The abortion issue-

July 30, 2004

For fear of side tracking the democratic convention thread, I place this into it's own thread.

I want this to be as fair to the issue as possible. It is a highly emotional issue as well as a troubling one that needs to be discussed. It is a complex issue that entails many basic values that evoke an emotional response. Please, Please be careful what you report here, and don't shoot messagers.

Shane is known to have quoted and said-

Quote:

I know what lengths that ladies (young and old) went to to abort their unborn child.

What is the reasoning here? Because there will be a group of women that still want to murder babies we should keep it legal? Murder is murder regardless of how many people want to do it. It is wrong. It ends a life.

You are correct. It does end a life. A life that has never begun. That is emotional. It feels wrong not to give it a chance. It goes against our natures. You are correct in this, Shane.

I think that women in general want children. To assume otherwise is unreal. In a perfect society, there would never be any need for abortion because women in society would be protected, cared for, and nurtured. But society is not that way. And there are stresses in society that cause women to abort thier unborn children. As a man, you can not make the decision if those stresses are unbearable for women. Therefore, childbirth and it's consequences are a woman's issue. If a woman feels the need for an abortion, that is her right. It is her choice that makes the issue her final decision/responsiblity. She is the safe guard for the continuation of society.

Quote:

Let's examine the position that abortion should be legal so it is safe. Why should someone who is killing another person be safe?

This question can be applied to the man who throws the switch to kill a condemned man. You want to answer it.

Quote:

Do you know one the the big reasons why earlier women rights activists like Susan B. Anthony and Clara Barton were against abortion? Because MEN would force their women to have abortions if they were legal. And that happens all they time. How many boyfriends threaten to leave and abandon their girlfriend unless she gets an abortion? A lot. Do you doubt it? Go volunteer at a local pregnancy crises center.

That is why the basis for abortion is to make society safer and better for childbearing and childrearing. If you take away the stresses that cause abortion, then abortion would drop off. Wouldn't you agree with this? I would presume so. So that is why I favor legislation that would remove the causes for abortion, ie goverment subsidized housing for single mothers, etc. If we addressed women's issues more, there would be far less abortions than we currently have.

July 30, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Do you know one the the big reasons why earlier women rights activists like Susan B. Anthony and Clara Barton were against abortion? Because MEN would force their women to have abortions if they were legal. And that happens all they time. How many boyfriends threaten to leave and abandon their girlfriend unless she gets an abortion? A lot. Do you doubt it? Go volunteer at a local pregnancy crises center.

Been there, done that ... in a short time you have an education that can never be written in the books or spoken of in the halls of lecture!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That is why the basis for abortion is to make society safer and better for childbearing and childrearing. If you take away the stresses that cause abortion, then abortion would drop off. Wouldn't you agree with this? I would presume so. So that is why I favor legislation that would remove the causes for abortion, ie goverment subsidized housing for single mothers, etc. If we addressed women's issues more, there would be far less abortions than we currently have.

You said it all Neil. Perhaps Help Is On The Way!

July 30, 2004

The same can be said about war: murder is murder, period, end of issue. I never cease to be amazed at how anyone can condemn abortion out of one side of the mouth and justify war out of the other with lengthy semantic gymnastics excusing IT from wearing the label of murder. I never cease to be amazed at how anyone can put a misnomer like "pro-life" on a group of people who exclusively target their efforts toward bringing more children into this world -- unwanted ones at that, knowing full well how an unwanted child is likely to be treated -- and completely bypass the opportunity to improve the quality of existence for those who are already here. Not to mention overlook entirely the fact that what makes life worth living at all is that very liberty of conscience which they want to deny others.

There's another abortion thread on the forum called "sanctity of life" so if anyone is interested in where I stand specifically, I have posted the details there.

July 31, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

A life that has never begun. That is emotional.

Once cell division has began, life itself has began. And it is God that started it. That is a scientific observation with no emotion involved.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

In a perfect society, there would never be any need for abortion

The only need is when the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise any woman pregnant can have the child and give it up for adoption.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

because women in society would be protected, cared for, and nurtured. But society is not that way

So because society isn't perfect women should be allowed to kill their babies? Well hell's bells, Brother Neil. We ought to make prostitution legal too because not all wives put out for the husbands and men have "needs". Why not just legalize all murder because people make me mad and I need to vent? I mean when the world is perfect no one will make me mad and then we can pass laws.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

This question can be applied to the man who throws the switch to kill a condemned man. You want to answer it.

There is a big difference between killing a convicted criminal and killing an innocent child. If you can't grasp that I suggest you read your Bible a little more.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That is why the basis for abortion is to make society safer and better for childbearing and childrearing.

I can't believe a professed Christian can actually believe such garbage. Murdering children makes society safer? Why not just kill all drunk drivers? That would make society safer?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

If you take away the stresses that cause abortion, then abortion would drop off.

The stress? You mean like a woman pregnant with twins that only wants one so she aborts one? Or the woman that takes preternity pills to get pregnant and gets pregnant with 5 so she aborts 3 of them? Or how about the thousands each year that use abortion to determine the sex of their child? What about the women that have 5 or 6 abortions - obviously a means of birth control? I guess I don't understand the "stress" that drives someone to kill her own flesh and blood.

You know, maybe if we reduced the stress that made people drink they wouldn't drive drunk any more. Or reduce the stress that makes corrupt CEOs embezzle from their companies they wouldn't steal any more. Stress must be the problem. Why don't we just outlaw stress?

July 31, 2004

Gal 1:15 But God in his grace chose me even before I was born, and called me to serve him.

Psa 139:13 You created every part of me; you put me together in my mother's womb.

Psa 139:14 I praise you because you are to be feared; all you do is strange and wonderful. I know it with all my heart.

Psa 139:15 When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there---

Psa 139:16 you saw me before I was born. The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began.

Ecc 11:5 God made everything, and you can no more understand what he does than you understand how new life begins in the womb of a pregnant woman.

Psa 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.

God's word speaks for itself regarding the sanctity of life and even goes further to defining what that is.

Each individual will give an account right or wrong, and the importance of repentance regarding this issue and the Bible truth could not be overstated.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

Pro 3:7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.

