The Biblical Basis for
Being Pro-Choice

The Bible never mentions abortion, but it does offer support for choice.

pheonix1061

02/11/2011 04:35:47 AM

Ms.Signer is playing fast and loose with the facts when she quotes Exodus 21:22-23. Thre is a clear distinction when the author of Exodus, Moses, uses the term "mischief" in verse 22 and again in vs. 23. The distinction is that, just as our law is today regarding someone killing someone outside of the womb, if it is an accident, we do not put them to death but often times recognize it as an accident and the guilty party goes free. However, if there is mischef, wanton, intentional, destruction or abuse, involved as indicated in verse 23 then the penalty is death. These verses do nothing to deminish life, but merely state justice just as we follow today. Well, with the exception of those who are most helpless in the womb. In truth, the law laid out in Exodus does more to protect the unborn than does present law. The author of this article failed to point this out. But then again I imagine that was her intent. Here would be a good place to also quote Exodus 23:7 where we are comanded not to kill the innocent and there are none more innocent yet accused to death than the unborn. Beware people who twist Gods word, as Satan did in the garden, by only giving parts of it.

weaselkin

05/26/2007 11:27:20 PM

I feel the author is misleading when he uses Exodus 21:22-23 as an example for reduced human status of a fetus as per God's Law. The author neglects to reference 21:23 which indicatess that if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, etc... This is a very important verse as per precedence and it comes about with regards to injury inflicted upon a fetus.

sheri1555stl

02/10/2007 01:50:13 AM

to PREVENT it from developing at any stage... (my computer's acting up again.)

sheri1555stl

02/10/2007 01:48:44 AM

If the sanctity of life were so revered as to only want to bring "wanted" life into the world to "love and care for," for the pro-choicer, then such sanctity would involve the carefulness to it from developing at any stage (not claiming to know when it begins; it is obvious that it is sometime before birth), i.e. contraception. The majority of all abortions are abortion "on demand," from lack of contraception, not failed contraception. With modern medical technology saving earlier and earlier gestation neonates, to postulate the beginning of life at any other time than conception is presumptuous and arbitrary (we KNOW that it was only a cell when only a sperm or an egg; it's the combination of the two where the "magic" begins).

sheri1555stl

02/10/2007 01:27:20 AM

To what historical books or scriptures do you refer, cncman, to state that "abortion was prevalent in Jesus' time?"

johndre

06/06/2005 04:45:54 PM

I honestly am a bit concerned about being a father on the whole, because I am not officially employed, - but rather make money by selling food and doing things here and there - in a place where the economy appears stagnant. And I will be a father of twins at that. I was still up in the air with the idea of abortion, though leaning hard against it, but after watching the 'Silent Scream' film, and seeing the 12-week fetus 'screaming', and trying to 'run' from the device, I realized that this baby is not just a living thing, but it actually has fear, which is an emotion, which requires a soul. My children are almost 14-weeks in the making, so I know they are even more advanced than the fetus in the film.

johndre

06/06/2005 03:03:58 PM

for those who say a fetus is not conscious of its surroundings check out http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/viewliveabortions.htm especially "silent scream"

cncman

03/07/2005 12:34:03 PM

Abortion was prevalant in Jesus' time. He had nothng to say about it. Neither do I. The government has no right to invade a woman's body. Or to force a woman to have a baby. Get off the woman's back. There is someone eating out of your garbage can.

chrystal529

01/26/2005 03:59:10 PM

It's sad to see that we have to deal with things like abortion. Especially since there are so many diffrent kinds of birth control available. Many lives would be spared if people who did not want children would try birth control if one don't work try using them all. It might just keep you from having to kill your baby just because YOU made a mistake. OOOPS!

chrystal529

01/26/2005 03:50:15 PM

Rhi79 It's nice to see that some people still have faith!

chrystal529

01/26/2005 03:35:24 PM

GOD is the creator and giver of life. Only he has the sovereign right to take life away.

chrystal529

01/26/2005 03:30:34 PM

I don't know who wrote about THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR BEING PRO CHOICE but they better know what they are talking about before they start writing they need to try reading EXODUS 21 22-23 again do you see the part about give life for life.

joab

01/23/2005 02:24:44 AM

We are created as free moral agents,with the right to choose between good and evil. Pro-choice is not evil as some people portrays it to be, I think it's evil when that baby is born,and are denied humane and civil rights. Its evil when a person HAVE TO DEAL WITH A LIFE STYLE OF UNFAIRINESS.

ksvaughan2

10/29/2004 09:05:45 AM

Did anyone else notice the article in Sojourners on how abortion has increased under the Bush administration? The abortion rate was 17 under Clinton, but has increased to 22 under GWB (not including RU486 abortions). It seems when jobs are outsourced, employment is down, the minimum wage doesn't cover the minimum and access to healthcare has declined, women decide not to keep babies they can't afford. So Bush talks pro-life but his policies are pro-abortion.

drakvl

09/17/2004 10:08:52 PM

By the way, I personally dislike the idea of abortion -- at least, surgical abortion -- but that's mainly because I have issues with surgery in general. It seems to me that cervical scarring is evidence that something's a bit off about the process.

drakvl

09/17/2004 09:50:18 PM

"Christians and Jews agree that all life is sacred." This is one of my pet peeves: misuse of words. Remember, plants are living organisms as well. Now, bubbles, you wrote: "Take into consideration...if it wasn't a baby yet...it would not develop into one if left alone." Remember that not all do -- there's such a thing as a miscarriage. At best, a fertilized egg is a potential human life. I've heard mention of cases in which, instead of taking a form recognizable as human, the egg developed into something akin to a cancerous mass.

Rhi79

09/02/2004 11:53:11 AM

I would also like to add that I got pregnant at 15. He was 22 and a drug dealer. I had another boyfriend at the time. God used that baby to save me. I married my boyfriend even though he knew the baby wasn't his. We've been married for 8 years we have a son together, and we work with youth. I know God uses me and my situation to help young to minister to youth.

Rhi79

09/02/2004 11:47:25 AM

I am reading all of these posts, and something just really bothers me, here. The reason why I believe that abortion is wrong, is because God is sovereign. That means that he has the right, the wisdom and the power to do whatever he pleases. And, yes, God can be starting HIS plan in HIS infinate wisdom with a rape or unwanted pregnancy, even in cases of infidelity. For instance, it is confusing to us that God allowed Joseph to be sold by his brothers to slaves. But, it was to complete his plan to make Israel a great nation. What they (man) meant for evil, God used for good. Good things do come out of terrible situations. We, as Christians ought to realize that our only hope comes from having faith in God- even in hard situations.

maeveskylark

08/30/2004 07:15:56 AM

Bubbles345- Be thankful for the time given me? What if I have other children to raise? What if I have a husband who depends on me to be both his wife and partner? What about the child MY parents would lose? God does work in mysterious ways- She mysteriously gave you a brain!!!

cecil30

08/29/2004 07:02:36 PM

What Ms. Signer failed to mention. Exodus 21:23 "But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life" Remeber, abortion kills children. #1 It is painful. Methods used to kill the fetus involve burning,dismembering, crushing or smothering. #2 Abortion IS killing! The zygote (which is the qualifying factor that establishes the existence of biological life) is terminated. #3 Abortion kills the innocent. Though not fully developed, the baby has a unique genetic code given to it by God, and deserves protection, not the death penalty. Psalm 139:13-16 "For you created my inmost being;you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body."

kaliope1

08/25/2004 09:31:02 PM

bubbles345, I am sorry, but I find your last paragraph infuriating. You clearly believe that a woman's only function is to be a baby factory, and that she is expendable. The fact is that the Bible does NOT address when life begins...the religious right has simply made assumptions about that. I do not think that I would have an abortion (I have never been faced with the choice), but if some 12 year old girl out there is pregnant, she very likely to try to end the pregnancy, either on her own, or with help. If she has no safe alternatives, she may very well die. It sounds as if you would prefer two dead babies in this instance, instead of one. I'm sorry...I vote for the life that is fully formed and is human beyond all doubt...that of the woman.

bubbles345

07/26/2004 03:58:13 AM

I am pro-life all the way. In every situation, in every way. Here's somethings that I thin people often do not consider, when we're talking about abortion. 1-Whether or not a baby is considered a human yet or not is ridiculous...if you are pregnant, there is a baby inside of you. No matter how small! Take into consideration...if it wasn't a baby yet...it would not develop into one if left alone. 2-Not everyone who has sex has a baby...that means there must be some reason for it. (for the pro-choice Christians out there...God would not give u a baby if he didn't want you to have it) 3-The woman might be "the person affected most" by a baby but the woman also made the decision to have sex...and if you are having sex...you should know the consequences! My last point is just my opinion, if the mother's life is threatened by having a baby, I think you should give your baby a chance at life...and just be thankful that God gave you the time he did in this world.

jnveryser

11/27/2003 09:52:37 PM

This author clearly has no familiarity with scripture nor with its connection to tradition. The very same people who wrote scripture and followed it explicitly forbid abortion. The author's views are completely unfounded and anyone who buys them on the basis of their internal "validity" (i.e., that scripture supports a pro-choice position) is ignorant of scripture and of history. And further, to espouse such a perverse view (that scripture actually supports a pro-choice view...which completely contradicts the foundations of the pro-life movement) is a grave offense to truth. I could get into all the nuances, but only if someone was willing to listen to them - and this author clearly isn't.

human1

11/19/2003 05:26:46 PM

(cont)What about the death penalty? Do you support the death penalty for murder? If so, then shouldn't all women who have had abortions be put to death? How do you reconcile this, and how do you view the above questions? Thanks for your input, or anyone else for that matter who might comment. Trying to gain in understanding.

human1

11/19/2003 05:26:24 PM

(cont)Additionally, can we as Christians say that we truly know when life begins? When a soul and spirit enters an embryo? I do believe that a human becomes complete at some point in the uterus. I cannot stand and say that I know factually that it occurs at the time of conception, or at the time of the developement of a zygote. Can you? If we can say that a soul and spirit enter an embryo at the very moment of conception. Then that raises some amazing notions. It is said that the average sexually active woman experiences between 6 and 7 unknown miscarriages that pass with menstruation during the first cycle. So on average, should women who are going to heaven expect to see 6 or 7 minimum children there? That along with the millions of first semester abortions which occur annually makes heaven a place mightily filled with unborn babies.

human1

11/19/2003 05:25:35 PM

gapeachmommy, You wrote that you are convinced that since God started something within a woman's body, he intends for it to stay. I would be curious to hear you out on the following issues. Do you believe that when a rape occurs and a pregnancy results, that was God's way of starting of something? Do you believe that when adultery occurs, a pregnancy outside an established family results....then the family suffers divorce over it, that it was God starting something? We are to believe that children are a gift from the Lord, and I do. However, can we say we know at what point an embryo has indeed become a child? Does God give the blessing of a child to rape and adultery? What about David and Bathsheba's first born, whom God took in consequence to their sin? Didn't God take away the "gift" of their adultery? I am a Christian, and I struggle with the traditional Christian take on all of this. I would love to hear a Christian's response on this stuff.

seasiderascal

10/16/2003 07:37:06 PM

I'm a pro-life democrat who's "got religion", whatever that means.. sometimes I look at the religion some of the Republicans have, and I wonder.. it's not the same Christ I know. When I look at the issue of free-will, I might draw the conclusion that God is pro-choice in that He seldom actually intervenes to prevent our sin.. but that doesn't mean that He wants US to be, or at least, there's a choice He clearly prefers. I believe it's murder, and it should be illegal. I can understand churches choosing to remain out of the political fray, and the ones who've gotten into it may have hurt their own cause more than helped it by having it labeled a "religious issue", which in my view it is not on that level. But churches that don't provide clearer guidance to their believing members.. I wonder.

gapeachmommy

10/16/2003 08:58:28 AM

I am Pro-life all the way. Since when does anyone have the right to murder anytone? I am convinced that since God started something within a woman's body, he intends for it to stay. It is for HIM to decide whether or not that life needs to exist or cease to exist. In the Bible, the word love is used so many times...and when you take something away from a fetus that will grow into a human being (btw, I DO believe that a baby is a baby is a baby...no matter if in utero or not), that is NOT love. That IS murder. No different than if you walk up to a innocent little child on a playground and kill them. That life was started by God, and will hopefully, end by God and not the act of another human being. I can barely understand how a non-Christian can justify abortion, but to see that some "Christians" are supporting it, just is mind boggling! I just hope that you and the Lord are on the same level of this issue.

Rickw3dve

10/16/2003 06:48:09 AM

ANOTHER WAY OF DECEIVING WITH A DIFFERENT TWIST--A NEWER SPIN IF YOU WILL

Prima5

10/16/2003 06:22:02 AM

Well, this is, and always has been, a heated topic and something most politicians will avoid. I don't believe in abortion but I believe it's a woman's right to choose. God has given us the right to choose since Adam & Eve; right or wrong, whatever we decide. So, if a woman chooses abortion, then it's her choice and she will have to pay the consequences for her actions but it's not up to us to decide what people should choose because when we start doing that, we open the doors for the government to tell us what to do in every aspect of our lives.

impossibleape

10/15/2003 11:06:58 PM

Well I must say that Marjorie has produced some tremendous non sequiters. To base her justification for murder on the need to honour the freedom and dignity of women is amazing. Should all those who take human life be so justified? Because human beings have free will should all actions chosen freely be deemed proper and good? What a load of claptrap!

amandakrutzig

10/15/2003 11:32:08 AM

Pro-Choice is Pro-Selfishness. People spend millions of dollars everyday just trying to concieve a child and there are people out there who would rather have an abortion than to have protected sex. Now I am not saying that there aren't instances that abortion many be considered such as if the fetus may cause the death of the mother or the child has fatal birth defects in which it could never live a fulfilling likfe such as half a brain or something but for someone to play God to avoid some inconvience in their life is simply outrageous. AK

benben

10/15/2003 10:21:51 AM

I am pro-choice. A woman has the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. The killing of a baby (or fetus as some would say) should never even be an issue.

bschaaf

10/15/2003 10:09:09 AM

"It says nothing of conception, pregnancy, and birth" Okay, well what about the verse that says God knew us before we were even conceived. To God we're all his children. He's known us since time began, since before our parents even thought about having us, God knew us. You can try to argue the right to abortion when someone's life is in danger, or even when someone gets pregnant as a result of rape (thought I still believe that adoption is the better choice in this situation), but don't try to argue that we aren't truly a person until we've come out of our mother's womb. I don't buy it.

rbt_austin

06/18/2003 05:10:27 PM

Its nice to meet you too.

rbt_austin

06/18/2003 03:38:59 PM

I think the Democrats definitely need to get religion, but I'm not sure what they meant by that. I'll try to find the article...

KathyHL

06/18/2003 02:47:09 PM

That's great. There's a lot of stuff on B'net that might interest you, in that case. In the Politics section of News, there's an article asking whether the Democrats ought to "get religion" in time for the next big elections. IMHO, I'd like to see some politicians pay attention to stuff like jobs, the economy, the crumbling infrastructure, etc. And I can't think of any religion that would dismiss these concerns as unimportant. Anyway, it's nice to have met you, rbt.

rbt_austin

06/18/2003 02:24:27 PM

Hey, I'm progressive too !!! :)

KathyHL

06/18/2003 10:38:40 AM

Wow. I don't believe this, rbt_austin. You and I started out arguing in a mean-spirited way. Now, we're actually having a reasonable conversation. A Christian man who's (I would guess) pro-life, and a progressive, agnostic feminist woman who's pro-choice. All you hard-liners out there on both sides, do you see this? It is possible.

rbt_austin

06/17/2003 05:28:54 PM

Continued My heart breaks when I hear stories like the 16 year old girl who was stabbed to death at one of our high schools the day after she broke up with her boyfriend. Kids need to be protected from growing up too fast, because our culture sacrifices our youth to the gods of sex, drugs, violence, and slavery...and sells rebellion on a t-shirt. I don't want my son to grow up too fast. I don't want anyone to suffer the loss of their family or their identity. If you know a kid, please help them to have safe, fun, positive activities to keep them out of trouble. Its pathetic that its "cool" to be antisocial, mean, and hostile, rather than being loving, adventurous, and positive.

rbt_austin

06/17/2003 05:26:42 PM

Hi again, yes I think the most important factors are recognizing that people of good conscience can disagree on the morality of terminating pregnancy (or preventing pregnancy, to cover the Pope?) after conception or within the first trimester or just any time before natural birth, and that ALL people can work together to help women be safe from rape, peer-pressure, or incest and that if they want or need it, that they have access to birth control. And that ALL young men and women get complete information about relationships, peer-pressure, and the consequences of sexual activity.

KathyHL

06/16/2003 01:33:51 PM

Sadly, too many pro-life people don't want to "save babies' lives" enough to have one implanted in themselves - no, their "easier" method is to force unwilling women to stay pregnant. I wish more pro-life people were like you - at least willing to try looking at it from the woman's point of view.

KathyHL

06/16/2003 01:17:52 PM

rbt_austin said, "Now we just need a billion dollars to go develop something that there are already 3 billion natural occurences of... " Well, we could get the money together...let's see, what do we currently spend money on that's unnecessary and wasteful? [warning: silly stuff follows!] - Football stadiums - Limos and personal stationery for Senators and members of Congress - For that matter, office space for Senators and M.C.s. Nobody can afford to run in the first place unless they're filthy rich, so why not make them pay for their own office space? - Aquarium in doctors' offices - Plastic plants in all offices Well, you get the idea...we spend an awful lot of money on questionable items, that could go to scientific research.

KathyHL

06/16/2003 01:17:44 PM

rbt_austin said, "Now we just need a billion dollars to go develop something that there are already 3 billion natural occurences of... " Well, we could get the money together...let's see, what do we currently spend money on that's unnecessary and wasteful? [warning: silly stuff follows!] - Football stadiums - Limos and personal stationery for Senators and members of Congress - For that matter, office space for Senators and M.C.s. Nobody can afford to run in the first place unless they're filthy rich, so why not make them pay for their own office space? - Aquarium in doctors' offices - Plastic plants in all offices Well, you get the idea...we spend an awful lot of money on questionable items, that could go to scientific research.

rbt_austin

06/13/2003 03:24:35 PM

I think most guys would be relieved to have a moral "out". Just put the decision on her and don't be accountable for their behavior. And most guys that get it about the sanctity of life wouldn't be having sex with someone that didn't share their values anyways. But for whatever percentage of guys fall between those two extremes, your artificial uterus idea could be a big hit. Now we just need a billion dollars to go develop something that there are already 3 billion natural occurences of... :0

KathyHL

06/13/2003 03:03:27 PM

But with the artificial uterus, like I said, the man could rest assured that the pregnancy would result in a completed baby. If the man wants the child so badly, wouldn't he be willing to do whatever it takes? I would think that men who've felt that they were excluded from the decision would be in favor of this idea.

rbt_austin

06/13/2003 02:59:28 PM

Although, to be fair, at the time I was 20 and very clueless. So even had we talked about it I don't think I would have gone for the artificial uterus idea. It wasn't until months after it was over that I realized how miserable I was about it.

rbt_austin

06/13/2003 02:49:15 PM

Even better would be for couples to actually TALK about what they would do BEFORE a crisis happened so that people could pair off with like-minded partners. I guess that's as crazy an idea as an artificial uterus though.

KathyHL

06/13/2003 12:31:20 PM

That's why, seriously, I'm not kidding when I say that we need to find some way to transplant a fetus into a man's body, and let it ripen there. If that were possible, any man who did not want his wife/girlfriend to have an abortion could rest assured that the pregnancy would go all the way through. If we can map the human genome and clone cats and sheep, we can find some way to put an artificial uterus in a man, siphon off his resources to nourish a fetus, and deliver the completed baby by c-section.

rbt_austin

06/13/2003 12:05:40 PM

"The decision and going through with it are bad enough, without self-righteous windbags blocking clinic entrances and screaming. " You don't have to agree with them, but try to understand that these people are passionately speaking out for the unborn, who they see as voiceless victims of a violent injustice. While I abhor the violence at clinics against practitioners, staff, and security personnel (e.g., Eric Rudolph et al) I absolutely believe in peoples right to implore women not to choose abortion at the clinic site. And as far as nobody enjoying having an abortion, there are people who use abortion as birth control and that's what is truly contemptible. There's also people who make smug comments about abortion and have never been through it. Well, that hurts those of us who have been through it but who had ZERO input as to the "choice".

KathyHL

06/13/2003 11:11:21 AM

rbt_austin said, "The psychological damage of abortion is immense." I think the right-wingers do women a huge injustice by even implying that anyone just blithely has an abortion, like getting a pedicure. Nobody enjoys having an abortion. I know I sound pretty militant at times, but I've had friends who had abortions (luckily, I've never even been pregnant) - and they all took it as a very serious decision, not at all something to be done lightly. The decision and going through with it are bad enough, without self-righteous windbags blocking clinic entrances and screaming. That doesn't help anybody. In fact, it only increases contempt for right-wingers.

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 03:02:28 PM

True - I was rushed and that reply was needlessly over-generalized, and it failed to make my point. As someone who *has* been involved in unplanned pregnancies, and hasn't had a "choice" in the decision processes, I clearly have some work to do on this issue. E.g., I need to go easier on all parties involved, pray, let go, and try to find and be at peace. I don't want anyone to have to go through what we went through though. If that means I have to lay my ego on the carpet, or ruffle some feathers, so be it. The psychological damage of abortion is immense, and it takes years to get through the denial and actually deal with the reality of what happened.

KathyHL

06/12/2003 01:51:56 PM

rbt_austin said, "Sorry if I was rude (in my haste) but IMO if you'd been through an unplanned pregnancy, your attitude might be different overall, but that's ok." Apology accepted. It was the remark about "You don't hold anyone accountable for their actions." It's true that I haven't been stuck with an unwanted pregnancy, but all women live in fear of this very thing happening. Ever since puberty, it's been hanging over my head. This is why I want to see top-notch birth control methods, easily available to everybody - and good, clear instruction on how to use them. Then there would be a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies, and abortion could be much less common. I'm hoping that I'll hit menopause before abortion becomes completely illegal, and before contraception gets any harder to obtain in the U.S.

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 01:06:53 PM

I'll follow up later, as I can definitely relate to the pain of divorce but I don't have time right now. Sorry if I was rude (in my haste) but IMO if you'd been through an unplanned pregnancy, your attitude might be different overall, but that's ok.

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 01:01:40 PM

which comment?

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 12:58:17 PM

In this situation, I'd hold the manufacturer of the birth control product accountable. They didn't make the couple have sex. And they would be idiotic to guarantee %100 effectiveness.

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:57:22 PM

And BTW, that comment was unnecessarily rude.

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 12:57:11 PM

"Just be sure that you really mean "God's will" and not "rbt_austin's will"." If *I'm* trying to live according to God's will, and *she's* trying to live according to God's will, and we're talking about our beliefs, values, goals, fears, and everything, then we'll both win. In theory.

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:57:03 PM

rbt_austin said, "Right, you don't hold anyone accountable for their actions." In this situation, I'd hold the manufacturer of the birth control product accountable.

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 12:55:11 PM

" disagree. That person got stuck with the consequences of someone else's incompetence - " Right, you don't hold anyone accountable for their actions.

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 12:54:27 PM

" Let me understand this: are you saying that if you have sex, that makes you "married" to the person? I thought that it took a marriage license and some words from a clergyperson or J.P. to make a couple "married." " Yes, your understanding is the world's way, which works well for some people, but not so well for the >%50 of marriages that end in divorce. My basis for stating that it is the Lord's perception that sex=marriage is the story of the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:43:37 PM

rbt_austin said, "A person who used birth control, and the birth control failed, was choosing not to procreate. No, that person took a risk, and will live with the consequence of that risk." I disagree. That person got stuck with the consequences of someone else's incompetence - human error on the part of the birth-control manufacturers. Since the person's intent was to avoid procreation, they should not be forced to put up with the resulting pregnancy. And I can see that we could go around and around on this subject and get absolutely nowhere - since neither one of us will budge an inch. Let's call it a draw.

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:38:48 PM

rbt_austin said, "Also, if a woman doesn't put God's will before her own, then you better believe I'll 'back off'." Just be sure that you really mean "God's will" and not "rbt_austin's will".

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:37:18 PM

rbt_austin said, "Believe me, after what I have been through, there will definitely be ALOT of discussions about life, values, and goals before I get involved with anyone. And I certainly won't marry a woman who would consider it a possibility that she would abort my child (unless it was medically necessary). You've apparently never been through it before, correct?" Part I I've been divorced for two years, after a six-year marriage that really shouldn't have happened in the first place. We didn't do the discussions about values and goals before getting married - and (surprise!) I agree with you 100% about that! My ex and I really had no goals together, and I think that you absolutely need a mutual goal to shoot for, in order to make a marriage good. (continued)

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:37:05 PM

(continued) Part II And the child issue did come up. When I was in my teens and 20s, I wanted kids, but I didn't marry till 30 and didn't quite have the guts to just go ahead and have a baby anyway. As my life went on, I realized that I was actually quite contented and happy without children. I realized that not having children was an option. And I realized that I might be happier without children than with them. My ex bought into our culture's idea that everybody has to have children - without even stopping to think whether he'd be happy as a parent, whether he and I would be good parents, how it would affect our relationship and future, etc. That wasn't the only reason we split up - in fact, it was one of the minor reasons - but it's something all couples need to discuss before taking the plunge. I definitely learned some lessons the hard way from my marriage and divorce.

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:30:21 PM

rbt_austin said, "I don't believe in 'pre-marital' sex because if you have sex, you're married." Let me understand this: are you saying that if you have sex, that makes you "married" to the person? I thought that it took a marriage license and some words from a clergyperson or J.P. to make a couple "married."

KathyHL

06/12/2003 12:28:05 PM

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Which is fine - you have the right to live your own life any way you see fit. Luckily, we do not (yet) live in a dictatorship, and it's still legal to be what I am - an agnostic, feminist, childfree-by-choice woman who can't be ordered around by men (even if I should remarry.)

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 02:51:35 PM

"KathyHL 6/11/03 1:35:04 PM I choose not to have any children, but I also choose not to be celibate. Birth control is the answer. " That's one answer. My answer is Jesus Christ.

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 02:44:13 PM

"But once you have given the woman your speech, and she has said, "No, I disagree, and I'm not going to do it your way," then, in my opinion, you should (there's that word again!) back off and not pester her any more. " Believe me, after what I have been through, there will definitely be ALOT of discussions about life, values, and goals before I get involved with anyone. And I certainly won't marry a woman who would consider it a possibility that she would abort my child (unless it was medically necessary). You've apparently never been through it before, correct? Also, if a woman doesn't put God's will before her own, then you better believe I'll "back off".

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 02:34:31 PM

Hi again, we have differing opinions on the nature of sex. If you think of it as recreation, fine, that's your perogative. I believe that sex is the physical manifestation of the spiritual union of man and wife, and the fruit of that union may be good health, children and pleasure. It is designed by God to propogate the species, except for asexual species. I don't believe in "pre-marital" sex because if you have sex, you're married. I do believe in planned parenthood however and that married people who are not ready for a child should use contraceptives. But when the contraceptives fail the man and the woman should do right by their choice to have sex, and either raise the child or give it for adoption. However, to further complicate things, I believe that if a woman chooses to abort that she should have safe, legal, and reasonably convenient access to the medical services necessary - in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity I stand by her right to that choice.

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 02:25:33 PM

> A person who used birth control, > and the birth control failed, was > choosing not to procreate. No, that person took a risk, and will live with the consequence of that risk.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 01:35:04 PM

I choose not to have any children, but I also choose not to be celibate. Birth control is the answer.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 01:34:14 PM

Here's an example of what I mean, from your own post: "If a man does not want to sire a child, he needs to not allow his seed to find purchase, if you will." Use a condom, and the seed won't find purchase.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 01:32:33 PM

rbt_austin said, "Should a woman who isn't prepared to conceive and raise a child be having sex? Nope, but that is her decision (if she's not a minor) Should a man who's not willing to be a father be having sex? No, but sadly it happens all the time." Why don't you consider having sex with birth control to be a viable option? I could be reading you all wrong, but it sounds like the only two alternatives you're willing to consider are celibacy or parenthood. You may be surprised to learn that I, too, would like to see abortion become as rare as possible. But the way I would like to see that happen is by making effective birth control much easier to obtain, for the whole human race.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 01:32:15 PM

rbt_austin said, "Then there should be some term for forcing someone to be a parent against his or her will. "Coercion" perhaps? "Baby-whipped"? I was thinking of adoption or the father having sole custody as alternatives to abortion. " "Adoption" or "father having sole custody" are terms from the point of view of the father, though. I'm talking about a term that the mother could use for what had happened to her. Somehow, I don't think she's going to be feeling all happy and cheery, as "adoption" implies. "Coercion" sounds more truthful.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 01:31:59 PM

rbt_austin said, "But do I have the right to my belief, and the right to implore women to choose life over death? Absolutely." But once you have given the woman your speech, and she has said, "No, I disagree, and I'm not going to do it your way," then, in my opinion, you should (there's that word again!) back off and not pester her any more.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 01:31:43 PM

rbt_austin said, "Sadly, too many people shirk their responsibility for their choice to procreate - " A person who used birth control, and the birth control failed, was choosing not to procreate.

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 12:46:01 PM

"I would like it if the man did not have to pay child support for a child he did not want and was lied to about." As a man, and a father, and one who is in the middle of a divorce, my understanding is that we have child-support so that children do not become wards of the state and fill up state institutions or end up on the street. If a man does not want to sire a child, he needs to not allow his seed to find purchase, if you will. Whether or not he was "lied" to is immaterial, if he fathered that child he should (there's that word again) provide for the child, just as the mother should provide for the child as well. Sadly, too many people shirk their responsibility for their choice to procreate - and as I've stated earlier our culture (global culture) is all too willing to sacrifice our children to false gods, be they money, sex, power, war, or entertainment.

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 12:40:44 PM

"Then there should be some term for forcing someone to be a parent against his or her will. "Coercion" perhaps? "Baby-whipped"? " I was thinking of adoption or the father having sole custody as alternatives to abortion.

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 12:38:37 PM

"How strong is that "should"? " The should in my statements refers to my interpretation of Scripture, ethics, and morality that abortion is murder and should be rare. Should implies that I would passionately implore any woman who becomes pregnant to carry the child to term and to either raise it herself or to give it for adoption. As far as "forcing" or "making" her choose life, I don't believe that is right or sustainable. I don't want to return to the days of back-alley abortions where not only the child dies but also the mother herself was at risk. But do I have the right to my belief, and the right to implore women to choose life over death? Absolutely. Should a woman who isn't prepared to conceive and raise a child be having sex? Nope, but that is her decision (if she's not a minor) Should a man who's not willing to be a father be having sex? No, but sadly it happens all the time. We all have our choices to make, and we all will live with the consequences.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 12:30:59 PM

rbt_austin said, "Being held accountable for choosing to have sex is not rape. Being forced to have sex due to violence or the threat of violence is rape." Then there should be some term for forcing someone to be a parent against his or her will. "Coercion" perhaps? "Baby-whipped"?

KathyHL

06/11/2003 12:28:10 PM

BTW, I also think it's wrong for a woman to force a man into parenthood, by lying about birth control, or pretending it was an "accident" that she got pregnant. In those cases, I would like it if the man did not have to pay child support for a child he did not want and was lied to about. But I see there would be problems in proving that the woman tricked the man.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 12:26:39 PM

You can't force people to obey. Women were using birth control and getting abortions long before it was "legal". If the current right-wing control freaks succeed in their plan to make abortion illegal again, guess what? Abortion will still happen. People will have the courage to disobey bad laws. You can't force a woman to be a good little God-fearing Christian, obedient to her man, and a loving moooooommmmmy, just by forcing her to go through with an unwanted pregnancy and birth. In fact, I can easily imagine that I'd never, ever love a baby that I had under those conditions. I'd probably resent it, wish it had never been born, and be eager for it to grow up and leave home. You can't force people to feel what you want them to feel, or to think the way you want them to think.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 12:26:25 PM

rbt_austin said, "I never said the hypothetical woman was 'forced to get pregnant'; she chose to have sex and conceived a child and 'should' carry it to term and give it away, and the father should get custody if he wants." How strong is that "should"? Do you mean, "I would like it if the unwilling woman went through the pregnancy and birth anyway, just because the man wants it"? In that case, I'll stop arguing, since that's just your opinion, and I don't have to obey you. But if you mean, "It should be the law that the woman has to go through the pregnancy and birth, willing or not, if the man wants her to," then I will continue to argue.

rbt_austin

06/10/2003 07:04:56 PM

KathyHL, like I said if you're up front with your partner about how you would handle an unplanned pregnancy, and he agrees, then there won't be a problem. That is, unless you or he realize too late that you've murdered your child. And as far as a mother or a father supporting their child, it doesn't matter whether you think its a scam or not, it happens all the time. Of course, "terminating the pregnancy" (read, killing the as-of-yet unborn child) happens all the time too. I never said the hypothetical woman was "forced to get pregnant"; she chose to have sex and conceived a child and "should" carry it to term and give it away, and the father should get custody if he wants. Also, be careful what you claim is rape. Being held accountable for choosing to have sex is not rape. Being forced to have sex due to violence or the threat of violence is rape. And I already stated that in that horrible event, a safe and legal abortion should be available to the victim.

