some thoughts on abortion

[auggybendoggy]

Guys,
I'm looking for some feedback on my heart. I actually like alot of Obamas Ideas however abortion is one that makes me ill.

I did read dizzle's post on the Stanek lady (spelling) and I don't know I can verify facts from the sources given.

However, even in a general sense I know abortion exists and it's not easy to just say "stop". What will become of the babies who's mothers do not want them? Who will care for them? Who will pay for them (food, living)? Tis a pickle.

But in thinking as of late, I do feel a bit of conflict on this issue.

I don't quite understand how people who care so much about the poor don't care about the unborn. The Obama supporters who cling to his "humanitarian" ways like the second coming of Jimmy Carter seem to be in a contradiction on humanitarian ethics.

so...concerning Obama and abotion

Logically speaking...
Why would one care about a poor person and not care about a child in the womb of her/his mothers?

it seems the only way to resolve the illogic is to persuade oneself that the thing in the mothers womb is not a person (human being).

Thus i'm forced to say that if indeed it cannot be proven that life has begun in the womb (beyond his paygrade) than it might be said the earth MIGHT still be flat or the earth is the center of our solar system or universe.

What I mean is if science has taught us that the earth is not the center of our universe, likewise science has taught us the earth is not flat, than it seems reasonable to say that science has taught us the infant is very much alive (via machines monitoring brainwaves, heartbeat, formation).

So perhaps I don't know the real arguments of why the baby can be killed without it being defined as "killing a baby".

I realize roe vs wade is a major reason why the law is what it is but I'm asking a logical question not a legal.

P.S. I'm voting McCain because I do find that killing babies is a deal breaker just as I would feel if Adolph Hitler were to say I'll cook jews in ovens would be a deal breaker for me. If you find me to be illogical than help to understand why (don't bash).

Aug

[Manwë Súlimo]

What will become of the babies who's mothers do not want them? Who will care for them? Who will pay for them (food, living)? Tis a pickle.

It is a pickle, but not an excuse to take a life. That's like walking the streets of New York to shoot the homeless in the head and then thinking you did them a favor.

I realize roe vs wade is a major reason why the law is what it is but I'm asking a logical question not a legal.

This, in my opinion, is an issue that was better suited to be put to democratic vote, not by the decision of one court.

I'm voting McCain because I do find that killing babies is a deal breaker just as I would feel if Adolph Hitler were to say I'll cook jews in ovens would be a deal breaker for me. If you find me to be illogical than help to understand why (don't bash).

Good for you :-)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Abortion is the deal breaker for me as well. Some have argued, and I can understand their position, that they believe his policies will reduce abortions.

1. I don't believe they will
2. Out of the abundance of the heart springs the issues of life, someone who is so militantly pro-abortion (he even supports Partial Birth Abortion and wishes to reverse what some see as a limited victory we had in that quarter last year) has at his basic core a character flaw that I could never vote for and that core will bear bad fruit

I do understand others disagree. If you have not yet voted please consider these points. I understand many don't want to vote FOR McCain. I am not voting FOR McCain, I am voting AGAINST Obama to do however a tiny part in voicing that this philosophy is simply unacceptable.

[docjam]

Guys,
I'm looking for some feedback on my heart. I actually like alot of Obamas Ideas however abortion is one that makes me ill.

I did read dizzle's post on the Stanek lady (spelling) and I don't know I can verify facts from the sources given.

However, even in a general sense I know abortion exists and it's not easy to just say "stop". What will become of the babies who's mothers do not want them? Who will care for them? Who will pay for them (food, living)? Tis a pickle.

But in thinking as of late, I do feel a bit of conflict on this issue.

I don't quite understand how people who care so much about the poor don't care about the unborn. The Obama supporters who cling to his "humanitarian" ways like the second coming of Jimmy Carter seem to be in a contradiction on humanitarian ethics.

so...concerning Obama and abotion

Logically speaking...
Why would one care about a poor person and not care about a child in the womb of her/his mothers?

it seems the only way to resolve the illogic is to persuade oneself that the thing in the mothers womb is not a person (human being).

