ABORTION.......

It is interesting to watch the ebb and flow of debate on a subject like this. Part of the unrelenting flow is the 'presumption' of pro-lifers, most particularly Christian pro-lifers, to have a certainty of their conviction that apparently no others claim. (Well almost no others--there are some pro-abortion rights people who claim certainty that the unborn child is not a child.) But this certainty is such that they (the pro-lifers) want restrictions on abortion. Such 'certainty' is futher deemed to be unusual or inappropriate as related to the subject of abortion. Restrictions on abortion are coercive and wrong, so say the pro-abortion-rights people.

I wonder how many other moral issues should warrant no interference from interested parties?

Putting seat belts on kids? Some parents consider this a violation of their children's rights. Should it be the law?

How about cruelty to animals? Some people consider animals their property to be treated any darn way they see fit no matter how much the animal might suffer. Does anybody here think there should be no laws prohibiting cruel treatment and neglect of critters, large and small?

How about disregard for endangered species of plants or animals on one's own property? Should there be no consideration of law in this case? Is it okay for the property owner to destroy the seeds or eggs or whatever to prevent reproduction? A whooping crane egg is not a whooping crane and would make some people a great souvenir. Is it okay if somebody takes it?

Domestic violence? If one spouse doesn't complain about the other beating him/her up, should anyone intervene? It's their bodies.

Does anyone here not have a certainty of conviction on each of these issues?

Pro-lifers are certain that the new life in the womb is a developing person. And yes, they have a certainty of conviction about that.

Awesome post.

Excellent post, foxfyre

and the choir sang doo do doo do doo do do doo.

Foxfyre, I agree with your post for the most part.

Also I think you usually see the futility of responding with an inane statement that assumes you've won the initial argument.

As for all those issues you mentioned, no I don't think my answers are automatic in each case. I don't see things in such a black&white right&wrong way. Even if I did, these situations have nothing to do with the abortion issue at all.

Foxfyre, I'm interested in your response to my 2-part capital punishment question on the previous page.

I know Momma, but you asked where the difference was in our sides of the fence. I think I answered that ?

Could you please translate that for those of us who do not read music?

Eorl,

You just said that those situations have nothing to do with the abortion issue, right? What does capital punishment have to do with the abortion issue?

I don't know how many times this type of scenario has been brought up and responded to, but it is a lot.

Just because I do not believe she should be allowed to kill the child does not translate that she should be forced to raise a child if she is unwilling or unable to do so.

Why do pro-abortionists always pretend at this point in the argument that adoption does not exist?

Momma, well I didn't bring it up but...there are cross-issues.

For one, I can't see ANY christian condoning the death penalty without a severe case of hypocracy.

Also, if the foetus is a child, then women who acquire abortions are commiting pre-meditated murder of children. Clearly that would attract the death penalty. If not, why not? If you seriously see NO difference between foetus and six-year old....?

(Just so there's no confusion about where I stand, I would not have a death penalty ever, for any crime. I would not live in a country that allowed it to occur, assuming I could avoid it.)

To say that the pro-life position forces someone to get an abortion is about the most ridiculous argument you could make. Yet you keep on trying to make it.

Eorl,

I believe it is a child from the moment of conception. An innocent child. One sentenced to the death penalty has been found guilty. They are not innocent.

The Bald Eagle is a protected species, but human fetus' are disposed of at will.

Your miss-quoting and ignoring the important questions is getting tiresome real life.

It is a fact that in a land where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions will occur. You can hide from that consequence all you like, real life, but you know it is true. You just pretend that it's not you problem. Just because you set the conditions for it to occur doesn't mean you caused it ! Clearly the couple who had sex caused it. No your problem. Relax.

It is a fact that in a land where theft is illegal, illegal theft will occur. It is a fact that in a land where murder is illegial, illegal murder will occur. It is a fact that in a land where drinking and driving is illegal, illegal drunk driving will occur. It is a fact that in a land where jaywalking is illegal, illegal jaywalking will occur. It is a fact that in a land where.....

Eorl,

Well, at least you finally agreed whose fault it is.

Momma, you've been a bit selective with your answers, I think. Do you think abortion should attract the death penalty?

None of the others seem to have any answers at all !

Do I think abortion should attrack the death penalty? Hmmm. Depends, for who? The woman? The doctor that performs it?

Well, I guess the woman contracts the murder and the murderer performs the hit? Both would get the death penalty, no?

Let me ask you directly Momma, which part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is proving hard to follow?