KathyHL

06/10/2003 04:59:05 PM

If a man did succeed in pulling this scam on me, then I'd make sure to be unemloyed, or make very low wages. 20% of nothing is nothing.

KathyHL

06/10/2003 04:58:00 PM

And I don't see why a woman in this hypothetical case should have to pay child support, either. If she was forced to be pregnant and give birth, and was willing to terminate the pregnancy so nobody would have to pay child support, that's robbery on top of the rape. Again, if the man wants the birth so badly, let him pay for it.

KathyHL

06/10/2003 04:56:20 PM

rbt_austin said, "In the hypothetical case where the woman doesn't want to "choose" to give birth to the child, but the man does, she *should* bear the child and give custody to the father...AND pay %20 of her income to support her child." No. In that case, the man should figure out some way to get the fetus out of the woman's body and into some other container, if he wants it to be born so badly. Otherwise, he's just using her as an incubator. Or maybe the man should have a bowling ball implanted in his abdomen, then squeeze it out through his private parts nine months later. If men want babies so badly, let them figure out a way to be pregnant and give birth. Or let them adopt. But they should have absolutely no right to force an unwilling woman to be pregnant and give birth. In my mind, that's a form of rape.

rbt_austin

06/10/2003 03:10:30 PM

KathyHL, as long as you are up front with your partner and inform him that you will terminate any pregnancy you choose to terminate, then if he has a problem with that you can go your separate ways. In the hypothetical case where the woman doesn't want to "choose" to give birth to the child, but the man does, she *should* bear the child and give custody to the father...AND pay %20 of her income to support her child. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

KathyHL

06/10/2003 09:49:35 AM

rbt_austin said, "However, if you've chosen to have sex, even "safe sex" with contraceptives, and you conceive a child I implore you to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption...." I disagree. To me, the use of contraception is an honest effort to avoid pregnancy. Women should not be punished with a pregnancy because the Trojan or Ortho factory made a mistake. If a couple has unprotected sex and the woman gets pregnant, I agree that they have no right to complain. (I would still support abortion in this case, however, if that's what the woman wanted. Anyway, do you want someone too irresponsible to use birth control properly raising children?)

KathyHL

06/10/2003 09:49:21 AM

rbt_austin said, "Also, if you 'choose' abortion, don't be surprised if your husband or boyfriend 'chooses' to dump you for your tacit rejection of him - and murder of his child." If a man cared about me so little that he would want to force me to bear a child when I had a strong feeling against it, then I'd be better off without him, anyway. If he cares about a fetus more than he cares about me, he's a lousy partner. If a man threatened to dump me if I had an abortion or gave up the baby for adoption, and I ended up giving birth, I'd give the baby to him to raise - and then I'd dump him. After all, if he isn't willing to live with the consequences he shouldn't be having sex - right?

rbt_austin

06/09/2003 06:33:07 PM

Abortion causes untold spirtual anguish for men and women and it needs to be much, much more rare than it currently is and it should be safe, available, and rare. In cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity a woman shouldn't have to travel 200 miles to obtain one. However, if you've chosen to have sex, even "safe sex" with contraceptives, and you conceive a child I implore you to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption, because to me abortion is murder. Also, if you "choose" abortion, don't be surprised if your husband or boyfriend "chooses" to dump you for your tacit rejection of him - and murder of his child. He may have been pro-choice before you killed his baby, but he won't be afterwards. Of course, if you give the baby up for adoption, he'll feel just as rejected. Unless you're willing to live with the consequences, you shouldn't be having sex.

KathyHL

05/12/2003 03:15:23 PM

Then you'd better be donating money and encouraging doctors and scientists to get their butts moving on that fetal transplant technology. If I get pregnant and don't want to be, the only two choices I'm willing to contemplate are 1) abortion or 2) give the baby for adoption to a gay couple.

happyandblessed

05/12/2003 12:13:21 AM

In regards to being fined for the death of an unborn child- This is not referring to Intentional Murder. The situation given in scripture is of two men fighting, is it not? If, by chance, one man falls on or Accidentally strikes the woman so that she loses her baby, then he will be fined. Our own laws in America have different consequences for killing, depending on the circumstances. These are often classified 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. KathyHL- Fine, your proposal sounds great, I'll be first. In the mean-time, though, it is not Ok to continue intentionally murdering children.

KathyHL

05/06/2003 04:49:45 PM

Personally, if I ever get pregnant, don't want to be, and can't have an abortion, then I'll give the baby up for adoption...to a gay couple.

KathyHL

05/06/2003 04:16:18 PM

My proposed solution to the whole pro-choice vs. pro-life controversy is this: Let's fund scientific research that would allow us to take a fetus out of an unwilling woman, and implant it into the body of a pro-lifer (yes, even a man; he could be fitted with an artificial uterus and have a C-section.) That way, the woman would no longer have a fetus inside her; and the pro-lifer could be satisfied that it would be brought to term. Any volunteers?

KathyHL

05/06/2003 04:13:39 PM

Bravo88 said, "If someone doesn't wish to have a baby then they should either abstain from sex (especially if they're not married) or make sure that they take precautions to prevent becoming pregnant." If people take precautions (i.e., birth control) and the birth control fails, then what? IMHO, they don't deserve to be punished with a pregnancy for something that wasn't their fault. (Maybe they can send the baby to the pharmaceutical company that made the faulty birth control? :--] ) What about women who are raped? Since nobody plans to be raped, unless you're on a method like the Pill or the IUD, you could become pregnant from a rape. What about a woman who finds out she's pregnant, then (during the pregnancy) finds out that carrying the fetus to term could kill her?

Bravo88

05/06/2003 02:07:22 PM

It's sad that anyone would think or suggest that a mom is nothing more than a "baby container". Moms are an important part of a family and to devalue them is wrong. If someone doesn't wish to have a baby then they should either abstain from sex (especially if they're not married) or make sure that they take precautions to prevent becoming pregnant.

Bravo88

05/06/2003 02:02:47 PM

I would hazard to say that the Bible may seem contradictory in certain respects but if it seems that way then perhaps it is our lack of understanding rather than any true contradiction. I think it is safe to say that the Bible is pro-life. As for the imposition of a fine rather than death for a miscarriage, only GOD knows why that is the case but it still shows that any offense or incident that causes the death of a baby is wrong. This is not a case of valuing the baby more than the mother it is simply that as a human, not yet developed perhaps but still human, a baby is entitled to life. The argument that a woman's body belongs to her is strictly a humanist argument. Christians believe, as it says in the Bible, that the husband's body is under his wife's authority and the wife's body is under the husband's authority. Neither wife or husband, in GOD's eyes, is seen to "own" their body.

MarchingWolverine

04/06/2003 11:08:33 PM

I have listened to a lot of views from pro-life supporters and they never bring up the young women in this country that are assaulted and raped. Are you really telling me that these women should have to live with the consequences of an event that has already damaged them forever? How dare you put down a young woman for wanting to wait and wanting to have a better life for her children from the start. How dare you. And also tell me where in the bible does it say that one should go harass abortion clinics and murder those who work there.

KathyHL

03/27/2003 04:48:18 PM

I believe that the woman's life is worth at least as much, if not more, than the life of the fetus. As a woman, I hope that my society values me for more than just my uterus, as I have much more to offer than just being used as a baby-container.

iluvtheoneandonly

03/25/2003 05:40:01 PM

Listen, if you are a true Christian, you will understand that this is NOT YOUR body that you have a so called "right" to. As TRUE SAVED Christians, we were all BOUGHT at a price on Calvary. No matter WHAT situation you are in, the child in YOUR Body, is still a child, and YOU have NO right to take it away. If Gods will is for you to not have a child at this time, then HE will create a time and means for it...but, IF you are meant to have that child, then Gods will must work.

JTL6511

03/09/2003 03:11:44 AM

Some people like to justify abortion by saying "Where does the bible say you can't have an abortion". Well, of course it doesn't say "Thou shalt not have an abortion", or the like, but it does however say "Thou shalt not kill" which is precisely what abortion is(The extermination of a living fetus). I happen to believe in people having a choice in things, however abortion, the death penalty (Unless it cannot be avoided or there is no way of isolating the individual from the rest of society),or enthunisia are murder, and therefore fall under the "Thou shalt not kill" and shoud be banned. Because quite obviously you can't say that someone can't walk up and shoot someone(unless in self defence and is neccesary) and it's murder, yet you can kill a fetus and it's alright.

lilly12782

03/04/2003 09:08:51 PM

I also believe that it is wrong in all cases anless the mothers life is in danger.

rebekah_naomi

02/27/2003 12:51:32 PM

I believe that abortion is wrong excpet in ceratin cases. These are: 1. The mother's life is in danger 2. Rape 3. Incest

LoveChristandRosary

02/21/2003 09:07:41 PM

Sorry Carrey don't buy it. Why would anyone want a man to have the right to "force" a woman to have an abortion? The baby is half theirs. It takes two. Abortion is an easy way for most men. They should be there for their women.

Carrey8

02/21/2003 07:20:09 PM

LoveChrist complains that men have "no say" about abortion. But obviously, LoveChrist only wants men to have a say when they oppose abortion. Would LoveChrist support a man's right to force a woman to have an abortion? You can't have it both ways. If you grant males the right to stop an abortion, you also grant them the right to force an abortion. The fact is, the male's rights stop where the woman's body begins. No male has the right to determine whether a woman can get an abortion or not. When men carry fetuses, then -- and only then -- will they have the right to determine whether a fetus stays in the body of another individual.

LoveChristandRosary

02/21/2003 12:21:26 PM

You go Vis. Don't let anyone convince you that you can't have an opinion about abortion because you are a man! Men by law have no say over the fate of their children. It is so sick it's unbelievable. How did we let this happen? I think partially because men were convinced that it's not their place. What a lie!!!!!

Vistronic

02/20/2003 10:28:44 PM

Abortion is murder of the helpless. Do you have a choice to murder? Yes, but it is against the law so there is a penalty. Such it should be with abortion. I am pro-choice in all areas but abortion, it should be illegal. Correction, a person does have a choice even for abortion but it should be illegal with harsh sentences. Adoption is answer. The unborn should not have to pay for there parents action. Sex is great, but it leads to baby's. That is it, and man twists and squirms every way but Sunday to not face it. My Mom said to me if you where a women you would be for abortion or if men where the ones pregnant. No. Before I was a Christian I was not for it. Science points to the baby's life in there, logic and reason point to it. What is our problem in the USA, have we lost our reason?

LoveChristandRosary

02/20/2003 09:32:59 PM

There's a good rule of thumb that I and others live by. If there is even a single doubt that a particular act is wrong, don't do it. Even an act not sinful in itself, if one goes ahead doubting whether it is right or not, the act becomes sinful. I think we can apply this rule of thumb with abortion. The plain fact that the fetus will become a human, (if one insists on wording it that way), sheds enough doubt for any rational person.

LoveChristandRosary

02/20/2003 09:28:58 PM

Perhaps Renee you are not quite clear? Are you advocating the killing of anyone under the age of 18 who becomes a burden for their parents? Where does that definition of personhood come from? How about those with handicaps, physical and mental who cannot provide for themselves? I'm sure you must be joking.

Carrey8

02/14/2003 10:23:56 PM

Renee seems to be confused about the real definition of "parasite." A parasite is an entity that lives off the body of another. While that describes a fetus, Renee is going to have a hard time finding any 18-year-olds who occupy the uterus of their mother. If however, we use Renee's loose definition of parasite -- one that describes any entity that is economically supported by another -- then surely we can define all pastors and priests as parasites. After all, they depend on the economic support of others as surely as any 18-year-old does.

renee_abarnathy

02/14/2003 09:03:03 PM

A "person" under the age of eight-teen years of age is a parasite, preying on its host, the mother and father. This parasite completely unable to support itself, due to its undeveloped mind. A mother and father during that eight-teen years should be able to abort its "child" at any time due to the burdens it can bare on the couples social and economic freedoms. People are not people until they can completely provide for themselves not only inside the womb but outside.

klata

02/14/2003 01:03:29 PM

I agree with Carrey8. Additionally, I don't believe a fetus reaches personhood until it can survive outside the womb. No one likes abortion, but until all children are conceived because they are wanted, then abortion will always be with us, like it has been for centuries. At one point in history, abortion was legal up through the moment of quickening, and this was church doctrine. This debate is not one that will go away easly.

Carrey8

02/10/2003 09:30:07 PM

It doesn't really matter whether the fetus has full "personhood" or not. Adults and children have full personhood, but they aren't allowed to take or use the body of another person against that person's will. And if adults or children don't have this right, fetuses certainly don't have it. It's very simple. Bodily sovreignty means that no third party -- not adult, child or fetus -- has the right to take or use the body of an individual without that individual's consent. An adult can't take your organ or your blood without your consent, and neither can a fetus occupy your uterus without your consent. Fetal "personhood" and religious superstitions are entirely irrelevant to abortion rights.

gudrin

02/09/2003 05:00:48 PM

mmpd, I just read the verse, and I see what you mean. Unfortunately, there isn't really a question in this case as to what the Bible says. The words, "But there is no serious injury" show that. Hmm... Makes you think, huh?

mmpd33547

02/06/2003 12:32:03 PM

Does anyone one want to know what the book of Exodus has to say. Please read it for yourself and ask yourself what the true meaning is. Exodus 21:22-23. My Bible does not even come close to saying what is in the article.

radar_b8

02/03/2003 09:41:26 PM

the long and short of it is when does life begin.conception? 1month 6months? first step alone? when does it. God begins the brethe of life in you at conception? who knows how much further along we would be in life if so many (possibly great) humans hadn't been killed?

roses18

02/03/2003 01:06:36 AM

caffeine: Puppies aren't humans. Yes, of course, it is sad that we need to abort puppies, but we need to have much more consideration for human fetuses. A puppy grows up to be a dog. A human fetus grow up to be a human. There is a difference.

caffeine

02/02/2003 04:32:52 PM

you know, when someone takes a dog in to be spayed, and it is discovered that she is carrying a litter of puppies at that moment in time, no one questions the decision to abort a 7 or 8 of them to prevent more unwanted puppies. Just a thought.

roses18

01/31/2003 09:07:19 PM

Spree1: "Are those who abort worse than the individual who is racist, a liar, or an oppressor? No." You're right: they're not. But does that mean we should let children be killed just because abortion is not the only evil in the world? Of course not! If we see an oppressor, we try overthrow his oppression; we try to right a wrong. So why should we not right the wrong of abortion? "Also, I read that someone stated that humankind is the only life that is dignified and reasonable." Yeah, that would be me. And if you think that it's "philosophical bull and elitism" to say so, then I hope that you never swatted a fly or a mosquito, because then you ended a life that was dignified and reasonable. And that, surely, is a sin.

Spree1

01/31/2003 04:34:34 PM

People can philosophize all they like but no one can responsible to make decisions for individuals' choices. I personally am pro-choice though I don't believe abortion is right. Everyone must repent for what they do wrong to God. Are those who abort worse than the individual who is racist, a liar, or an oppressor? No. Wrong is wrong and all required repentence.True repentence receives foregiveness from God. Also, for those who believe that Jesus died for the sins of man then how could anything humankind did not be recompensable and be repentable? It can't. God did not ask man to be the judger and executor, God said that that would be and is God's job. Also, I read that someone stated that humankind is the only life that is dignified and reasonable. That is a load of philosophical bull and elitism straight from a Protagorus dream. God set up all life to exist for God's personal enjoyment. Don't get it twisted!

roses18

01/30/2003 07:21:36 PM

(ctd.) (Sorry, I accidentally pressed submit) A human fetus has the potency of reason. So does a newborn child. Just because a newborn child has not yet developed its potential, doesn't mean it's right to kill it, so neither is it right to kill a fetus.

roses18

01/30/2003 07:18:50 PM

I suppose I should clarify what I meant by reason. I didn't mean reason as in the ability to make logical connections between the data given to you by your senses and what you should do (which is the sort of reason dolphins have: they see a person in the water that looks like he needs help and they try to give it to him, or, if they are trained, they respond to a stimulus with tricks). I meant intellectual reason:the ability to make logical connections based on data that is not immediately available to our senses. This is the reason we use when we make judgements concerning science, philosophy, justice, etc. Dolphins don't have this sort of reason; it's humans that reflect on the meaning of life, not dolphins. Therefore, this sort of reason is human. Concerning what you said about reason not coming to fruitition until after birth, that's true. But I agree with Aristotle, that every being has potency and act. A fet

gambit81

01/30/2003 11:28:52 AM

Correction: From a completely biological standpoint, DNA would be the primary difference between life and human life.

gambit81

01/30/2003 11:13:58 AM

My definition of a human life isn't very clear or very formed. I will agree for the most part with your definition of life. The basic distinction I would give "life" from "human life" would be DNA. From a completely biological standpoint, that would be the entire distinction between all other organisms and human beings. I don't know if it's entirely necessary to add on other attributes to humans because most attributes are also carried by other animals. For instance, reason, which is difficult to gauge, is also shared by many animals, such as dolphins, in which case the attribute is not entirely exclusive to humans (and that would, according to your definition, make dolphins "humans" as well). Plus, it can be argued that reason doesn't come into fruition in humans until after birth.

gambit81

01/30/2003 11:00:12 AM

I asked for a definition of a human life for two reasons: 1) If no one could define a human life, then no one could argue for the pro-life standpoint. You have given me a definition, so the first reason is answered. 2) I want to analyze and gauge people's definition of a human life. It helps to have a clear idea of what other people mean when having a debate.

roses18

01/29/2003 11:56:43 PM

(ctd.) Now, what is 'human life' as opposed to 'life'? A human life has all of the characteristics of life, but also it has more dignity because it also has reason. This distinguishes human life from plant life (as well as, of course, our range of motion in comparison to that of the plant). Remember Boethius said that a person is a rational animal of an individual nature. Of course, not all people have reason, but we should still treat them with respect because they share all other characteristics of humanity. Since you don't want any religious references (and I know Boethius is always quoted by Christians, but that quote has nothing of theology in it), this is where I will stop. I don't know if you will think this clear or accurate. By the way, how do you define 'human life'?

roses18

01/29/2003 11:55:54 PM

gambit81: Wow, you expect the quesion that has plagued philosophers for thousands of years to be answered on a Beliefnet discussion board! Anyways, I'll try to define 'human life' to the best of my abilities. 'Life' on its own is the ability of an independent organism to grow on its own. The reason why fetuses have life and cancer doesn't, although both may grow on their own, is because the independence doesn't come from detachment from another organism (after all, siamese twins are alive), a fetus hss a DNA different from its mother's and cancer doesn't. DNA is the root of independence of organisms because this is what distinguishes one organism from all others.

gambit81

01/29/2003 05:53:15 PM

And just for clarity's sake, can anyone (I don't care who) give me a clear and accurate definition of a human life (minus any religious referrences)?

gambit81

01/29/2003 05:50:51 PM

Never said that you said that. All I said was that I inferred from your comments that you thought that way. Whether or not you actually said it doesn't matter.

rayjess96

01/29/2003 03:12:17 PM

once again, I have never said that I am smarter than anyone. I do think that someone who has an abortion as a method of birth control is a killer, you don't have to be stupid to be able to kill someone. And again, this is what i belive....not once have i accused anyone here of anything. and i only put words in capitols to make a point. You can see it as yelling if you would like. that is up to you. Maybe some one needs to yell about this!

gambit81

01/29/2003 02:45:25 PM

Also, the term "well educated" is very ambiguous since people can be "well educated" in different fields (i.e. science, literature, music, etc...).

gambit81

01/29/2003 02:39:59 PM

A hypothetical: if you consider life to begin at conception, and if we can pinpoint the day of conception for a person (I believe this is possible, but I may be wrong), then should you celebrate a person's day of conception rather than his/her day of birth?

gambit81

01/29/2003 02:35:10 PM

rayjess96: please refrain from using so many exclamation marks and completely upper-case words. It's the grammatical equivalent of yelling in someone's face. But I would have to agree with Potus's statement since most pro-lifers (and pro-choicers who yell "CHOOSE LIFE") consider pro-choicers to be baby-killers, so I would infer from your vehemence that you would not wholely regard those pro-choicers with the same moral and intellectual reverence that you would give those who agree with your sentiments. But I may be reading too much into your comments.

rayjess96

01/29/2003 12:07:18 PM

Never once have i said that i think that anyone is lesser than me or unthinking! So, please do not put words in my mouth. my husband and I are well educated and YES, we do belive in God and his only son Jesus...there for we belive that abortion is wrong! This message board asked "What do you belive?" It has not asked anyone to attack another person or to imply that anyone is unthinking or uneducated! (as you have done!) I think that most people just aren't given all of thier options before they choose to abort a baby. I am most certainly pro-choice....the right choice! Choose, not to have sex choose, to take the pill choose, let someone adopt your baby CHOOSE LIFE, choose not to kill a child!

Potus

01/29/2003 10:42:57 AM

"It is about people thinking that abortion is a quick fix" Another example of anti-choice misogyny, In their view, anyone who disagrees with them is a lesser an unthinking human being. Although studies showing that "believers" in general have lower IQs and educational attainment would seem to contradict their position.

rayjess96

01/29/2003 08:31:21 AM

CON'T.. I do agree that there needs to be more support out there for women thinking about abortion....they need to know that that is not the only option for them! Someone will love thier baby and them! They could adopt thier baby, and if it is just that they need someone in thier life to talk to and help them get through a rough time so they can keep thier baby, then that need should also be met. Deep down this debate is not over "is it a cell or not" It is about people thinking that abortion is a quick fix...they don't have to get emotional or attached to a baby...a life that is part of them! If it is just tissue then they can throw it in the trash! Well each one of us is made of tissue if you get right down to it.

rayjess96

01/29/2003 08:20:14 AM

If you are so shallow as to not want a baby because you wouldn't want to do that to your body.....don't get pregnant in the first place! I am not saying a woman shouldn't look her best! I am saying that it really dosent take that much to get your body back if you take care of yourself! (i know, i have 3 children) Again, what is better, takeing the pill, using a condom or killing a baby?? Potus-- Maybe you are right to a point. I do have a problem with women who are selfish, (men too) and with people who kill babies. as for the women who "didn't ask to be pregnant.... If abortion is ok, then maybe shooting someone beccause they cut you off on the highway should be ok too! Hey, i don't think anyone askes to be pulled out in front of....so just shoot the person who messed up your plan! right?? If I was ever pregnant because of a - God forbid- rape, I could not kill a baby because of it! I certainly wouldn't continue the violence by killing a baby.

Kimrdhbsms

01/29/2003 02:48:58 AM

Bardmountain-- abortion is not in the Bible because it was written by men. Midwives have been doing abortions for thousands of years. But, in societies where women weren't considered human, men and women didn't talk about stuff like that -- so women did them and men thought it was a bad idea but never mentioned it to women, who had no idea that they weren't supposed to do it. It's only become a problem since men and women started to talk to each other.

gambit81

01/28/2003 11:30:35 PM

roses18: "You either believe that a zygote gains life through a natural process ... or you believe that at one moment the zygote is a cluster of cells and then, all of a sudden, it is living. And that is the definition of spontaneous generation." You are falling into error here. First of all, you refer to the "cells" "all of a sudden" coming alive. Unless I'm mistaken, these cells are already technically alive, and no one is denying that these cells come about through natural means. Secondly, the debate of abortion is really whether you consider that zygote to be a separate person or another "cluster of cells" (which are technically living in the same sense as are heart cells or lung cells, for example). Obviously, this distinction is not as clear as you make it out to be or there wouldn't even be a debate on abortion.

roses18

01/28/2003 09:42:55 PM

(ctd.) "But at the same time, it's important to feel compassion for the woman who didn't ask to be pregnant..." Noone is saying that we shouldn't feel compassion for her. She should have all the support possible, but she should not be allowed to take away the life of her child just because she didn't want it. Instead of spending so much money on abortion clinics, we should spend it on emotional support for mothers who give their children up, and on financial support for mothers who wanted to abort their child for financial reasons.

roses18

01/28/2003 09:41:08 PM

Violin27: "Clearly you need further research on what people believe..." I don't claim to know what people believe; I'm just telling you what it seems like to me. You either believe that a zygote gains life through a natural process (first there is no zygote, then two gametes meet, a new zygote is created and it has life from the start) or you believe that at one moment the zygote is a cluster of cells and then, all of a sudden, it is living. And that is the definition of spontaneous generation.

roses18

01/28/2003 09:24:47 PM

rigi sahn: "People don't support abortion because they get a sick pleasure out of thinking of all those dead fetuses. I certainly don't." Well, if you want to use that argument, then people don't support murder because they get a sick pleasure out of thinking of all those dead bodies. I don't get such a pleasure; should I say murder is permissible? Do you REALLY think people oppose abortions only because they are perverts who enjoy thinking about dead fetuses? "But it is no more wrong than forcing someone to permenently change their body, to let it be used as means to an end rather than as part of a person! Taking away anyones ability to decide wether or not to do something with their body is, in my opinion, almost as bad a rape." Ok. It MUST be better to take away a baby's right to its own body and discard it as if it was trash than to ask a woman to please carry her OWN CHILD to term and give it a chance to live!

rigi_sahn

01/28/2003 05:55:08 PM

"I guess some people would just rather rip a little baby apart then see someone love it!" I have to disagree with you. I don't think people have abortions because they'd rather. People don't support abortion because they get a sick pleasure out of thinking of all those dead fetuses. I certainly don't. But it is no more wrong than forcing someone to permenently change their body, to let it be used as means to an end rather than as part of a person! Taking away anyones ability to decide wether or not to do something with their body is, in my opinion, almost as bad a rape.

Potus

01/28/2003 03:37:26 PM

  Potus 1/28/03 1:59:45 PM "As far as my opinion of women? I am one! So I do think highly of them! " Being a member of a group does not presuppose a beneficial or positive attitude toward it. In FACT, horizontal hostility is so commonplace it is virtually transparent.

rayjess96

01/28/2003 11:44:37 AM

potus, I was not trying to make a formal speech, I was just saying what i thought as plainly as i could. I wouldn't want my words to be twisted or taken out of context. (like so many people do with the bible) As far as my opinion of women? I am one! So I do think highly of them! And should one of my children ever become pregnant before they are married, then yes, I would have done something wrong! Abortion is the worst thing I could ever imagine anyone haveing to go through! The sad thing is not every9one realizes that there are people who will help them! Adoption for one! I just don't see what the fuss is all about! Don't have sex if you don't want to risk haveing a baby! and if it is to late for you then give the child to someone who will give it the life it deserves! I guess some people would just rather rip a little baby apart then see someone love it! ( and that is what abortion is!!! I am not being mean....there is no nice way to put it! That is what happens!)

caffeine

01/28/2003 12:16:51 AM

violin27- Ethel Rosenburg comes to mind as someone who was determined to be unfairly, perhaps wrongly, executed...oh, some 50 years after her death. I wonder how her children felt about that? Incidentally, while the debate rages on...I'm still waiting for my earlier posts to be addressed. Caffeine

rigi_sahn

01/27/2003 11:41:09 PM

The Bible says alot of things. It may have been inspired by God, but it was written by people, and people disgree with each other. And after that it was compiled, edited, and translated by other mere mortals. It stands to reason that people in this age are a bit confused by it. Why didn't God just do it himself? It would be too easy. It was easy in Eden, before we became self-aware, but then we got curious. Suddenly things were hard and difficult to understand. I think we're still getting used to the shock. Abortion is a hard issue because both "sides" are at least partially right. If a fetus is a human being, then killing it is murder. But it is also wrong to make a woman to carry another life in HER body against her will, permanently changing her life. So maybe there will never be one answer, and we are destined to struggle with it forever. Maybe that's the tradeoff for our knowlege. Thank you for enduring my endless rhetoric. I'll just fade back into the wallpaper now...

human1

01/27/2003 10:30:21 PM

bardmountain, No one has come close to the truth of your perspective on this. I agree with you....though could not seem to condense my thoughts into clarity. Thanks for posting your thoughts. h1

GrzeszDeL

01/27/2003 08:57:28 PM

Dear Violin, I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the abortion procedure," but, as I mentioned in one of my earliest posts on this board, Plato mentions abortions performed by midwives in Thaeatetus.

gambit81

01/27/2003 06:29:17 PM

Well, if the Bible is the word of God, and if God is both omniscient and omnipotent, theoretically, God could write a straight-forward book, or have another do the writing, without multiple interpretations. Theoretically, that is. And that's about as far as I'm willing to go with this, right now (plus, that's a whole other discussion right there).

Violin27

01/27/2003 05:10:43 PM

Well said, Bardmountain! BTW, does anyone have any clue how old the abortion procedure actually is? I'd really like to know...

Violin27

01/27/2003 05:05:26 PM

Gambit, I concur with you on your point. I sometimes wonder if the book is written as it is to enable interpretation by different sects, thus allowing for a variety of beliefs within the same religion. Then again, maybe it's impossible to write a book of rules and regs without a running list of amendments and exceptions...

gambit81

01/27/2003 05:03:55 PM

Bardmountain, that is about the most sane thing I've ever heard in an abortion or Bible debate.

bardmountain

01/27/2003 04:44:50 PM

Looking to the Bible for a clear-cut case on abortion is like looking to the Bible for a clear cut case for quantum mechanics or assault rifles. The authors would have absolutely no conception of any of those issues. Instead what we get are a number of conflicting interpretations of scripture being used to justify a position, even though the scriptures contextually have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I think we can't look to old books to make this kind of decision. God is not in an old book. God, if such an entity exists, will guide you directly. Listen to you conscience and reason. Ask for guidance if such is your preference. And make the best decision for yourself and yourself alone, trusting others to do the same.

Violin27

01/27/2003 04:32:11 PM

"if only getting pregnant" or not getting pregnant... : )

Violin27

01/27/2003 04:30:05 PM

Rayjess, if only getting pregnant was a question of being responsible, and you could expect all humans everywhere to be responsible at all times...well, what a lovely fairy tale that would be.

gambit81

01/27/2003 04:27:39 PM

The Bible, in my opinion, is not a reliable source of information/opinions/word of God/etc... There are too many inconsistencies and too many differing interpretations of a supposedly straight-forward book that I can't reasonably use it for making decisions in such controversial topics such as abortion. Yes, there is a clear bias in this article, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong. If you're going to take the Bible literally, then, in my opinion, you must take everything in the Bible literally; and if you do, then the Bible is not pro-life. If you take the Bible metaphorically, then you can make a conjecture on whether or not the Bible is pro-life. But even so, there are still too many inconsistencies both in the text itself and in the interpretation of the text to, in my mind, take the Bible seriously. Now, with that being said, go ahead and condemn me or whatever it is you wish to do. I have stated my case.

Violin27

01/27/2003 04:11:48 PM

cont... "I have compassion for those who are not given a choice, for those who are not asked whether they want to live or die, for those whose lives are snatched away because the mother assumes that that's what the child WOULD want IF it were asked." I had to laugh at this, thinking of the number of times I've heard from some angst-ridden teen or another, "I didn't ASK to be born!" : ) But at the same time, it's important to feel compassion for the woman who didn't ask to be pregnant...

Violin27

01/27/2003 04:10:56 PM

Roses18 wrote: "Life begins at conception, when all genetic information necessary is assmbled within the little zygote, and there is nothing left but growth. You either believe this or you believe in spontaneous generation." Clearly you need further research on what people believe...To many people, life begins at birth. But the keyword here is "believe" as opposed to "know". You do not know; and therefore must satisfy yourself with never obtaining an abortion for yourself...not dictating to others that they must believe as you believe.

Potus

01/27/2003 03:53:51 PM

Glad to read your well-thought-out and articulate arguments, RayJess, particularly as they show what a supportive and loving parent you would be. I'm actually in awe of your attitude toward women. Thanks for sharing.

rayjess96

01/27/2003 11:56:26 AM

I can not belive that I am reading this....well....CRAP!! First of all, Our presidents choices in leading our nation have nothing to do with a 15 year old girl, who can't stay vertical!!! or her parents who dropped the ball while raising her! Yes, kids will rebel, but come on! use a condom.....they break? ok, take the pill....Mom and Dad don't know you are haveing sex?...well, then you shouldnt be haveing sex unless you are adult enough to deal with the outcome! And as for those women who are old enough.....what is more responsible? takeing the pill etc. or sucking a human life out of you with a vaccum every time you run into a little "problem" As for the times when the mothers live could be in danger? I know I have heard people say that is when a partial-birth abortion comes into play. Well, what does a few more inches matter....If the baby is out far enough to kill it, then why not just take the baby I know, I know....kill the babies & save the whales! RIGHT????

h5070

01/27/2003 08:02:18 AM

I just wanted to point out that your article has a minor error. The Rabbinic Court in Jerusalem, which is an Orthodox Religious Court, ruled that a woman is allowed to abort if it is proven that the woman will experience psychological damage. This was a relatively recent ruling (perhaps late nineties or early 2000). Therefore, when you say that it is only Conservative and Reform Jewish movements that allow abortion this is incorrect.

Skiboo

01/27/2003 07:11:54 AM

All you need is the strength to follow through on your convictions, whatever they may be and be able to stand by that should you need to make a decision in favour of. Personally, I know I would never go for an abortion, not willingly anyway. But, if I did, I would not twist politics, religion or any other belief system to justify my own actions regarding the consequences of my choices. I would either do it, because of what I believe - or I wouldn't. No justification necessary.

