (2) large-scale voluntary screening programs for fertile sexually-active women to find out if they have a tiny embryonic human life inside them, combined with clinics that specialize in diagnosing which ones are in danger of spontaneous abortion, and intervene to try to save them.


And why not? What makes an embryo a non-human and a 9 month old unborn child a human? And at what point does an embryo become human and why?

What makes a 40-year old an adult and a 10-year old not? At what point does a child become an adult and why? The world is full of continua on which we have to impose some arbitrary dividing lines.
According to your logic all speed limits have to be zero because the chain of questions "what is the difference between 1mph and 2 mph?", "what is the difference between 2mph and 3mph" can be continued for ever. In reality, we make a somewhat arbitrary choice: less than 35 mph is "a reasonable speed" and faster than 35 mph is "too fast".

[Ramonda]

And why not? What makes an embryo a non-human and a 9 month old unborn child a human? And at what point does an embryo become human and why?



The biggest difference is that I can't rock it, I can't breast feed it, I can't give it a hug. It doesn't grow before my eyes and in fact will rot.

[dizzle]

First of all notice the prominent "I" in the answer. The humanity of the unborn doesn't depend upon you, me, or anyone else. This is selfishness at work.

The biggest difference is that I can't rock it

The motion of the mother's body can soothe or agitate the baby she is carry.

, I can't breast feed it

The baby is fed much more intimately through the very lifeblood of its mother.

, I can't give it a hug.

A baby is enveloped by the hug of its mother's womb.



It doesn't grow before my eyes

I have never seen a mother's belly not evidence the growth of her baby. And ultrasounds allowus to see it grow before our very eyes.




and in fact will rot.

as we will all. Are we not human?

[Ramonda]

First of all notice the prominent "I" in the answer. The humanity of the unborn doesn't depend upon you, me, or anyone else. This is selfishness at work.


Of course I am selfish. There isn't an act on earth today by any human being that isn't selfish related. Everything you do is also selfish because it is who we are. Selfish isn't evil but it can sometimes go to the point of violating another person's selfishness and that's why we have mediators in those cases.

The question was what is the difference between a genuine baby and an embryo and I answered based on the reality of every human being on earth. We aren't talking potential when it comes to a baby. An embryo is not a baby and a baby born is, if it lives. I know far too many women who wanted that embryo to develop and it didn't. They mourned the loss and it would have to be because of selfish reasons not anything altruistic. I don't know any of them that wanted to keep the remains around for a memory and few that sought baptism and buriel in the first trimester.


Having birthed many wanted children I agree with with your other statements. But while my body rocked and nurtured theirs, I always knew that there was that potential that my arms would not. I focused on my chances of healthy and live babies would be the result but was fully aware that in an instant all my dreams could be shattered and I would be left with nothing but a memory. I also knew that if it would happen, I would never mourn as long as I would if the same should happen in reality. Everything I did was for basically selfish reasons. I prayed for healthy children because they are easier to care for than those with ill health. My prayers were answered and my children were very healthy and adored through all of the years they were with me.

I took care of them also for selfish reasons. I wanted them to stay healthy, not die. I listened to them in every manner because I wanted their mental and emotional health also to be consistently good. Had any of my daughters ever become pregnant from rape at a quite young age, I would have encouraged an abortion but also listened to her desires. Again very selfish to think that a pubescent young woman shouldn't have to experience something that she might not be ready for physically or emotionally. Had I ever been raped, I wouldn't of gotten an abortion because I knew I could love any child and surpass the memory of the conception. But that is me and I know many cannot do that so I do support their choices also. Again for selfish reasons because I would feel bad if I tried to force another to have my views.



I have never seen a mother's belly not evidence the growth of her baby. And ultrasounds allowus to see it grow before our very eyes.



I have seen a mother's belly shrink rapidly and the ultrasound picture becomes the only picture she has of her potential baby. I have yet to see that picture carried around to see how cute it was at that stage because it is a painful memory that wasn't her choice. Of course she is selfish to think that only a real baby is cute as a button.



as we will all. Are we not human?

We are only human while we have a life force and will not rot while that life force is in us. When you or I rot we will be called a corpse. An embryo doesn't have a life force in it and rots. It was a human potential and a corpse was once human but isn't considered human by anybody's standards.

[ajohnson]

I am not trying to justify elective abortion in general.

What is it you're trying to justify?

I don't want to get into a discussion of fetuses with heartbeats and little toes etc: maybe it is wrong to kill them. That is another discussion.

Actually, that is what this thread deals with - abortions and why they're wrong - hence the OP.

But it seems to me that embryos are a straightforward case, where insisting that they have full humanity/right-to-life would naturally impose a moral obligation to make a substantial effort to save the tens of millions of them that die every year.

I changed my mind, you could be right - let's start with the elective abortions first. Once this is solved we'll move into those that have a natural abortions.

Are you in agreement?

My point, made above, is a simple point of moral consistency, and is not invalid. Currently, a negligible amount of medical cures and treatment is aimed at saving fertilized eggs that fail to implant, or that spontaneously abort soon after implantation. Tens of millions of tiny fertilized eggs and embryos are quietly flushed down American toilets every year: the women who conceived them never even knew they were there inside them. If every one of these embryos were a human being then this would be a major public health disaster.

As I said - I'll concede this point. But we must start on the one item with the biggest impact that we can control right now - those otherwise healthy fetuses that are forceably removed from the mother's womb- elective abortions.

Are you with me are against me?


I don't think embryos are human beings so I don't have do do much! For those who claim they are human beings, and who want to outlaw IVF and other medical research that involves killing embryos, I would like them to show some moral consistency and display a proportionate interest in the tens of millions of embryos that die of "natural causes" (ie "disease" as we call it when natural causes threaten human life) every year. I would expect them to spend a substantial proportion of their pro-life lobbying and advocacy efforts on things that are clearly aimed at helping those embryos. It is not up to me to specify what those would be, since this is not my crusade. But here are some possibilities:
(1) pressing for research specifically aimed at saving embryos from death by "natural causes"; (2) large-scale voluntary screening programs for fertile sexually-active women to find out if they have a tiny embryonic human life inside them, combined with clinics that specialize in diagnosing which ones are in danger of spontaneous abortion, and intervene to try to save them.

If you don't think embryos are human, what do you think they are?


What makes a 40-year old an adult and a 10-year old not? At what point does a child become an adult and why? The world is full of continua on which we have to impose some arbitrary dividing lines.

Um, hello? We're talking human v. non-human. Not human infant v. human todler v. human young adult v. human old adult v. human etc.

According to your logic all speed limits have to be zero because the chain of questions "what is the difference between 1mph and 2 mph?", "what is the difference between 2mph and 3mph" can be continued for ever. In reality, we make a somewhat arbitrary choice: less than 35 mph is "a reasonable speed" and faster than 35 mph is "too fast".

No, according to my logis it's - are you moving? Yes or no. If you are, then how fast. If you're not then you're not moving - period.

Your's is, well yes I'm moving but because I haven't passed XXXX speed then it doesn't count.

regards,

Alan

[ajohnson]

The biggest difference is that I can't rock it, I can't breast feed it, I can't give it a hug. It doesn't grow before my eyes and in fact will rot.

Sad, Ramonda, very sad.

But you do all these things and more when the unbonr child is in your womb.

And to say things like this shows that there is a large misunderstanding you have what the unborn is.

Humans don't become human because you hug them or feed them or watch them grow. You didn't do any of those things to me and yet I am still human. And if you mean someone's mother did those things - not all humans are lucky enough to have a mother to do these things. And if you mean another human does these thing to a new born - then we're back into the same boat - these things don't make a human a human.

Regards,

Alan

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Albert:

What makes a 40-year old an adult and a 10-year old not? At what point does a child become an adult and why? The world is full of continua on which we have to impose some arbitrary dividing lines.

I understand what point you are making here and I actually agree with you a point. The problem is we are essentially defining when the embryo goes from non-human to human......something much too important to have arbitrary dividing lines.


Russ

[Ramonda]

Sad, Ramonda, very sad.



Hi Alan,

Not sad at all to people who are viewing the whole picture of abortion.


But you do all these things and more when the unbonr child is in your womb.


And I've already responded completely to that in another post.


And to say things like this shows that there is a large misunderstanding you have what the unborn is.


I know exactly what the unborn is. I have no misunderstanding of the biology of humans and animals when it comes to gestation. I've been aware of this understanding since I was quite young and so far no new knowledge has come into view about what the unborn are. All those stages that are discussed here today were well known in my youth. The only thing that has changed are the improvements for detection and the aides to helping those women whose pregnancies aren't as healthy as the average. That is wonderful. The only other things that have changed is that there are more improved ways to prevent conception or terminate pregnancies easier and I see that equally wonderful. Otherwise nothing else has changed in knowledge of gestation.


Humans don't become human because you hug them or feed them or watch them grow. You didn't do any of those things to me and yet I am still human. And if you mean someone's mother did those things - not all humans are lucky enough to have a mother to do these things. And if you mean another human does these thing to a new born - then we're back into the same boat - these things don't make a human a human.


The question and my reply was on what is a "baby". I didn't bring up human because it has already been defined by many here as far as DNA etc.

[Ghettochild]

DDW!!! were you aware that the space inside of the mailbox at your house legally belongs to the government?

Next every woman's uterus should belong to the government too, right? The day that we outlaw abortion is the day that we, as a people, will forfeit the wombs of women to the government.

How can we allow the gov't to suspend our civil liberties, and force an unwanted, unneeded, and unloved child into the world. This child destined to substandard living in a foster home.

