ABORTION.......

A fine series of posts Terry.

0 Replies

Good morning everyone!

I am going to respond to the posts of Terry's in general.

Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God's active role in our creation and formation in the womb. That has reinforced my belief that it is, indeed a child and not a parasite, growing in the woman.

You completely left out the responsibility of the women that get pregnant and get abortions for convenience. What about their responsibility?

I doubt that at 15, I would have understood genetic counseling of any sort. I am not even sure they had genetic counseling at the time.

It's not wrong for a woman to remain childless for reasons of inconvenience, as long as she doesn't get pregnant (IMO). If there is no fertilization of the egg there is no child. Plain and simple.

If a child has not been conceived, Terry, then there is nothing there. I really don't understand why you would even make the statement about children being angry or upset that their parents took steps to not conceive.

Obligatory dependent relationship? I am speechless.

I HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT YES!!!! THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY IF ABORTION WAS BANNED! (Caps for emphasis only.) I admit that! I gratefully admit that! Do you think your mother suffered while she carried you? More importantly, do you think she minded it? And again, scientists are human. I put my faith in the Word of God. Humans can say anything they want and make up anything they want and make it look anyway they want it to look. Well, Terry, did you look at any of those pictures of those aborted children/fetuses? What did they look like to you, Terry? Lumps of cells or babies?

I find the selfishness in the women that do not take enough care to NOT get pregnant in the first place if they do not want children. Those are the abortions I am so strongly against! And, the abortions done for convenience are of a much greater percentage than for medical and health reasons.

Yes, situations are worse in other places in the world. But, we have to concern ourselves with our country and our citizens. I pray for the world, but I lobby for the laws in our country.

And Terry, yes, the men should also take more responsibility. But, the fact is the woman are the ones that carry the child so that is where our efforts to save children must be (IMO).

Terry, you seem to keep making excuses for the women. They don't take the pill or whatever the way they should for whatever reason. Well, THAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO! Put the responsibility where it lies.

Terry Wrote:

Quote:

Why would a society want its least competent women to bear genetically-disadvantaged children, even if they will be raised by someone else?

Someone please, please tell me this does not sound like some kind of societal cleansing to you? Please tell me I am reading this statement completely wrong. Please. I am afraid to comment on this until I know I am reading it the way you mean it, Terry.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, if you do actually wish to debate without insult, then I suggest that you begin doing so.

You do occasionally if not routinely disparage athiests and associate them with unsavory characters as I recently had to refresh your memory considering Idi Amin.

You habitually mischaracterize my posts and tell me that I hold Christians in contempt, and frankly I am tired of it.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species and deriving its nourishment from the host.

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

The fetus is indeed a parasite, sucking nutrients from a woman's body (it can deplete her body to the point of death by eclampsia or blood loss) and (assuming it is unwanted and given up for adoption) providing nothing in return but pain and suffering.

The "obligatory dependent relationship" is a product of your own imagination, not a legal or ethical one.

If you had ever experienced the joys of pregnancy you would know that the fetus is not "isolated" from our bodies at all, since it causes morning sickness, backache, heartburn, edema, gestational diabetes, and directly contacts us by stretching our skin until it scars, not to mention repeatedly kicking us in the stomach and bladder. To say that the amniotic sac "isolates" it make no sense at all.

That product of my imagination is shared by many. If the "parasite" can cause death... perhaps it should be considered suicide since the woman has control of her own body (according to you radical types) and she got pregnant through an act that can cause the pregnancy.

Sheesh.... blaming the fetus for stretch marks and weak bladders. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

0 Replies

Momma Angel, Jeremiah was not a biologist, and the Bible is not reliable when it comes to science. For instance, Jacob believed that the color of a sheep's offspring is determined by what it saw while mating!

Quote:

It's not wrong for a woman to remain childless for reasons of inconvenience, as long as she doesn't get pregnant (IMO). If there is no fertilization of the egg there is no child. Plain and simple.

OK, but a fertilized egg is not a child either, and early abortion stops the process before it can become a child, just as birth control (or celibacy, for that matter) does. So they both have exactly the same effect: a specific potential life is prevented. I understand how you feel about it, but what is the moral difference to society?

Quote:

Terry wrote:
Why would a society want its least competent women to bear genetically-disadvantaged children, even if they will be raised by someone else?

Someone please, please tell me this does not sound like some kind of societal cleansing to you? Please tell me I am reading this statement completely wrong. Please. I am afraid to comment on this until I know I am reading it the way you mean it, Terry.

Momma Angel, calm down. I am not advocating societal cleansing of any kind. That was a response to Intrepid, who desires mandatory sterilization of women who have multiple abortions because they don't "keep their legs crossed" and are (in his/her opinion) a burden to the welfare system.