Thus i'm forced to say that if indeed it cannot be proven that life has begun in the womb (beyond his paygrade) than it might be said the earth MIGHT still be flat or the earth is the center of our solar system or universe.

What I mean is if science has taught us that the earth is not the center of our universe, likewise science has taught us the earth is not flat, than it seems reasonable to say that science has taught us the infant is very much alive (via machines monitoring brainwaves, heartbeat, formation).

So perhaps I don't know the real arguments of why the baby can be killed without it being defined as "killing a baby".

I realize roe vs wade is a major reason why the law is what it is but I'm asking a logical question not a legal.

P.S. I'm voting McCain because I do find that killing babies is a deal breaker just as I would feel if Adolph Hitler were to say I'll cook jews in ovens would be a deal breaker for me. If you find me to be illogical than help to understand why (don't bash).

Aug

yeah McCain!!!

[MarcusAndreas]

maybe those who can should vote against all of them. McCain wants us dead at war and Obama wants us dead before we are born.

[auggybendoggy]

I guess logically speaking it seems if we pro lifers were to yell out...
"the earth is flat" they would dub as INSANE and unreachable.

yet ultrasounds and other technologies prove the child is alive is up for debate....(it's beyond my paygrads).

Seems obama is referencing IT CANNOT BE PROVEN WHEN THE LIFE STARTS.

Well then I would argue likewise,

IT CANNOT BE PROVEN THE EARCH IS NOT FLAT.

he will show me images of the earth
I will show him images of the baby.

He will show me scientific diagrams

I will show him data prints from monitors and ultrasounds.

Help me understand this...
Am I arguing illogically?

I'm not educated so I doubt myself quite often but I'm doing the best I can with what God gave me : )

Aug

[Manwë Súlimo]

With such uncertainty, I think we should err on the side of caution and ban abortions until a definitive case is made. It'd be reprehensible to green light abortion on shaky moral grounds only to realize later that you put to death millions and millions of living human beings.

[jordanriver]

maybe those who can should vote against all of them. McCain wants us dead at war and Obama wants us dead before we are born.

McCain wants us to surrender to the muslim-terrorists?

i dont want to pursue this derailment of the thread, but perhaps you should start a new thread in a different forum and share whatever new information you may have that McCain is ready to quit the wars against muslim terrorists so that the musliim terrorists will be able to resume making 'us dead' from where they left off when President GW Bush took the attack to them.

( i knew McCain was a little wishy-washy about torturing those animal thugs but i didnt think he would actually abandon the pre-emptive wars against them to keep us safe)

but , like i said , this is the wrong forum for that subject so i will be looking in the other forums to see what you got.


JR

[Kenny]

I don't quite understand how people who care so much about the poor don't care about the unborn.

I don’t either. It’s one thing that, as a liberal myself, floors me. The whole pathos of liberal politics is that of standing up for those who are poor, oppressed and downtrodden. Well, aren’t the unborn among these? Although, for me, it also goes in the other direction. I have a hard time understanding how people who are so passionate about protecting the unborn seem to fail to care about the poor. (And I realize that not all conservatives fail to care for the poor, that some conservatives do things like give their money to charity, volunteer in soup kitchens and all the rest – but, still, often the rhetoric that conservatives use and the priorities that they emphasize seems to display a certain callousness and unconcern for the needs of the poor).

The Obama supporters who cling to his "humanitarian" ways like the second coming of Jimmy Carter seem to be in a contradiction on humanitarian ethics.

I voted for Obama. But I strongly disagree with his stance on abortion. I don’t want to argue about whether that was the right thing to do though (I’ve explained my reasoning elsewhere). Now I want to simply acknowledge that I do think his views on abortion suck. That was a cost in my voting for him. It also kept me from being an enthusiastic supporter of him (if he were pro-life, I would have had the buttons, the yard signs the T-shirts and all the rest, but because he wasn’t, I didn’t).

What I mean is if science has taught us that the earth is not the center of our universe, likewise science has taught us the earth is not flat, than it seems reasonable to say that science has taught us the infant is very much alive (via machines monitoring brainwaves, heartbeat, formation).

So perhaps I don't know the real arguments of why the baby can be killed without it being defined as "killing a baby".

The question isn’t whether the fetus is alive. Everyone believes that. The question is whether the fetus is something that has a significant moral status. Some pro-choice advocates think that the fetus does not have such status because the fetus lacks traits that are characteristic of personhood. Others think that there are no rational grounds on which the matter can be settled between all of the disputing parties and that, given the absence of such grounds, the government is not justified in making abortion illegal. Others think that even if the fetus does have significant moral status, the fetus does not have a right against the mother that she supply her own bodily resources to sustain the fetus’ life, or at least the mother has no legally enforceable duty to do so.

Now I happen to think that all of the above claims are false. I think there are rational grounds for believing that the fetus has significant moral status. I also think that even if there were not, the government would still be justified in making abortion illegal. Finally, I think that the fact that the fetus has the moral status of a person entails that the mother has an enforceable obligation not kill the fetus or remove the fetus from her body if that would result in the fetus’ death.

But I do think it is important to understand our opponents’ position. We want to attack their actual views, not knock down strawmen. And I also think that understanding the complexity of the debate can help us see how good natured people can disagree on this issue (which makes someone’s supporting abortion different, I think, than someone’s supporting genocide).

That said, I also think that we need to speak out passionately on this issue and try to persuade our opponents that they are wrong.

[auggybendoggy]

Ken I like your stance but I voted McCain due to the death of the unborn. It is a deal breaker for me no matter how smooth or how smart hitler may appear. I call Obama hitler because I rate abortion right there with the holocaust.

Sure the nazis could justify why jews could be murdered, it's being sound and justifying it that is the problem.

So I do tend to think this issue is a deal breaker.

As for the personhood.

It seems hard to believe that people like obama agree with you.

For on one hand he calls it a "tragedy". On the other hand "its not a person"
Why is it a tragedy if it's not a person?

Also pro-choice people often say "we're not FOR abortion".

But under the pretense that it is not a "person", I would think one would say "we love abortion" because it's not really a person.

Thus it begs the question.

If it is a life then what kind of life is it? Dog, Cat, Plant?

Again back to the earth is flat comparison.

All the data shows the earth is round. All the data shows the "thing" in the womb is a human being in devolopment.

So I don't think the person argument is important any more than asking if retarded people are "persons" or "people".

I agee understanding their position is important and that is why I posted this.

Aug

[historic salve]

maybe those who can should vote against all of them. McCain wants us dead at war and Obama wants us dead before we are born.

That's loony, Mark.

[Kenny]

Ken I like your stance but I voted McCain due to the death of the unborn. It is a deal breaker for me no matter how smooth or how smart hitler may appear. I call Obama hitler because I rate abortion right there with the holocaust.

I think that it is excessively inflammatory and not really very accurate to compare someone who holds a pro-choice view with Hitler. I agree that the moral gravity of the practice of abortion in this country is comparable to the moral gravity of the holocaust, but, unlike the holocaust, a good natured, sane person can fail to see the moral gravity involved in practice of abortion. Abortion is one of those issues that I think that good natured people can be mistaken about.

As for the personhood.

It seems hard to believe that people like obama agree with you.

I think that the fetus is a person with full moral status. From what he said, it seems like Obama thinks that the issue of the moral status of the fetus is one that is rationally undecidable. And, from his perspective, given that the issue is rationally undecidable, the government can’t offer people compelling rational grounds for restricting their autonomy when it comes to their having abortions. And therefore, by his lights, the government cannot legitimately compel people not to have abortions.

Now, I think that’s wrong on two counts. First, I think that the issue is rationally decidable. But second, even if it weren’t, I think Obama’s employing the wrong decision procedure for what the policy should be in this case. Assuming that the moral status of the fetus is undecidable and given the moral gravity of the issue, I think we should make those policy decisions concerning abortion that result in the least morally bad situation if we are wrong. If the fetus has no moral status, then restricting abortion is seriously wrong because it is an unjustified restriction of people’s freedom in an area that concerns very intimate parts of their lives. But if the fetus does have the moral status of a person, not making abortion illegal is morally equivalent to permitting the killing of millions of innocent people. And permitting the slaughter of millions of innocent people, I think, is much more grave than unjustly intruding on people’s freedom.

For on one hand he calls it a "tragedy". On the other hand "its not a person"
Why is it a tragedy if it's not a person?

Has he ever said that he believes that the fetus is not a person (I honestly don’t know, but I haven’t heard him say it)? Even one thought that the fetus is not a person, however, one might still think that abortion is tragic, at the very least because it involves an emotionally painful decision on the part of the mother. Furthermore, one might think that genetic humanity or potential personhood conveys some moral status on the fetus, enough that killing the fetus is morally tragic, but not enough that killing the fetus is equivalent to killing a person and not enough to justify government restrictions on people’s freedom in the matter.

Also pro-choice people often say "we're not FOR abortion".

Most of them aren’t. Although, admittedly, some are (those who advocate aborting children with disabilities, for example).

But under the pretense that it is not a "person", I would think one would say "we love abortion" because it's not really a person.

I think that’s vastly over simplistic. Of course, some pro-choice advocates do think that way. But many, quite consistently I think, believe that there is something tragic about abortion. And remember, some pro-choice advocates maintain that the fetus does have the moral status of a person but that that alone does not give the fetus the right to the use of the mother’s body, and so the government can’t legitimately legally compel the mother to allow the fetus to use her body.

If it is a life then what kind of life is it? Dog, Cat, Plant?

Obviously, it is a human being in a biological sense. But those who argue for abortion on the grounds that the fetus is not a person distinguish between being human and being a person. And there they do have a point. Obviously those categories are not necessarily coextensive. There can be (and as Christians we believe there are) persons who are not human (God, angels, maybe extra-terrestrials if there are any),

I would myself would make a distinction (though one that is hardly original to me) between being a person and functioning as a person. I think anything that is such that it could possibly function as a person is a person (and I think that there some good philosophical arguments in favor of that view). Furthermore, I would argue that any human being, in a biological sense, is the sort of thing that could function as a person. So I would hold that being a human being in a biological sense is sufficient for being a person, though it is not necessary for being a person. (Of course, here I’ve just laid out my position. I haven’t given any arguments for it. But I do think that there are good arguments in favor of it).

Again back to the earth is flat comparison.

All the data shows the earth is round. All the data shows the "thing" in the womb is a human being in devolopment.

The data shows that there is something biologically human there. Whether everything that is human in a biological sense is a person in a moral/metaphysical sense, however, is not a question that can be settled on empirical grounds. It’s philosophical question, not a scientific one.

So I don't think the person argument is important any more than asking if retarded people are "persons" or "people".

Yep, part of the problem with some of the criteria of personhood that pro-choice people advocate is that those criteria exclude human beings from the moral community that they themselves would want to include. Such criteria typically get the extension of the moral community wrong be almost everyone’s lights (almost everyone – some, like Peter Singer, bite the bullet here), even if we bracket out the question of whether they get the status of the fetus wrong. And I think that any non-arbitrary criteria that gets the extension right (again, bracketing out the question of whether or not fetuses belong in that extension) are going to end up including fetuses as well.

[themuzicman]

Has anyone mentioned the two year waiting list for newborn adoptions?

[Littlejoe]

Guys,
I'm looking for some feedback on my heart. I actually like alot of Obamas Ideas however abortion is one that makes me ill.

I did read dizzle's post on the Stanek lady (spelling) and I don't know I can verify facts from the sources given.

However, even in a general sense I know abortion exists and it's not easy to just say "stop". What will become of the babies who's mothers do not want them? Who will care for them? Who will pay for them (food, living)? Tis a pickle.

Aug

As Muz has pointed out, there is a two year waiting list for babies. It is a rare thing indeed for babies to go unadopted. The ones who end up unadopted are usually older kids that are given up later. We have had two different couples in our church who have adopted asian children (China) because it was next to impossible to find a baby in America to adopt.

[faithymom]

auggy,
have you been to this site?
This guy's great and if you can get his Pro-Life 101 book, do it!