[Queen]

First of all notice the prominent "I" in the answer. The humanity of the unborn doesn't depend upon you, me, or anyone else. This is selfishness at work.

So is the fact that you call someone a murderer because she had an abortion.


The motion of the mother's body can soothe or agitate the baby she is carry.

True, but that is with all living cretaures and some Christians see animals as lesser and none important....creatures without self awareness...what you just said made all life worth being treated with respect. So what is the difference between cruely slaughter a cow and having a simple abortion? Why the big fuzz? (Of course my pov is different, but you just degraded human life.....as I see all life as equal.....)


The baby is fed much more intimately through the very lifeblood of its mother.

That is why it stays alive even if it is not able to live on it's own and would die immediately after you remove it from the womb. And this is meant after birth......why prolonge that suffering?.....and that is a fact for all mammals! Again you proved my point that all life is equal...:smile:.

A baby is enveloped by the hug of its mother's womb.

It is a parasitic form of symbiosis. Not really a nice "hug", isn't it......why is a calf or a kitten or any other life different from this then?

I have never seen a mother's belly not evidence the growth of her baby. And ultrasounds allowus to see it grow before our very eyes.

And through ultrasound we also see the horrific prove of nature's imperfection and discover the most painful and horrifc deformities. We should not rule this out. Most embryo's end up as nothing after a natural abortion, a miscarriage, but guess what, most miscarriages happen during the first few weeks and the mother doesn't even know she has been pregnant, because this living creature doesn't always develop well and has no change to survive. That is what it is all about......survival, able to survive on your own in the cruel world outside the womb.


as we will all. Are we not human?

Yep, we are Homo sapiens. One of millions of species on this planet and beyond. You just proved that all life should be treated equal and be respected highly. Well, if you see an unselfaware creature as important to protect it's life, start in your fridge, because if there is a real holocaust, it is happening in the slaughterhouses. And there happens a lot of abortions, just for meat to eat. At least most abortions among the human race happens with the reason to stop suffering or to protect life.......not to slaughter it.


Queen

[ajohnson]

I think Dee Dee is busy this week. Sooooo

DDW!!! were you aware that the space inside of the mailbox at your house legally belongs to the government?

Yes and?

Next every woman's uterus should belong to the government too, right? The day that we outlaw abortion is the day that we, as a people, will forfeit the wombs of women to the government.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How can we allow the gov't to suspend our civil liberties, and force an unwanted, unneeded, and unloved child into the world. This child destined to substandard living in a foster home.

Then we should be able to rid the world of poverty pretty quick with this line of reasoning. For crying out loud - to equate a mail box with a uterus is folly and not very smart and your analagy fails on so many levels.

And besides the goverenment is already heavely invovled in the regulation of human beings now! There are so many things I can't do right this minute with my body. For instance;

1) I can't take whichever drugs I want - it's illegal
2) I can't have sex with who I want - it's illegal
3) I can't talk to people any way I want - it's illegal
4) I can't remove an appendage I want - it's illegal
5) I can't smoke where I want - it's illegal
6) I can't drive how I want - it's illegal
7) I can't sell my organs - it's illegal
8) I can't marry who I want - it's illegal

(If you want sapecifics - just ask, but I'm sure you can have your own specific examples).

and on and on. The government already regulates us and many parts of our life. We're just determining if we need to chage when the government regulates elective abortion better.

Regards,

Alan

[ajohnson]

So is the fact that you call someone a murderer because she had an abortion.

Well, let me see .....


v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.


If a fetus is 100% human and is innocent of no wrong doing and is ripped abort and discarded and is no longer alive. What would you call it? Just like 'mercy killing' is still murder

True, but that is with all living cretaures and some Christians see animals as lesser and none important....creatures without self awareness...what you just said made all life worth being treated with respect. So what is the difference between cruely slaughter a cow and having a simple abortion? Why the big fuzz? (Of course my pov is different, but you just degraded human life.....as I see all life as equal.....)

All life? This isn't true and you know it. If you really saw all life as equal - what is you eat? For you must eat something and if you really saw all life as equal you could never eat. Becasue we don't eat our equals

That is why it stays alive even if it is not able to live on it's own and would die immediately after you remove it from the womb. And this is meant after birth......why prolonge that suffering?.....and that is a fact for all mammals! Again you proved my point that all life is equal...:smile:.

The baby would soon die if not fed by the mother after birth also. And ......
This does nothing to bolster your position. It only point out the hollowness of your argument.

It is a parasitic form of symbiosis. Not really a nice "hug", isn't it......why is a calf or a kitten or any other life different from this then?

Because a calf or a kitten aren't human.

And through ultrasound we also see the horrific prove of nature's imperfection and discover the most painful and horrifc deformities. We should not rule this out. Most embryo's end up as nothing after a natural abortion, a miscarriage, but guess what, most miscarriages happen during the first few weeks and the mother doesn't even know she has been pregnant, because this living creature doesn't always develop well and has no change to survive. That is what it is all about......survival, able to survive on your own in the cruel world outside the womb.

True, but we're not talking about natural abortions - we're only talking about elective abortions. And a one year old can't survive outside the womb on its own without care from another human.

Yep, we are Homo sapiens. One of millions of species on this planet and beyond.

There is life beyond? Show me!

You just proved that all life should be treated equal and be respected highly. Well, if you see an unselfaware creature as important to protect it's life, start in your fridge, because if there is a real holocaust, it is happening in the slaughterhouses. And there happens a lot of abortions, just for meat to eat. At least most abortions among the human race happens with the reason to stop suffering or to protect life.......not to slaughter it.

As long as that unselfaware creature is a human being there will be millions of pro-lifers right with you.

regards,

Alan

[Queen]

You do not consider other life important, why make such a big fuzz about an embryo...Mind here...I am NOT talking about a fetus but an embryo. As long as you don't know the difference between those two...please do not use the word fetus because it sound more personal. I get the eww shivers when people use biological words, just because they heard them....please respect the meaning of the words and don't misuse them so much.

And a mercy killing is NOT murder. Sheesh, when we put a dog to sleep because it's suffers it's okay, but when we do that with humans we are suddenly murderers. Sorry, but when you truly love soemone you don't want them to suffer longer then needed and how long is that? I hope they give me a peaceful death instead of keeping me alive as long as possible.........I hope someone loves me THAT MUCH! True love is also the ability to let go!!!! In case of abortion that is true as well.

Queen

Queen

[ajohnson]

You do not consider other life important, why make such a big fuzz about an embryo...Mind here...I am NOT talking about a fetus but an embryo.

Queen, we've been here many times before - of course I consider other life important, just not as important that human beings. And so do you - please step down off of your high horse. You think some life less important than other life. Some creaters better than others. You life you life with this believe, othewise your place of abode (house/apt/etc) would be over run with vermin and bugs and who knows what else because you wouldn't couldn't clean.


As long as you don't know the difference between those two...please do not use the word fetus because it sound more personal. I get the eww shivers when people use biological words, just because they heard them....please respect the meaning of the words and don't misuse them so much.

I know the meaning of the words but I refuse to have to be so technincal that if I say embryo - so pro-choicer will move to fetus and if I say fetus some other pro-choicer will only want to talk about embryos. And then accuse me of not knowing terms - Oh wait!!!

And I won't use intials like z/e/f. - So when pro-lifers use the word fetus - they mean all stages of the unborn including zygote. Clear?

And you're a fine one to talk about terms - you refuse to see the killing of an innocent human being as murder, you want to call it some other non-meaning word.

And a mercy killing is NOT murder. Sheesh, when we put a dog to sleep because it's suffers it's okay, but when we do that with humans we are suddenly murderers.

Yes - as you said, words have meaning - please use the proper word.

Sorry, but when you truly love soemone you don't want them to suffer longer then needed and how long is that?

This is true. I visit our ederly congegation members who are close to death - It does sadden me when they are in pain. But I refuse to take the place of God, the Creator. He's the author of life and if He say's that murder is wrong -I'll believe Him, why is it you don't?

I hope they give me a peaceful death instead of keeping me alive as long as possible.........I hope someone loves me THAT MUCH! True love is also the ability to let go!!!! In case of abortion that is true as well.

There are things (at least in this country) called "Do Not Resusciate" (DNR)orders or request. Both my parents had them - I watch my mother slowly die with nasal pharynx cancer, then mastisized in her lungs, then she died. I had two years with her after she was diagnosed with cancer. It would have been wrong had some one took it upon them self to insure my mother didn't suffer -she came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in this time.

Let us do all we can to ensure innocent human life isn't taken prior to the Author of life wishes that particular life to end. As a Christian either God is Sovergn of all or He isn't. Which do you say?

And thank you for keeping up your tradition - refusing to answer questions posed to you.

Regards,

Alan

[deepwillidig]

I didn't realize there were five pages of posts still to read. I'll repost when I have read the conversation.

[Queen]

Queen, we've been here many times before - of course I consider other life important, just not as important that human beings. And so do you - please step down off of your high horse. You think some life less important than other life. Some creaters better than others. You life you life with this believe, othewise your place of abode (house/apt/etc) would be over run with vermin and bugs and who knows what else because you wouldn't couldn't clean.

I clean...yes, but I catch all the creatures in my house and place them outside. I try to do the best I can. Never claimed I was perfect and yes to me a spider is as wonderous as a human being......I even stop on my bicycle for an animal.....belief what you want, but you can clean a house in a friendly way, with the right products!