Pro 3:8 It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.

If God knows each one of us before we are born, then how sad He must feel when our own understanding murders an innocent life which He “carefully put together in “a” (supplied for “my”), mother's womb.”

The "selfish" side vs the Biblical side of this topic has always floored me!

July 31, 2004

Dwlight Hornbacher once wrote the following:

First of all, non-medical abortion is a sin. It is destructive to both the individual and to the society. Let us never forget that particular point. We as Christians must always hate the sin and love the sinner. We do so because we understand that with sin comes ultimate death and annihilation. Let us not confuse compassion for one caught in the web of sin as a reason to accept the necessity of abortion. It is okay to hate the act of abortion, and at the same time feel compassion for those who have committed the act of abortion.

And if you doubt that God places worth upon a fetus look at the command given to Moses in Exodus 21.22, 23. "And when men struggle, and the pregnant wife is struck, and a child is born, and no harm happens, he will surely pay a fine according to that set by the woman's husband and given in assessments. But if harm happens then you shall give a life in place of a life." (Hebrew Old Testament). Notice that induced abortion where harm occurs to the infant requires the death of the one who induced the abortion, otherwise, the one who induced the abortion must pay the husband a fine for causing an early birth.

Next lets dispel some myths that are circulating among those who are pro-abortion. (The term, pro-choice, is a misnomer used to make people feel good about a sin. Let us call this sin as it is: pro-abortion.)

Let us understand first of all that medical abortions were allowed long before Roe vs. Wade. The state laws were put in place to stop non-medical abortions: the abortion on demand for convenience sake.

The primary force behind the push for abortion on demand began in the ACLU with Dorothy Kenyon in the 1950's. But the real push for abortion on demand was through Harriet Pilpel beginning in 1964. She represented the Planned Parenthood Federation of America whose president, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, was a believer in the use of Eugenics in population control. He was also vice president of the American Eugenics Society now known as the Society for the Study of Social Biology. (Eugenics is the effort to breed a better human race, partly by suppressing the birthrate of the handicapped, the poor, and minorities. This was and is a direct out-growth of applying the Evolutionary paradigm in practical form.) She also became a believer in Eugenics. In 1964, Pilpel suggested that restricting birth control and abortion breeds and perpetuates conditions of delinquency and crime by encouraging the multiplication of births among low income groups. This was also apparent with her testimony before the New York Legislative committee where she declared that it would cost the State $17.5 million to support the unwanted children each year. Thus we see the beginning of the myth of unwanted children. Today, there are more than enough childless couples who would love to provide a home for these so-called unwanted children.

The next myth is related to a paper written by William Kopit and Harriet Pilpel which contained two serious errors misleading the ACLU, and the errors have been widely circulated since then. They declared that between 1 and 1.5 million illegal abortions were done each year in the United States resulting in the death of 8000 women. These 1965 numbers are highly inflated. Since 1975 and the Roe vs. Wade case, the average number of abortions has beem between 1 and 1.6 million per year. This is after the removal of restrictions, establishment of clinics across the nation, advertisement, and state-supported funding and suggests that the original numbers were high. Syska and others, in 1981, suggested that the number of illegal abortions were more in the range of 39,000 in 1950 to 210,000 in 1961 with the mean being 98,000 per year. Cynthia McKnight indicated that the mortality rate in illegal abortions was more like 1, 313 in 1940 decreasing down to 197 in 1965. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who pushed for abortion on demand, now admits that the figures used of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths per year were not factual.

According to the pro-abortion group, a fetus is not a person until it is separated completely from the womb. Thus it is that they can argue that a new-born is a fetus and subject to abortion as long as any part remains in the birth canal. Therefore, partial birth abortion is allowable because the head is still in the birth canal. It is then okay for the abortionist to stick a pair of scissors into the base of the skull of the unborn, then suck out the brain in order to collapse the skull case. Then proceed to finish the delivery process. This process requires the turning of the baby in the womb so that it is delivered feet first so that the head can be delivered last. This is a very traumatic procedure upon the womb and can cause medical complications. There is no medical reason for such a procedure to preserve the life of the mother as indicated by Gynecologists and Pediatric surgeons and nurses and indeed could unnecessarily risk the mother's life.

By the definition offered by pro-abortionists, they indicate that personhood and the right to legal protection begins with the complete separation of the child from the birth canal. Thus they have defined personhood in four basic parameters: Movement from one location to another, Maturity, Dependency, and Size. One then must ask is a person any less of a person simply because they move from one room to another? From the birth canal to the open air? The answer is quite obvious. As to maturity, is a fetus less of a person because it is not as mature as a new-born baby? If this is so, then a new-born is also less of a person than is a young child. Could we then say that a 12 year-old girl who is just entering puberty is also less of a person than an 18 year old girl who has reached full sexual maturity. Is the young woman of 24 any less of a person than a mature woman of 70 years of age? As to dependency, we must ask if the embryo is any less of a person because it is more dependent than a new-born infant. Or is an individual who is dependent upon insulin to maintain life any less a person than a person who is not? How about a person who requires a wheel chair to get around. Are they any less a person than someone who does not? And how about the aged, are they any less a person than someone who is younger and can support themselves more readily? Finally, we look at size. Is a midget any less of a person simply because they are not as big as a normal adult? Is a woman any less of a person because in general she is smaller than men? Then a fetus is no less a person simply because it is small and therefore should have the legal protection of the law.

Scientifically, it is obvious that life begins with inception. An egg or a sperm cell cannot become life. But a zygotic cell has all the information and mechanisms it needs to develop into a fully-mature adult. Furthermore, each zygote is a unique individual because the chromosomal makeup is a mixture of the father's and mother's traits uniquely put together to make a new person. It can mature and became an adult as long as it obtains the nutrients it requires to keep the life processes continuing which will allow it to mature and become an adult human being. These processes continue from inception to death, and by all scientific definitions indicate that this is indeed maturing life.

