Roe vs Roe

[cdhale]

Check out this story. I know it is old news that the lady who was Jane Roe in the famous court case that set the precedent leading to tens of millions of legal (but unethical) murders in our country became a Christian. But now she is taking the battle back to the courts!

Interesting to say the least
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33113

clint

[PhoenixRises]

Since when is it a christains right to step in and make a conscience decision for others. If we start to allow this then other christians can come in and start forcing other christains to worship on sunday for instance instead of saturday that the ten commandments command us to worship on. We get into a sticky problem if we start down that path.

[cdhale]

I agree with your premise, but not its application. I don't see how days of worship could be confused with murder. Just not the same.

clint

[itsjustdave1988]

Since when is it a christains right to step in and make a conscience decision for others.

In what way is this exemplified in the article provided?

[PhoenixRises]

Murder?

The question is this. Who has the greater rights. The mother or the fetus. If the mother does not want to bear to full term what right has the government to say she must take the risk of death to bear that child to full term. Child bearing is risky. Complications could kill the mother. Dying in child birth is common. Remember that Racheal Jacobs most loved wife died giving birth to Benjamin.

If a woman is raped and she gets pregnant should that woman be forced to bear that child? The repulibcans say yes. The Democrats say no. What is your view on this?

[PhoenixRises]

I knew a woman I knew in college who was lured to a study group in a village house where she was held down the the students and she was raped by a saudi Arabian student. This student felt immune from prosecution because his daddy was a very powerful arab cheiftain in Saudi Arabia. The woman got pregnant from this rape.

Now she got an abortion. Are you calling this woman a murderer Because she did not want to be reminded of this rape day after day for nine months as the fetus grew?

This is what the republicans want.

[itsjustdave1988]

Every child is the creation of God, whether intended or not by the mother. Even secular ethicists teach that it is not ethically permissible to perform an evil act for a good reason. This is not merely Christian teaching, but non-Christian as well.

I agree that the instances you cite are terrible situations. However, we have a choice. We can be heroes, taking up the cross that we have been given, or not. We can either choose to kill another or not. For clarity purposes, let's fast forward the growth process a bit and say the child is now born. Consider now a situation where both the infant and the mother are at risk of death. Consider also that in this situation, killing the infant would reduce the risk of the mother dying, but not eliminate the risk. (btw, some animals kill their own young for this very reason). Would it be right to kill the infant in order to save life of the mother? I don't think so. This may be the law of the jungle, but it is not, however, the law of God. The fetus is a human life, this is biologically and genetically proven. Whether or not laws of the state consider the fetus to have the the "rights" of a human is another matter. There was a time when African-American's did not have the rights of a human either. Human laws change. The will of God does not.

Abortion is the most frequently performed operation in the United States. America is sacrificing their children to their own false god ... selfishness.

[PhoenixRises]

Just so I understand you. You are saying that the mothere should DIE before the fetus is killed even in a case where it is the only way to save the mothers life?

I am afraid that you would be hard pressed to convince me via scripture that is biblical.

[PhoenixRises]

Consider this from Exodus.

21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].
21:23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


I read that to mean that if the womans fetus dies but the woman lives there is a fine. BUT if the woman dies then a life for a life.

Seems to me the fetus is not equal to a human life here.

[PhoenixRises]

Even secular ethicists teach that it is not ethically permissible to perform an evil act for a good reason.

So if A man is about to kill a child and I kill that man first is that not doing an evil act for a good reason?

[North]

The vast majority of abortions are for convenience. We must look at the fact that the 'fetus' is a living human being with many of the hallmarks of a human being early on (this is why pro-choice groups do not like pictures and scientific facts). There is no other way to look at it other than murder when you purposefully kill the child. Unfortunately, our world is moving further and further in the direction where life and its value is minimized and expendable.
Killing is rationalized.

When do we stop with the right to kill our children. 1 year old? 2 years old? If they continue to be inconvenient and cripple the mother's lifestyle and opportunities (become a threat to the mothers mental & physical health post birth).