I know the meaning of the words but I refuse to have to be so technincal that if I say embryo - so pro-choicer will move to fetus and if I say fetus some other pro-choicer will only want to talk about embryos. And then accuse me of not knowing terms - Oh wait!!!

And I won't use intials like z/e/f. - So when pro-lifers use the word fetus - they mean all stages of the unborn including zygote. Clear?

Oh pleeez.....Misleading!!!! Nonsense and scientifically wrong!

And you're a fine one to talk about terms - you refuse to see the killing of an innocent human being as murder, you want to call it some other non-meaning word.

I see it as it is.....end of suffering, end of pain or even to safe another life.....the mother's life. Man, you rather have the woman die than to safe her and choose an EMBRYO over a ful selfaware human being.........If that is not murder....than you have to explain it to me....all that well...in some cases yadayadayada nonsense. YOU have to make up your mind...


Yes - as you said, words have meaning - please use the proper word.

I try...I probably use a wrong word now and then...but I am not English so forgive me if I do use the wrong word....:wink:



This is true. I visit our ederly congegation members who are close to death - It does sadden me when they are in pain. But I refuse to take the place of God, the Creator. He's the author of life and if He say's that murder is wrong -I'll believe Him, why is it you don't?

What would you do if someone you love cries out in pain to help him/her die?


There are things (at least in this country) called "Do Not Resusciate" (DNR)orders or request. Both my parents had them - I watch my mother slowly die with nasal pharynx cancer, then mastisized in her lungs, then she died. I had two years with her after she was diagnosed with cancer. It would have been wrong had some one took it upon them self to insure my mother didn't suffer -she came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in this time.

She made the choice to leave it in the hands of God....I would want help to die......who is right and wrong here? I am sorry your mother was so ill and died.....I know how terrible that is. I saw young people die slowly. I know how you felt.

Let us do all we can to ensure innocent human life isn't taken prior to the Author of life wishes that particular life to end. As a Christian either God is Sovergn of all or He isn't. Which do you say?

To me God gave me a free mind to decide over my own life. Simple. If my husband asks me to help end the suffering I would do it. I would feel horrible, but I love him to much and respect his wishes. If he wants to leave it in God's hands, I will support him also. I am not some nanny killing monster. I respect the choices people make.

And thank you for keeping up your tradition - refusing to answer questions posed to you.

I 'll do my best....:lol:

Read back and you'll see that I answered them many times, you just don't see it because I didn't answer them like a little schoolgirl on a test.

Regards,

Alan

LOLAS
Queen

[deepwillidig]

Why is conception more justified than birth, anyway?
I assume you are asking why we should draw the line at conception rather than birth when discussing if fetuses should be protected from being dismembered.

Drawing the line at conception makes sense because that's when the human being comes into existence. Simple observation tells us that from this point, the unborn is growing, metabolizing food for energy, reacting to stimuli, organizing its body systems for the good of the whole, and is on its own trajectory of development (separate from the mother's). Its clearly a distinct whole organism.

Since it has human parents and a human DNA code, it must be a human organism. Furthermore, it's not part of another organism like a liver, a sperm cell, or an egg cell. It's a whole organism in itself.

I don't know what else to call a living, whole, human organism but a "human being." Because I believe in human rights, or the equal treatment of human beings based on an underlying similarity (human nature) that defies all external differences (skin color, race, sex, age, level of development, location, degree of dependency, size, appearance), I think we must protect the unborn from conception. For from conception, it is clearly a human being. And as a human being, it shares the important similarity with all of us, a human nature.

If it is not human nature (which the unborn has) and some other quality (which the unborn doesn't have) that makes us valuable, keep in mind that the concept of human rights that we all cherish is on shaky ground. We can't have it both ways. Either we value all human beings or we disqaulify some and become a society dirtied by discrimination and selfish oppression.

[deepwillidig]

Hi Alan,

Not sad at all to people who are viewing the whole picture of abortion.



I have read/skimmed almost all of the posts in this thread. Nowhere has anyone suggested as helpful an inquiry as Ramonda's phrase "viewing the whole picture of abortion." If Ramonda or Queen or any other person contributing to this thread is willing to actually do that, I suggest we look at accurate pictures of abortion, for it will help all of us to get clear on what we are talking about.

The clearest ones I've found are featured at www.cbrinfo.org. Click on "Abortion Photos" on the right hand side under "Resources." BE FOREWARNED though - this site is GRAPHIC because it shows ACCURATE pictures of aborted embryos and fetuses. Even pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf believes these pictures should be admitted to the discussion, since they represent one set of facts that is often ignored: the visual facts (her article "Our Bodies, Our Souls" is reprinted at http://www.epm.org/articles/naomiwolf.html).

[Gilgaron]

I assume you are asking why we should draw the line at conception rather than birth when discussing if fetuses should be protected from being dismembered.
Sure. Conception is offen misconstrued as an instant instead of a process of its own, so it remains as arbitrary as any other point. Sure, it could still be justified, but it isn't as clear as made out in most instances.

Drawing the line at conception makes sense because that's when the human being comes into existence.
That's begging the question.

Simple observation tells us that from this point, the unborn is growing, metabolizing food for energy, reacting to stimuli, organizing its body systems for the good of the whole, and is on its own trajectory of development (separate from the mother's). Its clearly a distinct whole organism.
The bold part can be said for any tissue that is not conferred personhood status. Trajectory isn't really relevant, or else any gamete has to be considered.

Since it has human parents and a human DNA code, it must be a human organism.
Eh... all human cell lines come from people who had parents and have DNA codes, but are not human beings while they certainly are human biologically. This could be considered begging the question.

Furthermore, it's not part of another organism like a liver, a sperm cell, or an egg cell. It's a whole organism in itself.
What's the difference between the fertilized egg and the unfertilized egg that confers personhood?

I don't know what else to call a living, whole, human organism but a "human being."
That's unfortunate.

Because I believe in human rights, or the equal treatment of human beings based on an underlying similarity (human nature) that defies all external differences (skin color, race, sex, age, level of development, location, degree of dependency, size, appearance), I think we must protect the unborn from conception. For from conception, it is clearly a human being. And as a human being, it shares the important similarity with all of us, a human nature.
A zygote has no more human nature than any of my tissues. They are not similarly protected.

If it is not human nature (which the unborn has) and some other quality (which the unborn doesn't have) that makes us valuable, keep in mind that the concept of human rights that we all cherish is on shaky ground. We can't have it both ways. Either we value all human beings or we disqaulify some and become a society dirtied by discrimination and selfish oppression.
Of course, but you still beg the question on what a human being is. Am I one human being or a sum of human beings acting as a collective, forming my tissues, firing synapses to form thoughts that the collective of Gilgaron can send to the collective of deepwillidig over an internet created by collectives of collectives? You've outlined no difference between a fertilized ovum and human cells that are not protected.

[deepwillidig]

The day that we outlaw abortion is the day that we, as a people, will forfeit the wombs of women to the government.


Which women? Born or unborn? Certainly you would agree that some fetuses are female? WHat about these women and their liberties? Do they have none simply because they are not aware of themselves yet?


How can we allow the gov't to suspend our civil liberties, and force an unwanted, unneeded, and unloved child into the world. This child destined to substandard living in a foster home.

TO suspend whose civil liberties? I believe freedom is important, but actually I think it is so important that it should be protected for all human beings, not just those that are easy to care for or interact with. Why should I believe that a living, whole, human organism in the womb is not in the world? Are wombs and their contents not in the world also?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=538932&postcount=68

As stated earlier. The primary problem with STR's OP is that references to abortion-stats as mandating the holocaust analogy depend on the view that the newly-formed zygote as a human being.

dlw

[Ramonda]

I clean...yes, but I catch all the creatures in my house and place them outside. I try to do the best I can. Never claimed I was perfect and yes to me a spider is as wonderous as a human being......I even stop on my bicycle for an animal.....belief what you want, but you can clean a house in a friendly way, with the right products!


I clean around the critters too when I can :)


To me God gave me a free mind to decide over my own life. Simple. If my husband asks me to help end the suffering I would do it. I would feel horrible, but I love him to much and respect his wishes. If he wants to leave it in God's hands, I will support him also. I am not some nanny killing monster. I respect the choices people make.


Does your country allow assisted suicide? I too want that choice for the people who desire it.

[deepwillidig]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=538932&postcount=68

As stated earlier. The primary problem with STR's OP is that references to abortion-stats as mandating the holocaust analogy depend on the view that the newly-formed zygote as a human being.

dlw

Yet, would you agree that STR's use of stats and comparisons of abortion to the holocaust are justified if the unborn is a human being? How can you criticize STR's article without showing it has an incorrect assessment of the unborn? Some may want to assume STR is incorrect about the unborn. Showing they are incorrect is something different entirely.

[deepwillidig]

A zygote has no more human nature than any of my tissues. They are not similarly protected.




Yes, both zygotes and body tissues are human. But tissues are part of an organism and zygotes are organisms in themselves. If the zygote is not an organism, what is it?

I gave some criteria for knowing the difference between organisms and tissues, but let me cite a helpful article on this point: Maureen Condic's "Life: Defining the Beginning by the End" (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/condic.html). Condic is an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She provides a helpful definition for organisms and her definition clearly applies to the unborn:

"From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together—specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells. Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole."

Again, if the zygote is not an organism, what is it?

And if the fetus, with its own set of organs and arms and legs, is not an organism, what is it?

And if the zygote and fetus are organisms, they must be human organisms (since they are organisms with human parents and a distinctly human DNA structure). Again, if the developing thing in the womb is not a human organism, what is it?

