Pro-life

[Gail]

If life begins at conception, God is the greatest abortionist, since between 40 and 80 percent of fertilised ova never implant.

Hmm... I don't view something like this as God. I view it as life.

We could get into a whole discussion just on that idea alone!

[Gail]

I like Horton (who hears a Who): A person's a person, no matter how small.

Dr. Seuss was so profound!!

[fccool]

Bravus,

While I think your efforts to point out the inconsistencies in Right-Wing view is admirable (I've had a "pro-life" friend recently wishing that Iran would be nuked out of Earth's existence) , I think it's a mere intellectual cop-out in terms of facing this issues at hand by posing pointing the finger the other way.

The issue of abortion is indeed a very tough one. You can't call a naturally rejected collection of cells to be an abortion. But, I think all of us know what we are talking about when we say "Abortion". No matter how much we point the other way, it's merely an attempt to avoid the horrific issue... and the issue is in fact that potential people are killed for the sake of convenience.

If we avoid the red-herring tactics at hand, then we can agree that it's just not a way to go for a civilized society that claims to value human life. If it's a mother's viable choice to "abort the pregnancy" (rape or not)... then all of your other points that you are trying to make simply don't make any sense.

[Bravus]

I agree. Let me say, for the third time in the thread, that I am anti-abortion.

As ever, I am concerned in truth. The hardline 'conception begins at birth' position is simple, but it's over-simple, and it ignores some of the realities of human reproduction.

And yes, that's human reproduction in a fallen, sin-sick world: maybe in Eden, every fertilised ovum implanted.

Abortion in America is a warzone, and the first casualty of war is truth.

Bizarrely, it's also a war fought mostly by men...

[fccool]

I certainly agree that women should have more say and decide on the matter. The issue is really the issue of consistency that we approach personal right to life. No matter how fallen, or perfect you may think the conception is (I'm an agnostic that does not believe in concept of original sin), the right to life of a person should be protected at conception. It's really a question of "what would I have people do to me". I certainly would not want to be aborted because it would inconvenience someone else. If it's a matter of convenience, then perhaps we as a society should make the prenatal care as convenient as possible within reason. There are plenty of humane ways to deal with the issue outside of threatening prison time, or killing off the fetus. If I, as a fetus, pose so much distress to your well-being, then perhaps we can work out some other possibilities... like parents who can't have kids financially compensating for the "distress of pregnancy", and still give me the opportunity to experience life.

Unfortunately, the debate in this country is rather misdirected towards making something illegal, or pointing our the inconsistencies of certain position thus moving the focus away from the issue itself.

[Nic Samojluk]

Bravus wrote:

“If life begins at conception, God is the greatest abortionist, since between 40 and 80 percent of fertilized ova never implant.”

Since you do not believe that human life of every human being begins at conception, then can you please tell us when does it begin? At what point in your life as an individual there was no life in you? Science has always stated that the life of every individual begins at conception. If you don’t believe this, take a book of biology and check this out.

Now regarding your argument that God is the greatest abortionist, I have some questions for you: Is God responsible for the human disregard of the laws of health which were designed to protect human life for thousands of years since Adam was created? If we disregard said laws, is it fair to blame God for the suffering that results? If a person elects to smoke for years and then gets lung cancer, is God to blame for this? Is the Lord responsible for all the diseases present in the world?

Nature reacts against the abuses done by human beings, and nature destroys through earthquakes, tornadoes, and tsunamis. Does it follow that we should have the freedom to imitate nature in its destructive power?

God did destroy the human race during the Flood, the Lord destroyed the evil inhabitants of Sodom, and he will destroy millions of human beings at his Second Coming. Does it follow that we should do the same if we could?

[Nic Samojluk]

Bravus wrote:

“Abortion in America is a warzone, and the first casualty of war is truth. Bizarrely, it's also a war fought mostly by men...”

Yes, the first casualty of war is truth, and you have just demonstrated this by your next statement: that the war against abortion is fought mainly by men. To start with we should remember that the woman known as Roe in the Roes v Wade case did become a pro-lifer. So have other women who used to work inside abortion clinics. There are pro-life organizations led by women--not men.

Besides, assuming that you are correct in your statement, tell me why is it wrong for men to correct what nine unelected—all males—Justices of the Supreme Court did when they declared an open season for the mass killing of a large group of human beings when they legalized abortion?

Don’t men have the right to correct the moral blunder of other men who preceded them and caused a never ending genocide? The genocide performed by Hitler lasted a few years; the genocide of the unborn has gone for almost four decades already. Isn’t it time to stop this moral madness?

But if we can’t stop this for America, should it not stop within the walls of our own Adventist hospitals? Since when our Good News of the Gospel includes the killing of innocent human beings? The mission of Jesus Christ was to heal. Should not our mission be the same?

What did Jesus tell to John when he wanted to call fire from heaven to destroy an entire village? Did he say: Sure, go ahead, since they are evil? And do not forget that abortion involves the dismemberment of innocent human beings who have done no wrong to anybody!

[M. T. Cross]

EmptyCross wrote:

“This is where I take exception. The flood and Sodom are prime examples of stories that make me question the Christian Gods self proclaimed love of his creation.”

If you question God’s wisdom of ordering the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, then it follows that the final destruction of the wicked and of the Devil will never take place, and we are condemned to live with sin and rebellion throughout eternity. Is this what you want?

[Bravus]

Since you do not believe that human life of every human being begins at conception, then can you please tell us when does it begin?

I didn't say that. I said 'if it does begin at conception...' and then followed the logic from there.

Look, get this clear; I'm not arguing in favour of abortion. That makes the fourth time I've said it in the thread.

The issue of when life begins is a complex one, not a simple one. When the ovum implants might be a better definition, since it would avoid the problem that a majority of fertilised ova do not implant and are lost.

AS for the rest of your post, I already acknowledged the point that that may well be a consequence of sin in my original post on the point, so I'm not sure what you're ranting about.

It's a kind of shadow-boxing... there is no pro-abortion opponent here to punch, but you keep punching away anyway.

[M. T. Cross]

It's a kind of shadow-boxing... there is no pro-abortion opponent here to punch, but you keep punching away anyway.

Exactly.

I also have said nothing to support abortion, I just think it is based on personal morals, and I don't think that the government should have anything to do with it.

However I would like to go back to the original thing you posted.

Pro life means so much more than being about abortion. It means you support LIFE.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Do you mind vigoricity?

Pro-Life had its origin within the milieu of the abortion horrors (the insertion into the womb of whirring stainless steel blades to dismember the child or the introduction of a salt solution to kill the unborn child {sonograms exist showing the child being aborted, desperately attempting to evade the pain of salt upon its exposed tissues} ).

The remains of the unborn child is then suctioned/vacuumed away to be disposed of in waste bags – sometimes in a garbage dumpster in the alley behind an abortion clinic.

The attempts to attach peripheral meanings to the original intent of the term Pro-Life – proves it a bankrupt and defensive game. Pro-Choicers ought to be firm enough in their [moral?] convictions to stand by them without attempting to adulterate the actual and original meaning of the term Pro-Life. Tchah!—the madding crowd.

“How could [they] have imagined [they] were any sort of gods? How could [they] have imagined this at all?” [/ed.]

Moving on: re a natal son of the land, aarrrggg! [/barfing], actively lobbied and voted for a bill in his State allowing an abortionist whose technique actually birthed, instead, a viable child – to set it aside until naturally DEAD – denying it even the most basic rudimentary consideration as, covering it with a cloth to either warm it or to give privacy to its DYING.

To intentionally kill the unborn child is to sever it from its potential as a human being: life – for all practical purposes – begins at inception, as do all things of a natural higher order.

In genuflecting upon such savagery and depravity – ancient Sodom comes to mind – or more recently, communism – and now America. I have great fear for this country.

Small wonder that surveys show our High School boys laughing when asked if they would give up a seat on a lifeboat to a woman. Perhaps, it is that they feel more deserving than one who may be willing to kill her own unborn child.

Additionally: let’s not be too harsh on Dubya. Saddam had attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. That is an act of war. Moreover, it was Congress who demanded Dubya appear before it – that they could go on record as approving the war with Iraq. Memory tells me that there was only one Congresswoman who voted against the Carte Blanche afforded Dubya. Our Representatives – read: OUR – that is you and me inclusively (notwithstanding the MSM), took us to war.

Now, why is it that the argument always centers upon the idea that WMDs can only be nuclear? I’d much rather a nuclear weapon landed upon New York City than a genetically modified smallpox virus be unleashed in NYC.

Almost lastly: though Noah is described as a preacherman, Gd never told him to preach to the people whilst building the Ark. Matter-of-fact, Gd had already determined that except for Noah and his family, all mankind was to be destroyed – because..., Writ informs that only Noah (and presumably his family) was pure in his bloodline. Seems that Satan had been a very busy fellow corrupting the bloodline of the peoples that the Promised Redeemer would have to be born of corrupted flesh; that is, blemished. Gd, the Elohim, to save the Promised One from such, was compelled to destroy the corruption from the face of the earth; else, by commingling, ...rather than being the seed of the woman, as promised, He would have been the seed of Satan.

Seems that corrupted flesh made an appearance again – in ancient Canaanland. Ipso facto, “...kill them – man, woman, child, and beast.”

Seems, that such matters are not now endued with the same gravity as they were antediluvia – for we are now endeavouring and succeeding in genetically corrupting the flesh of both man and beast – but Jesus Christ, unblemished and unspotted, has already come, paid the Redemptor’s price, and returned to be seated at the right hand of Gd Father.

Then again, mebbe, it is considered by the Elohim to be as serious as earlier-on in that it is prophesied that the earth will be destroyed, as well – all those who receive “the mark, number, or name...”.

As it was in the days of Noah?

Lastly: per capital punishment: Gd forbid that we are less morally equipped than the basest beast, which in most instances sacrifice extraordinarily for the preservation of its young. Contrastively, capital punishment is usually reserved for the commitment of the most base and dangerous acts against society (well, unless we speak of an aberrant society – the same, which we seem to be fast approaching).

And one past lastly:

Quote:

Quote:Bravus

Bizarrely, it's also a war fought mostly by men...

As are most wars, yes? The woman’s place is in the boudoir and the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, and caring for the man, whilst he hies himself off to this, that, and the other ‘war’. Moreover, Gd said (Ps 127) that children are like arrows, and everybody knows that a man’s quiver oughta hold at least a baker’s dozen. [/kidding!!!—swatted on the back of my head]

[Bravus]

In the time of Noah, but not in the time of Jonah, eh?

[jasd]

>>In the time of Noah, but not in the time of Jonah, eh?<<

Ummm, noooo..., I recall only "As in the days of Noah..." without any recollection to a like phrase re Jonah.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time my memory sticks have failed me.

[Bravus]

My point was just that God *did* pardon the people of Ninevah after Jonah preached to them, and did not bring down destruction on them. That seems to be different to what you are saying was the case in the days of Noah.

(The whole 'racial purity' undertone of your post is deeply disturbing to me, but I guess it is what it is.)

[jasd]

>>My point was just that God *did* pardon the people of Ninevah after Jonah preached to them, and did not bring down destruction on them. That seems to be different to what you are saying was the case in the days of Noah.<<

Indeed, upon several points - I stated that Noah did not preach whilst building the Ark, it is dogmatology; and the narrative according to Genesis never addressed "pardon". That is tangentially left for the NT

1 Peter 3:18 ... quickened by the Spirit:

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

as commentary.

>>(The whole 'racial purity' undertone of your post is deeply disturbing to me, but I guess it is what it is.)<<

I appreciate the circumspection by which you approached the crux of what you find “disturbing”. However, are you not the person who’s appropriated the adage “Truth is Important”? Is it truly important to you or is it fragmentary doggerel?

Is it more important to you than, let’s say equanimity?

Anyway, what I presented was hardly “undertone”; rather it is Writ properly parsed. Gd said and did many things, which we think disturbing, but what has that to do with “Truths” per se?

For their number, I cannot possibly list the things that disturb me: people eating and taking a sip of liquid without first wiping their lips – the sight of their greasy water glass disturbs me. The paucity (no pun intended) of men who cannot or will not employ good manners in the physical presence of a woman disturbs me. The people who listen to 15-second sound bites during the evening MSM news broadcast and vote accordingly disturb me. The people who will not distinguish killing from murder in the 10Cs - assigning the cost in lives for defending this country to be borne by others disturb me. ETC.

Yet, I must bear up, non?

The subtext to all issues is truth, as nearly as it can be defined; however, I think that truths are not meant to be subtext for the tranquil mind. The mind ought to burn – being, eventually consumed.

[BobRyan]

My point was just that God *did* pardon the people of Ninevah after Jonah preached to them, and did not bring down destruction on them. That seems to be different to what you are saying was the case in the days of Noah.

The people repented in sack cloth and ashes in Noah's day.

But later then returned to their sins and so at that time God wiped them out.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

As for Noah beging "A preacher of righteousness" during that time just before he entered the ark with seven other person - 2Peter 2:5.

[phkrause]

As for Noah beging "A preacher of righteousness" during that time just before he entered the ark with seven other person - 2Peter 2:5.

Great point and verse Bob. Even if it were not in the Bible at all, just plain common sense tells you that your next door neighbor would've been curious, don't ya think?

[Nic Samojluk]

EmptyCross wrote:

“By that reasoning a mother that can not properly raise her child should not worry about aborting it. It is innocent and can be resurrected and there will be millions of Christians to take care of them and raise them up.”

We are granted life on this planet for a short time not to outsmart the all wise Creator, but to live according to his will. This will determine whether we are safe to save for eternity. Deviating from God’s will and wisdom is a sign of rebellion, and the Lord will not allow rebels to live forever.

The Lord made it clear that killing innocent human beings is beyond our right to decide who will live and who will die. The Lord knows the future, but we are limited in our knowledge. We have no right to play God!

“Being that he is the great almighty God, I am pretty sure he could have had a plan in place to let them enjoy the greatest gift of all - a full life. Not death by drowning.”

You are trying to outsmart the one who knows what is best for you, for me, and for his universe.

“Again this comes down to deciding when it actually becomes a human life. Ants and flies are alive too, yet we kill them without a moments thought. We trap mice and kill them. Really a mouse has more cognitive abilities at the point we kill it than a fetus does in the early stages of development. So I think comparing early term abortion to any of those other crimes is ludicrous.”

No, it isn’t ludicrous! The potential for good of an ant is very limited. An ant will never write a poem, build a skyscraper, develop the tools which makes life easier and more enjoyable for humanity, nor alleviate the pain and suffering of millions.

“There we go then. We will never agree on this issue.”

We will if you simply accept the notion that there is a God who created you and me and the universe, that he is smarter than both of us, and that he wants the best for us.

[Nic Samojluk]

Bravus wrote:

“The issue of when life begins is a complex one, not a simple one. When the ovum implants might be a better definition, since it would avoid the problem that a majority of fertilized ova do not implant and are lost.”

If we agree that human life begins at implantation, the fact remains that your life and mine did begin before implantation. This is a fact which is recognized by science. I agree that using implantation as a point of reference for our decisions regarding our respect for human life solves many problems, but the fact that we choose to ignore what actually happens in nature does not reflect reality.

The moment an ovum is fertilized the life of an individual has began. If the fertilized egg is not implanted it dies. Pretending that a fertilized egg does not mark the beginning of life for every human individual will not make it true. We should stop worrying about what nature does. Nature does kill; we should not follow nature but rather God’s will.

[Nic Samojluk]

EmptyCross wrote:

“I also have said nothing to support abortion, I just think it is based on personal morals, and I don't think that the government should have anything to do with it.”

I have a hard time understanding your logic. I work under the assumption that you are against theft, rape, the sexual abuse of children, and against harm done to other human beings. If this is true, then why do you defend the personal freedom to inflict the ultimate harm to another human being by dismembering the body of someone?

The harm done when someone is raped, or when someone’s property is stolen, will never morally compare with tearing the limbs and head off the body of someone; yet you defends such action as a personal right. Is life not more sacred than personal property?

Abortion is already a crime in many States when the unborn baby can survive outside the uterus. Is this an overreach by the government? If we grant our government the right and duty to protect our property, why is it wrong for it to protect human life? I can’t understand your reasoning!

[Nic Samojluk]

As for Noah beging "A preacher of righteousness" during that time just before he entered the ark with seven other person - 2Peter 2:5.

Why didn't I think about that verse? Excellent response! Thanks.

[M. T. Cross]

EmptyCross wrote:

“By that reasoning a mother that can not properly raise her child should not worry about aborting it. It is innocent and can be resurrected and there will be millions of Christians to take care of them and raise them up.”

We are granted life on this planet for a short time not to outsmart the all wise Creator, but to live according to his will. This will determine whether we are safe to save for eternity. Deviating from God’s will and wisdom is a sign of rebellion, and the Lord will not allow rebels to live forever.

The Lord made it clear that killing innocent human beings is beyond our right to decide who will live and who will die. The Lord knows the future, but we are limited in our knowledge. We have no right to play God!

[M. T. Cross]

EmptyCross wrote:

“I also have said nothing to support abortion, I just think it is based on personal morals, and I don't think that the government should have anything to do with it.”

I have a hard time understanding your logic. I work under the assumption that you are against theft, rape, the sexual abuse of children, and against harm done to other human beings. If this is true, then why do you defend the personal freedom to inflict the ultimate harm to another human being by dismembering the body of someone?

The harm done when someone is raped, or when someone’s property is stolen, will never morally compare with tearing the limbs and head off the body of someone; yet you defends such action as a personal right. Is life not more sacred than personal property?

Abortion is already a crime in many States when the unborn baby can survive outside the uterus. Is this an overreach by the government? If we grant our government the right and duty to protect our property, why is it wrong for it to protect human life? I can’t understand your reasoning!

Let me rephrase. I think the government should regulate it. As a matter of fact - as I have stated before in this very thread, I would be all for the government tightening those regulations.

That said IMO there are very viable times for abortion, and I also support the use of the morning after pill.

[doug yowell]

I still find it puzzling

why so many who are against abortion are for Capital Punishment

and

why so many who are against Capital Punishment, are for abortion

AND yet... they seem so satisfied with their excuses reasons

I can't answer for the consistency of the abortion-yes/capital punishment-no rationale but those who are in the other camp have a less complicated way of viewing things. The Scriptures call murder ("Thou shat not murder")a capital offense worthy of forfeiting one's life because it has extinguished another innocent human life. Gen.9:5,6 makes this very clear.God further instruction to Israel requires the same punishment and expands the list of capital offenses even further. The apostle Paul in Rom.13 clarifies one of the purposes of civil government in that he says that it's design is to punish evil and reward good. And it bears not the "sword" in vain. It is the duty of civil government to execute the death penalty on certain types of crimes. This was not abrogated by any enlightened principle discovered by 20th century ethicists. Abortion rights/anti-CP advocates simply turn the formula on it's head and punish the innocent while portraying the guilty as the actual victims of a murderous society. As Barack Obama once noted,he didn't want to see his daughters "punished" (the unborn child is now a punishment!)for a "mistake". Even apart from a Biblical logic it is a statement of inconsistency to argue that innocent human life is of no more value than a life that has forever eliminated that value and still call it Pro-life!