Abortion kills what belongs to God (read Psalm 139). Abortion is not supportable from a biblical, ethical/moral standpoint.

We as Christians are called to be supportive of pregnant women and that means situations like maternity homes for adoptions and other practical assistance.

North

[PhoenixRises]

When do we stop with the right to kill our children. 1 year old? 2 years old?

Answer: When they come out of the womb. NOT BEFORE. As you know I am very pro choice.

What is pro choice? I value and uphold the choice of the woman to decide. I myself am pro life but I will NOT FORCE my views on others. That is what pro choice is all about. Respecting the choice of others.

[cdhale]

Thats all fine and dandy, but what if someone else's choice is to go ahead and kill babies that have already been born? I mean, I know you personally are pro-life, but you don't want to impose your view upon them....

sorry, your logic doesn't wash.

Society is full of items being imposed upon others. I don't really like paying taxes, but it is imposed upon me. There are many things about every job that I have ever had that I don't like, but are imposed upon me. Thats just life.

There is NO way that you can morally, ethically or biblically justify abortion.

clint

[PhoenixRises]

Thats all fine and dandy, but what if someone else's choice is to go ahead and kill babies that have already been born? I mean, I know you personally are pro-life, but you don't want to impose your view upon them....

sorry, your logic doesn't wash.


Ok Let me explain further. Once a child is born then that person is severed from the mother. No longer is this a choise of mother vs fetus.

As long as the fetus and the mother are one then it is the choice of whose rights are first. The mother or the fetus.

Does the woman have the right to terminate the pregnancy?

Does the fetus have the right to force the woman to carry it to term even in the cases of rape or incest for nine months of mental torture and physical pain and suffering of bearing a child and the risk associated with it?

Lets get this point over with. Once the child is born it has rights like any other person. Stop trying to confuse that issue.

It is when the child is a fetus that this discussion is about.

What right have we MEN to impose our moral viewpoints on a woman who has been raped to carry that fetus to term?

[kevingaily]

Originally posted by PhoenixRises
Answer: When they come out of the womb. NOT BEFORE. As you know I am very pro choice.

What is pro choice? I value and uphold the choice of the woman to decide. I myself am pro life but I will NOT FORCE my views on others. That is what pro choice is all about. Respecting the choice of others.


Who will, then, be pro-baby? Do you know that at six weeks a baby(fetus) has a beating heart and goes tyhrough REM (ie. dreams)?

I believe in a womans right to choose as well. She can choose to keep her pants on...as well as the man. It's like duh! what did you think might happen if you had sex?

I know there are cases of rape and incest. My heart goes out to those people. Yet, Why should the baby die for the parent(s) sin?

I was adopted at birth. What if my mother had chosen to terminate me? Are you trying to tell me she had the right to kill me just because she wasn't "ready" to have a child? She should've thought about that before she decided to have sex. Around 13 or 14 years ago I finally met my biological mother. She loves me and is so thankful that she carried me even though it meant giving me up for adoption. She was horrified to think what it would be like had I been aborted. A baby(fetus) is a living, heart beating, dreaming, moving person. Noone has the right to kill that baby. Does dreams and a heartbeat only count outside the womb?

You speek of not forcing views? Well what if I want to murder? or rob a bank? or any other dispicable act? How dare anyone force their morality on me. I should have the right to do it! That mentality isn't right. We have laws to protect and to serve as well as to keep order so our society doesn't break down into anarchy.

You may be confusing a slave society like ancient Rome with a free society that gives you a vote and a say. Back in Biblical times they could do nothing about unfair laws, but had to just try to eck out their existance and basicly go with the flow. But here in America we are a government by the people for the people. So we are all called to speak up. This is what makes America great. In essence we the people stand up for our values. There is a saying that "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." If you are pro-life personally, and do nothing then you allow evil to prosper.