[ajohnson]

I clean...yes, but I catch all the creatures in my house and place them outside. I try to do the best I can. Never claimed I was perfect and yes to me a spider is as wonderous as a human being......I even stop on my bicycle for an animal.....belief what you want, but you can clean a house in a friendly way, with the right products!

What about mites and bacterium and germs and flees and other houshold cells - You're talking about all life. Surely you don't eat meat or fruits or vegitables do you? They are living creatures. Or do you mean just creatures were blood runs through their veins?

And I try to avoud hitting animals while I driving or walking and riding my bike also - but so what?

If, by swerving to miss a dog, I would hit another human - I wouldn't have a problem avoid the human - would you?

If the answer is 'yes' then you too have a hierarchy among living creatures.

If the answer is no - then you have a problem and a big one.

Oh pleeez.....Misleading!!!! Nonsense and scientifically wrong!

I'm not a scientist. Is there a scientific standard of which I must meet? I've defined my terms which is standard in debates - if I will deviate from norms - I've deviated, was told about it and defined my terms.

I see it as it is.....end of suffering, end of pain or even to safe another life.....the mother's life. Man, you rather have the woman die than to safe her and choose an EMBRYO over a ful selfaware human being.........If that is not murder....than you have to explain it to me....all that well...in some cases yadayadayada nonsense. YOU have to make up your mind...

Why is I have to keep saying ELECTIVE abortions. We are not talking about spontaneous abortions or abortions needed to save the life of the mother?

That is a different discussion - just start another thread about this topic if you wish.

Would you please quit trying to side track this thread and either keep on track or become uninvolved.

To pro-lifers this is literally a matter of life and death for the unborn.

To pro-choicers - it's JUST A CHOICE!!!


I try...I probably use a wrong word now and then...but I am not English so forgive me if I do use the wrong word....:wink:

No sweat, we are both trying to do our best.

What would you do if someone you love cries out in pain to help him/her die?

The same thing I did with my mother - cry with her and comfort her as best I can. But I won't stuff a pillow over her face!

She made the choice to leave it in the hands of God....I would want help to die......who is right and wrong here? I am sorry your mother was so ill and died.....I know how terrible that is. I saw young people die slowly. I know how you felt.

I am right because I didn't kill anyone - that's whose right. It's easy to live by a moral standard when you understand the moral giver.


To me God gave me a free mind to decide over my own life.

He gave us all a free mind with which to choose and a way to know what the right choices are. And we are free to choose to live by His standards or not. I choose to try my best and live by His standards. I fail often and I must ask for His forgiveness. But I know what is right and I try my best to live my life in that way.

I don't have to lay awake at night wondering if my past will come back to haunt me. I don't have to worry about a knock on the door because some unknown child will appear at my door and say Daddy?

I don't have to lie awake at night and say - I wonder If I should have put my mother 'out of her misery'. She died with dignity. And those family members that didn't want to see her suffer didn't have to.

Simple. If my husband asks me to help end the suffering I would do it. I would feel horrible, but I love him to much and respect his wishes.


By saying what you are saying - what you are also saying is that you won't allow God to be Soverign in your life.

If he wants to leave it in God's hands, I will support him also. I am not some nanny killing monster. I respect the choices people make.

But do you respect the choices God wants us Christians to make?

I 'll do my best....:lol:

You're on a roll.

Read back and you'll see that I answered them many times, you just don't see it because I didn't answer them like a little schoolgirl on a test.

I'm sorry - I missed this answer, could you repeat them then?


If a fetus is 100% human and is innocent of no wrong doing and is ripped apart (spelling corrected) and discarded and is no longer alive. What would you call it? Just like 'mercy killing' is still murder

And I missed this one too -


All life? This isn't true and you know it. If you really saw all life as equal - what is you eat?

Oh yeah, and this one too - claiming there was life on other planets


There is life beyond? Show me!


And that was just the post from this morning.

I don't want a 'little school girl on a test answer', just an answer - you the one making ignorant assertions.

Regards,

Alan

[anthrogirl]

Surely you don't eat meat or fruits or vegitables do you? They are living creatures. Or do you mean just creatures were blood runs through their veins?

Alan,

fruit and vegetables are not creatures. And for many people, vegetarianism is informed by compassion for creatures.

anthrogirl

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yet, would you agree that STR's use of stats and comparisons of abortion to the holocaust are justified if the unborn is a human being? How can you criticize STR's article without showing it has an incorrect assessment of the unborn? Some may want to assume STR is incorrect about the unborn. Showing they are incorrect is something different entirely.

The point is that the unborn are presumed to be of the same value as born humans in making the comparison.

As STR acknowledges, most abortions take place quite early on in the pregnancy. And so the analogy only works if the 1st trimester fetus has the same innate value as a new-born child.

My point has been that what is at dispute often times is what makes one a human being. As I stated at in the post I linked to, there is ambiguity as to when the human fetus becomes a human being.

STR's article, when it frames the question as, "What is the unborn? You must answer that question before you can answer the questions: How should we treat the fetus? What protections ought we give it? How far should we go to protect it? " doesn't bring up the question of whether the answer should differ at different stages of fetal development. They are implicitly implying that it is all or nothing for how the unborn should be treated.

I regularly posit that the underlying political question at stake with abortion is the legal redefinition of when human personhood begins and how do we go about reconciling our different views in this regard. There may not be a basis for complete agreement, but there may be sufficient agreement for us to be able to change our laws to give the unborn fetus some of the legal protections currently given to a new-born, taking into account the higher level of inter-dependency that exists between an unborn fetus and its mother.

However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can't hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide. It's murder. Those who do so are prosecuted.
On the fundamental issue, then--the innate value of unborn human beings--pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law's general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers are not inconsistent; the law is.

The 2nd "fact" is that the unborn has already been made a legal person by the fact that an act of violence against a pregnant woman that causes the unborn to die is considered a more serious crime. And so, since its been granted some legal value, STR seems to argue killing it should be homicide or it should have the same legal value as a new-born.

There is a legal ambiguity here that should be resolved, but by referring only to the sanctity of the life of the unborn, STR is enforcing the view that we should grant the same level of human personhood to the newly-formed zygote as we give to a new-born infant.

Though clearly a human being--a fact established by science--she does not have the physical characteristics or attributes that qualify her for protection. She's unwanted and in the way, and so she's eliminated.
If it's wrong in the first case, it's wrong in the second case. The rationales are identical. The motive is the same. And in both cases the result is the death of a valuable human being.

First sentence is inaccurate. Science has established that the newly-conceived is alive, but science has not established that it is a human being, in part because there is no uniform agreement as to what constitutes a human being. This is why physical characteristics are often deliberated on, because the extent we recognize ourselves in the fetus is based on the development of its physical characteristics.

Then STR seems to make the point that our increased ability to observe the unborn should be relevant evidence in our deliberations as to what the status of the unborn should be. I agree with this, but don't think we can expect for us to all agree and personally believe that making 1st trimester abortions illegal again is unlikely to happen and if it were it would likely be overturned by counter-activism and a liberal press.

So I myself focus on pressing for setting up a super-majority in a nat'l referendum the basis for the legal redefinition of when human personhood begins and aiming to make abortions in the later two stages illegal and then use other ways to discourage first term abortions.

dlw

[Gilgaron]

Yes, both zygotes and body tissues are human. But tissues are part of an organism and zygotes are organisms in themselves. If the zygote is not an organism, what is it?
Tissues can give rise to organisms with the proper techniques applied.

There is a gray area, which even if it didn't exist still leaves you begging the question.

I gave some criteria for knowing the difference between organisms and tissues, but let me cite a helpful article on this point: Maureen Condic's "Life: Defining the Beginning by the End" (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/condic.html). Condic is an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She provides a helpful definition for organisms and her definition clearly applies to the unborn:

"From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together—specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells. Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole."

Again, if the zygote is not an organism, what is it?
She is talking about embryos, not zygotes. None the less, whether or not a zygote is an organism is not relevant.

The brain dead corpse in her example is a human organism. Is it a person?

And if the fetus, with its own set of organs and arms and legs, is not an organism, what is it?

And if the zygote and fetus are organisms, they must be human organisms (since they are organisms with human parents and a distinctly human DNA structure). Again, if the developing thing in the womb is not a human organism, what is it?
I'm sorry, I've been telling you you've been begging the question, but I think it really is more of an equivocation.

What is biologically human is not necessarily a human being, as per the brain dead example.

[ajohnson]

Alan,

fruit and vegetables are not creatures. And for many people, vegetarianism is informed by compassion for creatures.

anthrogirl

I know - Queen made an idiotic statement and I'm calling her on it


So what is the difference between cruely slaughter a cow and having a simple abortion? Why the big fuzz? (Of course my pov is different, but you just degraded human life.....as I see all life as equal.....)


Emphasis mine -

Queen doesn't see all life as equal, no one does.

I see nothing wrong vegetarians. Please don't misunderstand my post. I am/was being absurd to point out absurdity.

Regards,

Alan

[anthrogirl]

Tissues can give rise to organisms with the proper techniques applied.

She is talking about embryos, not zygotes. None the less, whether or not a zygote is an organism is not relevant.

The brain dead corpse in her example is a human organism. Is it a person?

What is biologically human is not necessarily a human being, as per the brain dead example.
I applaud your attention to the brain dead human--did you know that the term 'brain dead' did not exist before the practice of organ harvesting? I think there is alot of similiarity in the arguments for the brain dead and the unborn. I think it was Veena Das who said "death is not an event, but a decision" (Cambridge: 2000). What we are struggling with is a similiar concept of the onset of life--it is a decision--one that is informed by our culture, not neccessarily by biology (as per your earlier quote). Biology is inherently reductionistic--in many ways, morality is too.