A rather unique argument is supplied by Libertarians for Life's, Doris Gordan. She has realized that while there may be a conflict of needs, there is not one of rights. "The child has a right to be in the womb: The cause-and-effect relationship between heterosexual intercourse and pregnancy is well-known. The child did not cause the situation. . . . The stork did not do it. The fact of parental agency refutes any assertion that the child is a trespasser, a parasite, or an aggressor of any sort. The unborn child's life is thrust upon her as is her need for life support and her inability to fend for herself. . . . she is created vulnerable to harm." (Doris Gordon, Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly, in Doris Gordon and John Walker, eds., Abortion and Rights, an issue of the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 19, nos. 3/4 (1999) (n. 56), 119 & 122) "When we place someone in harm's way we have an obligation to be sure that harm does not befall that person: Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. . . . , . . . . Even simple eviction from the womb initiates force and violates the child's rights (in most abortions, however, the child is first dismembered, or poisoned, then evicted). For the prenatal child, the mother's womb is home; this is where she needs to be and this is where she has the right to be." (Gordon, op. cit. (n. 56), 121, 120, 123.)

There is no Constitutional right to abortion. This is probably the greatest myth and could only be advanced where there is an audience who is not familiar with the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments to the Constitution and their history. The Fourteenth amendment clearly states that any criminal defendant in a court of law has the right to life, liberty, and property. It never gave the courts any other powers. Its original intent was to protect the recently freed slaves from the state by guaranteeing to the black man the same Fifth Amendment rights as were guaranteed to the white man. Any other understanding is a misconstruing of the original intent of the amendment.

By the way, it is now becoming apparent that the abortion industry is covering up the crime of adult males having sex with underage girls. Many of the clinics are aiding and abetting this type of crime. They are providing a way by which men who pray upon young females can destroy the evidence of their crime. And these clinics are coaching the young girls as to what to say, write, etc. to keep the crime under wraps. This in light of the fact that in every state are laws that require that any adult sex with an underage individual is to be reported to the authorities. Why would they do this? Does anybody understand how profitable the abortion industry is? People have become millionaires over night by providing abortion services. The love of money is driving the abortion industry. And those who desire to have an immoral lifestyle but not have to live with the consequences are fighting to keep this abysmal industry going. I guarantee that there is a cause/effect relationship between the legalization of Abortion on demand and the increase in the number of unwed mothers, pregnancies among teen-age girls, and abortions among this same group.

Ultimately, those who perform abortions are taking upon themselves the role of God, and they are usurping the Sovereignty of God. What do I mean by this? There is a difference between God's taking of life and those who would kill an infant in the womb. First, God is the Creator; he can restore life as well as take life. One who kills a baby in the womb does not have that option. There is no going back. Second, God knows the heart and understands the character. One who kills a child in the womb does not know his own heart much less the character of the child that he/she has just terminated whether for good or bad. Thirdly, God knows the end from the beginning. One who kills a child in the womb does not know what is going to happen in the next second much less whether the child he/she just terminated would have enhanced civilization or degraded it. Fourthly, God is just. One who kills a baby in the womb has no concept of justice. In the vast majority of the cases where a child is terminated in the womb, it is done because of the inconvenience of the pregnancy to the woman. Justice for the child has no part in the decision in most cases. Fifthly, God is Sovereign. He holds all individuals in the universe responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions. The one who kills a child in the womb must stand before this Sovereign God and account for his/her choices. A Woman's Right to Choice is simply a synonym for infanticide; it is no different than Hitler's killing of the Jews to rid the German nation of a perceived problem. Rather, as indicated, the real reason for allowing abortions to be put in place was the program of Eugenics.

Finally, why should we show or indicate the procedures that are used in abortion. I am reminded of a young black kid of thirteen who went to the south to visit relatives. He boasted to his cousins that he had two white girlfriends. So they put him up to speaking to a white woman in a local store. He went in and accosted the white women. Two black men told him that he better get home that the man would be coming for him. That night the sheriff and the woman's husband came and got him. He was killed, but before being killed, he was horribly mutilated. They shipped his body back in a casket. The mother was told not to open the casket because the body was unrecognizable. But she would have none of it. She declared that she wanted everyone to see what they had done to her boy. Out of that incident grew the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

I am not saying to force people to look, rather, lets ask them to look warning them that they might not like what they see or hear. But until someone shows the mutilation that is used to abort a child, the sin will continue. And more generations of children will be lost to this horrible practice of abortion on demand. I am sorry, but I have seen the pictures. I now know why the abortion industry does not want these shown. It would lead to a shutdown of the process and a great financial loss to the industry.

August 1, 2004

Quote:

Next lets dispel some myths that are circulating among those who are pro-abortion. (The term, pro-choice, is a misnomer used to make people feel good about a sin. Let us call this sin as it is: pro-abortion.)

Without rebutting your (or rather, Dwight's) whole argument point by point -- since I've blathered at length about this elsewhere -- I just want to point out that this one particular point is completely fallacious. The term pro-choice is given precisely because it is NOT about being "pro-abortion". It is about allowing the full range of legal, viable options for dealing with unwanted pregnancy with the view that education about family planning and contraception, and persuasion toward the benefits of acting responsibly in this area, can and will do more to reduce the actual incidence of abortions than legislatively relegating them to the clandestine back-alley quack or the kitchen-table and wire hanger could ever hope to do.

Claiming "pro-choice" is a misnomer designed to warm-fuzzify sin, and advocating the use of the term "pro-abortion" instead, constitutes nothing less than a deliberate misrepresentation of the intent and aims of your opponents on this issue. This in turn reflects far more poorly upon yourself and your position (as an anti-abortionist) than it ever will upon them, which defeats your purpose for doing it in the first place. Sure, you may push a few buttons with this wheeze, but in the end a ruse like this only looks shallow of you.

It is far more effective when you can make a thorough and objective analysis of your opponents' ACTUAL position and offer valid, relevant refutations, rather than mischaracterize it and waste your time building and beating up straw men.

August 1, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Without rebutting your (or rather, Dwight's) whole argument point by point

Or you could just give in to the Holy Spirit. Those children need someone to look out for them. The government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. If the government does not try to protect those babies their mothers will continue to slaughter them at the rate of more than 1 million each year. Is it because you can't hear their cry that you don't care?

August 1, 2004

Quote:

Or you could just give in to the Holy Spirit. Those children need someone to look out for them. The government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves.

(1) The Holy Spirit teaches me what I ought to do myself. He does not tell me to assume His place in someone else's conscience; as a matter of fact, He instructs me quite to the contrary. He guides me toward caution and discretion so that His Own Voice -- which alone can speak flawlessly to the heart of someone else -- is not drowned or eclipsed by my faulty communication, even if We are saying the same thing! (This is how He guides and leads me -- if I fail to act upon it effectively -- and I often feel I do -- this is not His doing but my own.)

(2) "Those children--?" A fetus is not a child. A child breathes its own air, digests its own food for nourishment, circulates its own blood, and does not need the vital functions of someone else's body to provide its own vital functions. The reason a premature birth is such a risky thing is precisely because the fetus is NOT a child, and therefore not biologically prepared to sustain its life functions outside the womb.

(3) Who says the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves? I don't see that inscribed upon some immutable tablet of 100% absolute truth somewhere in the universe. It is nothing more than an axiomatic assumption. Yet even if we assume your premise there to be true, I am perfectly capable of deciding on my own whether I am capable, prepared, responsible, ready to bring a child (or more children) into the world or not. I don't need the government to make that decision for me, just like I don't need the government to tell me whom I may love, whether or not I may get intimate physically with someone I love, and if so, when and under what conditions. I make those decisions myself, and I answer to God for those decisions -- a God who loves me and sent His Son for me -- not some legislative body of strangers that couldn't care less if I live or die, if I am happy or miserable, if my life amounts to anything or goes down in despair, to whom I am just one more faceless nobody in a sea of faceless nobodies.

August 1, 2004

Quote:

Is it because you can't hear their cry that you don't care?

No, Shane. It's not that I don't care. It's that I don't buy for one minute that the supposed great outcry against abortion is really about either the "poor helpless fetus" OR the "sanctity of life" AT ALL. It's a crusade about something else entirely, and has been from the beginning. The fetus is just one of the over-exploited selling points in this crusade. ( -- MIND YOU I'm talking about the anti-abortion bandwagon as a whole phenomenon, not the specific beliefs or notions of any one particular member on it.)

I don't know if you've ever seen it or not but making the rounds on the internet (in blogs and such) has been this picture people have passed around as a joke. It says, "Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten. PLEASE STOP MASTURBATING -- think of the kittens!" It's written under a picture of some cute fluffy kittens. It's a joke of course because nobody really thinks that God kills a kitten every time someone indulges in autoerotic pleasure. It's a joke because there's no direct moral imperative against masturbation in the Bible and most people know that, though there is a lot of Christianized-cultural guilt about the activity, and it's hard sometimes for an honest child of God to separate societally-induced taboo guilt from Holy Spirit conviction.

Well this whole anti-abortion thing makes me think of that. The kitten joke is actually more honest in that it comes right out and admits what the fuss is about -- not the kitten but the act of masturbation. The anti-abortion rhetoric is less honest because it does NOT admit what all the fuss is really about. It's not about the fetus. It's about trying to control (eliminate) the fact that people have sex outside the parameters of Christian morality. The fetus sort of plays the part the fluffy kittens play in the kitten/masturbation joke which, if we were to take it as a serious statement, would read as a compelling reason not to masturbate (if you care about the lives of kittens, that is). Likewise the "plight" of the aborted fetus is exploited as a poster child to try to exert control over other people's sexuality and sexual behaviors. The reason I say this is because it becomes very apparent in observing the reactions of anti-abortion activists to realistic proposals to eliminate the need for abortions and thereby reduce their incidence without having to resort to criminalization of them.

Just like the real-world consequences of syphilis and gonorrhea in the '60s, and HIV/AIDS in the '80s-today, the "plight of the fetus" has been seized upon as a MAJOR selling point (or entry point) for trying to control other people's sexuality and sexual behavior. And frankly -- though I know you personally will disagree with me here -- until we are ready to do something about the live-birth murders we condone (war for example) and the quality of life experienced by children already born (relieving poverty, hunger, abuse, ignorance, etc.) it is a completely hypocritical and ludicrous crusade to pass oneself off as soooooo concerned about fetuses, for crying out loud, who haven't even joined us as fellow people in this mess yet. I mean, where's that level of sorrow and concern and compassion for those who already have to live in this sin-infected mudball WITH us? Where's that level of sorrow and concern and compassion for other species that are even more helpless victims of human greed, selfishness, cruelty, callousedness and expedience than any fetus will ever be? Where's that level of concern and compassion for the welfare of the biological mother who, for whatever complicated reasons, isn't ready for motherhood? Why is it so important to us to always assume it has to be some careless tart who deserves no pity -- and even if it were a careless tart, do we redeem her promiscuity by thrusting a helpless innocent into her care who clearly cannot even care properly for herself? Will she respect another life any more by having it forced upon her when she clearly doesn't even have self-respect?

And what's up with this devaluing of the mother in favor of a zygote or fetus? This is nothing more than baby-worship, pure facile idolatry, plain and simple! It is just yet another manifestation of worshipping the creature rather than the Creator -- for the "product" (the life that is produced) is valued above the "producer" (the life that produces it). It's as if who cares how this will adversely affect an already existing life, what this will do to someone else's life -- as if our lives cease to be of any importance now that we are no longer children, or do we have to revert to fetal status to gain worth now? -- no, an egg has been inadvertently fertilized and everything else has to be thrown to the wind to bring it to full term. What? You object to the word "inadvertently"? You argue that every fertilized egg is intended by God? Do you then argue that every sexual union is intended by God? Because to argue the first IS to argue the second, since THAT fertilization with THAT egg and THAT sperm could NEVER occur WITHOUT THAT UNION -- and therefore you get into the whole sticky wicket of trying to uphold the notion that every fertilized egg is a deliberate, intentional act of God while saying the union that produced it is sin and against His will! You can't have it both ways!!!