Skiboo

01/27/2003 07:09:31 AM

What a load of crock. I'm always amazed at how people feel they have to justify themselves - a sign of guilt, perhaps? But, nevertheless, if want an abortion, have one. If you don't, don't have one. Simple. Either you believe in it or you don't, but don't twist the Bible to somehow justify the actions you may be afraid of being wrong. Either you believe in it or you don't.

XOX

01/27/2003 03:03:28 AM

Rose, It is hypocritical to me if one say that he/she feels "compassion" for fetus but not for the pregnant women situation for making this type of decision. It is OK to decide for your own pregnancy, but it would be wrong to claim any right when it come to other woman pregnancy. It seems that you do lack of "sensitivity" toward women and don't really care to know why they have to come to this choice. That is fine as long as you don't claim to care in the first place.

roses18

01/27/2003 02:14:39 AM

(ctd.) "But who determines which are taken literally and which are "interpreted"?" Certainly not me, but I would prefer to be on the safe side and know for certain that I am not taking a human life if my only reason for believing that this life doesn't exist yet are a couple of Biblical metaphors that could be interpreted either way. "When you find yourself in such a situation, I hope that you accept the lesson the experience offers: compassion for those who must make a choice" No, I have compassion for those who are not given a choice, for those who are not asked whether they want to live or die, for those whose lives are snatched away because the mother assumes that that's what the child WOULD want IF it were asked.

roses18

01/27/2003 01:56:13 AM

Violin27: "Those who opt for abortion choose not to give life...punishment and revenge have nothing to do with it." That's just it. Life begins at conception, when all genetic information necessary is assmbled within the little zygote, and there is nothing left but growth. You either believe this or you believe in spontaneous generation. Those who have abortions have already given life, the abortion is the choice to take it back.

Violin27

01/27/2003 01:16:53 AM

Roses18 wrote: "You know very well that the Bible contains many metaphors that can't always be taken literally." But who determines which are taken literally and which are "interpreted"?

Violin27

01/27/2003 01:05:56 AM

MyLifeIsHis wrote: "Please excuse the bluntness here, but anyone who compares the death penalty to abortion is a few bricks short of a wall. The death penalty is for CONVICTED MURDERERS, RAPISTS AND THE LIKE." The fact that someone has been convicted does not mean they're guilty. How many innocent men...and women...have gone to their deaths unjustly convicted? We'll never know. The difference between abortion and the death penalty is this: Those who die in prison are, by government standards, paying for some offense...as if murder or rape are somehow compensated with (a possibly innocent) someone's death. Those who opt for abortion choose not to give life...punishment and revenge have nothing to do with it.

Violin27

01/27/2003 12:54:25 AM

Eli76: I'm happy that you are satisfied with the choice you made; but I'm thrilled that in selecting your choice, all options were legal. Enjoy your family : )

MyLifeIsHis

01/27/2003 12:54:05 AM

The Biblical basis for being pro-choice is a bunch of crock! Shame on anyone who twists the word of God to fit their ungodly beliefs. Please excuse the bluntness here, but anyone who compares the death penalty to abortion is a few bricks short of a wall. The death penalty is for CONVICTED MURDERERS, RAPISTS AND THE LIKE. Abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life. It always amazes me how pro-choice women seem to want to protect the rapists of this country, but damn their children to death. I have spent my life trying to know God better and anyone who claims to love Him and supports the killing od his precious children breaks His heart. Abortion is a religious decision for any Christian woman, for if she truly was a Christian, she would choose Gods love over her life. May God have mercy on Marjorie Brahms Signer for twisting the word of God to fit her selfish needs.

Violin27

01/27/2003 12:46:36 AM

ds202: "I wonder if Bush will spend "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" reflecting on his support for the death penalty." I somehow doubt this...but it'd sure be nice.

Violin27

01/27/2003 12:39:52 AM

Potus wrote: "a skin cell is a potential human being" Excellent point...

Violin27

01/27/2003 12:35:01 AM

cont... And finally, who are you to say that you wouldn't have an abortion under any circumstances? Or do you think you know what those circumstances are? I can assure you that no matter what you profess; you can't really know until you're in a situation which forces you to make a choice. When you find yourself in such a situation, I hope that you accept the lesson the experience offers: compassion for those who must make a choice; and that you can find yourself appreciative of the fact that you HAVE a choice.

Violin27

01/27/2003 12:34:44 AM

Roses wrote: "I'm not even trying to assess the woman as an individual. I'm assessing her actions. It doesn't matter to me or to her unborn child who she is. She might be a wonderful individual, but her actions are still wrong. And there are very few circumstances in which a woman REALLY has no choice but to have an abortion, and, actually, I don't need to know the circumstances surrounding each and every pregnancy." But who are you to determine this for anyone other than yourself? Why should airmen be able to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of men, women, and children with a clear conscience; while a 15 year old girl who realizes she's not ready to be a mother must agonize over it? How can society condone the lethal injection of someone who may be innocent (in recent cases, even some who were KNOWN to be innocent) while they condemn a 30 year old woman whose doctor didn't inform her that antibiotics diminish the effectiveness of the pill?

roses18

01/26/2003 11:55:58 PM

Son of Light: You know very well that the Bible contains many metaphors that can't always be taken literally. The child most certainly does receive oxygen in the womb. Why do you take "breath" so literally? potus: A skin cell can in no way become a human being unless science interfers (and even to this day it's never been done). A fetus WILL grow to be a human under normal circumstances, if given the chance.

Son_of_Light

01/26/2003 10:02:24 PM

Ecclesiastes (NRSV) 11 5 Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother's womb, so you do not know the work of God, who makes everything. As far as I know breathing for air doesn't start until birth. In that case the breath that comes to the bones in the above passage must refer to something else. Perhaps it refers to the moment that the soul or the spirit{the breath of life) comes to the being in the mother's womb. It certainly doesn't seem to refer to the moment of conception. The bones aren't immediately formed at the moment of conception. Just as you know not how the breath of life fashions the human frame in the mother's womb, So you know not the work of God which he is accomplishing in the universe. Ecclesiastes 11:5(NAB) The human frame referred to above must certainly be the skeleton. In Christ Jesus, SoL

Potus

01/26/2003 09:25:00 PM

"Who would want to stop a beating heart?" Ask Bush as he beats the drums of war.

colinandjohn

01/26/2003 09:15:01 PM

In 3 weeks, our heart beats. In 18 - 20+ weeks, we are large enough to kick and be felt. Who would want to stop a beating heart? Who would want to rationalize the status of life with risking that the allowing of it's equality with yours is better than the devaluation of it? Whether or not it "in the Bible" that abortion is preferred is the baby is not wanted or the reverse, who would want to relegate a human life as insignificant? It's a baby when I want it, it's a fetus when I don't. It's a baby when I want it, it's a fetus when I don't. It's a baby when I want it, it's a fetus when I don't.

ds202

01/26/2003 08:44:27 PM

I wonder if Bush will spend "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" reflecting on his support for the death penalty.

Potus

01/26/2003 08:42:54 PM

a skin cell is a potential human being.

sd9787

01/26/2003 04:59:30 PM

Holding the belief that Pro-Choice is just a matter of perspective simply affirms the author's view of relativism. I would rather here the legal / ethical argument in favor of State's Rights in lieu of the present argument concerning the woman's health / respect / dignity. Atleast be honest in admitting that you are destroying a potential life. For example, rape is not simply punished by the act alone but rather the punishment is compensation for the years of mental anguish which naturally follows. In other words, don't take the stand that life has not begin when clearly we all know that left to its own fruition the "unborn" "baby" would develop into a fully functioning baby. May God have mercy on the souls in America!

roses18

01/26/2003 04:03:06 PM

eli76: Thank you for sharing your story. It's wonderful that God gave you the grace to make the right decision, and don't let any criticism that might come on this board get you down. I, for one, will pray for you and your daughter.

Potus

01/26/2003 02:24:42 PM

"I don't know what would have happened had I made a different choice...but I know that I would not trade my child for the world... " Congratulations. You had a choice. You made a choice. It works for you. Many women have made the choice not to bring a pregnancy to term. It works for them, too. Choice.

eli76

01/26/2003 12:59:11 PM

today I have a beautiful baby she surprises me every day she gives me the most beautiful gifts of all hugs and kisses...my parents love her to pieces... and her father thinks she is the greatest gift of all..she is a blessing... and I know I'm blessed... I don't know what would have happened had I made a different choice...but I know that I would not trade my child for the world... I remember seeing those videos in high school showing the small bodies being vaccumed out of their mothers... or the saline burning their skin...and I think I could have made the choice to do that to my child...everyone has a choice just make sure you are willing to live with the concequences of your choice...that's all... I now share my life with two beautiful people and I can live with myself.

eli76

01/26/2003 12:58:48 PM

but my fear just like the fear I had of GOD should have been non existant... GOD AND MY PARENTS taught me a lesson... I needed to be more trusting of their LOVE and accept that my choice had a consequence. WHAT WE NEED IS EDUCATION... EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS NOT TO TRY AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY GETTING RID OF A HUMAN LIFE...

eli76

01/26/2003 12:58:13 PM

I knew I had made a CHOICE TO HAVE PREMARITAL SEX and I knew there would be CONSEQUENCES and one of those could have been STD'S, AIDS, or something horrible that I would have to deal with for the rest of my life but GOD chose to BLESS ME with a child... what greater gift than the gift of a child. what greater opportunity than to raise a child as I was raised, I will ALWAYS thank my parents for raising me the way they did.. for TEACHING ME THAT FOR EVERY DECISION THERE IS A CONSEQUENCE AND YOU BETTER BE READY TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES WHATEVER THOSE MAY BE ...I STILL WENT TO THE CLINIC... they did an ultrasound... and right there smaller than the head of a pin was a little spot...when I saw that little spot I REALIZED I needed to wake up I needed to snap out of it an be a responsible woman...Just like I was woman enough to make the decision to have SEX I had to be woman enough to deal with the concequence. I was able to tell my parents still fearing they might kill me..

eli76

01/26/2003 12:57:08 PM

I will not tell anyone about this no one needs to find out!... this was coming from a girl who had always dreamt of children beautiful perfect happy ... this was from a girl who loved going to church loved God loved being who I was I loved being single... I loved being able to make my own CHOICES. I was desperate so I went to the only place I knew .. I went to church and sat there in the prayer room for about 4 hours. I sat there in silence as if I was waiting for God to appear and tell me .. "it's ok.. you can have the abortion, i will forgive you" or tell me "you will be damned to hell if you have an abortion" but that didnt happen... then I finally broke down and asked HIM ... what do I do.. what am I supposed to do!... well somehow some way I got my answer..I felt it inside me.. I felt the warmth I felt the guilt I felt the shame...

eli76

01/26/2003 12:55:32 PM

ok.lots of stuff that makes you think.. that's exactly what everybody posts right... well here is a bit of my life. I understand that by placing this I am opening myself to judgement and I am bound to get people angry by what Im about to say.. but here it goes. I am 26... about 3 years ago I CHOSE to have premarital sex. two weeks later I found out I was pregnant. I thought I was going to die! I thought my parents would Kill me. I thought my boyfriend would freak out and dump me (we were not very stable). and I CHOSE TO HAVE AN ABORTION.... A FEW DAYS WENT BY I made an appointment at the clinic... meanwhile I was having heart wrenching thoughts about what i was going to do. I thought of the many times I pictured myself happily married by the church. in a stable home/relationship, with my parents being extremely excited about the pregnancy... then I thought they are going to kill me when they find out.

aibomb

01/26/2003 10:38:47 AM

I happen to be a pro-choice, anti-capital punishment believer. The difference for me: my stance is that the viability of life begins at a certain biological point and until that viability is mature and can sustain on it's own without the aid of a mother's womb it is not a living person but the biological composition of a life in formation--not yet blessed by the miracle of God. Any mature adult can see this is true. To argue that a sac of cells has equal rights to a live human being is tantamount to saying the sperm located at your local sperm bank should be given a right to vote. This is where the anti-abortionsists lose me in their argument; maybe someone can clarify that for me here. In sum: A sac of cells isn't a viable life. A woman has a right to preserve her sanctity of life. Likewise (in terms of Capital punishment) as human beings, we do not have the right to destroy a viable, fully formed life--one that is already abounding in God's world and who deserves a chance to inherit His grace.

aibomb

01/26/2003 10:33:35 AM

(PART 1 OF 2)I find it highly ironic that President Bush would Declare "National Sanctity of Life Day." This from the former Governor of Texas who executed more people on death row than any other governor during his term...I don't understand an administration (or the right wing in general) who claim to believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity of life when it comes to the abortion debate, but are quick to turn on that position when it comes to capital punishment. Surely it can't be the argument of "innocent life" versus those who have committed heinous acts. After all, (most) religions offer salvation for even heinous sinners who want to repent. Execution robs death row inmates of the possibility of salvation. Therefore capital punishment, ---administered by man--- interferes with life much in the same manner one could argue abortion does (through intervention of man, not God). Can someone explain to me why so many anti-abortionists are for capital punishment?

caffeine

01/26/2003 10:24:41 AM

Oh, if only it were so absolutely perfect to guarrantee that only women who have another option clearly are the ones having abortions. Much easier to make it a law if all the people having abortions are just those who find pregnancy inconvenient. I ask again, what about the child who is pregnant. Is she to be "forced" to carry and bear a child (while the boy who helped her make it is off living his life normally)...because 12, 13, 14 year olds should have thought about this in advance...Is this who this kind of law is intended to get under control? I wish all parents were more loving and responsible, and I wish children

caffeine

01/26/2003 10:24:18 AM

were not born into to families of abuse, and even if some think these do not comprise a large percentage of overall abortions, they are still a percentage. Do they have to be 90% for it to be valid to make their option to choice a continued possibility? Incidentally, I would purport to say there is a shorness of white, brand new, perfect babies....but an over abundance of children living sadly in foster care who will never be adopted that are a result of abuse and neglect. I think it is far more humane to give homes to those kids that really need it, not just those who are wanted. Read White Oleander for a real glimptse into how these kids live....many of these are the ones getting pregnant...or should they too be "forced" into bearing children under the worst of circumstances. Caffeine

roses18

01/26/2003 02:27:32 AM

Violin27: "To suggest a woman is selfishly avoiding discomfort at the cost of a life is not a fair assessment of that person as an individual." I'm not even trying to assess the woman as an individual. I'm assessing her actions. It doesn't matter to me or to her unborn child who she is. She might be a wonderful individual, but her actions are still wrong. And there are very few circumstances in which a woman REALLY has no choice but to have an abortion, and, actually, I don't need to know the circumstances surrounding each and every pregnancy. All I know is that in most cases there are two possible choices: to abort the child or let it live. One choice is easier than the other (note I said easier, not easy), the woman takes the easier choice, and a baby dies for it.

Violin27

01/26/2003 12:27:11 AM

Harpist4him wrote: "It is against the law in the US to destroy an eagle's egg. If we use the same pro-choice thinking, then this law is unreasonable because it isn't an eagle yet... or is it?" The laws which protect endangered species protect not only the species, but their eggs and their habitat. If humanity was on the verge of extinction, we'd need to create similar laws to protect the species. This may happen sooner than we'd like to think considering the environmental atrocities that are presently occurring due to overpopulation.

Violin27

01/26/2003 12:18:25 AM

Roses18 wrote: "Most children in foster care are placed there not because the've been given up for adoption (because usually, but not always, such children are adopted in infancy), but because the'e been taken away from parents that are unfit (alcoholics, drug abusers, etc.) Such children are much more difficult to adopt, there have been cases when the foster parents themslves wanted to adopt the child but could not." I wonder how many MORE children would exist in an un-adoptable state of foster care if abortion was illegal. To suggest a woman is selfishly avoiding discomfort at the cost of a life is not a fair assessment of that person as an individual. If you became pregnant and wanted to put your child up for adoption, and could go through with it...more power to you; but you don't know the circumstances surrounding each and every pregnancy.

FLUTEHOVER

01/26/2003 12:09:07 AM

Of course the reason this silly fertility cult, so costly, has happened is because men don't want women on the job. These men reward women having children. They try to make women go home and have children and they refuse to promote women without children. These men can't face the truth. In 300 B.C., Socrates and his friends admitted that women are as intelligent as men. They just aren't as strong, they said. So said a great society. To make women have children in an over-populated country is to court starvation.

FLUTEHOVER

01/26/2003 12:02:34 AM

I feel very strongly that if we were living in a great modern country, women who had given up their having of children would be honored. This whole fertility thing would be turned around. Great women were the first to sacrifice, to work for their fellow human beings, instead of bragging about having a baby, what any animal can do. That's nothing. The whole value system is wrong. Greatness if sacrifice. Women at work these days brag instead of sacrificing for others. Sacrifice of the space, the money, the everything my child would have taken is what yours has. I could have had six children by the age of thirty is what I know. That's nothing.

FLUTEHOVER

01/25/2003 11:50:54 PM

I meant repelled from going on with an obviously bad world. Is that rebelling? It's surprising how hard the world is on a woman who decides against children. What's wrong with that? There are obviously too many children in the world and that will be the world's end. When children can't see animals anymore; when the human race has killed all the animals, which it will if we don't stop over-population, the human race will face its egotism. It is evil to be a little god, a little parent. There are so many other things to do.

FLUTEHOVER

01/25/2003 11:43:48 PM

What a terribly interesting point you brought up. Eagles aren't swans. As William Blake's poem said, Tiger, who made you? If there is an evil creation, then wouldn't a woman feel rebelled from going on with it?

FLUTEHOVER

01/25/2003 11:40:27 PM

I didn't know about that law. But it's so strange that it is law. Eagle infants have the horrible habit of bopping each other out of the nest. Typically two eaglets are born. Typically one throws the other out of the nest. Awful, isn't it?

harpist4him

01/25/2003 11:21:49 PM

It is against the law in the US to destroy an eagle's egg. If we use the same pro-choice thinking, then this law is unreasonable because it isn't an eagle yet... or is it?

FLUTEHOVER

01/25/2003 10:13:48 PM

I just keep wanting to say that everything in the Bible was said in Genesis. In the graden, man and woman worked together. In the fall, they were role oriented and a big deal was made about having children. Eve had a job in the garden before she conversed with the snake. In even modern times, people accept the fallen world as the right way. A garden is a planned place. Cain got in trouble not knowing how to control nature and plant life. We should not think the fallen world, obedience to men and role life and children as our meaning to be the best life. There is responsiblity to the best life. But that should be everyone's goal. It's strange that so many people see the fallen world as right living.

truthshines

01/25/2003 08:52:04 PM

It is up to women.

FLUTEHOVER

01/25/2003 08:29:12 PM

I've known women who had abortions and then later on had children. They were nice children. What does that mean?

roses18

01/25/2003 07:43:04 PM

No, of course it's not the length of life that gives value. That's exactly what pro-lifers assert: that just because a fetus hasn't lived as long as a child that's already born, that doesn't mean we have a right to kill it anymore than we have a right to kill a five year old.

Potus

01/25/2003 07:01:58 PM

"These children die without even getting a chance to live." I'm sorry: I thought you believed they were alive? Does length of life give value?

roses18

01/25/2003 06:00:27 PM

These children die without even getting a chance to live. We think it's tragic that five year old children have to die so young. These children are even younger, and they die not because it's natural for them to die at that point, they die because the woman that's supposed to be their mother decides that she doesn't want them.

Potus

01/25/2003 05:39:07 PM

"You don't think it's a sacrifice for someone to die? You know there have been ultrasounds showing fetuses trying to get away from the doctor's abortion tools? " Everything dies. It's not a sacrifice; it's a process. Oh, please not "The Silent Scream" again. Too banal.

roses18

01/25/2003 05:29:08 PM

potus: "Were the children who died in the last war on Iraq "guilty?"" No, of course not. But just because they were not guilty, does that mean we should be apathetic to the death of others? You don't think it's a sacrifice for someone to die? You know there have been ultrasounds showing fetuses trying to get away from the doctor's abortion tools? And you don't think that's a sacrifice?

Potus

01/25/2003 04:50:07 PM

"  Erin916 1/25/03 3:33:08 PM I must say something with regard to partial-birth abortion. I just looked at the result of the poll on beliefs about abortion, and i was stunned that the majority lied in the category of "I support all kinds of abortion," for these include partial birth. People must be ignorant to the process of a partial birth abortion and how sick it is. I am not the autority on the process, but it is my belief that partial birth abortions are completely a completely murderous thing to do, unless a mother's life is at stake." The operative word in your post is "belief". Doesn't make it true...or false, for that matter.

christy39

01/25/2003 04:48:36 PM

Abortion is strictly a woman's choice and should always be. No one has the right to judge a woman's decision on why she chose abortion.

Erin916

01/25/2003 03:33:08 PM

I must say something with regard to partial-birth abortion. I just looked at the result of the poll on beliefs about abortion, and i was stunned that the majority lied in the category of "I support all kinds of abortion," for these include partial birth. People must be ignorant to the process of a partial birth abortion and how sick it is. I am not the autority on the process, but it is my belief that partial birth abortions are completely a completely murderous thing to do, unless a mother's life is at stake.

Potus

01/25/2003 03:15:45 PM

I read what you wrote. Romanticizing a zygote doesn't work for me. I don't consider it a "sacrifice" nor do I consider the argument about "innocence" persuasive. Were the children who died in the last war on Iraq "guilty?"

roses18

01/25/2003 03:02:14 PM

potus: Did you even read what I wrote? Some of these children CANNOT be adopted because of the law in the state. And would you kill innocents just because there is suffering in the world? If there are hungry or abused children, does that mean that an innocent child has to sacrifice its right to life?

Potus

01/25/2003 02:53:25 PM

"potus: Most children in foster care are placed there not because the've been given up for adoption (because usually, but not always, such children are adopted in infancy), but because the'e been taken away from parents that are unfit (alcoholics, drug abusers, etc.) Such children are much more difficult to adopt, there have been cases when the foster parents themslves wanted to adopt the child but could not." When there are no children languishing in foster care, when there are no hungry, abandoned, or abused children, when every anti-choicer is personally caring for 20 or 30 children (ok, I'l back off on that one ;) then I'll take these "biblical" or "moral" arguments seriously. Until then, I remain convinced that anti-choicers have an issue which requires nothing of them other than sactimony.  

cchar

01/25/2003 02:52:33 PM

Twice in the Signer pro-choice article it was said that the woman is the one most affected by abortion. This is not true unless she is dying. The child is ultimately the one most affected. If we have sanctity for life we will think of this before pregancy risk is taken. We do not have unalienable right to engage in sexual relations which could start a new life. I am sick of people who think it is like eating and breathing and we can't stay alive without sexual activity.

roses18

01/25/2003 02:45:43 PM

GrzeszDel: I am currently taking a Catholic philosophy course that specifically focuses on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. While St. Thomas is right in most things, noone says he was infallible. The Church most definitely does have a position on whether the soul is necessary for life (even though it's not an OFFICIAL one). The soul is considered the principle of life, that is why the Church teaches that animals have animal souls and plants have plant souls, but these souls are not immortal. If you remember, the reason why the Church considers sex sacred is because God is present and infuses the soul into the zygote at the moment of conception (although this is not what St. Thomas taught). John Paul II has said this many times. And the Church definitely says that the soul is necessary for a human (I would quote several philosophy books approved by the Church, but I think they're copyrighted). So, if you can take the soul out of the person, abortion is permissible.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 02:34:15 PM

Dear Roses, For what it is worth (and I do not think this matters much) the Catholic church most emphatically does NOT teach that one cannot be alive without a soul. One of our leading lights, St. Thomas Aquinas, figured that the soul does not enter the baby until around 14 days after conception. He most definitely believed that the baby was alive before then, however. Likewise, Aquinas denied that dogs have souls, even though (at least some) dogs are most definitely alive. Neither of these ideas are the official teaching of the Catholic church, but that is because the Church has no official teaching on when the soul enters the body or whether a soul is necessary for life.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 02:31:03 PM

Dear Human1, You are right to say that this is not the place for Catholic-Protestant debate, and I apologize for getting off track. Meanwhile, I still contend that the "Bible does not say" argument is vacuous. If the Church is only to condemn as sin that which can be unambiguously proven as sin by means of the Bible and only the Bible, then the Church will be in the odd position of keeping quiet about the moral status of slavery. After all, if one cannot unambiguously prove that abortion is a sin, one most certainly cannot unambiguously prove that slave-holding is a sin. In fact, I would contend that, if all you have to go on is the Bible, one can unambiguously prove that slave-holding is NOT a sin. This is why I am so disatisfied with the "the Bible does not say" argument.

roses18

01/25/2003 02:30:11 PM

GrzeszDel: I'll tell you why so many Christians argue about ensoulment. Most Christians believe that a body cannot be alive without a soul (certainly, this is what is taught by Catholic theology), so pro-abortion Christians assert that a fetus does not yet have a soul and is not yet alive; therefore, abortion is permissible.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 02:24:50 PM

I have never quite understood why the issue of ensoulment matters. No athiest has ever challenged a murder conviction on the grounds that there is no such thing as a soul. It seems to me that the matter of whether and when a soul exists is irrelevant to the matter of whether a killing is murder.

roses18

01/25/2003 02:23:41 PM

potus: Most children in foster care are placed there not because the've been given up for adoption (because usually, but not always, such children are adopted in infancy), but because the'e been taken away from parents that are unfit (alcoholics, drug abusers, etc.) Such children are much more difficult to adopt, there have been cases when the foster parents themslves wanted to adopt the child but could not.

roses18

01/25/2003 02:21:05 PM

human1: Wait a minute. When do you think a human has a soul. Noone can be alive without a soul, so, since you believe that a soul maybe does not come with conception, you believe in spontaneous generation (one minute the zygote is just a bunch of cells, and the next it has a soul and is alive).

Potus

01/25/2003 02:19:04 PM

BTW, the vast majority of child sexual abuse (70%) occurs in the home. Even I would not say Catolicism is responsible for the remaining 30%.

Potus

01/25/2003 02:16:59 PM

Ooooooh, I seeeee. It's babies that people want not children. Whatever.

human1

01/25/2003 02:04:26 PM

Grz, your ending issue is far fetched and ridiculous. I said call sins, sin. My point is if you cannot prove abortion to be sin. People who commit adultery, accounting fraud, and child abuse (hello, Catholicism) need to see their sin. A woman who ends a 2 week pregnancy need not be leveled by the namecalling of sinful murderer when it cannot be proven that a zygote is a human soul. Yes, I am not in agreement with much regarding Catholicism....however this is not the arena for that discussion. The Bible is true, and we must correctly stand upon it firmly in our choices for life.....even in accusations.

danalynn1

01/25/2003 02:03:43 PM

I beleive there should be some kind of laws inplace for abortion. Most people don't abuse their right for abortion but I know there is a small percentage out there that just use abortion as a means of being able to get rid of any consequences of their sexual relations. Using abortion as a means of birth control is not moraly correct. In this sexually imoral society we should be returning to abstaining from sex til marriage as the way god intended for it to be then the need for abortion would be cut way down. Abortion should only be inplace for health reasons and maybe rape.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 01:53:52 PM

Dear Potus, For better or worse, I would be willing to bet that those many children you mentioned who are languishing in the limbo of foster care are not babies. It is very true that it is hard to find good homes for older children. That having been said, there are waiting lists for pretty much any sort of baby you care to name, no matter how sick or pitiable. As such, I stick by my earlier claims that there would have been no trouble adopting all of the children who have been aborted.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 01:50:46 PM

Meanwhile, it seems silly to me to worry that the business of calling abortion a sin might prevent a woman from coming to Christ. By this logic we should refrain from condemning child abuse and adultery and accounting fraud, because these are all sins which real people might commit, and thus our condemnation might sway those who have committed them away from Christ and His Church. In other words, if we are to avoid condemning abortion as sin, then by your logic the Church should abandon the very idea of sin, because there is some person somewhere out there who might be scared away by the knowledge that s/he will have to repent of some past deed when s/he comes to Christ.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 01:50:31 PM

Dear Human1, Perhaps our disagreement reflects a deeper Catholic/Protestant division? I could see how a Protestant might find the "Bible doesn't say" argument convincing. For a Catholic like myself, the Bible is one (very important) part of the larger category of "Tradition." The unbroken Tradition of the Church is that abortion is a species of murder, and, as such, a sin (except in the same cases where any other murder is not sinful, e.g. self-defense). The fact that the Bible is not 100% clear makes no difference in the fact that the authentic Christian tradition holds that Christ forbids abortion as He forbids any other murder.

Potus

01/25/2003 01:41:41 PM

  potus 1/25/03 1:26:35 PM "  human1 1/25/03 11:21:23 AM Potus, you've gone overboard there. Your conclusion of mental illness is not justified." Please explain your position. My position is that lingering guilt is A symptom of mental illness which might be alleviated with appropriate interveNtion. MenTal illness, btw, is a spectrum ranging from garden variety neuRoses, which we all have, to full blow pyschoses. It's a medical judgment not a moral one.

Potus

01/25/2003 01:23:14 PM

"There are so many childless couples who are waiting to adopt while children are being destroyed.' I don't know where you live, but in my state there are countless children languishing in longterm foster care because there are no adoptive homes for them. Perhaps those childless couples could inquire about those children?

human1

01/25/2003 12:41:27 PM

they have....not the have.....you know... :)

human1

01/25/2003 12:40:23 PM

Calling it murder....black and white...is wreckless, and unnecessary. There are many true and known negative aspects that can be presented in full truth to women who are deciding. We can make these things visible and known to them....and still not condemn it as murder, and them as murderers. For we don't in truth know the have taken a human soul. My point is just that, stop purporting as truth, things you cannot prove out.

roses18

01/25/2003 12:39:04 PM

(ctd.) There are so many childless couples who are waiting to adopt while children are being destroyed. A child given up for adoption may not grow up with its "real" family and may not have Nintendos or Barbies, but at least it will grow up. The most basic right of every child is to live. Everything else we think a child deserves (toys, a good education, etc.) is just an addition of that basic right. So when we rob a child of that right, especially when it has a chance for a good life, we are being injust, we are stealing, and we are being uncharitable. And the Bible most certainly teaches against that.

human1

01/25/2003 12:34:32 PM

Grz, You wrote: "It seems to me, however, that the question "does the Bible allow abortion?" is a silly question to start." We disagree. I feel it is a critical question to be poured over by those who march around asserting the Bible does not allow abortion, and then platforming on from there in calling it sin, murder, etc. The foundation is off, and they are standing on completely shakey ground. More importantly, potentially barring some unbelieving women from ever experiencing the love of God, by this attitude of condemnation of abortion as murder. If the Bible names something a sin, then by all means let's call a sin...a sin. If the Bible does not call it sin, we'd better tread lightly before we end up serving God's enemy rather than God. I have said I would not counsel a woman to have abortion, but I would also be there for her if her own choice became abortion....to insure that satan does not use it to convince her she has gone outside of any hope God could ever love her.

roses18

01/25/2003 12:32:03 PM

I always tried to understand why so many women choose to abort rather than give their child up for adoption? It's not because of teenage pregnancy, rape, or illness of the child (these put together don't constitute even half of the 1 million abortions a year in the U.S. alone). Of course, there are always the excuses that a mother would be hurt by giving her child up, or that it's simply not the right time for her to be pregnant. So a woman would rather kill her unborn child than suffer even a little for the sake of bringing it into the world.

GrzeszDeL

01/25/2003 11:41:49 AM

Dear Human1, For what it is worth, I agree that there is no thoroughly convincing reason to believe that the Bible forbids abortion. To be sure, I think an anti-abortion position is very consistant with the Bible, but I cannot conclude that the Bible absolutely forbids abortion per se. It seems to me, however, that the question "does the Bible allow abortion?" is a silly question to start. You will please forgive me if I repeat myself, but the Bible allows slavery; that most certainly does not mean that a Christian may countenance slavery in good conscience. The Church has always taught the evil of abortion, a teaching which comes to her from Christ, that is, God Himself. The Church also teaches compassion, so I agree with you that a Christian should think twice (or even three or four times) before condemning the woman who has an abortion, but this is hardly the same thing as to say that the Christian ought be reticent or diffident about the wickedness of abortion.

human1

01/25/2003 11:32:55 AM

violin27....I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. JAD, I cannot agree with your "circular" reasoning explanation for Jeremiah. What you offer there is more of a case for the sovereign will of God, which is when God invisions something, or someone, and determines to create that vision.....it will come to pass. Which I do believe to be true. I believe that when God has a person in mind, who He predestines for crucial works, etc.....He will see to it that this person is born on earth. Nothing can stop that, not even abortion. The actions of man cannot prevent the sovereign will of God. God does all that He sets out to do. Therefore I have a difficult time believing the human soul is present at conception. Do you believe that every pregnancy is the sovereign will of God? If so, aren't you believing then that it is His sovereign will for some women to be violently raped? Also, that some unmarried children will engage in promiscuity? How do you mentally settle these issues?

human1

01/25/2003 11:21:23 AM

Potus, you've gone overboard there. Your conclusion of mental illness is not justified. Though I hear what you are saying about people taking a certain "spiritual" stance in continuing in suffering without help. The same can be said to some who could earn a better living, but for negative reasons don't attempt anything, and present themselves as more "spiritual" for having less. (I'll probably get jumped on for that, but I have seen this.) However, there is nothing "spiritual" in either case, in not getting necessary help. While both carry the potential sign for a mental problem.....few are.