Our Western paradigm is strongly rooted in Cartesian duality; it's very hard to escape--but not impossible. However, it has shaped the way that we view the body such that the mind and body are totally separate. I suppose religion seeks to unite this in some ways, but, Religion itself is not seen as a credible structure in which to order the secular world.

anthrogirl

[studyhound]

At least most abortions among the human race happens with the reason to stop suffering or to protect life.......not to slaughter it.
Most abortions are for matters of birth control and inconvenient.


Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
This fact and the others listed on the page are from:
All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives.

(Bold Mine)

[studyhound]

I think it was Veena Das who said "death is not an event, but a decision" (Cambridge: 2000).
I would strongly disagree with that statement, my cousin at the age of 24 was hit by and Semi and was instantaneously killed he had no choice in the matter it was an unfortunate event.

[Queen]

I know - Queen made an idiotic statement and I'm calling her on it

So, you think my way of life is idiotic? My rule of thumb is to respect love and feel compassion for ALL life. If I could only eat fruit, I would. Never mind, I do not need to explain my own personal point of view on this! Sheesh...

Emphasis mine -

Queen doesn't see all life as equal, no one does.

I see nothing wrong vegetarians. Please don't misunderstand my post. I am/was being absurd to point out absurdity.

Regards,

Alan

I see ALL life as equal. Simple. If you don't believe me, so be it. That is your problem....not mine.


I have seen other pictures. Pictures of horrible deformities of babies who were born and died during child birth or just after it. Let me discribe one for you, one that made me cry for this child and I than knew how good it is that we have legal abortion:

This baby had an open mouth. It's brain grew out of it's mouth, so it wasn't in it's skull but on the outside of it's body (I use it, because I don't know the gender....not because I see this child as a 'thing'). A complete developed brain. It had lived in the womb. The baby felt everything, a complete human being! It was horrible to see.....so, should we allow that kind of pain and suffering?

And being a supporter of elective abortion is pro-choice.......just in certain cases.

Queen

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/pry/abr_netherlands_12.html

Abortion in the Netherlands:

XII. Conclusion
There is a worldwide interest in why the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rates in the western world. This study has been based on a comparison of the differences between practices in New Zealand and the Netherlands. Nevertheless I believe the findings in this report should be of interest to any country which would like to see a reduction in the extent to which women seek to terminate unplanned pregnancies by abortion.

These conclusions bring together the various strands in the research I began when I visited the Netherlands in April 2000.

The Law:
It is clear that the law has little bearing on abortion rates in these two countries. While abortion is available as a woman's right to choose in the Netherlands, it remains a criminal offence in New Zealand unless the mother's life or health is seriously endangered by pregnancy.

Despite these differences in the law, the 1999 abortion rate — based on abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 — in New Zealand was 2.4 times the Dutch rate for the same year.

I did however come to the conclusions that provisions with regard to counselling services were an important factor governing the differences between the two countries.

Counselling for women considering abortion:
Even though counselling is not mandatory under the New Zealand law, counselling services are an integral part of the work carried out in the country's four abortion clinics where some three-quarters of all abortions are performed.

There are significant differences between the two countries in the procedures for counselling. First there is the legal requirement in the Netherlands that the woman's doctors shall discuss alternatives with her and if the woman decides on termination shall make certain she is making the decision of her own free will and not to please some other person.

There is no such requirement in New Zealand. Counsellors are however offered guidelines as to the professional standards of social workers.

Mrs de Boer from the Ministry of Health in the Hague pointed out that only 3 or 4 of Holland's 17 abortion clinics provide a counselling service. Most counselling is independent of the clinics. Much of it is provided by the woman's own doctor, by independent counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, spiritual advisors or groups such as VBOK and FIOM. This provides for a much greater diversity in attitudes compared to those prevalent in New Zealand where counselling is concentrated in a small group of social workers employed to work in abortion clinics or registered hospitals.

It is interesting to note that during 1999, 5,787 women were counselled by the pro-life agency VBOK and that the Dutch Government was prepared to pay the salaries of 4.5 of their social workers. In New Zealand this has so far been unthinkable although some public funding is made available to groups like Pregnancy Help because they provide a support services for mothers and pregnant women.

All of which highlights what I regard as another major difference between the two countries and that is the tolerance which is a feature of the Dutch culture.

Dutch Tolerance
It saddens me to have to say this but on the whole New Zealanders tend to be intolerant of those the establishment and the media choose to marginalise. Here, winning is everything.

When New Zealand's All Blacks lost out to France during the Rugby World Cup in 1999 and when our Olympic athletes received only one gold medal at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, our churlish behaviour towards those involved was an embarrassing example of the country's intolerance.

As a nation we seem to have been shaped by our first– past–the–post political history, which means that winners take all. Many New Zealanders struggle with consensus and compromise.

By contrast, consensus is an integral part of the Dutch culture. Even though the pro-abortion movement won out when the abortion laws were enacted in 1981, the Government offered the pro–life movement an opportunity to be involved in the counselling services. It is the same with the work VBOK does in providing a pro–life education programme, which reaches about a third of the students attending secondary schools in the Netherlands. As with the provision of counselling services, it is very hard to imagine the N.Z. Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child being allowed to take a pro–life education programme into one third of our state secondary schools without protest from teaching professionals.

While there are teachers prepared to allow school counsellors to take students to abortion clinics without the knowledge or consent of the girl's parents, there is often considerable intolerance towards those who promote chastity for young women.

In Holland there are teachers who say to VBOK we don't agree with your stand on the abortion issue but our students have the right to make up their own mind on this matter.

I am in no doubt that those students who have been given an opportunity to consider the programme provided by VBOK are in a better position to make an informed decision about the impact abortion could have on their own life or that of a friend than those deprived of such information. They are in a better position to evaluate for themselves the downside of abortion with its attendant physical and emotional complications. They are also in a better position to reflect on the value they consider should be placed on the life of a child before birth.

Given the widespread concern at abortions levels in many countries, it would surely be prudent to follow the lead set by the Netherlands in this regard.

Contraception
Having studied the use of contraception in New Zealand and the Netherlands it seems to me there are two overriding issues. One concerns the methods that are used and the other concerns the extent to which contraception fails.

In comparing the use of contraception by women in their twenties and thirties in the Netherlands and New Zealand, two striking differences emerged:

• New Zealand women in their twenties place a much greater reliance on the condom than Dutch women despite the evidence that this method has a very high failure rate.

• New Zealand women in their thirties rely on sterilisation much more than Dutch women. Sterilisation has a significantly lower failure rate than the pill which is used by most of the Dutch women.

From the information available it seems there is not a significant difference in the extent to which teenagers at first intercourse in both countries rely on the pill, the condom or indeed non-use of contraception.

The other key feature concerns contraceptive failure. From my discussions with Dr Janey Rademakers it seems the Netherlands is absolutely up–front about contraceptive failure. In New Zealand, contraceptive failure is one of our best kept secret. A significant focus of the approach adopted in the Netherlands is to minimise levels of contraceptive failure. New Zealanders generally are unaware of the extent to which the condom and the pill can fail.

It was recently suggested in the New Zealand media that the condom had a high failure rate. Family Planning responded by saying it is irresponsible and misleading to claim that condoms fail.

In 1997 I met with Sue Ineson from the Family Planning Association and asked her why they keep on telling young people they can have sex safely if they used contraception when she knew as well as I did the extent to which it failed. Ms Ineson replied: “We don't say it is safe, we say it is safer.”

I replied: “When you say safer, they hear safe.”

Those countries which are serious about wanting to reduce levels of induced abortion have to take an honest and hard headed look at the extent to which so called 'efficient' contraception fails. People need to know they cannot rely on contraception and they need to know the risks they face if they do rely on them. The evidence is clearly set out in this report.

They also need to acknowledge the importance of teaching girls how to recognise the signs that tell them when they are ovulating.

The Family Planning Association
Another significant difference between New Zealand and the Netherlands is the status of the Family Planning Association. Dr Janey Rademakers told me the association plays a very small part in Dutch society today. Their role has been taken over by general practitioners.

That cannot be said of New Zealand where the Family Planning Association, is a major player in the whole spectrum of issues related to reproduction. It is the country's major pro–abortion agency, referring many women and girls for abortion from the network of clinics it operates throughout New Zealand. It also plays a major part in providing sex education resources for schools and sexuality courses for young adults.

Its power was displayed in an interesting way in 1999 over the issue of informed consent.

In 1998, when Bill English was the Minister of Health he published an informed consent booklet which was distributed to all GP's and medical centres as a resource to assist women who might be considering a termination of pregnancy. The booklet was the one which had originally been prepared for the Abortion Supervisory Committee and which had been dumped because staff in the abortion clinics did not want this informed consent booklet.

Bill English was to encounter a remarkable degree of intransigence from within his department when he wanted this book published. Staff from the Ministry of Health did all they could to block its publication.

Nevertheless, by October 1998, the Minister had achieved his objective. Some 25,000 copies of the informed consent booket had been published and distributed throughout New Zealand. The N.Z. Family Planning Association returned the copies it received.

The booklet was well received by most of the country's doctors. They found it helpful to have a simple, clear, neutral resource they could give to their patients. Providing patients with informed consent material is a standard part of medical practice in New Zealand today.