What about the Bible? Will you not speak out of righteousness as it commands us to? Are you a Christian? If so, then you can't let your personal designs trump the word of God or your Christianity is bunk. Scripture is extreemly clear that life begins at conception. To deny this is to call God's word a lie. Politics should seat second to Scripture. Pro God must be first. If you don't agree with Scripture then I don't believe that you know Christ, at least the Christ of Scripture.

[PhoenixRises]

Kevin

You speek of not forcing views? Well what if I want to murder? or rob a bank? or any other dispicable act? How dare anyone force their morality on me. I should have the right to do it! That mentality isn't right. We have laws to protect and to serve as well as to keep order so our society doesn't break down into anarchy.

Look this keeps being brought up.
The issue is that when the fetus is not born who has more rights. The woman or the fetus?

Once born then the rights of the baby is separate from the mother.

This is the entire issue. Who has more rights. The woman or the fetus.

It has been suggested that the mother does not even have a right to abort if that is the ONLY way her life can be spared. It has been said that the woman must be forced to bear the child to term evem though the child was conceived in violence. Why should the woman be tortured for nine months just because some men decide that it is not moral for her to abort.

She can just go to Mexico to abort the fetus. What then. Prosecute her for murder then?

[kevingaily]

Originally posted by PhoenixRises
Kevin



Look this keeps being brought up.
The issue is that when the fetus is not born who has more rights. The woman or the fetus?

Once born then the rights of the baby is separate from the mother.

This is the entire issue. Who has more rights. The woman or the fetus.

It has been suggested that the mother does not even have a right to abort if that is the ONLY way her life can be spared. It has been said that the woman must be forced to bear the child to term evem though the child was conceived in violence. Why should the woman be tortured for nine months just because some men decide that it is not moral for her to abort.

She can just go to Mexico to abort the fetus. What then. Prosecute her for murder then?

Hi!

If it was done to save the mother's life, then I think you have a valid arguement. But ask yourself how many of the mulit-millions of babies aborted were done so strictly to save the mothers life?

When you talk of forcing a woman to carry a baby, remember that that baby is a life, not a tumor.

Even so, considering both your points I addressed above, that still accounts for less than 10% of abortions. The other 90+% do so for other reasons, usually they just don't want the child for various reasons.

I can't speak for Mexico, but I can speak for my country, where I have a voice and a vote. Try to understand I love people not just babies. I'm not out to harm people but to preserve life. My desire is for compassion to all. I'm not like some wacko dude who targets abortion clinics. My way of dealing with this situation is prayer, voting, and sharing my heart with those I am in contact with.

The baby has a living soul/spirit! It's not just a hunk of tissue. Women have a sacred responsibility that is God given to be the bearers of the next generation. This is so much deeper than politics. It's a product of our ever increasing secularization of America that this is even an issue. A hundred years ago this would be an appalling thing to even discuss. Our nation is falling into a moral quagmire and you suggest we just do nothing and let it go? God's word says we will be accountable for how we live our lives and how we use our "talents."

I'm sorry if you don't understand or agree with me, but I must obey God rather than men. Nevertheless, I have nothing bad in my heart for you and care about your well being too! :)

Have a nice day!!! It's Friday :banana:

[itsjustdave1988]

The question of who has more rights is absurd. They are both human lives. Is the genetic code of the unborn Child that of the mother or father? Or is it that of something other than a human? Absolutely not. It is genetically speaking, a human being in an of itself. Both the mother and the unborn child have the same rights in the eyes of God, whether state laws recognize that fact or not. Your reference to scripture only proves that killing a fetus is a sin. The only difference was the penalty of the sin. The penalty of murder varies from state to state as well, but that doesn't prove that murder is ethically permissable, does it?

Massachusetts Supreme Court, held that a viable fetus was a "human being" for the purposes of common law murder in Commonwealth v. Lawrence, (1989). So I'm to take it that if the mother kills her unborn child, its a personal choice which is somehow immune from the scrutiny of ethical principals, however, if someone else should kill the unborn child, ethical principles now apply?