Potus

01/25/2003 09:44:49 AM

Anyone who, several years after an event, still revisits that event with guilt and sorrow should seek psychological and psychopharmaceutical help. Or they might adopt a number of children equal to the number they aborted. Or they might seek membership in a less judgmental and more supportive faith community. Ongoing guilt is destructive and rather than being a sign of "sensitivity" or "spritituality" is more often a sign of mental illness.

caffeine

01/25/2003 03:26:01 AM

Amen to that! This notion that only wealthy, intelligent, careless people have abortions is ludicrous! The option of choice always needs to be there. We cannot force children to bear children. Who exactly would that benefit?

Violin27

01/25/2003 03:07:24 AM

Mandy'sRoyalty wrote: "But for just being dumb or careless? There is no excuse! You can't get pregnant and then say "oops!" and rid yourself of the fetus like it was a piece of paper to ball up and throw away." I don't agree...12 year olds are often dumb and careless...and NOT ready to be parents.

Violin27

01/25/2003 02:55:24 AM

mlove wrote: "One lase comment, for those who advocate for the freedom of choice, have you had an abortion?" Yes. I cannot say my decision didn't carry regrets; but given the circumstances at the time, I still believe I made the best decision for all involved parties (fetus included). "Did you ever counsel someone to have an abortion? If not, why not? Is it possible that you think it is wrong? Is that why you didn't, nor counsel anyone too?" I would never be so presumptuous as to advise an individual one way or the other. I believe this is a choice a woman needs to make on her own. I could point out possibilities or ask questions that might help lead them to their conclusions. I could tell them about my experience; but it wouldn't be their experience. Best to present the options, their advantages and potential drawbacks; and offer support and kindness regardless of the decision.

jadsquared

01/25/2003 01:02:29 AM

Also, as I indicated previously, the Bible does not explicitly state that abortion is wrong, but the overall message of the Bible points in that direction. Another verse- Luke 2.21- ". . . the name given by the angel before He [Jesus] was conceived in the womb." Again, this does not say explicitly . . . . But it does indicated that Jesus himself was conceived. That is, a person was conceived. Not some mass of cells was conceived that later became Jesus. Also, you have not given any indication of when you think life begins in the womb. If it is not at conception, which Luke 2:21 indicates is the case, does it begin in the 2nd trimester? third? Where else should the line be drawn? And observations from other, more mundane, examples of life seem to indicate life begins at conception. Again with the chicken egg example. What about a seed that is placed in the ground. Does the plant have to emerge from the soil before it can be declared alive.

jadsquared

01/25/2003 12:41:24 AM

Human1, as for Jer. 1, God ordains the means as well as the end. To state it rather crudely- without a lot of the necessary qualifications- and in what sounds like a circular argument, if Jeremiah was never conceived, God would not have known him before he was conceived. Does that make any sense? God does not foreknow what does not take place. For if he foreknew it, it was also a part of his plan and would have taken place.

human1

01/24/2003 10:57:45 PM

Is that you crystalclearone ?!

FLUTEHOVER

01/24/2003 10:38:16 PM

What really bothers me is that there is a woman who works. Then there is a woman whose mother tells her to have a baby. What I see going on is the abortion of the women who are talented and working. While they work, the women who talk to each other talk against the women who work and say they aren't the ones to have babies. Then the fertility woman force children on the men while the women who were talented and working keep working. My question is this: Must those women who work and are often desirable be enslaved for the bringing up of children that men didn't ask to have? Ask yourself how many times you didn't give life to a woman at work because she didn't have a baby. This is the biggest sex discrimination case going.

FLUTEHOVER

01/24/2003 09:41:24 PM

The smartest and most spectacular women never have many children. The women without much to do just can't wait. Abortion has always happened to intelligent women because other women are so fast to sleep with intelligent men. Yes, Rachel's other children were aborted. Not at her request but those are the facts. Every social worker knows this.

FLUTEHOVER

01/24/2003 09:15:33 PM

The woman chosen to have children and had to be a scandal instead of a mother will prophesy. American will some day have to apply for licenses to have children. Who gets the license?

FLUTEHOVER

01/24/2003 09:13:42 PM

Abortion is a word that isn't in the Bible. Thankfully most of our brains aren't aborted and they are from God. I had pleasant relationships with men and at least four talked to me about having children. Women around me had lots of opinions, most of them leading to my not having children. The fertility cult, of course. I never had children and couldn't now. Society aborted my children as society always aborted the children of Rachel and the smartest women on earth. So take that, court, judge, and women who think God wanted them to have children so they forced their children on men. Do you know that babe? Who is aborting, asked Rachel? They had no science then but will you finally understand the Bible like an A student does? Why do men marry less?

jkopanko

01/24/2003 08:57:43 PM

"Sex is there for bringing children into the world mainly, not merely for pleasure." Sex is every sexual being's basic right; and it is the RIGHT of every sexual being to exist free from the obscene violation of power-greedy institutions inserting their probing noses into her bedroom to use sexuality as a device for them to to control, oppress, shame and rule over society. ANY WOMAN (OR MAN)'S SEX LIFE IS NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUISNESS FOR CRITIQUE, PETTY SMEARING, CONDEMNATION, ETC. How extrordinarily weasely and boorish the notion that it is.

FLUTEHOVER

01/24/2003 08:54:32 PM

The message of the New Testament is that there is no longer a great need for new children in the world. There is a need for people to care about their neighbor's children. The Bible went from family to social life because the Jews saw that the Romans had the world for loving their brother. The Romans could form a society and forget about individuals and their dynasties. To be a modern person before God is to forget about you being a great god-like father or mother. The garden of Eden does not think about having children. It thinks about the garden, planning a garden, and the pleasure of the garden. This is heaven. Repeat. There is no great need for more numbers of children in this world. There is a need that you love children period. Not necessarily your own. Abortion is violence. It is the response to rape. The response to overpopulation is war. Too many people and they kill the excess off. The human race is a bestial animal and has a long way to go.

MandysRoyalty

01/24/2003 08:19:46 PM

The debate of when it is actually considered a child aside, I think if you have sex you have a pretty good idea as to what can occur from this process. Sex is there for bringing children into the world mainly, not merely for pleasure. It is the responsibility of the people in the act to know what their behavior may bring. If you don't always take proper precautions, or if you blame it on being drunk, etc. then what is the surprise when the woman becomes pregnant? Aborting it because you were careless is just unbelievable! If it is a child with a severe birth defect, then an abortion may be the humane thing to do. If it is a child from a rape, then an abortion may be an option there too. Those 2 cases are understandable. But for just being dumb or careless? There is no excuse! You can't get pregnant and then say "oops!" and rid yourself of the fetus like it was a piece of paper to ball up and throw away.

idbc

01/24/2003 08:11:44 PM

Here is the problem I have. According to theory God is a nice guy, very fair and loves children. So that if a "child" dies before bring old enough to be responible for moral choices the child goes to heaven. Wouldn't it be better of the child to die and thereby be guaranteed a place in heaven/paradise than letting it live and thereby make it possible for the child/adult suffer in hell ?

travestine

01/24/2003 07:42:49 PM

Mlove: I also want to say, if I sounded harsh, that you have my sympathy as well. You are very much in need of counselling. If you've had 4 children since, then you are regretting actions which took place a considerable amount of time ago. You need to come to terms with your decisions and accept and forgive the woman (girl) you were at the time. She did the best she could. You don't know that you wouldn't have sought out an illegal abortion and died if you hadn't had access to legal abortion services. Thank God that you were and were able to give birth to the children you have now. Find a counsellor who won't encourage you to judge and condemn your past actions, but to put them in your past and celebrate your future. I wish you peace.

travestine

01/24/2003 07:38:16 PM

JAD: re: the PBA myth - I do know what I'm talking about - I've done the research and read independent medical reports, unbiased by political bias. Just because you are "pretty sure" about what you know doesn't make it fact. Like I said, read the actual medical documentation and then join the debate - don't just parrot the anti-choice rhetoric you've been spoonfed. Mlove: Yes, I've had an abortion and a child. I regret neither. My first decision was made of necessity and the correct one at the time, as was my choice to have my son. And yes, I'm a Christian and entirely at peace with my decision. I have also counselled friends NOT to have abortions when they were in doubt, when it seemed to me that they were simply uncertain and afraid, but ultimately would be able to carry through with bearing a child with love and support. That's the meaning of CHOICE - something anti-choice people never understand.

damianna

01/24/2003 06:54:54 PM

GrzsesDel: A society that shuts a woman up indoors and keeps her "barefoot and pregnant" is not one that values fertility. That's misogyny. A society that valued fertility would make every effort to keep women as active participants in society as they want to be, not force them to choose between motherhood and career, or to say that they're created for giving birth, not thinking, and shouldn't have careers.

human1

01/24/2003 06:12:42 PM

(cont)You are wrong in calling all abortion immoral. You cannot know, or claim this to be truth. Back it up, if you intend to proclaim it. You call abortion sin, because you believe it is the taking of a human soul. You offer no basis for this to be the truth. You cannot prove that a zygote is a human soul. You need to stop calling it sin, and reserve that word for the things we know from scripture clearly to be sin.

human1

01/24/2003 06:12:21 PM

JAD, while I appreciate the words of your first paragraph, last post, the rest of what you write is again, an example of arrogance. You cannot conclude from the Bible when human life is complete. (you haven't even shown that, yet.) You, personally, believe it is at conception. That is your personal right. You however, cannot conclude your opinion to be truth....that a human is given at conception....from what we have been given in the Bible. We went through the verses you offer, and there were demonstratable arguements using those scriptures that show your opinion to be a possibility but not the only possibility. What about Jeremiah...you offer no comment there. That verse conveys the opinion that birth control is abortion. Comment please!

mlove

01/24/2003 05:13:59 PM

One lase comment, for those who advocate for the freedom of choice, have you had an abortion? Did you ever counsel someone to have an abortion? If not, why not? Is it possible that you think it is wrong? Is that why you didn't, nor counsel anyone too? Has anyone who has posted ever counsel someone to HAVE an abortion? If not, why? I have never counseled anyone to have an abortion, I don't quite know why I chose to have one. I wish I could take it back, but I can't. Once it is done, it is done. Is there anyone who didn't have an abortion that wishes that they did? I would appreciate some comments on the questions that I asked. Thanks

mlove

01/24/2003 05:07:46 PM

The unborn child has not had a chance to transgress, and just being alive(or becoming alive) shouldn't be considered a crime punishable by death. I have had an abortion, more than once. I didn't have 14 children, nor was I sick. The only reason I chose to abort was because I didn't want a child at that time. That's it. Everyday that I look at the children I chose to have, I am reminded that I have murdered their brothers/sisters. And I constantly wonder how I could have been so misled to do such a grevious thing. If abortion was illegal, it would have never occured to me to do such a thing. I would have accepted that I had a child on the way, and prepared myself the best way I could. That's what I did with the children I have today, none of them were planned, I wasn't trying to have a baby, didn't want to have a baby. But now I am blessed with 4. Yes, all 4 of my children were unwanted, but by the time they were born, they were the most wanted childred.

Violin27

01/24/2003 04:58:19 PM

For your reading pleasure: http://naral.org/generation/walk/wis_1_true.html http://naral.org/generation/walk/wis_2_true.html and http://naral.org/generation/walk/wis_3_true.html Because one cannot hope come to an understanding about issues like this without attempting to understand the people with whom they disagree.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 04:41:14 PM

I am back- briefly. Human1, I am not sure where I came off so condemningly. I apologize if so. I agree with your description of an appropriate Christian resonse- aid to those who don't choose and even to those who do choose abortion. Those who choose abortion are no worse off than me in terms of where we stand in relation to God and His wrath apart from Jesus. I hope you do not confuse my saying that abortion is wrong, sin, and even murder as an indication that I think I am better than those who disagree or who have had abortions. There is a major difference in calling something sin and in doing so with a morally superior attitude. Saying something is wrong is not equivalent to "judging" someone. Failing to make this distinction means Jesus himself was judgmental. There are moral absolutes and to proclaim them is not wrong and even necessary.

human1

01/24/2003 03:54:26 PM

grze....I agree that JAD is not a hypocrite. I think though, that if you are going to come across so condemningly.....you need to slow down and think. I was just hoping to lead him/her to some deeper pondering. It is easy to sit and spout off our frustration, and anger. It is however, not always fruitful. (I know from my own experiences!) I can't imagine anything else I can offer in thought here.....so post on, I'll do some reading now.

human1

01/24/2003 03:49:32 PM

I can add I have friends who work in a local CPC.....none of them are pro-life activists. They are pure examples to me of an appropriate Christian response. They not only offer aid to those who don't choose abortion, but they also provide spiritual counseling to those who chose abortion.

GrzeszDeL

01/24/2003 03:48:30 PM

Dear human1, I will admit that much of what you write sounds very convincing to me. One thing, however, is not, and that is your insistance that it is somehow hypocritical of JAD to argue against abortion without first having adopted a baby who would otherwise have been aborted. The plain fact of the matter is that there is a waiting list right now to adopt babies with Down's syndrome. In other words, there are people out there anxiously awaiting their chance to adopt a child which they know in advance with be mentally and physically disabled. Surely, if there are people willing to WAIT to adopt children whom they know in advance will be sick and disabled, then it would not have been difficult to find parents to adopt every last baby aborted last year. Finding someone else to care for these children is not going to be an issue and JAD is not being a hypocrite if he is willing to leave the job of raising the children to someone else.

human1

01/24/2003 03:43:31 PM

It's very true....cpc's are great. I had no access in the 80's, and don't know if apart from the Lord, I would have listened. CPC's are terrific.

GrzeszDeL

01/24/2003 03:40:54 PM

Good news, for all of those who keep insisting that pro-lifers should do more to make it easier for pregnant women to choose life. In 1980 there were 500 crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S., most run by pro-life organizations. For those of you not familiar with crisis pregnancy centers, these are clearinghouses for support for pregnant women who do not want to have an abortion. The volunteers who run these things help to find the mother housing, job counseling, legal advice (if there is a possibility of child support), medical care for herself and the baby, child care, emotional support, etc. In any case, as I said, there were ~500 of them in the U.S. in 1980, and today there are ~4000; this is an 800% increase in the number (and thus availability) of crisis pregnancy centers. They are still, almost entirely, the product of pro-life organizations and volunteers. If you were looking for evidence of pro-lifers trying compassionately to help women to choose life, there you have it.

human1

01/24/2003 03:40:10 PM

spelling....ugh...sorry.

human1

01/24/2003 03:28:33 PM

You can be sure that I value life. Completely. I would not have an abortion, and would attempt to council anyone in my path not to, based upon the experience of the one I had decades ago. I am not so naive that I believe my words will be received by all, and for this reason I feel that the safety of the woman comes first....because like it or not, abortion will continue. From there.....help and support can be offered to the woman no matter what choice she came to. She is accountable for that choice, and we need to be there to meet whatever the needs her decision brought about. Whether physical needs in adoption, or setting her up with parenting support...or her spiritual needs after an abortion, and leading her to see what truly put her in that place to begin with (if by sex), or if by rape....the needs there are obvious. I will never stand accusing any woman, after my own experience. I do not want to be the one responsible for a soul being lost to the Lord by my activism.

human1

01/24/2003 03:18:34 PM

I challenge you to stop for a moment and write down for yourself all of the eternal possibilities for the outcome of the woman's soul, and the baby's soul (assuming it has one at the point an abortion takes place, which we cannot know). Write down on paper the possible outcomes for the eternal destiny of both souls involved. There are many possible outcomes and combinations of outcomes....each deserves Christian thought.

human1

01/24/2003 03:12:37 PM

My concern lies with human souls and there eternal destiny. I feel pretty confident in saying that there may be some souls out there who will never approach God with even the possibility of coming to a relationship with Him through Jesus, because some aggressive pro-lifer stood shouting "MURDERER" in her face, and waving accusatory banners that basically said to her....she is unworthy, hated by Christians and God, and should be ashamed. Shame is the signature of the presence of Satan. He uses it to kill the opportunity of someone coming to God and receiving eternal life. Christians need to think seriously about this.

human1

01/24/2003 03:03:42 PM

You ask my opinion on the start of life. I could offer you my thoughts, and tell you what they are based upon. I will never be so arrogant as to assert that my thoughts are the ultimate truth of God. As a Christian, I must admit that the Bible does not conclude and leaves reasonable a few differing possibilities.

human1

01/24/2003 03:03:34 PM

Next you site Jeremiah, which I would challenge you to go back and read with contraception (do you use it, or plan to?) in mind. This passage implies that the vision God had of Jeremiah prior to any conception was the starting point for life. So if taken literally...life begins in God's mind, and contraception which prevents the egg from becoming fertile is the taking of that life. This is the verse supporting the Catholic view of no contraception. The last site in Luke involves a leap by a baby which we know from reading there is at least 6 months along in the womb. Such leaps I can assure you happen at this point, having carried 2 children! This verse however offers nothing in stating when life began.

human1

01/24/2003 03:03:08 PM

I spoke (about a page ago here) regarding the Psalm of David, which introduces the analogy of knitting. The problem with your perspective, is that by this analogy the process of creating something is used, and the creation is not complete until the knitting is over. This would leave room to say that as with the first knitted row of an invisioned sweater....that one row makes not a complete sweater. This gives not black and white....but leaves room for question. The only certainties implied is that at some point....the process is complete within the womb, and that in the womb indeed is the place where the formation becomes complete.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 02:50:41 PM

Again, each of these things are good. People certainly need a relationship with Jesus and we should strive to bring this about. But do we allow people to rape, pilage (sp?), and burn until they know God. And if you find the Bible is unclear-and I acknowledge it is not explicit (though that is not saying the Bible does not have something to say about it)-are you comfortable with the gamble that life does not begin at conception? You yourself say you are uncertain.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 02:45:50 PM

Human1- I respect your concern for the truth. And I especially respect that you seem to imply that the Bible is where we derive truth. I couldn't agree more. What I disagree with, as is obvious, is that I believe the Bible does give us an answer to this question. Does the Bible specifically say abortion is wrong, no. But neither does the Bible specifically say don't drive a semi into a sky-scraper. It does, however, give us guidelines that allow us to fill in the gaps. As I said earlier, God is the giver of life. As to when that life begins, I don't see how we could say it doesn't begin at conception. I used the example earlier-is a chicken egg a life or mass? The yoke doesn't yet look like a chicken when the egg is first "delivered." But is it still not a chicken?

human1

01/24/2003 02:43:14 PM

Refreshed my mind on the scriptures you offered. None offer the conclusion you are making. They leave room for much variety of opinion. Which is my point. If we cannot know.....we need to hold our assertions and do that which is before us. Teach people to have a relationship with God. That relationship will bring to the individual all that is necessary in choosing when to have bride, when to become have sex, and when to become a mother. They need the knowledge of the love of God.....not our interpretations of a very contraversial topic which become only human opinion. Next post, I will offer what I am speaking of on each of your scriptures.

human1

01/24/2003 02:35:57 PM

just saw your references....time to recheck them...so I'll pause.

human1

01/24/2003 02:32:01 PM

(We can move on.....but in truth, you ARE asking people to do that which you are not willing to do. You are asking them to parent people whom you would not be willing to parent, or give away children, when you can't say you would be able to give away your own. ) My arguement with your postion and the actions you take here, is deeper than this. In my opinion as a Christian I cannot be pro-life, nor pro-choice. I see error on the side of both. Truth has to be our foundation. The Bible does not offer us black and white on the moment life begins, and a soul in is question.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 02:30:23 PM

Travestine, would you be willing to find out what Partial Birth abortion is as well. Because I am pretty sure PBA's regularly involve the baby being partially born alive- and even if not, stopping the heart is not justified because it is in utero. You could easiy find the info since you are already on-line. Human1- As far as what the Bible says, Ps. 139.13-16; Jer. 1.4-5; Lk. 1.44 are a few that indicate that life takes place in the womb. Beyond that, the Bible is clear that God is the giver of life. A woman does not become pregnant unless God has chosen to give that life. When would you say that life begins? Is it only once the baby is viable on its own? Is a baby that is born really viable on its own? Does it not still need someone to give it food and to protect it?

human1

01/24/2003 02:15:20 PM

On your last posts ending I'd agree. This is about whether assertive opinions should be offered on something for which the Bible does not conclude. Show me conclusively where life begins from the Bible.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 02:12:02 PM

I am not asking anyone to do what I wouldn't do myself. And once again, what I am or am not willing to do is not really relevant to whether or not abortion is right or wrong.

travestine

01/24/2003 02:09:01 PM

Read what I wrote. The fetus is not "born" at all! The heart is stopped in utero and then extraction occurs. There is no "birth" ever. The term "partial birth" does not exist in medical science. It was invented by the anti-choice movement as an emotional catchphrase. Again, get the facts. It is obvious from your posts that you are merely parroting what you read and hear from those who believe as you do - you do no independent investigation on your own. We are talking about a necessary medical procedure that a certain group is seeking to ban for their own cynical political purposes which will put the lives of women at risk. I will not go into all of the reasons here why it is safer for a woman not to go to term with a pregnancy which will inevitably end in the death of the fetus due to severe birth defects or why a dead fetus must be removed in a timely fashion - suffice it to say that once again your ignorance has demonstrated why I remain firmly and unalterably committed to the pro-choice movement.

human1

01/24/2003 02:04:56 PM

JAD, The day you are willing to do any of the things I asked about, will be the day your opinions deserve a listening ear. You are not part of the solution, you are simply asking other people to do that which you yourself won't consider doing.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 02:01:59 PM

Human1, yes your questions were simple and a simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. But my answer reflected the fact that the answer to those questions do not change the moral validity or invalidity of abortion.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 01:58:46 PM

Traavestine, I don't think partial birth abortion is called that because a baby is born partially alive and then killed. It is called that because the baby is partially born and then killed. And because it is only 2500 of them makes it OK? And does it suddenly become wrong once the baby has been born fully? If a severly damaged baby is born, is it not murder to kill it? Why is it different for the baby in the womb? Is it OK because the heart has been stopped in the womb?

human1

01/24/2003 01:54:50 PM

I don't see the relationship to the questions I asked you.....and your talk of Hitler. The questions were simple, and required only a yes or no. Sometimes silence speaks volumes, so in a way....I think I have your answers, and can thank you for your response.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 01:51:49 PM

Travestine, as a pro-lifer, I regret that some have resorted to tatics of fear. If abortion is indeed wrong, failing to tell my child that would be the immoral thing to do- just as failing to teach them stealing, lying, etc are wrong. Human1, I guess Hitler was not guilty of killing millions of Jews because some nations did not get involved in the war and attempt to defend those who were being slaughtered? And what I would name a fetus is irrelevant. I guess its not wrong to kill a baby who remains unnamed for a week or so?

travestine

01/24/2003 01:50:32 PM

JAD: Do you actually know anything about so-called "partial birth" abortion or are you just spouting the myths that you've heard from your fellow anti-choice advocates? The facts are: There are fewer than 2500 of these types of abortions performed annually. They are performed only when the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus is either already dead or is so severly damaged in utero that life outside the womb is impossible. The fetus is not born "partially alive" and then killed. Potassium cholride is used to stop the heart and then the extraction occurs. Yes, it is a sad and tragic occurence, but it would put the lives of women at risk if it was banned. It would required "whole birth" extractions to occur, which are far more dangerous and damaging to the woman. Get the facts before you start trying to argue them.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 01:44:24 PM

Travestine, so are you saying that even after life begins in the womb, whenever that may be, the woman's "right" still trumphs the baby's? As I asked jkopanko, what do you think about partial-birth abortion? This proceedure takes your argument to its logical end. If you don't agree with partial-birth abortion, then you agree "life" is the fundamental issue.

travestine

01/24/2003 01:44:01 PM

JAD: Your response to Nogger - the point is, it is not helpful to a person trying to make the agonizing decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term to moralize and condemn. Again, the problem with the anti-choice movement is that they seem to think that fear is an effective tool in their war on reproductive freedom. A teenager is more likely to choose to carry a child to term in an atmosphere of love, support and acceptance rather than one of fear, condemnation and moralizing. A "pro-life" parent may feel righteous and justified in moralizing, but may also send her running for the nearest abortion clinic, just to escape nine months of being made to feel like a "scarlet woman" by the very people who should be supporting and loving her.

human1

01/24/2003 01:39:55 PM

No one has offered an answer to what name should be chosen for a xygote. Jad, what name would you suggest?

jadsquared

01/24/2003 01:39:09 PM

I disagree that the question of when life begins is a peripheral matter. If indeed life begins at conception, the State would not be taking control of a woman's body but defending the life of the defenseless. Making abortion illegal would then be the same as making murder illegal. Are you in favor of partial-birth abortion? If not, then you agree that when life begins it becomes murder, right? As for a woman taking care of her children, indeed the man does have responsibility. But in the event that the father is not around, is not the mother still responsible. And when a mother no longer wishes to accept this responsibility, is she justified in killing her children? So, again, the issue is when does life begin.

human1

01/24/2003 01:36:24 PM

JAD, I have a couple of questions. Have you ever taken into your home and raised a baby for a mother who became pregnant, but not able to parent that baby? Have you ever said, go ahead and have that baby, and I'll raise it? After today, will you do this? Have you ever tried to daily restore the broken hearted and forever emotionally damaged woman who felt the Christian pro-lifer's threats pressure her into having a child, and giving that piece of her away forever? Have you been there daily for such women? After today, will you? Have you ever taken in the baby who was created through a rape and raised it to adulthood? After today, will you? I'm sincerely curious of your answsers, and would like you to share why, or why not you will now begin doing these things.

travestine

01/24/2003 01:34:42 PM

JAD: This is where the debate between anti and pro choice breaks down: you claim that the "fundamental issue" is when life begins, whereas I would argue that the fundamental issue is who controls my reproductive destiny: me or the govt? "Enslavement" exists when one is denied by statute the right to determine one's present and future way of life (outside, of course, of criminal action resulting in sanction). When a woman can't decide for herself if she is willing carry a pregnancy, she is "enslaved" by being denied the right to determine the course of her present and her future.

jkopanko

01/24/2003 01:27:06 PM

Jad, I repeat, the onus is on you to convincingly justify why the ownership of the body of an individual should be transfered to the State. I have answerred all your questions. You have not answered this central, basic one. This question IS the "abortion issue". I'm not going to humor you any further on these peripheral points until you can follow through on that. JK (continued below)

jkopanko

01/24/2003 01:26:48 PM

(continued from above) PS "Is it the enslavement of a woman to say she is responsible for taking care of her children". No, it is the nature of parenthood. Furthermore, contrary to your implication, THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT LIMITED TO WOMEN, but is equally shared by any who assume the responsibility of parenthood. This is normally INSTINCTUALLY ACCEPTED. Moreover, although the vast majority of human beings do, NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO RETAIN the role of "parent", at any time a child may be given for adoption, if this happens to be the will of the parent. However, what you are advocating is the COMPLETE LACK OF ANY CONTROLLING RIGHTS of women. And YOU need to show why this could ever be acceptible.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 01:13:57 PM

jkopanko- And the rights of the unborn child? Also, is it the enslavement of a woman to say she is responsible for taking care of her children, feeding them, changing their dipers, giving them baths, taking them to school, etc.?

jkopanko

01/24/2003 01:08:22 PM

Jad, "Sorry you feel like pro-life people are trying to control the reproductive rights of women." No need to be sorry for my feelings. Feelings aren't the issue. It would be more appropriate to be sorry for advocacy for the oppression of people, for the pain, grief, and struggle you cause in the lives of people for this advocacy. "However, my interest is not in controlling women." This is not really too relevant. It's kind of a Nazi saying his interest was not in eliminating Jews, but simply in makining more room and resources for Germans: You ARE advocating enslavement of women, whether you are "interested" in that or not.

mmpd33547

01/24/2003 01:04:35 PM

I guess I am confused. The original question was based on what the Bible has to say about abortion. I am not sure what Bible the writer of this article read from but I read from 3 different Bibles, NIV, King James, and Life Application Bible and not one of them said the same as the quote that is in the article. If you are truly interested in what your Bible has to say in Exodus 21:21-22 then I challenge you to read it and compare your translation to the article. As for the argument that God gave us free will or "freedom of choice" you are right. We have the choice to choose to follow Him or not. We also have the right to choose to do right or wrong. If we do wrong i.e.murder lie,adultry, is it with God's approval and blessing approval and blessing. I think not. Iwould be intersted in hearing what your Bible says

jadsquared

01/24/2003 01:04:20 PM

Obviously, you and I disagree on when life begins. That is the fundamental issue- not women's rights. From my perspective, the onus is on pro-choice people to show that the mother has right to destroy the bodies of their unborn babies.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 12:59:43 PM

When I said that "Gosh knows that has indeed been the case," what I was trying to say is that indeed women's rights have been stifled by the government. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 12:57:42 PM

jkopanko- sorry you feel like pro-life people are trying to control the reproductive rights of women. Gosh knows that has indeed been the case. However, my interest is not in controlling women. rather my interest lie in defending the rights of the child. Is it possible that women/couples who terminate their pregancies are guilty of violating the rights of their children?

jkopanko

01/24/2003 12:52:35 PM

Jad, The onus remains completely on YOU to convincingly justify the extrordinary measure of trasferring ownership of women's bodies out of their own hands and into control of the State. When you can do that, THEN you have the right to get into any of these peripheral issues of your argument. Put up, or shut up.

jkopanko

01/24/2003 12:48:46 PM

Jad, "What is it about abortion that prevents [pro-choice advocates] from being pro-abortion?" 1. Unwanted pregnancy is traumatic for the obvious reasons. 2. That one has the special potential to deliver a child at that time (normally seen as a positive thing), means that it requires tremendous heartache to have to make the decision that the gift of this unique opportunity cannot be accepted because multiple circumstances make it impossible, or not in the best interest of the mother or child. Obviously, this is a HARD thing that NO ONE would not agree would be better avoided. The fact remains, however, that the onus is on those who wish to use the State as a tool for the enslavement of women--literally controlling their own bodies and dictating their personal reproductive choices--to prove the necessity for such unbelievale mysoginistic tyranny.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 12:42:07 PM

Nogger, forgive me if I misunderstand you. But it sound as if you are saying that declaring something to be morally wrong is wrong itself.

Nogger

01/24/2003 12:37:00 PM

If your 15-year old daughter comes to you and tells you she is pregnant, then you have two choices: You can babble on and on about what she has done wrong and that even considering an abortion is a sin and murder. And she will feel misserable. Or you can tell her that you will support her in any way, that if she carries out the child you will take care of it so she can finish her education, that you will support her with the money she needs and more importently with friendly advice and if there are enough people that give her hope she might decide for herself to keep the child. All anti-abortionists have a choice: Help someone who is undecided about abortion so she sees a chance to make it, even with a child to care for, or make life misserable for someone who is undecided, so she doesn't abort out of fear. Either way you save a little baby. The first one is the work of good people. The second is the work of people that just disguise their hate.

Nogger

01/24/2003 12:36:54 PM

A lot of things in this world go wrong. That's an undeniable fact. There are people that are good-hearted, that go out and try to help as much as they can. Then there are people that instead go out and start acting agressively to people of which they think they are doing something wrong. The first person makes someone else chear up, the other makes someone feel misserable.