During 1999, Bill English moved out of health portfolio and became the Minister of Finance. Soon after he took up his new responsibilities, the Ministry of Health withdrew the informed consent booklet. When I rang the Ministry to ask about this I was told there had been complaints about it from the Family Planning Association which disputed the accuracy of the foetal photographs in the book. They had been taken by the world renowned medical photographer Lennart Nilsson. There were three photographs. They showed the foetus at the seventh, eleventh and twelfth week after conception.

Dutch cultural values
For all of that I have come to the conclusion that one of the most important difference between New Zealand and the Netherlands springs from those aspects of the Dutch culture which influence the extent to which teenagers and young women are sexually active outside a committed relationship.

Data provided in the Latten and de Graaf Report provided a picture of a country in which a surpringly large proportion of young women are prepared to safeguard their fertility and avoid the risks associated with premature and casual sexual relationships.

Similarly, the 1995 survey of 7,299 Dutch teenagers reported in Jeugd en seks — Youth and sex revealed a significant difference in the age at which young girls first become sexually active.

The research showed that young Dutch women are much less likely than New Zealanders to place themselves at risk. There appears to be a strong cultural emphasis on individual responsibility, on avoiding unplanned pregnancies and on respect for unborn life. Abortion is regarded as a last resort.

The data also showed that young Dutch women tend to be older than their New Zealand counterparts when they first become sexually active and those who enter into de facto relationships are much less likely to do so while they are still in their teens.

Those who argue that it is unrealistic to encourage young women to postpone becoming sexually active, need to think again. Convincing research from the Netherlands show it has happened there much more so than it has in New Zealand. This is taking place in a thriving, modern democratic country where the young people are intelligent and very well educated.

It provides a logical explanation as to why Holland has the lowest abortion rate in the Western world. It was Dr Janey Rademakers who said to me, “the more I talk to people from other countries, the more I think we are liberal but we have all kinds of boundaries.”

[Queen]

Just in case someone wants to know:


http://www.nvve.nl/english/info/euthlawenglish.htm
Review procedures of termination of life on request and assisted suicide and amendment to the Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) and the Burial and Cremation Act (Wet op de lijkbezorging)

We Beatrix, by the grace of God, Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Oranje-Nassau, etc., etc. etc.

Greetings to all who shall see or hear these presents! Be it known:
Whereas We have considered that it is desired to include a ground for exemption from criminal liability for the physician who with due observance of the requirements of due care to be laid down by law terminates a life on request or assists in a suicide of another person, and to provide a statutory notification and review procedure;
We, therefore, having heard the Council of State, and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree:

Chapter I. Definitions of Terms
Article 1

For the purposes of this Act:

Our Ministers mean the Ministers of Justice and of Health, Welfare and Sports;
assisted suicide means intentionally assisting in a suicide of another person or procuring for that other person the means referred to in Article 294 second pragraph, second sentence of the Penal code;
the physician means the physician who according to the notification has terminated a life on request or assisted in a suicide;
the consultant means the physician who has been consulted with respect to the intention by the physician to terminate a life on request or to assist in a suicide;
the providers of care mean the providers of care referred to in Article 446 first paragraph of Book 7 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek);
the committee means a regional review committee referred to in Article 3;
the regional inspector means the regional inspector of the Health Care Inspectorate of the Public Health Supervisory Service.

Chapter II. Requirements of Due Care
Article 2

The requirements of due care, referred to in Article 293 second paragraph Penal Code mean that the physician:

holds the conviction that the request by the patient was voluntary and well-considered,
holds the conviction that the patient's suffering was lasting and unbearable,
has informed the patient about the situation he was in and about his prospects,
and the patient hold the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution for the situation he was in,
e. has consulted at least one other, independent physician who has seen the patient and has given his written opinion on the requirements of due care, referred to in parts a - d, and
has terminated a life or assisted in a suicide with due care.
If the patient aged sixteen years or older is no longer capable of expressing his will, but prior to reaching this condition was deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests and has made a written statement containing a request for termination of life, the physician may cant' out this request. The requirements of due care, referred to in the first paragraph, apply mutatis mutandis.
If the minor patient has attained an age between sixteen and eighteen years and may be deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests, the physician may cant' out the patient's request for termination of life or assisted suicide, after the parent or the parents exercising parental authority and/or his guardian have been involved in the decision process.
If the minor patient is aged between twelve and sixteen years and may be deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests, the physician may cant' out the patient's request, provided always that the parent or the parents exercising parental authority and/or his guardian agree with the termination of life or the assisted suicide. The second paragraph applies mutatis mutandis.

Chapter Ill. The Regional Review Committees for Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide.
Paragraph 1: Establishment, composition and appointment

Article 3


There are regional committees for the review of notifications of cases of termination of life on request and assistance in a suicide as referred to in Article 293 second paragraph or 294 second paragraph second sentence, respectively, of the Penal Code.
A committee is composed of an uneven number of members, including at any rate one legal specialist, also chairman, one physician and one expert on ethical or philosophical issues'. The committee also contains deputy members of each of the, categories listed in the first sentence.
Article 4


The chairman and the members, as well as the deputy members are appointed by Our Ministers for a period of six years. They may be re-appointed one time for another period of six years. `philosophical issues' -- in the original text the Dutch word `zingevingsvraagstukken' is used to describe the discussion on the prerequisites for a meaningful life.
A committee has a secretary and one or more deputy secretaries, all legal specialists, appointed by Our Ministers. The secretary has an advisory role in the committee meetings.
The secretary may solely be held accountable by the committee for his activities for the committee.
Paragraph 2: Dismissal

Article 5

Our Ministers may at any time dismiss the chairman and the members, as well as the deputy members at their own request.

Article 6

Our Ministers may dismiss the chairman and the members, as well as the deputy members for reasons of unsuitability or incompetence or for other important reasons.

Paragraph 3: Remuneration

Article 7

The chairman and the members, as well as the deputy members receive a holiday allowance as well as a reimbursement of the travel and accommodation expenses according to the existing government scheme insofar as these expenses are not otherwise reimbursed from the State Funds.

Paragraph 4: Duties and powers

Article 8


The committee assesses on the basis of the report referred to in Article 7 second paragraph of the Burial and Cremation Act whether the physician who has terminated a life on request or assisted in a suicide has acted in accordance with the requirements of due care, referred to in Article 2.
The committee may request the physician to supplement his report in writing or verbally, where this is necessary for a proper assessment of the physician's actions.
The committee may make enquiries at the municipal autopsist, the consultant or the providers of care involved where this is necessary for a proper assessment of the physician's actions.
Article 9


The committee informs the physician within six weeks of the receipt of the report referred to in Article 8 first paragraph in writing of its motivated opinion.
The committee informs the Board of Procurators General and the regional health care inspector of its opinion:
if the committee is of the opinion that the physician has failed to act in accordance with the requirements of due care, referred to in Article 2;
or

if a situation occurs as referred to in Article 12, final sentence of the Burial and Cremation Act.
The committee shall inform the physician of this.
The term referred to in the first paragraph may be extended one time by a maximum period of six weeks. The committee shall inform the physician of this.
The committee may provide a further, verbal explanation on its opinion to the physician. This verbal explanation may take place at the request of the committee or at the request of the physician.
Article 10

The committee is obliged to provide all information to the public prosecutor, at his request, which he may need:

for the benefit of the assessment of the physician's actions in the case referred to in Article 9 second paragraph;or
for the benefit of a criminal investigation.
The committee shall inform the physician of any provision of information to the public prosecutor.

Paragraph 6: Working method

Article 11

The committee shall ensure the registration of the cases of termination of life or assisted suicide reported for assessment. Further rules on this may be laid down by a ministerial regulation by Our Ministers.

Article 12


An opinion is adopted by a simple majority of votes.
An opinion may only be adopted by the committee provided all committee members have participated in the vote.
Article 13

At least twice a year, the chairmen of the regional review committees conduct consultations with one another with respect to the working method and the performance of the committees. A representative of the Board of Procurators General and a representative of the Health Care Inspectorate of the Public Health Supervisory Service are invited to attend these consultations.

Paragraph 7: Secrecy and Exemption

Article 14

The members and deputy members of the committee are under an obligation of secrecy to keep confidential any information acquired in the performance of their duties, except where any statutory regulation obliges them to divulge this information or where the necessity to divulge information ensues from their duties.

Article 15

A member of the committee that serves on the committee in the treatment of a case exempts himself and may be challenged if there are facts or circumstances that may affect the impartiality of his opinion.

Article 16

A member, a deputy member and the secretary of the committee refrain from rendering an opinion on the intention by a physician to terminate a life on request or to assist in a suicide.

Paragraph 8: Report

Article 17


Not later than 1 April, the committees issue a joint annual report to Our Ministers on the activities of the past calendar year. Our Ministers shall lay down a model for this by means of a ministerial regulation.
The report on the activities referred to in the first paragraph shall at any rate include the following:
the number of reported cases of termination of life on request and assisted suicide on which the committee has rendered an opinion;
the nature of these cases;
the opinions and the considerations involved.
Article 18

Annually, at the occasion of the submission of the budget to the States General, Our Ministers shall issue a report with respect to the performance of the committees further to the report on the activities as referred to in Article 17 first paragraph.