Nope, the anti-abortion bandwagon bears all the earmarks of being nothing but a throwaway, photo-op kind of crusade, one that has everything to do with making oneself look heroic and uber-morally-upstanding by pointing fingers trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do about difficult situations in their lives, the consequences of which will affect them, not the "crusader," so it's an easy, cheap shot to take. (Costs nothing, makes you look all high 'n' mighty 'n' holy. Lasts till you start calling for folks to grab their guns and go shoot other people's babies in the name of war.) It has nothing to do with any REAL putting one's own neck out there or rolling up one's own sleeves and "getting dirty to the elbows" to provide real solutions. The only "flak" the anti-abortionist has to take is being confronted with the truth of how shallow a crusade it is, but since they've abandoned reality long ago they can handle it just fine. They just tell themselves anyone who disagrees with them deserves to have been an abortion themselves. And thus they show the real nature behind the "sanctity of life" facade, even as they have done with clinic bombings, harrasment and stalking of doctors, etc. Or even as they have done by barraging women en route to the clinic with hateful and damning invective.

A more worthy cause would be to see that every child born is a wanted child, a child anticipated with love and desire, a child prepared for by more than just the purchase of a bassinette, a changing table and a bureau full of cute outfits. A child that was planned, prayed for (if the parents are spiritually minded), hoped for, longed for and sought, whose coming is prepared for by educating themselves to be the best parents they can possibly be and to be ready for the commitment and all the things they have to give up and the adjustments they have to make to bring that baby into the world. Such a worthwhile crusade as that cannot be conducted by turning the halls of legislature into a proverbial shotgun to force unwilling and incapable women into the shackles of motherhood the same way a literal shotgun was once used to force a wedding. It is conducted, rather, by educating people about the responsibilities of parenthood, de-regulating adoption processes from the prohibitive and exorbitant costs thereof (so that those who want to give homes to children can do so without being immediately disqualified for not having $20k or more in liquid assets to fork over to lawyers and agencies - money better spent on the child anyway!), thus making adoption a more realistic and viable option for the pregnant woman unable, unready, or unwilling to raise a child, and providing contraceptive options without judgment to those who are not ready for parenthood or for whatever reasons of their own -- whether we agree with them or not -- choose not to become parents.

When the anti-abortion crusaders start throwing up dust in our eyes against these proposals, whining about how we don't want to "encourage teenagers to have sex", they reveal what their crusade is really about. It's not about protecting the fetus at all, but about controlling the sexuality and sexual behaviors of other people. Why? Because they are willing to scrap all the realistic options for reducing the incidence of abortion -- reducing the actual number of "slaughtered fetuses" -- in the effort to control others' sexual behavior. Because this is the motivation hidden at the core behind their crusade, they are unwilling to entertain any realistic options for reducing abortion. They insist instead upon its criminalization alone as a solution. And it doesn't end with the medical procedure technically termed "abortion," either. Even the "morning after" pill -- which involves NO suffering or pain inflicted on any "fetus" because it works literally "the morning after" and at most only flushes a fertilized egg -- they want to see outlawed. I have even read about efforts from some doctors to get the Pill (the old, original birth control Pill) banned because they claim it results in thousands of "silent abortions" yearly by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching in utero. These are doctors; they ought to know better! The Pill works by preventing ovulation, not by preventing in utero attachment of fertilized eggs! This goes WAY beyond sympathetic identification and concern over any suffering felt by a fetus being aborted. It goes clear over those lines and into forcing parenthood upon people with a vehemence even nature itself -- which frequently flushes inviable zygotes -- does not exact.

When you sentence an unwanted child to birth, you sentence an innocent human being to a season, if not a lifetime, in hell. None of us who have ever stuck our heads out into the bright light and detached from the placenta have ever had, or ever will have, life so easy and perfect as it is in the womb. In the womb, every need is provided automatically. All is peace. There are no demands placed upon us; we are warm, cozy, safe, and without a care or threat in the world 24/7 in utero. No one born into this world will ever have the option of dying without seeing pain, sickness, or suffering of some type. Consider this: the fetus alone has that option. We who are born do not. Consider also that if life truly begins in the womb, if the Bible truly supports that, as it seems to indicate by telling us God knows and chooses and "shapes" people in their mothers' wombs, what does that say about what kind of plans God would have for an aborted fetus? For an innocent who has never rejected Him? Think about it. It's got to be better than what He plans to do with those who do reject Him.

Gerry posed this question on the other abortion thread: "What is more helpless than the poor little fetus who did not ask to be conceived or born?" And I answered immediately: the live-birth human who likewise did not ask to be conceived or born. And frankly, as far as I can see, that is the truth. The fetus is not "helpless" in utero at all, for it faces no enviromental threat whatsoever, nor is anything required of it even for the sustenance of its own vital signs, all of which is provided by the mother upon which it feeds and in which it grows. To have life terminated before it has ever faced hunger, pain, want, hatred, bullying, rejection, soul-rape, sometimes real rape, sometimes violent assault, sometimes brutality, viciousness, betrayal, desperation, is not -- I repeat, NOT -- the worst fate that can befall a human being.

When we sentence an unwanted pregnancy to become an unwanted child, we sentence that innocent to pain, torment, and undeserved punishment by making it serve as someone else's "punishment" for having sex. You can preach all you want about how wrong that attitude is, how children are a gift from God, etc., and you'll have NO argument from me whatsoever, because I agree. Children are meant to be seen as a gift from God, but that just begs the question: what does this say about those who don't feel that way about it? What does that say about whether it's really wise to try to rig up legislation so as to force parenthood upon such people who, by not wanting a child and being willing to abort in the first place, demonstrate they are not fit to parent? What does our attempt to force them to become parents say about whether we really care about the welfare of that fetus -- eventually a child -- or not?

The fact remains that a child that is unwanted will be the one to suffer from that attitude more than the parent who holds that attitude. And when a person steps forward with enough guts to say, "I'm not ready, willing, or capable of committing to the responsibility of motherhood," I think we should honor that. Of course I definitely think we should encourage them to go the adoption route, but then we have this new dilemma about orphans and whose responsibility is it and how many of these kids end up raised by "the state" and no better off than if they'd been raised by sires who didn't want them? But here I am making it about the fetus and the child again, and for the anti-abortion bandwagon, it isn't really about that. IF it was, then they would not constantly object to things that work simply because those things do NOT contribute toward making sexual activity outside marriage a prohibitive proposition!