Nogger

01/24/2003 12:23:48 PM

Why not take the other approach? Why do woman choose to abort? There migt be a few who are just self-absorbed enough to wish to escape the demands of parenthood, but they are surely a minority. Most of the time, if a woman chooses to not have her baby, she has a very good reason for it. So I just ask what's better? Investinf our energy into forcing women to deal with difficult situations, or investing our energy in solving the situation that brought women into the situation of unwanted pregnancy? What about combating rape, lack of sexual education, poverty and allowing young mothers to still have a chance in live even if they have to care for children? That's a mission for good people. The situation is not getting better for anybody if you force woman to carry out pregnancies. If we manage to solve the true problems, than any woman who gets pregnant will be glad to carry out their children. But our perverted society first creates a difficult situation, than punishes those who cannot bear it. to be cont.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 12:22:55 PM

By the way, I recently heard a stat on NPR's "All Things Considered" by a pro-choice leader in the medical field. She said something to the effect that abortion is the most common form of surgery in the U.S. She also said the only form of surgery that approaches the popularity of abortion is dental surgery when all the varieties are lumped together.

jadsquared

01/24/2003 12:14:52 PM

I have another question- one that will sound less serious than it is. When a chicken lays an egg, would I be killing something if I dropped a brick on it? Can we say it is not alive because it is not viable outside of the shell?

jadsquared

01/24/2003 12:03:03 PM

I have a question. If many pro-choice people say they are not pro-abortion, what is it about abortion that prevents them from being pro-abortion? What is it about abortion that drives people to qualify their arguments for the right of a woman to choose by saying that they do not personally wish abortions took place? If something is undesirable about it, what and why?

jkopanko

01/24/2003 11:57:17 AM

Pro-Choice Christians, Jews or anyone else do not have ANYTHING to "prove" to ANYONE as to why they are not "against God". This is completely absurd. Those who particularly seek to use the government to oppress other people HAVE THE ONUS OF PROVING THEIR MORAL SOUNDNESS... NOT VICE-VERSA.

greenUU

01/24/2003 11:54:11 AM

apology to lovesherkids - sorry, I was temporarily stupid. After seeing so many people getting into the LEGALITY of abortion on the basis of the Bible, instead of sticking to the topic of whether, within the confines of Bible-based morality, abortion can be accepted, I just saw your bit about the "pro-abortion" and it touched off those feelings. Sorry. Very good, topical post. Hope I didn't offend TOO badly :o(

greenUU

01/24/2003 11:48:22 AM

to lovesherkids - Don't slander the pro-choice crowd as "pro-abortion". Most don't want abortions, but recognize that only those directly involved can sort through the delicate nuances of extremely difficult situations, and therefore, it should be left up to individual people, not the government, to control their reproductive lives. Also, in case you need reminding, America is a secular country, not a Christian country, so it is inappropriate for the Bible to be used as the reason to decided the legal status of abortion.

human1

01/24/2003 11:45:48 AM

I know the above analogy is crude, but it is also completely arrogant to assert that Biblically you know the precise moment a human life begins, and a soul has been taken. If a woman develops a relationship with God, and walks life with Him...she has all that she needs to guide her decision making. As it is when you point your assertive finger at a woman calling her murderer, and insisting she view removal of a xygote to be equal to murdering a newborn, you are like the pharisees of whom Jesus said "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Unless you can honestly tell this woman that you'd do just what you are requiring her to do with her life because of your personal interpretation....you are no better than the pharisees.

human1

01/24/2003 11:45:26 AM

Pro-life Christians like to site David stating he was 'knit together' by God in His mother's womb. The analogy is the knitting process. Just as when you arrive home from purchasing 'all that is necessary' for the sweater to exist, but you have not yet begun knitting, do you have indeed a sweater? Additionally, for knitters out there, when you start the first row, do you have for yourself a sweater? Can you go around wearing it? Have you ever unraveled the first row, and changed your mind on even making that particular sweater, at that particular time?

human1

01/24/2003 11:44:53 AM

bbdh, I somewhat agree with you. I'm a Christian, though neither pro-life, nor pro-choice. I'd like to also ask, what name exactly does one give a 'zygote'(as someone has raised the notion that it is indeed a baby)? Jennifer? or John? Again, to state firmly that the Bible asserts when human life begins is arrogant. It leaves room for supporting each perspective. I do believe that there comes a time when abortion is the killing of a baby. There comes a time inutero when a baby is viable outside the womb, and yes, when it actually has excretory function in the womb, as some here have mentioned claiming this does not happen in the womb, offering sarcasm about 'diapers'.

lovesherkids

01/24/2003 11:43:48 AM

The pro-abortion side tells us that it is better (more loving) that a baby not be born at all then to allow it to be born into a potentially unloving circumstance. Hey that happens any time a baby is born. We cannot say what will happen in the future to anyone who is born. I recognize that some women are in very difficult and even life threatening circumstance when they are pregnant. I am not saying the choice to carry a baby is ever easy even in the best of situations. But we as believers in the bible must still share the truth of the bible in love. We need to give those women prayer, support and most of all love. Even if a women chooses abortion these apply, but to tell a woman that the bible allows and even supports abortion is a lie, and lying to a person is not a loving thing to do

greenUU

01/24/2003 11:43:36 AM

Right on, potus!!!!

lovesherkids

01/24/2003 11:43:32 AM

Jesus commands us to love the Lord our God with all we have and are. These commands leave us with only two choices. Is what we are doing a loving choice or not. Just because a baby will be born at the wrong time or into the wrong circumstances does not mean it is unloving to allow that baby to be born.

lovesherkids

01/24/2003 11:42:53 AM

You can debate when a person becomes a person all you want but ultimatly you cannot deny that if a women does not get an abortion a baby will usually be born. Therefore getting an abortion prevents a person from being born, whether you think that person is yet a person when they (it) are/is killed (aborted)in the womb or not.

lovesherkids

01/24/2003 11:41:29 AM

To use the bible to justify abortion is an abomination. The whole of the bible can be summed up in two commandments. Matthew 22:37-40 And Jesus said to him,"You shall love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and all with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the great and foremost commandment.The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets."

Potus

01/24/2003 10:36:46 AM

Ah, yes, "the Bible prohibits the killing of innocent people..." Unless we don't like their governments [Iraq]. Unless we can can make use of their populations. [Slavery/colonialism]. Unless we want to test a chemical, process, or product [capitalism]. The fascination of the religious right, especially the Catholic church, with fetuses (feti?) is a convenient way to have an issue which requires no action from the individual with the fascination and total action on the part of the person whose life they seek to control. If I force you to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term what do I have to do in regards to that child? Nothing. I can bibble on about personal choice and feel good about my moral stance. whoop dee doo.

bbdh

01/24/2003 06:44:07 AM

BS"D The fluff article about a woman naming her unborn daughter is not only stupid but dangerous. What if the daughter is stillborn? I will take the biblical perspective that the child is not an indpendent life form until it is born and takes its first breath. Then you name the child. Naming a potential child is, itself, childish fantasy with the potential for harmful repercussions if the child is born dead.

bbdh

01/24/2003 06:41:18 AM

BS"D The sad piece about the Bible being pro-life is the worst case of orwellian double-speak I have seen. Nowhere does the Bible mention that a woman has no right to kill her own child on the birthing stool. Face reality! All ancient cultures knew and respected this truth. To say the bible supports such a distorted American view of jurisprudence is patently absurd.

bbdh

01/24/2003 06:37:04 AM

BS"D Legislation against abortion curtails the rights of existing citizens in favor of those without citizenship status. That is wrong. Abortion should be decided on a personal case-by-case basis, not left to some mindless bureaucratic variously-interpreted and ill-conceived law.

PaulBnow

01/24/2003 03:52:40 AM

The woman who wrote this article about the Biblical basis for killing unborn babies is totally wrong. God always is on the side of the innocent!

PaulBnow

01/24/2003 03:31:48 AM

I think this woman who wrote this piece has intrepreted scripture incorrectly. Quoting Exodus 21:18 "if men strive, and hurt a woman so that her baby is forced from her and lives, the man shall pay a fine to the husband as set by the jusge, but, (verse 23) if mischief follows then he shall pay a life for a life, a eye for eye, tooth for tooth hand for hand, foot for foot,wound for wound, burn for burn and stripe for stripe. So God indeed does put a high value on the unborn as well as the mother and whoever causes either harm shall pay! So, baby killers repent! and again I say repent! With God, the least powerful has the rights, not the one who will be inconvienced. So, you doctors and abortionists and those who advocate the willful termination of an innocent life, whether born or unborn, repent! (change your mind) or will will surely be judged! Ask any woman who has had an abortion why she consented to it and she will usually say because she had NO OTHER CHOICE! Get it?

jkopanko

01/24/2003 01:14:21 AM

"So how about this instead: Pro-life, Pro-sex, Pro-creation! Honoring and valuing women and women's bodies," I think Damianna is onto something very significant here. We often overlook the irony of Christian institutions posturing as "Pro Life" (read in a broad sense). Historically, and today, the influence of institutional Christianity has hardly been life-affirming, and instead has been anti-sexual, anti-sensual (i.e. anti-"flesh"), anti-aesthetic, anti-beauty, anti-individual, anti -expression, pro-mortification, pro-ascetic, pro-chastity, pro-otherworldly. In short, the influence has been much more one of seperation of the spirit from the body (literally, death), than celebration of this union, which we know as LIFE(!)

roses18

01/24/2003 12:37:31 AM

When we say that a fetus is not alive until a specific time (i.e. first heart beat, first breath, etc.) therefore abortions are ok, we are ignoring basic logic. With any other animal, such as a dog or a cat, we would say the fetus is alive once the gametes join, the new zygote has all the genetic information it will ever need, and all that is left is growth. therefore, for every other animal, life begins at conception. But since we humans are special, the lives of our fetuses begin at some time that we ourselves determine. "Life does not begin at conception" is an excuse. Science and logic prove that life does begin at conception, so now we're faced with a problem: should we defend a woman's right to choose at the expense of a baby's right to live?

human1

01/24/2003 12:03:36 AM

thank you violin27, for your kind words. God bless all, h1

XOX

01/23/2003 10:25:17 PM

Volin27, I like what you said about unsuspected Christians being manipulated by "pro-controllers" (Anti-choice) and being used in achieving their goal. That is exactly what going on here. Christians, being loving to all including women, will be far more acceptance to women who have to make difficult decisions regarding pregnancy. Christians who don't like abortion but think that it should remain legal so that women are "safe from illegal abortions" would concentrate more on "teaching prevention", and offering alternative for abortion. The way is to "reduce demand" for abortion. That is why many Christians and Catholics who will not have abortion for themselves are Pro-Choice.

cfortunato

01/23/2003 10:24:34 PM

"Many who bash Lee don't truly know what he was about. After the war while attending a church service int he south, an African-American was in the congregation. Many moved to kick him out of the service, but Lee stood up for his right to worship God along with them." Yes, Lee defended a black man's right to worship with a white man - and defended the white man's "right" to OWN the black man. So some Southerners were - and are - in a state of constant denial and self-contradiction on the subject of race. That's not news. Lee, of course, also fought against the United States of America. It astonishes me that there are people who actually claim to be "patriots" while romanticizing and celebrating folks who made war on the United States, and fired on the Flag.

FLUTEHOVER

01/23/2003 10:03:05 PM

Pro-life is actually to be like Rebecca and not ask for children. A concept few women today understand. Pro-life is to be Leah and not ask for her sister's boyfriend's children. Few women understand what pro-life is in a crowded world. Pro-life is to have one Joseph and not a hundred disadvantaged children. This is the key to the garden of Eden. Pro-life is to forget the issue of children. A woman with wisdom has ability, not children. So says Proverbs. There would be no abortion if people did something that they liked and learned birth control. Yes, people wanted to control birth in the Bible. God wasn't really very concerned with that issue. He seemed to concentrate more on the Ten Commandments.

FLUTEHOVER

01/23/2003 09:44:29 PM

I've thought that abortion isn't an issue if lovers can talk to one another in this modern age and use birth control. Abortion only pertains when there is violence, rape causes abortion. People who can't learn birth control and want things fast talk about abortion. The Bible is very concerned with whether people want children. God actually liked childless women best until the virgin Mary. The women wanted children because they were being taunted. The Bible was in response to fertility cults. If people followed the Old Testament, they would stop over-population. God's favorite women were childless and they wanted control over birth. Over birth over birth control. Every woman does but that's really not what life could be about.

mrwu

01/23/2003 09:02:44 PM

I come across what may be the use of an abortifactant in the old testiment. It's pretty crpytic. I'd like to here other people's opinion. It is the jealousy offering in Numbers 5. Pretty much a suspicious huband will takes his wife to the temple where the priests make up a decoction of floor sweepings and water. If she's been untrue "And make may this water that causes go into your belly and make your belly swell and your thigh rot" Then the woman shall say Amen so be it (consent and choice is apart of this ritual.) What about it literalists?

Violin27

01/23/2003 08:53:50 PM

cont... As to nuns, I can assure you I've known a few, and am well-aware that they work hard to educate and care for the lives they so value, and I have great respect for their work and their vows. One does not need to be a nun, however, nor be affiliated with any religion in particular to work hard caring for people. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters abound with non-religious who are devoted to humanity. The difference is, they cannot rely on the positively obscene wealth of the Catholic Church to insure that they won't starve or die of some horrible disease before their charges do. Most need to work elsewhere, and have limited hours in which to volunteer.

Violin27

01/23/2003 08:52:54 PM

GrzeszDeL> My apologies for not being clearer...I did not intend to imply that pro-lifers are not concerned about life. I meant to emphasize that those who are, for the most part, funding the pro-life movement are more concerned about controlling women. They've conveniently taken people along for the ride who are truly guided by a conscience which tells them they must fight legalized abortion. I feel strongly that these "pro-controllers" have predated on unsuspecting Christians in an attempt to achieve their ultimate goal. Still, it must be easy for pro-lifers to be seduced by the promise of an abortion-free America.

Violin27

01/23/2003 08:34:30 PM

cont... Meanwhile, we know for a fact that many people have been unjustly accused and had their lives terminated on death row with not a whimper from our lawmakers' conscience. Indeed, some victims relatives become upset at the prospect of the WRONG MAN not being put to death for the crime their loved one suffered. I think, perhaps, it is good that there is controversy concerning abortion...and part of me hopes there always will be; though I believe it should be a woman's choice to make. Right or wrong? Sometimes, I believe, there is no right or wrong...there's only the choice we make, and the need to live with that.

Violin27

01/23/2003 08:34:14 PM

Human1, I feel deeply for the difficult decision you came to make years ago, and deeper still for the regrets you now feel. I suffer from similar regrets, if not the same ones. However, it really IS all about choice... Our law says that murder is wrong; yet a person can get away with killing someone they despise and always wanted to murder if they can prove it's in self-defense or temporary insanity. When a soldier murders an "enemy" countryman for the sake of the USA, the crime isn't even tried in court. It's government-sanctioned murder, which is ok.

GrzeszDeL

01/23/2003 08:25:45 PM

Dear Violin, I am broadly sympathetic to much of what you said about slavery in the modern world. I part ways with you in your third post. Perhaps you did not read my eariler post on the subject, or perhaps you read it and found it unconvincing, but I think it is simply silly to say that pro-lifers do not care about life. As I said before, I do not care how much you personally do to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, protect the vulnerable, nurse the sick or teach the illiterate, there is a Catholic nun out there doing more than you are. That nun is very much pro-life. Working to help those already born and working to save the unborn from an untimely death are not mutually exclusive goals, and you do no credit to the pro-choice position by setting up a bifurcative fallacy as your argument against the pro-life position.

Violin27

01/23/2003 08:04:23 PM

cont... Similarly, there are those who would use biblical scripture to ensure that women are ultimately controlled by men; and what better method to achieve this than to deny women the control of their own bodies? Those truly behind the pro-life movement are not concerned about life. They wish to control. If they were so concerned about life, they'd be pouring their money into saving the children who ARE born into this world into poverty and disease. They might work toward helping mentally ill people in the United States who were kicked out of mental health institutions and forced to live on the streets during the wonderful Ronald Reagan administration...so we'd have fewer schizophrenics out on the street having babies that nobody wants to support.

Violin27

01/23/2003 07:46:36 PM

cont... B)the unwillingness of the power-holders to establish a living wage for the working poor, which has resulted in a minimum wage that does not raise commensurate with inflation and C)the blind eye our government turns on nations that "employ" slave labor, resulting in horrific poverty in third world nations...and the welfare roll for US citizens who can't afford to compete with those who work even harder than they do, for the honor of living in a tin hut... It appears to me that slavery is alive and well in the US...but nobody chooses to call it slavery.

Violin27

01/23/2003 07:46:17 PM

Lucilius wrote: "Abolitinists pointed to Jesus' example of acceptance and love, while many churchmen in the south justified subjugation of blacks as the result of God's cursing Cain or Ham, as well as Paul's injunction that slaves should obey their masters, as tacit endorsement of the institution." You make an interesting parallel. Sadly, people still exist who would use those arguments to maintain slavery in this country. Not as we knew it in the 19th century, to be sure; but when you consider A) present-day disparity between rich and poor (regardless of race)

GrzeszDeL

01/23/2003 04:38:09 PM

Dear Damianna, I may be misunderstanding you, so if I seem to be talking past you, rather than to you, I apologize in advance. It seems to me, however, that there is a meaningful sense in which we can say that America is a less Christian nation today than it was 60 years ago. I think that there is also a meaningful sense in which we value and celebrate a woman's pregnancy/fertility less today than 60 years ago. I certainly do not mean to paint a picture of good old days which never existed, but it seems to me that if you want a society which values pregnancy and fertility, you want a society that is more, not less, Christian.

damianna

01/23/2003 02:22:30 PM

So how about this instead: Pro-life, Pro-sex, Pro-creation! Honoring and valuing women and women's bodies, I mean REALLY valuing them, not just lip service (oh yeah, honey, I really value you as mother of my children--so it's really important that you have no other purpose in life than raising them). Make Mother's Day every day! Go out of your way to help pregnant women and mothers to get the most out of their pregnancy as PEOPLE, not as "things" or "vessels," give her room to live her life AND celebrate the wondrous miracle of giving birth! A pregnant woman or woman with a healthy child is a sign of her ability to bear other healthy children--a bonus for partnership/marriage! Celebrate the fertility of women and the Earth! Oh wait...that's not Christianity...that's Paganism ;)

damianna

01/23/2003 02:22:09 PM

I have just been struck with the humorous irony of the Pro-Life movement: it originates out of (usually) conservative Roman Catholicism, which goes out of its way in every way to deny the intrinsic value of all life on earth.

human1

01/23/2003 01:53:13 PM

In the mean time....I am not pro-choice or pro-life. I see truths, and errors in the thinking on both sides. In the mean time....I'd just say...keep women safe, and teach any who will hear about God and His love of them.

human1

01/23/2003 01:49:37 PM

(cont)Since we cannot know, we need to focus on what we can know. People have spirits, they also have a creator. Women need to be taught about the truest and most trustworthy source of constant unconditional love available to them. The love of God. The decisions to have sex, or have an abortion, or become a wife, or a mother, will become clear both individually and personally stemming from a relationship with God. In my views, it is God that needs to be offered to women, far above our opinions.

human1

01/23/2003 01:49:06 PM

This is a heavy topic for me. I am a Christian. Married, with two beautiful children. During a period of life when I chose to walk away from God, I had an abortion. It has been one of the most painful things to try and heal from in my life. I cannot tell you how deeply it affects me even decades later, even now. I do not believe that any of us know the truthful answer to this equation. While I know I would not ever have an abortion again...that choice is not based on a scripture from the Bible. I don't see that the Bible gives a black and white teaching on when life begins. It is arrogant to insist it does, either way.

lucilius

01/23/2003 11:54:31 AM

I'm not just trying to perpetuate a Civil War discussion - it's not my favorite area of history, after all - but I do think the issue of slavery holds some interesting religious parallels for the abortion debate. Preachers in both the north and south used the Bible to justify their political postures. Abolitinists pointed to Jesus' example of acceptance and love, while many churchmen in the south justified subjugation of blacks as the result of God's cursing Cain or Ham, as well as Paul's injunction that slaves should obey their masters, as tacit endorsement of the institution. Both sides pointed to the Bible for authority, and both could cite passages for support; but their conclusions couldn't have been more different. Much the same happens in the current debate over whether abortion is a matter of life or liberty.

lucilius

01/23/2003 11:48:03 AM

Your "flavor" referred only to your denomination, which I do not know, twright21. It's not a jab at any particular one. Glad you're open-minded about others' opinions; some here will immediately declare that, since other posters don't agree with them, they're obviously stupid and wilfully evil. Naturally, everyone believes their own faith to be true; otherwise they wouldn't hold that faith. I can't agree with you on the Bible, but I respect your belief as well.

GrzeszDeL

01/23/2003 11:39:59 AM

Before anyone else rushes to claim that the civil war was fought for reason X not reason Y, please let me point out that I mentioned the abolitionists as an example of activists working on both a direct action level (the underground railroad) and a legislative level (voting for anti-slavery candidates). The reasons for the war, while no doubt interesting, are not really relevant to the point I was trying to make. Don't let me stop you from discussing the Civil war, just please note that it does not really pertain to the point made in my post which touched off the discussion in the first place.

twright21

01/23/2003 11:16:51 AM

Many who bash Lee don't truly know what he was about. After the war while attending a church service int he south, an African-American was in the congregation. Many moved to kick him out of the service, but Lee stood up for his right to worship God along with them. Very interesting man. That sectional feeling you mention, lucilius, still exists today. The state's rights issue is still alive, even in the abortion debate, as many have pushed for the state's to be able to decide this issue.

lucilius

01/23/2003 11:09:21 AM

I think sectional feeling was also a big reason people fought; as a more rural, stationary people, Americans of the Civil War era identified much more strongly with their states than most do today. When the state called, that was the homeland, more so than the country. If you read Robert E. Lee's agonizing over which side to fight for this is well illuminated. This feeling was particularly powerful in the south, as opposed to the north with its large immigrant population.

twright21

01/23/2003 11:09:03 AM

I understand fully the scope of this website. And what is "my flavor" of Christian belief? That sounds like a jab to me. It is purely scriptural. I can respect the beliefs of others without believing that they are true. I can love others without supporting their lifestyle choices. The truth is what matters in the end. And the question will be asked, "How do you know that your truth is the absolute truth?" Test the other religions of the world and see where the truth lies. I am by no means perfect, as we are all imperfect and fallen. I don't believe that only my opinion matters, but I do believe that scripture holds the true answer, whether people choose to accept it or not.

twright21

01/23/2003 11:04:28 AM

As a teacher, luciius, I concur. State's rights was the issue, but the only real state's right that was being contested at the time was slavery. Had slavery not been an issue, there would have been no war. However, many people in the south without slaves fought under the guise of state's rights. Since only about one quarter of southerners owned slaves, something had to make them want to fight. Your statement about many abolitionists is true as well. Very few favored equality for African-Americans; they merely favored freedom from slavery. William Lloyd Garrison, a newspaper editor, was despised in the north and south for his view that all should be equal.

lucilius

01/23/2003 11:01:37 AM

Twright21, you make the same mistake that many others have about the nature of Beliefnet: "Being as this is a religion website, if we were to live as the Bible suggested, gasp, this problem would be non-existent." Belief does not automatically mean Christian belief, and certainly not only your flavor of Christian belief. As an ecumenical website, Beliefnet has communities of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and secularists - it's the self-righteous assertion that only one opinion matters that makes arguments such as abortion so heated.

lucilius

01/23/2003 10:57:41 AM

Well, Asparagus and GrzeszDel, I am something of a historian; and yes, the Civil War was about slavery. If you read the writings of the time, you'll see that was the issue. "States rights" was only the legal justification. It has since been elevated to the primary cause by southern apologists. There were two flavors of abolitionists, also: immediate and gradual. Lincoln, while not a supporter of full civil rights for blacks (he was, after all, a man of his time), he held that by containing slavery in the south it would eventually die out as the plantation land was exhausted. The south's push to expand slavery into the developing west violated the Compromise of 1850.

twright21

01/23/2003 10:43:24 AM

All of the talk of women's rights, where does the father fit into this arguement? Is the baby not half his, biologically? The mother is the incubator (not meaning to sound crude) of the child, but the child is made up of both his mother and father. What happens when the father opposes an abortion but the mother goes through with it? And to the arguements that pro-lifers in this box of hatred and spite, that is ludicris. As is the arguement that all pro-choicers are bloodthirsty savages. No one knows what goes on in the mind of the young girl searching for an abortion doctor, and no one knows what goes on in the mind of the person who opposes it. Many pro-lifers do lots of positive things within their community to support their cause. Also, since this fact was deleted along with my other 2 posts, I find it interesting that the founder of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is now a staunch pro-life supporter. You should research and find out why. Interesting...

twright21

01/23/2003 10:36:49 AM

It's nice to know that this board is opposed to free speech. My posts were deleted for no reason. I guess all thoughts aren't allowed. All this talk of abortion being right or wrong while ignoring the cause. The root problem is the culture we live in today where promiscuity reigns. While there are exceptions (rape) they are few and far between. The overwhelming number of abortions performed are merely post-act birth control. Being as this is a religion website, if we were to live as the Bible suggested, gasp, this problem would be non-existent. Since we have strayed from its teachings, we face the consequences. The consequence here is humans trying to reason whether or not to allow abortion. These women should not be ridiculed because it is a harrowing decision, and my heart goes out to them. However, to deny that we are ordained with a purpose from conception (Jer. 1:5) is to directly oppose Biblical teaching.

GrzeszDeL

01/23/2003 09:36:05 AM

As for the historical critique of my posts, all I can say is that I am a microbiologist, not a historian, so I hope no one takes my historical claims for those of an expert. That having been said, it seems a strange claim to contend that the work of abolitionists did nothing to end slavery. Surely their activist pressure had a least SOME effect on the ultimate outcome of the slavery debate.

GrzeszDeL

01/23/2003 09:36:00 AM

Dear Asparagus, Perhaps I was responding to a broader trend on the board but naming you in specific. If so, I apologize. It seems to me that there is a somewhat inchoate argument running through this discussion so far to dismiss pro-life arguments on the grounds that pro-lifers themselves do not care about people. If they did, so the argument goes, they would spend less time picketing and more time babysitting. My point is that this is unfair, because pro-lifers do quite a lot of both and probably more of the latter than the former.

Gypsygirl1970

01/23/2003 08:14:05 AM

Herangel: Well said.

sunshine2777

01/23/2003 08:13:15 AM

Ambu: Can you please give me your email address? I'd like to write you and see if I can help you.Maybe offer some suggestions. Thanks and God bless.

Asparagus

01/23/2003 01:31:37 AM

Dear Ambu, I am very sorry you are having to bear this difficult decision alone. I don't know what that feels like for you. I only know that it must be very painful. I am also thankful that the right to choose is still legal and that you have the option to decide to give birth to this baby or to choose an abortion. I am sure your decision will not come easy. I only hope you can feel my concern for you--a Mother's love--and know that out there somewhere exists a woman who supports you in spirit no matter what you decide. I wish you peace in your decision.

Asparagus

01/23/2003 01:08:00 AM

In addition, dear GrzeszDel, it was not the work of the abolitionists which ended slavery any more than slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The issue was States Rights vs. a central, federal government. Lincoln's only concern was for the preservation of the Union. He didn't believe the individual States would be able to survive without a strong central government. The Emancipation Proclaimination was a vehicle to galvinize northern support in the war effort. Lincoln would have extented slavery into all the northern states if that would have worked to preserve the Union. You might want to read your history a bit deeper.

Asparagus

01/23/2003 12:48:26 AM

Dear GrzeszDel--You twist my words. Never did I insinuate pro-lifers are ONLY interested in using the law to punish women with crisis pregnancies. Please re-read my posts and you will discover I've applauded those who do work with women to help them find a way to avoid abortion. But, alas, it still is about CHOICE--the woman's choice. It is still her body and a fetus may well be there as an "uninvited guest". To deny that CHOICE is to punish a woman who might not, under any circumstance wish to continue a pregnancy. I hope you pro-lifers will continue to help women who wish your help. Please do not condemn and make criminals of those women who follow a different path. Lets keep abortion legal.

Violin27

01/22/2003 11:35:07 PM

I object to the phrasing of the "Abortion Views" poll. It suggests that those who believe a woman should be able to obtain an abortion legally, are people who, in fact, "favor" abortion. How callous and offensive! I've never met anyone who "favored" (an inappropriately lighthearted word) abortion. I've never met a woman whose decision to have an abortion was made quickly or lightheartedly, or happily...as the word "favor" implies. I strongly favor a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy. I celebrate her freedom...and I pray that fewer and fewer women will need to opt for abortion as time goes on.

Annabelleslie

01/22/2003 10:39:47 PM

I supported my daughter when she had a legal abortion. I had a natural, latish abortion myself and know just how hard it can be on both parents. I still think of that foetus as having a name. I do not believe that Pro-lifers have the right to set their views as law. I always wonder how many of them care for a severely disabled child or have one in their own family and what strata of society and religion they belong. It's much easier to hold such views if you do not have to struggle every moment to support a family especially where drink and drugs are the norm.

XOX

01/22/2003 10:07:49 PM

meacupla, I know. That what I think too. Where are all the pro-life when it comes to adoption? Actually the same question is raised on the Abortion Board discussion. There are Pro-Choice posters who themselves have adopted children and advocate others to do the same. But then, the anti-choice comes in, and insult one poster directly and calling her adopted children "chinamen" (she adopted from China). That is the kind of attitude of many anti-choice on the board, who on one hand condamn women for abortion or having sex, while opposite to State wide assistance for families with children. And become "silence" when it comes to adoption. It is hypocrisy. I learned much more from the Pro-Choice side on children welfare and adoption and considering to adopt a child myself. (It is a Christian thing to do).

meaculpa

01/22/2003 09:48:39 PM

As long as women are faced with the daunting prospect, and frankly, the expense, of raising an unwanted child - coupled with having to face family, social and religious condemnation, abortions will continue. For that matter, and not without biblical precedent (Psalms 137:9), infanticide statistics will mushroom. If pro-life is to be credible, then such fervently convicted individuals and churches should commit themselves (James 2:17) to the adoption of these children. If such a guarantee was an option (talk about faith-based initiatives!), the demand for abortion would more than likely shrivel to next to nothing. The precious children would not merely survive (do we want children who just survive?) but thrive in a family that provides a God-filled, loving environment.

XOX

01/22/2003 08:41:20 PM

As long as the fetus is within the woman body, her right supersede any "imaginery" right of fetus. Rape is violation of another person. It is obvious. But then, there is no such right to be "inside a person body" (similar to rape), therefore, fetus do not have "right" to stay inside women body without her consent. It is not that women are going to have abortion left and right. As more sex education and scared of STD (including AIDS) take effect, the abortion is lowest in years. And before put another "minute before or after born" type of argument. Most of the abortions are perform during the frist trimester (90% plus). Government has no right to rule that "rape is OK" even if they all vote on it, because it violate women rights of their bodies. The same could be said with abortion, that the fetus has no right to stay inside without her consent, even they vote for it.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 08:33:20 PM

Dear LHN, I did not realize yesterday when this discussion began that you are Catholic. As such, when you denied that there was a continuous 2000 year tradition of the Church opposing abortion, I did not pursue the matter because I figured that it would not interest you. Now that I see you are Catholic, however, I wonder that you can deny this. Have you read the Didache? It is readily available online, and I think it should suffice to convince you that the prohibition on abortion dates back to at least the time of the first apostles (and, as such, to Jesus Himself).

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 08:28:35 PM

I think we are in great agreement then, dear Damianna. It reads to me like we agree on the matter of whether the government (in all its levels) has the right to prohibit abortion; we simply differ on the subject of whether it ought to.

damianna

01/22/2003 08:20:46 PM

OK. Yes, it is OK for government to legislate on rape, abortion, taxes, environmental protection, etc., but NOT to curry the favor of any particular religion. Democracy must mediate between the religions, and right now, it seems that the religious right is in a minority. If that was not the case, they never would have passed Roe v. Wade, or they would have overturned it long ago.

damianna

01/22/2003 08:18:30 PM

As far as I have ever studied (anthropology, cultural, sociological studies), I have NEVER, EVER HEARD of a religion that says "rape is O.K." In a class I took called "The Politics of Human Rights," we determined that religion is ONLY ONE determinant of social morals. The U.N. is not Judeo/Christian/Islam, either; it represents hundreds of different religions and cultures.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 08:14:24 PM

Dear Damianna, Your post does not really respond to mine, it just moves things off one degree. If the U.S. feels free to impose anti-rape laws on its inhabitants simply because of a U.N. charter, then whence does the U.N. charter derive its authority to do so? Ultimately, it all comes down to the fact that government exists to compel people to behave according to certain norms, and those norms are necessarily religious norms (even when crafted by so-called "non-believers"). All government action, whether at the behest of the state of MI or the U.S. government or the U.N. is an instance of imposing one's beliefs on others. As such, the point still stands that if it is o.k. to legislate on rape, then it is o.k. to legislate on abortion.

damianna

01/22/2003 08:12:19 PM

I wonder how the pro-life community seems so quick to say "Post-Abortion Syndrome," yet are so quick to deny the PROVEN MEDICAL REALITY of post-partum depression...

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 08:09:33 PM

Thinking of Birthright, dear Asparagus, makes me remember to point out that much of our pro-life "activist" time (at least here in Ann Arbor) is spent staffing Birthright and similar crisis pregnancy centers. This is very definitely work to make it easier for women not to choose abortion, so I feel it is unfair to insinuate that we pro-lifers are only interested in using the law to punish women with crisis pregnancies. That having been said, while I agree that it is good for the pro-life movement to have more dimensions than just the legal one, I do not think that pro-lifers should give up the effort to make abortion illegal. The underground railroad did important work, but that did not mean that abolitionists should have concentrated exclusively on helping escaped slaves and given no thought to using the law to end slavery.

damianna

01/22/2003 08:08:36 PM

LHN: Sorry, didn't mean to paint you unfairly. I don't know what made me think you were a pro-life Christian fundamentalist (I think I saw a reference to "original sin" and didn't bother to read more carefully. There I go, being brazen and opinionated and not even reading....;)

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 08:03:25 PM

Dear Abujajeet, Have you called Birthright? Their toll free number is 1-800-550-4900 and I would be willing to bet that they have a center in Omaha. At least here in Ann Arbor they are reasonably good at finding child care for people who need it. You might give that a try.

damianna

01/22/2003 07:42:05 PM

Grzesdel: Simple. It's not just the US that has such laws, nor is it founded in Christianity. There's a great document, written by the United Nations (though, admittedly, the most right wing of this set bear no love for the UN because they think Europe is corrupting America enough already ;). This document was signed by almost 200 sovereign nations and is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document permits in no country of its signers for a woman to be treated that way.

