The abortion issue-

August 3, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

In my view, the other side of the arguement is that of reducing the woman into nothing more than a baby producing machine.

I can't help to believe this is the result of you feeding yourself with so much liberal propaganda and distrust of anything conservative. Did you know there are Democrats for life. You don't have to become a Republican to stand on the right side of this issue.

Look at the other side of the coin. The man's side. If pro-choice is all about allowing people sexual freedom, as Nico seems to think, then let men choose abortion too. You see as it is right now the woman can choose abortion if she doesn't want the baby, if it will hurt her carear or she is not ready to be a mother. Well what about the guy? Maybe the guy isn't ready to be a father, maybe he doesn't want the baby or maybe it will hurt his carear.

Yet the man has no choice in the matter. Nor in my opinion should he. But in order for the pro-choice crowd to be consistant he should. After all giving the choice only to the woman takes away from the man's sexual freedom. If we are equal, men, like women, should be able to have all the illicit sex they want and abort the evidence. Does it sound ridiculous? It is. Giving women the right to abort is just as ridiculous.

We live in an age when all types of birth control are available. My wife and I had sex quite often for four years and never got pregnant until we decided to have children. After having the children we wanted I had a vasectomy. Yet sex, even with birth control and even after a vacectomy can result in pregnancy. If we are going to be sexually active as mature adults we must be prepared to be responsible for the offspring we may create.

But abortion isn't about sexual freedom as Nico thinks. In fact I hadn't even heard that spin until this discussion. It is about the value placed on human life. Life is an awesome thing. Consider how rocks and sand do not grow and multiple but an apple seed planted and watered transforms into a tree and bears fruit year after year. As awesome is that life is, the human cells multiplying and growing in a woman's womb are so much more awesome because the Creator of all life gave His life so that tiny human can spend eternity with Him. Christ loves the unborn child and knew him or her before s/he was even concieved. Christ longs to spend eternity with the child. That elevates the awesomeness of human life from the apple tree. How can we, as a society, grant women the legal right to snuff that life out?

August 3, 2004

Quote:

I can't help to believe this is the result of you feeding yourself with so much liberal propaganda and distrust of anything conservative. Did you know there are Democrats for life

Sure, I know about democrates who are pro-life. But my views upon abortion are not centered in democratic/Republican viewpoints. I suppose they are centered in who we humans really are. There are values/principles involved in this creation of life that involve family. When the termination of life happens,those values of family are void, and then the values of the individual take president. When 2 couples are sexually involved but not married, nor inclined to get married, then the individuals are responsible for thier part of the illegitament child. The man should be responsible for the economic responsiblities suffered by the woman, regardless of whether he is married to her or not. But in all cases, it is her body that she is responsible for. If she accepts the responsiblity for sex, she has the right to choose to continue with the pregnacy or abort the child. Of course, she can not have too many abortions or she will become sterile and loose out on future children. And because she carries the future with her, she carries the responsiblity of what she does to her body. That is why I support legislation against alcohol abuse against pregnant mothers. Mothers who abuse thier bodys also abuse the children. If she is wanting this child, then she needs to take care of herself. If she doesn't want the child, she needs to recieve an abortion.

Quote:

You don't have to become a Republican to stand on the right side of this issue.

I am sorry, Shane, but I don't think that denying childbearing options to women is the right side of the issue. What makes man different than an animal? Is it not his right to choose his creator? As far as we know, animals don't believe in a Creator, or a higher power. They just react to stimuli that they recieve. We do the same thing, but we have the power of choice. We have the power to choose right or wrong, life or death, God or Satan. To remove that right for a woman, is to remove her God given right to bear or not bear children. If you remove that choice, you make her less than the male, less than human. If the woman is less than human, what is she? She is reduced to a baby making machine. She really has no rights as a human being, because she does not have the right to chose to give birth OR NOT.

Quote:

Well what about the guy? Maybe the guy isn't ready to be a father, maybe he doesn't want the baby or maybe it will hurt his carear.

Shane, this is called, in it's strictest terms, "illecit sex". IOWs, if he or she doesn't want a family, then the woman has the choice to bear the child or not. In this situation, the man's responsiblity ends when they part.

Quote:

If we are going to be sexually active as mature adults we must be prepared to be responsible for the offspring we may create.

I totally agree with this view. But until we have a commitment to each other [aka "marriage"], only the individuals need to take into account thier part in the creation of new life, if the woman decides to bear this child to term.

Quote:

But abortion isn't about sexual freedom as Nico thinks.

I tend to agree with Nico. It is a throwback to the victorian age of thinking that sex is a bad thing and sex is what cause the problems of the world. [it didn't.]

Quote:

That elevates the awesomeness of human life from the apple tree. How can we, as a society, grant women the legal right to snuff that life out?

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. But if that child lived for 24 hours and then died, the man who caused the abortion, was stoned to death.

August 3, 2004

Quote:

In my view, the other side of the arguement is that of reducing the woman into nothing more than a baby producing machine.

I can't help to believe this is the result of you feeding yourself with so much liberal propaganda and distrust of anything conservative.

Shane, once and for all, come off it and deal honestly with things for a change. When you deny women any right whatsoever to have a say in whether they will be mothers or not, that is precisely what you are doing -- reducing woman into nothing more than a sex object and baby factory. She's there for a man to **** and to make babies and that's all -- she has no voice, her life has no worth in and of itself; its only worth is relative to being a source of sexual satisfaction for someone else or being a 24/7 udder to offspring. Sexually active women with no contraceptive options, unless they are infertile, will get pregnant. Often. For years. You're the one, not me, who suggested the only answer you have to offer is "cross your legs". That might be fine for the Christian or Muslim celibate or virgin, but it's not practical for those who have NO REASON to invest themselves in what, to them, is someone else's moral code.

Quote:

Look at the other side of the coin. The man's side. If pro-choice is all about allowing people sexual freedom, as Nico seems to think, then let men choose abortion too.

Get real. First of all, I did not state that the pro-choice movement was about sexual freedom and you have no right whatsoever to presume to speak for me. I am right here and quite capable of answering for myself concerning what I think, thank you very much. Second, no man has ever been required to bear pregnancy, where another life literally takes its sustenance and vital functions from HIS body, or childbirth, where the pain of labor, which is the most excruciating agony the body can feel, is required of HIM, where the destruction of HIS tissues and shape is the inevitable result so that no amount of proper diet and exercise can ever restore it to what it was, in a world where some 48% of the population (holding some 90% of all positions of influence and impact on others) is prone to pass full judgment of HIS worth entirely upon the basis of HIS external appearance with no regard for his BRAIN or SPIRIT or WIT or ACCOMPLISHMENTS, and where FOREVER AFTER, for EVERY matter arising from that issue of birth, from CRADLE to GRAVE, HE will be judged and assessed upon the outcome of said "product" as if no other influences, familial, environmental, circumstantial, systemic, endemic, or otherwise, wielded any impact of appreciable measure by comparison, though HE would be as powerless against them as SHE -- SHE -- who must bear them ALL. Don't talk to me about males choosing abortion, whom in the non-Christian world (and sadly, sometimes in the Christian one, as sin is sin) are perfectly free to waltz away and attend to their own lives with no regard whatsoever for the lives they help to create, leaving the woman to fend alone to support herself in a world that is STILL male-dominated (as far as economic advantage is concerned anyway) AND support a completely helpless and dependent life that needs her 24/7 for everything even while SHE must go forth AWAY from it just to put bread on the table FOR it. Not to mention endure society's judgments of what an awful mother she is, going to work instead of staying home with her babies and collecting welfare checks, which if she did that, she'd have to endure everyone judging her as a lazy, good-for-nothing, dead-weight drain on society instead ...

Quote:

You see as it is right now the woman can choose abortion if she doesn't want the baby, if it will hurt her carear or she is not ready to be a mother. Well what about the guy? Maybe the guy isn't ready to be a father, maybe he doesn't want the baby or maybe it will hurt his carear.

Hello??? the GUY in today's society can WALK AWAY so long as he isn't married to her ... and even if he is, that doesn't stop him ... and guess who bears the brunt and the blame of it? That's right -- the woman. She's the b**** that "drove" him away and then if she tries to compel him to take responsibility for the child at least financially she becomes the gold-digging b**** that's "after his money" and the b**** that "ruined his life" and blah blah blah. It NEVER stops unless or until we stand up and stop it. We (historically speaking) aren't going to be your sex objects, baby machines, surrogate mothers, AND scapegoats all at the same time, anymore.

Quote:

Yet the man has no choice in the matter. Nor in my opinion should he. But in order for the pro-choice crowd to be consistant he should.

Then don't argue for it if you don't believe it. And don't presume to speak for a position you know nothing about from any REAL source (sorry, regurgitated spin from anti-abortionists about what pro-choice supposedly thinks does NOT count here). I at least have done my homework and in fact, I have been exposed to probably MORE anti-abortion propaganda than pro-choice propaganda. You obviously have NOT done your homework or you would know there already IS a sub-movement out there just as you describe, arguing for the right of the man to have a say in whether an abortion or birth takes place or not. Which I personally think is ludicrous UNLESS the man is ready to commit to as full a level of responsibility for the child (with or without marriage) as would be required of the woman -- that is to say, financial alone doesn't cut it.

Quote:

We live in an age when all types of birth control are available. My wife and I had sex quite often for four years and never got pregnant until we decided to have children.

Oh now I see -- you permitted yourselves birth control but to anyone who doesn't share your religion, or at least its sexual moral codes, you would deny it??? Interesting. Y'know, for your information, Shane, birth control wasn't invented for Christians or those adhering to Christian sexual morality alone. It was invented for everyone, with one purpose in mind: to drastically reduce, even practically eliminate, the incidence of unwanted pregnancy ... THUS reducing and close to eliminating the chance of unwanted children being born (an unwanted child ends up being abused or neglected far more than a wanted one) AND, hold onto YOUR hat bucko, reducing drastically the number of abortions by removing the cause for needing abortion itself.

Quote:

After having the children we wanted I had a vasectomy.

No comment, it wouldn't be a polite one.

Quote:

But abortion isn't about sexual freedom as Nico thinks.

That is NOT what I think and that is not what I said. STOP invoking MY NAME, it is NOT necessary to manufacture LIES about MY view in order to make your point. You could have just said "abortion isn't about sexual freedom" and left it at that but instead you try to smear me and misrepresent me just because you don't agree with me. That is despicable and cowardly.

Quote:

In fact I hadn't even heard that spin until this discussion.

Wake up -- "spin" is not defined in the dictionary as "anything not in agreement with wingnut rhetoric or agenda, particularly as interpreted and represented by Shane." Spin and take are two different things. Someone can have a TAKE on something (an angle or perspective) without involving spin.

Quote:

It is about the value placed on human life. Life is an awesome thing.

INCLUDING, and first and FOREMOST, the LIVES that are ALREADY HERE. Until you make the life of the woman precious, you will never succeed in persuading her that the life of the fetus is precious, especially not if you seek to persuade her of that at the expense of the value of her own life, which is essentially the #1 flaw in the anti-abortion agenda and message. To them, all that matters IS the fetus. There is NOTHING there telling the woman her life and her feelings matter, no appreciation whatsoever for how all-consuming motherhood is and how it drastically impacts a woman's entire being, selfhood and life in a way it can never impact a man's because fatherhood just doesn't carry all those things with it that motherhood does. No, the minute a fetus is involved, as far as the anti-abortionists are concerned (and make that merely a fertilized egg for the most extremist among them), everything stops right there, drop everything, nothing else matters but the fetus. Who cares how the woman feels, she doesn't exist anymore, her feelings don't matter, and if she cannot at that point effect a level of self-effacing that even CHRIST was not required to exhibit, she becomes vilified as the epitome of all evil, the embodiment of all selfishness, an object of scorn, disdain, disapprobation, even contempt, because how dare she have needs of her own ever again. How dare she hope and wish for a life and identity and worth and value for HER life now that this fetus is there.

Quote:

Christ loves the unborn child and knew him or her before s/he was even concieved. Christ longs to spend eternity with the child.

Christ will spend eternity with every unborn child. Do you think the God of mercy will consign to the second death any innocent who never had a chance to know Him and therefore could never have rejected Him?? That aborted unborn fetus has it "made" in a way no one born ever will.

Quote:

How can we, as a society, grant women the legal right to snuff that life out?

Because if we, as a society, do not, women who inadvertently get pregnant and do not want to be will find other ways -- and then the risk doubles to snuffing out not one life, but two. Ah, but I'm sure the anti-abortionists are just fine with that, since anyone willing to abort a child deserves to die as far as they are concerned. They already attribute no genuine, intrinsic, independent value to a woman's life for anything outside its ability to be a fetus nest, so why should they care if she is criminalized and driven underground if she dares take control of her life and body? Let her die; good riddance, at least that way she can't kill any more fetuses or flush any more fertilized ova!

August 3, 2004

I would like to offer a view to this issue from another perspective.

Here in Australia this issue of abortion very rarely even hits the national radar as it has been shown in many polls that the majority of Australians accept that this is an issue with an infinitly variable number of circumstances and anything other then harm minimisation policy and legislation is, at the national policy level corrosive to ideas of freedom of the citizenry to make moral/ethical choices without overt coecion, and at the community policy implimentation level completely unmanageable in any other form other then to legalise the activity and then manage the public health issues associated with the activity. We take this approach in an increasing number of states towards prostitution with great success in the areas of public health management and the minimisation of criminal activity within the industry.

I note the different atitudes towards the percieved role of Govt. in our two countries. Australians generally feel that the Govt.'s role is one of public facilities/assets management coupled with policy implimentation in areas of National interest such as Foriegn affairs. We do not see the Govt. playing a role in questions of personal moral/ethical dilemma where harm to another citizen is not an issue. I say CITIZEN as a feotus is not a citizen and therefore has no rights as such. This puts the onus of choice with the mother for her to make decisions according to her personal ideas/beliefs.

It seems that many Americans have a very different view of the role they wish for their Govt. On many personal, moral dilemma issues it seems a very vocal section of the American public wish their Govt. to legislate according to their belief system and force the entire country to live under laws based on beliefs derived from RELIGIOUS ideas. This, it seems to me, is against the spirit of the American Constituition as intentioned by the original authors. My reading of this document shows me a very inclusive, open and clever document designed to enable the widest possible paremeters within which the citizenry are free to make such personal, moral choices for themselves without the coercion of any ideas derived from any particular religious belief system.

From where I sit, all of these moral issues where there is no harm inflicted upon another citizen and certain sections of the public wish their particular belief enshrined in National legislation are not actually what they appear to be. These are NOT discussions of conflicting moral beliefs but rather discussions of conflicting viewpoints of the type of society you wish to live in and how much control you are willing to ascede to your Govt. This makes these debates VERY important but you must think about what it is you are REALLY debating.

It seems Americans are far more willing then the people in most democratic countries to hand increasingly large slices of their personal freedoms over to their Govt. This strikes me as odd for a country that sees itself as the bastian of Freedom. It also seems odd that it is Rebublicans (who I thought were in favour of SMALLER Govt.) seem to be the most eager to sign over these Rights and Freedoms. Single issues are NEVER ISOLATED ISSUES! Every legislative decision affects many other decisions and once you give a Freedom away it is nearly impossible to get back and it makes it that much easier for the next one to be lost, and the next, and the next ... etc.

August 3, 2004

Quote:

It seems that many Americans have a very different view of the role they wish for their Govt. On many personal, moral dilemma issues it seems a very vocal section of the American public wish their Govt. to legislate according to their belief system and force the entire country to live under laws based on beliefs derived from RELIGIOUS ideas. This, it seems to me, is against the spirit of the American Constituition as intentioned by the original authors. My reading of this document shows me a very inclusive, open and clever document designed to enable the widest possible paremeters within which the citizenry are free to make such personal, moral choices for themselves without the coercion of any ideas derived from any particular religious belief system.

Glenn: nail, head, BANG.

Now, will you please petition your government to relax its immigration standards JUST A TINY BIT so that those of us who are decent, self-sufficient persons but do NOT own our own wealthy businesses or have advanced degrees can obtain some political asylum? Frankly, some of us know at this stage it is a losing battle and we just want out to saner pastures before the jackboots meet our skulls.

(tongue-in-cheek, but not entirely joking)

By the way thanks for some excellent input here.

August 4, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am sorry, Shane, but I don't think that denying childbearing options to women is the right side of the issue.

Well you are wrong and deep inside you know it despite how much you want to kick against the pricks.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I tend to agree with Nico.

And the entire left wing of the Democratic party.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As I understand the bible, the unborn child was worth less than a born child.

You obviously don't spend enough time reading it.

August 4, 2004

Quote:

Well you are wrong and deep inside you know it despite how much you want to kick against the pricks.

Since when did you become prophet, Shane? And since you are implying that you have special insight into my mind and that I am fighting my conscience over this, I have only one thing to say to you.....

You are totally unimaginatively wrong.

Since you are playing with the concept of being a prophet and using prophet like tendencies, I would say that this trend is causing you to be a "false prophet". You are hearby warned....

Quote:

And the entire left wing of the Democratic party.

No, Nico is NOT quoting the entire left wing of the Democratic party. IT is mainline America, though. Unfortunately, the thoughtful views that Nico articluates are nothing more than pearls casts before animals who dont comprehend thier beauty nor thier practical worth. [sigh]

Quote:

You obviously don't spend enough time reading it.

Are you saying that the bible doesn't imply that the worth of an unborn child is less than the birthed child?

August 4, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

And since you are implying that you have special insight

The special insight I have is the Word of God. It is as clear on this issue as it is on the seventh-day Sabbath. Now I have met people that simply refused to accept the Sabbath no matter what. They hardened their hearts into a position that the day doesn't matter. It appears you have hardened your heart in the same way regarding abortion. Yet I can't believe that the Holy Spirit has given up on you. I must believe that you are kicking against the pricks.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Are you saying that the bible doesn't imply that the worth of an unborn child is less than the birthed child?

The Bible gives the death sentence to one that kills the unborn child. Can it be any more obvious?

August 4, 2004

This is an emotional issue and it appears that there is a lot of emotion on this thread.

However deciding that a person's heart is hardened on any issue is dangerously close to judging. Or, deciding that a person is killing when they make a decision concerning the future and the future of a fetus is walking on thin ice. As I said early on in this thread, God gave us the option of making personal, individual choices. When were we given the right to create laws to take away an individual's right of choice based on many varied circumstances? Judge not, least you be judged.

Laws are there for the preservation of individual freedom so that we could function in a society free from fear ... Isn't this what our founding fathers were striving to achieve?

August 4, 2004

Quote:

The Bible gives the death sentence to one that kills the unborn child. Can it be any more obvious?

From Exodus 21.21[:"blue"]21But if the slave survives a day or two, he's not to be avenged--the slave is the owner's property.

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 [/]

From Dictionary.com, the word for miscarry means-

[:"green"] mis·car·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mskr, ms-kr)

intr.v. mis·car·ried, mis·car·ry·ing, mis·car·ries

To have a miscarriage; abort.

To go astray or be lost in transit, as mail or cargo.

To fail to attain an intended goal, as a plan or project.

[/]

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".

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. However, for balance, I will give to you that the death of children, both premature and term children, are serious issues and are a vital componet to the happiness of a family.

August 5, 2004

Quote:

The special insight I have is the Word of God. It is as clear on this issue as it is on the seventh-day Sabbath. Now I have met people that simply refused to accept the Sabbath no matter what. They hardened their hearts into a position that the day doesn't matter. It appears you have hardened your heart in the same way regarding abortion....

... The Bible gives the death sentence to one that kills the unborn child. Can it be any more obvious?

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; then we have the difference between deciding what I shall do in obedience to God versus deciding whether I've the right to use force and compulsion in this world to cause others to do likewise. God gave me freedom so I might choose Him, but He gave it to me well knowing I might not. That's the risk He took. Shall I place myself above God and crusade for that same freedom to be removed from, or denied to, others? Or should I rather work to spread the gospel, to educate them, and to deal realistically with minimizing suffering in a very imperfect, sinful world where most do not know Him? Christ said His kingdom is NOT of this world and furthermore, if it were, then would His servants fight (against others in the world and in the fashion of the world). But now His kingdom is from another place.

All of which seems pretty clear to me that my duty before God is to accept His Way for myself, and my duty to my fellowmen is to love them and liberate them to choose Him of their own free wills. But clearly, as you have shown, this is not clear to everyone. And I have further observed that those who are confused about war tend to be confused about this issue as well (and others like it, because they put their trust in man and make flesh their arm, another thing we are warned against in scripture).

I could levy the same assessment in your direction for not seeing things my way, because my conscience is clear and I could determine, using the same deductive reasoning you have used, that it is you who are kicking against the pricks.

The Bible does NOT give the death sentence to the one who kills the unborn child. They are demanded to make recompense, but not life for life, as Neil has pointed out. 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!!!

[:"blue"]Edit #2: OK ... case not QUITE closed or dismissed. I've just checked the wording in several versions and I'm not entirely satisfied here. First of all, it is ambiguous whether they mean a premature live birth and then "no further harm" or "further harm" to the CHILD, or whether they mean a MISCARRIAGE and the issue of further harm or none to the WOMAN. I'll have research the Hebrew in this passage with regard to (a) the word translated "premature birth" or "miscarriage" (most versions cop out by putting one in the verse and the other in the margin; sorry, they are NOT the same thing!!!); and ( the pronouns involved to see what descriptions are attached to what party.

So this is still an open case! I'll get back after I've done the digging. If I don't get back on it after 2 weeks please remind me in a PM -- I'm pretty busy these days, what with a new onsite gig and all.[/]

August 5, 2004

As a Bible student I don't use dictionary.com to interpret the Bible. I use the bible to interpret the Bible.

The KJV of Exodus 21:22 does not use the word miscarriage. It says "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child [not fetus], so that her fruit depart from her [is born] and yet no mischief follow" The word translated mischief is the hebrew word acown and means hurt. So if the baby is born (leaves her body) but there is not further hurt, than the man pays damages. Now verse 22 really defines what kind of hurt it is talking about. "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life" So this mischief obviously refers to the loss of life. What the NASB translates as misscarriage would be better translated as premature birth. This is clarified in the column of the NASB where it states "or an untimely birth occurs; lit.,her children come out"

So Brother Niel, use your Strong's Concordance and not dictionary.com. We are people of the Word. We let the Bible translate the Bible.

Exodus 21:23 clearly teaches that the life of the unborn child is equal to the life of the man that causes a miscarriage where the child dies. It says "life for life" That is life of unborn child for life of the grown man. Understand the Biblical position: value of unborn child = value of grown man.

Now with that in mind what is the greatest tragidy since we have invaded Iraq? 900+ Americans have died? Over 5,000 Americans wounded? 20,000 Iraqis have died? Over 1,000,000 unborn children have been aborted? Hmmmmm, that seems like a no-brainer to me.

August 5, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

When were we given the right to create laws to take away an individual's right of choice based on many varied circumstances?

So if your neighbor decides to come over and kill your husband and rape you he should have the right to make that choice? Who am I to impose my morality on him?

You may repsond that I shouldn't be silly. That he doesn't have the right to violate others' rights. I would agree. The whole abortion issue comes down to whether or not the unborn child is a human being with God-given rights.

According to the verse I discussed about the unborn child's life is just as valued as a grown man's. Other portions of Scripture shows that God has plans for us while we are yet in the womb.

Now if God has a plan for my life but mommy goes to an abortion doctor and he kills me and sucks me out so some other doctor can use my stem cells to cure some illness have they just disrupted God's plan? Or will you claim God's plan for me to be killed and donate my body to science?

August 6, 2004

Quote:

When were we given the right to create laws to take away an individual's right of choice based on many varied circumstances?

So if your neighbor decides to come over and kill your husband and rape you he should have the right to make that choice? Who am I to impose my morality on him?

That's a pointless strawman argument, Shane, and you know it. It's called the slippery slope. Any time anyone argues for someone to have freedom to make their own decisions, those who want to control what everyone else thinks and decides and does trots out stupid extremisms like this that don't apply. So just knock it off because you can't argue from this premise when no one else buys into it. It's bullhonkey, balderdash, poppycock, tommyrot nonsense.

Quote:

You may repsond that I shouldn't be silly. That he doesn't have the right to violate others' rights. I would agree. The whole abortion issue comes down to whether or not the unborn child is a human being with God-given rights.

So is the woman who cannot do anything about a biological function she didn't ask for. Next?

Quote:

According to the verse I discussed about the unborn child's life is just as valued as a grown man's.

And which verse was that? Neil brought up a verse but until I can clarify it in the Hebrew, as far as I'm concerned the jury is out on that one (thanks to wishy washy translators who copped out and didn't want to be accused of being on the wrong side of some t.c. issue!)

Quote:

Now if God has a plan for my life but mommy goes to an abortion doctor and he kills me and sucks me out so some other doctor can use my stem cells to cure some illness have they just disrupted God's plan? Or will you claim God's plan for me to be killed and donate my body to science?

That's an interesting question. Have you ever thought of applying the SAME question to the issue of an illicit union altogether? That is to say, if God has a plan that mommy won't fool around in bed with a man who isn't her husband, but she does anyway and it results in some stray egg getting fertilized, has she just disrupted or usurped God's plan (perhaps to have that egg fertilized by a husband or else not at all)?? Or will you claim God's plan was for that baby to be born, that could never have been born THAT particular individual without the genetic material from the illicit father???

August 6, 2004

By the way, Nico...I love your latest signature line. Sums it all up for me.

aldona

August 6, 2004

Quote:

Now, will you please petition your government to relax its immigration standards JUST A TINY BIT

Yes - our immigration policies are a problem at the moment. We have a Govt. in power who is willing to trade on Australian's traditional fear of being swamped by "them" whom ever "them" maybe for political leverage. The fact is we are a continent the size of the USA with a population a tenth the size.

The only sane thing for us to be doing is to be welcoming all who would like to come and be part of this great multi-cultural experiment that is Australia. Our immigrants are one of our most treasured asset! We are ALL immigrants save our Aboriginal brothers and sisters - this is something Australians are prone to forget!

August 6, 2004

OK - everyone is debating this issue from a PERSONAL moral/ethical standpoint and I feel that on an issue as contentious as this no-one is going to give any ground from this angle. SO...

I have already given my view from a SOCIAL/POLITICAL viewpoint - I will now attempt a PERSONAL/POLITICAL viewpoint.

I have had the privilege of spending considerable time with a number of "primitive" societies in PNG, the Solomon Islands and Australia and I have noticed that one of the things all these societies have in common are boundaries between "men's business" and "women's business". That is, there are certain things that men deal with among themselves and other things that women deal with among themselves.

Abortion is one of those issues. In ALL of these (so called) "primitive" societies abortion is most definitely a "women's business".

They all have their own means of dealing with the nescessity of abortion under certain circumstances (certain substances/rituals they employ) but they ALL recognise that A) It is sometimes NESCESSARY and

It is the WOMEN'S decision

Now, what can we learn from these "primitive" cultures?

I personally feel that, as a man, I do NOT have the right to impose my views (what ever they may be) on something that I will NEVER fully appreciate! The ability/responsibility/HONOUR to conceive and nurture a new life inside the womb was entrusted to the FEMALE of our species and therefore any decisions pertaining to how/when/why that is carried out are outside my (as a man's) jurisdiction. I may offer my view but the ultimate decisions concerning this MUST lie with the FEMALE.

Before all you guys go off half um... well, you know, let me give you another scenario : you are giving sperm for an IVF treatment. During this process you get divorced. Your EX - wife wishes to continue using YOUR sperm - you do not. Is this "women's business" or "men's business"?

Who should have ultimate say in this instance?

Yes I know this is not the same as abortion but think about it anyway...

I do NOT think that this is an issue where men should have equal say to women. This concept of men's/women's issues is something that I feel our culture is severely retarded in.

Maybe we should hold a WOMEN ONLY referendum?

I am interested in your thoughts ...

August 6, 2004

Thank you, Glenn. I think both of the above posts hit the nail on the head.

I've said it somewhere else, but Nico's new signature sums up my view. Abortion should be rare, but it should be rare because of good birth control and support for women and children - not because women are coerced into continuing their unplanned pregnancies.

In an ideal world men and women would be able to work together in some sort of harmony and mutual understanding, but there is ample evidence all around us that we do not live in an ideal world.

aldona

August 6, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"[A]bortion should be rare--but it should be rare thanks to birth control and support for women and children, not because women guilt-trip themselves into continuing crisis pregnancies." -- Katha Pollitt

ok, I'll key you in on what is obviously wrong with this heartless woman. She admits that women use abortion as birth-control. Second, she makes the faulty assumption that all guilt is bad. Much guilt (not a little) comes from the Holy Spirit. Those that try to quiet this guilt (from the Holy Spirit) are themselves fighting against God Himself.

Abortion should be rare becuase people love God and do not wish to kill their children. Yet if love is not enough to stop them from murder, the civil government should.

August 6, 2004

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I have had the privilege of spending considerable time with a number of "primitive" societies

Well I guess I place more trust in the Word of God than in "primitive" societies.

August 7, 2004

Quote:

[:"red"] 22Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage [4] as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise. [/] Contemporary English Version

Quote:

[:"blue"] If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. [/]The Message (MSG)

I am sorry Shane, but your interpretation of the text doesn't support the context of the passage. The context is what happens to the woman. For a misscarriage, a fine is imposed. Again, a misscarriage is a abortion brought on by nature. That is what various versions of the bible say.[KJV is not a "sanctified" translation of the bible.] And different versions give a slightly differnt slant, but the same conclusion is readily available. It is not the child that the context is concerned with, but rather the woman in her pregnancy. In the process of punishment for hitting a pregnant woman, the child is implicitely given value. Only a child who is able to live separated from the umibilicord is given the concept of "God given rights".

August 7, 2004

Quote:

ok, I'll key you in on what is obviously wrong with this heartless woman.

You see, here is another intrinsic flaw in the arguments of anti-abortionists. They claim to value life but they stop at nothing to devalue anyone who does not see things exactly as they dictate things should be seen. Passing judgment on this woman as "heartless" when she clearly does have a heart for the very ones left behind in this entire debacle of a debate -- that is, those who are already in sufficient enough turmoil that they don't need someone else's emotional manipulations gunning them down and ripping them up at their most vulnerable -- is a classic example. The constant, tired, tiring, and tiresome flaw time and again in the canards offered by the anti-choice contingent is the repetitive theme that anyone pro-choice MUST be evil, MUST be wrong, MUST be heartless, etc. because they do not arrive at the same perspective as the anti-choicers.

To then turn this around and claim her assumption has been that all guilt itself is unhealthy and worthless is at best entirely speculative in nature -- nothing more than a wanton assumption itself -- and at worst, an outright deliberate fabrication. No value is given to this woman's life. The anti-choice rhetoricist thinks nothing of extending to her even the most common courtesy or basic level of decency due to strangers, that is, to not exploitatively extrapolate from her opinion elements which she herself has neither expressed nor implied, and to represent them as if they belonged to her when they belong entirely in the mind of the fabricating and falsifying rhetoricist.

It seems in the course of all the horn-tooting, pompously-parading rhetoric concerning the presumed breach of the sixth commandment there is little, if any, regard given to keeping intact the ninth.

August 7, 2004

Quote:

Well I guess I place more trust in the Word of God than in "primitive" societies.

Shane: when you take direction from the Word of God it is filtered through your understanding and interpretation as guided by your sincere feelings of conviction. This then becomes YOUR truth and this is what you use as your guide in your life choices. Someone else will read the same Biblical verse and filtered through their understanding and interpretation and guided by their sincere feelings of conviction reach the opposite conclusion to you. This then becomes THEIR truth.

Now as long as we are human this is going to be the case and as long as our understanding of the Word of God is reliant on this human mechanism of conviction NO ONE HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY "I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I AM FOLLOWING GOD'S WORD AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING GOD'S WORD". Because the fact remains YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, the best and ONLY thing you and I can do in this life is follow our personal conviction. What we CAN NOT DO is impose this personal conviction on another sincere human.

This is where we get the idea of the SEPARATION OF POWERS. The separation of CHURCH and STATE.

Your conviction on abortion is FAITH (CHURCH) based - therefore if you want to convince me that your view should be codified in Federal Legislation (STATE) you HAVE to debate me in the SOCIAL/CULTURAL enviroment. That was the point I was making with my post. In this debate, to just shrug of any other view by way of stating that you are following God's Word just confirms me in my opinion that regardless of my personal conviction on the morals of abortion I need to oppose those who conduct this debate in the manner that you do because to accept your argument is to accept the underminning of one of the basic tenents of the frail concepts of personal freedom and democracy that we have managed to create with our western forms of GOVT.

Remember that these are the ideas that enable you to express you view in the first place.

Apart from the fact that to shrug off arguments with the idea that your interpretation of God's Word is the ONLY possible interpretation is, to say the least, extraordinarily arrogant and intellectually lazy.

I am also taken aback if you are suggesting that we have nothing to learn from other cultures. I am learning every day from the many cultures that surround me. And I believe that there is not a person alive who could fail to learn things from spending time living inside and taking part in an unfamiliar culture.

August 7, 2004

Quote:

This then becomes YOUR truth and this is what you use as your guide in your life choices.

Dangerous thing to assume truth is relative and not absolute.

Same as saying.. "whatever FEELS good, do it!"

August 7, 2004

Quote:

Dangerous thing to assume truth is relative and not absolute.

Yes or no answers SteveB :

Do you believe that YOUR interpretation of the scripture is the ONLY possible interpretation one can have and still be sincere in one's faith?

Do you believe that YOU are the end authority as to the "correct" interpretation of scripture?

Do you believe that YOUR INNER CONVICTION to the fact that YOUR views are ABSOLUTE is proof of such?

Are you willing to not only JUDGE opposing interpretations of scripture as "INCORRECT" but force those holding those views to abide by YOUR interpretation through SECULAR LEGISLATIVE COERCION?

Finally ...

Does the colour "RED" look the same to YOU as to EVERYBOBY ELSE?

Quote:

Same as saying.. "whatever FEELS good, do it!"

If you re-read my post you will see that is FAR from what I am saying and to try and make that comparison indicates you either misunderstand my position or you are intentionally being disingenuous to avoid actually debating the issues raised.

Sign In

The abortion issue-

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

glenn

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

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

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

aldona

Link to comment

Share on other sites

glenn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

glenn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

aldona

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

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

glenn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SteveB

Link to comment

Share on other sites

glenn