So that is why I don't hear the imaginary cry of someone else's "poor, helpless" fetus. It isn't there to be heard because no fetus is poor and helpless compared with any live birth having to survive in this world. What I do hear is something different. I hear something going on that has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with those unwanted pregnancies or the "plight" of those fetuses, for which both those unwanted fetuses themselves and their "plight" is nothing but a cover scheme, pure and simple. The anti-abortion debate pretends to be about saving lives of the unborn but that's just a cover story for the real purpose behind the effort. The fetus is only the fluffy kitten in this sick, sad joke of a pseudo-crusade, the over-exploited selling point for those whose real concern appears -- from observation of their platform and reactions to things -- to be more about controlling other people's sexual behaviors than protecting some presumably "helpless" zygote.

August 1, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

(1) The Holy Spirit teaches me what I ought to do myself.

Like pass legislation to protect the unborn child. The fact is that when Cain answered, "I am not my brother's keeper." he did not give the answer God was looking for. God said, "The voice of your brother crieth unto Me from the ground." Today's Abel's voice is joined with the cries of millions of American babies slain in the womb.

We are responsible for each other and most of all we are responsible to protect the most innocent and defensless of our society. We are to be our brothers' keeper.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

A fetus is not a child.

According to NOW (National Organization of Women) you are right. According to the Bible you are wrong. I happen to use the Bible as my authority.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

(3) Who says the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves?

That is a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln. He is the man that freed the country from slavery. If we lived during the time of slavery I suspect you would be with the pro-choice crowd. It should be someone's choice whether or not they own slaves. Who are we to impose our morality on them and tell them they can't own slaves?

August 1, 2004

The "Don't Kill The Kittens" campain was started by XXX Church and they are not against masterbation as an act. For example they have no problem with masterbation within marriage (spouses doing it in front of each other). Their objection to masterbation is the impure thoughts (and later actions) that it almost always causes.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Likewise the "plight" of the aborted fetus is exploited as a poster child to try to exert control over other people's sexuality and sexual behaviors.

This is liberal spin. If you believe it, you have been spun. Pro-life is all about saving babies. There are so many Americans wanting to adopt babies that the waiting list for American babies is between five and seven years. Many, for this reason, adopt babies from other countries.

God's law is for our own good. He does not try to restrict our pleasure. His law is designed to enhance it. Abortion is a way that sinners try to cover their sin just as Adam and Eve tried to do with fig leaves. Yet the only way for the sins to be blotted out is with the blood of Christ. Baby's blood will never accomplish that. The spin you have accepted as truth is contrary to the law of God and His loving goodness. God wants only our happiness,His prohibition on murder is not a means to manupulate and control others.

August 1, 2004

Quote:

(1) The Holy Spirit teaches me what I ought to do myself.

Like pass legislation to protect the unborn child.

The Holy Spirit has not placed this directive upon me concerning unborn children. The Holy Spirit has given me a prime directive to exercise myself politically toward the preservation of liberty of conscience without prejudice, wherever appeal to any religious authority, including the one I accept for myself, places the matter of religious liberty as an inextricable consideration upon the issue as a whole. (See my comments on this below).

Quote:

The fact is that when Cain answered, "I am not my brother's keeper." he did not give the answer God was looking for. God said, "The voice of your brother crieth unto Me from the ground." Today's Abel's voice is joined with the cries of millions of American babies slain in the womb.

This last statement is an appeal to emotionalism via pure conjecture on your part. Once again, the two elements being compared are utterly dissimilar in quality of event, character of event, and motive for event. Slaying another person out of envy, hatred, or spite is not what occurs when an abortion is performed. Even when taking the principle of murder above and beyond a physical act to the heart-core itself, Jesus referred specifically to the harboring of hatred in the heart as embodying the spirit of murder, not deciding upon a medical procedure intended to prevent a birth from occurring in the first place, for which no one involved therein is realistically expected to feel anything close to sadistic glee or rabid malice.

Quote:

We are responsible for each other and most of all we are responsible to protect the most innocent and defenseless of our society. We are to be our brothers' keeper.

Then talk to me first of how you would protect the interests of the woman who did not wish to conceive, who has no readiness or fitness to become a mother. Talk to me of how forcing "shotgun motherhood" through the law actually "protects" the "innocent and defenseless" child that results when it is forced to be born into this world unwanted and unloved. Tell me how that constitutes being your brother (or sister's) keeper. Tell me how you intend to be your "brother's" keeper to women who don't share your moral code regarding sexuality, how you intend to protect them from getting stuck in a situation where they feel compelled by circumstances to have to choose abortion. Tell me those things and then maybe -- depending on the realness of your answers -- I will be ready to listen to you talk about protecting fetuses. But not before. First show me this nobility toward those already born and suffering in this world with us.

Quote:

A fetus is not a child.

According to NOW (National Organization of Women) you are right. According to the Bible you are wrong. I happen to use the Bible as my authority.

Shane, being clever and witty with spin does not equate to actual engagement with another on points of issue, let alone any kind of effective refutation of another's points. You have offered little more than combined logical fallacies in this ill-conceived retort.

It is a cheap button pushing shot, nothing more. You are making what is known as a genetic fallacy, in your reference to the NOW. Combined with this is the fallacy of Guilt by Association. (Look them up, that's what the links are there for.) Finally you have engaged in poisoning the well by your unsubstantiated inference that I have derived my viewpoint from the NOW.

For your information, I do not currently make, nor can I recall ever making, a comprehensive study of the positions or opinions held by the NOW as an organization. I am simply not acquainted with whatever position NOW happens to take on anything, other than the vaguest conjectures which anyone could make from guesswork. If you asked me to summarize NOW's stance on abortion and/or the classification of fetal life, I simply could not do it without first looking them up on the web or the phone to hear it from them.

However, I need make no such reference to speak to you of my own stance. My own position is just that -- my own, not a parrotting of another humans' prefabricated platform -- and it is as much derived from my understanding of scripture as a whole and the God of that scripture as you believe your own to be.