On the contrary, I contend that ethical principals ought to apply for every imputable act, to include a woman's own choice to kill her unborn child. If it is an evil act under the principals of ethics and if it is a human life regardless of whether its growth continues inside or outside the womb, then I can't understand how anyone can conclude that it is ethically permissible to kill an unborn child. Can you show me how this is not an evil act under the principals of ethics? Have you even attempted to investigate the moral quality of abortion using ethical principals, or are you content with merely deciding based upon emotional appeal? Emotional appeals may work in commercials and political campaigns, however, they are rarely convincing in a scholastic discussion.

[itsjustdave1988]

A woman in my study group last night said that her mother was told by the doctor that she was going to die if she continued her pregnancy. He said her ONLY option was to abort, and that was the ONLY way her life could be spared. However, she was Catholic, and Catholicism teaches that abortion is a mortal sin. She would rather die than commit a mortal sin. She finally did die ... at age 85 ... and her daughter lived to tell about it. :)

So when you hear that the ONLY option is to abort, think again. Perhaps the one telling you that is lacking in faith.

God bless,

[itsjustdave1988]

So if A man is about to kill a child and I kill that man first is that not doing an evil act for a good reason?

You can answer the above question yourself using any good ethics text.

The ethical principles and definitions at work here are ...

1) Good and evil acts. A good act is one that leads us to the possession of a goal that we should achieve; an evil act is one that leads away from the possession of such a goal.

2) Murder. The deliberate and unjustified killing of an innocent human being.

3) Abortion. direct expulsion of a fetus from a mother's body into an environment in which it cannot survive; alternatively, it refers to the destruction of that fetus within the mother's body. In abortion, the destruction of the fetus is intended as a means or as an end. There may be some medical procedures where the destruction of the fetus is not intended, but is still a unintended consequence. The latter is not what is meant by the term abortion.

4) Aggressor. An unjust attacker

5) Principle of Double effect. given the fulfillment of four conditions--all four--an action with at least one good effect and with one or more evil effects may legitimately be performed. The conditions are: 1) the action itself must be morally good or at least morally indifferent, 2) the good effect must not be obtained through the evil effect, 3) the evil effect must not be intended, but rather only tolerated; 4) There must be a sufficiently serious reason to justify allowing the evil effect.

The right of Self-defense.
Can you legitimately use physical violence, perhaps even deadly force for the purpose of self-defense against an aggressor or to protect another innocent life? It depends upon your intent. If your intent was to kill the person, then no. But, if your intent was only to use physical violence to stop him from unjustly killing innocent lives, then yes, if that is the only way you can protect the innocent lives against the aggressor. However, there are conditions to this ethical principle.

Using the Principle of Double Effect ...

1) Preliminary: the action is: use of physical violence. The good effect is: protection of innocent life. The evil effect is: potential physical harm or loss of life for the aggressor.

2) Analysis:

a) The action itself is at least morally indifferent. The use of physical violence can be legitimately used in sporting events, for example.

b) The good effect is not achieved through the evil effect. The threat is eliminated by stopping the aggressor, not necessarily killing the aggressor. For example, I may achieve the same goal by merely knocking him out. If I could reasonably use less physical violence than deadly force to achieve the same good, then I ought to.

c) The evil effect is not intended, but merely permitted. I don't intend the death of the aggressor, however, that may occur as a consequence of my actions.

d) There is sufficient reason for permitting the evil: If I can reasonably assume that the lack of physical violence on my part would result in my death or that of another innocent life, then I have sufficient reason to use deadly force.

3) Conclusion: since all four conditions are verified, the action is licit.

As a consequence of these principles, ethicists have put forth the following conditions for self-defense ...
a) The motive must be self-defense.
b) Self-defense may be used only while the aggression is actually in progress, i.e., while I am actually being attacked.
c) The mere threat of aggressive action against me does not justify the use of physical violence in the name of self-defense. Nor can self-defense be employed after the aggression has ceased, i.e. it cannot be used to justify retaliation.
d) Physical violence may legitimately be used in self-defense only if there is no other way of repelling the aggression.
e) Violence may be used in self-defense only to the extent that it is necessary to protect my right to life. Excessive force may not legitimately be used.