Jill42000

01/22/2003 07:33:06 PM

There are lots of reasons why women choose to have abortions. It is a no-win situation to offer exigent circumstances and ask if these would not justify abortion because some women would never have one even if her own life was threatened by pregnancy. And those who are moral absolutists actually believe that any pregnant woman must have done "something" to "deserve" her pregnancy. My philosophy is that we can all discuss the options and the morality but only the individual pregnant woman can actually make the decision...because she's the one who is pregnant. Women have always had abortions only the circumstances have changes. I prefer medically sound procedures to risky ones because I value women's lives. The current Atlantic Monthly reprints an article originally published in 1965 about a pregnant woman (married,in her forties, already a mom to 3 kids)who chose to seek an abortion in NYC before it was legal. An interesting reminder.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 07:30:15 PM

I am willing to bet I will be talking to them Saturday. If confronted as I am sure I will be I will explain and see if even one person has a way out of this.

damianna

01/22/2003 07:27:14 PM

raca: Well, actually as an Uppity Woman and political organizer, that's just exactly what I'm trying to do...provide social support networks for families and children who are struggling. That means financial support for single moms/poor families, readily available PRE-PREGNANCY birth control methods that WORK (the current ones are only 99% effective at the time), crisis intervention services for battered women and children, etc. Unfortunately, if all the embryos/fetuses ever conceived became children, there would be no way any social network could support them all. People are really doing the best they can--I can say that as a long time activist, and someone who's worked in poor communities and met lots of social workers, service providers, etc. It's really hard enough as it is right now trying to provide for everyone.

LHN

01/22/2003 07:25:33 PM

Ambu - have you talked to any of the anti-abortion groups? I hate to suggest it knowing what you might face in doing so, but if they say they want to help then you seem a likely candidate for help.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 07:23:10 PM

I have nobody. Maybe an occasional babysitter every other weekend for a night at best.

LHN

01/22/2003 07:20:52 PM

Dear ambu: I am sorry that no one has been able to offer you an alternative. Maybe because no one has one or can truly presume to know what another should do in your situation. That should give all of us pause in our efforts to assert the righteousness of our beliefs. But your life is real and not just an instructive example. The best we can do is pray for each other and trust that God cares for all souls even in the midst of their suffering. Nothing I say can amend your situation. Is there a church or other group to which you belong from where someone can offer to help you - e.g., with childcare should you opt to go off meds while pregnant?

herangel

01/22/2003 07:18:37 PM

Its very disheartening to see this debate tear our nation apart, to see so much anger. For me, the issue of abortion comes down to this: I believe that a fetus is a living child. I've had that choice. I was raped, and I gave up my child for adoption. However, I am not the nation. I am a citizen. I have no more right to tell another woman what her choice will be about her pregnancy than I have the right to tell her anything that impacts on her life. We, as American citizens, voted. The vote legalized abortion. We are governed by just laws, and our nation is made strong by these laws. Our people, together, have created this strong nation. If you believe in your choice, and if you want your choice to be law, then work to make it so, in peace. Do so with respect for other women and their choices. In peace, Michele

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 07:08:07 PM

Very true Asparagus. Earlier I presented to the group my own situation. I have an appointment in a few days for an abortion. I explained my reasonings and offerred anyone who was against the idea to offer me an alternative. Even gave my email address. Not one response.

illyria

01/22/2003 06:25:06 PM

Wow. I'm steaming mad right now and I haven't even finished the article. I'd hoped this article would bring to light some new ways of looking at scripture. So far all I see is a twisting of scriptures! The writer quotes Exodus 21: 21-23 saying that only a fine was required for the fetus' life. But verse 23 specifically says "if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." And as for the fetus/embryo not being mentioned in the Bible, what about Psalms??? Chapters 22, 58, 71, 110, and 139 all mention the psalmist in the womb of his mother! And Psalms 139:13-16 specifically speaks of how God comes to know a child while still in the womb of his mother. I am very disappointed at the misinformation this article presents. Pathetic, really.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 06:17:22 PM

Asparagus: Good point. I wish for the same thing. Again, just because I am Pro-Choice does not mean that I think abortion is the only alternative, I know that it's not. However, there are some situations where it is just not feasible for the woman to continue the pregnancy, such as cases of rape or incest. Why should an 11 yr. old girl, who was molested by her own father have to give birth to that child? What about her well-being and sanity? As ugly as it is, it is a reality that happens everyday. Sometimes, abortion is the only decision to make, as sad as that is.

Asparagus

01/22/2003 06:12:33 PM

Instead of working to promote legislation to make abortion illegal, my hope is that these anti-choice folk would put their energy into developing supportative, loving programs which would help women chose to make choices for birth. I think that is really what being pro-choice is all about--at least it is for me. For some women, abortion will always be the only alternative and that is unfortunate. For them and where they are, abortion should never become illegal. But for you folk who feel so strongly that abortion should not take place I invite you to invest in helping women rather than making them criminals.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 05:57:44 PM

GrzeszDeL: I'm not saying that pro-lifers don't have the right to continue working to change what they believe to be right, just as us Choicers will continue to do what we feel is right. However, you have to admit that pro-lifers have given themselves a bad name by calling women ugly, hateful names and trying to hurt them all in the name of God, who DOES NOT wish for them to treat people that way. I know that not all pro-lifers do those things, but it's the ones that do that get the attention, thereby giving a bad name to all of them. As far as your reference, a man forcing himself on a woman has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with control. I don't care what country they are from, they do not have the right to force themselves on another human being. However, in regard to the fetus, it is not a human being until it can survive outside the womb, even if that surviving is with medical assistance. I really don't see the relevance between the two.

greenUU

01/22/2003 05:56:20 PM

(cont)The pro-fetus camp is WAY off base in trying to label anybody who is pro-choice as "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". I personally know many pro-choice people who favor adoption (as I do). I personally know a pro-choice woman who had an unwanted pregancy, but CHOSE to go through the full pregnancy on her own and offer her child for adoption. Though I'm pro-choice, I would never encourage my girlfriend to get an abortion if she became pregnant. However, not everyone has the same circumstances as me. Some people make mistakes - example: a girl who isn't very experienced with alcohol might get drunk and have sex that she regrets. Most don't suffer more than the humiliation & self-loathing itself. Some get STDs. Once in a while, the mistake leads to a pregnancy that the woman can't handle at that time. Does it make any sense to prolong her suffering for 9 months, and in the process maybe even endanger her life, or have the child stuck with a parent who cannot or will not be able to do a reasonable job??

greenUU

01/22/2003 05:52:47 PM

As I said previously - It seems that pro-lifers like to sit up on a high horse and judge everybody. Well, if you're so perfect "let one who is free from sin cast the first stone." Do you qualify? What have any of these pro-life hardliners actually done to prevent unwanted pregnancy?(oops - I nearly forgot, most have made it WORSE by blocking access & education re: birth control) What have you done to HELP women cope with unexpected pregnancy? I think most pro-lifers are nothing more than hypocrites who have had pre-marital sex, but by the luck of the draw you haven't had to actually deal with emotionally wrenching and horribly difficult situation of an unexpected pregnancy. It's easy to sit there and judge everybody and pretend to be so righteous when it costs you no pain or effort of your own, except some ego-boosting talk about how much better you are than everybody else.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 05:49:35 PM

Whoops, Asparagus, I may have given the wrong impression. I do not mean to initmate that homosexual parents would be any more likely to abuse the children. As a Catholic I think that homogenital sex is a sin, and thus a Catholic like myself could be worried about the children being raised with an incorrect view of sexual morality. How other parents raise their children is none of my business, however, and I would not wish to stop a loving homosexual couple from adopting a child.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 05:45:33 PM

I say "arguably" because there is not room here to outline the whole argument, but I am convinced that it can be logically shown that abortion is a species of murder. If this is the case, then why should pro-lifers not be allowed to work to see that the law reflects the reality of the situation?

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 05:45:27 PM

Dear Gypsy, I can appreciate where you are coming from, because I once held that view myself back in my athiest days. I would ask you, however, to consider the following: there are societies in the world where a woman's consent is considered irrelevant to the business of having sex. She is the property of another man, and if a man wants to have sex with her, he needs either to acquire her himself or gain the permission of the "owner." If a person from such a society came to the U.S., we would not blink from "imposing" our beliefs on him, and if he forced himself on a woman, we would prosecute him for rape. If our society feels comfortable imposing this religious belief on all people in our territorial region, why is it impermissible to forbid what is arguably murder.

Asparagus

01/22/2003 05:44:47 PM

GrzeszDel--No doubt there are many Catholic nuns doing wonderful things for the vulnerable. I applaud them and all their efforts. I certainly do not dismiss those who work with the vulnerable as unconcerned with anyone's welfare. But I do see a difference between these and the political agenda of many anti-choicers. I do, however, object to what sounds like a value judgement concerning homosexuals. I do not see where one's sexual preference is an indicator of good parenting. Homosexuals do not necessarily engage in sexual abuse of children any more than hetrosexual parents. Sexual abuse of children infects all religious expressions--not just the Catholic church. The difficulties within your church--or any other-- are not the result of homosexual priests, but rather the sexual abuse of priests and nuns who choose to abuse children. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

greenUU

01/22/2003 05:40:36 PM

GrzeszDel, Ann Arbor is a very nice place, and the fact that you believe that lots of pro-lifers would have no problem with a homosexual couple adopting a child is just proof of how tolerant your town is. In the cultural backwaters where Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, or similar fundamentalists prevail, the notion of gays as anything less than "an abomination against God" is nearly universal. I hope someday soon the moderation and tolerance you have will reverse the rabid attacks of the Religious Right.

raca

01/22/2003 05:34:04 PM

I didn't ask you to "safely say". I asked others from other views. Like I said, in other places, other ideals exist.

greenUU

01/22/2003 05:32:31 PM

"Minnie_Mouse 1/22/03 3:54:01 PM I don't care if the mother's life is at stake, abortion is MURDER. PERIOD. If she dies, it's God's will." Should people who don't believe in YOUR view of "God's will" have to risk their lives for YOUR views???? What if we extended that "God's will" crap to every other thing this world - no modern medicine, no science, no knowlege of anatomy, the sun still revolves around the earth, etc. That is about the most callous argument I have ever heard. Shameful.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 05:31:32 PM

GrzeszDeL: Good point. I don't feel that Pro-Lifers are unconcerned with the children after they are born, however, MOST pro-lifers have the feeling that ALL Pro-Choicees are barbaric with no regard for human life. I have a high regard for human life, however, I don't feel that it's a human life until it can survive outside the womb. Whether I'm right or wrong is not for the Pro-Lifers to decide.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 05:24:49 PM

For the record, I am a pro-lifer, and I would certainly prefer for a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than be aborted. My first-hand impression with local pro-life organizations here in Ann Arbor, MI suggests that mine is not a rare viewpoint. Meanwhile, regarding the claim that pro-lifers do not care about children once they are born: no matter how much you do to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, defend the battered, and educate the illiterate, there is a Catholic nun out there doing more than you. For the most part, however, these Catholic nuns are strongly pro-life. Think about that before dismissing pro-lifers as unconcerned for the welfare of people after birth.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 05:20:37 PM

Well, I've established that there were 100+ too many people on deathrow. Those being the innocent. I wonder if this country will make any reparations for the absolute suffering that those individuals went through. Being accused of something you didn't do, and then having some barbaric state tell you that you are going to die for it must be traumatic. The Death Penalty also glorifies the true wretches. Look at Tim McVeigh. He not only got his own darn book, but I've met all too many people in my life who look up to him! Not to mention there's hardly anybody in this country who doesn't know who he is. Personally speaking, since I was 10 or 11 when he was tried, if he'd been given life in prison I wouldn't remember what his name was. But now, he's got his own book, a fan club, and fame. Yep. Fantastic. Death is the easy way out. Sitting in a cell by yourself for 70 years is teaching them a lesson, not putting them to sleep.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 05:19:55 PM

Yes, I am Pro-Abortion if that is what you wish to call it. Do I think it's viable birth control? Certainly not. But, that is not for YOU to determine. As I said before, I know my body is not mine, but 'on loan'. However, neither does it belong to YOU to decide what I should do with it. Again, it's between me and God. This is a personal, religious and political issue for me.

raca

01/22/2003 05:15:39 PM

Is anyone in here actually pro-abortion? Does anyone think it's viable birth control? It's generally regarded differently abroad. And I just wondered before I move on to other things, if it is a moral issue (on a personal level) for you Choicers, and quite a different story politically...? In truth, I waffle on the issue of what should be legal. I just know I have bad feelings about abortion, and I don't hear convincing arguments in it's favor.

raca

01/22/2003 05:04:29 PM

LHN: I gathered after I posted that you are female. It seemed like you called me down for the part I wrote to Dami.. We all struggle with similar issues. Some of us can find grounding in our faith. Others find our religion to be unclear (I'm not Cath). Still more choose to change religions (effectively, even if they claim to be the same ol' Baptist they ever were) rather than adopt the socially unpopular ideals about accountability. I'm glad that there are people like you on the other side of the debate. Not as glad as I am that JK is on the other side...but I digress. Uppity women unite!!! Thats what I say. Lobby to make the state take care of unwed mothers, rape victims etc. It would be so much better than lobbying to let us kill the unborn. That's just my opinion. I choose not to group murders and child-molesters in with unborn children. There's simply no comparison.

Asparagus

01/22/2003 05:00:28 PM

I am the mother of two sons. I am also pro-choice. I choose to give birth to both my sons because I wanted them and I could offer them the love and support they needed. This is not necessarily so for every pregant woman. What I fail to understand in the pro-life argument is why this group fails to offer financial and emotional support for all women and their unborn children so that they are less like to choose abortion over birth. I furthur fail to understand, given this, why the political right opposes increased services to low income women and their children through the welfare system. If life were truely sacred to them I should think they would be at the forefront of social reform. I hope and pray for a world where every child concieved is wanted and loved. I also hope and pray for a world where every woman is valued. Until this is reality, I continue to see abortion as a bad to a horrible problem.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:56:04 PM

"Christians" who want government to own women's bodies, and who are anxious to have "criminals" killed: 1) When did Jesus ever try to have ANY individual choices taken away from ANY individuals? 2) When did Jesus ever work to transfer power over anyone's lives to the government, or to ANY external institution? 3) When did Jesus address the all-important issues of reproduction or contraception (or homosexuality for that matter)? 4) When did Jesus ever suggest that ANYONE should be killed? 5) When did Jesus suggest that we should seek the death of those who have offended us--in ANY sort of way. When did Jesus even suggest that we should seek harshness toward anyone that has offended us? (continued below)

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:55:47 PM

(continued from above) 6) When did Jesus ever suggest that ANYONE was beyond compassion, hope or human dignity. 7) When did Jesus speak about fetuses and thier viability as complete human beings? What is the answer to ALL of these questions? NEVER. All of these things are simply antithetical to Jesus' live, example and teaching. Quite simply they are not "Christian" attitudes--rather, they are right-wing POLITICAL attitudes. It's sad that Jesus is high-jacked, perverted, and abusively defamed more than any human being in history.

wiccawitch

01/22/2003 04:55:26 PM

ambujajeet I understand what you are going through and my thoughts will be with you, as you and I both know this is not a decision taken lightly, it is your body and only you know your circumstances fully. others who disagree are obviously saints and have never had to make just a decision, I refrain from the word "choice" as this doesn't truely reflect the emotional and spiritual assessing involved in such a decision. Stay strong Blessed be

LHN

01/22/2003 04:54:38 PM

raca - to be very clear - I am a woman - not a "he" - and I do not agree with you about the death penalty. Please see my earlier post about this. The death penalty and euthanasia are very much tied up with abortion when it comes to the seamless garment idea. Further, this is what the Catholic Church teaches - I didn't even say whether or not I agreed with the teaching in its entirety because I am very much opposed to all forms of State-sanctioned killing. The questions I wrestle with are whether or not abortion is murder and what is the definition of life.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 04:53:38 PM

Pro-Deathers: Oh so those 100+ inmates who were released off of deathrow because their innocence was proven isn't an outrage to you? How can you sleep at night supporting a decision that would have killed 100+ individuals that we know of, obviously more who have already been executed, when the were INNOCENT????????????? ONE MORE TIME: INNOCENT MAN EXECUTED. ...the american dream...

raca

01/22/2003 04:52:23 PM

LHN: Whoa yourself. No smacking of women here. It was you I thought might have been a little uppity, but I reformed my ways on that point. As for tissue love: yes.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 04:51:39 PM

To any of the vigilant pro-lifers still online: You wish to sit here on your butts and argue with those whose support, which today's anniversary marks, give me the choice to be able to go on and do what I need to do. In a few days I will end a pregnancy because I feel it is the ONLY choice for me. You dissagree, go back and reread what I have written throughout this day of my situation. Pass it around to your prolifer friends. Believe me when I say I would love another option. I am logging off here needing desparatly to take a nap while my 3 year old is doing the same. I leave you with my email address. You can sit around and B&%&h about how wrong abortion is or you can prove your point by offerring me options. sliebesaffare@yahoo.com

LHN

01/22/2003 04:51:21 PM

Dear Damianna: What did I say that made you think I "assume that all people share the Christian view that salvation from sin is the only purpose of existence"? Yes, I am a Christian and a Catholic who supports legal abortion (free to the poor), but I do not assume everyone in the world does or should think like me. I can imagine nothing more dreadful.

raca

01/22/2003 04:49:48 PM

JK I can't ignore you...I tried :o) We are just too "at odds" in our beliefs and logical conclusions. "You DECIDE to KILL the criminal for the reason that YOU determine his life is worthless.." NO NO NO!!! His life is dangerous beyond hope of reform! LHN has law school ties, and whether he thinks of it or not in that way, he will probably agree. No body throws life away in this country except with abortions. The legality of the death penalty is moot here. It is NOT the same thing as abortion. It is not a whimsical decision. It is not a "strike 1, you're out" thing. If you spent some time in a prison, you might meet some incorrigible, dangerous people who will serve society best from the grave. Not vengence, not anger, not bloodthirst. Justice.

damianna

01/22/2003 04:48:05 PM

LHN- Please do not assume that all people share the Christian view that salvation from sin is the only purpose of existence. I think this gets to the heart of why most pro-life groups are populated by Christians: the belief in original sin. And the reason they want to make abortion illegal is because they really believe that theirs is the one true religion. What Christians must eventually face is that no amount of coercion, intimidation, or other tactics--legal, legislative, social or otherwise--is going to force everyone in the world to be a Christian. In fact, if you've followed my discussions on other boards, I've suggested multiple times that Christ wouldn't have cared what religion you were anyway (but let's not develop that thread here, shall we?).

LHN

01/22/2003 04:47:59 PM

Whoa raca - so we "smack" uppity women with credentials because we think they are bragging after we have questioned whether or not there is electrical activity in their brains. And we kill criminals we deem unsalvageable. But those lumps of tissue in women's uteruses (or stuck to their Fallopian tubes) deserve all the protection and love we can lavish on them. JK - I know you were right that is all a ploy to get us riled up. I knew better than to even sign in here because there would be no room for the grayscale. Excuse me, but Jesus wept and this kind of stuff is the reason why.

raca

01/22/2003 04:43:14 PM

LHN: Again, I must apologise. The "smacking" was intentional b/c I thought you were bragging with credentials. After re-reading your post, I conclude some angst toward another made it into my post to you. My error. I still disagree with you :o) Damiana: No sweat. I still disagree with you too :o) If I say something that seems mean, please call me on it. I try to reserve my chiding remarks for retaliation rather than attack.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:42:15 PM

"Do you not see a difference between an execution of a seeminly deserving criminal and the murder of an seemingly innocent unborn child?" Certainly, the "criminal" you refer to is a fully developped, independently existing, thinking feeling, human being. The fetus you refer to is a piece of tissue incapable of independent existence, lacking even the intellect and awareness of a flea at the time the vast majority abortions are performed. You DECIDE to KILL the criminal for the reason that YOU determine his life is worthless and you would like to see him dead. The fetus is aborted to AVOID bringing pain and suffering into the world, by creating unmeetable need, unsupportable demands, or bringing an innocent new life into an environment that it cannot receive the nurturing, support, and love that an innocent new human being would deserve. This is COMPASSION. Executing the criminal is vengeance, anger, and bloodthirst.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 04:40:22 PM

Forgive me, English is my third language.

LHN

01/22/2003 04:39:36 PM

"Do you not see a difference between an execution of a seeminly deserving criminal and the murder of an seemingly innocent unborn child?" Of course there is a difference if we are discussing guilt vs. innocence. But that is not what is at issue. The issue is sanctity of life and everyone's right to the abundance of God's time to work out their own salvation. Hence the Church's teachings against abortion, death penalty, euthanasia. The Church teaches that every life has that right and to abrogate another's right by terminating their life is contrary to God's desires for each of us (innocent or guilty).

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 04:39:31 PM

Whew my last post should read When a fetus is recognized as equally a human being as one whom is obviously no longer in the womb.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 04:36:32 PM

Dan, No. I don't believe the state has the right to execute someone. As many people who have been executed that were innocent, and the release of over 100 inmates on death row who's innocence is now being proven with forensic science. I also think that society is the main villian in all of the abortions that exist as of today. Stand back and look at it for just a moment. Women's sexuality and men's sexuality are clearly, and unequivocally, subject to a double-standard. I think if the mother's life is at stake, abortion should be mandatory. Or do you think you have the right, much less the government has the right, to ask someone to give their life up? Especially when the view of when a fetus is actually a human is controversial to say the least?

damianna

01/22/2003 04:35:39 PM

raca- Oops...well, I guess I did say something snide about fundies being illiterate. That was kind of dumb and pointless on my part; I'm sorry. (At least I fully admit to my occasional mean-spiriteness.) jkopanko- Now THAT scares me. But you've already heard my opinion on the subject.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 04:35:31 PM

To Danandbeth I repeat again what I said to the clergy who wrote of his opinion and I will state my situation one more time. TO sum it up fast, I have no family other than a young child who is three years old. I am a narcoleptic, meaning I suffer constant drowsiness or a constant prescribed addition to anphetimines. Now I am pregnant. Any of you pro-lifers wanna come nanny for me as my child will likely be screaming to wake up her mother if I choose to be off meds to make a new baby healthy? ANy pro-lifers want to help me deal with a problem child born on "speed"(once again this is perscribed meds). I cannot drive a vehicle, I have no support system. ANyone want to show me another choice instead of just saying abortion is wrong? I mean come on. I haven't done it yet. Give me an alternative!

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 04:31:58 PM

For the record, hails and nails do not grow after, you know, like months after death. Something to do with how skin recedes makes the body appear to yielded growth of nail and hair. However, I too have heard the speculation that it may be possible for slight growth right after one dies. But that is a VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME that this can encompass. ~~mELanIe~~ Je vous donne un gateau!

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:31:37 PM

danan, Why did you paste my question at the top of your post and then make no attempt to answer it at all? Answer the question. What do you have to be so afraid of? How hard is it to answer one simple, direct question?

danandbeth

01/22/2003 04:30:23 PM

Not trying to argue here, and not trying to sound cliched, but I am just curious. =) Do you not see a difference between an execution of a seeminly deserving criminal and the murder of an seemingly innocent unborn child?

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 04:28:47 PM

Ambu: So true. I have never had to make the choice that you have made, but I know it had to be one of the hardest decision's you will ever make. There is no right/wrong, black/white, each situation is different and should be treated thusly. Again, I wish you the best of luck with everything.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 04:28:17 PM

Why are we talking about nails and hair all of a sudden?

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:26:36 PM

With cloning technology ANY PART OF THE HUMAN BODY HAS THE INDEPENDENT POTENTIAL TO BECOME A NEW HUMAN BEING. In light of this, removal of an appendix, tonsils or foreskin is the equivalent to abortion: Tissues are removed from the body which have no capacity for natural, independent existence separated from that body... but which possess the potential of becoming new human beings.

LHN

01/22/2003 04:26:05 PM

Thanks for the apology, raca. Of course, I do not like to hear that my "assertions" are not worthy of even a "regional" debater. That also smacks of insult. Nonetheless, I will turn the other cheek and respond that the seamless garment philosophy of life taught by Mother Church is good enough for me, if not you and other champion debaters. Because, again, it is not solely about logic, it is about respect for life. Holding that State-sanctioned murder of criminals is OK, but not State-sanctioned abortions of nonviable beings is illiogical and un-Christian on both counts.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 04:26:04 PM

To ministerricardo Perhaps you could go back and read my post a page back about my situation in a few days and as a clergy tell me what other option I have? SO may of you have this opinion that is black or white right or wrong but its not that simple.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:26:03 PM

Got to go, my brother's sick and well, I must tend to him. It was a pleasure.

raca

01/22/2003 04:25:17 PM

LHN: I'm not a great typist. Damianna probably thinks it's b/c I keep an oppressed secretary dictating at work, and can't type for myself. The fact is, my hand was injured while cutting firewood for an elderly man in the community. No I won't ignore you.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:24:33 PM

Ambu, If you read my post I said that the appearance of nails and hair growing long after death was a myth. However, it's a comman held belief within the scientific community that they still continue to grow (obviously microscopically) initially after death. Don't take my word for it, I'm still just a student working on my Masters.

damianna

01/22/2003 04:22:55 PM

raca: I'm not attacking. I took a direct quote of your post. I didn't use mean, nasty names, nor did I type in large shouty letters.

danandbeth

01/22/2003 04:22:53 PM

DO YOU BELIEVE OWNERSHIP OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S OWN BODY BELONGS TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, OR DO YOU BELIEVE OWNERSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S BODY BELONGS TO THE STATE? Some may say my arguments are weak, and I am not disputing that. It takes a lot to come up with a strong, indisputable arguemnt. I realize that many do not agree with what I am about to say, but this is a place to voice opinions so here goes. The point I was trying to make is this: Do I think a fetus is a life? Yes. Do I think abortion is murder? Yes. Are their laws against murder? Yes. Should there be laws against abortion? Yes.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 04:21:07 PM

Not true about the hair and nails. As one dies the skin recedes causing the appearance of longer nails and hair. Once the blood no longer flows there is no life to grow anything.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 04:20:59 PM

damianna: Good question! I wonder how many Pro-Life Advocates will provide the answer of "it doesn't matter who adopts the child, as long as it's not aborted" I hope we don't have to wait too long for that answer, it might lessen the strength of their argument.

raca

01/22/2003 04:20:25 PM

Sorry LHN: The sarcasm was directed more away from you. As to your credentials, well, 92 percentile is not bad. I have no personal quarrel with you. Your assertions, though, were weak and unworthy of even a regional champion debater. I have been in such a hurry to post at times that my arguements have suffered too, so maybe we can disagree without attacking the other personally. There are only a couple of others who feel their only recourse is to attack ME and my "inconsistencies". My apologies if I mistook you for one of them

damianna

01/22/2003 04:19:42 PM

jkopanko: To answer your question, I think the law is perfectly fine the way it is right now (except for the recent ban on third-trimester abortions--that needs to be lifted because frequently hydroencephalitis in a fetus is not detectable UNTIL the third trimester, and it is frequently FATAL to both mother AND child). I will fight tooth and nail to keep Roe intact, as-is, with no changes. For the sake of argument, I will ALSO advocate personal sexual responsibility and good habits (contraception, frequent pregnancy tests, etc.) to reduce the rate of abortions, especially before the end of the first trimester.

wiccawitch

01/22/2003 04:18:53 PM

I had to comment on adj1223 remarks that to have an abortion is cowerdly, obviously they have never found themselves in the position to have to choose, therefore they have not place trying to force their "opinions" on others. I am a strong believer that this is my body and my choice, the only one I am accountable to is whoever I meet at the end, not any christians or other religions just the one at the end. I can freely comment on this subject as not only I have had an abortion I am also a mother, both decisions were mine to make and neither one do I regret, this is my right as an individual and I don't believe that anyone else should have the right to tell me how to live my life or try and imply I was wrong in making my decisons.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:17:32 PM

Grez, Actually it is a myth that hair and nails continue to grow long after one has died. But initailly after death they still continue to grow. :)

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:17:23 PM

Damianna, You I think you hit a nerve with them JK

LHN

01/22/2003 04:17:21 PM

Please raca - understand I am not attacking you. I was only trying to unpack the issues. I did feel personally attacked by you when my right to have an opinion was questioned by you based on whether or not I met your understanding of logic. Now that I proved my credentials to engage in argument, are you going to ignore me? :)

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:15:50 PM

danan, Your question has already been answered. If you missed it, please read my response below (1/22/03 4:08:16 PM).

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:15:39 PM

Danandbeth: Okay, I am only going to say this once more to you. I agree with you. I never said the fetus wasn't living, nor did I say abortion wasn't murder. Got it? The thing I am simply pointing out to you is that your argument isn't solid. Dead things do grow. Equating growing as something exclusive to living things, and as something indicative to having life, isn't accurate. Choose a better argument.

raca

01/22/2003 04:14:39 PM

Damiana: No response other than to say, "Attack me. It's the only hope you have."

damianna

01/22/2003 04:14:14 PM

Here's another thought-provoking question: would the pro-life advocates be so keen on adoption if they knew that one of the largest groups of couples waiting to adopt are homosexual couples? Would you rather see a child be aborted, or adopted by a homosexual couple?

danandbeth

01/22/2003 04:12:52 PM

I was never speaking of hair or fingernails, although you continue to resort to them for your examples. Are ears, eyelids, fingers, and toes also unliving? Or are they part of a human life?

bardmountain

01/22/2003 04:11:58 PM

I think the argument is not whether it's alive or not, but whether it constitutes a living human being, with all the rights thereof. From a purely technical standpoint, I see it as a living thing, but not necessarily as a living human. A living human is defined by electrical activity in the brain. If your brain flatlines, you are legally dead. In the fetus, electrical activity in the brain doesn't start until the fifth month (it comes on suddenly, and is often referred to as "the quickening" for that reason). Before that point, there is no electrical activity in the brain. Hence, technically they meet the criteria we set out that defines legal death. A potential human? Yes. But a human just like a human with electrical activity in the brain? That's a fuzzier question, both morally and scientifically.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:11:40 PM

If we are talking about the public policy issue of abortion (WHICH WE ALL ARE) we really need to leave out subjective religious references and focus on BUILDING VIABLE, FAIR _C_I_V_I_C_ POLICY. None of us are talking about establishing religious law here: What we are talking about is purely civic. That being the case lets not treat this otherwise to push our own personal agendas.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:09:57 PM

I don't know where you get your information but as a Biology major in college (specifically Duke University :) hair is dead protein, nails also are not living. Flaming gases in the solar system grow, but that doesn't mean they are alive.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 04:08:16 PM

"I don't understand how anyone can say a fetus is not alive." Of course a fetus is alive while in the woman's body. No one is contending that it is not. So are her eggs "alive". So is her appendix "alive. So are her tonsils "alive". In fact, so is the excrement she produces "alive"--there is "life" in the bacteria which live within it. None of what you said is relevant to determining public policy on the question of abortion. Please, again, answer the question that IS this issue: DO YOU BELIEVE OWNERSHIP OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S OWN BODY BELONGS TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, OR DO YOU BELIEVE OWNERSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S BODY BELONGS TO THE STATE? Please, without evasion, answer that.

damianna

01/22/2003 04:08:00 PM

Oh dear. Raca has just come right out and said it: "Women are vessels." God's vessels for bearing boys and more birth machines. Doesn't mean that God doesn't love us--apparently he loves the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, too, and we seem to be right up there with them. But men and boys--made in God's own male image, are really the ones into whose hands God has given all of creation--including us, ladies, to please men and bear their sons.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 04:07:51 PM

Danandbeth: No, men are not faced with unwanted pregnancies because they have the option of just walking away at any given time. So even if the child is wanted by the mother, that is irrelevant to the father if is unwanted by him. He can still just walk away without social stigma or responsibility or emotional pain. As far as a child being alive, I never said they weren't. If I remember correctly, I heard my son's heartbeat when I was roughly 8 weeks pregnant, however, he could not have survived outside the womb at that time, therefore, not completely alive. Did I think about abortion when I became pregnant at 16? Yes. I DECIDED not to have an abortion because it was not the CHOICE for me. I am not in a position to take that choice away from anyone else.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 04:07:46 PM

Dear Minnie Mouse, Hair and fingernails are alive (at least the parts that grow). It is a myth that they continue to grow after death; really it is just that the rest of you begins to shrink, making them appear longer. In the same way that the growth of hair and nails indicates life, the growth of the fetus indicates life. It may or may not be important life, but it is definitely alive.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:04:47 PM

DAN AND BETH: What futile logic! To use such simpleton rhetoric to equate growing with the ability to be alive! Living things don't necessarily grow, and specific dead things and/or non-living things do.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:03:23 PM

DANANDBETH: ONCE AGAIN, your argument is futile to say the least. I agree with your position but just because something grows doesn't mean it's alive. Fingernails and hair grow, even after you die, and it's a pretty well known fact that they are not living.

danandbeth

01/22/2003 04:02:44 PM

Minnie Mouse: can you grow if you are dead / not-living?

danandbeth

01/22/2003 04:01:02 PM

Men aren't faced with unwanted pregnancies? The woman created the child by herself? I am a woman, I don't understand how anyone can say a fetus is not alive, (note my post below, regarding the eyelids, ears, fingers, and toes a fetus has at 10 weeks)... It is growing, therefore it is alive!) And how can I justify murdering my child in order to make my life less complicated ro whatever the justification for an abortion is? It is murder of a life, plain and simple, and therefore it is wrong.

