ABORTION.......

Foxfyre wrote:

My church membership is with one of the more liberal congregations that officially supports all the liberal social doctrines but is tolerant of their more conservative members and affords me complete freedom to write and teach my more conservative points of view. I do stick to religious history, comparative religions, and development of Christian thought, however, and don't get into current political or social issues in church.

That's quite interesting, Foxfyre. If I understand you correctly, your pro-life views would probably not be considered the majority view at your church?

And here I had just been taught by some seemingly very wise A2Kers in another thread that all Christians were basically unthinking sheep who follow blindly their leadership; and of course the corrollary, that church leadership are usually overbearing control freaks with no tolerance for independent thought in the laity.

Maybe I shoulda asked those wise ones how long it had actually been since they were in a church.........

The official position of any of these denominations, including the Roman Catholics, does not necessarily reflect the views of the membership.

While I think one's religious faith might influence which side they come down on, I do not see this as necessarily being a religious issue at all.

Foxfyre wrote:

While I think one's religious faith might influence which side they come down on, I do not see this as necessarily being a religious issue at all.

There may be other than religious reasons that a person takes a position, one way or another, on abortion. I certainly can appreciate that stand, and the right of each person to decide whether they believe that abortion is moral.

I get the sense though, that those who don't favor abortion on moral, but not religious grounds, are usually respectful of another person's wishes. I have found that it is the religious who have the agenda to attempt to deprive ALL women the right to an abortion.

There are some who believe that people have a right to be born. I see that as very different from wanting to deny women rights to an abortion.

Foxfyre wrote:

There are some who believe that people have a right to be born. I see that as very different from wanting to deny women rights to an abortion.

Interesting. How does one determine which is the primary issue? The right of a fetus to be born, or the right for a woman to have autonomy over her own body?

If you believe that the primary value is to see that all fetuses have the opportunity to develop into human beings and be born, that is, by definition, abrogating the woman's right to autonomy over her body.

If a woman's autonomy over her body is the greater value, there will be some fetuses that will never be born. How does one reconcile this?

Phoenix,

You continue to push the misinformation that the unborn's body is the woman's body. It is not.

The unborn has a distinct DNA pattern marking her as an individual. She is not part of the mother, though she is dependent on the mother.

The unborn has her own heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. Read a medical textbook or talk to a neonatalogist. These MDs regard the unborn as a patient, distinct from the mother.

A child is a responsibility, no doubt about it. The mother can give the child up for adoption if she does not wish to raise it, but exterminating the unborn is completely unacceptable.

I can't color how you perceive a parasite. In my mind a parasite is:

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

That is all I mean by it. Does that help any?

Questioner wrote:

I can't color how you perceive a parasite. In my mind a parasite is:

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

That is all I mean by it. Does that help any?

Maybe you should look OUTSIDE of your mind for the correct answer on this.

Neonatalogists consider the unborn a patient, not a parasite.

Your characterization smacks of a political motivation, not a correct medical understanding .

I can't color how you perceive a parasite. In my mind a parasite is:

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Quote:

I can't color how you perceive a parasite. In my mind a parasite is:

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

With that definition, you could be simply talking about children....they grow, feed, and recieve shelter from their parent/guardian, yet they don't contribute anything in a material sense....unless you're into child labor, but that is another story.

A child is neither 'on' nor 'in' the mother, and in regards to infants, only gets fed when the mother feeds it. It doesn't 'take' anything.