However, since you choose to argue your stance from this angle, I will point out to you that appeal to the Bible for authority in this matter, as far as the secular world is concerned, clearly constitutes the essence of this argument and issue as one squarely in the realm of religion, since a religious argument based on appeal to theological authority is offered in direct contradiction to generally accepted distinctions made for purely medical and biological purposes in the matter. This appeal to religious authority therefore renders the matter itself subject to the considerations of religious liberty, or liberty of conscience. Could your position be argued without the need for such an appeal, your claim that liberty of conscience forms an invalid consideration would have more weight. However, as long as you require appeal to a religious authority to establish your position, you cannot legitimately insist or expect that the matter of liberty of conscience be divorced from the issue as a whole. You must either find a medical/biological equation of fetal life with live-birth life, or accept that by invoking a religious authority in the matter you own the matter itself to be religious in essence and scope, for such is the definition, in the secular world, of what constitutes a matter of religion.

Quote:

If we lived during the time of slavery I suspect you would be with the pro-choice crowd. It should be someone's choice whether or not they own slaves. Who are we to impose our morality on them and tell them they can't own slaves?

You know full well from previous discussions that I am indeed opposed to slavery, and furthermore you know full well that this is comparing apples and oranges. It is what is known as a "sweeping generalization":

[:"brown"]A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable. It's the error made when you go from the general to the specific.[/]

In this case you have applied the presence of a similar element, namely a hypothetical "pro-choice" side to the former slavery debate, to make it appear similar to the abortion question when in reality its particular elements leave it quite dissimilar indeed. More specifically to the point, your effort constitutes the fallacy of an extended analogy, which often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. [:"brown"]The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.[/] But the issue of slavery is not analogous to the abortion question, at least, not in the specific fashion you have proposed.

August 1, 2004

Quote:

Likewise the "plight" of the aborted fetus is exploited as a poster child to try to exert control over other people's sexuality and sexual behaviors.

This is liberal spin. If you believe it, you have been spun.

Incorrect assumption. This has been my personal observation of the sum trend of the anti-abortion bandwagon as a whole. Nobody "preached" it to me or taught me to look at it this way; this is what I myself saw when I paid close attention and began connecting the dots between the various messages and efforts coming out of this sector. I did so because I wanted to analyze the question and the issues for myself and come to my own conclusions about it, and in doing so I literally entered the analysis with no bias toward either side because both initially seemed equally persuasive, which is probably what got me started trying to parse it out for myself.

Anyway, be all that as it may, now even you yourself have confirmed the veracity of my observation and deductions with your very own words below in this very post!! Witness:

Quote:

God's law is for our own good. He does not try to restrict our pleasure. His law is designed to enhance it.

Abortion is a way that sinners try to cover their sin

just as Adam and Eve tried to do with fig leaves.

Right here you yourself have tipped the cat out of the bag by centering your characterization of abortion itself, within your climactic appeal, entirely upon the issue of sexual sin!!! First you allude to it as an attempt to "cover up sin" (referring obviously to the fact that pregnancy is a telltale sign that a woman has had sex); and next you make an appeal to "sell me" on the idea that Christian sexual-prohibition parameters are meant to enhance one's pleasure and happiness rather than restrict or deny it!! Now, I'm not disagreeing that God's parameters on sex are intended for our happiness, but my point is, you have just validated -- by your own chosen words and associations -- the very observation I made which you just got finished trying to tell me was "liberal spin"! My observation was that ultimately the core thrust of the anti-abortion bandwagon is NOT about protecting helpless fetuses at all but about attempting to control other people's sexuality and sexual behavior. In response, first you dismiss that as "spin", and then you turn around and completely fulfill it to a "T", blatantly demonstrating the truth of it!! -- So which is it going to be?

Quote:

Yet the only way for the sins to be blotted out is with the blood of Christ. Baby's blood will never accomplish that.

Since I know of no one electing to have an abortion who actually does so believing or expecting the fetus' death or blood to provide a sin-blotting sacrifice for them, I have no idea what you're driving at with this.

Quote:

God wants only our happiness, His prohibition on murder is not a means to manupulate and control others.

I agree God wants our happiness. I do not contend against what God has shared about His parameters for my happiness. I even believe they are universal and would lead to the happiness of others, were others to choose His way as He invites and seeks to reasonably persuade them to do. My problem is with human beings presuming to act in His place, and the consummate arrogance to presume they know with 100% perfect accuracy the absolute truth of what is right in every situation for everyone else. In fact, more to the point, that even if by some happenstance they really did, that this would give them the right to make those decisions for other people and take away any individual's God-given right to free moral agency.

God gave that right to us all just like He makes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust, and the rain to fall upon the evil and the good. By making a proactive plan for the event of our liberty leading us away from Him, Father Creator demonstrated Himself so keenly dedicated to the preservation of the individual right to freedom of choice He gave each of us, that He would rather sacrifice Himself than violate this very indispensible core and axiomatic foundation for the genuine establishment of a loving relationship between Himself and us, and between one another among us. He means for this gift to be kept inviolate.

[Note: at this point I went into vision for about 45 minutes and kept writing, but afterwards in reading it over I just felt that now was not the time to post it -- primarily because I am too tired to properly edit it for clarity and time is getting away from me today. Perhaps another day. ]

August 1, 2004

Abel's blood cried out for justice as do the blood of aborted children.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Then talk to me first of how you would protect the interests of the woman who did not wish to conceive

They don't let a man put his erect penis in their vagina. Didn't your mother ever tell you how to avoid getting pregnant? Don't spread your legs. Keep them crossed. Works every time it's tried.

Your afflication with NOW has no bearing on the issue. Your prespective is the same as theirs.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

This appeal to religious authority therefore renders the matter itself subject to the considerations of religious liberty, or liberty of conscience.

The Bible is and has always been quoted in the halls of Congress. The Constitution forbids a state church or the forbiding of free excercise of religion. If abortion was part of a religious practice the Constition then may provide some protection of it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You know full well from previous discussions that I am indeed opposed to slavery

So you are in favor of forcing your morality on someone else!!!

Slavery and abortion are not apples and oranges. Both deal with two distinct people - each having their own DNA and blood type. Each deals with one that has control and authority over the other. The same arguements that were used to justify slavery are used to justify abortion. America's two biggest sins are remarkably simular.