LHN

01/22/2003 04:00:47 PM

Dear raca: I have worked hard to maintain civility in my posts while disagreeing with you. I believe it is a problem in this country that reasoned debate on abortion has become impossible. You have made this personal, which again suggests that something other than compassion is at work. So to answer your questions: I have studied logic (having tested in the 92nd percentile nationally on a standardized logic test). I was a champion debater in my adolesence and have won several state-wide debate competitions (particularly against Nestle-sponsored infanticide in the Third World). I am actually a candidate for admission at some the top law schools in the nation and I disagree that the "best legal minds" think the death penalty is a solution to crime. So what? The issue is not how smart any of us are nor about winning an argument. The issue is about how we try to live in an imperfect world in accord with the dictates of our individual consciences and with our religious beliefs.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 04:00:27 PM

However, I must say if my mother's life had been at stake while she was pregnant with me, I'd want her to abort for the sake of her other children, and 3 that followed me.

damianna

01/22/2003 03:59:59 PM

nebula: Yeah, there's a hip hop album by The Goats--if you're familiar with hip hop, a lot of albums have ongoing stories between the songs--and there's these two abandoned children, one named Hanger Head and the other something I can't remember. The unnamed brother tells Hanger Head he's only alive because of the 'pro-livins' keeping his mom from having an abortion, and when Hanger Head asks why they're not taking care of him the brother says, "Oh, they only care about making sure you get born. They don't care what happens to you after that." While this is kind of wry and not really very funny, it does raise a point. I've seen the faces of unwanted children and worked with them on a daily basis: children of prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, and other children (teenagers). It's a tragedy. My guess is, by and large, the pro-life cares more about white zygotes and fetuses than abused and neglected Black, Latino(a), Asian, and Native American children.

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 03:59:09 PM

Finger nails and hair grow, that doesn't mean it's life. Though I agree with you, your argument is pathetic to say the very least.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 03:57:47 PM

Does it seem to anyone else that the majority of Pro-Life advocates seem to be men? Men who will never know the heart wretching pain of having to make this kind of choice. Men who's main agenda, it seems, is to oppress the women in their lives (and the ones not in their lives for that matter) with what they feel is right. No, I'm not man-bashing, I simply feel that their opinion on this subject is neither here nor there. They will never be faced with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy, ever. The decision will never be theirs to make, ever.

i_phelix

01/22/2003 03:57:11 PM

Estryan--It is a blessing to hear you speak with such graciousness and love.

danandbeth

01/22/2003 03:54:12 PM

The abortion debate is whether or not abortion is truly murder, correct? Okay, just one question. IF the fetus, is not a life, then how do you explain that it is Growing? How about the iddy biddy fingers and toes eyelids, and ears it has at only 10 weeks?

Minnie_Mouse

01/22/2003 03:54:01 PM

I don't care if the mother's life is at stake, abortion is MURDER. PERIOD. If she dies, it's God's will.

nebula1019

01/22/2003 03:46:41 PM

I must say damianna your last post is what I have been trying to say. Social problems in this country are huge and there is no support to effectively fix them. Money for programs and services run out. People do not want that kind of "welfare trash" in their backyard. It is easy to say "have all the babies," but not so easy to deal with them once they are here and no one wants them. erusso, to comment on your questions of seeing pictures of a fetus...have you ever seen abused unwanted children, bruised and beaten? Have you ever thought about all of the children IN OUR COUNTRY that starve evveryday, do not receive proper health care, or are lost in the system? THOSE ARE THE REAL ISSUES. Those are things WE CAN do something about.

damianna

01/22/2003 03:45:50 PM

Before four months, a baby cannot live outside its mother's body. For me, after about four months is where it gets a little hazy for me. I don't think it's automatically right to terminate a pregnancy right up to eight months, or anything like that. I just don't think you can mandate every single case with a single ban. To keep things from getting hazy, people need to be as responsible with sex as they can: prevent unwanted pregnancy to every extent possible, and get frequent pregnancy tests to catch any unwanted pregnancy early, so that abortion is as humane as possible, and NOT when a child would be viable outside the womb. In cases like a child pregnancy (the mother is between 10 and 12--yes, it's happened--and could die), usually a result of rape or incest; the fetus has a fatal or seriously debilitating disorder from which the child will suffer its entire life; these things are also factors for abortion, even after 4 months. That's my $0.02.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 03:45:06 PM

typo below "unevesively" should be "unevasively"

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 03:44:54 PM

In response to Damianna's claim, it should be noticed that child abuse has become more common, not less, since Roe v Wade. "In 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, there were 167,000 cases of child abus and neglect reported. Yet in 1980 there were 785,100 cases - an increase of 370% from 1973. Furthermore, in 1987, there were 2,025,200 cases reported, which represents an increase of 1112%. " (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting). As such, it seems that the idea that reversing Roe v Wade would lead to infanticide rests on dubious empirical grounding. If anything, it might actually help to prevent infanticide, by reinforcing respect for human life.

raca

01/22/2003 03:44:48 PM

Mariah: Did someone suggest we should outlaw abortion, AND pay you less? I'm on your side on women's rights! All the way! I want my wife to be fulfilled by life in these United States as I am. I want her to feel like she earns enough, is respected enough and that she is my equal in society. What I will not support is a woman stating that because the gestation takes place in her body, she and she alone has the right to kill a fetus. Given the choice between optimism and pessimism, I choose the former. Maybe not all the children in foster care get the best things in life. That doesn't justify (logically or otherwise) killing unborn children. If just one makes it... The pro-choice lobby doesn't acknowledge the fact that abortion deprives an individual (to-be, if you will) of any chance to know love, joy, pain, success, failure, beauty...the list goes on and on. It's not your choice.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 03:44:22 PM

just a little humor :)

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 03:43:36 PM

If this country ever bands abortion entirely, including even if the mother's life is at stake, is the day I, and probably others, become resident aliens of Canada.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 03:32:56 PM

2) It is a well established social consensus that the state has the right to regulate all sorts of things that we do with our bodies. Whether or not the state should forbid abortion is a matter for debate. Whether the state has the authority is already settled; it most certainly does. If you really think that it would be wrong to for the state to prevent an abortion, then you should be busily working to overturn every other law as well. The prohibition against rape is just as much a case of "the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body" as a prohibition on abortion would be.

miss_Melanie

01/22/2003 03:32:47 PM

I agree with Damianna on how sick and pathetic it is that twenty-two percent of you think that the mother's life at risk is NOT grounds for an abortion. I'm glad I'm an Anglican...even most Roman Catholics wouldn't consider it murder if the mother's life is at stake. Judaism has it right: if the mother's mental or physical health is at risk, the fetus MUST be terminated, and that is mandatory.

mariahmaloy

01/22/2003 03:32:06 PM

(cont from below) And one final thing. The time is coming when all these questions about abortion and killing fetuses will be moot, because abortion will no longer involve death of anybody. I can see this happening in my own lifetime (I'm 37 now), that a woman goes in for an abortion, and the aborted fetus will be viable and will grow up to be a healthy adult. I only hope that the rest of us will be willing to take resposibility for all these children. Oh, yeah, we don't take any responsibility now, that's why there are so many unwanted, unloved children in the system now, because nobody will take them in.

damianna

01/22/2003 03:31:53 PM

Oh...and PLEASE don't give me any crap about "there aren't enough children for parents who want to adopt." I worked in the poorest area of my city for almost two years, and I can tell you: it's not that there aren't enough children to go around. Social workers are BEGGING for people to adopt children...the only shortage of babies is a shortage of white ones. Another thing you'll notice about pro-life billboards (in addition to their being mostly boys) is the fact that the babies are ALWAYS WHITE. I have NEVER seen an exception to this, EVER.

mariahmaloy

01/22/2003 03:31:22 PM

To the people who agree with the following: 'Marjorie "Brahms" Signer ...is most likely a man-basher, womans-lib freak .... ... It's unbelievable how selfish these modern day women really can be." I happen to be one of these "modern day women." My husband seems to be thankful for me the way I am. Yes, I support women's liberation--excuse me, I deserve to be paid the same as any man for the same amount and quality of work that he does! I also do my fair share of male-bashing, balanced with an equal or greater amount of female-bashing, because, in my experience, where as men tend to be kinda goofy (usually in a good way), women, as a rule, just tend to be just plain stupid (I should know, being one of these just plain stupid women). And one final thing. (cont)

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 03:30:05 PM

I have two points I would like to make. 1) For people to complain about self-righteousness and then self-righteously stereotype the pro-life community is so hypocritical as to be almost laughable. The particular foibles of the individuals who make up a movement really says nothing about the movement (there were some really sleazy civil-rights activists in the 60s; I know some). That having been said, it is grossly uncharitable to assume that the one who disagrees with you must be a self-righteous bigot or a self-contradictory fool. I realize we pro-lifers could do to take this point to heart ourselves, but it does not excuse the stereotyping of pro-lifers as pharisees, prigs or bumpkins.

damianna

01/22/2003 03:27:11 PM

I just recently thought of the most compelling argument to keep Roe intact...What's worse, a pre-birth abortion or a post-birth one (infanticide)? Because that's what you'll get if Roe is overturned: babies in garbage cans, smothered, drowned, and other things too horrible to imagine. Be reasonable. There's no way your God or anyone else's God will prevent THAT from happening, even if you don't care about women dying in back-alley abortions (we've already established that 22% of you don't care if women die, period.) Pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women OR newborns die!

raca

01/22/2003 03:24:33 PM

cont'd Kevorkian is a valid point. These old people are putting a serious strain on the finances, free time, and emotions of their sons and daughters. Shouldn't we just start pulling plugs, and tidy things up for a change? The parents suffer, the children suffer...it's really unfair in the anti-life context to expect either party to be so inconvenienced just for the sake of being able to say that we in the US don't allow people to murder family members for convenience's sake.

damianna

01/22/2003 03:24:17 PM

How horrible! The second highest bar in the poll states that 22% of B'net members are against abortion in all cases--even if it means the mother will die! I wish there was some indication of whether or not people thought ectopic pregnancies should be removed--considering that they will kill both mother and child, the mother dying in excruciating pain. Just confirms what I've always thought about the presence of reactionary, misogynist, ultra-right-wing fundamentalists around here...

erusso

01/22/2003 03:20:58 PM

Have you seen an aborted baby? How they are torn into pieces? Do you call that humane? I don't agree with women and men that have children and don't want them and abuse them but I don't believe in abortion either. Have you had an ultrasound and seen that little creature sucking his/her thumb?

LHN

01/22/2003 03:20:30 PM

Dear Truth: Amen! As Saint Augustine said: "Love God, and do as you please." Dear raca: glad you volunteer. But you love the death penalty, eh? So much for the seamless garment - and that is my point. Any "pro-lifer" who supports the death penalty lacks moral authority. When "pro-lifers" can demonstrate logical consistency in their beliefs, then we can talk. Until then, I can't help but feel something other than compassion is at work.

TRUTHchangesYOU

01/22/2003 03:15:22 PM

Let's talk about righteousness here... Righteousness, to me, and to the God I believe in, means do what you feel right about and don't do what you feel wrong about and let God be the judge. Romans 13:8 says owe nothing to one another except to love one another for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

raca

01/22/2003 03:12:00 PM

LHN: Yes I do volunteer! Yes I am outraged by all the unfortunate souls who find themselves at the mercy of the state (as wards). I most certainly will NOT lobby for abolishment of the death penalty. That's something special just for murderers, child molestors etc.. I don't care who is "first" as long as nobody has to die for being "second", and that's really going on. It's not that we ignore the fetus, we just put it at a lower priority. So much lower, that it becomes medical waste just like "liposuction juice" or excised moles. I'm no mathematician, but, hello! murder, death, kill. The heck of it is, it's state-sanctioned!

nebula1019

01/22/2003 03:11:14 PM

thank you thank you LHN!!!!

raca

01/22/2003 03:05:27 PM

Ambujajeet: I am very sorry that you find yourself in a really hard place. Amid all the soapboxes and the critisims of politicians etc, we all are human, and want good things for everyone. Since no two situations are the same, no one solution is right for everyone. We all know this, and yet we all still fight hard for what we believe in. A life in politics is a hard life, if you care about the issues. I wish you good fortune, and good health. I hope you don't choose to abort. God (and every pro-lifer) still loves you. Disregard the talk of crazed bombers. Those aren't my people, and they aren't Christians, and they aren't any kind of pro-lifer I know of. They are the al-Queda of Christianity...Go with God.

ministerricardo

01/22/2003 03:00:59 PM

Hello abortion is wrong you are taking a life i was on a web page looking at different weeks of babies and i was sadden some say the bible doesnt talk about abortion but read exodus 20:22-23 its saying if a man make a women have a baby prementure then he is to pay a fine but if there is serious injury(death) then you are to take a life for a life..read it then write me redspider97@yahoo.com

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 02:46:31 PM

Thankyou

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 02:44:56 PM

ambujajeet: Bless your heart. I hope that things work out for you. I know that your decision was a tough one, but you have to do what you feel is right. Just keep God close to you and you will get through this.

LHN

01/22/2003 02:44:38 PM

Dear raca: What about all of society's undesirables we keep warehoused in prisons, mental hospitals, ghettoes, etc.? Are you as outraged about the children being destroyed in the juvenile justice and foster care systems as you are about fetuses? Are you taking action to fight child abuse? Are you adopting? Are you volunteering to work with foster kids? Are you lobbying for prison reform and abolishment of the death penalty? I am serious and not sarcastic in asking these very real questions, which need to be posed to all of us no matter if we identify as "pro-life" or "pro-choice." If we are not involved in these activities, our rantings about abortion carry no moral weight. Pro-lifers can be very "me-first" too, in that they want everyone to think like them and yet they do nothing to protect all of the weak and vulnerable (widows & orphans) - focusing instead on women's uteruses. I do not put all "pro-lifers" in this camp.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 02:40:11 PM

Raca: You say that pro-choice advocates (I refuse to justify your 'anti-life' stigma) see all pro-life advocates as tyrants and pro-lifers see pro-choicees as barbarians. I don't feel that this is true, however, can you please advise of anytime a Pro-Choice advocate has blown up a building simply because they suspected that a Pro-Life advocate was inside? I know, I know, your going to use the old "Eye for and Eye" thing, however, my having an abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with YOU. It does not hurt YOU in anyway, so "Eye for an Eye" would be inadmissible. Quit be so self-rightous and realize that the only being that has a right to tell me what to do with this body is God. Whatever decision I make without Him is between me and Him, no one else.

ambujajeet

01/22/2003 02:37:55 PM

I recently had an incident of protection not working and in a few short days will be ending this pregnancy. I realize that the day and time of my appointment will throw me right in the middle of hell with the anniversary of R vs W. THose who would fight me on this have likely never had to live with narcolepsy while caring for children. They don't realize for me a choice to have the child would mean one of two choices, to let a child develope on drugs that are likely to cause sever problems, or for me to not take the drugs and need a fulltime nanny for my daughter. I wonder if any of those individuals who might have something to say would volunteer for that position as I am without adaquate income. I have no family to help, I am unable to drive a vehicle, the child's father is still to wrapped up his past life, especially financially to be interested in alternatives. Not to say this doesn't sting. Its not something I want to do. Because for me "choices" are very limited.

raca

01/22/2003 02:29:54 PM

jkopanko: PLEASE!?!?!? The state doesn't own elderly invalids, but it protects them. The state doesn't own infants either, but it protects them. The time a woman has ultimate control over her body is pre-conception. After that point, she is no longer the only concern. To say otherwise is to further the typical, American "me-firster" attitude, and to teach our children that no matter what we do, we can make it all better if we're willing to do something disgusting enough. You anti-lifers should be lobbying for Dr. Kevorkian and for Eskimo-style retirement homes too. Then you might have some legal precedent to make you feel better about ridding society of it's undesirables before they are even born!

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 02:26:43 PM

GreenUU: Very, very well said! Thank you, as you described my feelings for the so-called "Pro-Life Christians" to a T.

raca

01/22/2003 02:23:59 PM

The anti-life movenment (I only call it that b/c the negative connotations of "anti-choice" are an obvious and pedestrian public opinion ploy), would encounter so much less opposition if it's suppporters would back off the partial-birth abortions. People think of a fetus with limbs and organs being destroyed, and it makes them sick! No wonder we're so divided on the issue! Anti-lifers regard us as tyrants, and we regard them as barbarians. I for one would like to see a compromise where church and state can be kept separate, and the way to do that is to acknowledge that our laws are based largely on JudeoChristian ethics, but are not founded in the religious aspect of it. W/O the Bible, murder would still be illegal.

raca

01/22/2003 02:23:48 PM

travistine and all other anti-lifers: GrzeszDeL has mentioned an article twice now, and I think you'd be wise to read over it before telling anyone, Christian or Jew, what they believe. The arguments about what is right and wrong in the contexts of religion vs. democracy aren't logical in either context. The laws of this nation are largely mirrors of Christian morality, and while women do have control of their bodies, the government has control of all our bodies whether you admit it or not. The arguments that the Bible is unclear on what is right by Christian standards are merely rants. The fact is, it's as clear where the Bible stands as it is clear where Roe v Wade stood years ago. The question is not whether we will allow power mongers to control our women's bodies, but rather, since the power mongers already have control, can that control be exercised in a prudent way?

jkopanko

01/22/2003 02:22:49 PM

We shouldn't even be GETTING to the point of needing to justify why women should be "given the right" to abort in circumstances of rape, incest, etc? If you fail to see how humiliatingly patronizing, mysoginistic, and oppressive that is, you're really beyond hope. The FUNDAMENTAL POINT is, WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OVER OUR BODIES? Is it the State, or is it the Individual? THAT IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE, IN A NUTSHELL. It's not a matter of "do you like abortions?" It's not an issue of "What does any religious reference book say about fetuses?" THESE THINGS ARE EFFECTIVELY IRRELEVENT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. To take a stand on this issue it is necessary to answer that question and either come down on the side of "THE INDIVIDUAL HAS OWNERSHIP OF HER OWN BODY" or "THE STATE HAS OWNERSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S BODY". There is no evading this: It IS the fundamental issue.

greenUU

01/22/2003 02:21:13 PM

LHN - excellent post!

nebula1019

01/22/2003 02:20:53 PM

travestine & jkopanko, I have enjoyed reading your posts. You have both made some very valid points that I agree with. Especially your last post trav - One option pro-life gives us is adoption. Hmmmm...funny how there are so many unwanted children already out there waiting to be adopted. All the children this country has in need of proper foster care, etc, etc, etc. C'mon, if a women knows she cannot and will not take care of a child and chooses to have an abortion so let it be. It was not our decision, but hers. Honestly there are too many unwanted children all over our nation as it is. Where is the enormous support needed to take care of that problem?

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 02:18:15 PM

erusso: You said all you hear in the pro-choice movement is "my right", "my life", "my body", then you ask "is it?" I agree with you that my body is not mine, it is 'on loan' so to speak. However, neither is it YOUR body to decide what I should do with it. How arrogant we in this world have grown to think that we are so rightous that God needs our help in deciding what is right or wrong for EVERYONE. It is not our place to judge anyone for what they do, we do not have that right as we have ALL done things that we will be judged for, but it will be done by the One who has the right.

greenUU

01/22/2003 02:11:21 PM

It seems that pro-lifers like to sit up on a high horse and judge everybody. Well, if you're so perfect "let one who is free from sin cast the first stone." Do you qualify? What have any of these pro-life hardliners actually done to prevent unwanted pregnancy?(oops - I nearly forgot, most have made it WORSE by blocking access & education re: birth control) What have you done to HELP women cope with unexpected pregnancy? I think most pro-lifers are nothing more than hypocrites who have had pre-marital sex, but by the luck of the draw you haven't had to actually deal with emotionally wrenching and horribly difficult situation of an unexpected pregnancy. It's easy to sit there and judge everybody and pretend to be so righteous when it costs you no pain or effort of your own, except some ego-boosting talk about how much better you are than everybody else.

greenUU

01/22/2003 02:10:07 PM

Erusso, you are WAY off base in trying to label anybody who is pro-choice as "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". I personally know pro-choice people who favor adoption. I know a pro-choice woman who had an unwanted pregancy, but CHOSE to go through the full pregnancy on her own and offer her child for adoption. I also am pro-choice, though I would never encourage my girlfriend to get an abortion if she became pregnant. However, not everyone has the same circumstances as me. Some people make mistakes - example: a girl who isn't very experienced with alcohol might get drunk and have sex that she regrets. Most don't suffer more than the humiliation & self-loathing itself. Some get STDs. Once in a while, the mistake leads to a pregnancy that the woman can't handle at that time. Does it make any sense to prolong her suffering for 9 months, and in the process maybe even endanger her life, or have the child stuck with a parent who cannot or will not be able to do a reasonable job???

LHN

01/22/2003 02:08:44 PM

Dear GrzeszDeL, I finally had a chance to read the article to which you linked. Very interesting and helpful in terms of clarifying the historical theological position. However, our personal morality as Christians is a separate thing entirely from what the State does. That is what I keep focusing on, because as Christians we need to be very careful about how much of a relationship we want between the Church and the State (between our bodies as gifts from God and the State's mandate to use bodies under its control for its own earthly ends). What I keep hearing from the "pro-choice" side is that we are opposed to abortion on a personal level in general, but that we support every person's right to control their own body in the best way that they can. It may not be an ideal solution for any of us, but it is better than what existed before Roe v. Wade - and more humane.

travestine

01/22/2003 01:53:24 PM

The other thing I find amusing about the anti-choice faction is that these are the same self-righteous people looking down their noses at all those "welfare cases" with their passels of five, six and seven kids living in trailer parks and lining up with food stamps. Funny how they'll demand that these women bear all these poor, cute little babies, but then look at them as if they are vermin once they can walk and talk? What do they think happens to all these babies once they're not so cute anymore?

jkopanko

01/22/2003 01:45:19 PM

eru, "Who gives us the right to put less value on a child that is still in the womb than one that is outside of the womb?" Well, if you are speaking in some religious contexts, or in a political context if you happen to be within a theocracy, you might say "God" determines such things for us. However that hypothetical situation does not exist. Furthermore, there is no "child" in a woman's body. Give it a ball to play with (woops, carefu... don't mash it!). Give it a bottle. Change it's diaper (what? It doesn't actually poo or pee? How strange?!) IT IS A FETUS: Definitively it has the potential to be a human being, but it is NOT AN INDEPENDENTLY VIABLE ENTITY: It is PART OF THE WOMAN'S BODY. The woman's egg cells also have the potential to become human beings, what about those damned murderous women who expel eggs on a monthly basis (talk about killing machines!) Lets not even get into how many "children" all men have killed in terms of expelling sperm.

travestine

01/22/2003 01:44:01 PM

"The dangers of abortion" are a fallacy that have been proven time and again. Abortion has repeatedly been shown to be safer than childbirth, particularly in instances where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or in cases of multiple birth.

travestine

01/22/2003 01:42:34 PM

The truth was, following their logic, God didn't want them to have children in the first place, since He made it impossible for them to conceive without medical intervention. My point is, we cannot leave reproductive rights to those who will use them selectively to enforce their own view of "God's will". We must each be left to our own conscience and settle our relationship with God as our own set of beliefs and values demands.

erusso

01/22/2003 01:38:50 PM

What about the dangers of abortion?

travestine

01/22/2003 01:38:31 PM

What has been less reported is that some of these poor children have severe birth defects due to the over-crowding in the womb and early delivery. The parents refused "selective reduction" when they were told of the number of children they were having give the remaining babies a better chance at a normal life because it wasn't what "God wanted".

travestine

01/22/2003 01:36:48 PM

I find it interesting that those who are anti-choice are so selective about which reproductive technologies they feel are "God-given". I seem to recall that the McCoy (I know I've spelled it phonetically) septuplets were lauded as "gifts from God" even though they were engineered by man through fertility drugs.

lollyman

01/22/2003 01:32:26 PM

It seems both ironical-& hypocritical that the pro-lifers tend to be Christian. After all---it was the Biblical God who actually ordered abortions to be carried out-(Hosea Ch 13 v16)--in the most barbaric way imaginable.It was also the Biblical God who said life does not begin until the first breath is taken!!--But as man has created over 8,000 Gods---there is a good chance they will find a God who agrees with their stance---all that's left to say is ---GOOD LUCK!!!

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 01:27:03 PM

I notice that no one has yet made mention of the article I cited in my first post. I certainly am not in a position to order anyone to read it, but I think it constitutes a very good response to the essay on our left. It can be found here.

human1

01/22/2003 01:16:56 PM

AvaReign, I'm genuinely interested in hearing all perspectives here. I have a question about your post in which you mention cloning. You imply when not mentioning cloning, that only God is the creator of life. Only He makes life. My question is then, in cloning...if a life begins....who created it? Man or God?

erusso

01/22/2003 01:15:05 PM

Who gives us the right to put less value on a child that is still in the womb than one that is outside of the womb? All i hear about the "pro-choice movement" is "my right", "my life", "my body"; is it? Remember, wether you believe it or not, there is a God.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 01:05:05 PM

GW: "Racism is intolerable... ( now what klansman can I find under a rock somewhere to appoint to appoint as a federal court judge?)" "I believe in the value of Life... (Sure was fun being governor of Texas and presiding over the killing machine!)" "America is about fairness... (let me see how many homophobic bigots I can put in charge of setting policy that affects the lives of the American people." "I want peace... (Hurry up with those troop deployments! Are we ready to go yet, boys?)" "I believe the will of the UN must be upheld... (uh, shut up, France, Germany, Russia, China, people of Europe, people of the Middle East, people of the world...) "I rescued the economy! (Er, "taxcuts" and "resuce", aren't these synonyms?)"

LHN

01/22/2003 01:04:36 PM

Thou shalt not kill: capital punshment; war; gun violence; child abuse. When those who wish to legislate other's relationship to God take an equally principled stand against the rampant violence of our world - so much of it State-sanctioned - then I will be able to trust more that their opposition to abortion is really about morality and not about their own egos and desires to control others. I do not want my religion co-opted by the State. There is a 1,700-year old tradition of the State using Christianity for its own ends. The test of a Christian is living one's life in spite of the State. Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's. I do not want the US government enforcing my religious beliefs on others. Further, I do not want my pluralistic democracy destroyed by another's limited vision of Christian morality. That is not how God speaks to me, which in turn is not how God speaks to you. Thank God for that.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 12:46:59 PM

Abortion is not about deciding who should live and who should not... it is about ensuring that THOSE WHO LIVE WITH REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES, HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THOSE CHOICES FOR THEMSELVES. And it is about ensuring that the State not tyrannically userp women's basic ownership of their own bodies. Anyone anti-choice? Here's a new idea for you: Instead of lobbying the government to enslave women and force women to bear unwanted children, why not LOBBY RESEARCH SCIENCE for development of the technology to allow an unwanted fetus to be TRANSPLANTED INTO YOU, for YOU to take it, implant it in YOUR body, carry it to term with everything that that entails, allow it to be totally dependent on you for the next twenty years. No? Easier to lobby the state to enslave women who have no connection to you whatsoever, huh? I thought so.

nebula1019

01/22/2003 12:37:15 PM

GrzeszDel, Many in our population face a life and death battle everyday. I do not need to tell you how many child abuse cases are out there. I agree with you that life is of the utmost importance. Not only the start of life, but the quality also. I would never suggest to a woman to get an abortion, I am just saying that if she chose that route it is not up to me to judge her. That is NOT my roll.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 12:37:10 PM

erusso, "You know what I think it's really crazy, we live in a country that values animals more than humans. Save the whales, how about save the unborn. " Strange... I don't remember ever hearing of a movement to save unborn whales or to prevent female whales from doing (as a matter of personal choice) whatever is within their capacity in terms of reproduction. Please inform me what I missed here?

luckyeryka

01/22/2003 12:30:30 PM

Mothers should think, what if my significant other/best friend was aborted? Then again, what if Hitler was? Its a difficult, complex issue, as Signer says, but that doesn't mean that Christian women should not trust their destiny to God. I remain pro-choice (although I'm against partial birth) because I believe I shouldn't judge another's situation. However, I do think it's unfortunate that women who adhere to a God-centered faith don't trust that he will lead their lives. Regardless of how much of an accident a pregnancy may be, it is Christian doctrine that everything works for the good of those who love God. Just a thought.

erusso

01/22/2003 12:06:26 PM

I mean,help me here, what is pro-choice? Pro-choice to what? Because in that case "pro-choice", I am "pro-choice". God gave all of us a free will to choose between right and wrong. Did we forget that, yes, there is a wrong. It just sounds to me like this "pro-choice" is kind of like a license to do whatever you want, oh yeah, because whose life is it any way?

erusso

01/22/2003 11:53:18 AM

You know what I think it's really crazy, we live in a country that values animals more than humans. Save the whales, how about save the unborn. Why are they called pro-choice. Why not pro-abortion or pro-death. Let's be specific here!!!

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 11:46:24 AM

Dear AvaReign, Perhaps the Bible does not condone slavery (although St. Paul did send the escaped slave back and thought it the Christian thing to do, even though there would not have been any violence necessary to keep the slave from his master). My point is merely that the what-does-the-Bible say approach to Christian morality is inadequate. Surely the Bible should play a part in the process of defining Christian morality, but it is not enough to say "the Bible does not say, so it must be o.k." as Ms. Signer is doing in the article on our left.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 11:43:12 AM

Dear Nebula, I defy you to explain how any issue can be more important that one that, quite literally, is a matter of life and death. No doubt, it is important for us to consider how best to see to it that those who are alive are properly treated and loved, but all these other "quality of life" issues are moot if one does not have a life to begin with. This is a long way of saying that I think abortion deserves to get more attention from "pro-lifers" than other issues, no matter how important these other issues may still be.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 11:27:29 AM

tbutterbaugh: I would answer yes to all of your quiz questions because each scenario could actually happen. As I said earlier, I believe that the decision to have an abortion is between that person and God, no one else. I feel that there are simply too many self-rightous people in this world who claim to be doing God's work, when really, they are working against what He really wants this world to achieve. jkopanko: I have read many of your posts and to be honest, I don't always agree with you, however this time I do. You made a very valid point.

mbwalz

01/22/2003 11:18:44 AM

"He only must determine how and when that life should terminate(d)" Does this mean, no fertility methods or mouth to mouth recessitation or bi-pass surgery? If God is the only one allowed to determine life or death, than we have already by-passed His authority with medical science. I have such a hard time understanding why it's ok to do some things (removing life support, recessitating someone) when apparently God has already made a determination?

AvaReign

01/22/2003 11:11:42 AM

Grzesz, The bible does not condone slavery. It merely states that if you find yourself in that situation you should act Christ like in it and not violent. Many people in that time were bound to slavery by law there was no way out and the bible says how to handle that period. If the bible condoned slavery why did God tell Moses to lead all the jews out into the promised land when they were slaves???

cecenst

01/22/2003 11:11:20 AM

Also using the Exodus 21:-22-23 is not a valid scripture for pro-life. It is not relying on a woman to make a decision to terminate her pregancy but if she got hurt while pregnant. If you look at the context of the scripture; before and after this passage God is dealing with people getting hurt/killed and what should happen. It is not a scripture that is based on abortion or the right to an abortion; but what happens after if a woman is hurt during a fight.