The women who have multiple abortions are obviously the ones who are least able to take responsibility for their actions. Generally speaking, if a woman needs an abortion then the man who impregnated her is just as irresponsible (of course there are exceptions). If their lack of responsibility is due to a mental deficiency, drug addition, or character disorder, defective genes may be involved. It therefore makes no sense to require them to bear children who will inherit the same genes and have a greater likelihood of becoming a burden on society.

I think we should allow, encourage and pay for, but NEVER mandate abortions for such women.

If a woman gets pregnant for a non-genetic reason such as birth control failure, then I have no problem with her adding as many babies as she wants to the adoption pool. I just think she should be adequately compensated for her time, pain and suffering.

Quote:

You completely left out the responsibility of the women that get pregnant and get abortions for convenience. What about their responsibility?
...
I find the selfishness in the women that do not take enough care to NOT get pregnant in the first place if they do not want children. Those are the abortions I am so strongly against!

We are all human, and we all make mistakes. Some women simply lack the ability to take responsibility for birth control and these women are more likely to be impregnated, willingly or otherwise. I agree that some are simply irresponsible, but I don't know why you think that banning abortion is going to make them any of them more caring or responsible. They are still going to be sexually active and get pregnant again and again, and their daughters may well do the same thing as soon as they reach puberty.

Why do some people think that it is OK for a woman who was raped to get an abortion, but not a woman who unwillingly got pregnant but was not physically coerced into sex? Yeah, I know, its her fault for not exercising more self-control and responsibility. But whose fault is it that she lacks self-control, and how is she supposed to get it if she doesn't have it?

0 Replies

Terry,

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether the Bible is reliable (as science or anything else) or not.

The moral difference should be to society what God says about knowing the child even before it is in the womb. He knows the child. Not the fetus. He knows the child. I believe it is a child at the point of conception. I take it you do not.

First and foremost, I did not now or ever say I would condone abortions of any kind. What I did say was I could more undertand abortions done because of medical reasons, and yes, unfortunately, I can even understand them in the case of rape. But, I in no way think they are ok.

Well, that is why I asked about that societal cleansing thing. I really thought I was reading it wrong and I just wanted to make sure. I try not to assume anything.

You have left out the most reliable birth control method ~ abstinence. 100% surefire way not to get pregnant. Yes, not all can competently make this decision, but I would guess the majority could.

You have no problem if she is adequately compensated for her pain and suffering? So, it's ok to essentially sell her child? You may not have meant that but it sure sounds like it.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

That product of my imagination is shared by many. If the "parasite" can cause death... perhaps it should be considered suicide since the woman has control of her own body (according to you radical types) and she got pregnant through an act that can cause the pregnancy.

Sheesh.... blaming the fetus for stretch marks and weak bladders. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Women who have control over their own bodies can choose to bear children when they have the physical, mental and financial resources to do so with relative safety. Women who are denied control over their bodies (particularly those who live in cultures where their "consent" to marriage/sex is questionable and birth control is not readily available) are at much higher risk of complications and possible death.

If it is not the growing fetus that causes stretch marks and all of the rest, then what does? I certainly do not think that it is intentional on the part of the fetus, but it does make your assertion that

Quote:

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

look ridiculous.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Momma Angel, calm down. I am not advocating societal cleansing of any kind. That was a response to Intrepid, who desires mandatory sterilization of women who have multiple abortions because they don't "keep their legs crossed" and are (in his/her opinion) a burden to the welfare system.

You are rambling on so much today that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I did not say anything about mandatory sterilization

If you can't follow a thread properly then you had better stop accusing people of saying things that they did not say.

Don't tell me what I desire when I didn't even say what you wrote! Get a grip.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
That product of my imagination is shared by many. If the "parasite" can cause death... perhaps it should be considered suicide since the woman has control of her own body (according to you radical types) and she got pregnant through an act that can cause the pregnancy.

Sheesh.... blaming the fetus for stretch marks and weak bladders. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Women who have control over their own bodies can choose to bear children when they have the physical, mental and financial resources to do so with relative safety. Women who are denied control over their bodies (particularly those who live in cultures where their "consent" to marriage/sex is questionable and birth control is not readily available) are at much higher risk of complications and possible death.

If it is not the growing fetus that causes stretch marks and all of the rest, then what does? I certainly do not think that it is intentional on the part of the fetus, but it does make your assertion that

Quote:
A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
look ridiculous.

Ridiculour perhaps in your mind. It is still a fact regardless of how you try to change it. You ask what causes stretch marks if it is not a fetus? How about getting fat (not pregnant) and losing weight and gaining weight etc.? It is not only women who have carried a fetus that have stretch marks.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

You have left out the most reliable birth control method ~ abstinence. 100% surefire way not to get pregnant. Yes, not all can competently make this decision, but I would guess the majority could.

You have no problem if she is adequately compensated for her pain and suffering? So, it's ok to essentially sell her child? You may not have meant that but it sure sounds like it.

Abstinence is not 100% reliable as long as there are men who coerce women into sex against their will, parents who sell their daughters, and gods who impregnate virgins. :wink:

Being compensated for pain and suffering is not selling your child, if that child was accidentally conceived and would have been given up for adoption in any case. Is it selling your child if the adoptive parents pay your medical expenses? What's the moral difference?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
You have left out the most reliable birth control method ~ abstinence. 100% surefire way not to get pregnant. Yes, not all can competently make this decision, but I would guess the majority could.

You have no problem if she is adequately compensated for her pain and suffering? So, it's ok to essentially sell her child? You may not have meant that but it sure sounds like it.

Abstinence is not 100% reliable as long as there are men who coerce women into sex against their will, parents who sell their daughters, and gods who impregnate virgins. :wink:

Being compensated for pain and suffering is not selling your child, if that child was accidentally conceived and would have been given up for adoption in any case. Is it selling your child if the adoptive parents pay your medical expenses? What's the moral difference?

Terry, you seem to be saying that women are mindless robots who cannot think for themselves. Is that true?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

You are rambling on so much today that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I did not say anything about mandatory sterilization

If you can't follow a thread properly then you had better stop accusing people of saying things that they did not say.

Don't tell me what I desire when I didn't even say what you wrote! Get a grip.

My apologies for relying on a fallible memory in my response to Momma Angel. Embarrassed

I confused you with Englishmajor, who was the one who advocated mandatory sterilization.

0 Replies

Terry Wrote:

Quote:

Abstinence is not 100% reliable as long as there are men who coerce women into sex against their will, parents who sell their daughters, and gods who impregnate virgins.

Being compensated for pain and suffering is not selling your child, if that child was accidentally conceived and would have been given up for adoption in any case. Is it selling your child if the adoptive parents pay your medical expenses? What's the moral difference?

Terry, I can only address what you post. If I have questions, I ask. If I am not sure of what you mean I ask.

You seem to ignore the fact that I said I know it can't be done 100% of the time. I KNOW THAT! Again, I am talking about the majority. The majority of abortions are performed for convenience. The majority of the women are being irresponsible if they become pregnant when they don't want to be.

You said nothing about medical expenses. You said pain and suffering. Pain and suffering are punitive damages, not actual damages.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Terry, you seem to be saying that women are mindless robots who cannot think for themselves. Is that true?

Most of us are quite capable of thinking for ourselves, but some women fail to do so on occasion. They are not mindless robots, but perhaps they lack emotional maturity, do not have the self-control to resist impulses, are too easily persuaded to make bad choices, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol (once again a choice they make, for whatever reasons).

0 Replies

Terry,

Finally, you said it was their choice. Thank you.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre, if you do actually wish to debate without insult, then I suggest that you begin doing so.

You do occasionally if not routinely disparage athiests and associate them with unsavory characters as I recently had to refresh your memory considering Idi Amin.

You habitually mischaracterize my posts and tell me that I hold Christians in contempt, and frankly I am tired of it.

Mesquite, I evoke unsavory atheists ONLY as rebuttal to those who hold up Christianity or religion as the respository of wickedness and evil or attempt to show how the Bible is the handbook of vileness. I don't think you can find a post of mine referencing infamous atheists in which that is not the case. If I mischaracterize your posts, you only have to show how I misinterpreted what you said. On the other hand, you rarely, if ever, extend me that courtesy.

There is one surefire way to avoid being annoyed by me however. Just don't read my posts.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Terry, you seem to be saying that women are mindless robots who cannot think for themselves. Is that true?

Most of us are quite capable of thinking for ourselves, but some women fail to do so on occasion. They are not mindless robots, but perhaps they lack emotional maturity, do not have the self-control to resist impulses, are too easily persuaded to make bad choices, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol (once again a choice they make, for whatever reasons).

If they lack the emotional maturity to make a decision regarding whether to have sex then they definitely lack the emotional maturity do make a decision as important as having an abortion. IMHO

As you said, they made the choice and it was their's.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

You said nothing about medical expenses. You said pain and suffering. Pain and suffering are punitive damages, not actual damages.

I repeat, what is the moral difference between being compensated for medical expenses, and being compensated for pain and suffering as well? I am not talking about punitive damages here, but reasonable compensation for lost wages and the pain of childbirth, which are never taken into account by those who wish to ban abortion. How is that "selling your child"?

0 Replies

Intrepid,

Excellent, excellent point!

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

As you said, they made the choice and it was their's.

as you point out - it was their choice <not sure I agree entirely, but I'll take it as your point> - and therefore what they do with their body continues to be their choice.

it can't be - it's your choice in this case and not your choice in that case.

it remains the woman's body - and her choice - solely. not your business, or anyone else's. you keep your hands off other people's rights, and they'll keep their hands off of yours.

<do unto others ... remember that?>

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know