Article 19

On the recommendation of Our Ministers, rules shall be laid down by order in council regarding the committees with respect to
their number and their territorial jurisdiction;
their domicile.
Our Ministers may lay down further rules by or pursuant to an order in council regarding the committees with respect to
their size and composition;
their working method and reports.
Chapter IV. Amendments to other Acts

Article 20

The Penal Code shall be amended as follows:

A

Article 293 shall read:

Article 293


Any person who terminates another person's life at that person's express and earnest request shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve years or a fifth-category fine.
The act referred to in the first paragraph shall not be an offence if it committed by a physician who fulfils the due care criteria set out in Article 2 of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act, and if the physician notifies the municipal pathologist of this act in accordance with the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Burial and Cremation Act.
B

Article 294 shall read:

Article 294


Any person who intentionally incites another to commit suicide shall, if suicide follows, be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine of the fourth-category fine.
Any person who intentionally assist another to commit suicide or provides him with the means to do shall, if suicide follows, be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fourth-category fine. Article 293, paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
C

In Article 295, the following is inserted after '293': first paragraph.

D

In Article 422, the following is inserted after '293': first paragraph.

Article 21

The Burial and Cremation Act shall be amended as follows:

A

Article 7 shall read:

Article 7


A person who has performed a postmortem shall issue a death certificate if he is convinced that death has occurred as a result of a natural cause.
If the death was the result of the application of termination of life on request or assisted suicide as referred to in Article 293 second paragraph or Article 294 second paragraph second sentence, respectively, of the Penal Code, the attending physician shall not issue a death certificate and shall promptly notify the municipal autopsist or one of the municipal autopsists of the cause of death by completing a form. The physician shall supplement this form with a reasoned report with respect to the due observance of the requirements of due care referred to in Article 2 of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) act.
If the attending physician in other cases than referred to in the second paragraph believes that he may not issue a death certificate, he must promptly notify the municipal autopsist or one of the municipal autopsists of this by completing a form.
B

Article 9 shall read:

Article 9


The form and the set-up of the models of the death certificate to be issued by the attending physician and by the municipal autopsist shall be laid down by order in council.
The form and the set-up of the models of the notification and the report referred to in Article 7 second paragraph, of the notification referred to in Article 7 third paragraph and of the forms referred to in Article 10 first and second paragraph shall be laid down by order in council on the recommendation of Our Minister of Justice and Our Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports.
C

Article 10 shall read:

Article 10


If the municipal autopsist is of the opinion that he cannot issue a death certificate, he shall promptly report this to the public prosecutor by completing a form and he shall promptly notify the registrar of births, deaths and marriages.
In the event of a notification as referred to in Article 7 second paragraph and without prejudice to the first paragraph, the municipal autopsist shall promptly report to the regional review committee referred to in Article 3 of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act by completing a form. He shall enclose a reasoned report as referred to in Article 7 second paragraph.
D

The following sentence shall be added to Article 12, reading: If the public prosecutor, in the cases referred to in Article 7 second paragraph, is of the opinion that he cannot issue a certificate of no objection against the burial or cremation, he shall promptly inform the municipal autopsist and the regional review committee referred to in Article 3 of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act of this.

E

In Article 81, first part, '7, first paragraph' shall be replaced by '7, first and second paragraph'.

Article 22

The General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) shall be amended as follows:

At the end of part d of Article 1:6, the full stop shall be replaced by a semicolon and the following shall be added to the fifth part, reading:

e. decisions and actions in the implementation of the Termination of Life and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act.
Chapter V. Final Provisions

Article 23

This Act shall take effect as of a date to be determined by Royal Decree.

Article 24

This Act may be cited as: Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act.

We hereby order and command that this Act shall be published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees and that all ministerial departments, authorities, bodies and officials whom it may concern shall diligently implement it.

Done

The Minister of Justice,
The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports.
Upper House, parliamentary year 2000-2001, 26 691, no 137

[ajohnson]

So, you think my way of life is idiotic? My rule of thumb is to respect love and feel compassion for ALL life. If I could only eat fruit, I would. Never mind, I do not need to explain my own personal point of view on this! Sheesh...

This is what I said Queen



Queen, we've been here many times before - of course I consider other life important, just not as important that human beings. And so do you - please step down off of your high horse. You think some life less important than other life. Some creaters better than others. You life you life with this believe, othewise your place of abode (house/apt/etc) would be over run with vermin and bugs and who knows what else because you wouldn't couldn't clean.

All becauase you said this


So what is the difference between cruely slaughter a cow and having a simple abortion? Why the big fuzz? (Of course my pov is different, but you just degraded human life.....as I see all life as equal.....)



You DO NOT see all life as equal. It would be impossible for you to see all life as equal - because you would end up dead. And I was calling you an this statement - not your way of life.

And again you refeused to answer questions put forth.

Regards,

Alan

[Ramonda]

I have read/skimmed almost all of the posts in this thread. Nowhere has anyone suggested as helpful an inquiry as Ramonda's phrase "viewing the whole picture of abortion." If Ramonda or Queen or any other person contributing to this thread is willing to actually do that, I suggest we look at accurate pictures of abortion, for it will help all of us to get clear on what we are talking about.

The clearest ones I've found are featured at www.cbrinfo.org. Click on "Abortion Photos" on the right hand side under "Resources." BE FOREWARNED though - this site is GRAPHIC because it shows ACCURATE pictures of aborted embryos and fetuses. Even pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf believes these pictures should be admitted to the discussion, since they represent one set of facts that is often ignored: the visual facts (her article "Our Bodies, Our Souls" is reprinted at http://www.epm.org/articles/naomiwolf.html).

I'll look at your pictures if you look at mine. Mine are the pictures of all of the starving human beings in the various countries. Another batch of pictures would be all of the children wiating to be adopted. When there are no people left to be adopted then I will believe those who say the unwanted babies will be adopted.

The whole picture that I was referring to was the reality of already living, breathing and sometimes suffering beings who need our attention.

[Queen]

This is what I said Queen




All becauase you said this





You DO NOT see all life as equal. It would be impossible for you to see all life as equal - because you would end up dead. And I was calling you an this statement - not your way of life.

And again you refeused to answer questions put forth.

Regards,

Alan

I see ALL life as equal and guess what....I am still alive. And as long as you find my statement idiotic.........I see no reason...sane reason to answer a question, because the way I see all life is my way of life......so I live, according to your own words, an idiotic life and I am probably dead.....that means you are talking to a ghost :lmbo:

The fact that I need food to survive and I need medication or else I would indeed die doesn't make me feel differently about all life. That would be silly, doesn't it. Because I respect all life......and see it as equal. All life started out the same way and every creature is unique through evolution. Every living creature is struggling to survive. No difference between any one of them. THAT makes them equal. And every living creature in this universe is still evolving. The fact that some humans think that they are special is selfish and nonsense. Because we are just part of the universe and, if I might add, not that special. Because we lack respect for our own species....something most species on this planet have. We think, therefor we are dangerous to this planet. And that we think that we know the truth is totally arrogant.

So, yes...all life is equal.......simple how my mind works, isn't it:wink:.

Queen

[anthrogirl]

I would strongly disagree with that statement, my cousin at the age of 24 was hit by and Semi and was instantaneously killed he had no choice in the matter it was an unfortunate event.


"Death is not an event, but a decision"I should clarify that this is in reference to the way in which we conceive of death (and I would argue life, too) when we are faced with ethical dilemmas such as abortion and "mercy killing".

[deepwillidig]

I'll look at your pictures if you look at mine. Mine are the pictures of all of the starving human beings in the various countries. Another batch of pictures would be all of the children wiating to be adopted. When there are no people left to be adopted then I will believe those who say the unwanted babies will be adopted.

The whole picture that I was referring to was the reality of already living, breathing and sometimes suffering beings who need our attention.

I am happy to look at any pictures that are accurate. And no doubt you could produce some very disturbing, accurate pictures of starvation, foster children in limbo, and other terrible evils. As with pictures of abortion, these pictures should be admitted to the discussion as evidence. But how are pictures of starvation and foster care relevant to the discussion of abortion? You allude to the answer in your second paragraph, that because the unborn are not "living, breathing and sometimes suffering" killing them is a legitimate way to prevent these social disasters.

Can you make the case that the unborn is not living?
Can you make the case that breathing is morally significant?
Can you make the case that if the unborn doesn't suffer it cannot be harmed?

Unless you can defend these notions, you have given me no reason to think abortion is justified. But notice, that whether born children starve and suffer neglect has no bearing on whether the unborn is human. So shoulddn't we answer this question before discussing admittedly horrible social circumstances?

[deepwillidig]

The point is that the unborn are presumed to be of the same value as born humans in making the comparison.

As STR acknowledges, most abortions take place quite early on in the pregnancy. And so the analogy only works if the 1st trimester fetus has the same innate value as a new-born child.

My point has been that what is at dispute often times is what makes one a human being. As I stated at in the post I linked to, there is ambiguity as to when the human fetus becomes a human being.

STR's article, when it frames the question as, "What is the unborn? You must answer that question before you can answer the questions: How should we treat the fetus? What protections ought we give it? How far should we go to protect it? " doesn't bring up the question of whether the answer should differ at different stages of fetal development. They are implicitly implying that it is all or nothing for how the unborn should be treated.


This is because human rights are based on all or nothing proposition. Let me explain.

In short, I don't think human beings are valuable because they are persons. I think they are valuable because they are human. Historically, distinguishing between person and human has resulted in discrimination against certain humans who are weak or defenseless (see http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/abortion.html). It seems that if we can rule over a group of people, we call them non-persons so that we can oppress them with a clear conscience.