August 1, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

you have tipped the cat out of the bag by centering your characterization of abortion itself, within your climactic appeal, entirely upon the issue of sexual sin!!!

Abortion is not always due to sexual sin although it is often. I have known cases where a married woman chooses to abort because the baby will interupt her carear. Yet, hang on to your hat, even though she is not trying to cover sexual sin, she still doesn't have the right to murder her baby.

Pro-life is all about saving babies. Pro-lifers don't care how the woman got pregnant. We just don't believe she has a right to kill her baby.

August 1, 2004

Quote:

Then talk to me first of how you would protect the interests of the woman who did not wish to conceive

They don't let a man put his erect penis in their vagina. Didn't your mother ever tell you how to avoid getting pregnant? Don't spread your legs. Keep them crossed. Works every time it's tried.

Once again you have made a total lie out of your assertion that the intent to control the sexual behavior of others has nothing to do with the anti-abortion bandwagon's agenda. Behold, I offer you Exhibit B now -- and rest my case, since it's as blatant an example of self-indictment as we're likely to see any other time. Ladies and gentlemen, for all his protestations to the contrary, this emperor is most naked indeed.

August 1, 2004

You don't get it, Nico. Pro-lifers don't care how much sex others have as long as they arn't killing their babies. Your assertions that we are a bunch of religious fanatics wanting to control what goes on in others' bedrooms is the real stawman. It isn't what goes on in the bedroom we are concerned about. It is what goes on in the aboriton clinic.

We are God's Commandment-keeping people. Seventh-day Adventists, of all people, should stand against the murder which is disguised as choice.

With three Supreme Court justices ready to retire, this election is about abortion. It is not about what people are doing in their bedrooms. It is about the slaughter of over 1 million babies each year.

Perhaps some can vote for abortion and still sleep at night. I can't. I hear the cries of the babies crying out with Abel's voice. I can't pull a lever for a man that can't hear those cries.

August 2, 2004

Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

Favorable emotions are associated with X.

Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?" Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be "you should participate in these acts of violence." In this case, the "evidence" would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.

This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.

In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.

As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.

August 2, 2004

Quote:

You don't get it, Nico. Pro-lifers don't care how much sex others have as long as they arn't killing their babies. Your assertions that we are a bunch of religious fanatics wanting to control what goes on in others' bedrooms is the real stawman. It isn't what goes on in the bedroom we are concerned about. It is what goes on in the aboriton clinic.

We are God's Commandment-keeping people. Seventh-day Adventists, of all people, should stand against the murder which is disguised as choice.

Hmmm...a lot of emotional arguements here, not based upon facts. Shane, I want to point out that this issue is an emotional issue. And for some people, they can not look at this issue without going ballistic.

Are you sure that you can argue your points without becoming emotional?

August 2, 2004

Most issues are emotional, Brother Neil, because we are emotional beings. That is how God made us - in the womb. Yet a lot of fact has been presented here, both Biblical and scientific. Let's not let the emotions hide the facts.

August 2, 2004

Quote:

Most issues are emotional, Brother Neil, because we are emotional beings. That is how God made us - in the womb. Yet a lot of fact has been presented here, both Biblical and scientific. Let's not let the emotions hide the facts.

That is true. And I guess it depends upon where you are coming from.

I make no bones about the issue. I tend to think that the abortion issue is about choice and the ability to make choices, even wrong ones. Yes, those choices can kill human beings, even when they are only a couple of hundred cells old. It is an issue that began with a wrong choice...probably...but it resulted in pregnancy. My personal bias is to encourage the woman in her decisions. To be supportive in whatever she decides. I would like to see her give the child up for adoption, but that is her choice.

In my view, the other side of the arguement is that of reducing the woman into nothing more than a baby producing machine. If we outlaw abortion, then the woman has no control over her body. Hey,[TIC mode-on] let's make it a law to cut off the man's penis if he is implicated for fathering any illigitament children. The benefit of the law would prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the burden on women to raise unwanted children. [Tic mode-off] It is just a thought....

August 3, 2004

Quote:

You don't get it, Nico. Pro-lifers don't care how much sex others have as long as they arn't killing their babies. Your assertions that we are a bunch of religious fanatics wanting to control what goes on in others' bedrooms is the real stawman. It isn't what goes on in the bedroom we are concerned about. It is what goes on in the aboriton clinic.

Yeah, sure, right, whatever. Tell it to someone who hasn't heard what comes out of the OTHER side of your mouth, Shane. You've already blown your cover with me.

If you really and truly believe that, and want others to believe it too, then you'd better get a better explanation for how you are prepared to aid and protect women who do not want to become mothers besides telling them what decisions to make sexually, based on a moral code they have no reason on earth to subscribe to or live by since they are not Christians. And you'd better be prepared to deal realistically with the world we live in and share with them -- that is, the world they live in -- in its unvarnished and unredeemed state, with realistic alternatives.

That is, if you really give a rat's tail about reducing the number of slaughtered fetuses, rather than just climbing on a moral high horse and making a point (a point that is lost on anyone who has no reason to care about the seventh commandment or any other portion of codified Christian morality).

August 3, 2004

Quote:

Most issues are emotional, Brother Neil, because we are emotional beings. That is how God made us - in the womb.

Nevertheless, an appeal to the emotions does not constitute reason, and logical fallacies, including the appeal to emotions variety, do not make for valid or legitimate arguments. And the same God to Whom you refer does not invite us to "come and react to how strongly someone can tug at your emotions." When it comes to the most important subject on earth -- salvation, our relationship with Him -- He invites, "come, let us reason together."

Certainly He would resort to nothing cheaper for any subsidiary issue.

August 3, 2004

If anyone is interested in a mature, realistic analysis and critique of the anti-abortion movement's message, written from a pro-lifer standpoint, I invite you to take a look here at:

Abortion: A Failure to Communicate

It's not for the self-righteous fuzzy sentimentalist who needs to believe the anti-abortion movement is just fine and it's those eeeevul sellllffffish babykillers out there who are the problem. It IS for the SERIOUS anti-abortionist who is genuinely concerned whether "the message" is having any impact on those who aren't already "of the choir" ... and if not, what might be done about that.

Sign In

The abortion issue-

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SteveB

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema