View Full Version : Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)
Bro. Robbins
04-11-2012, 09:40 AM
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/10/planned-parenthood-sets-up-40-days-of-prayer-for-abortion/
This is absolutely one of the most disgusting, God hating things I've ever seen. It's a smack in the face of anything that is righteous and holy...
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 11:03 AM
Planned Parenthood is disgusting.
berkeley
04-11-2012, 11:06 AM
Well, um, at least they're praying. O.o
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 11:13 AM
Who are they praying to?
berkeley
04-11-2012, 11:14 AM
Who are they praying to?
"God"
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 11:21 AM
What god do they worship?
Hoovie
04-11-2012, 11:24 AM
There are gods that demand child sacrifices... so it's not a total shock to me the abortion butchers might pray.
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 11:24 AM
:heeheehee
I figured you'd say that.
berkeley
04-11-2012, 11:26 AM
:heeheehee
I figured you'd say that.
Waiting for an infraction. O.o
and,
REALLY?? :highfive
Bro. Robbins
04-11-2012, 11:46 AM
Just as sickening to me is the pamphlet that was attached... Clergy for Choice.... where's the choice of that poor baby being murdered? How about his/her choices? They don't get a word about their own lives... just sickens me.
jfrog
04-11-2012, 12:03 PM
What's sickening to me is those that compare abortion to murdering a baby and then say its okay for abortions to take place in certain circumstances. If abortion is really murder yall need to go all in and propose to ban it in all forms and for all causes.
Bro. Robbins
04-11-2012, 12:07 PM
What's sickening to me is those that compare abortion to murdering a baby and then say its okay for abortions to take place in certain circumstances. If abortion is really murder yall need to go all in and propose to ban it in all forms and for all causes.
Many of us do.... especially in the most conservative evangelical circles.... not an uncommon stand at all.
jfrog
04-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Many of us do.... especially in the most conservative evangelical circles.... not an uncommon stand at all.
I've never heard one of you call a pregnant woman a murderer because she had an abortion when having an innocent little baby would have a good chance of killing her.
I've never heard one of you call a raped woman who had an abortion a murderer either.
Bro. Robbins
04-11-2012, 02:40 PM
I've never heard one of you call a pregnant woman a murderer because she had an abortion when having an innocent little baby would have a good chance of killing her.
I've never heard one of you call a raped woman who had an abortion a murderer either.
LOL, when I say I'm against abortion, I didn't know that I needed to clarify that I'm against it in all cases..... and frankly, since I've been in this forum, the question of rape, incest, or harm to the mother never has come up.
So for the record, I, and many I know believe that a raped woman that aborts the child is a murderer, absolutely. There are NO SITUATIONS where I believe abortion is permittable.... and I've heard countless other evangelicals over the years that I'm familiar with say the same thing. A pregnant woman that is told having her child could kill her is also a murderer if she aborts that baby.
So there ya go!!!!!
Michael Phelps
04-11-2012, 02:41 PM
LOL, when I say I'm against abortion, I didn't know that I needed to clarify that I'm against it in all cases..... and frankly, since I've been in this forum, the question of rape, incest, or harm to the mother never has come up.
So for the record, I, and many I know believe that a raped woman that aborts the child is a murderer, absolutely. There are NO SITUATIONS where I believe abortion is permittable.... and I've heard countless other evangelicals over the years that I'm familiar with say the same thing. A pregnant woman that is told having her child could kill her is also a murderer if she aborts that baby.
So there ya go!!!!!
Hypothetical situation for you:
Let's say your wife was about to give birth, and the doctor told you, "If she has this baby it will kill her - I can abort the baby and save your wife's life, or she can proceed, die during childbirth, but the baby will live"
What would you do?
jfrog, the only exception I personally have for abortion is if the baby will kill the mother.
in that case, the mother is an innocent person who could and should be protected.
I believe in protecting innocent life.
Hoovie
04-11-2012, 02:55 PM
I've never heard one of you call a pregnant woman a murderer because she had an abortion when having an innocent little baby would have a good chance of killing her.
I've never heard one of you call a raped woman who had an abortion a murderer either.
I have never had any other position. Abortion is murder period. The mother is implicit, but the doctor who brings about the death is primarily performing the murder.
In most states the murder language is recognized and used in murder cases involving a pregnant mother. The charges are often for double murder, or murder and manslaughter. That this language is OK for "wanted" babies, but not OK for "unwanted" babies is sickening.
Hoovie
04-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Hypothetical situation for you:
Let's say your wife was about to give birth, and the doctor told you, "If she has this baby it will kill her - I can abort the baby and save your wife's life, or she can proceed, die during childbirth, but the baby will live"
What would you do?
First, this is a false scenario according to many medical doctors. The goal must be to preserve life of the mother and child.
The baby may need to be taken early - even extremely early. It is not necessary to wait 40 weeks. Babies are now considered viable at 24 weeks, and some have survived at 21 weeks. At that age, a medical birth is quite often less traumatic to the mother than killing the baby off by abortion.
Hoovie
04-11-2012, 03:12 PM
There are literally thousands of doctors who do not believe in murder/abortion under any circumstances.
Here is the position statement of AAPLOG Prolife OBGYNS
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
http://www.aaplog.org/
Michael Phelps
04-11-2012, 03:17 PM
First, this is a false scenario according to many medical doctors. The goal must be to preserve life of the mother and child.
The baby may need to be taken early - even extremely early. It is not necessary to wait 40 weeks. Babies are now considered viable at 24 weeks, and some have survived at 21 weeks. At that age, a medical birth is quite often less traumatic to the mother than killing the baby off by abortion.
I don't believe it's a false scenario at all, it may not be common place, but it certainly happens in some instances. I actually know of a couple to whom this happened, and they both chose the life of the child. The mother died in labor, but the baby was healthy.
Again, would just like to have some discussion on the topic.
RandyWayne
04-11-2012, 03:28 PM
First, this is a false scenario according to many medical doctors. The goal must be to preserve life of the mother and child.
The baby may need to be taken early - even extremely early. It is not necessary to wait 40 weeks. Babies are now considered viable at 24 weeks, and some have survived at 21 weeks. At that age, a medical birth is quite often less traumatic to the mother than killing the baby off by abortion.
It actually isn't a false scenario.... Just very very uncommon. We're talking a small fraction of one percent of all current abortions where it is TRULY the "mother or the babies life! Choose!".
A more disturbing occurrence for me is the other big allowance brought up which is "in cases of rape or incest". Sitting here it is rather easy to tell someone else that being raped is no excuse to kill the life within, but then I imagine a hypothetical situation where my wife was raped and pray to God that He gives me the strength to not drive her right down to the local clinic to get the perps "offspring" flushed down the nearest toilet as soon as possible. Incidentally pregnancy from rape isn't nearly as common as all the other reasons either.
Hoovie
04-11-2012, 03:34 PM
There are literally thousands of doctors who do not believe in murder/abortion under any circumstances.
Here is the position statement of AAPLOG Prolife OBGYNS
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
http://www.aaplog.org/
It actually isn't a false scenario.... Just very very uncommon. We're talking a small fraction of one percent of all current abortions where it is TRULY the "mother or the babies life! Choose!".
A more disturbing occurrence for me is the other big allowance brought up which is "in cases of rape or incest". Sitting here it is rather easy to tell someone else that being raped is no excuse to kill the life within, but then I imagine a hypothetical situation where my wife was raped and pray to God that He gives me the strength to not drive her right down to the local clinic to get the perps "offspring" flushed down the nearest toilet as soon as possible. Incidentally pregnancy from rape isn't nearly as common as all the other reasons either.
I am not saying there never needs to be medical intervention to prevent a mother from dying... The point is you are treating two patients.
as a side-note, significantly higher maternal mortality rates are associated with abortion than with childbirth.
RandyWayne
04-11-2012, 03:44 PM
I am not saying there never needs to be medical intervention to prevent a mother from dying... The point is you are treating two patients.
as a side-note, significantly higher maternal mortality rates are associated with abortion than with childbirth.
Oh I believe that completely. And darn near 100% as far as the baby goes.....
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 04:02 PM
There are gods that demand child sacrifices... so it's not a total shock to me the abortion butchers might pray.
You would be shocked to know that there are some well-known people that follow these false gods.
Cindy
04-11-2012, 04:15 PM
I don't believe it's a false scenario at all, it may not be common place, but it certainly happens in some instances. I actually know of a couple to whom this happened, and they both chose the life of the child. The mother died in labor, but the baby was healthy.
Again, would just like to have some discussion on the topic.
Wow, what a horrible choice to have to make. So they murdered the mother instead? Or would she have survived if they had aborted the baby?
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 04:18 PM
When I worked in a rather large medical facility, you would not believe how many co-workers, who identify themselves as "Christian", will fall out with you over the "rape clause" that regurgitates from their mouth.
My answer to that is mainly abortion is used as a "birth control" procedure...just as Planned Parenthood advocates. There have been over 50,000,000 abortions since Roe vs Wade and I am willing to bet that a small fraction of a percentage of these were a result from a rape.
Reproductive health? Give me a break! I feel the little cliches and word rearrangements to get women to do the dirty work for themselves instead of forced abortions like China is the most disgusting thing this country has ever allowed. The only thing even more disgusting is the women who actually believe Planned Parenthood's garbage.
Cindy
04-11-2012, 05:10 PM
When I worked in a rather large medical facility, you would not believe how many co-workers, who identify themselves as "Christian", will fall out with you over the "rape clause" that regurgitates from their mouth.
My answer to that is mainly abortion is used as a "birth control" procedure...just as Planned Parenthood advocates. There have been over 50,000,000 abortions since Roe vs Wade and I am willing to bet that a small fraction of a percentage of these were a result from a rape.
Reproductive health? Give me a break! I feel the little cliches and word rearrangements to get women to do the dirty work for themselves instead of forced abortions like China is the most disgusting thing this country has ever allowed. The only thing even more disgusting is the women who actually believe Planned Parenthood's garbage.
:thumbsup
KeptByTheWord
04-11-2012, 06:34 PM
For any of you sitting on the fence with the rape clause, or any other reason you may have to MURDER an unborn child... you need to watch this!! Our family watched this together, and it was put together extremely well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 06:43 PM
Yes, that video was put together very, very well. Not only about abortion, but it shakes the foundation and the belief that people are to always think what is shoveled at them by the media to be the truth.
Titus2woman
04-11-2012, 08:03 PM
It actually isn't a false scenario.... Just very very uncommon. We're talking a small fraction of one percent of all current abortions where it is TRULY the "mother or the babies life! Choose!".
A more disturbing occurrence for me is the other big allowance brought up which is "in cases of rape or incest". Sitting here it is rather easy to tell someone else that being raped is no excuse to kill the life within, but then I imagine a hypothetical situation where my wife was raped and pray to God that He gives me the strength to not drive her right down to the local clinic to get the perps "offspring" flushed down the nearest toilet as soon as possible. Incidentally pregnancy from rape isn't nearly as common as all the other reasons either.
I am not against abortion in all circumstances. Maybe because I have seen many young girls whose pregnancy was the product of incest. Girls as young as age 11, pregnant by fathers, uncles and older brothers. I do not think that on top of the trauma of having been sexually molested or assaulted these girls or young women should also have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. Adding shame to their situation by saying that they commit murder, is cruel.
In the case of the life or health of the mother being at risk. PIH, DIC, eclampsia, severe medical conditions such as IDDM that are exacerbated by pregnancy or where the mother has to choose between not taking needed medication for her own medical condition or giving birth to a damaged baby from medication side effects as in cancer requiring chemotherapy or some severe seizure disorders, etc.
And lastly for genetic disorders or physical anomalies of the fetus that are incomparable with life such as anencephaly or severe heart defects.. To make a woman endure 9 months of pregnancy, explaining and reexplaining how her baby will die when born followed by the birth and death of the baby are just too much for most families.
To say that it is NEVER appropriate for a pregnancy to be terminated is just farther than I can go. I believe that a medical board could review each case and decide if termination is appropriate. It is commonly done for other controversial medical treatments.
However I in NO way support abortion on demand.
Hoovie
04-11-2012, 08:52 PM
There are literally thousands of doctors who do not believe in murder/abortion under any circumstances.
Here is the position statement of AAPLOG Prolife OBGYNS
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
http://www.aaplog.org/
I am not against abortion in all circumstances. Maybe because I have seen many young girls whose pregnancy was the product of incest. Girls as young as age 11, pregnant by fathers, uncles and older brothers. I do not think that on top of the trauma of having been sexually molested or assaulted these girls or young women should also have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. Adding shame to their situation by saying that they commit murder, is cruel.
In the case of the life or health of the mother being at risk. PIH, DIC, eclampsia, severe medical conditions such as IDDM that are exacerbated by pregnancy or where the mother has to choose between not taking needed medication for her own medical condition or giving birth to a damaged baby from medication side effects as in cancer requiring chemotherapy or some severe seizure disorders, etc.
And lastly for genetic disorders or physical anomalies of the fetus that are incomparable with life such as anencephaly or severe heart defects.. To make a woman endure 9 months of pregnancy, explaining and reexplaining how her baby will die when born followed by the birth and death of the baby are just too much for most families.
To say that it is NEVER appropriate for a pregnancy to be terminated is just farther than I can go. I believe that a medical board could review each case and decide if termination is appropriate. It is commonly done for other controversial medical treatments.
However I in NO way support abortion on demand.
Very difficult circumstances to be sure, but as noted in the earlier post, thousands of OBGYNS disagree that abortion is ever a good thing.
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 09:07 PM
You bring up valid issues T2W. The very fact that we have a society where people cannot contain themselves morally and sexually and they perpetrate upon innocent victims is incomprehensible. I would say that for very young victims...this would truly be considered a medical issue. Not a moral issue on the part of the young victim.
The medical establishment has always taken care of women and victims who have medical issues during pregnancy. It just was not discussed, nor advertised such as it is now. They were true medical conditions and people should understand that in these cases, it is none of our business anymore than our medical issues are anybody else's business.
Planned Parenthood wants to make "pro-choice" a "reproductive health" issue when the root issue from all of this comes from sexual depravity.
Legalizing abortion and legitimatizing it as an "industry" will never be right in the eyes of God no matter how people try to slice it.
Titus2woman
04-11-2012, 09:14 PM
Very difficult circumstances to be sure, but as noted in the earlier post, thousands of OBGYNS disagree that abortion is ever a good thing.
I absolutely respect that. I do not think that any provider should ever have to preform any procedure that they are uncomfortable with. Every doctor is first and foremost a person who has the right to not violate their conscience.
None of the nine doctors I work for will preform an elective termination. Some will refer to another provider and some will not even give a referral. Some nurses will give a phone number. I transfer calls regarding questions about termination to them. However once a patient has had a termination and comes back in we all just have to put it behind us.
AreYouReady?
04-11-2012, 09:21 PM
Has anybody found the exact wording of the Affordable Health Care Act? I understand it has 2700 pages so it will be difficult to find all the issues many people have.
There has been some concern in conservative circles that this Act will make it a requirement for physicians to treat all abortion wants/demands as a medical reproductive health issue regardless of personal morals.
Titus2woman
04-11-2012, 10:10 PM
You bring up valid issues T2W. The very fact that we have a society where people cannot contain themselves morally and sexually and they perpetrate upon innocent victims is incomprehensible. I would say that for very young victims...this would truly be considered a medical issue. Not a moral issue on the part of the young victim.
The medical establishment has always taken care of women and victims who have medical issues during pregnancy. It just was not discussed, nor advertised such as it is now. They were true medical conditions and people should understand that in these cases, it is none of our business anymore than our medical issues are anybody else's business.
Planned Parenthood wants to make "pro-choice" a "reproductive health" issue when the root issue from all of this comes from sexual depravity.
Legalizing abortion and legitimatizing it as an "industry" will never be right in the eyes of God no matter how people try to slice it.
Agreed.
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 07:31 AM
Maybe I said agreed too quickly... So here goes. First of all let's get some terminology in place. An abortion is loss of pregnancy. It is the medical term for miscarriage. It happens as an act of God and has nothing to do with human intervention. What we are actually talking about here is elective termination of pregnancy.
Now for some facts. When one says that death rates for women are higher for elective TOP vs childbirth the stats are skewed and here is how.Often ALL causes of death in women who die up to one year after TOP are counted not just complication of the procedure, so STIs, suicide, homicide, accident, etc.
I work for nine gynecologists. You would be very surprised at who has terminations and who takes heir daughters for terminations. I will just say this; when people are part of communities where there is a lot of shame about unwed pregnancy there is a lot of extra pressure to find a way to make the 'problem' go away without any evidence. That includes the church. 93% of women obtaining an elective TOP identify themselves as Christian with 65% Protestant and 28% Catholic.
One very sad situation that I was made aware of was a family in the church whose 11 year old daughter was pregnant by her paternal uncle. He had stayed with his brother for his first semester in college and had molested his niece several times during his stay. I know his parents, he was raised in a good Christian home and has always seemed a decent kid, why he did something so horrible I do not know. Maybe the girl was even somewhat culpable... Although I do not believe an 11 year old can consent maybe this 19 year old boy did not share my belief. This family elected TOP to avoid ruining everything in their lives that mattered to them. How the Lord will heal them, only He knows. Time seems to be healing that family but would it be so if they had been publically shamed?
Everything is not always cut and dried. Women keep children who lead tortured lives so that they can collect a welfare check and do dope. These kids grow up to be killers who sometimes take many lives. Are their situations where it is better is someone is never born? Would it have been better if Hitler were never born?
And then there is my issue of not trying to conform Sinners to the moral standards of those who have the Spirit of God living in them. Should they really be just like us?
Lots to think about....
Hoovie
04-12-2012, 08:46 AM
Taking one life to make others comfortable is never Ok.
Is there a comparison being made here between welfare recipients and Hitler?
And a society that allows child sacrifice because it's kewl with their moral code?
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 09:22 AM
Taking one life to make others comfortable is never Ok.
Is there a comparison being made here between welfare recipients and Hitler?
And a society that allows child sacrifice because it's kewl with their moral code?
The reason I have framed most of what I have said as questions is because I do not have all the answers but I think that sometimes we tend to simplify as if we do... How would you deal with your 11 year old daughter being pregnant by your younger, nice decent kid brother?
Your wife with a pregnancy that endangered her health and possibly her life but was too early to be viable?
A routine ultrasound revealing that the fetus you were carrying had no brain and while it would grow inside your body like a parasite for 9 months and be born it would never live beyond an hour?
My point is that these things are real situations that happen to real people every day. I meet some of these people.
So far I think I think that I believe that:
1. TOP on demand is morally wrong and should be illegal.
2. There should be some allowable exceptions and we may never agree on what they are.
3. The likelihood that current law will ever be repealed or even altered is almost nil for a lot of reasons the biggest one is that the majority of people want it to be legal even if they find it sickening.
And no, no comparison between welfare recipients and Hitler... My questions just kind of ran together... Do you believe it would have been better if Hitler were never born? And is it better for a woman to have and keep a child that she will never love or give a decent chance at life for selfish reasons than to terminate it?
Hoovie
04-12-2012, 10:16 AM
The reason I have framed most of what I have said as questions is because I do not have all the answers but I think that sometimes we tend to simplify as if we do... How would you deal with your 11 year old daughter being pregnant by your younger, nice decent kid brother?
Your wife with a pregnancy that endangered her health and possibly her life but was too early to be viable?
A routine ultrasound revealing that the fetus you were carrying had no brain and while it would grow inside your body like a parasite for 9 months and be born it would never live beyond an hour?
My point is that these things are real situations that happen to real people every day. I meet some of these people.
So far I think I think that I believe that:
1. TOP on demand is morally wrong and should be illegal.
2. There should be some allowable exceptions and we may never agree on what they are.
3. The likelihood that current law will ever be repealed or even altered is almost nil for a lot of reasons the biggest one is that the majority of people want it to be legal even if they find it sickening.
And no, no comparison between welfare recipients and Hitler... My questions just kind of ran together... Do you believe it would have been better if Hitler were never born? And is it better for a woman to have and keep a child that she will never love or give a decent chance at life for selfish reasons than to terminate it?
How do you deal with a young girl getting pregnant? I am not a doctor, but I would assume one would start with a game plan to treat both patients.
Same with a mother who is in danger. Sometimes extended hospitalization is required to ensure the best possible outcome.
The "no brain" scenario may be somewhat different. If it is simply a tumor or mass then it is treated as such. However, there are many, many cases where the parents were told the baby would not live and they did. Some going on to lead productive and even normal lives. I would contact a team of doctors who do not believe in abortion and come up with a plan.
I think I can answer the Hitler question better as soon as you show you had evidence while he was in the womb that he would later kill millions.
Better to keep a child the mother will not love? No. That child is better to be adopted into a two parent home where he will be loved. This is the reality of many. Adoption works without killing.
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 11:24 AM
How do you deal with a young girl getting pregnant? I am not a doctor, but I would assume one would start with a game plan to treat both patients.
Same with a mother who is in danger. Sometimes extended hospitalization is required to ensure the best possible outcome.
The "no brain" scenario may be somewhat different. If it is simply a tumor or mass then it is treated as such. However, there are many, many cases where the parents were told the baby would not live and they did. Some going on to lead productive and even normal lives. I would contact a team of doctors who do not believe in abortion and come up with a plan.
I think I can answer the Hitler question better as soon as you show you had evidence while he was in the womb that he would later kill millions.
Better to keep a child the mother will not love? No. That child is better to be adopted into a two parent home where he will be loved. This is the reality of many. Adoption works without killing.
Anencephaly is not a mistake on sono, etc. It is the complete absence of a brain. It has happened to three women in this practice since I've been here. So you are answering a question I did not ask. My question is about a baby with no chance at life at all.
About a woman whoes life is at risk... we keep saying 'doctors who don't believe in abortion'... but these doctors do believe in delivering a fetus that has no chance of viability. Methods slightly different, outcome the same. The biggest difference is that the mother has to labor or have a C-section to deliver the fetus whole, where a D&E allows a generally safer procedure for the mother.
And lastly, how many of your children are adopted? I have raised two children who were not my own. Don and I plan to adopt and have started the process. There are, right this minute over 1.500 children available for adoption in the Houston area, thousands in the US. Until you take in a few of these broken children and figure out what to do with the rest of them let's not go all fuzzy with the 'adoption option' which is really only an option for healthy white infants.
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 11:34 AM
Correction... It is now 1.700 children waiting for families in Houston. I guess the number jumped another 200 while I wasn't looking.
For anyone who might be willing to be a family to one of these babies we talk about saving, a few years down the road... Here you go.
http://www.depelchin.org/fw/main/Children_Waiting_for_Adoption-26.html
Even single people can adopt, even single men ... so that is NO EXCUSE.
BE THE CHANGE YOU TALK ABOUT.
AreYouReady?
04-12-2012, 11:38 AM
Maybe I said agreed too quickly... So here goes. First of all let's get some terminology in place. An abortion is loss of pregnancy. It is the medical term for miscarriage. It happens as an act of God and has nothing to do with human intervention.
My answers are for discussion sake only, because you bring out many of the things we hear from pro choice advocates. I will be trying to very carefully frame my words here because the advocacy for or against abortion is such a sensitive issue. Working in the medical field, we tend to see many terrible situations that may frame how we think about the abortion issue. Miscarriages are termed "spontaneous abortions" and yes, this is an act of God.
Now for some facts. When one says that death rates for women are higher for elective TOP vs childbirth the stats are skewed and here is how.Often ALL causes of death in women who die up to one year after TOP are counted not just complication of the procedure, so STIs, suicide, homicide, accident, etc.
I know a woman who has had nightmares for years after her abortion. She has dreamt about her little girl calling for her...mommy...where are you? It is sad that she had the abortion on her doctor's advice that there was a "possibility" the baby "might" become deformed because she was exposed to x-rays and rubella. I don't think he said that the baby could also have been born whole and healthy either. But that came from an OB/GYN who had pickle jars of aborted babies in formaldehyde in various stages of fetal development back in the 70s. I understand he has since repented and became a Christian.
I work for nine gynecologists. You would be very surprised at who has terminations and who takes heir daughters for terminations. I will just say this; when people are part of communities where there is a lot of shame about unwed pregnancy there is a lot of extra pressure to find a way to make the 'problem' go away without any evidence.
This is so sad. The real shame is in the "wagging tongues" of people, including Christians. I would have to say that I fear God and His judgment more than I fear the wagging tongues of people. One does not have to be an unwed mother to have a community scorn and wag tongues about you. All one has to do is to disagree with a popular citizen about any particular issue and that can bring the whole community down on top of your head. But when the same thing happens to them or their family, it's all forgive and forget. I try to remember to always place God in the middle of making such decisions as this. What does God think of me if I do this or that? Does quietly taking the life of a viable baby in the womb to save face and everything they have in their position in the community a good thing in the eyes of God? It's more about what God thinks than what a fickle society thinks. Five years from now, in this day and age, it won't matter anymore.
One very sad situation that I was made aware of was a family in the church whose 11 year old daughter was pregnant by her paternal uncle. He had stayed with his brother for his first semester in college and had molested his niece several times during his stay. I know his parents, he was raised in a good Christian home and has always seemed a decent kid, why he did something so horrible I do not know. Maybe the girl was even somewhat culpable... Although I do not believe an 11 year old can consent maybe this 19 year old boy did not share my belief.
This very incident happened to a member of my family, but without the pregnancy. She was 10 and the perpetrator was 28. Without going into detail let me just say that perpetrators have very ingenious ways to make a girl that young be a willing participant. This went on for 7 years until her mother died. She lived with him for another 5 years after that. She admitted to me that they were sneaky so her mother would not suspect. Her father was never a father to her so he could never have intervened on her behalf.
This family elected TOP to avoid ruining everything in their lives that mattered to them. How the Lord will heal them, only He knows. Time seems to be healing that family but would it be so if they had been publically shamed?
Like I said in an earlier answer. The real shame would be in the wagging tongues of the Christians. They have the power to be of a real Christian brother/sister help in that family's situation. May God have mercy on us ...Christians ... if we make life more difficult for people who find themselves in very difficult situations by our harmful, wagging tongues. Who has the greater sin I think we should ask ourselves? The 11 year old victim who really isn't old enough to consider the consequences of what took place either by trickery or force or supposedly mature Christian people who want to show their spiritual superiority by condemning a child over losing her innocence by a young man who obviously became perverted in some way? Bad things happen to good families and we never know when we will find ourselves in some shameful incident that we had no knowledge or control of. It would be better if people consider themselves or their own families if they were to find themselves in the very same situation.
Everything is not always cut and dried. Women keep children who lead tortured lives so that they can collect a welfare check and do dope. These kids grow up to be killers who sometimes take many lives. Are their situations where it is better is someone is never born? Would it have been better if Hitler were never born?
These are valid questions but who are we to play God in who lives and who dies simply because some of these kids "might" grow up to be killers and take innocent lives. How are we to know in advance which ones would do this? Who can make that judgment? How could Hitler's mother ever have determined that her little baby could have turned into a heinous monster?
And then there is my issue of not trying to conform Sinners to the moral standards of those who have the Spirit of God living in them. Should they really be just like us?
Lots to think about....
I share this issue with you. Morality must come from within. There has to be an innermost measurement of what is right and wrong and what is pleasing to God and not pleasing to God. In the very best of what each of us think we have to offer, we fail God. This is why we must ask God for mercy in our lives and for others who do not know or want to know God. Do I think what propaganda Planned Parenthood puts out is disgusting? Yes. Do I think that the women who actually buy into it is disgusting? Yes. But I guess I must remember that we live the way we are taught and that our job as Christians is to entreat others to come to Christ and let the Holy Spirit lead and guide them to morality. May God have mercy on our souls should we become spiritual stumblingblocks to someone else.