AvaReign

01/22/2003 11:05:44 AM

I agree with erusso. If God knit us together in the womb who are we to say No God Stop. LEt Gods will be done God is the creater of life not Man. God is the one who made you and me and we should not try and take it into our own hands. Same with cloning. Asfar as metamorphosis point mayeb it dosen't matter to you what the bible says but it does matter to Christians and if we as peopel of God want to please God we should let him be in control.

nebula1019

01/22/2003 11:02:12 AM

I must say I agree with many others here. The decision to have an abortion and the consequences that come from it are PERSONAL, between the person(s) involved and God. NOT the entire community. As it is we cannot take care of millions of poor, abused or neglected children that we already have. Thousands are in foster care or waiting to be adopted. Instead of persecuting women for making a decision how about dealing with the problem of how it came to be? How can we better educate our population about sex, disease and parenting? I am just saying there are many GREATER issues that need such hard driven attention as pro-life advocates give.

cecenst

01/22/2003 11:01:02 AM

When man intervenes by destroying the embryo that is conceived, he interferes with the only Creator of all life. Only God can produce life, and He only must determine how and when that life should terminate. Christian couples must be guided by the standards in God's Word. Any failure to do so may lead to disastrous results. We Christians have no right to permit the killing of the unborn children God has given to us. http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/chrhome/mad.htm

tbutterbaugh

01/22/2003 10:57:36 AM

An Interesting Quiz How would you respond in these situations? 1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion? 2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion? 3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion? 4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

tbutterbaugh

01/22/2003 10:57:15 AM

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ! God is the author of life, and He has givenevery single individual supreme value. Each life—whether inside or outside the womb—should therefore be valued by us. God knows the plans He has for each individual and has written in His book all the days ordained for us before one of them came to be. When we presume to know better than God who should be given life, we are putting ourselves in the place of God and are guilty of idolatry.

erusso

01/22/2003 10:52:24 AM

grayc - You tell me to calm down. You don't offend me. I am sorry to tell you that I find your comment very superficial. Life is a gift of God and not something that we owe. I think people need to educate themselves on this subject and weight for themselves the pros and cons of abortion. Last night I watched part of the 30th Anniversay of Roe vs Wade. Why didn't they mention statistics of women that have died or experienced medical and psychological problems behind abortion. I mean, come on, let's tell the truth.

mettamorphosis

01/22/2003 10:48:16 AM

I partially agree with Calesta; it does not matter whether or not the Bible approves abortion. Christians who follow the Bible should use it as a spiritual guide for advice on significant issues. What the Bible dictates is not law, anyway (the Bible also compares women to dogs and approves slavery). As a Buddhist, I must be pro-life. The debate on exactly when life begins continues, but I believe that life begins when the fetus is formed by individual cells. I do not mean to offend anyone, but I think abortion = murder. However, I think women have a right to choose what they wish to do with their bodies, and no one should tell them otherwise

Calesta

01/22/2003 10:22:47 AM

Whether the Bible does or does not support abortion is an interesting question, but it has nothing to do with whether they should be legal in modern states such as the U.S.A. which are not theocracies. However, it should inform the decisions of Christians. I believe that abortion should be legal and made as safe as possible, *and* that those who oppose abortion should work to provide better options for women who do not have the means to support a child but are willing to take the physical hardship and risk of pregnancy. It disturbs me that so many who claim to be saving babies do not themselves adopt, or provide monetary or other support to (other) people with children. Why don't devout anti-abortion Christians take on the responsibility of providing love and care, rather than polemics and threats, to women considering abortions?

grayc

01/22/2003 10:18:40 AM

OK, calm down. The question of abortion should be kept at a personal level between the parties concerned and God. I do not feel the cost should extend beyond the parties concerned. I life can be a great thing or a horrific thing, a young child or baby is a product of the enviroment that it grows up in. If that enviroment dose not have at it's core the heart felt longing to for the child, it will suffer and may at that time turn to what we concider bad.

erusso

01/22/2003 10:16:11 AM

I had an abortion some years ago because I felt as though that I could not have that child because it was inconvinient at that moment in "my life". How horrible I felt when they where performing the abortion. No one can prepare you for that. I felt as if part of me had left at the same time the machine sucked the fetus out. It's been a long time since I had that performed but it still hurts because I think of what might have become of that life. I can only thank God for his grace and mercy and forgiveness that has sutained me and healed me from that horrible decision I made years ago. If anyone out there is considering abortion, please consider another option. Choose life!

jkopanko

01/22/2003 09:52:20 AM

Grz, "I may disapprove of a man shooting his wife because she cheated on him, but we should walk a mile in his shoes before we judge him for that." Stop the absurdity and actually join the subject of the discussion. WHAT DOES A MAN WHO MURDERS HIS WIFE HAVE TO DO WITH A WOMAN WHO ENDS AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY??? Well, I guess I can see your point--IF THE MAN'S WIFE IS A SMALL GROWTH IN HIS BELLY THAT GOT THERE AS THE RESULT OF HIS BEING RAPED, AND THAT HE WILL HAVE TO CARRY AROUND FOR MOST OF THE YEAR, DEALING WITH PHYSICAL ENCUMBERMENT AND SOCIAL STIGMA, SO THAT SHE CAN COME OUT OF HIS BODY AND BE TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON HIM IN EVERY WAY FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES. Why not get a laws to control ignorant oppressors, who with no personal stake lobby government to intrude into the lives of woman and strip them of rights of ownership of THEIR OWN BODIES?

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 09:51:48 AM

5) Anti-abortion activists seek to condemn women to dangerous "back-alley" abortions which threaten the life of both the mother and the fetus - I would like to point out that just because a woman cannot get a legal abortion does not mean that she MUST get an illegal abortion. Obviously, during the years when abortion was illegal in all the states of the U.S. there were plenty of women who were bringing their pregnanices to term and either raising the children or putting them up for adoption. The idea that one's choices are summed up in "legal abortion or illegal abortion" is an instance of the bifurcative fallacy.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 09:46:28 AM

4) (I have touched on this earlier, but just to repeat for emphasis) The Bible does not say, so the choice is up to me - this line of thinking is just plain silly. The Bible is obviously o.k. with slaveholding, yet no modern Christian denomination countenances slavery. As such, there must be more to Christian morality than just "what does the Bible say." There is certainly more to it than "the Bible does not say anything, so there is no Christian position on the subject." All attempts to find a Christian support for abortion rights in the supposed silence of the Bible are inadequate arguments.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 09:42:20 AM

3) It is not life until it draws a breath - this is a difficult proposition to uphold in light of stem cell biology. I work with cell culture on a daily basis, and I can tell you that if you put dead matter in tissue culture medium, nothing happens. In order for cells to grow in culture, they must first be alive. As such, the fact that cells from human embryos grow in culture indicates that the pre-born baby must be alive.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 09:39:58 AM

2) I am personally against abortion, but it is wrong to impose my beliefs on others - this is nonsense. Would anyone seriously wish to contend in public that "I may disapprove of a man shooting his wife because she cheated on him, but we should walk a mile in his shoes before we judge him for that." Whether or not we wish to legally prohibit abortion, there should be no disagreement on whether it is the sort of thing which society has a right to regulate. If you do not think that it is not permissible to legislate against abortion, you should also have qualms about laws against murder in general, theft, rape or anything else which the law controls.

sunshine2777

01/22/2003 09:39:10 AM

cont..Second, of course I will try to be more charitable in my words towards others as I understand your point. To further clarify, I am a member of the family of Christ, therefore, my brothers and sisters are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and if they are true in their faith, then for the most part, they dont take offense to what I say but in general will agree/understand with the point. Most people in here have already made up their minds about God, so sometimes I do throw out the "kinder and gentler" approach and just go for it. The sarcasm you saw in the earlier post is there because this article just made me mad. Justifying killing babies by using God's word is blatantly wrong. I dont care how you word it. Man is good at manipulation of words. God is good at the truth and He lays it out for us. Its simple for those who actually have the courage to look at it. God bless.

sunshine2777

01/22/2003 09:38:53 AM

bardmountain:Let me preface my comments w/ a thank you for just being kind to me in your post. You could have put those thoughts in many other "not-so-nice" terms so I appreciate your approach and for not calling me a redneck. :-) To clarify, and yes, this is going to sound wrong at best and mean/exclusionary at worst. First, I am a Christian and I am told by Jesus to spread the good news, the message of what He has done, etc. I may not, like others, choose the best words at the time but my heart and motivations are sincere. I usually only try to make a point and other times I try to help others. But to tell the world of Jesus is what I'm supposed to do so I cant stop.

GrzeszDeL

01/22/2003 09:36:31 AM

There are a few (fallacious) ideas which pop up every time abortion is discussed, and, to no one's great surprise, they have emerged on this board. I would like to address them. 1) Abortion is a modern medical procedure completely unknown to the authors of the Bible - I am sure that the authors of the Bible would be unfamiliar with the medicalized abortion that occurs in the 21st century, but they would also be unfamiliar with the medicalized childbirth. Does this mean that the idea of childbirth was wholly unknown to the Biblical authors? Of course not. The important concept in abortion, regardless of how it is effected, is the idea of ending a pregnancy by kiling the child before it is born. By this definition, people most certainly did know about abortion in Biblical times; Plato mentions midwifes performing abortions in Theaetetus.

Gypsygirl1970

01/22/2003 09:28:46 AM

I am pro-choice. I don't know that I would ever have an abortion, but I don't want the right taken away from me. Fortunately, I have never been in a position where I felt it was necessary. I became pregnant at 16, the father left and has never returned. I am fortunate enough to have a wonderful family and very loving parents that helped me support my child until I could support him on my own. He is going to celebrate his 16th birthday next Tuesday and I am very grateful to have him. I am not here to judge anyone for what they do, that is not my place in this world. The Bible says (i.e.)"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" I believe that the decision to have an abortion is between you and God. He will judge your decision when the time comes.

IVYDRAGONNN

01/22/2003 09:28:44 AM

Has anyone else noticed the all contradictories in the Holy book? If Adam and Eve where first and they had children ... who populated the earth!!? Because the bible also said Incest is a sin... Now on the subject of Choice... if God is the most knowing and the most powerful and we are all in his image then our heart will guide as individual likenesses of God... meaning my body my choice. Trying to control the outcome of another human being decisions is playing a God. If we make a wrong choice GOD will let us know now or at the end. RE: to delfentor... maybe the ones not being born are Evil... and thats what was to be done.. ??

KatieAngel

01/22/2003 09:17:15 AM

I am pro-choice because that means we continue to offer a CHOICE - that the people who are intimately involved in the situation and know ALL the facts are then ones deciding what will be done. I do not believe in ONE SIZE FITS ALL theology and we as a society have more pressing issues to deal with (poverty, inequity, cruetly, abuse, etc) to be wasting so much time and energy trying to legislate reproduction. Each woman faced with the decision of an unexpected pregancy -- whether because of failed b.c., rape/incest or stupidity -- should be trusted enough to make her own decision and live with the consequences. It is between her, her family and God and our government has no place in it.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 09:14:24 AM

Thysta, Thanks, but I think you mis-interpreted my post. JK

KatieAngel

01/22/2003 09:11:50 AM

I am also pro-life and as such have supported friends in all the myriad decisions they have made when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy. I have held hands while giving birth, helped find adoption assistance and yes, driven to and from the abortion clinic. I have also counseled women suffering from the guilt and trauma years later. I believe in life for mother and child and, if asked, will say so. But I also believe in each woman's right to decide what she is going to do in that situation because each one is unique. cont

erusso

01/22/2003 09:07:33 AM

Psalms 139:13 says: "For Thou has made my reins; Thou has knit me together in my mother's womb". It sounds to me like the knitting starts from the time of conception. It is so sad how people act so irresponsible when it comes to sex. To the phrase "unwelcome pregnancy", was the sex unwelcome also? I wonder, if my mother would have decided to abort me, I wouldn't have had four children myself, I wouldn't have accomplished all the things that I have in life. I would not have experienced life, and the fulness of it, period! When Abraham's mother was pregnant of him, she didn't chose abortion. I wonder what would have happened to history if she would have had an abortion?

ImSimplyMe

01/22/2003 09:07:26 AM

In reference to abortions, I am pro-life for myself and pro-choice for everyone else. We are all responsible for our own souls and as such I will not force my belief on another. As for a woman's right to choose to have a child or not, the way I see it is if they thought they were responsible enough to fornicate, they should step up to the plate and accept the other possible responsibilities that may come after such an act. I agree, many women turn to abortions out of fear, but if one has God in their lives’... there is no reason for such a fear. Because one knows, he will be with them through the good and the bad. However remember, God loves everyone and regardless of what decision a person makes .. his light will shine if one just looks for it. God bless.

delfentor

01/22/2003 08:32:07 AM

I have known more than one woamn that has had an abortion. They have all gone through periods of depression based on the traumatic experience of the abortion. I would not want to make such a choice. Sometimes I wonder how many Christs or Bhuddas have not come into the world due to abortion. Yeah, I know I'm weird. I do believe it is up to the woman but it still amkes me sad to think of it being a possibility. There is so much to forgive in this world. i pray that fewer consider abortion a choice in this century. Also, I pray that more people use more common sense when it comes to sex. Amen.

pbeder

01/22/2003 08:16:56 AM

This is clearly the words of Satan the Deceiver: The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. The verse actually says: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injuy, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. Where do they get that the woman miscarried? Again I Say - Clearly the words of the great deceiver! Partial truth is deadly...

antonius16

01/22/2003 07:46:08 AM

"Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Not "blessed will be the fruit of thy womb." ===================================== Out of context. She would NEVER say "WILL BE" because there was no doubt. It's simple, twisted justifications like this that really blow my mind. It reminds me of school children in the playground, the way adults here attempt to justify their own selfishness.

bardmountain

01/22/2003 07:43:32 AM

sunshine, I won't call you a redneck if you won't say I'm a twister of God's words on the side of satan bound for fire and brimstone :). I certainly wouldn't consider you a redneck or someone of questionable genetic fortitude. Your opinions are always very honestly presented, lucid and well thought out. I would ask, though, that you be a bit more charitable with your brothers and sisters when they have a different viewpoint. I think you are too bright and sophisticated for that, and it doesn't help to spread your message of faith in Jesus - it just alienates others I think you are probably trying to help.

bardmountain

01/22/2003 07:34:31 AM

(from below) As a consequence, the Talmud also specifically states that human personhood begins only at birth (specifically, when the baby's forehead leaves the birth canal). "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Not "blessed will be the fruit of thy womb." The Bible would not consider abortion a murder, as for the author's of the Bible, life started at the baby's first breath. I am not making an arguement for or against abortion rights. Being male, I don't know if I should have an opinion on a procedure I will never have to make a choice about. And it may be that had the Bible authors known about it as practiced today they would have condemned it. However, that condemnation is not in the Bible.

bardmountain

01/22/2003 07:27:24 AM

The authors of the Bible had no idea what an abortion was. It is like looking in the Bible for rules on gun control. While we may extrapolate vauge parallels with other things, the fact is abortion was never discussed as their was no such animal at the time. The Christian conception of the fetus as a living human is a fairly recent development. The bible did have a concept, however, of when life began. Adam's life began when he took his first breath, even though his body was already created. Nephesh was the most common word to describe a person in the Old Testament (occurs 775 times). Literally translated, it means "to breathe". A creature that breathes on it's own was considered to be alive; a fetus was not granted the same status in the Bible. In exodus, a man that kills a woman's unborn fetus gets a fine. One that kills the actual child is executed. The two were not considered equivalent. (con't)

sunshine2777

01/22/2003 06:42:11 AM

Sheeesh... Satan's loving this... someone taking God's Word and twisting it around to make it look like He approves of His own creation killing itself. Very good manipulation of words. If a fetus isnt "alive" or "living" then I dont know what you call it, it is innocent and houses someone's soul and theres something in the bible about... oh you know... what was it?... oh yea, thou shalt not murder... that was it... This author has one eyeopening experience when she stands in front of God and tries to justify what she's done by writing this article.... this is God thats being addressed, not the guy next door. Oh yea, seems I remember something about God addressing people taking His Word and misusing it.. false teachers, etc... but thats another story. And yea, just sign this: another one of your God loving, God fearing fundie's....oh shoot, go ahead and throw the redneck part in too if that paints a better picture... :-)..

Nasher

01/22/2003 04:44:18 AM

This verse is describing two possible outcomes of what may happen if a women gives birth prematurely due to a man accidently hurting the women: 1. The women gives birth prematurely but the baby is not harmed - punishement - as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 2. The women gives birth prematurely and the baby is harmed (i.e. it is dead) - punishment - life for life. Therefore what Marjorie Brahms Signer has said is total nonsense.

Nasher

01/22/2003 04:44:00 AM

I would like to quote from Marjorie Brahms Signer: "The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life." Here are the verses she is talking about: 22 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

XOX

01/22/2003 04:18:30 AM

ozero, Wooh. Insights. Couldn't agree more. And yes, no one is "pro-abortion". But abortion could sometimes be the best decision for the women. I'm actually anti-coathanger. That make me Pro-choice for fear of women dying necessary death if safe abortion is not available. I wonder sometimes, how could someone be called pro-life, when they are willing to see women bleed to death by illegal abortions. They are anti-choice or anti-abortion, not pro-life.

inner_light_shines

01/22/2003 03:03:28 AM

I believe that we have to walk at least a mile in anothers shoes before we could even contemplate judging what circumstances brought them to such a heartbreaking choice. Isn't the whole point of spirituality to forgive and support, to give love and human kindness no matter what are personal beliefs are ?? After all....it seems to be a good enough theory for God... Love and light to all

thysta

01/22/2003 02:36:29 AM

Hi jkopanko, My name is thysta. You said: The term "pro-life" is really an unfortunately misleading and melodramatic: I know of no person who supports the fudamental right of the woman to determine HER OWN reproductive decisions, who is not also, literally PRO-LIFE. ------- Well, it is nice to make your aquaintance. Now you've met one. I am pro-life, even if only for myself. I have driven others to & from the clinic, talked to pregnant teens the night before thier abortions, and never once told them what they should do. But I assure you, I am staunchly pro life, in that I promote life. I believe with all my heart fetuses are babies, not "potential babies". If you would like to read more on my impossible position, please stop by the Beliefnet Abortion Board. I've posted at some length on said topic there. Thysta

donald5

01/22/2003 02:24:34 AM

It seems that the author of this piece doesn't know his Bible very well. The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph is TOTALLY wrong! What does he have to say about the 1st chapter of Jeremiah?

newmercy

01/22/2003 01:58:47 AM

cont'd.....Anyway, I'm saying that, the Bible supports the fact that (Luke 12:7) that even the hairs on your head are all numbered. So God knows the nuber of hairs in your head. The shocker is, the Bible also says that God knew you before you even left His bowels. This supports his vision for mankind, I like when He says, "IT'S DONE!" that means all finished..nothing new under the sun. So, we know that there is no "MISTAKE" in life and whom it is that makes it to the "breath of Life" is certainly predestined by the Creator.He knew who your parents would be and their personalities and what kind of Pops or Moms will raise us, or NOT raise us,the good, the bad and the ugly ways we would pick up from them, or the traits that we would carry... but it is according to His purpose for our life that our "lifestlyle" will edify His glory in the end...all you have to do is choose...salvation or death

newmercy

01/22/2003 01:58:08 AM

I believe that life itself has a beginning and an end and that truly it is pre-destined. There are no real "mistakes" in birth. Scriptures as in Luke around ch 22 supports this knowledge...everything that has a beginning has an end and already is ordered by God.Jesus knew his destruction, He knew what his purpose was and it was so, and already determuned that this would be his purpose before he was born (Son of Man). From the way he would be conceived,and all the way thru. "For God so loved the world..Jn3:16.

elvenstarl0rien

01/22/2003 01:47:22 AM

So the immature girls feel self-respect that they took control of their lives? How nice. Taking control of one's life is going to college, applying for that job, leaving that abusive partner, losing weight, fulfilling a dream. Those things deserve respect. These girls have killed someone innocent to feel better about themselves. Where else in society would this be tolerated? Nowhere. Nowhere but in the womb, where the murdered's screams cannot be heard. Wake up.

elvenstarl0rien

01/22/2003 01:41:03 AM

Unwanted pregnancies do not happen divinely. Mistakes happen less often when you really care about what you're doing. Like it or not, most murdered babies are the results of carelessness. Is it not the place of a "moral" person to keep themselves from becoming murderers? You want a choice, you've got it. How about abstinence, how about birth control?How about taking responsibility for your decisions and giving the child up for adoption? How about not being blind, irrational, and selfish? Victimize? "Show lack of respect for women"? How dare she. The victims, the disrespected, disregarded ones, are the lives thrown away in the sink when the abortion clinic closes at night.

elvenstarl0rien

01/22/2003 01:40:44 AM

Ms. Signer makes a lot of points about being "moral agents" and making "moral choices". Don't suppose that has anything to do with not having sex before marriage? Nope, I didn't think so. What about taking extensive precautions to make sure you don't end up in that situation? Failure rate of a condom is 7%? Maybe you should be on the pill, too. And using a diaphragm. Yes, I'm sure there are instances where they all fail simultaneously, but certainly not in the numbers of women (and the term is used lightly) we see getting abortions.

jkopanko

01/22/2003 01:37:52 AM

The term "pro-life" is really an unfortunately misleading and melodramatic: I know of no person who supports the fudamental right of the woman to determine HER OWN reproductive decisions, who is not also, literally PRO-LIFE. "Pro-choice" people are NOT, "against life"--contrary to the paranoid way this issue is painted by sanctimonious, fundamentalist busybodies. I know of no "pro-choice" person who WANTS abortions to abound. The entire point is, NO GOVERNMENT, OR RELIGIOUS REDNECK has the right to high-jack someone elses body and force them to bear children against their will. It is moronic that we are still debating society's "right" to treat women this way in the 21st century.

etsryan

01/22/2003 12:24:59 AM

ozero, in no way would i ever say that choosing a "great evil" is a "correct" choice. never. ever. there is always a choice for good in every situation. sometimes an enemy is trying to overshadow it, but God is always there and we must seek His face and call to Him. I believe when one is faced with what seems to be a choice between the 'lesser of two evils' that one should look around more, because there's usually if not always another better good/holy option, but we may not be seeing it - may even have our back to it.

etsryan

01/22/2003 12:17:09 AM

xox, perhaps your views of scripture seem 'ridiculous' to many, even God. Jesus said let the little children come to me and do not hinder them. I believe abortion robs a little child of his/her chance to get to know Jesus over a lifetime and God's gift of life - even to know his/her parents. Adult murders, idol worship and cheating were going on during Jesus' time, too. I suppose He was okay with that, too. Jesus chose to be a baby. He chose to be born. He set an example. He sanctified the very process by which the majority of us come into being. Can you see the forest for the trees? Please... take time to thank your parents and God for your existence. Take a look at TIME Magazine's Nov. 11, 2002 issue - cover story "Life in the Womb". Let's stop polarizing moms and babies. Free will and respect for life are not incompatible.

radc1977

01/22/2003 12:07:26 AM

i just warn every one accuse or judge each other. expect,God can judge you.we can't judge each other.matthew 7:1-2 don't criticize,and then you won't be.for others will treat you as you treat them.God would not say murder against abortion. but prove God show his greatest creator of universe.jeremiah 1:4-5 the lord said to me. "i knew you before you were formed within your mother's womb;before you were born i sanctified you and appointed you as my spokesman to the world."

etsryan

01/22/2003 12:04:56 AM

perhaps if those who believe in being parents or engage in sexaul activity and produce offspring could go about the business of supporting their children or contributing to their upbringing and not abandon them or expect others to do their job and if governments really looked out for every citizen and alien we would get a lot accomplished instead of creating desperate measures like abortion to solve dilemmas largely of our own making.

etsryan

01/21/2003 11:56:28 PM

xox, it seems as though you curse 'prolifers' and call them 'anti-choicers'. all 'we' are saying is give life a chance. where do you get your information about no one is proabortion? some women i've known were proud to have an abortion. to me it's heartless. i think you hate those who stand up for the baby in the womb from the moment of conception and i believe Jesus will show you how much He cares about that baby if you will let Him. Bible says bless those who curse you. God bless you, xox, in Jesus' name.

etsryan

01/21/2003 11:48:39 PM

"rescue those being dragged to death" is biblical, failing to warn someone of danger to their life or soul is accountable to God... when an elephanat is stepping on a mouse's tail, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. or supporting the elephant (no reference to republicans intended) the one in the womb does not appreciate laws, medical practices or rhetoric that contributes to his/her destruction. i am not saying that a woman in a difficult pregnancy does not deserve support, medical care. i realize difficult choices are made. I realize various 'abortion' techniques exist. I hope we as a human family could see our way clear to welcome every new member with joy and not fear. I would hope our priorities would be more like God's. I feel many people of faith have blinders on with regard to God's creation in the womb.

rtb2425

01/21/2003 11:33:15 PM

Ms. Signer states that pro-abortion Americans "recognize that different religious traditions hold a variety of views regarding when life begins and when ensoulment occurs." Instead of knowing exactly what God expects (through His one true Church, established by Christ), we have all these varied denominations making up their own rules to fit their own needs. Christ established His Church on earth. He gave authority to Peter and his hierarchical descendents to authoritatively guide the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit. Today, that authority is known as the Magesterium, or the teaching authority of the Church. That teaching authority says that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. End of story. You can create all the pro-abortion denominations and "traditions" that you want, but that doesn’t hide the fact that abortion is wrong, abortion is opposed by Godly authority, and receiving an abortion (or assisting someone in receiving an abortion) is a grave sin and an affront to God.

Renaissanceman48

01/21/2003 11:30:13 PM

When there are NO children waiting for adoption and being a stay at home mother actually PAYS what it is worth to our society is when I will believe that the anti-abortion movement has really put it's money and time where it's mouth is.

ozero

01/21/2003 11:20:22 PM

etsryan, no one is pro-abortion. No one has ever suggested that a woman get pregnant so she could have an abortion. Should the pro-life people be called pro-coathanger? Abortion is a great evil, even the pro-choice people will admit that. But it is sometimes the correct choice. If you really want to cut down the number of abortions, change society. Get rid of preachers who belittle the unmarried pregnant women, who condemn them in public. Take care of the children who are born. Funny how many pro-life people also favored those welfare reforms that pushed some women to abortion. You tell me who's the more evil, those who offer abortion as a choice among many or those who maneuver the woman to make that choice.

XOX

01/21/2003 11:18:50 PM

Correction. The "evil" disguished as light of the anti-choice misrepresentation God words as if He is not Pro-Choice is just plain .... "evil"?

XOX

01/21/2003 11:17:43 PM

Last time I check, it is wrong to take scripture out of content and minipulated it. That is what the anti-choice Christians are doing. The "light" that disguised as light" is right on the mark on the anti-choice Christians misleading others. There were abortions in Jesus times. Obviously He, like many who respect women, will consist pregnancy a personal matter. Jesus did not mention about peeing. And obviously He consistered peeing a private matter too. Not a sin, just private, like abortion. Those who accusing me of not knowing the Bible, I would like them to quote "chapter and verse" like the one in the article, that prove that Jesus is not Pro-Choice. Anyone? Try to do it without the usual ridiculous anti-choice insults and lies.

etsryan

01/21/2003 11:10:10 PM

correction: evil disguised as light thanks for reading

etsryan

01/21/2003 11:07:43 PM

"the woman is the person most affected...[by abortion]" Anyone suscribe to the belief that God is the one most affected when one of 'His' Masterpieces is destroyed before birth? Anyone believe that the child in the womb is more significantly affected than even mom? "Thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible and Torah. a developing embryo is alive. We aren't so arrogant as to pretend to know when a soul is created or whether God is okay with life being snuffed out/ripped out shortly after conception? Even 'spilling seed' resulted in death for some. Be holy as God is holy. Be perfect... terminating pregnancy prematurely is unnatural and a host of problems is associated with it. Better check who you are worshipping. Might be a 'golden calf'. Might be evil disguised at light. Discernment, folks. Do not be deceived.

etsryan

01/21/2003 10:56:13 PM

if legalized abortion isn't 'prochoice' seeking to impose that view on others and/or make laws sympathetic to the(ir) cause, what is? If it isn't a big deal, why is there such vehemence to keep abortion 'legal' and rallies and "keep your laws off my body" slogans, then such concern about making sure the laws are pro-abortion?

i_phelix

01/21/2003 10:52:11 PM

cont. However, to be the "commiter of sin" and then to go about teaching (yelling, picketing, demonstrating) that that sin is right is an abomination. I guarentee that these churches that take a neutral or supportive stance in regards to prochoice would find themselves turned completely upside down by Christ if He was physically here today. Much the same as He did the Temple in His day. And finally that story ended with Jesus telling the woman to leave her life of sin. Please understand, I know there are cases where it really becomes an ethical dilemma (mom's life vs. child's life/ rape/incest etc.) but in terms of using abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, I believe that scripture supports having the child.

i_phelix

01/21/2003 10:51:36 PM

XOX You obviously have no knowledge of biology. And your knowledge of Scripture is equally as lacking.God said "He nitted us in the womb." Also He said "His Spirit was upon John (the Baptist) before he was even born." The sad thing about this article is that it gives a view of Christianity at large as accepting of abortion, which it absolutely is not. This back-peddling soft warm/fussy blurry "christianity" garbage is exactly that. The Church absolutely needs to engage the world. As far as throwing stones, to personally attack someone because of any sin they commit is wrong and that was Jesus' point.

XOX

01/21/2003 09:54:02 PM

GrzeszDel, Just to clarify, we are talking about human life. I don't want to debate over virus and bacteria and other unrealated subjects.

XOX

01/21/2003 09:50:14 PM

Take your pick. We are talking about Christian belief. Where is the amoeba life things comes from? Do you think life begin as single cell? So you don't believe human life begin from Adam. You believe in Evolution. OK. Scentists still don't believe that life begin at conception. Pregnancy is define when the fertilized egg implantated onto the uterus wall. Back to the Bible. As I believe Adam before God's breathed into it is not a living person. I could extend that logic to see fetus is not a living person until it is born and become an infant. What is your reasonings? I see none but name calling.

GrzeszDeL

01/21/2003 09:32:00 PM

With all due respect, XOX, by your standards all of those Calvinist and Quaker abolitionists in New England back in the 1800s were just self-righteous biddies telling others what to do without thinking about "how stressful this decision is" for the slaveholders. This is sloppy thinking. As for the life-begins-at-first-breath notion, I would point out that it has little basis in biology. When does an amoeba's life begin? Certainly not at the first breath, because amoeba do not breathe.

GrzeszDeL

01/21/2003 09:31:47 PM

Dear LNH, If the people of the middle east had procedures to end pregnancies, regardless of how effective the procedures were, then they had abortion. The fact that we do ours in a hospital not a field is an unimportant difference. The Christian church has taught against abortion since its inception. The Christian church is 2000 years old. As such, there is a continuous, 2000 year tradition of the Church opposing abortion. The method by which the abortion is effected is irrelevant to the subject of the Church's opposition.

XOX

01/21/2003 09:11:36 PM

God did not say life begin at conception. I believe Life begin at birth, and soul enter the body when the infant draw the first breathe. It just make more sense that way. God made Adam out of earth. Adam body has no life before God breathed life into his nostrils. Fetus is not a living being until it is born and take the first breathe. It is not up to people who don't have to bear any consequence for the outcome, to decide if abortion is right or not. It is up to the individual woman to decide, as it affect only her life and she is the only one who has to live with the consequence. And to judge women who have abortion is wrong. Judging others is against Jesus teachings. Having "holier-than-thou" attitude without thinking of how stressful this decision is for women are being insensitive. That is the same sin of the Pharisee who condamn others while they themselves are no better. It is the Christian thing to be Pro-Choice. As Jesus teaches, "those who without sin throw the stone".

ADJ1223

01/21/2003 09:00:18 PM

God said that he knew us from the moment of conception, he knew us before our mother's new us. Who are we to decide whether one of God's creations can live or not. Tell me this: Would you allow someone to stick pliers into a pregnant dog rip the puppies limb from limbs and suck them out with a vacuume cleaner? No Then how can we do it to ourselves? The ways of abortion are hardly humane. Injecting saline so it burns the skin off the baby is horrible. The fact that they can see the baby trying to get away as fast as possible from the injection point is a sign it is a concious living person. There's also the effects of an abortion, such as causing the woman to continually have miscarriages and scarring of the womb. Those who get abortions are too cowardly to take responsibility for themselves. If the people are going to have sex, than they better be prepared for the consequences. If you care to talk about it e-mail me at drew@littlewizard.org. Peace and God Bless

LHN

01/21/2003 08:36:09 PM

My point was that we suffer from religious and historical amnesia, and that in our culture religion, politics and history become hopelessly conflated such that we can make claims that the Christian Church has had a clear opposition to abortion for 2,000 years. "Abortion" is a modern medical term for a specific procedure that people had no concept of 2,000 years ago. Nonethless, people in Middle Eastern cultures of 2,000 years ago did have methods for ending pregnancy (e.g., placement of stones in the uterus)and there is nothing in the Pentateuch nor in the New Testatment condemning such practices. By explaining the relationship between our legal practices and our "religious" beliefs, I was attempting to elucidate the conflation, not perpetuate it.

GrzeszDeL

01/21/2003 08:29:07 PM

Dear LHN, What does the legality of abortion in the U.S. have to do with the question of whether or not the Christian church has traditionally opposed it? I think you are conflating two separate ideas.

LHN

01/21/2003 07:58:24 PM

Part 2 of 2 In fact, access to safe and legal abortions in every country and culture has always depended on whether or not governments are trying to enforce demographic policies (one extreme example would be China's one-child policy). It depends on the perceived needs of the government and the economy as to the size of the potential workforce. Any religious coating put on this most Darwinian of motivations is done so to grab the hearts and minds of the people while their eyes are looking elsewhere as the State gets its needs met. All of this is said just to make it clear that our peculiarly American obsession with women's uteruses is not about Jesus Christ, but about capitalist economics, per usual.

LHN

01/21/2003 07:58:11 PM

Part 1 of 2 Just to clarify - there is no 2,000-year old tradition in the Christian Church of opposing abortion. In fact, prior to the 1920s, abortion in the United States was perfectly legal up to the point of "quickening" (i.e., when the mother can feel the fetus' movements in the uterus), which corresponds roughly with the onset of the second trimester. In the 1920s things changed because of the US governement's response to massive waves of immigration to the United States. Anti-immigration forces united to encourage increased births by "white" people to "preserve the white race in America."

GrzeszDeL

01/21/2003 07:26:01 PM

Bother; I am no good at HTML so the link in my post does not work. The article is at www.goodnewsmag.org/library/articles/gorman-mj93.htm. Sorry about that.

GrzeszDeL

01/21/2003 07:24:51 PM

2) Surely the author cannot really hope to convince any but the most gullible with this sort of nonsense. Anyone who pauses for even the briefest reflection will note that the Bible is perfectly amenable to slave-holding; it even prescribes the appropriate means for dealing with wayward slaves. Nonetheless, not one Christian denomination (at least to the best of my knowledge) approves of slave-holding. Obviously, then, the business of defining Christian morality must be more complicated than simply asking "what does the Bible say?" It is certainly more complicated than saying "the Bible says nothing, so therefore it must be up to me to decide." There are, after all, 2000 years of Church tradition opposing abortion, so it seems a bit glib to decide that, based on a supposed silence of the Bible on the subject of abortion, the Christian faith must be indifferent to the issue.

GrzeszDeL

01/21/2003 07:19:38 PM

I have two responses to the article at left. 1) Michael Gormon wrote an interesting piece on just this sort of thing.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook