ABORTION.......

J_B,

Thanx for answering me. Do I think it should be a Christian Homeland? Hmmm, well I won't lie. I believe if it was we would be better off. However, I realize this is an unrealistic expectation. If I didn't believe it should be a Christian homeland (actually Christian world is what I'd like) then my convictions would mean nothing.

The laws abolished by the New Testament were the ritual laws. The hygiene and food laws were the laws abolished, not the Ten Commandments nor the basic laws of Chrisitianity.

Like I said, I will work WITHIN THE LAW to lobby for the laws I would like to have, just as I would expect EVERYONE to work WITHIN THE LAW to lobby for the laws they would like to have.

I cannot go along with any law that I believe is in direct conflict with God's law. Abortion is legal so that just means it's legal in man's world. I would never have one so I can stick to my beliefs.

In the end, everyone has to deal with God on their own. But, that doesn't mean I would be a responsible Christian if I stopped lobbying for the laws as I think they should be.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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?

I did not see your post as this thread makes me grit my teeth and I check on it infrequently. I can only reiterate that I think people should be allowed to follow their own consciences. That means, Case 1 - if someone feels that an abortion is a correct solution to her dilemma, then she should be allowed to have one. Which is (Need I point out?) the current law of the land.

Case 2 - Those whose consciences do not allow them to have an abortion, for whatever reason, be it moral, familial or inertia, should not be forced to have an abortion. If our government must then care for that child, well, such is our social structure.

My quarrel is with those of the second case, whose consciences do not allow them to have an abortion and who then determine that this should carry-over to others of the first case. IMHO, they need to mind their own business and not dictate their own consciences to others.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
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?

I did not see your post as this thread makes me grit my teeth and I check on it infrequently. I can only reiterate that I think people should be allowed to follow their own consciences. That means, Case 1 - if someone feels that an abortion is a correct solution to her dilemma, then she should be allowed to have one. Which is (Need I point out?) the current law of the land.

Case 2 - Those whose consciences do not allow them to have an abortion, for whatever reason, be it moral, familial or inertia, should not be forced to have an abortion. If our government must then care for that child, well, such is our social structure.

My quarrel is with those of the second case, whose consciences do not allow them to have an abortion and who then determine that this should carry-over to others of the first case. IMHO, they need to mind their own business and not dictate their own consciences to others.

There is sometimes a disconnect sometime between the criteria of 'ethical' and 'unethical' abortion and what should and should not be permitted and when. There is a disconnect sometimes beween moral criteria for the death penalty versus abortion. We all have problems articulating a rationale for some opinions that we hold.

I understand your position on abortion. I just wonder if you would apply the same standard of minding our own business and not posing moral standards on others in the other issues I raised.

Anyone can answer of course.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Seatbelt law -- one I sometimes flout. It is not anyone's business except that if the government has to pick up the pieces, then they don't like it. That law is not meant to protect children so much as to limit traffic jams.

Cruelty to animals -- Interesting point. I find it distasteful yet I eat meat. I believe that torturing living creatures is wrong and I think that there should be laws against it. Those who torture animals tend to carryover into attacking humans.

Environmental Laws -- Provided for the good of society. I don't believe in the absolute ownership of land -- despite owning a good deal of it myself. It see it as stewardship for the generations to come.

Domestic Violence -- I think the laws have gone too far and am offended both by the idiots who wield the violence, those who stay with a violent partner and those who intervene mindlessly. The reason that society reacts is the violence spills out beyond the two people. We don't care about the victim (no matter what might be said) so much as whether or not children are involved... whether peace officers get hurt... whether the peace of the neighborhood is breached.

-- -- --
As I said the first time I posted here (and I imagine this will be the last post for a while as I'm getting annoyed...)

If you don't think abortion is okay, then what about masturbation? Spilling one's seed instead of making sure someone is being impregnated... isn't that wrong?

What about birth control? Are you disgusted by artificially interjecting hormones in procreation? What about physical means? Isn't that uterine device that cuts through the lining a form of abortion?

What truly disgusts me are the pharmacies that won't sell the "Morning-After Pill" but make a booming business selling Viagra.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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

Momma Angel wrote:
So, what's the solution?

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?

I see the difference being that those laws help to protect peoples lives and safety, as do the laws that ALLOW abortion. They protect women from harm.

Again it comes down to what you define as a person. I'll support any law that prevents a mother from killing her 6 year old. I don't see abortion as the same thing at all.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

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.

Maybe you should talk to Gianna.

from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:H08OC1-187:

Quote:

GIANNA JENSEN, A SURVIVOR OF ABORTION (House of Representatives - October 08, 1991)

[Page: H7561]

(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Friday I hosted a Capitol Hill press conference, and our special guest, Gianna Jensen, a spunky 14-year-old girl who survived a salt-poisoning abortion, is now going public with her story.

The medical records which I have seen show that as an unborn baby of about 24 weeks' gestation, Gianna was injected with high-concentrated saline solution with the intent to kill her. Of course, under Roe versus Wade, such violence against children is perfectly legal. Unborn children have no rights. Although the poisonous salt solution worked on Gianna's fragile body for 5 hours, she nevertheless survived. She was injured and today bears some of the scars and a mild case of cerebral palsy. But she is alive, she is well and full of life.

Mr. Speaker, how do the proabortionists react to a survivor like Gianna?

Mr. Speaker, they respond by devising more efficient means of killing.

In the Washington Times, on Saturday, their story about Gianna, Susan Shermer of the National Abortion Federation, said, `The way most abortions are performed today, most physicians make sure there is fetal demise.'

`Ensuring fetal demise,' what an antiseptic, euphemistic way of saying, `Make sure that the baby is dead.'

Mr. Speaker, it is a national scandal that each day over 4,000 babies are killed by chemical abortion or by dismemberment. Every child killed, every child killed by abortion and those who will die today are exactly like Gianna Jensen. This Congress should rise to their defense.

What do you think her definition of a child is, Eorl? Talk to her, she's been there -- on the receiving end of an abortion attempt.

0 Replies

real life,

I am definately not in favour of botched abortion attempts.

Let me know when you find someone who is.

Outlawing abortion could well INCREASE such cases rather than reduce them.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life,

I am definately not in favour of botched abortion attempts.

Let me know when you find someone who is.

Outlawing abortion could well INCREASE such cases rather than reduce them.

Yes, I know. You would have preferred that the abortion was successful. And you don't even get it. And that's the point. Gianna is alive today BECAUSE the abortion failed. She was the child.

0 Replies

Checkmate (IMO).

0 Replies

real life,

Yes I realise that.

What's your point?

Her survival to 14 is the result of many things happening from her great great grandmother meeting her great great grandfather and a billion steps along the way one of which was the failure of the abortion. She is no doubt grateful the abortion failed, as we are all grateful that any of us ever get to be alive.

It's a ridiculous argument you are making because it presumes that the same 14 year old girl would be really annoyed about not having been born at all.

What are her memories of the abortion attempt by-the-way?

I wonder if people who are born of rape are also grateful to be alive? I expect they are. Would that mean rape is a good thing per se? When I try to stop a rape, am I denying someone the right to live?

0 Replies

...incidently there seem to be plenty of pro-life people who WERE the product of rape eager to say how happy they were not to have been aborted....but not many of them are saying how happy they were that their mothers were raped....strange logic that.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life,

Yes I realise that.

What's your point?

Her survival to 14 is the result of many things happening from her great great grandmother meeting her great great grandfather and a billion steps along the way one of which was the failure of the abortion. She is no doubt grateful the abortion failed, as we are all grateful that any of us ever get to be alive.

It's a ridiculous argument you are making because it presumes that the same 14 year old girl would be really annoyed about not having been born at all.

What are her memories of the abortion attempt by-the-way?

I wonder if people who are born of rape are also grateful to be alive? I expect they are. Would that mean rape is a good thing per se? When I try to stop a rape, am I denying someone the right to live?

When you punish the rapist instead of an innocent third party, then you are on the right track.

You ask what the point is, thus confirming my statement that you simply do not get it.

You would have preferred that the abortion was successful, wouldn't you?

0 Replies

Usually, when a person goes to have an abortion, they want it to be sucessful!

0 Replies

Gianna Jensen would be dead now, if the abortion had been successful. Would you have preferred that outcome?

0 Replies

No, Gianna Jensen would never have been born at all...like half of all fertilizations.

Nice evasion on the rape issue real life. If you were the product of rape, would you be a rape supporter? Would you like rape to be compulsory?

0 Replies

If I were the product of rape, I would not be in favor of killing the product of rape. Same position as I hold now.

If I were the product of rape, I would be in favor of punishing the rapist, not an innocent third party. Same position as I hold now.

0 Replies

real life, you deliberately did not answer the question, but answered one you wanted to answer instead.

I did not ask if you were in favour of killing the product of the rape...I asked if you would be in favour of the rape itself.....since without the rape, the person would never have been born. Same situation, except with the intervention point shifted.

If you were the product of rape, and the rape had been prevented....you would be dead today.

Is preventing rape a bad thing?

I am simply pointing out the stupidity of your "hindsight" Gianna Jensen argument, as you are all too well aware.

0 Replies

Rape is evil and all evil should be prevented, and if it happens, the rapist should never be given any opportunity to rape again. The product of rape is not obligated to condone rape, nor appreciate any rapist. If you are hit by a drunk driver and receive a great settlement, are you obligated to favor or condone the drunk who hit you?

A person has no say in how s/he is conceived regardless of how or when or under what circumstances it happens. The gift of life can be cherished without condoning or appreciating how it came about. How we are conceived does not dictate our morality. Morality is neither genetic nor inherited. It is the choices we make with the gifts we have received, including the gift of life, that demonstrates our morality.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you were the product of rape, and the rape had been prevented....you would be dead today.

you are wording this question incorrectly. You would not be dead....if you were never living. Other wise,people who don't have sex, would be murderers.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
If you were the product of rape, and the rape had been prevented....you would be dead today.

you are wording this question incorrectly. You would not be dead....if you were never living. Other wise,people who don't have sex, would be murderers.

Yes I know thunder, it was a response to a similarly ridiculous statement by real life, who says his abortion survivor would be dead today if the abortion had succeeded.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know