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 12:22 PM
My answers are for discussion sake only, because you bring out many of the things we hear from pro choice advocates. I will be trying to very carefully frame my words here because the advocacy for or against abortion is such a sensitive issue. Working in the medical field, we tend to see many terrible situations that may frame how we think about the abortion issue. Miscarriages are termed "spontaneous abortions" and yes, this is an act of God.
I know a woman who has had nightmares for years after her abortion. She has dreamt about her little girl calling for her...mommy...where are you? It is sad that she had the abortion on her doctor's advice that there was a "possibility" the baby "might" become deformed because she was exposed to x-rays and rubella. I don't think he said that the baby could also have been born whole and healthy either. But that came from an OB/GYN who had pickle jars of aborted babies in formaldehyde in various stages of fetal development back in the 70s. I understand he has since repented and became a Christian.
This is so sad. The real shame is in the "wagging tongues" of people, including Christians. I would have to say that I fear God and His judgment more than I fear the wagging tongues of people. One does not have to be an unwed mother to have a community scorn and wag tongues about you. All one has to do is to disagree with a popular citizen about any particular issue and that can bring the whole community down on top of your head. But when the same thing happens to them or their family, it's all forgive and forget. I try to remember to always place God in the middle of making such decisions as this. What does God think of me if I do this or that? Does quietly taking the life of a viable baby in the womb to save face and everything they have in their position in the community a good thing in the eyes of God? It's more about what God thinks than what a fickle society thinks. Five years from now, in this day and age, it won't matter anymore.
This very incident happened to a member of my family, but without the pregnancy. She was 10 and the perpetrator was 28. Without going into detail let me just say that perpetrators have very ingenious ways to make a girl that young be a willing participant. This went on for 7 years until her mother died. She lived with him for another 5 years after that. She admitted to me that they were sneaky so her mother would not suspect. Her father was never a father to her so he could never have intervened on her behalf.
Like I said in an earlier answer. The real shame would be in the wagging tongues of the Christians. They have the power to be of a real Christian brother/sister help in that family's situation. May God have mercy on us ...Christians ... if we make life more difficult for people who find themselves in very difficult situations by our harmful, wagging tongues. Who has the greater sin I think we should ask ourselves? The 11 year old victim who really isn't old enough to consider the consequences of what took place either by trickery or force or supposedly mature Christian people who want to show their spiritual superiority by condemning a child over losing her innocence by a young man who obviously became perverted in some way? Bad things happen to good families and we never know when we will find ourselves in some shameful incident that we had no knowledge or control of. It would be better if people consider themselves or their own families if they were to find themselves in the very same situation.
These are valid questions but who are we to play God in who lives and who dies simply because some of these kids "might" grow up to be killers and take innocent lives. How are we to know in advance which ones would do this? Who can make that judgment? How could Hitler's mother ever have determined that her little baby could have turned into a heinous monster?
I share this issue with you. Morality must come from within. There has to be an innermost measurement of what is right and wrong and what is pleasing to God and not pleasing to God. In the very best of what each of us think we have to offer, we fail God. This is why we must ask God for mercy in our lives and for others who do not know or want to know God. Do I think what propaganda Planned Parenthood puts out is disgusting? Yes. Do I think that the women who actually buy into it is disgusting? Yes. But I guess I must remember that we live the way we are taught and that our job as Christians is to entreat others to come to Christ and let the Holy Spirit lead and guide them to morality. May God have mercy on our souls should we become spiritual stumblingblocks to someone else.
Just the idea that I might sound anything like a 'pro-choice' advocate horrifies me. I will be doing some serious praying on this issue.
I do so want to restate and remake and reiterate the point that as Christians we need to be sure that we understand that young people make mistakes and support rather than shame those girls/women who do choose the hard road of keeping and/or raising a child.
One more thing I would really hope that we take away from this conversation is that behind every pregnancy there is a boy/man responsible for it. If we want to stop abortion I think the single thing that we all can do it to raise our sons well. I am appalled at how many boys still believe that there are girls you 'use' and girls you marry and they are not the same girls. Teaching our boys the value of their own purity would make the biggest dent in so many social problems.
I always like to ask men who discuss women in a negative way... "So, you were a virgin when you married then?" Amazingly I've not had one say "Yes, yes I was"... maybe some day.
Hoovie
04-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Anencephaly is not a mistake on sono, etc. It is the complete absence of a brain. It has happened to three women in this practice since I've been here. So you are answering a question I did not ask. My question is about a baby with no chance at life at all.
About a woman whoes life is at risk... we keep saying 'doctors who don't believe in abortion'... but these doctors do believe in delivering a fetus that has no chance of viability. Methods slightly different, outcome the same. The biggest difference is that the mother has to labor or have a C-section to deliver the fetus whole, where a D&E allows a generally safer procedure for the mother.
And lastly, how many of your children are adopted? I have raised two children who were not my own. Don and I plan to adopt and have started the process. There are, right this minute over 1.500 children available for adoption in the Houston area, thousands in the US. Until you take in a few of these broken children and figure out what to do with the rest of them let's not go all fuzzy with the 'adoption option' which is really only an option for healthy white infants.
As I said, I am not a doctor, but I would hire a medical team that would start with a plan to treat both patients. Not saying the decisions would be easy. However, I do believe the unborn are persons and have God-given rights.
My children are not adopted... though we do support pregnancy centers and a Christian adoption group.
Honestly, your fuzzy for adoption comment is offensive.
The bottom line is this. Life is better than death - even for children waiting to be adopted.
Bro. Robbins
04-12-2012, 01:25 PM
Correction... It is now 1.700 children waiting for families in Houston. I guess the number jumped another 200 while I wasn't looking.
For anyone who might be willing to be a family to one of these babies we talk about saving, a few years down the road... Here you go.
http://www.depelchin.org/fw/main/Children_Waiting_for_Adoption-26.html
Even single people can adopt, even single men ... so that is NO EXCUSE.
BE THE CHANGE YOU TALK ABOUT.
I would never advocate a single person to adopt a baby...
RandyWayne
04-12-2012, 01:46 PM
I would never advocate a single person to adopt a baby...
Never? I agree that in most cases it wouldn't be an ideal situation but there are certainly those who have the means and the ability to do it.
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 02:13 PM
I would never advocate a single person to adopt a baby...
Why ever not??? I mean besides the obvious, which it that is absolves you of any personal guilt for never having considered sharing your substance with a child who needs a home and family. A single man adopting a child is no different than a man raising a child after losing his wife to death, divorce, etc. It is the reason that it is completely legal. What a way to reach someone for the Lord, raise them in a Christain home!
I spent a large amount of time in foster care as a child. Kids 'age out' of the system more than are adopted. When they age out they are essentially cut loose with no one to call family unless they are somehow able to find the biologics that they were removed from in the first place. Many of these children later fill our prisons. There are success stories but they are few and far between... I am one, my brother on the other hand is facing the death penalty for a henious crime.
People can have ideals all they want but the truth is that unless you actually are part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
And as far as the remark about race that someone found offensive, it is a statistical fact, not a prejudiced remark. White infants have waiting lists to be adopted in every agency that exists. Minority children and older children are left to languish in foster care or institiutions.
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 02:23 PM
As I said, I am not a doctor, but I would hire a medical team that would start with a plan to treat both patients. Not saying the decisions would be easy. However, I do believe the unborn are persons and have God-given rights..
Agreed on the child being a person with rights. I do not support anything that strips an unborn child of rights. Now let us face the fact that there are many situations when one person's rights are trumped by anothers.
My children are not adopted... though we do support pregnancy centers and a Christian adoption group. .
That is commendable and more than mosst do but real support is opening your home and lives to a child or children who has no family. Anything short of that is really not meaningfull while there are kids with no families.
Honestly, your fuzzy for adoption comment is offensive. .
In what way and to who? I am a minority person, I am not offended. Adoption is NEVER going to happen for the vast majority of children whose parents have been stripped of parental rights. They will age out of the foster system.
The bottom line is this. Life is better than death - even for children waiting to be adopted.
Agreed. But it is not better for children who are daily beaten, raped, tortured, unloved, neglected, locked away and eventually killed by the parents who hate them and did not want them. And don't say it doesn't happen... watch your nightly news, look at the reports from CPS in your state and nationwide, it happens all the time.
Hoovie
04-12-2012, 02:32 PM
Titus, you are obviously more vested in this adoption discussion than I am. Bless You.
It's sad, but, in spite of me believing adoption is better than abortion, I feel like I just need to say I am not in favor of this --> "children who are daily beaten, raped, tortured, unloved, neglected, locked away and eventually killed by the parents who hate them and did not want them."
Titus2woman
04-12-2012, 03:04 PM
Titus, you are obviously more vested in this adoption discussion than I am. Bless You.
It's sad, but, in spite of me believing adoption is better than abortion, I feel like I just need to say I am not in favor of this --> "children who are daily beaten, raped, tortured, unloved, neglected, locked away and eventually killed by the parents who hate them and did not want them."
And I wish with all my heart and soul that it was not even something that any of us ever had to think on. I respect your opinions and your sincere efforts Hoovie. God sees and He knows all our hearts, I am so very sure that yours is in the right place.
Peace to you. :)
AreYouReady?
04-12-2012, 03:17 PM
Just the idea that I might sound anything like a 'pro-choice' advocate horrifies me. I will be doing some serious praying on this issue.
I do so want to restate and remake and reiterate the point that as Christians we need to be sure that we understand that young people make mistakes and support rather than shame those girls/women who do choose the hard road of keeping and/or raising a child.
One more thing I would really hope that we take away from this conversation is that behind every pregnancy there is a boy/man responsible for it. If we want to stop abortion I think the single thing that we all can do it to raise our sons well. I am appalled at how many boys still believe that there are girls you 'use' and girls you marry and they are not the same girls. Teaching our boys the value of their own purity would make the biggest dent in so many social problems.
I always like to ask men who discuss women in a negative way... "So, you were a virgin when you married then?" Amazingly I've not had one say "Yes, yes I was"... maybe some day.
No, I never thought that you were in the 'pro-choice' circles. It's that so much propaganda has been brainwashing people since Margaret Sanger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
became a trailblazer and established PP, it is easy for all people to get confused about where we (as in ourselves) personally stand on this issue. We live in such complex times and those in the medical business have been subjected to all sorts of views and have seen all sorts of incidents that most people have not seen. The establishment wants to force people "to do their job" which is whatever the law of the land decides and without facing our own line in the sand about what we will do for a paycheck. The establishment is getting to where it does not care about personal lines in the sand. I've been told by some people, when discussing this issue, that if I was not willing to participate in an elective abortion procedure since it will be included in healthcare, then I should get out of the healthcare field.
These folks seem to forget that originally healthcare had the motto to first do no harm.
My point is...we live in a time where information is so readily available and it is being used for propaganda as well as for truth. It's hard for people to believe what is truth anymore when you got several different explanations and information for one issue such as abortion.
Abortion has become a political football every presidential election and nothing changes when they get into office.
It is sad that humankind has devolved into this sort of way. In the 18th and 19th centuries, black people were not considered to be human. That made it ok in some people's minds to have slavery or even kill their slaves. Of course we know that this is/was not ok.
This is what PP tried to do when abortion first came out. Advocates would say... it is a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is not living...just a mass of tissue. Then one brave physician proved them wrong and they moved onto more elaborate brainwashing such as "reproductive health", finally saying that women should have the right to choose.
I say women do have the right to choose. They can make wise choices not to get pregnant, use effective birth control or not to have sex before they are ready to marry and bring a child into this world.
The rape and other issues are mere deflections from the fact that over 50,000,000 abortions were performed since it's inception and we know that these numbers were not a result of 50,000,000 rapes or real medical issues.
There are some cases that are medical cases as in the ones you stated, but that should be between doctor and patient and not considered to be a routine elective termination of pregnancy. They were not considered to be abortions back then, but medical procedures to save the life of the mother.
And yes, T2W, you are exactly right when you say that people should raise their sons to respect women. Far too often girls are told that really very old line..."I love you", then they are left alone facing the music when they discover that they are pregnant. I am appalled at the men who want to make their mistake go away too by paying for the abortions. Those types still walk away and leave the woman with her conscious about what she's done.
jfrog
04-12-2012, 05:07 PM
No, I never thought that you were in the 'pro-choice' circles. It's that so much propaganda has been brainwashing people since Margaret Sanger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
became a trailblazer and established PP, it is easy for all people to get confused about where we (as in ourselves) personally stand on this issue. We live in such complex times and those in the medical business have been subjected to all sorts of views and have seen all sorts of incidents that most people have not seen. The establishment wants to force people "to do their job" which is whatever the law of the land decides and without facing our own line in the sand about what we will do for a paycheck. The establishment is getting to where it does not care about personal lines in the sand. I've been told by some people, when discussing this issue, that if I was not willing to participate in an elective abortion procedure since it will be included in healthcare, then I should get out of the healthcare field.
These folks seem to forget that originally healthcare had the motto to first do no harm.
My point is...we live in a time where information is so readily available and it is being used for propaganda as well as for truth. It's hard for people to believe what is truth anymore when you got several different explanations and information for one issue such as abortion.
Abortion has become a political football every presidential election and nothing changes when they get into office.
It is sad that humankind has devolved into this sort of way. In the 18th and 19th centuries, black people were not considered to be human. That made it ok in some people's minds to have slavery or even kill their slaves. Of course we know that this is/was not ok.
This is what PP tried to do when abortion first came out. Advocates would say... it is a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is not living...just a mass of tissue. Then one brave physician proved them wrong and they moved onto more elaborate brainwashing such as "reproductive health", finally saying that women should have the right to choose.
I say women do have the right to choose. They can make wise choices not to get pregnant, use effective birth control or not to have sex before they are ready to marry and bring a child into this world.
The rape and other issues are mere deflections from the fact that over 50,000,000 abortions were performed since it's inception and we know that these numbers were not a result of 50,000,000 rapes or real medical issues.
There are some cases that are medical cases as in the ones you stated, but that should be between doctor and patient and not considered to be a routine elective termination of pregnancy. They were not considered to be abortions back then, but medical procedures to save the life of the mother.
And yes, T2W, you are exactly right when you say that people should raise their sons to respect women. Far too often girls are told that really very old line..."I love you", then they are left alone facing the music when they discover that they are pregnant. I am appalled at the men who want to make their mistake go away too by paying for the abortions. Those types still walk away and leave the woman with her conscious about what she's done.
Finding possible scenarios to allow abortion is the best way to counter the claim that it's murder. If you call it murder and then allow it in even one circumstance that shows you are a hypocrite for condemning others for murder by abortion when you condone murder by abortion in some instances.
That's the point!
The Matt
04-12-2012, 06:31 PM
This is about as sick as abortionists claiming embryos aren't really living beings.
jfrog
04-12-2012, 07:05 PM
This is about as sick as abortionists claiming embryos aren't really living beings.
The only other living thing that I can think of that can't live without a host is a parasite... just sayin
I am not against abortion in all circumstances. Maybe because I have seen many young girls whose pregnancy was the product of incest. Girls as young as age 11, pregnant by fathers, uncles and older brothers. I do not think that on top of the trauma of having been sexually molested or assaulted these girls or young women should also have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. Adding shame to their situation by saying that they commit murder, is cruel.
In the case of the life or health of the mother being at risk. PIH, DIC, eclampsia, severe medical conditions such as IDDM that are exacerbated by pregnancy or where the mother has to choose between not taking needed medication for her own medical condition or giving birth to a damaged baby from medication side effects as in cancer requiring chemotherapy or some severe seizure disorders, etc.
And lastly for genetic disorders or physical anomalies of the fetus that are incomparable with life such as anencephaly or severe heart defects.. To make a woman endure 9 months of pregnancy, explaining and reexplaining how her baby will die when born followed by the birth and death of the baby are just too much for most families.
To say that it is NEVER appropriate for a pregnancy to be terminated is just farther than I can go. I believe that a medical board could review each case and decide if termination is appropriate. It is commonly done for other controversial medical treatments.
However I in NO way support abortion on demand.
For a number of years (mid-teens to early 20s), I supported the position of permissible abortions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. However, I as I matured, I could no longer hold to those. Our Lord only said that man could end life if another man had ended a life or in defense of himself or his property. No other provisions were permitted.
Further, God knows the situations surrounding each pregnancy. While I will admit that I would have a vicious struggle, I would not support killing a baby for any reason.
The reason I have framed most of what I have said as questions is because I do not have all the answers but I think that sometimes we tend to simplify as if we do... How would you deal with your 11 year old daughter being pregnant by your younger, nice decent kid brother?
Your wife with a pregnancy that endangered her health and possibly her life but was too early to be viable?
A routine ultrasound revealing that the fetus you were carrying had no brain and while it would grow inside your body like a parasite for 9 months and be born it would never live beyond an hour?
My point is that these things are real situations that happen to real people every day. I meet some of these people.
So far I think I think that I believe that:
1. TOP on demand is morally wrong and should be illegal.
2. There should be some allowable exceptions and we may never agree on what they are.
3. The likelihood that current law will ever be repealed or even altered is almost nil for a lot of reasons the biggest one is that the majority of people want it to be legal even if they find it sickening.
And no, no comparison between welfare recipients and Hitler... My questions just kind of ran together... Do you believe it would have been better if Hitler were never born? And is it better for a woman to have and keep a child that she will never love or give a decent chance at life for selfish reasons than to terminate it?
Any male (young or old) who sexually abuses a young girl and knocks her up is not nice, and it does not matter where he came from or his parent's religion. The nicest thing that could be done to him would be a bullet through the back of his head. Harsh? Yes, but effective in protecting other small children from a predator.
None of this is cause to be killing a child. This 11 year-old is not responsible for the moral choice being made. She is under the authority of her parents, and it is upon them that the sin of murder would be placed. The child is innocent of wrong in this regard. In a few more years, that would be a different situation, but she is not.
Your last few paragraphs sound very much like the very liberal pro-abortion women that I have often had to deal with in my community.
Just the idea that I might sound anything like a 'pro-choice' advocate horrifies me. I will be doing some serious praying on this issue.
I do so want to restate and remake and reiterate the point that as Christians we need to be sure that we understand that young people make mistakes and support rather than shame those girls/women who do choose the hard road of keeping and/or raising a child.
One more thing I would really hope that we take away from this conversation is that behind every pregnancy there is a boy/man responsible for it. If we want to stop abortion I think the single thing that we all can do it to raise our sons well. I am appalled at how many boys still believe that there are girls you 'use' and girls you marry and they are not the same girls. Teaching our boys the value of their own purity would make the biggest dent in so many social problems.
I always like to ask men who discuss women in a negative way... "So, you were a virgin when you married then?" Amazingly I've not had one say "Yes, yes I was"... maybe some day.
I can understand your distaste for that. As I pointed out above, those were arguments that I have heard regurgitated endlessly by leftist, militant, feminists.
I would say that the responsibility is not all on the young men. Young ladies should also be taught to dress and conduct themselves as such. They should not be allowed to be touching, leaning, and embracing young men until they are either engaged or married (preferably married).
Young men should be taught to avoid any girl who is willing to do any of the above as such behavior and the allowance/encouragement of it will lead them both into sin. I release neither one from their duties to the other while both are unmarried. Will it keep all instances of sin from occurring? No, but it will keep it in a place of being more rare.
AreYouReady?
04-12-2012, 08:13 PM
The rape and other issues are mere deflections from the fact that over 50,000,000 abortions were performed since it's inception and we know that these numbers were not a result of 50,000,000 rapes or real medical issues.
Finding possible scenarios to allow abortion is the best way to counter the claim that it's murder. If you call it murder and then allow it in even one circumstance that shows you are a hypocrite for condemning others for murder by abortion when you condone murder by abortion in some instances.
That's the point!
Apparently your emboldening my quote above is the cause of your calling me a hypocrite? And do you know the difference between a medical procedure and a willful abortion?
Well, either I did not make my point of view clear enough for you or you cannot comprehend what I posted. So I will err on the side that I did not make it clear enough. I do not know how you can twist my statement that you emboldened into saying I am looking for ways to condone some abortions. I did not write anything of the sort in that statement. So...
I, in no way condone ANY abortion. Is that clear to you now?
My post above does not condone abortion for rape or incest or any medical procedure that will end the life of a viable pregnancy. It was put up there because others use rape or incest for their reason to say abortion is ok. Let me make clear that I think these excuses are merely used as deflections from the issue of abortion. If this were a true statement on other's part, then those people must be lying because there were not 50,000,000 rapes or incestuous pregnancies in these United States of America since the inception Roe vs Wade.
It would be nice if you do not understand what someone posts to ask them what they mean before you accuse others of being a hypocrite.
jfrog
04-12-2012, 08:45 PM
Apparently your emboldening my quote above is the cause of your calling me a hypocrite? And do you know the difference between a medical procedure and a willful abortion?
Well, either I did not make my point of view clear enough for you or you cannot comprehend what I posted. So I will err on the side that I did not make it clear enough. I do not know how you can twist my statement that you emboldened into saying I am looking for ways to condone some abortions. I did not write anything of the sort in that statement. So...
I, in no way condone ANY abortion. Is that clear to you now?
My post above does not condone abortion for rape or incest or any medical procedure. It was put up there because others use rape or incest for their reason to say abortion is ok. Let me make clear that I think these excuses are merely used as deflections from the issue of abortion. If this were a true statement on other's part, then those people must be lying because there were not 50,000,000 rapes or incestuous pregnancies in these United States of America since the inception Roe vs Wade.
It would be nice if you do not understand what someone posts to ask them what they mean before you accuse others of being a hypocrite.
1. I never called you a hypocrite either specifically or generally YET!. I did lay some groundwork on what I would call hypocritical... EDIT: I think the problem was with my use of the word "you". I used it in the generic anyone reading this post sort of sense and not the specific "AreYouReady" sense. I should have probably used the word "one". I apologize for the confusion.
2. I explained why bringing up situations such as rape pregnancies and possible life threatening pregnancies was more than deflecting the issue as you insist on calling it. It's important to bring those issues up to deal with the hypocrisy of pro-lifers who believe abortion can be allowed in some situations. Those pro-lifers make up the majority of pro-lifers in my experience.
3. Again, nothing was a personal attack against you. It was an explanation on why talking about those fringe issues such as rape pregnancies is important.
4. It would be nice if you did not understand what someone posts to ask them what they mean before you accuse them of personally attacking you... (these kind of comments can go both ways... so let's drop them from our vocabulary ;) )
jfrog
04-12-2012, 09:06 PM
Apparently your emboldening my quote above is the cause of your calling me a hypocrite? And do you know the difference between a medical procedure and a willful abortion?
Well, either I did not make my point of view clear enough for you or you cannot comprehend what I posted. So I will err on the side that I did not make it clear enough. I do not know how you can twist my statement that you emboldened into saying I am looking for ways to condone some abortions. I did not write anything of the sort in that statement. So...
I, in no way condone ANY abortion. Is that clear to you now?
My post above does not condone abortion for rape or incest or any medical procedure that will end the life of a viable pregnancy. It was put up there because others use rape or incest for their reason to say abortion is ok. Let me make clear that I think these excuses are merely used as deflections from the issue of abortion. If this were a true statement on other's part, then those people must be lying because there were not 50,000,000 rapes or incestuous pregnancies in these United States of America since the inception Roe vs Wade.
It would be nice if you do not understand what someone posts to ask them what they mean before you accuse others of being a hypocrite.
Further,
1. All abortions are willful whether for medical reasons or not.
2. I'll give you a chance to explain but I think you are simply rationalizing your stance that all abortions are wrong by simply not calling certain acts abortions that a normal person would. For example you seem to shy away from calling a medically beneficial procedure to terminate pregnancy an abortion even though it has an identical result of a unborn baby that will never see the light of day. Care to elaborate?
AreYouReady?
04-12-2012, 09:45 PM
1. I never called you a hypocrite either specifically or generally YET!. I did lay some groundwork on what I would call hypocritical... EDIT: I think the problem was with my use of the word "you". I used it in the generic anyone reading this post sort of sense and not the specific "AreYouReady" sense. I should have probably used the word "one".
Ok. Yes using the word "one" would have been helpful in trying to decipher what you are trying to make a point on.
2. I explained why bringing up situations such as rape pregnancies and possible life threatening pregnancies was more than deflecting the issue as you insist on calling it. It's important to bring those issues up to deal with the hypocrisy of pro-lifers who believe abortion can be allowed in some situations. Those pro-lifers make up the majority of pro-lifers in my experience.
3. Again, nothing was a personal attack against you. It was an explanation on why talking about those fringe issues such as rape pregnancies is important.
Ok, I overreacted and I apologize. Let's discuss the rape and incest issue.
Most true pro-lifers (including me) I know in my region do not agree that abortions are ok in cases such rape and incest. Perhaps elsewhere some call themselves pro-lifers but truly believe it is ok in some cases. I specifically brought that up because it is the very excuse pro-choicers use to counter pro-lifers stance that abortion is murder. It may be a fringe issue, yet it is the very issue pro-choicers here use whenever there is a discussion about abortion. Pro-choicers say it is cruel to force a woman to bear her rapist's baby. Yet, there are women who do bear the rapists baby and some even keep and love that baby, often at the harsh judgment of the Christian community who have no idea as to how that baby was conceived.
I have taken care of the offspring of a brother-sister incestuous relationship. The poor child had dwarf-like syndrome and brain damage. I do not know what has become of that child after he improved enough to be removed from the neonatal intensive care unit.
Many pro-choicers use the 'medical procedure' explanation to categorize all abortions as "reproductive health" for women, when I think that term is quite deceptive and quite frankly repugnant. Medical procedures in pregnancies and abortions are not the same thing in my professional opinion.
Pro-choicers say that if women do not have access to safe abortions, they will return to the back alley abortionists. HUH? They make a mistake by becoming pregnant, but choose to make another wrong to "fix" their first mistake either by physicians or a back alley abortionist? It just does not make sense to me.
But what does make sense to me is that many people believe that abortion exists because of eugenics. Planned Parenthood's founder was a big proponent for eugenics.
**Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American sex educator, nurse, and birth control activist. Sanger coined the term birth control, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established Planned Parenthood. Sanger's efforts contributed to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized contraception in the United States. Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of the legalization of abortion, based primarily upon her racial views and support of eugenics, but she remains an iconic figure for the American reproductive rights movement.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Perhaps pro-choicers are unwittingly brainwashed into thinking it is ok to associate an unwanted pregnancy with "reproductive health"?
AreYouReady?
04-12-2012, 11:35 PM
Further,
1. All abortions are willful whether for medical reasons or not.
2. I'll give you a chance to explain but I think you are simply rationalizing your stance that all abortions are wrong by simply not calling certain acts abortions that a normal person would. For example you seem to shy away from calling a medically beneficial procedure to terminate pregnancy an abortion even though it has an identical result of a unborn baby that will never see the light of day. Care to elaborate?
Thank you for giving me the chance to explain. I hope you do not have your mind made up by you thinking I am rationalizing by not calling certain medical procedures willful abortions.
It depends on the medical conditions a woman has in her pregnancy. Normal people do not always know what these medical conditions are. Yes, I would not call some medically beneficial procedures to be an "abortion" as most understand what abortion is generally known to be today.
Abortions as we generally understand it today to be are the procedures taken by medical personal to remove a fetus, thereby preventing it's chance to develop and live, even up to birth. It is a gruesome death for the fetus in most cases. In partial birth abortion, the baby is snuffed before it comes out of the birth canal. Some hail President Bush as outlawing partial birth abortions, but there are medical doctors who have come forward to say that the wording of the law leaves a loophole big enough for a mack truck to drive through and does not stop partial birth abortions. That is a totally different subject so I will move on to stay on topic here.
Some medical procedures to save the life of the mother sometimes cause the baby to die and sometimes not. I would not consider these to be abortions because the mother is not willfully trying to rid herself of her baby. These are conditions that many times rapidly develop and endanger the life of both mother and baby.
I will discuss just a couple because it is late and 7 am comes fast.
Take for instance molar pregnancies. They are technically identified as pregnancies, but bear no resemblance to a baby. Molar pregnancies have no viable genetic material that would form into a human being. The surgical removal of a molar pregnancy might be called an abortion, but in reality, there is not a viable, living human being being "aborted". This is but one example of what I call a medical procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatidiform_mole
Next. Placenta Abruption.
The placenta is a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the growing baby. If the placenta peels away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery — either partially or completely — it's known as placental abruption. Placental abruption can deprive the baby of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.
The placenta is a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the growing baby. If the placenta peels away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery — either partially or completely — it's known as placental abruption. Placental abruption can deprive the baby of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.
Placental abruption often happens suddenly. Left untreated, placental abruption puts both mother and baby in jeopardy.
My niece had this serious complication. She nearly lost her life from loss of blood. She will never be able to have another child as they had to remove her uterus. They were unable to save the baby as the baby died in the womb. However, even if the baby did not die in the womb, the baby would have had to been surgically removed and put on life support because had they not done this medical procedure, both would have died. Sometimes the baby will die anyway because it is just too fragile to live outside the womb. Would you consider this medical procedure a willful abortion? Would you think that both should die?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/placental-abruption/DS00623
Let's look at toxemia and preeclampsia. Thousands of women and babies die or get very sick each year from a dangerous condition called preeclampsia, a life-threatening disorder that occurs only during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Preeclampsia and related disorders such as HELLP syndrome and eclampsia are most often characterized by a rapid rise in blood pressure that can lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure and death of the mother and/or baby.
My co-worker had this illness. Her blood pressure at work suddenly went up to stroke levels and she nearly died. She started having seizures. They had to surgically remove her baby at 6 1/2 months gestation. The good news is that emergency intensive care for baby and mother was instituted and both were saved, although it was quite iffy for baby for a time. The baby was a fighter and 22 years ago, there were medical advances for a preemie such as this, but they were not always successful.
Would you have advocated that the baby stayed in the mother's womb so as to avoid what some might call a willful abortion because technically it is the removal of a fetus from the womb? I call this a medical procedure in the attempt to save mother or baby or both.
http://www.preeclampsia.org/
http://www.essortment.com/toxemia-51030.html
These are the type of conditions that I call medical procedures because in all cases I have seen, the mothers wanted these babies.
Lets not split hairs over my choice of wording about the fact that I do not believe in any abortion. Most abortions are willful, I do agree, but I do not classify all "beneficial medical procedures" to be willful abortions or even to be an abortion.
RandyWayne
04-12-2012, 11:42 PM
All I know is is that if my wife was raped and ended up pregnant as a result, while I would certainly respect HER wished if she decided to keep the baby to term (there would be NO negotiation about keeping it AFTER it was born -it would be gone. I wouldn't even look at it or want to know the things sex.), I would be more then happy to drive her to whoever was willing to remove it as soon as possible. I would definitely not lord over her and require her to keep a piece of the rapists DNA inside of her against her will. After all, the baby is 100% guaranteed to go to heaven as a baby, but according to many apostolics, has about a .05% chance once grown if he or she hasn't gone through the 58 steps and understand oneness in the exact way required.....
jfrog
04-13-2012, 06:18 AM
Thank you for giving me the chance to explain. I hope you do not have your mind made up by you thinking I am rationalizing by not calling certain medical procedures willful abortions.
It depends on the medical conditions a woman has in her pregnancy. Normal people do not always know what these medical conditions are. Yes, I would not call some medically beneficial procedures to be an "abortion" as most understand what abortion is generally known to be today.
Abortions as we generally understand it today to be are the procedures taken by medical personal to remove a fetus, thereby preventing it's chance to develop and live, even up to birth. It is a gruesome death for the fetus in most cases. In partial birth abortion, the baby is snuffed before it comes out of the birth canal. Some hail President Bush as outlawing partial birth abortions, but there are medical doctors who have come forward to say that the wording of the law leaves a loophole big enough for a mack truck to drive through and does not stop partial birth abortions. That is a totally different subject so I will move on to stay on topic here.
Some medical procedures to save the life of the mother sometimes cause the baby to die and sometimes not. I would not consider these to be abortions because the mother is not willfully trying to rid herself of her baby. These are conditions that many times rapidly develop and endanger the life of both mother and baby.
I will discuss just a couple because it is late and 7 am comes fast.
Take for instance molar pregnancies. They are technically identified as pregnancies, but bear no resemblance to a baby. Molar pregnancies have no viable genetic material that would form into a human being. The surgical removal of a molar pregnancy might be called an abortion, but in reality, there is not a viable, living human being being "aborted". This is but one example of what I call a medical procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatidiform_mole
Next. Placenta Abruption.
The placenta is a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the growing baby. If the placenta peels away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery — either partially or completely — it's known as placental abruption. Placental abruption can deprive the baby of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.
The placenta is a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the growing baby. If the placenta peels away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery — either partially or completely — it's known as placental abruption. Placental abruption can deprive the baby of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.
Placental abruption often happens suddenly. Left untreated, placental abruption puts both mother and baby in jeopardy.
My niece had this serious complication. She nearly lost her life from loss of blood. She will never be able to have another child as they had to remove her uterus. They were unable to save the baby as the baby died in the womb. However, even if the baby did not die in the womb, the baby would have had to been surgically removed and put on life support because had they not done this medical procedure, both would have died. Sometimes the baby will die anyway because it is just too fragile to live outside the womb. Would you consider this medical procedure a willful abortion? Would you think that both should die?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/placental-abruption/DS00623
Let's look at toxemia and preeclampsia. Thousands of women and babies die or get very sick each year from a dangerous condition called preeclampsia, a life-threatening disorder that occurs only during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Preeclampsia and related disorders such as HELLP syndrome and eclampsia are most often characterized by a rapid rise in blood pressure that can lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure and death of the mother and/or baby.
My co-worker had this illness. Her blood pressure at work suddenly went up to stroke levels and she nearly died. She started having seizures. They had to surgically remove her baby at 6 1/2 months gestation. The good news is that emergency intensive care for baby and mother was instituted and both were saved, although it was quite iffy for baby for a time. The baby was a fighter and 22 years ago, there were medical advances for a preemie such as this, but they were not always successful.
Would you have advocated that the baby stayed in the mother's womb so as to avoid what some might call a willful abortion because technically it is the removal of a fetus from the womb? I call this a medical procedure in the attempt to save mother or baby or both.
http://www.preeclampsia.org/
http://www.essortment.com/toxemia-51030.html
These are the type of conditions that I call medical procedures because in all cases I have seen, the mothers wanted these babies.
Lets not split hairs over my choice of wording about the fact that I do not believe in any abortion. Most abortions are willful, I do agree, but I do not classify all "beneficial medical procedures" to be willful abortions or even to be an abortion.
The 2nd procedure you mentioned above isn't abortion because according to you it actually increased the unborn's chance of survival.
The 3rd procedure you mentioned also isn't an abortion seeing as it was at least questionable as to which method would allow the unborn baby a better chance of survival.
An abortion is not a termination of pregnancy but it is a termination of pregnancy that results in a decreased (I might even characterize it as a much decreased chance of survival)
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 07:02 AM
The 2nd procedure you mentioned above isn't abortion because according to you it actually increased the unborn's chance of survival.
No comprehension here?? The baby died in the womb. Are the surgeons supposed to leave the dead baby in the womb and allow the mother to die also?
The 3rd procedure you mentioned also isn't an abortion seeing as it was at least questionable as to which method would allow the unborn baby a better chance of survival.
Neither one would have survived. Would you rather have it that both the mother and child died ?
An abortion is not a termination of pregnancy but it is a termination of pregnancy that results in a decreased (I might even characterize it as a much decreased chance of survival)
Well jfrog, you want to split hairs, but you won't tell us what you would do if you were faced with such a situation. Hmmmm...have you ever worked in a medical hospital, or seen human suffering? Your answer would help me to better understand your position in these cases.
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 07:06 AM
All I know is is that if my wife was raped and ended up pregnant as a result, while I would certainly respect HER wished if she decided to keep the baby to term (there would be NO negotiation about keeping it AFTER it was born -it would be gone. I wouldn't even look at it or want to know the things sex.), I would be more then happy to drive her to whoever was willing to remove it as soon as possible. I would definitely not lord over her and require her to keep a piece of the rapists DNA inside of her against her will. After all, the baby is 100% guaranteed to go to heaven as a baby, but according to many apostolics, has about a .05% chance once grown if he or she hasn't gone through the 58 steps and understand oneness in the exact way required.....
Randy, I hope that your wife or any woman never has to go through rape or face the decisions she would have to make as an added consequence of that rape.
jfrog
04-13-2012, 07:10 AM
Well jfrog, you want to split hairs, but you won't tell us what you would do if you were faced with such a situation. Apparently, you have never worked in a medical hospital, nor seen human suffering?
Which situation do you want me to give my personal thoughts about?
Titus2woman
04-13-2012, 07:19 AM
This is evidently a very emotional subject for a lot of people.
After much prayer last night I still stand where I stand. Abortion on demand does not sit well with me at all but the complicated screening to decide who is worthy of necessary treatment and who is not... Well I'm just not sure how all that works out.
We see PIH, preeclampsia, HELLP, DIC, Hourglass membranes, P. Previa with hemmorhage, Abruption, and mothers with newly diagnosed cancers that need treatment, etc. enough that I don't see this stuff as some kind of imaginary scenario but as something that is real and could happen to my sister, daughter, daughter in law.
So here is another question for you all. If a baby has to be taken from the womb early do you then believe that we are obligated to use every medical intervention now available to save it?
Many of these babies top a million dollars in hospital expenses and are very damaged when they do survive...So...Is it OK to let them die a natural death?
For people who say we believe that to die is gain I find that many of us are avoiding death with all we have. Made what Randy said at the end of his post kind of real... babies go to heaven... no chance of mistakes... the rest of us on the other hand seem to have to have a lot of stuff right to do the same.
Titus2woman
04-13-2012, 07:20 AM
Which situation do you want me to give my personal thoughts about?
Pick one frog.
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 07:23 AM
Which situation do you want me to give my personal thoughts about?
You can't figure that out either?
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 07:50 AM
This is evidently a very emotional subject for a lot of people.
After much prayer last night I still stand where I stand. Abortion on demand does not sit well with me at all but the complicated screening to decide who is worthy of necessary treatment and who is not... Well I'm just not sure how all that works out.
We see PIH, preeclampsia, HELLP, DIC, Hourglass membranes, P. Previa with hemmorhage, Abruption, and mothers with newly diagnosed cancers that need treatment, etc. enough that I don't see this stuff as some kind of imaginary scenario but as something that is real and could happen to my sister, daughter, daughter in law.
So here is another question for you all. If a baby has to be taken from the womb early do you then believe that we are obligated to use every medical intervention now available to save it?
T2W, you are treading on dangerous ground here. Perhaps Froggy will not look at upon this question as the baby taken from the womb. He seems to look at it as a termination of pregnancy, therefore..abortion. Never mind the circumstances.
But let's wait to see if he clarifies his position
Many of these babies top a million dollars in hospital expenses and are very damaged when they do survive...So...Is it OK to let them die a natural death?
They should be given every chance to survive imo.
For people who say we believe that to die is gain I find that many of us are avoiding death with all we have. Made what Randy said at the end of his post kind of real... babies go to heaven... no chance of mistakes... the rest of us on the other hand seem to have to have a lot of stuff right to do the same.
T2W, you do have a point here. Most of us go to the doctor because we don't want any medical condition to get out of hand, therefore the possibility of death. Would anybody expect a mother to die because she develops something as dangerous ad DIC, preeclampsia or any of the above you mentioned? Then to take these situations and call it an abortion because the definition of the term is to terminate pregnancy. frog is trying to find some loophole in my stance because I made a statement that I do not approve of ANY abortion. He wants to use medical emergencies as a point to blow apart my statement by pointing out that technically removing a baby from the mother's womb is abortion and that I approve of that condition of "abortion".
But let's wait and see if frog will clarify his intent on this particular subject.
Froggy says all abortions are willful abortions. I consider willful abortions to be abortion upon demand...simply because the mother, father or both do not want to disrupt their life with a baby. Perhaps he will call me a hypocrite for not considering these medical procedures to be a willful abortion because of the desire to save the mother's life. These types of termination of pregnancy will happen either by medical procedures or by death and are not willful.
jfrog
04-13-2012, 08:05 AM
You can't figure that out either?
You would get further if you changed your tone a little... :)
jfrog
04-13-2012, 08:10 AM
T2W, you are treading on dangerous ground here. Perhaps Froggy will not look at upon this question as the baby taken from the womb. He seems to look at it as a termination of pregnancy, therefore..abortion. Never mind the circumstances.
But let's wait to see if he clarifies his position
They should be given every chance to survive imo.
T2W, you do have a point here. Most of us go to the doctor because we don't want any medical condition to get out of hand, therefore the possibility of death. Would anybody expect a mother to die because she develops something as dangerous ad DIC, preeclampsia or any of the above you mentioned? Then to take these situations and call it an abortion because the definition of the term is to terminate pregnancy. frog is trying to find some loophole in my stance because I made a statement that I do not approve of ANY abortion. He wants to use medical emergencies as a point to blow apart my statement by pointing out that technically removing a baby from the mother's womb is abortion and that I approve of that condition of "abortion".
But let's wait and see if frog will clarify his intent on this particular subject.
Froggy says all abortions are willful abortions. I consider willful abortions to be abortion upon demand...simply because the mother, father or both do not want to disrupt their life with a baby. Perhaps he will call me a hypocrite for not considering these medical procedures to be a willful abortion because of the desire to save the mother's life. These types of termination of pregnancy will happen either by medical procedures or by death and are not willful.
I already clarified my position. There is no difference in taking a baby from the womb for it to die and killing it in the womb.
Every abortion is a choice. If the desire to save a mother's life interferes with a desire to save an unborn babies life then whose right trumps whose?
Hoovie
04-13-2012, 08:15 AM
To the question of how much money to spend on a baby delivered early - it would be a difficult question, but not unlike one that is faced daily concerning other people. You do what you can with the resources available.
Titus2woman
04-13-2012, 09:45 AM
T2W, you are treading on dangerous ground here. Perhaps Froggy will not look at upon this question as the baby taken from the womb. He seems to look at it as a termination of pregnancy, therefore..abortion. Never mind the circumstances.
But let's wait to see if he clarifies his position
They should be given every chance to survive imo.
T2W, you do have a point here. Most of us go to the doctor because we don't want any medical condition to get out of hand, therefore the possibility of death. Would anybody expect a mother to die because she develops something as dangerous ad DIC, preeclampsia or any of the above you mentioned? Then to take these situations and call it an abortion because the definition of the term is to terminate pregnancy. frog is trying to find some loophole in my stance because I made a statement that I do not approve of ANY abortion. He wants to use medical emergencies as a point to blow apart my statement by pointing out that technically removing a baby from the mother's womb is abortion and that I approve of that condition of "abortion".
But let's wait and see if frog will clarify his intent on this particular subject.
Froggy says all abortions are willful abortions. I consider willful abortions to be abortion upon demand...simply because the mother, father or both do not want to disrupt their life with a baby. Perhaps he will call me a hypocrite for not considering these medical procedures to be a willful abortion because of the desire to save the mother's life. These types of termination of pregnancy will happen either by medical procedures or by death and are not willful.
I think that working in medicine has made both of us realists AYR... We may express what we believe a little differently but we both know that a happy, normal event like a pregnancy can become a serious life threatening emergency in the blink of an eye. These are not situations that most people have ever prepared for and decisions must be urgently made with no time for consideration. Most folks are going to go with the doctors recommendation no matter their convictions on a higher spiritual level... we are still weak fleshly humans and God knows it. As a side note 90% of JWs take blood when it becomes life or death :)
My question about million dollar babies was simply to get a feel for how people with a moment or two to think about it believe they would handle it. It has been my experience that parents who might not want every intervention are often made to feel as if they are killing their child when in fact they are leaving it to God to decide. I personally believe that there are many interventions I would not want for my own child or grandchild. I feel fortunate that these things were not available when I had my own children. So much pressure for those with extreme premies.
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 04:58 PM
You would get further if you changed your tone a little... :)
My tone would have never gotten this way if I did not feel that you were trying to paint me as a "hypocrite" Yet.
I am waiting for the "Yet" to fall down on top of my head for some word or sentence I did not post clearly enough for you to try to trap me in my words. :)
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 05:04 PM
I already clarified my position. There is no difference in taking a baby from the womb for it to die and killing it in the womb.
I can tell that you are ignorant of medical conditions. So...let's move on to the next question.
Every abortion is a choice. If the desire to save a mother's life interferes with a desire to save an unborn babies life then whose right trumps whose?
I am assuming you are a man and husband. But even if you are not married at the moment, here is something to think about. Would you let your wife die in a medical emergency during pregnancy and possibly your child too should she be so very unfortunate to develop one of these illnesses during pregnancy?
I pray that never happens to you or your family.
jfrog
04-13-2012, 06:09 PM
I can tell that you are ignorant of medical conditions. So...let's move on to the next question.
I am assuming you are a man and husband. But even if you are not married at the moment, here is something to think about. Would you let your wife die in a medical emergency during pregnancy and possibly your child too should she be so very unfortunate to develop one of these illnesses during pregnancy?
I pray that never happens to you or your family.
Stop talking down to me.
Hoovie
04-13-2012, 07:22 PM
I can tell that you are ignorant of medical conditions. So...let's move on to the next question.
I am assuming you are a man and husband. But even if you are not married at the moment, here is something to think about. Would you let your wife die in a medical emergency during pregnancy and possibly your child too should she be so very unfortunate to develop one of these illnesses during pregnancy?
I pray that never happens to you or your family.
Strange you would ask jfrog this. I was of the opinion jfrog was not personally opposed to abortion...
Titus2woman
04-13-2012, 07:24 PM
I just want to remind, although I'm sure someone has already made the point, but if the woman carrying the baby dies there is NO chance of life for an unborn fetus. So any necessary procedure to save a pregnant woman's life including vacuuming out a fetus in pieces is simply prudent medical care. It might not be necessary in some cases but it might in others.
To even suggest that a pregnant woman risk her life to 'save' a fetus is way beyond the call of duty for anyone. For people who attempt to make women feel as if anything short of dying to avoid termination of a pregnancy is unacceptable are as as guilty of supporting unnecessary killing as those who support TOP on demand.
There is a sane middle ground here but I am feeling as if we might not ever find it with things disintegrating the way they seem to be.
Frog I am completely confused as to your position on any of this. Do you support TOP on demand? I have not heard you say that you do and I wonder if we are making assumptions based on the fact that you find some political Christians positions hypocritical. I can see that without supporting TOP on demand in any way...
Do tell.
deafdriscoll
04-13-2012, 08:22 PM
I have been away for awhile. I am against abortion on demand. I believe we could in time do away with those clinics or get rid of many of them if we prayed and witnessed to women in need. Even if we save one we have won.
However, I am in no place to decide if a 11 year old should have a baby.They are not ready. Their body is not ready. That is one of my business what the parents do.That is between them and God.
jfrog
04-13-2012, 09:12 PM
I just want to remind, although I'm sure someone has already made the point, but if the woman carrying the baby dies there is NO chance of life for an unborn fetus. So any necessary procedure to save a pregnant woman's life including vacuuming out a fetus in pieces is simply prudent medical care. It might not be necessary in some cases but it might in others.
To even suggest that a pregnant woman risk her life to 'save' a fetus is way beyond the call of duty for anyone. For people who attempt to make women feel as if anything short of dying to avoid termination of a pregnancy is unacceptable are as as guilty of supporting unnecessary killing as those who support TOP on demand.
There is a sane middle ground here but I am feeling as if we might not ever find it with things disintegrating the way they seem to be.
Frog I am completely confused as to your position on any of this. Do you support TOP on demand? I have not heard you say that you do and I wonder if we are making assumptions based on the fact that you find some political Christians positions hypocritical. I can see that without supporting TOP on demand in any way...
Do tell.
Let me begin by saying that I dislike abortions. Let me sum up my position by saying that abortion is not murder. However I do think that the closer an "unborn child" is to being birthed the more morally repugnant abortion becomes, if done within the last month of pregnancy then I would definetely feel that abortion is nearing murder. Therefore, I am for a limited time frame for when abortions can be performed.
Am I for abortion on demand even if done in the first few months? I don't think anyone finds the practice of abortion pleasing so in that sense I am not for it. Am I for it because I refuse to see it as murder? no not really. I am quite against it. However, because I don't view it as murder then I can morally and unhypocritically find allowances for abortion by rape victims and any other exception not covered in self defense scenarios.
However, I understand that if abortions for rape victims are allowed then any girl can lie and claim to have been raped in order to receive an abortion. Therefore the solution is to either just allow them for everyone or allow them for no one...
So due to the impossibility of determining whether a girl has been raped or not I feel abortions must be allowed because I find it more morally repugnant to force such a person to carry the rapists baby to term than I do for a woman having an abortion within say the first three months.
jfrog
04-13-2012, 09:15 PM
I can tell that you are ignorant of medical conditions. So...let's move on to the next question.
I am assuming you are a man and husband. But even if you are not married at the moment, here is something to think about. Would you let your wife die in a medical emergency during pregnancy and possibly your child too should she be so very unfortunate to develop one of these illnesses during pregnancy?
I pray that never happens to you or your family.
Since I don't claim abortion is murder then my response to that question really isn't going to show anything but if you still want it here it is, I would support her in her decision but I would desire for the abortion if it was the only safe solution for her.
jfrog
04-13-2012, 09:16 PM
Strange you would ask jfrog this. I was of the opinion jfrog was not personally opposed to abortion...
I thought the same thing Hoovie... lol
jfrog
04-13-2012, 09:24 PM
I think this analogy sums up my position a little better.
Killing a tadpole is not the same thing as killing a frog even though killing either has the same overall result.
Killing a fetus is not the same thing as killing a born child even though killing either has the same overall result.
Titus2woman
04-13-2012, 09:25 PM
Let me begin by saying that I dislike abortions. Let me sum up my position by saying that abortion is not murder. However I do think that the closer an "unborn child" is to being birthed the more morally repugnant abortion becomes, if done within the last month of pregnancy then I would definetely feel that abortion is nearing murder. Therefore, I am for a limited time frame for when abortions can be performed.
Am I for abortion on demand even if done in the first few months? I don't think anyone finds the practice of abortion pleasing so in that sense I am not for it. Am I for it because I refuse to see it as murder? no not really. I am quite against it. However, because I don't view it as murder then I can morally and unhypocritically find allowances for abortion by rape victims and any other exception not covered in self defense scenarios.
However, I understand that if abortions for rape victims are allowed then any girl can lie and claim to have been raped in order to receive an abortion. Therefore the solution is to either just allow them for everyone or allow them for no one...
So due to the impossibility of determining whether a girl has been raped or not I feel abortions must be allowed because I find it more morally repugnant to force such a person to carry the rapists baby to term than I do for a woman having an abortion within say the first three months.
Why do you find it more disturbing later in gestation?
jfrog
04-13-2012, 09:27 PM
Why do you find it more disturbing later in gestation?
Dunno just do. It might have something to do with the "unborn child" becoming more human with every passing second...
Hoovie
04-13-2012, 09:36 PM
Yeah, and it is harder to kill something that does not only look like a human, but also has your own features and mannerisms. 20 plus weeks - halfway through the pregnancy.
Titus2woman
04-13-2012, 10:20 PM
Just a new theory for me... I've heard life at conception and I've heard life equated with breath (partially from the Bible) but never 'becoming progressively more human'. Interesting...
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 10:49 PM
Stop talking down to me.
You started it brother.
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 10:58 PM
Strange you would ask jfrog this. I was of the opinion jfrog was not personally opposed to abortion...
I know nothing about the frog's opinions except what he chooses to reveal. He apparently revealed this before this thread or I just did not see his views about it before. He sees things through the eyes of someone who has not seen some of the horrible things that have happened to pregnant women. I see things through the eyes of someone who watched women nearly die or have died.
AreYouReady?
04-13-2012, 11:17 PM
I think that working in medicine has made both of us realists AYR... We may express what we believe a little differently but we both know that a happy, normal event like a pregnancy can become a serious life threatening emergency in the blink of an eye. These are not situations that most people have ever prepared for and decisions must be urgently made with no time for consideration. Most folks are going to go with the doctors recommendation no matter their convictions on a higher spiritual level... we are still weak fleshly humans and God knows it. As a side note 90% of JWs take blood when it becomes life or death :)
Yeah. One thing I can say is that it is not easy to watch a young woman swell up and bleed from every pore in her body during pregnancy or postpartum. Or to watch a pregnant woman have a stroke or seizures from eclampsia.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 05:55 AM
Just a new theory for me... I've heard life at conception and I've heard life equated with breath (partially from the Bible) but never 'becoming progressively more human'. Interesting...
I think if you surveryed people and asked them to describe their feelings about abortion in these time frames...
1 day:
1 week:
1 month:
2 months:
...
all the way to...
8 months:
I think you would find the that the closer the pregnancy is to term the stronger the negative feelings are toward abortion. In fact I think this phenomenon is even present in our laws with us typically outlawing "at-will" abortions after the pregnancy is so far along.
Here's another aspect to this theory. You can believe that life happens at conception. The question I want to bring up is whether a 1 - 10000 celled organism can really be thought of as human. That's never my picture of a human is it yours?
Hoovie
04-14-2012, 08:11 AM
Jfrog, i think you may have the same difficulty then. Do you admit that elective abortion a day before birth is murder? Do you disagree with laws now in place, that allow murder charges for killing a fetus?
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 10:57 AM
Perhaps there is some misconception about my term "medical procedures"?
Abortions are only willful when the mother does not want the baby for whatever reason.
The medical procedures I am referring to are done removing the baby when it is certain that neither will survive during a full-blown medical crisis. The baby actually has a chance to survive outside the womb, whereas the baby will not have a chance to survive if he/she remains in the womb of a mother in a medical crisis. If the mother dies from bleeding, stroke or other maladies, this will ensure the baby's death. These are the medical procedures I am talking about...not the willful act of taking a baby's life when there is a viable pregnancy.
There was a case (I cannot remember all the details) where a young woman was pregnant and some incident caused her to have severe brain damage. She was ventilator dependent. They kept the woman alive by artificial means while the baby grew to term. Then they did a C-section and delivered a healthy, full-term baby, after which the doctors and family let the mother pass away.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 11:33 AM
Jfrog, i think you may have the same difficulty then. Do you admit that elective abortion a day before birth is murder? Do you disagree with laws now in place, that allow murder charges for killing a fetus?
My problem would only be in defining when the fetus is close enough to being human to be protected. I have no problem with there being disagreements on this issue but I think a happy middle ground could be found between most parties on the when is too close issue.
As far as murder charges for killing a fetus. I could agree with them really late in a pregnancy but not before then. Even more than that though, I think we need actual laws to govern the killing of fetuses and not to just have it lumped together with traditional murder charges.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 11:36 AM
Perhaps there is some misconception about my term "medical procedures"?
Abortions are only willful when the mother does not want the baby for whatever reason.
The medical procedures I am referring to are done removing the baby when it is certain that neither will survive during a full-blown medical crisis. The baby actually has a chance to survive outside the womb, whereas the baby will not have a chance to survive if he/she remains in the womb of a mother in a medical crisis. If the mother dies from bleeding, stroke or other maladies, this will ensure the baby's death. These are the medical procedures I am talking about...not the willful act of taking a baby's life when there is a viable pregnancy.
There was a case (I cannot remember all the details) where a young woman was pregnant and some incident caused her to have severe brain damage. She was ventilator dependent. They kept the woman alive by artificial means while the baby grew to term. Then they did a C-section and delivered a healthy, full-term baby, after which the doctors and family let the mother pass away.
I think abortions are willful whether the mother wants the baby or not. The will is only taken away if its known both the mother and baby won't make it through pregnancy. If that's not the case then there definetely exists a choice (a willful decision).
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 12:12 PM
I think abortions are willful whether the mother wants the baby or not. The will is only taken away if its known both the mother and baby won't make it through pregnancy. If that's not the case then there definetely exists a choice (a willful decision).
Well...I've finally gotten my point across. :)
However, I would have to question any mother's motives who says they want their baby, then has an abortion done. This is a case that actions speak louder than words.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 01:39 PM
Well...I've finally gotten my point across. :)
However, I would have to question any mother's motives who says they want their baby, then has an abortion done. This is a case that actions speak louder than words.
You're point? Your point was that only mothers who are in a predicament such that both them and their baby would die without an abortion are the only choiceless women? I don't think that was your position at all...
jfrog
04-14-2012, 01:46 PM
Well...I've finally gotten my point across. :)
However, I would have to question any mother's motives who says they want their baby, then has an abortion done. This is a case that actions speak louder than words.
Certain death scenarios for all involved is the only realm I can think a woman is without a choice. Say the doctor gives her a 40% chance to live with an abortion and her and her baby both a 20% chance to live without an abortion. That's a choice wouldn't you say?
Or let's say she has a will surely live with an abortion and will surely die without one. But the baby will surely live if she doesn't have one. That's still a choice and there's no trying to save both patients in this scenario...
Or let's say she has a 80% chance of living with an abortion and her and her baby both have a 35% chance of living without an abortion. She still has a choice here too.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 01:48 PM
You started it brother.
And for the record I didn't start anything. I made a poor choice of words and once that was clear I can't recall anything being an attack toward you.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 01:53 PM
Certain death scenarios for all involved is the only realm I can think a woman is without a choice. Say the doctor gives her a 40% chance to live with an abortion and her and her baby both a 20% chance to live without an abortion. That's a choice wouldn't you say?
Or let's say she has a will surely live with an abortion and will surely die without one. But the baby will surely live if she doesn't have one. That's still a choice and there's no trying to save both patients in this scenario...
Or let's say she has a 80% chance of living with an abortion and her and her baby both have a 35% chance of living without an abortion. She still has a choice here too.
It is scenarios like the last bolded one where I say medical procedures exist but even though it's not a choice of whether she wants the baby or not its still a choice about whether to have an abortion or not. It all goes back to what I was saying about those that count them as murder. In the scenario that a person equates them to murder it would be hypocritical for them to choose an abortion only for a better chance of survival for themselves.
Those are the kind of medical procedures where I say a woman still can have a willful abortion.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 02:49 PM
I found this in reading:
Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion. Since this claim is the cornerstone of their position, it should be critiqued in detail, from philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives[2]. Even though it has little relevance for the actual practice of abortion, the assertion that fetuses are human beings has a potentially great impact on the rights of women.
Another paragraph
Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote
And another
An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: "It's a life"—another ambiguous and vague term. A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman's body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs. Simply calling a fetus "a life" says nothing, unless the term is meant as another way of saying "a human being," which means anti-choicers are just begging the question again.
And another
Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses.
I think it elaborates on my position quite well.
I think it elaborates on my position quite well.
I would disagree with the last paragraph. Though it seems that most of us are willing to make an exception, we are actually willing to be incremental in our destruction of legalized abortions. Since these three situations actually make up less than 1% of all abortions performed, there is little grounds for an accusation of hypocracy. This is especially true when it is concidered that most of us wish to an end to all legalized abortions.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 03:28 PM
You're point? Your point was that only mothers who are in a predicament such that both them and their baby would die without an abortion are the only choiceless women? I don't think that was your position at all...
Nope. That is not my point! Now you are twisting my post into something that I never said. I already posted earlier that women have a choice...you go look it up what I said those choices are. Do not be so deceptive here in your attempt to portray me as a hypocrite, which I believe you have been trying to do since your very first post to me, despite your denials that your post was not a personal attack on me. Maybe I did not overreact. Maybe my instincts about you were correct from the very beginning.
I will try to explain this for others who may be reading this but not posting, because I think frog is a lost cause in this thread.
My point is that when a woman is deep into her pregnancy, 6, 7 or 8 months along, sometimes physiological changes happen and the woman develops conditions such as eclampsia, DIC, Placental Abruption or others. These conditions can become so severe, very grave and life threatening that the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother and baby. If the mother does not survive, then the baby surely will not survive either.
Now frog has been twisting my statements about "medical procedures" which is the removal of the baby from the uterus under these conditions by changing the definition of medical procedure by calling it an abortion. You are so very wrong in your thinking and understanding the difference between medical procedures and abortions. If this is the case, then every OBGYN physician would be offended at you because you would be inferring that they are abortionists. Most OBGYN physicians value the sanctity of life and have nothing to do with abortion.
Abortion, at it's crudest definition, would be the termination of pregnancy so that the child will never "see the light of day" in your own words. Whether it is 21 days gestation with a fetal heart beat or further along in it's fetal growth cycle, it is human from the beginning of it's conception. It takes a human female egg and human male sperm to fertilize that egg in the natural way that God intended. If left alone, in less than one month the baby has a heart and circulatory system that is beating and circulating blood throughout it's tiny body. That makes it human from day one, not further along when it begins to "look more" human.
At the latter stages of pregnancy, if illness develops, the removal (medical/surgical procedure) of the baby from the uterus is medically described as delivery, not abortion of the newborn or neonatal newborn for premature babies. This is the attempt to save the life of both mother and baby, not to kill the baby as one would do in an abortion. Big difference.
The physicians do everything within their power to try to save the life of the newborn, which is in stark contrast of what abortionists do when they terminate a woman's pregnancy.
Would frog consider a woman who elects to deliver her baby by cesarean section before natural labor starts... to be an abortion? After all...that is the termination of a pregnancy in its crudest definition.
Not all pregnancy terminations are willful abortions, it has to be willful in the sense that there is an attempt to kill the baby.
You misconstrued my postings and have attempted to blow smoke in people's eyes about my stance from the very get go.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 03:31 PM
I would disagree with the last paragraph. Though it seems that most of us are willing to make an exception, we are actually willing to be incremental in our destruction of legalized abortions. Since these three situations actually make up less than 1% of all abortions performed, there is little grounds for an accusation of hypocracy. This is especially true when it is concidered that most of us wish to an end to all legalized abortions.
99% or 1% or ever .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 03:39 PM
Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote
It is an established medical fact that this "zygote" has a heart and a circulatory system that delivers blood throughout it's tiny body at 21 days of gestation. By the time most women even think they may be pregnant, this "zygote" is pumping blood throughout it's own body for oxygen and nourishment coming from the mother's placenta.
God word says that "life is in the blood". That makes this life a viable potential human being.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 03:41 PM
99% or 1% or ever .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...
And you don't think it is hypocrisy for someone to say that it's not ok to abort a baby after a certain amount of time of growth in the womb "because it looks more human"?
If it is not ok later in the pregnancy, then it should not be ok in the early most important time of the pregnancy when the baby is developing.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 03:49 PM
Certain death scenarios for all involved is the only realm I can think a woman is without a choice. Say the doctor gives her a 40% chance to live with an abortion and her and her baby both a 20% chance to live without an abortion. That's a choice wouldn't you say?
Or let's say she has a will surely live with an abortion and will surely die without one. But the baby will surely live if she doesn't have one. That's still a choice and there's no trying to save both patients in this scenario...
Or let's say she has a 80% chance of living with an abortion and her and her baby both have a 35% chance of living without an abortion. She still has a choice here too.
No. You are skewing the issue here. If pregnant lady's doctor tells her she or her baby only has a certain percentage chance of living so early on in her pregnancy, she should run...not walk..to another physician. I don't know of any physician who can accurately make those predictions.
Again, you split hairs.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 03:56 PM
Nope. That is not my point! Now you are twisting my post into something that I never said. I already posted earlier that women have a choice...you go look it up what I said those choices are. Do not be so deceptive here in your attempt to portray me as a hypocrite, which I believe you have been trying to do since your very first post to me, despite your denials that your post was not a personal attack on me. Maybe I did not overreact. Maybe my instincts about you were correct from the very beginning.
I'm starting to think you're not getting what I'm saying :/
I will try to explain this for others who may be reading this but not posting, because I think frog is a lost cause in this thread.
My point is that when a woman is deep into her pregnancy, 6, 7 or 8 months along, sometimes physiological changes happen and the woman develops conditions such as eclampsia, DIC, Placental Abruption or others. These conditions can become so severe, very grave and life threatening that the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother and baby. If the mother does not survive, then the baby surely will not survive either.
In those situations it's not a choice its a no brainer. However, those are not the only scenarios that can happen. They are not the scenarios that I have been speaking about either.
Now frog has been twisting my statements about "medical procedures" which is the removal of the baby from the uterus under these conditions by changing the definition of medical procedure by calling it an abortion. You are so very wrong in your thinking and understanding the difference between medical procedures and abortions. If this is the case, then every OBGYN physician would be offended at you because you would be inferring that they are abortionists. Most OBGYN physicians value the sanctity of life and have nothing to do with abortion.
I call an abortion any procedure that results in certain death of the unborn. I would even go as far to call a procedure an abortion if it resulted in nearly certain death for the unborn.
Abortion, at it's crudest definition, would be the termination of pregnancy so that the child will never "see the light of day" in your own words. Whether it is 21 days gestation with a fetal heart beat or further along in it's fetal growth cycle, it is human from the beginning of it's conception. It takes a human female egg and human male sperm to fertilize that egg in the natural way that God intended. If left alone, in less than one month the baby has a heart and circulatory system that is beating and circulating blood throughout it's tiny body. That makes it human from day one, not further along when it begins to "look more" human.
Until you can tell me exactly what it takes for a thing to be called a "human being" you have no business telling me a fetus is one. So let's discuss the philosophical question, "What is a human being?"
At the latter stages of pregnancy, if illness develops, the removal (medical/surgical procedure) of the baby from the uterus is medically described as delivery, not abortion of the newborn or neonatal newborn for premature babies. This is the attempt to save the life of both mother and baby, not to kill the baby as one would do in an abortion. Big difference.
Those aren't the procedures I've been referring to when I have been questioning you're consistency.
The physicians do everything within their power to try to save the life of the newborn, which is in stark contrast of what abortionists do when they terminate a woman's pregnancy.
It's the same thing if a physician delivers a baby that he knows has no chance of survival.
Would frog consider a woman who elects to deliver her baby by cesarean section before natural labor starts... to be an abortion? After all...that is the termination of a pregnancy in its crudest definition.
Nope I would not consider that an abortion.
Not all pregnancy terminations are willful abortions, it has to be willful in the sense that there is an attempt to kill the baby.
Those procedures where the baby has no real chance of survival are equivalent to abortion. If you don't want to call them abortion then please coin me a phrase to call them by. They are so closely related to abortion that we must look at them just as well as what you call abortions.
You misconstrued my postings and have attempted to blow smoke in people's eyes about my stance from the very get go.
Hopefully that helps clarify.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 04:00 PM
What? That mess you just posted that blended in with my postings is a clarification?
You have your answers in quotes as if I quoted them.
I am beginning to think you are using sorcery tactics for confusion.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 04:04 PM
No. You are skewing the issue here. If pregnant lady's doctor tells her she or her baby only has a certain percentage chance of living so early on in her pregnancy, she should run...not walk..to another physician. I don't know of any physician who can accurately make those predictions.
Again, you split hairs.
I've been nice and not accused you of little things like splitting hairs but the least you can do is actually address the issue I keep on repeatedly bringing up.
A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with a very low chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?
A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with no chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?
Is there any difference between a woman having an unborn removed with no chance of survival and having an actual abortion?
jfrog
04-14-2012, 04:05 PM
What? That mess you just posted that blended in with my postings is a clarification?
You have your answers in quotes as if I quoted them.
I am beginning to think you are using sorcery tactics for confusion.
Wow... I actually reply and you have a problem with the formt? How would you like it? I can even color code each response if you would like?
jfrog
04-14-2012, 04:06 PM
And you don't think it is hypocrisy for someone to say that it's not ok to abort a baby after a certain amount of time of growth in the womb "because it looks more human"?
If it is not ok later in the pregnancy, then it should not be ok in the early most important time of the pregnancy when the baby is developing.
Why not? My whole philisophy is that the unborn is developing into a human and that it's not quite there yet. With that assumption it makes perfect sense to say its close enough to a human at these late stages to be protected but not close enough at these early stages to be protected.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 04:07 PM
It is an established medical fact that this "zygote" has a heart and a circulatory system that delivers blood throughout it's tiny body at 21 days of gestation. By the time most women even think they may be pregnant, this "zygote" is pumping blood throughout it's own body for oxygen and nourishment coming from the mother's placenta.
God word says that "life is in the blood". That makes this life a viable potential human being.
I've not denied it's alive. I've denied that it's a human being and apparently you deny its a human being also. It can't be both a human being and a potential human being.
Titus2woman
04-14-2012, 05:00 PM
All this talk about people deciding when a fetus becomes a human is just so much blabber... Since we don't make humans what we think is irrelevant. God either makes a human when egg meets sperm or he makes one when it breathes it's first breath, we may never know which one but most of us seem to believe it is at conception. I just can't fathom a God who says "Now that you have wonderful medical interventions that can most likely save a baby born at 24 weeks it becomes human then'. Or 'Well... yes, fetuses become more attractive to adult humans at about 18 weeks gestation so it is then they will become human'- Pish-posh. In less developed countries any baby born before 35 weeks is at serious risk of death simply from prematurity.
So with those thoughts in mind I agree with those who believe a fetus is a person at conception. And no I don't have any trouble identifying a cell mass as human. It contains every particle of DNA necessary to become a full person and will if not interrupted.
I simply believe that there are times when a woman's right to live or her right to not be victimized trumps a fetuses right to live. I don't try to fool myself into believing that it is not really 'a person' that is being killed as there is nothing else it would have been if not killed. I still believe that there are times when it may be killed and God would not disagree. I do not believe God sees death the same way we do as evidenced by the fact that 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. That is 20% God could save if he chose.
And I do not only support removing a fetus when it would have a better chance of life outside the womb. For certain reasons I believe it is a woman's right to have a fetus removed if it will for 100% certain die.
I strongly believe that we should set standards for what trumps the life of an unborn and we should give it the weight that any such terrible thing deserves, not treat is like another day at the office. Abortion on demand is horrible and should be repealed. Trying to justify by saying it's too hard to know who is a candidate is just hot real... We insert ourselves into all kinds of other medical decisions and make people get extensive documentation including psychiatric evaluation and serious medical screening before such simple things as weight loss surgery or other controversial procedures.There is no reason it could not be done for elective TOP when an emergent situation is not presenting.
We need to bust the myth that it won't work or it's an all or nothing deal where there will either be no elective TOP ever for anyone anywhere or there will be at will abortion to the tune of millions a year. It is this attitude and stonewalling that has kept Christians from making any legal headway because most people are not crazy enough to think for one minute that they would let their wives, mothers, sisters, aunts. cousins, or friends die carrying a baby that can not live, or make a child carry a child of rape or incest or any of the other reasonable reasons for terminating a pregnancy.
So it is not just a political position while fetuses are killed for reasons as simple as 'this isn't a good time, I have another semester in college', 'we didn't want a pregnancy until after the big wedding'... 'my dress won't fit if I'm pregnant', 'My husband and I only wanted two kids, three is too many' or any of the other really lame reasons I've heard over the years. We have some patient that have had six... count 'em SIX terminations... 'the pill makes me nauseous'... 'I don't like using condoms' ... 'he refuses to wear a condom'...
Time for reality or bust... so far IMO the Church has chosen bust.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 05:50 PM
I've been nice and not accused you of little things like splitting hairs but the least you can do is actually address the issue I keep on repeatedly bringing up.
I hardly think misconstruing somebody else's posts is being nice.
Saying you are splitting hairs is not being disrespectful.
Your questions are very generic and you are assuming I should make somebody else's decision for them.
However, I will attempt to answer your revised questions below to the best of my ability.
A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with a very low chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?
If it were me, I would have to be near death for this to happen...and by that time, the decision would have been taken out of my hands. My doctor and my family would make that decision if I had not already specified. That being said...in a near deathly existence, the unborn with a very low chance of survival outside the womb would likewise die along with me if it were chosen for me not to have the baby removed.
So...allowing both mother and baby with a low chance of survival... dying together would prove ...what???
A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with no chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?
How would she know she doesn't have a good chance of survival? Is she deathly sick when this chance of survival is brought to her attention? Otherwise, how can any doctor make this assumption and be accurate?
Is there any difference between a woman having an unborn removed with no chance of survival and having an actual abortion?
I am going to assume that you are talking about the mother making a decision to have her baby removed and that baby has no chance of surviving.
It depends on a lot of things.
Is the mother healthy when she made the decision to remove the baby? If she is healthy with no emergency medical problems whatsoever and she chooses to remove the baby, then yes, it would be an abortion. But how does this question fit into my assertions that medical procedures to deliver babies because of the mother's medical emergencies are not intentional abortions, but early deliveries if there is a good chance that the baby will survive?
If the baby has little to no chance of survival what good comes of it to allow both to die? What difference would it make if one calls this scenario a
medical procedure or a therapeutic abortion? The unborn would still be removed and the mother *might* make it through.
I'm sorry but there are no simple answers to the questions you pose.
There are so many variables to your questions that it is impossible to answer them accurately.
I look at these questions through the eyes of a medical professional and would never give a point blank answer without some facts as to the condition of both mother and baby.
It would be deceptive for a physician to tell a pregnant woman in her early pregnancy that she might die when there is no medical evidence to base that on. I would run to the next doctor had one told me that.
For one who chose to terminate her pregnancy because she "thought" she might die, well I would have to agree that it would be an abortion.
Women should think about these possible scenarios before they find themselves in compromising conditions. Women are the ones who bear the babies, the shame other people heap upon them, the financial cost and sometimes the ultimate cost. They should think before they decide to be with any man.
Men don't bear the cost like the women do and shouldn't place women in these compromising conditions for their moment of pleasure unless they plan to marry them and stick it out till death do they part.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 05:51 PM
Wow... I actually reply and you have a problem with the formt? How would you like it? I can even color code each response if you would like?
It's confusing for your answers to be in quotes. It looks like your answers are quoting me, when they are answers, not questions.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 05:55 PM
Why not? My whole philisophy is that the unborn is developing into a human and that it's not quite there yet. With that assumption it makes perfect sense to say its close enough to a human at these late stages to be protected but not close enough at these early stages to be protected.
So you admit to hypocrisy? A "zygote" as you call it...will eventually develop into a human if you leave it alone.
But for the record, it is no longer a zygote by the time it implants itself into the uterus.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 06:05 PM
I've not denied it's alive. I've denied that it's a human being and apparently you deny its a human being also. It can't be both a human being and a potential human being.
Splitting hairs again.
yes, it can. What would it turn into if left in the womb to grow? A flying pig?
The embryo has all the human DNA and genetics of it's parents.
:heeheehee I am amused at the absurdity of your reasoning.
So since you deny it is a human being, it's ok to kill the embryo that has the potential of becoming a human being. Even frozen embryos have been protected by the courts.
..And it was said that black people were only 2/3 human or such nonsense as that.. so it was ok for the master's to work them, beat them and do anything they wanted to do.
Hmmm....you never know if governments somewhere in the world may pass a law declaring you are not a human being....
Hoovie
04-14-2012, 06:36 PM
Is there any difference between a woman having an unborn removed with no chance of survival and having an actual abortion?
1. I automatically question the no chance of survival (this is based in part on the many many who were told this only to deliver babies in spite of the prediction) My first course of action would be to get another opinion.
2. However, assuming you are correct that there is "no chance"... I view this in similar way as when a doctor tells a patient he is terminal and he has only a few days to live. We can nurture, support and pray for this individual, or simply tear him apart limb by limb and call it a noble event.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 09:32 PM
1. I automatically question the no chance of survival (this is based in part on the many many who were told this only to deliver babies in spite of the prediction) My first course of action would be to get another opinion.
2. However, assuming you are correct that there is "no chance"... I view this in similar way as when a doctor tells a patient he is terminal and he has only a few days to live. We can nurture, support and pray for this individual, or simply tear him apart limb by limb and call it a noble event.
I can agree with those two opinions. However I must note that in the case of no chance of survival I would imagine it's easier and less risky to perform an abortion than to cut the woman open to deliver the child. So while I can understand and respect your opinion that it's different I can also understand and respect a woman that did choose the easier option for herself when there was no chance either way for the unborn.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 09:54 PM
All this talk about people deciding when a fetus becomes a human is just so much blabber... Since we don't make humans what we think is irrelevant. God either makes a human when egg meets sperm or he makes one when it breathes it's first breath, we may never know which one but most of us seem to believe it is at conception. I just can't fathom a God who says "Now that you have wonderful medical interventions that can most likely save a baby born at 24 weeks it becomes human then'. Or 'Well... yes, fetuses become more attractive to adult humans at about 18 weeks gestation so it is then they will become human'- Pish-posh. In less developed countries any baby born before 35 weeks is at serious risk of death simply from prematurity.
So with those thoughts in mind I agree with those who believe a fetus is a person at conception. And no I don't have any trouble identifying a cell mass as human. It contains every particle of DNA necessary to become a full person and will if not interrupted.
I simply believe that there are times when a woman's right to live or her right to not be victimized trumps a fetuses right to live. I don't try to fool myself into believing that it is not really 'a person' that is being killed as there is nothing else it would have been if not killed. I still believe that there are times when it may be killed and God would not disagree. I do not believe God sees death the same way we do as evidenced by the fact that 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. That is 20% God could save if he chose.
And I do not only support removing a fetus when it would have a better chance of life outside the womb. For certain reasons I believe it is a woman's right to have a fetus removed if it will for 100% certain die.
I strongly believe that we should set standards for what trumps the life of an unborn and we should give it the weight that any such terrible thing deserves, not treat is like another day at the office. Abortion on demand is horrible and should be repealed. Trying to justify by saying it's too hard to know who is a candidate is just hot real... We insert ourselves into all kinds of other medical decisions and make people get extensive documentation including psychiatric evaluation and serious medical screening before such simple things as weight loss surgery or other controversial procedures.There is no reason it could not be done for elective TOP when an emergent situation is not presenting.
We need to bust the myth that it won't work or it's an all or nothing deal where there will either be no elective TOP ever for anyone anywhere or there will be at will abortion to the tune of millions a year. It is this attitude and stonewalling that has kept Christians from making any legal headway because most people are not crazy enough to think for one minute that they would let their wives, mothers, sisters, aunts. cousins, or friends die carrying a baby that can not live, or make a child carry a child of rape or incest or any of the other reasonable reasons for terminating a pregnancy.
So it is not just a political position while fetuses are killed for reasons as simple as 'this isn't a good time, I have another semester in college', 'we didn't want a pregnancy until after the big wedding'... 'my dress won't fit if I'm pregnant', 'My husband and I only wanted two kids, three is too many' or any of the other really lame reasons I've heard over the years. We have some patient that have had six... count 'em SIX terminations... 'the pill makes me nauseous'... 'I don't like using condoms' ... 'he refuses to wear a condom'...
Time for reality or bust... so far IMO the Church has chosen bust.
Here's a few simple facts:
God has never said when a fetus becomes human. He's never said it's at conception. He's never said it's at first breath. He's never even said it's not somewhere in between.
God has said it's wrong to murder but nowhere is it written that abortion equates to murder. God has never even said it's wrong to abort an unborn. To sum it all up, the scriptures and God himself are both totally silent when it comes to the issue of abortion.
2ndly, my position has nothing to do with moving the goal posts for when a fetus becomes human. Medical advancements that can allow a fetus to leave the womb early and still survive don't mean I need to start classifying that fetus as a human just because we found a way to let it leave the womb. It's still a fetus in this case, it's just a fetus living outside the womb. It will still become a human at the same developmental milestones as a fetus living inside the womb.
Hoovie
04-14-2012, 09:59 PM
Herein lies the greatest hypocrisy...
In criminal and civil murder cases of a pregnant woman, there is quite often a second murder charge for the unborn child. (Shucks, killing a pregnant deer out of season gets you two fines in Missouri!)
Yet, at will, and almost without reason, an abortion can be done in any trimester.
The difference between the protected child and the unprotected child?
One is "wanted" and one is not. How warped and sick is that?
Do I think capital murder charges should be brought against the perps? Yes indeed. Their cover is flimsy and hypocritical.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 10:02 PM
So you admit to hypocrisy? A "zygote" as you call it...will eventually develop into a human if you leave it alone.
But for the record, it is no longer a zygote by the time it implants itself into the uterus.
What hypocrisy are you talking about? Saying a zygote will become a fetus which will then become a human being is not contradictory to my stated position.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 10:07 PM
Splitting hairs again.
yes, it can. What would it turn into if left in the womb to grow? A flying pig?
The embryo has all the human DNA and genetics of it's parents.
:heeheehee I am amused at the absurdity of your reasoning.
So since you deny it is a human being, it's ok to kill the embryo that has the potential of becoming a human being. Even frozen embryos have been protected by the courts.
..And it was said that black people were only 2/3 human or such nonsense as that.. so it was ok for the master's to work them, beat them and do anything they wanted to do.
Hmmm....you never know if governments somewhere in the world may pass a law declaring you are not a human being....
...Until you can admit that calling something a potential human being is saying that it has the potential to become a human being which implies that it is not currently a human being I don't know how else to respond to this.
By the way you further make my case when you say above that the fetus turns into a human being. If a fetus is turning into a human being then it had to be something else before or else there is no transformation, no turning into.
Hoovie
04-14-2012, 10:13 PM
No scriptures on abortion? How about life for life?
Exodus 21:22-25
King James Version (KJV)
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
jfrog
04-14-2012, 10:22 PM
No scriptures on abortion? How about life for life?
Exodus 21:22-25
King James Version (KJV)
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
That's a great scripture for showing that God didn't count killing an unborn child as murder! Yes it was wrong and reprehensible if someone killed another man's wife unborn but it doesn't carry the same old testament punishments as murder.
Hoovie
04-14-2012, 10:35 PM
That's a great scripture for showing that God didn't count killing an unborn child as murder! Yes it was wrong and reprehensible if someone killed another man's wife unborn but it doesn't carry the same old testament punishments as murder.
I think it does just that, though.
It is speaking of the woman going into labor prematurely and a live birth - not miscarriage! The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth. Therefore, if the fighting only caused the woman to go into labor early, but there was no injury, they agree on a penalty. If the child or mother is hurt or dies it's limb for limb, and life for life.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/
The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced.
This view is the best view for reasons listed below.
-The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.
-Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).
-The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.
-The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!
jfrog
04-14-2012, 10:47 PM
I think it does just that, though.
It is speaking of the woman going into labor prematurely and a live birth - not miscarriage! The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth. Therefore, if the fighting only caused the woman to go into labor early, but there was no injury, they agree on a penalty. If the child or mother is hurt or dies it's limb for limb, and life for life.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/
The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced.
This view is the best view for reasons listed below.
-The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.
-Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).
-The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.
-The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!
I suppose it depends on ones interpretation of that verse.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 10:53 PM
What hypocrisy are you talking about? Saying a zygote will become a fetus which will then become a human being is not contradictory to my stated position.
I had a whole rather lengthy paragraph typed out, but I just realized that you are deeply ingrained in your delusion and nothing I can ever say will dispel that delusion.
You are a willfully ignorant person in that you think because the word "abortion" is not in the Bible, it isn't wrong to inhibit the growth of human life or cutting it off entirely.
God does talk about "oppressors" of people who cannot help themselves...the poor, the widow, the fatherless of the orphans. Your stated position is clearly of oppression of the helpless in a place called the womb, which should be the most safest place for a child to be. God does say He will judge the oppressor.
However, you are in no position to point out anybody else's hypocrisy of any sort until you build some substance to your glass house.
AreYouReady?
04-14-2012, 11:14 PM
...Until you can admit that calling something a potential human being is saying that it has the potential to become a human being which implies that it is not currently a human being I don't know how else to respond to this.
By the way you further make my case when you say above that the fetus turns into a human being. If a fetus is turning into a human being then it had to be something else before or else there is no transformation, no turning into.
What else could it possibly turn into frog? Until I can admit a potential human is implying that it is not a human being? Now that is just some crazy stuff. It is just granted scientific knowledge that the fertilized egg will become a human being if not interfered with and the fact is that people like you that want to inhibit or stop that process is just sick. I will admit that you have a geranium growing in your cranium. That's what I will admit.
John the Baptist lept for joy in Elisabeth's womb. The "potential human being" developed into a human being right there in the womb. But had Elisabeth thought the way you do, John would have been ripped right out from her womb and been called a fetus as if it was a blob of tissue. You are trying to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when you want to twist words around to make it come out like a fetus is just a blob of nothing until it is closer to birth. At 12 gestational weeks a fetus has turned into a human being because it has all it's organs, brain, heart, kidneys, legs, arms, toes, fingers and it moves, kicks and all that is left to progress is it's growth to a normal size. It is only about 3 inches long, but it is a living, viable human being. It stopped being a "potential" human being after it's heart started beating. That means the "potential" to be a human being lasted all of 21 days after conception when blood started flowing through it's circulatory system. Life is in the blood, says God.
You will never get any woman who has been pregnant to admit that the movement and kicking she felt during her pregnancy was just a blob of tissue growing in her belly. Most pregnant women who love the life within think of it as a baby, a human being.
Ah...but I see your wicked stance that it is not human until it comes out of the womb...and even if it comes early, it still is not human. Well...that is just garbage.
99% or 1% or even .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...
The problem with your premise is that all Christians will turn hypocrite on this issue.
It is nearly impossible for a woman's health to be threatened by a pregnancy during the period that abortion is legal in most states. Therefore this is an irrelevant instance.
In the instances of rape or incest, most of these do not produce children. It is legitimate to say that I have not yet had to face this possibility of making this decision as I am not married. However, I while I might not wish to have the child raised in my home (something that I would need to pray about), I can not justify abortion.
To kill the child who is the result of rape or incest is a violation of Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 both say that the children are not to be executed for the sins of the parents. Aborting a child because of the sin that the father committed is murder when these verses are taken into account. Thus a true Christian will oppose abortion in all circumstances.
The only reason that some of us allow the exception (I do not) is to move eliminate the concept of abortion on demand. After that goal is acheived, we will then be able to finish the job.
I think it does just that, though.
It is speaking of the woman going into labor prematurely and a live birth - not miscarriage! The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth. Therefore, if the fighting only caused the woman to go into labor early, but there was no injury, they agree on a penalty. If the child or mother is hurt or dies it's limb for limb, and life for life.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/
The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced.
This view is the best view for reasons listed below.
-The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.
-Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).
-The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.
-The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!
I found this to be a very interesting. I will need to do some research myself, but I have often figured that this was something that like that. I also remember that judgment is promised against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions' on pregnant women during times of war. This is repeated many times in the Prophets.
jfrog
04-15-2012, 06:41 AM
The problem with your premise is that all Christians will turn hypocrite on this issue.
It is nearly impossible for a woman's health to be threatened by a pregnancy during the period that abortion is legal in most states. Therefore this is an irrelevant instance.
In the instances of rape or incest, most of these do not produce children. It is legitimate to say that I have not yet had to face this possibility of making this decision as I am not married. However, I while I might not wish to have the child raised in my home (something that I would need to pray about), I can not justify abortion.
To kill the child who is the result of rape or incest is a violation of Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 both say that the children are not to be executed for the sins of the parents. Aborting a child because of the sin that the father committed is murder when these verses are taken into account. Thus a true Christian will oppose abortion in all circumstances.
The only reason that some of us allow the exception (I do not) is to move eliminate the concept of abortion on demand. After that goal is acheived, we will then be able to finish the job.
That's a very sensible position Jay. I must say, I see nothing hypocritical in it :thumbsup
One question, do you believe abortion if the mother's life is threatened is acceptable?
I found this to be a very interesting. I will need to do some research myself, but I have often figured that this was something that like that. I also remember that judgment is promised against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions' on pregnant women during times of war. This is repeated many times in the Prophets.
I found it interesting too. I would also be interested in seeing the verses issuing judgment against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions'?
jfrog
04-15-2012, 06:55 AM
John the Baptist lept for joy in Elisabeth's womb. The "potential human being" developed into a human being right there in the womb. But had Elisabeth thought the way you do, John would have been ripped right out from her womb and been called a fetus as if it was a blob of tissue. You are trying to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when you want to twist words around to make it come out like a fetus is just a blob of nothing until it is closer to birth. At 12 gestational weeks a fetus has turned into a human being because it has all it's organs, brain, heart, kidneys, legs, arms, toes, fingers and it moves, kicks and all that is left to progress is it's growth to a normal size. It is only about 3 inches long, but it is a living, viable human being. It stopped being a "potential" human being after it's heart started beating. That means the "potential" to be a human being lasted all of 21 days after conception when blood started flowing through it's circulatory system. Life is in the blood, says God.
You will never get any woman who has been pregnant to admit that the movement and kicking she felt during her pregnancy was just a blob of tissue growing in her belly. Most pregnant women who love the life within think of it as a baby, a human being.
Ah...but I see your wicked stance that it is not human until it comes out of the womb...and even if it comes early, it still is not human. Well...that is just garbage.
What was that fetus before the 12th gestational week? It's turned into a human being after that last week, what was it before it turned into a human being? (use a term other than potential human being please :) )
Before I tackle that 2nd bolded comment let's deal with the principle that the only way something can turn into a human being is if it was something else to begin with.
That's a very sensible position Jay. I must say, I see nothing hypocritical in it :thumbsup
One question, do you believe abortion if the mother's life is threatened is acceptable?
I found it interesting too. I would also be interested in seeing the verses issuing judgment against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions'?
It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,
This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.
Titus2woman
04-15-2012, 09:12 AM
Here's a few simple facts:
Medical advancements that can allow a fetus to leave the womb early and still survive don't mean I need to start classifying that fetus as a human just because we found a way to let it leave the womb. It's still a fetus in this case, it's just a fetus living outside the womb. It will still become a human at the same developmental milestones as a fetus living inside the womb.
The fact that it is a BABY and not a fetus outside the womb at any gestational age that we can make it live disproves what you are saying... When exactly was the last time you walked up to a mother with a 35 week infant in her arms and said "cute fetus"?
Also if it is a fetus until the normal time of delivery (approx 40 weeks) may we then kill it when it is outside the womb even if it needs no medical interventions to live? Your thinking on this one is scary frog.... very scary and I am not a strict pro-lifer by any means...
Edited to remove snipey comments before anyone reads them. :)
jfrog
04-15-2012, 09:24 AM
It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,
This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.
Becoming pregnant does not mean a woman has accepted that she will carry that child to term NO MATTER WHAT.
Accepting the risks can be as simple of a process as I know some women get really sick during pregnancy. I hope that doesn't happen to me but if it does then I am going to do everything in my power to make sure I stay alive. That's an acceptance of risk that doesn't involve a woman having to protect the unborn NO MATTER WHAT.
jfrog
04-15-2012, 09:46 AM
The fact that it is a BABY and not a fetus outside the womb at any gestational age that we can make it live disproves what you are saying... When exactly was the last time you walked up to a mother with a 35 week infant in her arms and said "cute fetus"?
Also if it is a fetus until the normal time of delivery (approx 40 weeks) may we then kill it when it is outside the womb even if it needs no medical interventions to live? Your thinking on this one is scary frog.... very scary and I am not a strict pro-lifer by any means...
Edited to remove snipey comments before anyone reads them. :)
I would consider a 35 week old whether inside the womb or outside the womb a human being. But I understand the crux of your question and so let me try to answer it. I am against the killing of anything that can live outside the womb whether it be inside or outside the womb. It makes no sense to me to allow the killing of something that either is or will become human which can be born and live without the mother.
Hoovie
04-15-2012, 09:56 AM
So Froggy we have made progress. Babies can and have lived outside the womb independent of the mother soon after 20 weeks. We can start there and move toward education of the public on babies younger than that.
AreYouReady?
04-15-2012, 02:24 PM
What was that fetus before the 12th gestational week? It's turned into a human being after that last week, what was it before it turned into a human being? (use a term other than potential human being please :) )
Before I tackle that 2nd bolded comment let's deal with the principle that the only way something can turn into a human being is if it was something else to begin with.
Nah. That's just you splitting hairs again.
You tell me what else it can be? You want to say a human fetus is something other than human? I might say that would be so if it were a tumor.
EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT
Hmmm....I am just trying to figure you out, your frame of mind, what makes you tick. If this subject were not so important, I would just drop you like I would all ignorant people who do not want to learn. The kind whose thinking process is all mixed up in concrete and set. But, I think you are smarter than that type of mindset.
The words zygote, blastocyte, fetus are only words to describe stages of development of the human being. I can humor you and say you are correct that it is called a fetus, but calling something a fetus does not make it any less human while it is still in the developing stage. You seem to want to make a big deal out of words. And perhaps I fueled some of your argument here when I said "potential human being". So I will rescind those poor choice of words because you jumped on that one like a hot potato to try to crush the premise of a baby in the womb being something other than a human being. I used the "potential" part not to say the baby is not human inside the womb, but in my mind the context was to be for after the baby was born. You see when we are born, our birthdays are not counted from the time of conception...that's true, but on the day we are born. It is our day of birth. But we would have never gotten the chance to be born if our mothers snuffed us out before that day came simply because they did not want us or have time for us.
Let's see..you've called a baby in the womb a "zygote". That is technically correct because a zygote is a one-celled entity. You used to be a zygote. But you ceased to be a zygote once you divided into more than one cell. So you ceased to be a zygote and became a blastocyte after you implanted in your mother's womb.
After implantation, you developed into an embryo. The next 10 weeks were spent developing all your organs, head, arms, legs, feet, fingers, toes etc until you are a fully formed human. By week 10 after conception, your face had a human profile.
There was a government study released in 2007 declaring that embryos are human.
“Embryos are Humans” Says U.S. Government Report on Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new report by the United States governments’ Domestic Policy Council admits that embryos are human beings; the only differences between embryos and other human beings, says the report, are accidental differences in levels of development.
“Embryos are humans in their earliest developmental stage,” writes the Council.
“We do not have to think that human embryos are exactly the same in all ways as older humans to believe that they are entitled to respect and protection. Each of us originated as a single-celled embryo, and from that moment have developed along a continuous biological trajectory throughout our existence. To speak of ‘an embryo’ is to designate a human being at a particular stage.”
The Domestic Policy Council, which coordinates the domestic policy-making process in the White House, and which is under the direction of President Bush, made these unequivocal statements about the human embryo in its report on stem-cell research entitled, “Advancing Stem Cell Science without Destroying Human Life.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/embryos-are-humans-says-us-government-report-on-stem-cell-research
But I didn't really need a government report to tell me that because scripture told me that. ;)
Jeremiah wrote that God knew him before he was even conceived.
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity used my choice of words of "potential human beings" but added that: "These frozen embryos are not just “potential” human beings; they are in every way human life".
http://cbhd.org/content/frozen-embryos-stem-cell-source-or-human-life
So technically, I was not wrong in using the words "potential human beings", but again, because you want to make an issue that a baby is something else other than a human being in the womb, I will rescind those words for this discussion, but not the fact that these words are used in courts and studies.
AreYouReady?
04-15-2012, 03:35 PM
More reading on this controversial subject.
Although I know that for every pro-life physician I can find who are convinced life starts at conception, there will be a physician who will support frog’s view of whether “fetuses” are human beings or not.
The website below contains a picture of a baby’s hand coming out of the uterus and holding onto a surgeon’s finger while he was performing an operation en utero to correct his little patient’s spina bifida.
It is awesome.
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
Then there is the video: The Silent Scream
http://www.silentscream.org/
There is a link to click on to view the video.
WARNING: THIS WEBSITE GRAPHICALLY SHOWS AN ABORTION 11 WEEKS AFTER CONCEPTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY CHILDREN.
IF YOU ARE A YOUNG PERSON AND HAVE ANY DOUBTS ON WHETHER YOU SHOULD VIEW THIS SITE OR NOT, PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR PARENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER.
IF YOU ARE RESEARCHING THE TOPIC OF ABORTION OR POSSIBLY CONTEMPLATING AN ABORTION WE URGE YOU TO VIEW THE SITE SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY BEFORE PROCEEDING.
WE BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS THE TAKING OF AN INNOCENT LIFE AND VIOLATES GOD'S COMMANDMENT "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" . SO PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY, THINK ABOUT, AND PRAY ABOUT ABORTION AND ITS EFFECT ON THE BABY SLEEPING IN IT'S MOTHER'S WOMB.
PLEASE, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE PREGNANT OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE PREGNANT. CONTACT WWW.LIFECALL.ORG FOR ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER.
AreYouReady?
04-15-2012, 04:20 PM
It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,
Jay, I like you. I just want to caution you that right now, with no wife and baby, you feel this way. Circumstances can and do change...and so does our actions. Sometimes the mother truly may perish. That does happen. But the mother does not always have to perish to bring a child to birth without the child dying. It is medically complicated to explain. Not sure I have the capacity to do that as I am not a dissertation writer. :)
This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.
Again, this "gray area" you post of...
If it is known that a woman has a certain disease that may pose a great risk of dying to her and/or the baby if she ever gets pregnant, I would think that she should know all her risks beforehand. Some women have been told by their physician about the possibility of not being able to withstand a full-term pregnancy, with the possibility of dying...these women know the risks and many have taken steps to ensure they never become pregnant. They instead become mothers by adopting.
The issue we have recently been discussing is that at times, healthy, pregnant women rapidly develop life-threatening illnesses such as eclampia/toxemia, DIC, placenta abruption etc during their pregnancy. Nobody knows why this illness develops. It is a complication of pregnancy that sometimes happens. The body reacts and some women retain water and develop blood pressure so high to be "stroke level"..and some women do have strokes.
Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a pathologic disruption of the finely-balanced process of hemostasis (blood clotting). Massive activation of the clotting cascade results in widespread thrombosis (also blood clotting), which leads to depletion of platelets and coagulation factors and excessive thrombolysis (dissolution of a blood clot). The end result is multiorgan failure and hemorrhage (profuse bleeding).
DIC was first described in 1901 as a state of "temporary hemophilia" in two pregnant women; one had a retained fetal demise and the other had a placental abruption [1]. Peripartum hemorrhage is estimated to account for 1 to 5 percent of all cases of DIC in high-resource countries; the frequency is higher in low-resource countries [2].
Any patient in DIC presents a major management challenge, and this challenge is further complicated when a viable fetus is also present. For example, delaying delivery [not abortion] to transfuse the mother in DIC may not be in the best interest of a fetus with a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, whereas performing an emergency cesarean delivery [not abortion] on a mother in DIC may not be in her best interest. Even in the setting of fetal demise, labor and delivery of a woman in DIC carries the potential for catastrophic hemorrhage.
Note: comment in brackets is mine.
www.uptodate.com/ contents/ disseminated-intravascular-coagulation-during-pregnancy
That introduction to DIC is a very short explanation of what it is.
There are other pregnancy complications but I can't put them all on here.
In many these cases when treatment does not help, the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother. Where it gets complicated is that frog wants to call this medical procedure "an abortion" because it does terminate the pregnancy. But giving birth also terminates a pregnancy if you want to split hairs. The medical community considers the medical procedure to take the baby as a "premature delivery". Many times the medical procedure to take the baby will result in saving the life of both the baby and the mother. Sometimes the baby does not make it...but in cases of full-blown DIC, placenta abruption, eclampsia, if they do not take the baby, the mother will die and the baby will die anyway. If the mother does not live because of physiological/hemodynamic changes in the body, the baby will not live. Simple as that.
Titus2woman, please feel free to correct me if I am not totally correct in the above. You have a lot of experience in this and I know new treatments have come into the medical practice that I am not aware of.
Frog says all abortions are willful. In the frame he/she puts this in, he/she may be correct. But I do not consider the above scenario to be a willful abortion. I consider it to be a medical procedure of delivery in the attempt to save the lives of both the mother and the baby.
So...I just want for you to be open to the difference between willful abortion because somebody does not want the baby, or the abortion doctor just wants to defend his money-making position by scaring the woman into thinking she cannot bring a baby to full term.
And the difference in the medical procedure delivery to save the life of a baby because of a medical emergency that cannot be turned around through medical treatment.
It is very important for couples contemplating marriage and children to educate themselves in medical care for a possible pregnancy as much as they can. Every woman should have a pre-marital gynecological check up.
Side note to Jay: I attended TCM for morning service today. They have moved their church to the other side of town. :)
Becoming pregnant does not mean a woman has accepted that she will carry that child to term NO MATTER WHAT.
Accepting the risks can be as simple of a process as I know some women get really sick during pregnancy. I hope that doesn't happen to me but if it does then I am going to do everything in my power to make sure I stay alive. That's an acceptance of risk that doesn't involve a woman having to protect the unborn NO MATTER WHAT.
As painful and cold as it might sound, I believe that when a woman becomes pregnant, she is required to see that the child comes first, even if that means placing her life at risk.
Jay, I like you. I just want to caution you that right now, with no wife and baby, you feel this way. Circumstances can and do change...and so does our actions. Sometimes the mother truly may perish. That does happen. But the mother does not always have to perish to bring a child to birth without the child dying. It is medically complicated to explain. Not sure I have the capacity to do that as I am not a dissertation writer. :)
Again, this "gray area" you post of...
If it is known that a woman has a certain disease that may pose a great risk of dying to her and/or the baby if she ever gets pregnant, I would think that she should know all her risks beforehand. Some women have been told by their physician about the possibility of not being able to withstand a full-term pregnancy, with the possibility of dying...these women know the risks and many have taken steps to ensure they never become pregnant. They instead become mothers by adopting.
The issue we have recently been discussing is that at times, healthy, pregnant women rapidly develop life-threatening illnesses such as eclampia/toxemia, DIC, placenta abruption etc during their pregnancy. Nobody knows why this illness develops. It is a complication of pregnancy that sometimes happens. The body reacts and some women retain water and develop blood pressure so high to be "stroke level"..and some women do have strokes.
Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a pathologic disruption of the finely-balanced process of hemostasis (blood clotting). Massive activation of the clotting cascade results in widespread thrombosis (also blood clotting), which leads to depletion of platelets and coagulation factors and excessive thrombolysis (dissolution of a blood clot). The end result is multiorgan failure and hemorrhage (profuse bleeding).
DIC was first described in 1901 as a state of "temporary hemophilia" in two pregnant women; one had a retained fetal demise and the other had a placental abruption [1]. Peripartum hemorrhage is estimated to account for 1 to 5 percent of all cases of DIC in high-resource countries; the frequency is higher in low-resource countries [2].
Any patient in DIC presents a major management challenge, and this challenge is further complicated when a viable fetus is also present. For example, delaying delivery [not abortion] to transfuse the mother in DIC may not be in the best interest of a fetus with a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, whereas performing an emergency cesarean delivery [not abortion] on a mother in DIC may not be in her best interest. Even in the setting of fetal demise, labor and delivery of a woman in DIC carries the potential for catastrophic hemorrhage.
Note: comment in brackets is mine.
www.uptodate.com/ contents/ disseminated-intravascular-coagulation-during-pregnancy
That introduction to DIC is a very short explanation of what it is.
There are other pregnancy complications but I can't put them all on here.
In many these cases when treatment does not help, the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother. Where it gets complicated is that frog wants to call this medical procedure "an abortion" because it does terminate the pregnancy. But giving birth also terminates a pregnancy if you want to split hairs. The medical community considers the medical procedure to take the baby as a "premature delivery". Many times the medical procedure to take the baby will result in saving the life of both the baby and the mother. Sometimes the baby does not make it...but in cases of full-blown DIC, placenta abruption, eclampsia, if they do not take the baby, the mother will die and the baby will die anyway. If the mother does not live because of physiological/hemodynamic changes in the body, the baby will not live. Simple as that.
Titus2woman, please feel free to correct me if I am not totally correct in the above. You have a lot of experience in this and I know new treatments have come into the medical practice that I am not aware of.
Frog says all abortions are willful. In the frame he/she puts this in, he/she may be correct. But I do not consider the above scenario to be a willful abortion. I consider it to be a medical procedure of delivery in the attempt to save the lives of both the mother and the baby.
So...I just want for you to be open to the difference between willful abortion because somebody does not want the baby, or the abortion doctor just wants to defend his money-making position by scaring the woman into thinking she cannot bring a baby to full term.
And the difference in the medical procedure delivery to save the life of a baby because of a medical emergency that cannot be turned around through medical treatment.
It is very important for couples contemplating marriage and children to educate themselves in medical care for a possible pregnancy as much as they can. Every woman should have a pre-marital gynecological check up.
Side note to Jay: I attended TCM for morning service today. They have moved their church to the other side of town. :)
I never said that the baby had to come to term, but that the life should not be ended by artificial means. That is what we means when we say abortion. The ending of a pregnancy early to save mother and child is not an abortion.
My morality does not change just because my circumstances will change. As long as God has not changed, I will not change my stance on legalized abortions.
I hope that you had a good time there at TCM's morning service. Any further details would be nice. Thanks for the update.
AreYouReady?
04-16-2012, 09:28 AM
I never said that the baby had to come to term, but that the life should not be ended by artificial means. That is what we means when we say abortion. The ending of a pregnancy early to save mother and child is not an abortion.
You made my point for me. Thanks.
My morality does not change just because my circumstances will change. As long as God has not changed, I will not change my stance on legalized abortions.
I never meant for you to think that your morality will change. I don't believe in abortion any more than you do. However, since you clarified your thoughts that ending a pregnancy early to save mother and child is not an abortion, then I don't expect you will have any problems doing the right thing should something like this come up in your life. Peace to you.
Michlow
04-16-2012, 09:45 AM
As painful and cold as it might sound, I believe that when a woman becomes pregnant, she is required to see that the child comes first, even if that means placing her life at risk.
Out of curiosity, what if the "Mother" is your 13 year old daughter who was violently raped? Should she be given a death sentence as well as the horror that has already been visited on her?
What if the Mother is a widow, with 5 other young children?
Rarely are these things black and white. The Majority of women I know (and for the record, I am a big heathen, and so I am not speaking of christian women). Most of them WOULD sacrifice their lives for the life of their unborn child. But sometimes one must make a horrible painful choice for the greater good.
Just my thoughts....
jfrog
04-17-2012, 12:59 AM
If human life starts at conception why is it not customary to have funerals and memorial services for miscarriages?
Also, if human life really begins at conception then why aren't names given before birth?
Also, why is it that not one society has ever counted abortion to be equal with murder?
Could it be that deep down people feel the unborn is something different than the born?
In my opinion if you want to eliminate abortion then you are going to have to make people really believe that there is no difference between the unborn and the born. You are going to have to start giving names as soon as pregnancy is confirmed. You are going to have to start holding burial services for unborns. So here's the problem, Christians want everyone to act like unborns are people when it comes to abortion but they haven't been acting like unborns are people in any way for 2000 years and have only actually been equating abortion to murder for maybe the last 100 years.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 01:13 AM
Here's a more theological slant on the question of abortion:
Since unborn's are not given names then how can their names be written in the Lamb's book of life and if their names are not written in that book then how can they go to heaven?
Aquila
04-17-2012, 07:00 AM
I believe abortion is a grevious sin. However, is the GOVERNEMNT really capable of properly policing and regulating it? I mean... if my wife were on the table facing a situation that might call for terminating the pregnancy we'd have to have a group of doctors agree that it's the safest option and then it would have to be approved by a public official or judge (God forbid it's an election year) who might sacrifice my wife on the altar of political points.
I HATE abortion. But... I'm not sure that I believe GOVERNMENT has the answer. I believe we need to address the issues that pregnant women face like poverty, health care, daycare, education, and abuse. I believe that ddressing these issues would have a deeper impact on abortion rates than merely banning the procedure. Let's face it, over 30 years since Roe and guess what.... we're nowhere. Let's address those issues that women with unplanned pregnancies face at attack abortion at the root... by relieving their fears and coming along side to help them. The Democrats for Life of America proposed the 95/10 initiative that was intended to target many of these issues. Their hope was to reduce the abortion rate in the United States through Federal and State level initiatives that targetted the concerns of women considering abortion. The initiative included the following proposals:
-establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
- collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
- provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
-provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
-provide counseling in maternity group homes;
-increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
-eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
- provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
- support informed consent for Abortion Services;
- increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
-require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
- provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers
The initiative was largely opposed by the Republicans who felt that policies aimed specifically at reducing the abortion rate and saving the unborn were too expensive. They'd rather see us picketting for another 30 years before addressing the actual social issues that leave so many women with unplanned pregnancies terrified and considering abortion.
But then again... that's government.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 07:01 AM
If human life starts at conception why is it not customary to have funerals and memorial services for miscarriages?
They sometimes are and many times there is no funeral for adults. Funerals are a social custom (and a huge business) driven by the need to say goodbye to a loved one. Since no one but the mother has met the child inside her she usually chooses to grieve privately or alone with her husband.
Also, if human life really begins at conception then why aren't names given before birth? Where have you been froggy? Invitations to baby showers now come with baby names! However, since we culturally choose names to reflect gender most couples keep two choices and only choose once gender is known at about 16 weeks. Many more however choose gender neutral names and give them as soon as they know they are pregnant sometimes changing spelling for boy/girl.
Also, why is it that not one society has ever counted abortion to be equal with murder? Simply not true.
Could it be that deep down people feel the unborn is something different than the born? I think people outside the immediate family feel less attached to the unborn because they have not seen them. Some people have a hard time with God for the same reason.
In my opinion if you want to eliminate abortion then you are going to have to make people really believe that there is no difference between the unborn and the born. You are going to have to start giving names as soon as pregnancy is confirmed. You are going to have to start holding burial services for unborns. So here's the problem, Christians want everyone to act like unborns are people when it comes to abortion but they haven't been acting like unborns are people in any way for 2000 years and have only actually been equating abortion to murder for maybe the last 100 years.
Legal abortion has made an 'in your face' proposition of what was once a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Political candidates are elected or not based on their stance for or against it. Before abortion was legal procedures were done that were technically the same thing, however they were done for medical reasons. There were (and still are) also abortion practitioners who were unlicensed and served prostitutes and other women in cities. So there have always been ways that some women could get an abortion... It is still much the same today. Our million plus elective TOPs are still going to women in urban areas while those who live rurally often do not have a provider of abortion services for hundreds of miles. Because of the stigma of 'legal' abortions most regular gyns will not terminate a pregnancy even for medical reasons but refer to an abortion provider unless there is a fetal demise. The whole thing has become quite a mess that may never be resolved until Jesus comes back.
Unfortunately it is a mess in a way that does not well serve women on either end. The scales of balance have tipped far right and left on this issue... it would be nice to see them level off awhile. Try just a minute to see other points here and be open to them. Of course the ' a woman should be willing to die to give life ' stance always makes me want to tip the scale the other way by just denying a fetus is human. But now I've come to a place where I feel I can be more honest with myself and say; 'yes a fetus is human and there are circumstances when a mothers life/health/sanity trump that fetuses right to live.' That allows me to see many abortions as wrong and a few as right without denial or a mental snow storm.
Not necessarily trying to change your mind frog, it seems pretty made up... but just saying there may be other information you want to consider before you try to change someone else;
Hoovie
04-17-2012, 07:04 AM
If human life starts at conception why is it not customary to have funerals and memorial services for miscarriages?
Also, if human life really begins at conception then why aren't names given before birth?
Also, why is it that not one society has ever counted abortion to be equal with murder?
Could it be that deep down people feel the unborn is something different than the born?
In my opinion if you want to eliminate abortion then you are going to have to make people really believe that there is no difference between the unborn and the born. You are going to have to start giving names as soon as pregnancy is confirmed. You are going to have to start holding burial services for unborns. So here's the problem, Christians want everyone to act like unborns are people when it comes to abortion but they haven't been acting like unborns are people in any way for 2000 years and have only actually been equating abortion to murder for maybe the last 100 years.
Heard of it many times, and have a couple friends who did name the child and have a service for the child after miscarriage.
Our society DOES equate abortion with murder - with one small caveat... it has to be a "wanted" child.
There is a difference in that the unborn child has built fewer relationships at that point in there life. This is true for the born as well. As a baby grows so does his circle of friends and influence.
Aquila
04-17-2012, 07:08 AM
They sometimes are and many times there is no funeral for adults. Funerals are a social custom (and a huge business) driven by the need to say goodbye to a loved one. Since no one but the mother has met the child inside her she usually chooses to grieve privately or alone with her husband.
Where have you been froggy? Invitations to baby showers now come with baby names! However, since we culturally choose names to reflect gender most couples keep two choices and only choose once gender is known at about 16 weeks. Many more however choose gender neutral names and give them as soon as they know they are pregnant sometimes changing spelling for boy/girl.
Simply not true.
I think people outside the immediate family feel less attached to the unborn because they have not seen them. Some people have a hard time with God for the same reason.
Legal abortion has made an 'in your face' proposition of what was once a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Political candidates are elected or not based on their stance for or against it. Before abortion was legal procedures were done that were technically the same thing, however they were done for medical reasons. There were (and still are) also abortion practitioners who were unlicensed and served prostitutes and other women in cities. So there have always been ways that some women could get an abortion... It is still much the same today. Our million plus elective TOPs are still going to women in urban areas while those who live rurally often do not have a provider of abortion services for hundreds of miles. Because of the stigma of 'legal' abortions most regular gyns will not terminate a pregnancy even for medical reasons but refer to an abortion provider unless there is a fetal demise. The whole thing has become quite a mess that may never be resolved until Jesus comes back.
Unfortunately it is a mess in a way that does not well serve women on either end. The scales of balance have tipped far right and left on this issue... it would be nice to see them level off awhile. Try just a minute to see other points here and be open to them. Of course the ' a woman should be willing to die to give life ' stance always makes me want to tip the scale the other way by just denying a fetus is human. But now I've come to a place where I feel I can be more honest with myself and say; 'yes a fetus is human and there are circumstances when a mothers life/health/sanity trump that fetuses right to live.' That allows me to see many abortions as wrong and a few as right without denial or a mental snow storm.
Not necessarily trying to change your mind frog, it seems pretty made up... but just saying there may be other information you want to consider before you try to change someone else;
Interesting points.
Having served in the military as a medic and having had to decide when to let my mother go after medical staff felt little more could be done unless she stablized... I've come to realize that people make life and death decisions every day. Some are very painful and frankly... the government has no right to meddle in such matters. I fear the governemnt more than I fear freedom of choice. Because at least the choice of abortion is in the hands of each and every individual woman. Change hearts and minds... we save lives. Address issues women face... we save lives. However... using the police power of government to decide when your wife is justified to have an abortion is a bit disturbing to me. Because if it's an election year... they might just let her suffer and die on the table before granting her permission to terminate the pregnancy. Just bothers me. Should me and a spouse face a situation wherein terminating the pregnancy was strongly advised as a course of action... it would be a very dark and painful day. And the choice of what to do next would be handled with much prayer and mutual support. And ultimately that choice should rest in our hands... not the governments.
Abortion will never go away. And banning abortion will never resolve the issues that women face that help drive them to the decision to abort. And... after 30 years of protests and political football.. it's evident politics will not change the issue. We need to geet down to social policy. Get down on our hands and knees... get dirty... spend money... and help women.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 07:12 AM
I believe abortion is a grevious sin. However, is the GOVERNEMNT really capable of properly policing and regulating it? I mean... if my wife were on the table facing a situation that might call for terminating the pregnancy we'd have to have a group of doctors agree that it's the safest option and then it would have to be approved by a public official or judge (God forbid it's an election year) who might sacrifice my wife on the altar of political points.
I HATE abortion. But... I'm not sure that I believe GOVERNMENT has the answer. I believe we need to address the issues that pregnant women face like poverty, health care, daycare, education, and abuse. I believe that ddressing these issues would have a deeper impact on abortion rates than merely banning the procedure. Let's face it, over 30 years since Roe and guess what.... we're nowhere. Let's address those issues that women with unplanned pregnancies face at attack abortion at the root... by relieving their fears and coming along side to help them. The Democrats for Life of America proposed the 95/10 initiative that was intended to target many of these issues. Their hope was to reduce the abortion rate in the United States through Federal and State level initiatives that targetted the concerns of women considering abortion. The initiative included the following proposals:
-establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
- collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
- provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
-provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
-provide counseling in maternity group homes;
-increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
-eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
- provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
- support informed consent for Abortion Services;
- increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
-require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
- provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers
The initiative was largely opposed by the Republicans who felt that policies aimed specifically at reducing the abortion rate and saving the unborn were too expensive. They'd rather see us picketting for another 30 years before addressing the actual social issues that leave so many women with unplanned pregnancies terrified and considering abortion.
But then again... that's government.
Great point but let's forget tax dollars for a minute and talk about our own dollars. While many pontificate, how many have taken in a woman who has been abandoned by family over an unplanned pregnancy? Given serious money to a shelter that does the same? Not talking peanuts here... or your used baby clothes... If we are trying to stop the murder or innocents let's do something big like forgo vacation this year and give two weeks pay to a shelter, or defer a mortgage or car payment and send that in. Maybe adopt an unwanted child... not a newborn white infant (although some wouldn't even do that) but a mixed race or minority older child whose mother did not terminate her pregnancy but couldn't raise him/her either. Got a spare bedroom in your home you can adopt a sibling group.
I get tired of hearing all the talk from those who have never been five minutes out of their comfort zone to actually DO something.
Aquila
04-17-2012, 07:16 AM
Great point but let's forget tax dollars for a minute and talk about our own dollars. While many pontificate, how many have taken in a woman who has been abandoned by family over an unplanned pregnancy? Given serious money to a shelter that does the same? Not talking peanuts here... or your used baby clothes... If we are trying to stop the murder or innocents let's do something big like forgo vacation this year and give two weeks pay to a shelter, or defer a mortgage or car payment and send that in. Maybe adopt an unwanted child... not a newborn white infant (although some wouldn't even do that) but a mixed race or minority older child whose mother did not terminate her pregnancy but couldn't raise him/her either. Got a spare bedroom in your home you can adopt a sibling group.
I get tired of hearing all the talk from those who have never been five minutes out of their comfort zone to actually DO something.
Ouch! You're hitting us all where we live T2W. Excellent points. God help us.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 07:35 AM
Heard of it many times, and have a couple friends who did name the child and have a service for the child after miscarriage.
Our society DOES equate abortion with murder - with one small caveat... it has to be a "wanted" child.
There is a difference in that the unborn child has built fewer relationships at that point in there life. This is true for the born as well. As a baby grows so does his circle of friends and influence.
I think you and Titus2woman ignored the main point. The point was that Christians have traditionally not treated unborns/stillborns as people in the few ways they can treat them as people. They don't name them and they don't bury them. Sure that's starting to change but it isn't there yet.
I can only think that if Christians had done their part and acted like unborns were people for the last 2000 years then abortion wouldn't even be a debate right now. So what I'm saying is stop pointing the finger at those who have abortions and saying "murderer" when you and your religion have not acted like unborns deserve the same ceremonies as born people. You're religion has kept and maintained that divide between born and unborn people and so it's no surprise when the world follows your example and principle. If you treat unborns differently than those that are born then don't condemn others for doing the same thing!
Hoovie
04-17-2012, 07:53 AM
I think you and Titus2woman ignored the main point. The point was that Christians have traditionally not treated unborns/stillborns as people in the few ways they can treat them as people. They don't name them and they don't bury them. Sure that's starting to change but it isn't there yet.
I can only think that if Christians had done their part and acted like unborns were people for the last 2000 years then abortion wouldn't even be a debate right now. So what I'm saying is stop pointing the finger at those who have abortions and saying "murderer" when you and your religion have not acted like unborns deserve the same ceremonies as born people. You're religion has kept and maintained that divide between born and unborn people and so it's no surprise when the world follows your example and principle. If you treat unborns differently than those that are born then don't condemn others for doing the same thing!
I receive your point but accept no responsibility for the sins of my forefathers or the church at large. Also, I think it's a flimsy argument. "treating" someone differently is much different than killing them off.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 07:59 AM
I receive your point but accept no responsibility for the sins of my forefathers or the church at large. Also, I think it's a flimsy argument. "treating" someone differently is much different than killing them off.
How many unborns have you named? How many unborns have you suggested be buried? How many unborn funerals have you attended? I'm willing to wager that your actions show that you don't treat unborns as people except when it comes to the abortion issue.
Also the argument isn't merely that "unborns are being treated differently" its that you and the church at large and most all of society have never treated unborns as people and that's where the idea that abortion is permissible stems from, unborns are not being treated like people by anyone. (Though that is starting to change.)
Bro. Robbins
04-17-2012, 08:13 AM
I think you and Titus2woman ignored the main point. The point was that Christians have traditionally not treated unborns/stillborns as people in the few ways they can treat them as people. They don't name them and they don't bury them. Sure that's starting to change but it isn't there yet.
I can only think that if Christians had done their part and acted like unborns were people for the last 2000 years then abortion wouldn't even be a debate right now. So what I'm saying is stop pointing the finger at those who have abortions and saying "murderer" when you and your religion have not acted like unborns deserve the same ceremonies as born people. You're religion has kept and maintained that divide between born and unborn people and so it's no surprise when the world follows your example and principle. If you treat unborns differently than those that are born then don't condemn others for doing the same thing!
I can't speak beyond my own 39 years of living, and the little corner of the world I've lived in. But growing up in the mountains, every still born we have ever known of, or unborn (assuming you mean miscarriages, or where the baby inside died because mom died or was killed), have always been named and been either a part of mom's funeral, or had one of their own. I can take you to countless cemetaries in the mountains of East TN where there are tons of graves where families we know have buried a still born baby, with names on them.... And can take you to quite a few for miscarried fetus'. So, no, I can't speak to 2000 years, but I can say that the broad brush your using doesn't paint over everyone.
Aquila
04-17-2012, 08:20 AM
Being named isn't a criteria for being a human being.
Hoovie
04-17-2012, 08:22 AM
To expound the point that jfrog raises a bit... I do believe we can ascertain how welcome people are by how we treat them. Often today babies and children are seen more as a bother or an oddity and that speaks to how welcome they are in the world. In part I believe Christians themselves have propagated this view. Therefore we are below the replacement fertility rate in the US.
Also, having traveled to many countries with a small children, it was apparent that children were much more welcome in some countries than others. In particular, French people did not make much accommodation for a child. It was rare that they made any connection or paused to coo over a child. We immediately noticed this was true across the board and not just because we were "Americans". It may explain a declining French population if it were not for Muslim immigrants factored in...
Hoovie
04-17-2012, 08:33 AM
How many unborns have you named? How many unborns have you suggested be buried? How many unborn funerals have you attended? I'm willing to wager that your actions show that you don't treat unborns as people except when it comes to the abortion issue.
Also the argument isn't merely that "unborns are being treated differently" its that you and the church at large and most all of society have never treated unborns as people and that's where the idea that abortion is permissible stems from, unborns are not being treated like people by anyone. (Though that is starting to change.)
I won't quibble, but most of my unborn children were named.
Abortion is a societal ill, so in that regard we all share in it. I think rather than laying blame squarely on the church in this matter, you can find it is the church that is at the forefront in aiding those effected by unplanned pregnancies, and yes, even treating the unborn as real children.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 08:57 AM
I can't speak beyond my own 39 years of living, and the little corner of the world I've lived in. But growing up in the mountains, every still born we have ever known of, or unborn (assuming you mean miscarriages, or where the baby inside died because mom died or was killed), have always been named and been either a part of mom's funeral, or had one of their own. I can take you to countless cemetaries in the mountains of East TN where there are tons of graves where families we know have buried a still born baby, with names on them.... And can take you to quite a few for miscarried fetus'. So, no, I can't speak to 2000 years, but I can say that the broad brush your using doesn't paint over everyone.
I was born in Northeast Tn (further east than knoxville) and maybe I'm out of the loop but I've never heard of a miscarried baby being buried.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:02 AM
I won't quibble, but most of my unborn children were named.
Abortion is a societal ill, so in that regard we all share in it. I think rather than laying blame squarely on the church in this matter, you can find it is the church that is at the forefront in aiding those effected by unplanned pregnancies, and yes, even treating the unborn as real children.
The church is at the forefront of trying to stop abortion now that is true. That doesn't change that it was the churches practices that made unborns be viewed as less than people to begin with.
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 09:03 AM
I was born in Northeast Tn (further east than knoxville) and maybe I'm out of the loop but I've never heard of a miscarried baby being buried.
You illuminate our death-centricity as Christians here.
Bro. Robbins
04-17-2012, 09:04 AM
I was born in Northeast Tn (further east than knoxville) and maybe I'm out of the loop but I've never heard of a miscarried baby being buried.
Can take you to Goins Cemetary in East Campbell County, just between the Victory and Alder Springs communities. I know of at least 3 graves there for miscarried babies. These are from the mid to late 70's. And several more still born babies from various years and families. Many of these families delivered at home and had no doctor or healthcare giver available.
More graves over in Victory Church cemetery also in Campbell County. I know of 2 in Union County, because I attended the grave side funerals, both of these were miscarriages.
2 years ago, I went to a grave side for an Apostolic Pastor who he and his wife had a miscarriage.... here in the Middle TN area....
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:09 AM
Can take you to Goins Cemetary in East Campbell County, just between the Victory and Alder Springs communities. I know of at least 3 graves there for miscarried babies. These are from the mid to late 70's. And several more still born babies from various years and families. Many of these families delivered at home and had no doctor or healthcare giver available.
More graves over in Victory Church cemetery also in Campbell County. I know of 2 in Union County, because I attended the grave side funerals, both of these were miscarriages.
2 years ago, I went to a grave side for an Apostolic Pastor who he and his wife had a miscarriage.... here in the Middle TN area....
This goes along with what I'm saying that miscarried babies being buried was rare. I would suspect that stillborns are buried quite more often then miscarried babies. But regardless it's apparent that since miscarried babies are not typically buried that they are thought of as something other than a born baby. Yes we can find examples of all kinds of weird practices but I think you can agree that the norm was not for miscarried babies to be buried.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:12 AM
You illuminate our death-centricity as Christians here.
I don't follow?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:13 AM
I think you and Titus2woman ignored the main point. The point was that Christians have traditionally not treated unborns/stillborns as people in the few ways they can treat them as people. They don't name them and they don't bury them. Sure that's starting to change but it isn't there yet.
I can only think that if Christians had done their part and acted like unborns were people for the last 2000 years then abortion wouldn't even be a debate right now. So what I'm saying is stop pointing the finger at those who have abortions and saying "murderer" when you and your religion have not acted like unborns deserve the same ceremonies as born people. You're religion has kept and maintained that divide between born and unborn people and so it's no surprise when the world follows your example and principle. If you treat unborns differently than those that are born then don't condemn others for doing the same thing!
Did you read my post? If so you would see that the unborn have typically been treated the same way at death as any person with only close family and no friends, by being grieved privately.
Pomp and ceremony for the dead used to be and still is in many places reserved for those of some public concern. Simple people bury their dead quietly. When I die it is my wish that my family view my body in my home for one day, I will then be placed in a simple box that was made for me by my son and they will write words of love on the box. Then it's out to the pasture where my other sons will have dug the hole I'm going in. There are some contingencies for if my body is in too bad of shape to be viewed, etc. but there is none for a 'funeral' as one would understand it... Does that make me less a person?
My oldest son was not named until he was a week old and out of danger... was he less a 'person' during that week simply because he was baby boy Sweet?
What you are saying makes no sense to me and feels like a grasping attempt at justification. I do not consider abortion unforgivable, it is like any other sin and I am not sure that God rates sins one above another since all sin separates us from God. But to say it is not killing a human is just silly, silly, silly.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:19 AM
Did you read my post? If so you would see that the unborn have typically been treated the same way at death as any person with only close family and no friends, by being grieved privately.
Pomp and ceremony for the dead used to be and still is in many places reserved for those of some public concern. Simple people bury their dead quietly. When I die it is my wish that my family view my body in my home for one day, I will then be placed in a simple box that was made for me by my son and they will write words of love on the box. Then it's out to the pasture where my other sons will have dug the hole I'm going in. There are some contingencies for if my body is in too bad of shape to be viewed, etc. but there is none for a 'funeral' as one would understand it... Does that make me less a person?
My oldest son was not named until he was a week old and out of danger... was he less a 'person' during that week simply because he was baby boy Sweet?
What you are saying makes no sense to me and feels like a grasping attempt at justification. I do not consider abortion unforgivable, it is like any other sin and I am not sure that God rates sins one above another since all sin separates us from God. But to say it is not killing a human is just silly, silly, silly.
Surely you understand that the typically practice for miscarried babies is different than the typical practice for born babies. Now I want you to sincerely answer this question. Why is the typical practice for miscarried babies different than the typical practice for born babies? If you don't reach the same conclusion I have reached that is okay but I think you will...
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:20 AM
This goes along with what I'm saying that miscarried babies being buried was rare. I would suspect that stillborns are buried quite more often then miscarried babies. But regardless it's apparent that since miscarried babies are not typically buried that they are thought of as something other than a born baby. Yes we can find examples of all kinds of weird practices but I think you can agree that the norm was not for miscarried babies to be buried.
Miscarried babies are typically discovered at a doctors appointment. They are then extracted in a medical procedure called Suction Dilatation and Curettage. The 'remains' are sent to the pathology lab to be examined for completeness and disease possibilities. No one ever offers to return them to parents and indeed parents that ask are treated as weird.
Miscarried fetuses passed at home are usually accompanied by heavy bleeding and dropped in a toilet, making them hard to find and/or recover.
The simple truth is that there is just not usually anything to bury. It is in no way a sign that the family has not suffered a loss or does not grieve.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:24 AM
Miscarried babies are typically discovered at a doctors appointment. They are then extracted in a medical procedure called Suction Dilatation and Curettage. The 'remains' are sent to the pathology lab to be examined for completeness and disease possibilities. No one ever offers to return them to parents and indeed parents that ask are treated as weird.
Miscarried fetuses passed at home are usually accompanied by heavy bleeding and dropped in a toilet, making them hard to find and/or recover.
The simple truth is that there is just not usually anything to bury. It is in no way a sign that the family has not suffered a loss or does not grieve.
When a person dies and he has no remains left there will often be a memorial service for that person. Even if there is nothing to bury why is a memorial service type thing not held?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:30 AM
Surely you understand that the typically practice for miscarried babies is different than the typical practice for born babies. Now I want you to sincerely answer this question. Why is the typical practice for miscarried babies different than the typical practice for born babies? If you don't reach the same conclusion I have reached that is okay but I think you will...
I have already answered your question but gave it another good thinking about. Same answer... they do not have any connections yet to other humans. Once delivered they are seen/held by grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings. Stillbirths fall somewhere in between... some have a ceremony and some just send the baby to the lab to be examined and disposed of.
The medical community generally considers it a fetal demise rather than a miscarriage at 20 weeks although many providers call it a fetal demise above 12 weeks the primary concern being whether they themselves can extract it or if the patient must be referred to a specialist.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:32 AM
Miscarried babies are typically discovered at a doctors appointment. They are then extracted in a medical procedure called Suction Dilatation and Curettage. The 'remains' are sent to the pathology lab to be examined for completeness and disease possibilities. No one ever offers to return them to parents and indeed parents that ask are treated as weird.
Miscarried fetuses passed at home are usually accompanied by heavy bleeding and dropped in a toilet, making them hard to find and/or recover.
The simple truth is that there is just not usually anything to bury. It is in no way a sign that the family has not suffered a loss or does not grieve.
By the way Bro. Robbins testimony of having seen graves for miscarried babies seems to show that if people had really wanted to do a burial for a miscarried baby that they could have. His testimoney takes quite a bit away from the argument that they didn't bury miscarried babies because there was nothing to bury.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:35 AM
When a person dies and he has no remains left there will often be a memorial service for that person. Even if there is nothing to bury why is a memorial service type thing not held?
If a person dies who has not friends and few family members there will be no one at a memorial service. My mother died March 1st. She had outlived almost all her friends and most of her family. She has also moved very far away from all of us to be with my brother. There was no service. I viewed her body at the hospital, had a funeral home pick her up and she was cremated. They mailed me her ashes in a box.
These types of arrangements are very common now and if everybody that you know that dies has a funeral you must run around in some sheltered circles. It has never been that the majority of adult humans who die on planet earth in any given time period have funerals.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:40 AM
I have already answered your question but gave it another good thinking about. Same answer... they do not have any connections yet to other humans. Once delivered they are seen/held by grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings. Stillbirths fall somewhere in between... some have a ceremony and some just send the baby to the lab to be examined and disposed of.
The medical community generally considers it a fetal demise rather than a miscarriage at 20 weeks although many providers call it a fetal demise above 12 weeks the primary concern being whether they themselves can extract it or if the patient must be referred to a specialist.
But they do have a connection to other humans. They have a connection with their mother and maybe even their father.
I've went to funerals where I didn't know the person that was being buried because it was a friends uncle or grandpa being buried. Why wouldn't people come to a miscarried babies funeral / memorial service for the same reason I go to my friends family members funerals?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:42 AM
By the way Bro. Robbins testimony of having seen graves for miscarried babies seems to show that if people had really wanted to do a burial for a miscarried baby that they could have. His testimoney takes quite a bit away from the argument that they didn't bury miscarried babies because there was nothing to bury.
You have started to contradict yourself frog. There are USUALLY no remains. That does not stop someone from having a funeral if they desire... when people die in manners where remains are not left one can still have a funeral with an empty casket representing the decedent or a memorial service or NOT... It's up to the families. Most choose to grieve privately for babies lost early in pregnancy as a public announcement would often go to those who did not even know they had ever been pregnant. Also sadly women still feel some shame at losing a pregnancy... many will ask what they 'did wrong to cause it'... So it's not something they want to share with everyone.
How is it that you are judging others grief or using it as a yardstick to try to prove that a fetus is not a human? This is twisting off into something bizarre and convoluted. I have to concur with AYR that you are simply willfully deluded on this topic. So peace out frog.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:43 AM
If a person dies who has not friends and few family members there will be no one at a memorial service. My mother died March 1st. She had outlived almost all her friends and most of her family. She has also moved very far away from all of us to be with my brother. There was no service. I viewed her body at the hospital, had a funeral home pick her up and she was cremated. They mailed me her ashes in a box.
These types of arrangements are very common now and if everybody that you know that dies has a funeral you must run around in some sheltered circles. It has never been that the majority of adult humans who die on planet earth in any given time period have funerals.
I think you are very mistaken on that.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:46 AM
You have started to contradict yourself frog. There are USUALLY no remains. That does not stop someone from having a funeral if they desire... when people die in manners where remains are not left one can still have a funeral with an empty casket representing the decedent or a memorial service or NOT... It's up to the families. Most choose to grieve privately for babies lost early in pregnancy as a public announcement would often go to those who did not even know they had ever been pregnant. Also sadly women still feel some shame at losing a pregnancy... many will ask what they 'did wrong to cause it'... So it's not something they want to share with everyone.
How is it that you are judging others grief or using it as a yardstick to try to prove that a fetus is not a human? This is twisting off into something bizarre and convoluted. I have to concur with AYR that you are simply willfully deluded on this topic. So peace out frog.
You're the one contradicting yourself. You first said they couldn't have a funeral because there was no remains, nothing to bury. Now you're saying they can have a funeral with an empty casket if they wish which must mean they don't wish to.
It should be a very legit to question why people grieve in different ways over a born baby than an unborn one. At least I would think that descrepancy would be worth noting and investigating?
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 09:52 AM
I don't follow?
the "life is cheap" mentality--I prolly can't make this connect any better right now, sorry.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:56 AM
You're the one contradicting yourself. You first said they couldn't have a funeral because there was no remains, nothing to bury. Now you're saying they can have a funeral with an empty casket if they wish which must mean they don't wish to.
No frog... I said they often DO NOT HAVE A FUNERAL... not that they can't. I've also said that many people feel a funeral an expensive obligation and if they can avoid one they will... Easier to do if not everyone is aware that there has been a loss.
But regardless... if there is one set of standards for a miscarriage, another set for a stillbirth and yet others for a child, young person, adult and the very aged... Well the bottom line is that it still changes nothing about whether or not they are a person. You have attempted to set up a fallacy in that if they are treated differently that somehow proves that they have less worth when it does not.
I have simply tried over and over to show you that different families, ethnicities, socioeconomic groups, etc. have different parameters then what is your norm, which appears to be a funeral for all dead humans. Most of us don't do that... we only do funerals when the public would be interested to see the persons final arrangements. Otherwise it is a private matter. There is variance on both sides of that and I've tried to show it...
But really it is all futile discussion as it changes not that a human is a human from it's inception in the mind of God even prior to it's conception here on earth. I believe that God knew each of us in His foreknowledge... So do you also not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, frog?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:57 AM
I think you are very mistaken on that.
And I you. Do you live in a bubble frog?
jfrog
04-17-2012, 10:02 AM
No frog... I said they often DO NOT HAVE A FUNERAL... not that they can't. I've also said that many people feel a funeral an expensive obligation and if they can avoid one they will... Easier to do if not everyone is aware that there has been a loss.
But regardless... if there is one set of standards for a miscarriage, another set for a stillbirth and yet others for a child, young person, adult and the very aged... Well the bottom line is that it still changes nothing about whether or not they are a person. You have attempted to set up a fallacy in that if they are treated differently that somehow proves that they have less worth when it does not.
I have simply tried over and over to show you that different families, ethnicities, socioeconomic groups, etc. have different parameters then what is your norm, which appears to be a funeral for all dead humans. Most of us don't do that... we only do funerals when the public would be interested to see the persons final arrangements. Otherwise it is a private matter. There is variance on both sides of that and I've tried to show it...
But really it is all futile discussion as it changes not that a human is a human from it's inception in the mind of God even prior to it's conception here on earth. I believe that God knew each of us in His foreknowledge... So do you also not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, frog?
I think you mistook my position. My position on this issue regarding burial hasn't been that by showing a miscarried baby is treated as less than human means it isn't a human. That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that abortions stem from society viewing a miscarried baby as less than human and all these practices where a miscarried baby is treated differently than a human being reinforce and propogate that belief.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 10:04 AM
And I you. Do you live in a bubble frog?
Probably. I would be happy to be proven wrong. Let's start in America since we are most familiar with it. Have I been wrong in thinking that burial or cremation with some kind of a service was the typical american way of handling our dead?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 10:09 AM
I think you mistook my position. My position on this issue regarding burial hasn't been that by showing a miscarried baby is treated as less than human means it isn't a human. That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that abortions stem from society viewing a miscarried baby as less than human and all these practices where a miscarried baby is treated differently than a human being reinforce and propogate that belief.
I don't agree.
I have also noticed how you neatly avoid every answering any of my direct questions while I answer yours, even giving them serious time and deliberation to be sure that I am not just speaking from a made up mind.
No frog, you are not making serious attempt for honest dialog... and that bothers me because I believe you have a worthwhile view to share as it is one that is espoused by a huge majority of people.
Bro. Robbins
04-17-2012, 10:25 AM
You have started to contradict yourself frog. There are USUALLY no remains. That does not stop someone from having a funeral if they desire... when people die in manners where remains are not left one can still have a funeral with an empty casket representing the decedent or a memorial service or NOT... It's up to the families. Most choose to grieve privately for babies lost early in pregnancy as a public announcement would often go to those who did not even know they had ever been pregnant. Also sadly women still feel some shame at losing a pregnancy... many will ask what they 'did wrong to cause it'... So it's not something they want to share with everyone.
How is it that you are judging others grief or using it as a yardstick to try to prove that a fetus is not a human? This is twisting off into something bizarre and convoluted. I have to concur with AYR that you are simply willfully deluded on this topic. So peace out frog.
I must say you said very well a couple of points that I wanted to make... just because there is a grave, or a ceremony, doesn't mean there are remains. But by that same token, just because there isn't a ceremony or remains at a marked grave, does not mean that there wasn't any mourning, or grieving over the loss of someone. That pregnancy, is a very intimate, and in the first few weeks, extremely private thing for the mom and the dad, and very few others. Therefore, their mourning is going to be much more private of the loss (remains or not), than with a family member who has interacted with the whole world for years.
And you are so right about the unfortunate stigma some women still feel with miscarriages and still born births. I know of at least 2 women that went through such guilt, and even shame regarding their miscarriages. The husband wanted to at least have some type of memorial, but the poor mom just felt like it was a confirmation of some sort of shortcoming or disappointment at her hands.
The argument of saying the lack of public memorials to miscarriages and still borns made by our fellow poster is frankly a straw man argument.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 10:39 AM
A human is a human from it's inception in the mind of God even prior to it's conception here on earth. I believe that God knew each of us in His foreknowledge... So do you also not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, frog?
I would be interested in you addressing this please frog?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 10:41 AM
I must say you said very well a couple of points that I wanted to make... just because there is a grave, or a ceremony, doesn't mean there are remains. But by that same token, just because there isn't a ceremony or remains at a marked grave, does not mean that there wasn't any mourning, or grieving over the loss of someone. That pregnancy, is a very intimate, and in the first few weeks, extremely private thing for the mom and the dad, and very few others. Therefore, their mourning is going to be much more private of the loss (remains or not), than with a family member who has interacted with the whole world for years.
And you are so right about the unfortunate stigma some women still feel with miscarriages and still born births. I know of at least 2 women that went through such guilt, and even shame regarding their miscarriages. The husband wanted to at least have some type of memorial, but the poor mom just felt like it was a confirmation of some sort of shortcoming or disappointment at her hands.
The argument of saying the lack of public memorials to miscarriages and still borns made by our fellow poster is frankly a straw man argument.
My Lord, blow the trumpets! Bro. Robbins and I have agreed. OH HAPPY DAY!
:yourock
Hoovie
04-17-2012, 10:44 AM
I don't agree.
I have also noticed how you neatly avoid every answering any of my direct questions while I answer yours, even giving them serious time and deliberation to be sure that I am not just speaking from a made up mind.
No frog, you are not making serious attempt for honest dialog... and that bothers me because I believe you have a worthwhile view to share as it is one that is espoused by a huge majority of people.
Really?
A huge majority believe an unborn baby is not a human being?
A huge majority believe abortion should be legal in all trimesters?
I take it that is the frog's position.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 11:44 AM
Really?
A huge majority believe an unborn baby is not a human being?
A huge majority believe abortion should be legal in all trimesters?
I take it that is the frog's position.
I understood frogs position as abortion becoming progressively more distasteful but perhaps not completely illegal at more advanced gestational age. If that is correct then I would say yes they do. Our laws reflect our beliefs as a society for the most part. The majority of people want abortion to be legal and so it is. The majority might place restrictions on gestational age, etc. but since they can't agree, and many see either;
a. The fetus not human until some particular gestational age (frogs position?)
b. The interference of government in private matters as worse than abortion (Aquila's position-loosely)
c. Some other issue that keeps them from being able to be effective or united
We are left with a completely ineffective, very loosely bound group who would change the law. Discussions like this help people to first and foremost identify exactly where they stand on these issues and also help them decide if they could bend a little in order to become part of a cohesive force to slow or stop the current rate of convenience pregnancy terminations, which are by far the majority.
Do you believe that people in the U.S. in general do not support abortion Hoovie?
jfrog
04-17-2012, 12:34 PM
I would be interested in you addressing this please frog?
I believe in God most the time. His characteristics and qualities I couldn't begin to tell you about.
When does God view human life as beginning? I don't know, he never stated his view.
God foreknew Jesus prior to him coming to earth. Does that mean Jesus was human before he came to earth? I don't think so and i don't think you think that either. That means foreknowledge of a human is not evidence of when something becomes human.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 12:41 PM
I understood frogs position as abortion becoming progressively more distasteful but perhaps not completely illegal at more advanced gestational age. If that is correct then I would say yes they do. Our laws reflect our beliefs as a society for the most part. The majority of people want abortion to be legal and so it is. The majority might place restrictions on gestational age, etc. but since they can't agree, and many see either;
a. The fetus not human until some particular gestational age (frogs position?)
b. The interference of government in private matters as worse than abortion (Aquila's position-loosely)
c. Some other issue that keeps them from being able to be effective or united
We are left with a completely ineffective, very loosely bound group who would change the law. Discussions like this help people to first and foremost identify exactly where they stand on these issues and also help them decide if they could bend a little in order to become part of a cohesive force to slow or stop the current rate of convenience pregnancy terminations, which are by far the majority.
Do you believe that people in the U.S. in general do not support abortion Hoovie?
:thumbsup That definetely seems to be my and societys opinion.
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 12:58 PM
I'm curious if the $ value of a fetus has been addressed here, especially in the age of stem cells, and I wonder if T2W might give us any insight into that, as a med prof? Ty
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 01:03 PM
I believe in God most the time. His characteristics and qualities I couldn't begin to tell you about.
When does God view human life as beginning? I don't know, he never stated his view.
Uh....yes He did.
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 01:10 PM
Uh....yes He did.yup
jfrog
04-17-2012, 01:52 PM
Uh....yes He did.
I've never read in the bible that a human beings life begins at conception? Maybe I missed it?
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 01:55 PM
You must have missed it then.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 02:13 PM
You must have missed it then.
Care to enlighten me?
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 02:18 PM
Well, it isn't stated quite that simply, but ya.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 02:24 PM
Care to enlighten me?
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
This verse of scripture tells of God's intent to bring forth a prophet into this world.
Hoovie
04-17-2012, 02:37 PM
I understood frogs position as abortion becoming progressively more distasteful but perhaps not completely illegal at more advanced gestational age. If that is correct then I would say yes they do. Our laws reflect our beliefs as a society for the most part. The majority of people want abortion to be legal and so it is. The majority might place restrictions on gestational age, etc. but since they can't agree, and many see either;
a. The fetus not human until some particular gestational age (frogs position?)
b. The interference of government in private matters as worse than abortion (Aquila's position-loosely)
c. Some other issue that keeps them from being able to be effective or united
We are left with a completely ineffective, very loosely bound group who would change the law. Discussions like this help people to first and foremost identify exactly where they stand on these issues and also help them decide if they could bend a little in order to become part of a cohesive force to slow or stop the current rate of convenience pregnancy terminations, which are by far the majority.
Do you believe that people in the U.S. in general do not support abortion Hoovie?
79% do not support the current abortion-on-demand policy, saying abortion should be legal only in some circumstances (68%), or illegal in all circumstances (11%).
Marist Poll, December 2011
http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=400
jfrog
04-17-2012, 02:38 PM
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
This verse of scripture tells of God's intent to bring forth a prophet into this world.
That is probably the worst prooftext for anything that I have ever seen :(
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 02:50 PM
That is probably the worst prooftext for anything that I have ever seen :(
Yet it becomes clear that when you insert "abortion" anywhere into the equation, God's plan is subverted; hmm...
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 03:15 PM
79% do not support the current abortion-on-demand policy, saying abortion should be legal only in some circumstances (68%), or illegal in all circumstances (11%).
Marist Poll, December 2011
http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=400
But they support it in some form... which is all it takes to keep it legal, KWIM?
If we could cohere those with objections into a group who is willing to say that something more reasonable is worth fighting for rather than 100 bazillion splinter groups whose opinions run the full gamut... Something might actually get DONE. But to do that Christians have to stop seeing any other position than fetal life trumps every other life once it's started as a spiritual compromise... Because that is obviously not just stalemate but checkmate for the other side. To put it in the simplest terms- If you do what you did, you get what you got.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 03:19 PM
About stem cells. Now that cord blood and even menstrual blood can be used to harvest stem cells there would not be a market for fetuses for this purpose.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 03:34 PM
That is probably the worst prooftext for anything that I have ever seen :(
:toofunny
Of course I knew you would find something wrong with the scripture reference I gave you as you would find fault with any scripture reference I would give to you.
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
Perhaps you should prove to me that this particular scripture passage doesn't mean life begins at conception. If God knew Jeremiah before he was in the womb, then sanctified Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he came out of the womb, how then can Jeremiah not be a human in the womb from the very beginning in God's intent?
If you can imply that a human is like the yolk of a chicken egg before 12 gestational weeks, then I can interpret that God knew Jeremiah before he was even formed in the belly. God knew Jeremiah when he was conceived and developing in the womb and God can ordain Jeremiah to be a prophet while yet a "fetus".
Since physicians proved that even embryos are human, since government studies declared embryos are human and should be given the same protection as humans, then why can't you?
Bet you didn't even watch the Silent Scream video and how that baby was sucking it's thumb and trying to move away from the pain stimulus the suction tube was creating for the baby before it snuffed out it's life.
However, once again you want to split hairs on God forbidding the shedding of innocent blood by continuing to spew out that a developing baby is not a human and that mindset is just garbage.
God can decide which one of us is correct on judgment day. I just pray that you quit fooling yourself.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:09 PM
Yet it becomes clear that when you insert "abortion" anywhere into the equation, God's plan is subverted; hmm...
Do you think God doesn't know which babies will be aborted? What makes you so sure he foreknows the ones that will be aborted as anything other than a potential human being?
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:13 PM
:toofunny
Of course I knew you would find something wrong with the scripture reference I gave you as you would find fault with any scripture reference I would give to you.
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
Perhaps you should prove to me that this particular scripture passage doesn't mean life begins at conception. If God knew Jeremiah before he was in the womb, then sanctified Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he came out of the womb, how then can Jeremiah not be a human in the womb from the very beginning in God's intent?
If you can imply that a human is like the yolk of a chicken egg before 12 gestational weeks, then I can interpret that God knew Jeremiah before he was even formed in the belly. God knew Jeremiah when he was conceived and developing in the womb and God can ordain Jeremiah to be a prophet while yet a "fetus".
If God knowing Jeremiah before he was in the womb implies he was a human being while in the womb then it also implies that Jeremiah was also a human being before he entered the womb.
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 04:14 PM
Do you think God doesn't know which babies will be aborted? What makes you so sure he foreknows the ones that will be aborted as anything other than a potential human being?
Poor frog, so delusional. :dogpat
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:16 PM
Poor frog, so delusional. :dogpat
I didn't know it was delusional to want scriptural proof for something God has said.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 04:22 PM
If God knowing Jeremiah before he was in the womb implies he was a human being while in the womb then it also implies that Jeremiah was also a human being before he entered the womb.
There is no implication here frog. I never even said implication. I said that I can interpret this scripture in context to what it says. God said He knew Jeremiah before he formed him in the belly. God said He ordained him as a prophet to the nations. NO implications. Are we human beings after we die? No we become spirits because there is no flesh and blood. There is flesh and blood in the womb and that makes one human. The only implication here is that God knew Jeremiah's spirit before he was formed in the belly.
Did you watch the Silent Scream video?
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 04:32 PM
Do you think God doesn't know which babies will be aborted? What makes you so sure he foreknows the ones that will be aborted as anything other than a potential human being?
Making suppositions about what God knows or what God thinks is treading on dangerous ground, imho.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:33 PM
Making suppositions about what God knows or what God thinks is treading on dangerous ground, imho.
Which is why I have been trying to get you to stop doing that.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 04:33 PM
I didn't know it was delusional to want scriptural proof for something God has said.
I think the delusional part is that you refuse to believe, after all the evidence given that a baby in the womb is human. That is delusional.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 04:38 PM
Which is why I have been trying to get you to stop doing that.
:toofunny
You've been trying to get me to stop?
You are the one making inaccurate statements and interpretations here. I just quoted what scripture says.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:38 PM
There is no implication here frog. I never even said implication. I said that I can interpret this scripture in context to what it says. God said He knew Jeremiah before he formed him in the belly. God said He ordained him as a prophet to the nations. NO implications. Are we human beings after we die? No we become spirits because there is no flesh and blood. There is flesh and blood in the womb and that makes one human. The only implication here is that God knew Jeremiah's spirit before he was formed in the belly.
Did you watch the Silent Scream video?
I think everyone would disagree with you on the bolded position.
Anyways, I suppose I should ask, how does God saying he knew Jeremiah before he formed him the the belly show that Jeremiah was a human person at conception? (What does that verse have to do with this discussion if it wasn't for the reason I done countered?)
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:39 PM
:toofunny
You've been trying to get me to stop?
You are the one making inaccurate statements and interpretations here. I just quoted what scripture says.
Okay. I'll quote a scripture too that proves my position... "Jesus wept."
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:41 PM
I think the delusional part is that you refuse to believe, after all the evidence given that a baby in the womb is human. That is delusional.
Can you tell me what makes a something a human being?
Timmy
04-17-2012, 04:48 PM
If an abortion is not done, a child would be born. That is what makes abortion a sin, is it not?
Then it must be a sin not to have sex!
Booyah! :lol
jfrog
04-17-2012, 04:52 PM
If an abortion is not done, a child would be born. That is what makes abortion a sin, is it not?
Then it must be a sin not to have sex!
Booyah! :lol
No Timmy. Apparently an abortion is wrong because the thing inside is a human being because the bible declares it to be so (Jeremiah 1:5)? and because it's wrong to kill human beings.
Nevermind that no one treats an unborn baby as a human being. We don't give them names, we don't typically give them funerals or burials, we don't even call them human beings, we call them "potential human beings"...
Timmy
04-17-2012, 04:54 PM
No Timmy. Apparently an abortion is wrong because the thing inside is a human being because the bible declares it to be so and because it's wrong to kill human beings.
OK. But still. :lol
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 05:17 PM
I think everyone would disagree with you on the bolded position.
There is no implication here frog. I never even said implication. I said that I can interpret this scripture in context to what it says. God said He knew Jeremiah before he formed him in the belly. God said He ordained him as a prophet to the nations. NO implications. Are we human beings after we die? No we become spirits because there is no flesh and blood. There is flesh and blood in the womb and that makes one human. The only implication here is that God knew Jeremiah's spirit before he was formed in the belly.
Did you watch the Silent Scream video?
So, you are saying that we are flesh and blood after we die? Scripture says we are as the angels when we die.
So I suppose I should ask, how does God saying he knew Jeremiah before he formed him the the belly show that Jeremiah was a human person at conception? (What does that verse have to do with this discussion if it wasn't for the reason I done countered?)
:toofunny
You are the one making the deal out of all this. I am trying to answer your questions the best I can because a lot of them doesn't make any sense to me.
Gee...you can't figure that one out after all I posted about physicians and government declarations?
BTW, did you watch the Silent Scream video?
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 05:19 PM
Oh yeah froggy, did I ever ask you if you viewed the Silent Scream video?
jfrog
04-17-2012, 05:54 PM
Oh yeah froggy, did I ever ask you if you viewed the Silent Scream video?
Nope. I probly won't unless you will watch a video I want you to. (I promise to make sure it's on this topic).
jfrog
04-17-2012, 06:00 PM
So, you are saying that we are flesh and blood after we die? Scripture says we are as the angels when we die.
:toofunny
You are the one making the deal out of all this. I am trying to answer your questions the best I can because a lot of them doesn't make any sense to me.
Gee...you can't figure that one out after all I posted about physicians and government declarations?
BTW, did you watch the Silent Scream video?
For a religious woman you take a very naturalistic approach to humanity. You've not mentioned a soul once or that all humans will have an afterlife. The human soul is the reason most people here will not agree with you that we cease to be human when we die.
I asked for scriptural support of your belief and you quoted some passage in Jeremiah about God knowing him before the womb. You've yet to explain how that is scriptural proof that life begins at conception.
I can find a bunch of doctors and government types that will say just the opposite of yours. So what?
By the way, I'm still waiting on your definition of what it takes to be a human being...
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 06:46 PM
...I asked for scriptural support of your belief and you quoted some passage in Jeremiah about God knowing him before the womb. You've yet to explain how that is scriptural proof that life begins at conception.
I can find a bunch of doctors and government types that will say just the opposite of yours. So what?
So...they aren't going to be Judging you? I mean, by your metric I'm kind of wondering how you believe in God? We got no proof of that, either. (tag)
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 08:38 PM
For a religious woman you take a very naturalistic approach to humanity. You've not mentioned a soul once or that all humans will have an afterlife. The human soul is the reason most people here will not agree with you that we cease to be human when we die.
For one, I am not a "religious" woman in the sense that I adhere to religious regulations. I believe God and His word. I believe that Jesus is God who came to earth wrapped in a robe of flesh. I belief in Jesus Name baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I try to live what Christ taught us in the gospels and what is taught in the New Testament without all the legalism. I once got into the trap of the legalistic conditions that one must look like, speak and act in order to have membership in an organized church system. I am not even thought of as being a "Christian" by some christian members of any organization because I rarely attend the organizational churches. Unlike many people in the church system or even those who got hurt and left the church system, I've made up my mind years ago that what God thinks is the only thing I care about and nobody's judgment of me will affect me enough to quit loving God. That includes you. You see, I don't care what you think or how you try to paint me as a hypocrite. You don't know me. You only come here to try to blitzkrieg posts like your signature says. (more about that at the end of this post) The more you post here shows me who you are, what you believe, and it is not consistent with what Christ teaches. Would Christ teach that women could abort their babies because it is not convenient for them to bear them, raise them and nurture them? No. He taught that whoever shall offend one of the little ones, it would be better for a millstone to be hung around his neck and cast into the sea. That is how much Christ loves and protects little children and they would not even become little children if they are snuffed out before birth.
Could you actually stand before Christ and argue with HIM that a fetus isn't human because it has not been born yet?
I've not mentioned the soul because I thought that was a given..that everybody knew the human being is made up of spirit, soul and body (flesh). I didn't think that I had to write a dissertation on a forum for something I thought everybody already knew.
How can a dead human being still be human? The flesh and blood ceases to exist. It rots and turns back into dust. The dead body lacks a spirit and a soul. The Spirit goes back to God who gave it and the soul goes either heaven or hell....whichever God judges that person's deeds. The human being ceases to be mortal when the flesh and blood dies. This mortal body experiences corruption and God will give us a new body at the resurrection. But we will not be human beings, we will be as the angels in heaven.
But what does your demand for my definition of what a human being have to do with whether a fetus is human or not?
The only one who demands every jot and tittle of explanation on paper is you...I suppose that in hope so that you can try to trap people in their words. Yet, you rarely explain anything yourself. Heh. Nice try.
I asked for scriptural support of your belief and you quoted some passage in Jeremiah about God knowing him before the womb. You've yet to explain how that is scriptural proof that life begins at conception.
When I give you scripture, you reject it. I wonder how I knew you would. :ohplease I think Jeremiah is pretty self explanatory to those who read and pray. When God formed Jeremiah in the belly, he also formed the spirit and soul for the body to grow. He knew Jeremiah's spirit before He formed him in the belly. What other way would you interpret that scripture? That is something YOU haven't explained. Why don't you give us your explanation of that scripture ?
But, since you did not like that scripture, here is another scripture that you will most likely reject because you simply want to delude yourself into thinking that fetuses are not human until ...when???
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Roman 9:10-12
Paul called Jacob and Esau children while they were yet inside the womb.
There are more, but I think that you would find all sorts of excuses to reject them.
I can find a bunch of doctors and government types that will say just the opposite of yours. So what?
I'm sure you can and you wouldn't have to look far. But they cannot give unrefutable compelling evidence such as the physician did in the video, The Silent Scream did.
You won't watch it unless I watch some of your videos? How childish. You just admitted that you are like a block of concrete....all mixed up and set in stone. I think that you do not want to watch the video because it might just touch something in you...maybe. Or maybe you are squeamish..can't stand the sight of seeing a baby ripped apart in the womb. Maybe you don't want to see it's little mouth open up wide in a scream that you can see, but won't hear because it's flesh and bones are being ripped and shattered with only it's head left floating inside the womb. That would shatter your illusion that the baby inside is not a human being. That God couldn't possibly think enough of a "fetus" to give him/her a spirit and soul along with it's growing body. Perhaps you are not man or woman (whatever you are behind your blitzkrieg name) enough to take a good look at the reality of abortion and rethink your position. Perhaps your pride won't let you rescind that brick hard stance of viewing a helpless baby in the womb as being a human being.
For those of you who never thought about frog's signature--You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now....
From Wikipedia:
Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war") is an anglicised word describing all-motorised force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank. Through constant motion, the blitzkrieg attempts to keep its enemy off-balance, making it difficult to respond effectively at any given point before the front has already moved on.
So are the people here considered to be your enemy frog? You have hopelessly mangled this thread by your confusing questions and offense tactics used here to try to make accusations of Christian hypocrisy over this abortion issue?
Titus2woman
04-17-2012, 09:06 PM
No Timmy. Apparently an abortion is wrong because the thing inside is a human being because the bible declares it to be so (Jeremiah 1:5)? and because it's wrong to kill human beings.
Nevermind that no one treats an unborn baby as a human being. We don't give them names, we don't typically give them funerals or burials, we don't even call them human beings, we call them "potential human beings"...
We do give them names. We do grieve their loss. You are not in charge of what constitutes a funeral for everyone in every situation. When there is enough of them left after death many people do bury them and if they do not you still have not right to judge them or say that they believed their baby was not a person because they do not spend the appropriate 8K to have what you have determined is a proper funeral.
And last but not least... what planet do you live on? I have never, ever, in my 25+ years as a nurse in women's healthcare heard someone call an unborn child a potential human being. "When is your baby due?" "Have you picked a name for the baby?" "The baby has a heart defect and may need major surgery after it is born." "Have you considered putting the baby up for adoption?" Healthcare professionals, social workers, and laymen alike call babies babies... NOT POTENTIAL HUMAN BEINGS.
You have been swallowed alive by the blackness that is your delusion.
I am not sure why we continue except that I have to ask you this question.
What if you are wrong?
Because here is what would happen if everyone agreed that I was right. Women and men alike would have a deeper respect for their own bodies and abstinence would be considered a reasonable option for young people instead of a freakish choice. Those not abstinent would be more responsible about contraception and sexual activity thereby avoiding much of the heartache that comes with casual sex including diseases, abandonment, abuse, and yes, unplanned pregnancy. As a result more pregnancies would be wanted and for those that were not there would be babies available for those who desire children but can not have their own and they would be available for adoption at younger ages.
If you are right we get what we have- OVER A MILLION ABORTIONS A YEAR in the US. Does that make you proud? Do you hope to win others over to the way you think? Is this what you want your daughters to believe is right and good... How does parental counsel look from someone who believes that it is just OK to have an abortion?
I've had a couple of grandchildren come into the world under less than ideal circumstances and still I can not see myself saying to my son... This is a rotten time to have knocked up your girlfriend... You have another year of college to go and we're not able to carry you past that and certainly not available to be taking care of your kid while you all finish so just head on down to Planned Parenthood and get that thing out of there already! I am not having your fiancee walk down the isle with a baby bump... and who is paying for a new dress??? Here is $300 go get her belly flattened out... it's cheaper than buying a new dress... There is a certain sickness to this way of thinking even if we completely put religion aside.
I will never forget hearing a patient describe a late term saline abortion. Evidently the baby moves around a lot and 'kicks like crazy' before it dies when you replace the amniotic fluid with saline. It was haunting and I was not even a Christian then.
I almost could cuss.
bbyrd009
04-17-2012, 09:17 PM
Word
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 09:30 PM
I will never forget hearing a patient describe a late term saline abortion. Evidently the baby moves around a lot and 'kicks like crazy' before it dies when you replace the amniotic fluid with saline. It was haunting and I was not even a Christian then.
I almost could cuss.
Perhaps pro-choice people never consider that the baby is burned inside and out. They do not realize that baby swallows the saline and that it gets into the lungs and completely burns and strips away the outer skin of the baby. This baby is in agony because an unborn baby can feel pain.
jfrog
04-17-2012, 09:39 PM
For one, I am not a "religious" woman in the sense that I adhere to religious regulations. I believe God and His word. I believe that Jesus is God who came to earth wrapped in a robe of flesh. I belief in Jesus Name baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I try to live what Christ taught us in the gospels and what is taught in the New Testament without all the legalism. I once got into the trap of the legalistic conditions that one must look like, speak and act in order to have membership in an organized church system. I am not even thought of as being a "Christian" by some christian members of any organization because I rarely attend the organizational churches. Unlike many people in the church system or even those who got hurt and left the church system, I've made up my mind years ago that what God thinks is the only thing I care about and nobody's judgment of me will affect me enough to quit loving God. That includes you.
:thumbsup
You see, I don't care what you think or how you try to paint me as a hypocrite. You don't know me. You only come here to try to blitzkrieg posts like your signature says. (more about that at the end of this post) The more you post here shows me who you are, what you believe, and it is not consistent with what Christ teaches.
Would Christ teach that women could abort their babies because it is not convenient for them to bear them, raise them and nurture them? No. He taught that whoever shall offend one of the little ones, it would be better for a millstone to be hung around his neck and cast into the sea. That is how much Christ loves and protects little children and they would not even become little children if they are snuffed out before birth.
Christ loving and protecting little children does not necessitate that he loves and protects a fetus before it turns into a little child.
Could you actually stand before Christ and argue with HIM that a fetus isn't human because it has not been born yet?
You are assuming it would be an argument. He might agree with me.
I've not mentioned the soul because I thought that was a given..that everybody knew the human being is made up of spirit, soul and body (flesh). I didn't think that I had to write a dissertation on a forum for something I thought everybody already knew.
Fair enough, I'd like to talk about the soul though. I'm assuming that since you believe it's a human being at conception that it has a human soul at that time too. What about identical twins who divided in the womb? Did God only impart one soul to them or did two souls inhabit the same thing until it finally split?
How can a dead human being still be human? The flesh and blood ceases to exist. It rots and turns back into dust. The dead body lacks a spirit and a soul. The Spirit goes back to God who gave it and the soul goes either heaven or hell....whichever God judges that person's deeds. The human being ceases to be mortal when the flesh and blood dies. This mortal body experiences corruption and God will give us a new body at the resurrection. But we will not be human beings, we will be as the angels in heaven.