In contrast, one fact leads me to believe we are valuable in virtue of the kind of thing we are. That fact is this: human beings should be treated equally. When people assent to this rule, they usually mean "born people." That's fine with me. We know only equals should be treated equally. Yet, there is nothing about all of the born humans that is truly equal. We differ in size, development, dependency, location, interests, pain sensitivity, desires, skin color, ethnic identity, disabilities, and intelligence. But there is one significant quality that we have that is equal: our human nature. Notice that all of the differences between us are degreed qualities (we can have more or less) and are accidental properties (we can gain and lose). But notice also that our human nature is *not* a degreed or accidental property. It is something you either have or don't have. This is the sort of thing that must ground equal rights if they are to be equal. If degreed properties ground our rights, then we will also have those rights to a greater or lesser degree.

Grounding our rights in human nature seems to make sense of one other thing: our incessant focus on "human" rights. Notice we don't use the phrase "person rights." Perhaps this is for linguistic ease, but I think it reflects our concern for humans as humans. We are not concerned about genocide or murder or rape or inequality because of the accidental properties of the victims. We think nothing of their intelligence or whether they were as self-aware as a chimpanzee. These crimes are crimes against humanity. And we describe it that way for a reason. We believe that humans have a special dignity.

But notice, we have our human nature from the moment we begin to exist. It can't be something developed or degreed. It is this all or nothing characteristic of human nature that makes it a stable ground for human rights claims. We either have it or we don't. And as newly conceived human beings, we surely had it. This is why I focus so much on whether the unborn is a *human* being. If she is, she should be protected. Of course, science shows clearly that she is human (having a human DNA structure and human parents), so surely she should be protected (for more reasons to believe the unborn is a human being, see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=538859#post538859). The struggle to protect the unborn is then really no different than the struggle to protect the African-American, the Jew, the disabled person, or the elderly. All have an underlying similarity that defies the external differences: they are human beings.


So I myself focus on pressing for setting up a super-majority in a nat'l referendum the basis for the legal redefinition of when human personhood begins and aiming to make abortions in the later two stages illegal and then use other ways to discourage first term abortions.

dlw
I think you and I agree on a number of things, but at least we agree that a good first step is developing a concensus about the second and third trimester babies, that they should be protected (I hope I haven't misinterpreted here; please correct if necessary). I am curious though: why you would seek to discourage first trimester abortions?

[albert]

What is it you're trying to justify?

Let me summarize:
There is an extreme pro-life position, according to which there are compelling arguments (based on continuity from baby to fetus to embryo) why we must treat embryos right back to the moment of conception as human with full right-to-life, and the claim is that these arguments are so strong that any rational person should agree with them.
The first thing I am saying is that the continuity argument is not so convincing that any rational person ought to be pro-life.
The second thing I am saying is that actually this extreme pro-life position is difficult to follow consistently, because awarding the embryo these rights implies that one should do much more than just advocate an end to voluntary abortion: one should try to save the much larger number of these embryos that perish through "natural" causes.



As I said - I'll concede this point. But we must start on the one item with the biggest impact that we can control right now - those otherwise healthy fetuses that are forceably removed from the mother's womb- elective abortions.

I don't think giving 100% effort to stopping elective abortion and 0% effort to saving embryos from spontaneous abortion is a reasonable or morally defensible starting point. Millions of human beings die each year of cancer (often incurable) and heart disease (usually incurable), yet there are major groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association that work and lobby tirelessly for medical research and treatment to prevent these deaths. Maybe saving embryos from spontaneous abortion is as difficult as curing cancer: in that case where is the analogous "American embryo society" trying to save endangered embryos? If pro-life people really thought embryos were fully human, wouldn't at least some of them devote some effort to the major danger that a typical just-fertilized egg faces in its future? The major danger it faces is not elective abortion, but spontaneous abortion.


No, according to my logis it's - are you moving? Yes or no. If you are, then how fast. If you're not then you're not moving - period.
Your's is, well yes I'm moving but because I haven't passed XXXX speed then it doesn't count.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
I was just saying that rights and laws typically involve somewhat arbitrary thresholds and dividing lines, and it is not unreasonable to treat the right to life in the same way.
I am saying that continuity of baby to fetus to embryo is not an argument, in and of itself, for treating all of them the same way under the law.


I understand what point you are making here and I actually agree with you a point. The problem is we are essentially defining when the embryo goes from non-human to human......something much too important to have arbitrary dividing lines.

OK, you can say that defining humanity is a special case, unlike other rights. But then you are agreeing that continuity alone is not a compelling argument for the extreme pro-life position. You would have to come up with some argument why the right to life is special, and cannot be treated like other rights.

[ajohnson]

:offtopic:


Albert,

It'll be a few days before I can get back to you. Say, around Thurdsay - evening.

Regards,

Alan

[Ramonda]

But how are pictures of starvation and foster care relevant to the discussion of abortion? You allude to the answer in your second paragraph, that because the unborn are not "living, breathing and sometimes suffering" killing them is a legitimate way to prevent these social disasters.

In the case of the starving, I am talking of lives where there is sufffering, pain that lasts longer and is more intense than anything done in abortion. In the case of adoption, some who oppose abortion say that all of those babies will be adopted. That is what they said thirty years ago when abortion started. I want to know how come there are so many even with abortion that aren't adopted and without abortion are those million going to be homeless?


Can you make the case that the unborn is not living?
Can you make the case that breathing is morally significant?
Can you make the case that if the unborn doesn't suffer it cannot be harmed?


The above questions you have asked have been answered by many different people, many different times in just a few weeks on the different abortion threads. They've said it well, I need not add to it.


Unless you can defend these notions, you have given me no reason to think abortion is justified. But notice, that whether born children starve and suffer neglect has no bearing on whether the unborn is human. So shoulddn't we answer this question before discussing admittedly horrible social circumstances?

I have no interest in making a case for you and having you change your mind. There will always be someone such as you and someone such as myself with different viewpoints. My contention has never been on human but rather actual baby and what defines baby and when the baby becomes real.

Your strong on the abortion issue, I am strong on helping the already living. I think there is room for both of us to be right without joining the other's bandwagon.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

This is a decent description of the fetal-development process. They need to reference their sources and give more information on variation in the time of the fetal-development, since that could also prove useful for rules.

http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html

And, of course, when we socially accept the fetus/child as part of our family/community is subject to change.

dlw

[deepwillidig]

I have no interest in making a case for you and having you change your mind. There will always be someone such as you and someone such as myself with different viewpoints. My contention has never been on human but rather actual baby and what defines baby and when the baby becomes real.

Your strong on the abortion issue, I am strong on helping the already living. I think there is room for both of us to be right without joining the other's bandwagon.

But don't you realize that I want to restrict a woman's opportunity to get an abortion? Don't you see that I want to control women's ability to do whatever they want with their bodies? If you are right about the fetus, that it is not an actual baby, why would you not seek to change my mind? I am troubled by your lack of concern for my pitiable state of being deceived and an even more pitiable state of deceiving others (however unwittingly).

It seems just heartless to me that many people say they do not want to change my mind if they're convinced I'm wrong. Are they afraid they'll hurt my feelings or self-esteem? Or is it simply that they think there is no real truth of the matter? And if there's no truth of the matter, shouldn't you or others convince me of that, so that I can stop worrying about all of this and just go to the beach? It would be much more pleasant than talking about dismemberment and sensitive issues like a mother's right to do what she wants with her uterus and its contents.

At the very least, would you agree with me that both of us want to change each other's minds about whether we should seek to change each other's minds?

[Ramonda]

It seems just heartless to me that many people say they do not want to change my mind if they're convinced I'm wrong. Are they afraid they'll hurt my feelings or self-esteem? Or is it simply that they think there is no real truth of the matter? And if there's no truth of the matter, shouldn't you or others convince me of that, so that I can stop worrying about all of this and just go to the beach? It would be much more pleasant than talking about dismemberment and sensitive issues like a mother's right to do what she wants with her uterus and its contents.



Go to the beach anyway and have fun.

[anthrogirl]

I am troubled by your lack of concern for my pitiable state of being deceived and an even more pitiable state of deceiving others (however unwittingly).

"Pitiable state"? How nihilistic!

anthrogirl

[tiffany]

That is too silly a question to answer. You know exactly what my answer is, but you will just use my answer to prove you are right and I am wrong. But I guess it is hard to decide on this matter who is right and who is wrong. There is just one thing I know and that is how horrific it is that women who had an abortion have to read such [censored] and I am not giving you the change to insult these women even more with my answers. Simple.

I told how I felt and I told you my opinion. Let's just agree on disgreeing on this matter. But maybe you should put away your bible and talk to women who have gone through abortions and are still pro choice.....and not some poor woman who is afraid she will rot in hell because she had an abortion. Talk to pro choice doctors, people who deliver babies and to medical staff who had children in their hands dying in great pain. Talk to a woman who has no money to feed her childern, talk to them. Ask them how they feel and what they feel.......and then judge. Talk to them and then tell me that these pro-choice people are indeed the scary murderers Koukl claims them to be.

Like I don't judge and respect the women who are prolife and choose to NOT have an abortion even if the child is terrible deformed and will die after birth, I don't judge women who have an abortion. Because to me those women deserve the same respect as those who are pro-choice (And I am NOT talking about using abortion as a contraceptive or having an abortion because you want a son instead of a daughter.......but about cases that are truly a good reason to have an abortion)
Queen [I am just curious ? Do you even consider yourself to be a christian ? And , BTW , I am one of "those women" who has had an abortion . I deeply regret it , not because I am afraid of "burning in hell " , either. Jesus opened my eyes to what I did . A person is a person , period . They have a spirit , they are created in God's own image , and are bound for either heaven or hell. To accept this complete bullshit that , "all life is equal" is friggin ridiculous . You probably think you are so righteous and nice . Satan loves people like you . You are BLIND .