The abortion issue-

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

Adaption has been brought up. Are the people who bring up adaption willing to do just that. Or is this just big talk and little action.

---

Peter,

Your just blowing smoke or that is to say, you are full of uh doo doo. Can't you come up with anything substantive? There are waiting lists miles long of people waiting to adopt a child! If the supply wasn't being butchered, (did you see the pics they took off line? They took those pics off because it showed actual human beings in a dismembered, chopped up, or disintegrated state.), the demand would be more readily met.

There are millions of indigent "people" all over this world. It would appear that most of them are un-wanted. Does this mean we should kill them?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

lets discuss the cost of having a child. Who pays for an unwanted child.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

There are so many children adopted every year that most have to adopt children from overseas. Yet let's say that the demand isn't high enough. After all we are talking about over 1 million babies each year.

Government may need to start orphanages again like in years past. As bad as orphanages are, I would suspect that those raised in them are happy their mom didn't murder them. Statistics have shown children raised in orphanges actaully fair better than those raised in single-parent homes. They are less likely to go to prison and more likely to finish college.

[bevin]

ONE

Conceptions fail to turn into live births about 20% of the time NATURALLY without any human intervention. People who are strongly opposed to abortions should think about this - we are not changing the rate from 0% to 1%, we are changing the rate from 20% to 21%.

TWO

There are thousands of humans on the earth to every panda, to every endangered whale, to every gorilla, etc. Human lives per-se are not that valuable.

THREE

Accidents, alcohol, disease, and lousy surroundings kill or maim many more people than abortion kills.

FOUR

It really doesn't matter whether you destroy the fetus one day after its conception or if you prevent the conception. In either case a human life has been "lost".

*SO, WHY DO WE THINK ABORTION IS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE???*

Because we love ordering other people around, because it conceals our own foolishness and selfishness.

/Bevin

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Force? Who forced them to have sex?

---

Ever heard of Rape or incest? Stats say that happens in 1 percent of these abortions but it still happens.

---

My replies have always been about abortion as birth control....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Conceptions fail to turn into live births about 20% of the time NATURALLY without any human intervention.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

So there is no need for legal abortion. Good point.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

. Human lives per-se are not that valuable.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

From a humanistic view you are right. God disagrees but if we trust humanists to interupt Exodus 21 for us why not let them explain the value of life too?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Accidents, alcohol, disease, and lousy surroundings kill or maim many more people than abortion kills.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

True. They also kill more than war so why strive for peace?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It really doesn't matter whether you destroy the fetus one day after its conception or if you prevent the conception. In either case a human life has been "lost".

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Now there is a SPIN. I know SPIN when I see it. Abortion terminates life. Birth control prevents life from begining. Masturbation does the same. Having sex on days when a woman can't get preganant does the same. Having a "wet dream" does the same.

So you are saying an abortion is no worse than a wet dream? You know what I say? SPIN SPIN SPIN

[bonnie]

This is at least far more honest for the most part than all of the gymnastics concerning Exodus 21.

1.Conceptions fail to turn into live births about 20% of the time NATURALLY without any human intervention. People who are strongly opposed to abortions should think about this - we are not changing the rate from 0% to 1%, we are changing the rate from 20% to 21%.

No Bevin, nothing to think about on that. It is not about changing the rate of birth.

2.There are thousands of humans on the earth to every panda, to every endangered whale, to every gorilla, etc. Human lives per-se are not that valuable.

If you do not consider human life valuable, then you are consistant without having regard for destroying it. I personally consider human life more valuable than a panda. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think Christ's sacrifice was for the panda's.

The inconsisitency and the insistence that this is somehow to stop a woman from being a baby-making sex slave machine,second class citizen and somehow sactioned by God to make women fully human is poppycock.

Most children are conceived, not by sex slaves, but consenting males and females.

The torturous reasoning here is to make this somehow right.

We have those that say, yes it is killing a child, but to do otherwise makes a woman a baby making machine. Fully supports, not only necessary abortions, but on demand for any reason. Then goes on to say, they have a chance to redo this sin. If in fact it is a sin, why would it have such strong support. That question is different than, an unwed mother to be or any woman inthat position needs and should have all the emotional, spiritual, and financial support that can be reasonably given.

If the only way a woman will have a chance to bond with this child is in heaven, provided of course

she repents of this sanitary word "choice", what are we doing as christians paving the way to make this sin as accessible and easy as possible, telling her she is exercising her God given right. Then we tell her repent and you shall be reunited with your child. Even further that, just think, the aborted child has it made, he/she will be in heaven.

I personally don't know if an aborted fetus/child that can not survive outside the mother will be resurrected. Do they??

Does this include all since the beginning of creation, just those deliberatly aborted or those that have a parent that repents?

3.Accidents, alcohol, disease, and lousy surroundings kill or maim many more people than abortion kills.

Then let's do away with all laws, all acts that deliberatly take a life.

Makes sense, it is happening anyway. It would certainly eliminate the high cost of prison.

4.It really doesn't matter whether you destroy the fetus one day after its conception or if you prevent the conception. In either case a human life has been "lost".

A human life not begun is a far different story than one that has.

5. WHY DO WE THINK ABORTION IS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE???*

Because we love ordering other people around, because it conceals our own foolishness and selfishness.

Children, their safety and value is considered foolish by many.

The heigth of selfishness is abortion on demand.

The lasts few posts by Peter were selfish thinking at it's best and that is echoed by many.

The cost. Who will support, what about, what about.

Then of course we have the Sun laws to be concerned about. If Roe VS Wade is overturned can the Sun laws be far behind. "Let's keep those abortions rolling along."

If it is not biblical than the torturous routine to make it so is not necessary. If it does not matter if it is biblical, then those that try so hard to spin this into some kind of christian endeavor should relax. No argument, the bible and it's principals do not apply in this decision they have made.

Only if there is something unbiblical about abortion on demand, only if it is a child, which all that are pro-choice(abortion) have agreed it is, only if abortion is a sin and I am assuming it to be if I need to repent. If God places value, enough value to grant them eternity, right along with the living at the second coming,then show me bibically where God says, hints or implies I can destroy it on a whim for any reason.

What business does anyone have that professes to take the bible as their guide telling anyone, "Even tho I know or think this is a child , I am going to help you by supporting all abortions on demand. Just remember to repent of this little "choice" I am supporting you in so you can spend eternity in heaven with him.

Besides that aborted child has it made, it is going to heaven. Why should anyone care?

Not wrong? Don't try to make it right. Don't claim it is a child that will have eternal life

Wrong biblically and you don't care? Stop torturing scripture to prove you do. Just say so

You think it is biblical, provide the chapter and text.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

2.There are thousands of humans on the earth to every panda, to every endangered whale, to every gorilla, etc. Human lives per-se are not that valuable.

---

I read today that by 2040 there will be 9 billion people on earth. India will have more people than China and the US population will be close to 400 million. Yes human life is cheap enough. There is to many of us. Why make more humans anyway.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

Your just blowing smoke or that is to say, you are full of uh doo doo. Can't you come up with anything substantive? There are waiting lists miles long of people waiting to adopt a child!

---

If you would check your facts you will find that long line is waiting for a white child. Not a black or hispanic child.

[bevin]

There are 6B people on earth. There are 650 mountain gorillas. Tell me why I should care more about a 2 month from conception human fetus than I do about a 2 year old mountain gorilla.

I'll let God worry about whether a 12 week miscarried human goes to heaven, or is not resurrected. That is His problem.

Me, I don't regard 12 weeks after conception as alive enough to be a significant moral dilemma. It is still just another potential human - and there are more than enough of those already to go around.

Mind you, I'll fight to keep it alive, if its' mum arrives in the back of my ambulance...

/Bevin

[SteveB]

Quote:

---

Me, I don't regard 12 weeks after conception as alive enough to be a significant moral dilemma. It is still just another potential human - and there are more than enough of those already to go around.

---

Bevin,

Does God have salvation limited to a certain number? Are there too many of us for Him to save. Did He only die for a select few? Or do you even believe in that? Just wondering.

One more thing, at 12 weeks the gender is determined though difficult to diagnose by ultrasound, so it would be more appropriate to refer to “it” as he or she / him or her.

[bonnie]

1. There are 6B people on earth. There are 650 mountain gorillas. Tell me why I should care more about a 2 month from conception human fetus than I do about a 2 year old mountain gorilla.

If you do not value a child above that of a gorilla, you are right, you shouldn't worry any more about one than the other. The problem I would have with that as your right to believe is when you would try to take a couple of sentences from the bible and keep stretching it and looking for nuances to make it so.

2, I'll let God worry about whether a 12 week miscarried human goes to heaven, or is not resurrected. That is His problem.

Fair enough, it is not something that keeps me awake at night either as I don't know. However there are those here that believe they possess that knowledge.

That places a far greater burden on them. If they feel they can dispense God's gift of eternal life or know who will receive it then they have a tremendous responsibility.

Those that claim the bible as their guide as most here do, should have some idea of what it says. If in fact they are right and it is biblical, there should be no problem. If as it sounds by your statements that biblical confirmation and approval is unnecessary, secular reasoning as precedence in this case, say so.

When some say it is a child, a child destined for heaven, one which the mother can bond with IF SHE REPENTS, they are the ones with the dilemma.

Repents means I have committed a sin. Those that took part in, encouraged or condoned my sin, will also have to repent as far as I read. I have noticed a complete lack of statements on that.

3.Me, I don't regard 12 weeks after conception as alive enough to be a significant moral dilemma. It is still just another potential human - and there are more than enough of those already to go around.

You don't have a moral dilemma. While it may or may not be morally wrong, you are not saying two completly different things, using biblical references trying to reconcile them.

4.Mind you, I'll fight to keep it alive, if its' mum arrives in the back of my ambulance...

You may be very good at your job, that I don't know. Personally, I am glad that the times we needed emergency care, those helping us had more concern than they would for a baby gorilla.

I cannot imagine a 3 month fight that cost what it did for my son being fought for a baby gorilla.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Human lives per-se are not that valuable.

---

From a humanistic view you are right. God disagrees but if we trust humanists to interupt Exodus 21 for us why not let them explain the value of life too?

---

What makes you think that in God's view point, human lives are not valuable? I know you think that God says so because Jesus died for them, but concider the other evidence where God ordered the death of other people...Those "sinners"...Remember, if there were but 10 people in Sodom/Gamorrah, God would have spared the city. What if there were only 9. What about the assyrians who were slaughtered? What about the palistinians? If you say that God says that all human life is valueable now, what about the current condemnation that we are currently under? How do you rectify the concept that "God values all human life", if all mankind is currently under the sentence of death. The judgement can only be avoided by claiming Jesus as your savior.

[Dr. Shane]

This may be hard for you to grasp but there is a difference between an innocent, unborn child and those living in deliberate rebellion against God.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I read today that by 2040 there will be 9 billion people on earth. India will have more people than China and the US population will be close to 400 million. Yes human life is cheap enough. There is to many of us. Why make more humans anyway.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I trust that Jesus will return before we run out of space on planet Earth. Did you know that over 50% of the US populatioon lives within 150 miles of the coast?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If you would check your facts you will find that long line is waiting for a white child. Not a black or hispanic child.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Please, show me these facts.

[Peter]

Ok Here is the quote and the web site.

Quote:

---

International adoptions rose and fell between 1989 and 1993 but steadily increased thereafter, according to State Department data, which is based on immigrant visas issued to orphans coming to the United States.

One of the reasons foreign adoptions have been climbing is the increasing unavailability of healthy white infants in the United States, Mr. Pertman said.

Fewer than 2 percent of unwed white mothers gave their children up for adoption in the mid-1990s, said a 1999 report issued by the National Center for Health Statistics. In contrast, 19.3 percent of white unwed mothers allowed their children to be adopted in 1973, the report said.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AdoptionStatistics.htm

---

[Dr. Shane]

Did you know the more churches a community has the higher the crime rate is? It is true but one has nothing to do with the other. We need to be careful when we connect the dots.

The data you need to show me is that newborn black and hispanic babies are not getting adopted when put up for adoption. Unless they are unhealthy (birth defects) I am not aware of any newborns having to be placed in foster care due to a lack of parents wanting to adopt them.

However many women keep their children and abuse them to the point that after a few years child protection services has to take them away. At that point it is difficult to find someone to adopt them.

Interesting that before Roe v. Wade 19.3% of white unwed mothers gave their babies up for adoption but the more recent statistic shows only 2% now do. I suspect abortion is directly responsible for that statistic. Less white women give their babies up for adoption because they simply murder them if they don't want them.

[SteveB]

Ok, so your point is what?

need more adoptions in the US instead of abortions?

Good point!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

How do you rectify the concept that "God values all human life", if all mankind is currently under the sentence of death.

---

Not that I am for abortion, but you do ask a good question.

In fact my friend and I just got into this yesterday. He believes that God directly places life into the womb....He quoted Ps 139:13-16 For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. 16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, he days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them."

The problem is if you believe that God placed you in your mother's womb, then you can blame God for creating sinners or sin itself! Read Ps 51:5 to see my point.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The data you need to show me is that newborn black and hispanic babies are not getting adopted when put up for adoption. Unless they are unhealthy (birth defects) I am not aware of any newborns having to be placed in foster care due to a lack of parents wanting to adopt them.

---

What is this, Shane? You asked for and got the information that you requested. You wanted-

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you would check your facts you will find that long line is waiting for a white child. Not a black or hispanic child.

---

Please, show me these facts.

---

....and you got the source of his information. Now you want to shape the information to conclusively rebut your arguement?????

When you set the boundarys to the arguements, you WILL win every time. Unfortunately, facts [news flash!] don't always fit our thinking !

Poor form, Shane...Poor form...

[bonnie]

While I run the risk of calls for this discussion to be shut down , or likely ignored have decided to respond anyway, using only word for word quotes in this thread. Shane is a big boy and from what I have seen can certainly speak for himself, so that is not my intent. Just curious about the thought processes that have gone into this discussion and the accusations/charges made about those that oppose our personal view.

(quote by Neil)

and you got the source of his information. Now you want to shape the information to conclusively rebut your arguement?????(/quote)

Let's run thru a little and see if this has been done and by whom

Was this what was taking place with Exodus 21??

Many posts were dedicated to finding the nuances that would bolster the claims of those that support abortion on demand.

(quote by Neil)When you set the boundarys to the arguements, you WILL win every time. Unfortunately, facts [news flash!] don't always fit our thinking !

Poor form, Shane...Poor form...(/quote)

Both statements are very true , are they not? Did the argument of Exodus 21 support your facts??

(quote by Neil)

As I understand the bible, the unborn child was worth less than a born child. IOWs, if a woman were to have an abortion thru no fault of her own, ie a fight, IF the unborn child died, a monetary penalty was the judgement.(/quote)

Interesting that here "thru no fault of the mother" is used. In reality, what is being supported is a decision most of the time to engage in sex and the decision to abort the result. Direct responsibility by the mother. How does the text being referred to support abortion on demand?

(quote)22"When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. 23But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life

A woman who miscarried/aborted a child during a fight was of more worth than the aborted child. The child was compensated by "whatever the husband demands" indicating monetary compensation. However, if the woman died, then penalty was "life for life".(/quote)

Nothing in the above indicates deliberate choice based on convenience.

While I can't prove it and am not about to go searching for nuances to do so, this does not lead me to believe the mother had more value. In fact, quite the opposite. This particular text sounds more like biblical approval for the baby-making/ sex slave/second class citizen machine. Husband gets to profit from the death of a child he is not carrying in his body, and if he should loose his baby making machine, he gets to demand a life.

The concern and the ability to demand payment rests with the father.

If we use that as bibical grounds, would it then be appropriate for fathers of aborted children to demand payment??

(quote by Neil))This evidence from the bible shows that an unborn child did not have full protection/rights that an adult had.And therefore, the unborn child is not worth a life of another human being. Therefore, it is not murder. (/quote)

Given that this text was viewed as a potent weapon in the arsenal to prove and to put an end to this discussion, and prove it had a biblical basis for abortion on demand, no one has explained the rest of the chapter. 36 verses where most of them do not depend on finding a nuance.

Very clear, it says SURELY, AND NOT PERMIT TO LIVE

Who on this forum is working as diliently to pass, support or endors the death penalty where God says SURELY.

Why not. If Exodus 21 applies to our present day laws of abortion on demand, or proves it is acceptable, you must.

(quote)Nico

First, the Bible is NOT altogether clear on this issue, particularly considering what Neil has brought up about the O.T. laws which regard born life as more valuable than unborn life, and essentially relegates the fetus (in the reference given) to the status of property (while, interestingly enough, lifting the woman ABOVE that status for a change, since that's how women were pretty much viewed in those days in general). That much for STARTERS; (/quote)

Actually for starters it sounds very much like the baby making machine. Hubby gets paid for his loss, while mama incubates, carries, bonds, and then loses a child she very likely loves dearly. If in fact she dies and hubby loses his baby making machine, he can really extract the punishment for his loss.

(quote by Nico))Thus we have a direct BIBLICAL precedent for NOT valuing the life of a fetus on the same level as the life of a lively-born individual. Case closed and dismissed!!! (/quote)

Let's assume you have convinced all those that oppossed your viewpoint. While I believe the mother's life and safety does have God's blessing, it does not indicate by the abortion on demand for any reason.

Now I want to know what we do with the bible precedents in the same chapter and the next chapter.

Death penalty, remember, there is biblical precedence here. Are you oppossed

1. All the time

2. For certain crimes of a really heinous nature, or for......

A. Kidnapers

B. Those that curse their parents

C. Having other Gods before HIM

D Any guilty of beastiality

E. Sorceress

How about the precedence for paying tha man for loss of his child or his wife?

Should we enforce the Surely rule for those nasty men that entice a virgin and strip her of any say so and force him to take her as his wife. Pay for her no less, to add insult to inury.

[bonnie]

This is something maybe others could explain

(quote)Neil

Welcome to a kinder and gentler church, Steve. You abuse someone, you are held accountable.(/quote)

Abuse has now become stating either your religious beliefs or your belief as to what a text means to you or in this case what it doesn't. Have heard in time a lot of people will suffer persecution/bigotry/intolerance for that. Think I have even heard it will be at the hands of fellow church members.

(quote)You are told to knock it off. If you continue to be abusive, you get shunned by those who don't want to have much to do with you.(/quote)

Kinder and gentler have just taken on a whole new meaning. We should not shun

those that come here or our churches that do not hold the Sabbath sacred/ that do not dress as we/ our health message, believe in heaven upon death/or any of our beliefs. They should be treated kindly/lovingly/ compassionatly, But Steve as proof of this kinder/gentler church, you will be shunned if you continue to speak out about what you believe

(quote) At least by me, you have been warned.(/quote)

Perhaps he should heed this.

(quote)We hold adventist's philosophies accountable here. If you post something that many of us disagree with, we will tell you and why we feel it is wrong.(/quote)

Sounds like a non-adventist board I am on.

(quote) But you must listen to what I have said. You just don't have to take my advise....(/quote)

And that would be why?? You are under some directive or have been appointed to warn those that do not conform????

(quote)Why is it, that when shown a text that supports one position or prinicple, the opponent wants more texts? The principle shown from arguement should be enough.(/quote)

Could be because of your failure to carry the last part of that text and the rest of the chapter to the same conclusion

You are the one to claim the principals set down should be enough.

All you men, stand up and do you duty, marry those young women you enticed in your younger foolish days

(quote) So, please answer this is valid question- why do you need more texts? What is the need for an abundance of texts supporting a position? Why not show principle? (/quote)

Don't know why Steve asked, but for me the rest of those pesky texts keep saying things, Commands no less.

(quote) I have given you biblical senerios where I believe that God wants us to choose and exercise the principals given in the bible.(/quote)

Picking a couple of sentences out of the whole chapter is not what God wants or expects us to do. Or at least I don't think so

(quote) Do you choose Him [Who wants reasoned obiedience] or the devil, who wants blind obedience?(/quote)

Reasoned obedience may be seen by some as not picking and choosing, but taking God's instructions and principals as a whole.

Or is reasoned obedience seen here as blind obedience to........, Fil in the blanks, after all Steve has been warned he will be shunned on C/A if he does not change his tune.

Kinder and Gentler

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Neil, it seems you are not following the discussion that close.

• It was suggested that there are more than enough couples wanting to adopt children
• Then the comment was made that the demand for children is ONLY for white children
• I asked for data to support that
• Data was given that there are not enough white children to meet the demand for them

Ok, take a deep breath. Just because there are not enough white babies to fill the demand for them doesn't mean that there are black or hispanic babies that no one wants. Can you follow that logic? I was asking to be shown the data that there are hispanic and black newborns that no one is willing to adopt.

While the waiting list for couples wanting to adopt is long, if abortion was banned and suddenly over 1 million newborns become available each year, I suspect the waiting list would become nonexistance. So then we would have to do something with the unwanted babies - and they would probbally be mostly minorities. The answer would be what it has been throughout the history of most of the world - orphanges. Now if you think it better to kill a child than put him or her in an orphange, we disagree completely.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

I cannot imagine a 3 month fight that cost what it did for my son being fought for a baby gorilla.

---

Our society has already decided how much we are prepared to pay for a human life. It is not very much. We are not prepared to provide mothers with enough money (about $20K per year) to provide a reasonable level of nutrition, protection, health care, and education. As a direct consequence, children suffer permanent brain damage and death.

In short, the USA values an infant's life as less than $20,000 - because we are not prepared to supply that amount of money to keep an American child alive. We are certainly not prepared to supply $200 to keep an African baby alive - millions die every year for the lack of such a paltry sum.

We are prepared to let affluent middle-class families join an insurance plan, so that when a low percentage of them need $million to keep a kid alive, they get it. However the cost per family is only a few thousand dollars.

In contrast, the USA is prepared to spend $100,000/animal and more to rescue individual members endangered species.

In short, it is downright hypocritical to complain about other people aborting 12 week old fetus's while spending more money on a suit or a vacation than it would take to save a human life in Africa.

But the anti-abortion lobby never has been rational.

/Bevin

[bonnie]

1. Our society has already decided how much we are prepared to pay for a human life. It is not very much. We are not prepared to provide mothers with enough money (about $20K per year) to provide a reasonable level of nutrition, protection, health care, and education. As a direct consequence, children suffer permanent brain damage and death.

I no longer have the figures for our state, but what you have posted needs a little closer look. In Mn, a single mother on welfare gets X number of dollars per month in welfare payment. Subsidized housing.

A young mother with four children I did day care for

paid 180.00 a month for a three bedroom townhouse.

Not a mansion on the hill, but new, nicely decorated a decent roof over their head. If I had to rent the equivelant the cheapest I could expect to pay would be 650.00 and that would not be new, more on the needs work scale. Full medical bennefits for her and her children. Food stamps. Reduced or free school lunch. When they do go to work, subsidized day care kicks in. This woman paid 19.00 a week for day care for four children. I was paid an additional 256.00 per week for this care you claim they are not given.

I would suspect this alone will come very close to what you say they do not get.

The daughter of our neighbors, gave birth to a child out of wedlock. Child had several handicaps, full medical, weeks of care in the hospital, followed by specialized foster care, then was adopted by the foster parents. Is receiving state aid to help cover the cost of this child that is now hers

Another neighberhood teen , about to give birth. She is having a child because she thought it would be cool to have a baby. Diabetic and morbidly obese, thousands have gone into her medical care, all compliments of the state. Thousands more will follow. She will not be required to work till this child is school age. Care you say they do not get.

If the laws remain as they were a couple of years ago, she will then receive subsidized day care for two years, paying a very small fraction of the cost.

2. In short, the USA values an infant's life as less than $20,000 - because we are not prepared to supply that amount of money to keep an American child alive. We are certainly not prepared to supply $200 to keep an African baby alive - millions die every year for the lack of such a paltry sum.

Roe VS Wade had NOTHING to do with the starving children of Africa. Before you bring that up make sure you have all the facts surrounding conditions in those countries with their governments. We have had several family members stationed there and they have seen first hand where much of the aid that is sent actually goes. It never reaches these children and their families. So because there are starvng childen in Africa, we abort millions here??

3.We are prepared to let affluent middle-class families join an insurance plan, so that when a low percentage of them need $million to keep a kid alive, they get it. However the cost per family is only a few thousand dollars.

First time as part of this middle class I knew we were considered affluent. I am just affluent enough that I am expected to pay for this privilege of joining a insurance plan.

I am expected to work and pay my own way. I did/do not get subsidized housing/food stamps/medical /subsidzed day care/stamps/medical/dental/subsidized day care.

4. In contrast, the USA is prepared to spend $100,000/animal and more to rescue individual members endangered species.

Much of this has to do with those that value animal life on the level of humans.

5.In short, it is downright hypocritical to complain about other people aborting 12 week old fetus's while spending more money on a suit or a vacation than it would take to save a human life in Africa.

Again, ROE VS WADE HAD NOTHING TO DO WIH THE STARVING CHILDREN OF AFRICA.

It had all to do with those that wanted abortion on demand at anytime for any reason.

I cannot prove the moment life begins. Conception/6 weeks/12 weeks/16 weeks/when a child is artifically prevented from taking that first breath to qualify as a living human being.

The bible does not give a clear "Thou shalt/shall not abort. This leaves me to draw conclusions from what God does say and his love and concern for the unborn.

For those that do not consider it a child, just a whatever term they are using, I can't prove otherwise.

This is not what has taken place here.

We have one that has claimed a vision regarding this matter, taking a few sentences from scripture, wrestling it to the ground and holding it there hping a nuance or two can make it say what suits the purpose. All the while referring to this as a child, going further to say, The aborted child will have it made, it will have eternal life. Biblical references please for those that have said this. Which comes back to my original objection. If God places this much value on the unborn, what are we doing throwing something this valuable to him in the trash without a mighty good, well thought out reason.

If in fact it is a child and do consider this a sin, a sin I need to repent of to be reunited and bond with this child in heaven, what are we doing?

Where is the right of a christian SDA to say and promote, "This is a sin you will need to repent of, but I am going to do what I can with my vote/approval/backing to make this "Sin" the easiest I can for you to committ. In fact I will help make/keep it a law so that no one can stand in your way.

To accept, be considerate, to support any that find themselves in this way is far different than running ahead removing/passing laws to make it convenient.

If we claim it is sin, we will need to repent, or that we have a higher level of understanding than the ordinary person, a little care should be given to what we promote as having God's blessing/approval.

It is deceptive to keep saying "I am not pro-abortion, but pro-choice." The title of this thread clearly indicates the choice being discussed is abortion, not my right as a woman to limit the number of children I conceive. Nor is it about forcing me to engage in sex or to raise a child I don't want.

The CHOICE here is ABORTION.

6. But the anti-abortion lobby never has been rational.

Because you disagree hardly is the qualification for making something rational.

Using secualr reasoning, you are right. Those that don't have the quality of life we feel they should have, cannot or will not contribute to the soceity as a whole should be aborted or quietly put to sleep without the enormous sums of money.

On the other hand, with the gymnastics that have taken place here to reconcile what God considers important to what secualar reasoning demands is irrational and worse.

Some of the statements made here, looked at for what they actually said, should be a concern.