Yes we will be different in the afterlife with a glorified body and all but that doesn't mean we cease to be human. I think you are tying your definition human too closely with this earthly body.
But what does your demand for my definition of what a human being have to do with whether a fetus is human or not?
The only one who demands every jot and tittle of explanation on paper is you...I suppose that in hope so that you can try to trap people in their words. Yet, you rarely explain anything yourself. Heh. Nice try.
I'm actually quite forgiving on that and try to give you every opportunity to correct and clarify yourself. However I will point out when I believe something isn't adding up.
When I give you scripture, you reject it. I wonder how I knew you would. :ohplease I think Jeremiah is pretty self explanatory to those who read and pray. When God formed Jeremiah in the belly, he also formed the spirit and soul for the body to grow. He knew Jeremiah's spirit before He formed him in the belly. What other way would you interpret that scripture? That is something YOU haven't explained. Why don't you give us your explanation of that scripture ?
I already explained why the Jeremiah passage wasn't a good prooftext for showing he was a human being at conception but if you insist that I do it again okay...
God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived by his foreknowledge. There wasn't actually a person before conception for God to know but God still knew him. It's a passage detailing how special Jeremiah was to God's plan. It doesn't show Jeremiah was somehow human before or during his conception or even during the womb. What it does show is that God took notice in his foreknowledge of Jeremiah and that makes Jeremiah a pretty special person for God to take notice of him in such a way.
But, since you did not like that scripture, here is another scripture that you will most likely reject because you simply want to delude yourself into thinking that fetuses are not human until ...when???
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Roman 9:10-12
Paul called Jacob and Esau children while they were yet inside the womb.
For President Barack Obama had yet to take the Oath of Office. (I can refer to Barack Obama as President Barack Obama even though I am talking about a time before he was President.) Likewise I can refer to Jacob while in the womb as a child even though I am talking about a time before he was born.
There are more, but I think that you would find all sorts of excuses to reject them.
I'm sure you can and you wouldn't have to look far. But they cannot give unrefutable compelling evidence such as the physician did in the video, The Silent Scream did.
You won't watch it unless I watch some of your videos? How childish. You just admitted that you are like a block of concrete....all mixed up and set in stone. I think that you do not want to watch the video because it might just touch something in you...maybe. Or maybe you are squeamish..can't stand the sight of seeing a baby ripped apart in the womb. Maybe you don't want to see it's little mouth open up wide in a scream that you can see, but won't hear because it's flesh and bones are being ripped and shattered with only it's head left floating inside the womb. That would shatter your illusion that the baby inside is not a human being. That God couldn't possibly think enough of a "fetus" to give him/her a spirit and soul along with it's growing body. Perhaps you are not man or woman (whatever you are behind your blitzkrieg name) enough to take a good look at the reality of abortion and rethink your position. Perhaps your pride won't let you rescind that brick hard stance of viewing a helpless baby in the womb as being a human being.
For those of you who never thought about frog's signature--You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now....
From Wikipedia:
Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war") is an anglicised word describing all-motorised force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank. Through constant motion, the blitzkrieg attempts to keep its enemy off-balance, making it difficult to respond effectively at any given point before the front has already moved on.
So are the people here considered to be your enemy frog? You have hopelessly mangled this thread by your confusing questions and offense tactics used here to try to make accusations of Christian hypocrisy over this abortion issue?
First: You questioning the importance of having a definition for human being in a discussion about whether unborns are human beings just boggles my mind.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 10:35 PM
Frog: First: You questioning the importance of having a definition for human being in a discussion about whether unborns are human beings just boggles my mind.
That is something YOU should have established in the beginning before you went of half baked on this subject. Why should I have to have a definition for who is human? You sound like the people who declared that black people were not human, then 2/3 human. They had a definition for who was human back then too....and a quite inaccurate definition. They also defined who was black. According to those who had a definition of who was black, one drop of black blood in your body made you black and subject to cruel dehumanizing tactic, maltreatment, suppression and oppression. People like you want to dehumanize the defenseless and oppress their existence. Your attempt to dehumanize the unborn to sear someones conscious for "their right to choose" is pathetic!
--------------
Frog:Christ loving and protecting little children does not necessitate that he loves and protects a fetus before it turns into a little child.
Scripture please? How do you know this to be true? Unprobable and ineffective answer.
--------------------
Frog:You are assuming it would be an argument. He might agree with me.
Might? No, you are assuming it might be an argument. Is there any scriptural evidence that anybody ever argued with Christ? He spoke and when he did, most tricky people were speechless. I have much trouble believing that Christ, who is sinless would agree with your stance. If he condemned husbands who put away their wives for little to no reason, what makes you think he would tell a woman that it is acceptable to go and abort her child? What if the aborted was conceived and formed in the womb for God's purpose just like Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Elizabeth and Sarah were both old when they found themselves with child. Do you think that God would be pleased because if they lived in today's world, they might have thought that they were too old to bear a child and aborted it? John the baptist was given the Holy Spirit right in the womb. You actually believe that Christ would advocate a woman inhibit or disrupt that child from being born? You see people today abort their children because they cannot see how they will raise them for whatever reason...financial, lack of love, cramping their lifestyle...all inexcusable excuses for with God...nothing is impossible.
-----------------------
Frog: I'm actually quite forgiving on that and try to give you every opportunity to correct and clarify yourself. However I will point out when I believe something isn't adding up.
There is a whole lot of things that don't add up in your posts either. And you don't answer question the same as you expect others to answer your questions.
When you do, you do not elaborate.
--------------------
Frog:Fair enough, I'd like to talk about the soul though. I'm assuming that since you believe it's a human being at conception that it has a human soul at that time too. What about identical twins who divided in the womb? Did God only impart one soul to them or did two souls inhabit the same thing until it finally split?
You tell me not to assume what God will or will not do, yet you want me to answer this question? The only scripture I know of at the moment for how God imparted a soul into man is in Genesis 2:7. Why do you ask for me to assume how God put souls into the babies? If the bible reveals this, then you can enlighten me. But don't automatically assume since there may not be scripture, the baby is not human. Since I cannot give you scripture, I will just give you food for thought.
What if God imparted two souls into them and that caused the split?
--------------------------------------
Frog:God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived by his foreknowledge. There wasn't actually a person before conception for God to know but God still knew him. It's a passage detailing how special Jeremiah was to God's plan. It doesn't show Jeremiah was somehow human before or during his conception or even during the womb. What it does show is that God took notice in his foreknowledge of Jeremiah and that makes Jeremiah a pretty special person for God to take notice of him in such a way.
Scripture for that belief? You know that for a fact? We know Jeremiah was not a "person" before conception, but you have no scripture to support what you are saying any more than you say Jeremiah 1:5 does not support my stance. Apparently, Satan speaks to God, is a real entity and went to and fro from heaven and earth at will at during some time. Was he just "foreknowledge" to God? No. Satan was a created being and you don't know anymore than I do if Jeremiah was a created spirit in heaven that time God "knew" him before he was formed in the womb. But to say he was a "foreknowledge" is grasping at straws.
--------------------
Frog:For President Barack Obama had yet to take the Oath of Office. (I can refer to Barack Obama as President Barack Obama even though I am talking about a time before he was President.) Likewise I can Jacob while in the womb as a child even though I am talking about a time before he was born.
Quite a lame example. You don't even understand that scripture passage. You just don't believe the bible. It says plainly "at the conception".
Pretty much everything you posted here is quite lame with absolutely no evidence to back up your surmisings. And yes, all you have written is just what you are thinking and conjuring up answers. No scriptural evidence. Since you require it from me, how about you giving scripture to support your view? This is after all a bible based belief forum.
---------------------------------------------
You still ignoring the video. That video pretty much answers all the questions you ask me concerning if the baby in the womb is human or not. It really is a no-brainer. God says life is in the blood. Babies pump blood from their hearts for all but 21 days while in the womb.
Your comments are ineffective to convincing me otherwise.
AreYouReady?
04-17-2012, 10:55 PM
Since frog is quite liberal with his questions about why christians do believe that the unborn is human, I have a few of my own questions to him.
1. Why do you declare that the unborn is not human until a certain week in the gestation period? You must have some reason for that assumption to debate it so passionately.
2. Don't you think that women should be more responsible about their body when it comes to having sex? Don't you think that being responsible includes taking responsibility for a baby doesn't mean getting rid of it?
3. Why did God and the people back in those ancient times believe in women being chaste and virginity was so important to the husbands that betrothed them?
4. You criticize that some christians do not bury miscarried babies.. not excusing that in many cases there are no remains. Yet you say nothing about the aborted babies being thrown in dumpsters, sold to laboratories for research, using them for stem cell research and other really disgusting things. Which is the greater sin?
Aquila
04-18-2012, 06:18 AM
Abortion is a tragic reality. At the end of the day the question is... If a woman decides she doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term, who ultimately has the authority to make the choice to abort or not? Government or the pregnant woman.
Think about it... if a pregnant woman wanted an abortion and the government said "no", the government has essentially seized her body legally and is forcing her to give birth. This makes pregnant women wards of the state. While I HATE abortion and I think it's a terrible tragedy... I'm not so sure that government is the answer. Someone has to ulitmately have the final say. Pro-choice people believe that choice should reside in the hands of individual women not state house bureaucrats.
Think about it... a doctor tells you and your significant other about a condition that could threaten the mother's life or render her infertile and states that terminating the pregnancy is an option. That's a very dark and painful moment. Do you want to have to have a board of doctors review your case and then appeal to a government official or judge for permission to perform the procedure... or do you believe that such a difficult and painful choice should reside between you, your wife, and your God?
jfrog
04-18-2012, 06:43 AM
Since frog is quite liberal with his questions about why christians do believe that the unborn is human, I have a few of my own questions to him.
1. Why do you declare that the unborn is not human until a certain week in the gestation period? You must have some reason for that assumption to debate it so passionately.
There are things called genetic chimmeras. These occur when there are two embryos that fuse together and make one human person. But since both embryos were human persons then both have souls right? And since neither embryo died then both souls are still in their body right? But that leads us to quite a predicament, we would have one preson with 2 souls... That doesn't make sense to me so I believe embryos don't yet have a soul and that the soul is infused sometime later during pregnancy.
2. Don't you think that women should be more responsible about their body when it comes to having sex? Don't you think that being responsible includes taking responsibility for a baby doesn't mean getting rid of it?
The only comment I have is that "responsibility" means nothing in a debate about equating abortion to murder or unborns to human beings.
3. Why did God and the people back in those ancient times believe in women being chaste and virginity was so important to the husbands that betrothed them?
What does this have to do with abortion?
4. You criticize that some christians do not bury miscarried babies.. not excusing that in many cases there are no remains. Yet you say nothing about the aborted babies being thrown in dumpsters, sold to laboratories for research, using them for stem cell research and other really disgusting things. Which is the greater sin?
I criticize christianity when it's actions don't add up to its words. The simple fact is that my criticism of no funerals for unborns was more of a revelation to me. It was evidence that Christians haven't always held to this human life begins at conception view and guess what... my conclusion based on that evidence was spot on. Christians haven't always thought of unborns as human beings. In fact one author traces the change of opinion to some time after 1979. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/ This means that despite what conclusion you want to draw from unborns not being buried.. Christianity has not typically counted unborns as human beings until relatively recently. Further, it seems the number of unborn burials and memorial services are increasing and I think this is directly tied to Christianity's new position that an unborn is a human being. Therefore my originial assumption that unborns are not buried and given funerals means that they were counted as less than born human beings seems absolutely correct when all this evidence is taken into consideration.
Titus2woman
04-18-2012, 07:03 AM
Abortion is a tragic reality. At the end of the day the question is... If a woman decides she doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term, who ultimately has the authority to make the choice to abort or not? Government or the pregnant woman.
Think about it... if a pregnant woman wanted an abortion and the government said "no", the government has essentially seized her body legally and is forcing her to give birth. This makes pregnant women wards of the state. While I HATE abortion and I think it's a terrible tragedy... I'm not so sure that government is the answer. Someone has to ulitmately have the final say. Pro-choice people believe that choice should reside in the hands of individual women not state house bureaucrats.
Think about it... a doctor tells you and your significant other about a condition that could threaten the mother's life or render her infertile and states that terminating the pregnancy is an option. That's a very dark and painful moment. Do you want to have to have a board of doctors review your case and then appeal to a government official or judge for permission to perform the procedure... or do you believe that such a difficult and painful choice should reside between you, your wife, and your God?
While I agree in your scenario Aquila I do not agree that abortion on demand should be legal or that a woman not being able to obtain an abortion for convenience is "the state holding pregnant women prisoner'... There are lot's and lot's of mistakes you can make that will not be fixed by medicine, procedures are refused by insurance companies all the time as unnecessary. Alcoholic who drink themselves into liver failure are refused liver transplants all the time in example. I believe that the criteria for abortion should be changed to being something beyond 'inconvenience'. Meeting women who are on their sixth termination because they 'can't remember' to take their oral contraceptive pills and won't get an IUD or implant or sterilization has perhaps made me jaded???
If a woman becomes pregnant and does not want to be pregnant but is otherwise healthy I absolutely resent that my tax dollars are used to terminate her pregnancy. I feel the government has no right to spend my money this way. That is also governmental abuse.
Titus2woman
04-18-2012, 07:09 AM
I criticize christianity when it's actions don't add up to its words. The simple fact is that my criticism of no funerals for unborns was more of a revelation to me. It was evidence that Christians haven't always held to this human life begins at conception view and guess what... my conclusion based on that evidence was spot on. Christians haven't always thought of unborns as human beings. In fact one author traces the change of opinion to some time after 1979. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/ This means that despite what conclusion you want to draw from unborns not being buried.. Christianity has not typically counted unborns as human beings until relatively recently. Further, it seems the number of unborn burials and memorial services are increasing and I think this is directly tied to Christianity's new position that an unborn is a human being. Therefore my originial assumption that unborns are not buried and given funerals means that they were counted as less than born human beings seems absolutely correct when all this evidence is taken into consideration.
Be that what it may we are now able to see infants in the womb via sonogram and laparoscopy. We are able to save their lives at very early gestational ages outside the womb and technology will roll that age back even further soon. So we now KNOW they are human, feel pain, respond to stimulus, etc. If people were unsure before they can certainly be sure now from a medical standpoint, religion aside.
I don't think any scripture is going to satisfy you frog and it's the reason I haven't quoted any... but aborting healthy babies from healthy mothers does not fit the 'Be fruitful and multiply' model at all.
jfrog
04-18-2012, 07:13 AM
Abortion is a tragic reality. At the end of the day the question is... If a woman decides she doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term, who ultimately has the authority to make the choice to abort or not? Government or the pregnant woman.
Think about it... if a pregnant woman wanted an abortion and the government said "no", the government has essentially seized her body legally and is forcing her to give birth. This makes pregnant women wards of the state. While I HATE abortion and I think it's a terrible tragedy... I'm not so sure that government is the answer. Someone has to ulitmately have the final say. Pro-choice people believe that choice should reside in the hands of individual women not state house bureaucrats.
Think about it... a doctor tells you and your significant other about a condition that could threaten the mother's life or render her infertile and states that terminating the pregnancy is an option. That's a very dark and painful moment. Do you want to have to have a board of doctors review your case and then appeal to a government official or judge for permission to perform the procedure... or do you believe that such a difficult and painful choice should reside between you, your wife, and your God?
One can prove that with a certain definition of human being whether a fetus is a human being or not but one cannot prove which definition of human being is the correct one. This makes the question a more philosophical and religious one and thus something that cannot really be answered by the government.
However, there are other reasons to ban abortion than simply because a fetus is a human being. A fetus being a potential human being may be enough cause to afford it some rights and do think that sometimes the rights of even a potential person my trump the rights of an actual person.
jfrog
04-18-2012, 07:22 AM
Be that what it may we are now able to see infants in the womb via sonogram and laparoscopy. We are able to save their lives at very early gestational ages outside the womb and technology will roll that age back even further soon. So we now KNOW they are human, feel pain, respond to stimulus, etc. If people were unsure before they can certainly be sure now from a medical standpoint, religion aside.
I don't think any scripture is going to satisfy you frog and it's the reason I haven't quoted any... but aborting healthy babies from healthy mothers does not fit the 'Be fruitful and multiply' model at all.
Neither does contraception but I'm sure you're okay with that.
Medicine does not answer the question of what is a human being. Medicine says look we can see the fetus and at certain ages of development it looks startlingly human. So what? We knew it would eventually look human if it came out looking like a human. So what if it feels pain. Cows feel pain too but we still grind them into hamburgers every day.
The one thing I can agree with you on is that we are eventually going to be able to get fetuses out and alive at very early ages. That's amazing and will play a major role in ending abortions. :thumbsup Having a fetus outside the womb and living still doesn't necessitate that it's a human being though.
bbyrd009
04-18-2012, 08:07 AM
good point, on the contraception.
coadie
04-18-2012, 08:51 AM
There are gods that demand child sacrifices... so it's not a total shock to me the abortion butchers might pray.
I have heard of pastors committing adultery praying for blessing and protection when with their mistress.
I have also heard of adulterors saying the affair was a special gift from God.
I have heard of atheists praying during a pop quize in school. (I thought prayer in schools was verbotten)
Hoovie
04-18-2012, 09:02 AM
Abortion is a tragic reality. At the end of the day the question is... If a woman decides she doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term, who ultimately has the authority to make the choice to abort or not? Government or the pregnant woman.
Think about it... if a pregnant woman wanted an abortion and the government said "no", the government has essentially seized her body legally and is forcing her to give birth. This makes pregnant women wards of the state. While I HATE abortion and I think it's a terrible tragedy... I'm not so sure that government is the answer. Someone has to ulitmately have the final say. Pro-choice people believe that choice should reside in the hands of individual women not state house bureaucrats.
Think about it... a doctor tells you and your significant other about a condition that could threaten the mother's life or render her infertile and states that terminating the pregnancy is an option. That's a very dark and painful moment. Do you want to have to have a board of doctors review your case and then appeal to a government official or judge for permission to perform the procedure... or do you believe that such a difficult and painful choice should reside between you, your wife, and your God?
I thought about it... and I still believe abortion is murder. I believe the penalty for killing should pretty much be the same five minutes before birth as it is five minutes after birth. (even though it might be argued killing a baby outside the womb is a bit less deviant... since, in the womb, it's mouth is prevented from screaming for help.)
Titus2woman
04-18-2012, 09:03 AM
Neither does contraception but I'm sure you're okay with that.
Medicine does not answer the question of what is a human being. Medicine says look we can see the fetus and at certain ages of development it looks startlingly human. So what? We knew it would eventually look human if it came out looking like a human. So what if it feels pain. Cows feel pain too but we still grind them into hamburgers every day.
The one thing I can agree with you on is that we are eventually going to be able to get fetuses out and alive at very early ages. That's amazing and will play a major role in ending abortions. :thumbsup Having a fetus outside the womb and living still doesn't necessitate that it's a human being though.
Actually in my personal life I am not OK with contraception, much of which interfers with implantation rather than conception so it abortifacient. However I do not make other women's decisions in my work, not about contraception and not about abortion. I am a care provider, not a life coach. I simply see the lesser of many evils that need to be used in a world where there is a lot of unmarried, even promiscuious sex going on. It is the reality... and again I have no desire to force sinners into the Christian model- they are supposed to be doing exactly what they are doing. They can have contraception, they can have abortions, heck, they can kill the store clerk down the street when they rob him.... but I won't support laws that make it legal to do so and I do support laws that make it illegal.
Aquila
04-18-2012, 10:46 AM
While I agree in your scenario Aquila I do not agree that abortion on demand should be legal or that a woman not being able to obtain an abortion for convenience is "the state holding pregnant women prisoner'... There are lot's and lot's of mistakes you can make that will not be fixed by medicine, procedures are refused by insurance companies all the time as unnecessary. Alcoholic who drink themselves into liver failure are refused liver transplants all the time in example. I believe that the criteria for abortion should be changed to being something beyond 'inconvenience'. Meeting women who are on their sixth termination because they 'can't remember' to take their oral contraceptive pills and won't get an IUD or implant or sterilization has perhaps made me jaded???
I understand how you feel. I think abortion for convenience is terrible. However, what do we do? Let's say a woman is pregnant and wants another abortion. Do we say, "No. You must have this child."? Essentially it's her body, does the state have the power to force her to give birth? Sadly, I'm more afraid of the government having that kind of power than I am of her personal decisions. She will answer for her choices in the judgment.
If a woman becomes pregnant and does not want to be pregnant but is otherwise healthy I absolutely resent that my tax dollars are used to terminate her pregnancy. I feel the government has no right to spend my money this way. That is also governmental abuse.
Agreed. I strongly disagree with tax dollars being used to fund abortions.
Aquila
04-18-2012, 10:52 AM
One can prove that with a certain definition of human being whether a fetus is a human being or not but one cannot prove which definition of human being is the correct one. This makes the question a more philosophical and religious one and thus something that cannot really be answered by the government.
However, there are other reasons to ban abortion than simply because a fetus is a human being. A fetus being a potential human being may be enough cause to afford it some rights and do think that sometimes the rights of even a potential person my trump the rights of an actual person.
Some would argue that the power of choosing life and death rests in the hands of private citizens every day. From self-defense to taking a loved one off life-support. There are various situations wherein a human being is vested with the legal authority and power to decide the life or death of another. Since a woman's body is her sovereign person, the courts have ruled that she has the power of life and death in her choices. She might choose to have the child or she might choose to abortion. The decision lands squarely in the lap of every woman who becomes pregnant.
Hoovie
04-18-2012, 10:55 AM
I understand how you feel. I think abortion for convenience is terrible. However, what do we do? Let's say a woman is pregnant and wants another abortion. Do we say, "No. You must have this child."? Essentially it's her body, does the state have the power to force her to give birth? Sadly, I'm more afraid of the government having that kind of power than I am of her personal decisions. She will answer for her choices in the judgment.
Agreed. I strongly disagree with tax dollars being used to fund abortions.
The answer is the same whether the child is born or unborn. Sure it's a personal decision but that is - between right and wrong.
The snuffing out of life aside, abortion is generally more harmful to women than childbirth.
Aquila
04-18-2012, 10:59 AM
I thought about it... and I still believe abortion is murder. I believe the penalty for killing should pretty much be the same five minutes before birth as it is five minutes after birth. (even though it might be argued killing a baby outside the womb is a bit less deviant... since, in the womb, it's mouth is prevented from screaming for help.)
Morally, I agree with you. However, legally I have my concerns. If abortion is "murder" and was banned today, there isn't a statue of limitation on murder. We'd have to turn around and prosecute every woman who has ever procured an abortion for murder. We'd also have to prosecute doctors who performed them.
Can you imagine how banning abortion and making it "murder" would tear our social fabric to shreds? It would be a witch hunt.
I was in the Army. I also had to decide to allow my mother to pass by having life-support removed. People have the power to make life or death decisions every day. The only way I can resolve this in my mind is... a woman, given the nature of pregnancy and her sovereign control of her own body, has the power to choose life or death. With great power comes great responsibility. Only God knows if an abortion was truly warranted or not. However, I can't see empowering government to essentially seize her, make her a ward of the state, and force her to give birth when she doesn't desire to. It's TERRIBLE. I don't feel it's a celebrated right like many on the left. However, I see it as a solemn and serious use of authority of a woman. With great power comes great responsibility. We can only pray for and counsel women considering abortion or who have procured an abortion. :(
Hoovie
04-18-2012, 11:14 AM
Morally, I agree with you. However, legally I have my concerns. If abortion is "murder" and was banned today, there isn't a statue of limitation on murder. We'd have to turn around and prosecute every woman who has ever procured an abortion for murder. We'd also have to prosecute doctors who performed them.
Can you imagine how banning abortion and making it "murder" would tear our social fabric to shreds? It would be a witch hunt.
I was in the Army. I also had to decide to allow my mother to pass by having life-support removed. People have the power to make life or death decisions every day. The only way I can resolve this in my mind is... a woman, given the nature of pregnancy and her sovereign control of her own body, has the power to choose life or death. With great power comes great responsibility. Only God knows if an abortion was truly warranted or not. However, I can't see empowering government to essentially seize her, make her a ward of the state, and force her to give birth when she doesn't desire to. It's TERRIBLE. I don't feel it's a celebrated right like many on the left. However, I see it as a solemn and serious use of authority of a woman. With great power comes great responsibility. We can only pray for and counsel women considering abortion or who have procured an abortion. :(
Morally, I don't think you agree with me. Sorry. Tearing the social fabric is not a reasonable consideration when considering tearing the limbs off an innocent child.
A woman's right to choose whether to keep a child, ends short of killing the same. We are not talking about her right to donate a kidney...
AreYouReady?
04-18-2012, 11:56 AM
Hoovie,
Is an unborn baby human?
Aquila
04-18-2012, 11:58 AM
Morally, I don't think you agree with me. Sorry. Tearing the social fabric is not a reasonable consideration when considering tearing the limbs off an innocent child.
A woman's right to choose whether to keep a child, ends short of killing the same. We are not talking about her right to donate a kidney...
So you believe that the GOVERNMENT should force a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to? Do we seize her, lock her up, and force her to have the child? Or do we prosecute her for murder (along with the abortion provider) if she procures an illegal abortion?
I look at it like this... I don't trust the government on this one. If my wife was presented with an issue wherein abortion might be a consideration, that choice should be up to us with much counsel and prayer from our pastor and medical professionals. I do not want a panel of doctors and/or government bureaucrats making that very important and potentially painful decision for us, especially if it's an election year. Government bureaucrats might sacrifice both my wife and unborn child on the altar of political expediency.
AreYouReady?
04-18-2012, 12:03 PM
The government espouses Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood believes in eugenics. The most likely scenario is that we will go by way that China is doing.
Forced abortions will more likely be the norm and limits to how many children a person may be allowed. Sterilization may be the next push for "undesirables".
Hoovie
04-18-2012, 12:18 PM
So you believe that the GOVERNMENT should force a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to? Do we seize her, lock her up, and force her to have the child? Or do we prosecute her for murder (along with the abortion provider) if she procures an illegal abortion?
I look at it like this... I don't trust the government on this one. If my wife was presented with an issue wherein abortion might be a consideration, that choice should be up to us with much counsel and prayer from our pastor and medical professionals. I do not want a panel of doctors and/or government bureaucrats making that very important and potentially painful decision for us, especially if it's an election year. Government bureaucrats might sacrifice both my wife and unborn child on the altar of political expediency.
I am as skeptical of government as most. While it's imperfect in many aspects, it is what we have received, and what we have to work with - not to mention ordained by God... as they stand for righteousness.
Sure there has to be an investigation. Of course, "doctors and/or government bureaucrats" will be involved - not unlike infanticide cases being pursued now. Sure the evidence could become muddled. Infants are small and their bodies easily dismembered and discarded...
When it comes to elective abortion of a viable fetus, counsel and prayer from a pastor should be occurring on death row. For a non viable fetus the charge might be reduced to second degree... IDK
Aquila
04-18-2012, 12:20 PM
The government espouses Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood believes in eugenics. The most likely scenario is that we will go by way that China is doing.
Forced abortions will more likely be the norm and limits to how many children a person may be allowed. Sterilization may be the next push for "undesirables".
But don't you understand the risks by expanding governmental power here in the US? If we grant the government the power to force women not to abort... the government might eventually use said power to force women to abort. So far, it's best to leave the government out of the equation altogether, placing the free power of choice upon individual citizens. This ensures that the citizens remain free and the government remains restricted on the issue.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.