First, what you “see” and what is are two different things. Second, you’re making pure assumptions about what I do or don’t care about; stop judging me personally from a position of ignorance. Third, I suspect that you know little about the family dynamics, and are only making knee-jerk assumptions, also from ignorance. Fouth, yeah, hogwash. It is.
By this rationale any murder is none of our business. Again, hogwash.
What is cruel and unreasonable is that the LIFE of the baby is somehow secondary (or worse).
And their only pre-abortion counseling is to convince them that aboriton is their only reasonable (!) option. Former abortion workers have testified to this.
1 Yes you can! But it’s all cool. 2 The deliberate ending of innocent human life. 3 And yet, I assert that there is no moral difference between aborting at the beginning of pregnancy or the end. That’s a place where we firmly disagree, too. 4 This is a side issue, but how in the world is she going to know that she’s pregnant a week after insemination? 5 See item 2.
6 Since the '90s, I’ve heard this line that “rape is about power, not sex.” And like I’ve said since then, hogwash. It’s a false dichotomy. It isn’t about one or the other; it’s about both sex and power. I speak as one who has experienced sexual abuse. As to the mother’s choice, what about the child’s? 99.9% of the time, the mother survives pregnancy. 99.9% of the time, the child does not survive abortion. 7 Deliberately forcing an innocent child to die for a fault that was in no way their own is the most overt example of force I can think of; free society or not. 8 And who decides how much suffering is too much, and why, and how extreme the measures to deal with it? 9 I don’t think there’s any evidence that they don’t either, but it’s not central to my own argument. 10 Speaking for myself, I most certainly do have compassion for the woman’s experience, having suffered similarly myself. But yes, the life of the child is the critical issue in my view; he or she shouldn’t have to die for what, as I mentioned in my response to SendGOP, is “guilt” by association.
11 The “health” of abortion is debatable; many women have ended up in the emergency room (or cemetery) as a result of abortion, and many more are happy, healthy mothers as a result of not aborting. 12 I strongly dispute this. For one thing and speaking again from experience, the memories of my abuse were (and to a degree, still are, even though it ended almost four decades ago) loud and clear even though there was no possibility of a pregnancy, let alone a child. For another, women who regretted their abortions (including rape pregnancies) are legion (in spite of the bald-faced lies by Planned (un)Parenthood and their ilk), and I suspect they are the vast majority, whether they admit it to themselves or not. For another, many women who have had their rape children loved them none the less, and saw them (rightly, in my firm opinion) as a redemption of the hideous experience that resulted in their conception. And for yet other thing, there are many rape children walking around the world. Do you view their lives as having value now? If so, why not when they were in the womb when they were still a distinct human being- unique in the universe- going back all the way to conception? 13 “Potentially” the mother’s life, vs. definitely the child’s life? 14 It is hideous to ascribe the rapist’s power over the victim to the life of the child.
15 I would indeed. 16 Yes. 17 Deliberately targetting an innocent human for destruction. 18 NO.
19 No, He doesn’t murder. He knows what is death to destruction and death to eternal life; we don’t. That’s not mental gymnastics; that’s the humility of knowing that we don’t begin to know a pittance of what God knows (the complexity of the universe around us is plenty of evidence of that). I submit that you’re making some assumptions about Christianity (here and in item 23) from a position of ignorance. 20 And if you want to commit genocide in the 20th or 21st centuries, just convince people that God doesn’t exist, and that you are wiser than all the moralists who came before you, and that your “morality” is right. Only don’t bonehead it like Hitler and bite off more than you can chew; do like Stalin and Mao did, who got away with purging 40-80 million people. 21 Murder is murder whether the woman believes it or not. Like I said earlier, I can make some allowance for the fact that women were deceived by the likes of Planned (un)Parenthood; but while we might disagree on what the facts are as to whether or not abortion (at whatever point in the pregnancy you care to focus on) is murder, that fact doesn’t change from woman to woman; only her belief does. 22 Yes, He will, if they don’t repent and accept the salvation and lordship of Jesus. But that doesn’t mean we’re supposed to sit idly by while this atrocity goes on. 23 It doesn’t necessarily follow that the baby is innocent of sin, just because he/she had nothing to do with the rape that conceived him/her. There’s original sin, and there’s the fact that God knows hearts (some argue age of accountability, but I question it), including where they will/would incline in the future. But that’s another side issue. Bottom line here: God didn’t grant us the priviledge of using death as a shortcut either to heaven or away from pain (referring to the euthanasia “death with dignity” claptrap).
24 Society (not the government) should come around the mother and help her (and frequently does in Christian circles). The rapist is responsible, but the collossal irresponsibility of his actions that conceived the child make it sensible to write him off as the father. 25 I’m not sure, but I would certainly make a HUGE distinction between natural conception and such a contrived scenario. By the way, is that contrived scenario over in nine months? If the mother adopts out her child, it can be for her.
Since you’re talking about hypothetical thought experiments, here’s one for you, CSB. You said your concept of morality was based on suffering. So picture this:
A specialized surgeon has been working a lot of hours, and hasn’t been able to spend much quality time with his family. Both his family and marriage are in difficulty as a result, and he’s trying to strengthen both by planning a long and fun-filled vacation with them. The day they’re supposed to leave, a critical patient who requires the specialty surgery that only he can provide in a timely manner, and which will cause him to miss his vacation departure. Would it then not be murder for him to anesthize the patient, and then kill them, since there wouldn’t be any suffering? I submit that it’s comparable to the argument you made for aborting the very-early-pregnancy fetus. What say you?
FC, excellent response! I applaud your patience and willingness to answer idiotic questions and scenarios. I have no tolerance for stoopidity. Thus, I do not respond to moronic statements or hair-brained conjectures. Most of the time, they are meant to irritate and provoke. But, you answered all of the points with grace and intelligence. The argument regarding abortion, and especially in the case of rape or incest, is a very serious issue that must be met with charity and logic. Of course we realize that the woman is the innocent victim in these cases. But, the child which is conceived is also the an innocent victim. Both lives are important. Both lives should be preserved and nurtured. God bless you for standing up for life.
The better answer would be making more BC available over the counter, not subsidizing the practice.
“Free” still costs something and does not ensure access.
For instance, when certain States made air for tires “free” by mandate, the result was less gas stations providing the service. If the gas stations were subsidized for it they’d likely still do it, but it would only be the ones who managed to navigate themselves through the process for getting those subsidies.
Planned Parenthood created a niche by being the best political entrepreneur, figuring out how to access Government dollars for its operation.
It pushed out other providers of BC in the process.
Ergo, supporting BC proliferation this way, was toxic for making BC more widespread, but good if what you wanted was a government supported monopoly raking in public dollars.
Cooling support for PP, and forcing it to turn to more market-oriented methods of supporting itself, is a positive development in my eyes. It’ll allow more providers to enter into the field. It’ll spur on better practices in the industry; PP has a bad reputation because of its complacency, testified to by former employees and operators who have turned on them after witnessing gross negligence with their patients.
Although I agree with what you are saying regarding BC and PP, to me, it is a rather antiseptic viewpoint, although relevant. BC is available everywhere, including PP for pennies. The problem is that women are not using it in any form whether it be pills or intrauterine devices (IUDs). They rely on crossing their fingers. There are over 4,000 abortions performed each day across the US. So, the numbers speak for women not using BC.
Your tax dollars are best saved offering free BC. Even better are long-acting reversible contraceptives, or LARCs. When they were offered for free in Colorado the result was a 42 percent drop in abortions, a 40 percent drop in unintended pregnancies, and a savings range of $49 to $111 million in birth-related Medicaid costs during the period of time that LARCs were available for free to residents of Colorado.
This would seem to counter both of your complaints.
First, when poor women have babies and they show up at an emergency room, they get care and many don’t pay. That comes out of your pocket in the form of increased taxes.
Second, If women are just “crossing their fingers” as you say why would so many take part in a program that helps women get LARCs? I mean, seem that would be more difficult and require more of a commitment than just taking a pill.
And lastly, of course, if you want to prevent abortions, preventing pregnancy is the best way to achieve that.
I think my position on abortion is pretty clear, so I’ma leave that alone and just wonder why b.c. and unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is always discussed as a women’s issue? Last time i checked (maybe biology has changed that much since high school? I dunno, certain societal elements certainly seem to be pushing that viewpoint) it takes a contribution from both sexes for reproduction on the human species to occur. If only there were some type of…oh, I dunno…prophylactic device men could use to prevent insemination, maybe we could stop placing the entire burden of b.c. on women…
I mean, seriously, the entire premise seems to be that it’s too much to expect that men…“Jimmy up”, so to speak. Or failing that, to “cowboy up” to their responsibilities. What kind of men have been raised in this country over the last 35 (pick another number if you like it better) years?
I agree with you Qix. However, if a woman chooses to have intercourse with an “unshielded” male, then again, she is practicing “finger in the air” type of bc. Since a woman should have “control over her own body” then she should have control over what goes into her body as well. Since she is the one who will have to carry a baby for 9 months, she should be more vigilant than the man.
One point that is rarely discussed is the impact abortion has on men. First of all, men have absolutely NO say so in whether their unborn child is aborted. That includes married men and their wives. The only responsibility to the father is to pay for the abortion and shut up. Fathers have gone to court numerous times to prevent the mother from aborting his child with no consideration as one of the two parents of this child. Does that seem fair? There is so much blather going on about “it’s my body” (mother) that we forget that it ISN’T her body. It is the child’s body that is being destroyed. That baby is completely independent of it’s mother’s body except for the nourishment it gets from the umbilical cord. That is scientific and medical fact.
No, C.T., it isn’t forgotten. It is willfully ignored.
Now y’all know I’m not religious, nor even particularly “spiritual” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), but if Christianity is, in fact, the gospel…? Then based on my reading of the Bible, those so called Christians who tolerate and condone abortion will find come judgement day that they may as well have worshiped Bael or Molech as paid lip service to Jesus. (I’m referencing Matthew 7, in parricular verses 2, 11,12, 15-20, and 21-23. I know there are others that apply)
I don’t believe that the U.S. Constitution contains a right to abortion. It is a matter to be regulated by the States. I will say that a rape victim forced to carry to term is effectively in a state of “involuntary servitude”.
Not strictly true. Too often, it’s the boyfriend (or even husband) pressuring the girl to get the abortion, often threatening to leave her if she doesn’t. Yesterday on Focus on the Family, they talked of a case where the boyfriend threatened suicide if she didn’t. I don’t know if he made good on the threat, but she had the baby.
One note on the thread topic that I think has been overlooked. As I understand it, this Alabama law is not a challenge to Roe v Wade; it’s conditional on Roe v Wade being overturned. In other words, it goes into effect if Roe is overturned.
Yes, it is true that many times the boyfriend is the deciding factor if the mother is afraid he will leave her. Not sure what the statistics are on that, but I’m sure it is one of the more popular reasons women choose abortion. Not sure about the Alabama ruling on abortion. If that is true, that law is going to rot in the annals of Alabama legislation.
I’m not so sure. We’re seeing a lot of states suddenly doing abortion restriction laws in the last year or so. If we get another solid conservative on the U.S.S.C., then there might well be open challenges of Roe.
The Bible never really talks about abortion directly. Though it does touch on miscarriages in several cases. The closest we have to a clear take on abortion timing is the concept of ensoulment and extrapolation from there. But it also never clearly defines when ensoulment occurs.
The Jews have always believed that ensoulment occurs at the same time for an infant as it did for Adam - the first breath. This appears to have been the very early Catholic church’s take as well.
But Augustine famously promoted the belief that ensoulment occurs at quickening. This is detailed mostly over debates about Original Sin, and how unbaptized stillborns will be sent to Hell, because they have never been cleansed of original sin. He says that a mother who miscarries before quickening need not be sorrowful that her child has been condemned to Hell - because the body was still an empty vessel that did not yet possess a soul.
I’m less familiar with other leading Catholic scholars throughout history aside from Aquinas - but I know that Aquinas also believed that ensoulment began at quickening(he disagreed with Augustine about unbaptised infant damnation). And to my knowledge, ensoulment beginning at quickening was the mainstream Catholic and Protestant belief throughout the vast majority of church history.
The Catholic Church teaches that the soul is given at the moment of conception. The Catholic Church teaches that babies who die without Baptism do NOT go to Hell, but a place of supreme happiness. It used to be called “Limbo” but I’m not sure if that term is still used. St. Augustine did not have full knowledge of human reproduction and could not therefore be relied upon to make a determination of when a sin is committed in an abortion. Here is a list of all the Church Fathers who spoke on abortion from the first century AD to present time.
Right, I just mentioned this when I said that Aquinas disagreed on infant damnation - Aquinas was the person who popularized Limbo(about 1,000 years after Augstine’s time). But he confirmed Augustine’s belief about ensoulment occurring at quickening. This was St Jerome’s position as well. As a matter of fact, I’m unaware of many prominent church figure pre-dating the Protestant Reformation who suggested it was conception. The lone exception is Tertulian, who left Catholicism for Montanism and probably isn’t the best source of widely held Catholic theology of his era.
Getting back on topic of how well this lead abortion balloon is going to float:
Once a child is born, if it has deformities, should a mother and doctor be permitted to end the life or should that not be permitted?
Not Permitted: 70%
So we have about 30% support for infanticide provided the baby is defective. I’m pretty confident support for 2nd trimester abortions in such cases has to be easily 2x that.
That’s the leading reason I believe the AL bill is a poison pill to ensure the courts strike it down, and keep things as they are for another generation.