ABORTION.......

Well, the abortion doctor, yes. I say that because odds are he's done more than one and thus, in my opinion, is committing mass murder.

The woman? Hmmm. For the first abortion, at the very least she should be indicted for conspiracy to commit murder.

More than one abortion, yes. The death penalty. I think anyone that commits mass, serial, multiple murders should get the death penalty.

For me, it is the part about killing the fetus (developing baby)

Would you perform the murder (sorry "penalty") yourself if asked?

This pretty much explains how I feel about the death penalty.

http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html

That website is all religious propaganda with no real answers, but reads very nicely.

On the one hand, the old testament is used to justify killing people, while other parts of the old testament are apparently superceed by the new. Just proves you can justify anything at all with the bible.

Would you be prepared to kill the aborting mother yourself, Momma?

Would you force someone else to do it for you?

...or would you rather give that job to someone who actually WANTED to do it?

Eorl Wrote:



If that were true, I wouldn't have a problem with abortion at all, now would I?

Eorl,
Do you agree with capital punishment for any reason?

Earl, you're right that none of the analogies I used are the same as abortion. But there are some pretty good parallel issues I think. The pro-abortion-rights people have three arguments 1) that the life the woman carries is not human/a person/a baby and/or 2) the woman's right to choose is paramount; 3) we have no right to interfere with the choice a person makes in such matters. Surely you can see that some of the same principles are involved in the analogies I used.

And you mean THIS two-part question on the death penalty?


The literal translation of the ancient Hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder." "Murder" is incorrectly translated "kill" in the most popular English translations, and in the ancient Hebrew culture, it was a very narrowly defined term. There is no prohibition of 'killing' or a death sentence in either the Old Testament or New Testament. But there is much to be said in both about justice and mercy despite the more brutal historical passages and the less savory history that is on the record.

Obviously, even in the issue of abortion, there is now much room for interpretation of what constitutes 'murder'.

Currently the Constitution grants protection and rights only to those born. California, however, has extended protection to the unborn child if somebody attacks the mother and injures the child. In California a murder of a woman and her unborn child is a double murder. I suspect other states will eventually follow suit there.

I personally do not see any difference in killing a child (because the mother does not want it) in the hours before birth or killing a child in the hours after birth.

My personal criteria for the death penalty is that it is reserved for the most cruel and inhumane and unconsionable acts, and I don't think abortion qualifies in the way I interpret that. Should abortion be regulated at some time in the future, I don't pretend to be wise enough to say, what, if any, penalty should apply iif the law was broken.

Intrepid, No I do not.

Not only because there is nothing they could do that would justify it,

but because I think it does the executioner more harm than the executionee. (...and I include those of us who vote for the laws as being responsible for the execution.)

Hey Momma,

Just to prove that you can use the bible to justify anything....here is the proof that the god does not see a foetus as a full human being, rather the value of the foetus is equal to the value that the father of the child places on it:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage , yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" Ex 21:22-25

Also the bible refers a number of times to life beginning at the first breath.

Also, the word abortion does not appear once in the bible and there is nothing specific that prohibits it. It all comes down to interpretation.

Foxfyre,

Thankyou for answering, I understand better.

I think perhaps you at least sense a difference in value between a six week old foetus and a six year old child, or you would have the same extreme position as Momma.

Earl, I do not see Momma's position as extreme at all. She is consistent in her convictions, yes, but if you take her posts as one 'essay' of her beliefs, she is a woman of deep conviction, but not at all extreme.

Foxfyre,

I'm sure you don't see it as extreme, and I'm sure she doesn't either....but then who does?

Mostly, we are each at the center of what seems reasonable to us.

Eorl,

I guess we are on different wavelengths here altogether. I am not at the center of this. The children are.

What you define as a "child" is absolutley at the centre of this Momma.

If we all accepted your definition, the would be no argument.

You think? Yes, if we all viewed it as a child, then we wouldn't be having this argument. So, what's the solution?

I think there are as many solutions as there are points of view on what the problem is.

I think more education and open debate (like this) is something positive.

I was involved in a number of discussions on this thread yesterday and would like to respond to them here.

Momma, your last question to me was my opinion on following the laws of God vs the Constitution. I firmly believe each individual is entitled to follow the laws of their God so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others nor violate the laws of the land. As a society we need to follow the laws of the land. Regardless of the religious convictions of the writers of the Constitution, we are and should be governed by the law of the land. This land is not solely a land of Christians. It wasn't then and it most certainly isn't now. The Constitution could have easily been written to say, "We the Christian People" but it was not. It does not presume to institute the laws of God as the law of the land. A word search of the Constitution for the words God, Christian, or Christianity come up empty. The premise that the law of the Christian God should be the law of the land smacks of the American Taliban and should be fought against in the strongest possible sense. After looking at the website you provided I was struck by the thought of America as the "Christian homeland". It occurs to me that the Christian right has glommed onto American as a candidate for a Christian homeland. The Jews claim and control Israel and operate it under the laws of their God, the Muslims claim and control many of the countries of the middle east and operate them under the laws of their God, it seems that the Christian right is attempting to claim and control the US and run it under the laws of the Christian God. Is that what you are saying, Momma? That this is, or should be a Christian homeland?

real life, you miss my point completely. When society insists that a woman give birth but does not insist on determining if the woman is a capable parent or insist she not raise the child if lacking then we are not doing our job as a society. You state she has the 'choice' to give the child up for adoption. I state that if she is forced to carry a pregnancy to term she should be forced to prove the means of caring for, nurturing, and raising that child to societal norms or the child should be raised by someone who can. I for one, do not want to go there, I would rather give her the choice to abort. We all have the right to privacy as guaranteed under the Constitution.

eorl, I agree with you that the defense of capital punishment by those who claim to be pro-life is hypocritical. As is quoting scripture from the old testament to support doctrine then saying Jesus rewrote the law and the old testament no longer applies.

J_B -- Excellent post. I agree with you on every point.




The solution is for each of us to follow our own consciences and not dictate to others.

I don't mean this contentiously and hope it is not taken that way. But referring to my previous post of a page or two back related to other matters of conscience, would you say that each of us should follow our own conscience and not dictate to others in those? If there is a difference between those and abortion, what would the difference be?