Also keeping in mind that just because I may defend my own life, doesn't mean I must defend my own life. While I may never do an injustice, I may legitimately suffer one.

Can an unborn child reasonably be described as an aggressor? To call an unborn child an aggressor is to misuse the later term. For an aggressor, in any sensible meaning of the word, is an unjust attacker. It is difficult to see in what sense an unborn child could be an aggressor against its parents, who by their own voluntary act caused it to be in the mother's womb. Aggression does not consist in merely being present, but in actually doing something harmful. If the case is such that the pregnancy is not proceeding normally and there are medical problems present, that is certainly unfortunate; but it is not the child's fault. And if the "aggression" in question is against the mother's mental health, rather than her physical well-being, it is difficult to see just how killing the unborn child is going to remedy a psychological problem. Therapy may indeed be indicated; but it would take a wild stretch of the imagination to count killing as appropriate therapy. Innocent human beings are equal in their right to life. Incorrectly describing an innocent human being as an aggressor (unjust attacker) is a poor polemic.

Abortion Example. Let's say I am a physician, specializing in OB-GYN. One of my patients has a cancerous uterus, and is pregnant. She also has eight other children and no husband, and the last thing she needs is one more mouth to feed. I can certainly take care of this latter problem for her; in surgery, I remove the uterus and child, destroying both. Am I justified?

1) Preliminary: The action in question: surgical removal of a diseased organ. The good effect: restoration of health (i.e., the halt of a potentially spreading cancer). The evil effect: the death of the unborn child within the uterus.

2) Analysis:

a) The action is morally good or at least indifferent (i.e., removal of a cancerous uterus)

b) The good effect (restoration of health, stopping the cancer) is not achieved by means of the evil effect (the death of the unborn child), but rather by the removal of the uterus. In other words, if she wasn't pregnant, we would do the same action to stop the spreading cancer.

c) The evil effect, however, is intended by the surgeon.

d) There is sufficient reason for the action (ultimately, the preservation of the mother's life).

3) Conclusion: since condition #3 is not met, the action is not morally justified. Notice that condition #3 failed, in this case, simply because the physician did in fact intend to kill the fetus. It would be quite possible to have a case in which the physician had no such intention, but rather intended only the halt of the cancer. In that case, the action would be justified. One and the same physical act--but intending the evil effect or not intending it makes a large difference in the moral quality of the two instances.

(source: "Known from the Things That Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life" by Martin D. O'Keefe)

[itsjustdave1988]

In 1996, the number of U.S. abortions was 1.37 million. I wonder how many were unintended deaths. :(

[PhoenixRises]

The tactics of pro life protesters are less than honorable.

1. Posting the addresses of doctors who perform abortions.
2. Posting pictures of the kids of doctors and where they go to school.
3. encouraging the murder of abortion doctors.
4. Threatening the lives of abortion doctors and their families.
5. Killing people at abortion clinics in the name of God.


I am sorry but I have not heard of this kind of violence by pro choice people.

[PhoenixRises]

Other Honest (caugh caugh) Practices by anti abortionists.


Planned Parenthood head sues over anti-abortion Web name

The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES

Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt sued a man whose Web site uses her name but diverts visitors to an anti-abortion site.

The Internet domain name gloriafeldt.com, which was registered last year to Chris Hoffman of Pacific Palisades, directs traffic to a site called plannedchildhood.com. That site contains links to articles and groups opposed to abortion, evolution and the United Nations.

"This is an anti-choice activist," Carole Chervin, associate general counsel for Planned Parenthood, said Friday. "This was a blatant case of cybersquatting to steal her name specifically because she's the president of Planned Parenthood and a nationally recognized advocate for reproductive rights, which he opposes."

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Santa Monica by Feldt and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claims Hoffman violated the state Business and Professions Code.

The cyberpiracy statute bans people with a bad faith intent from registering or using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the name of someone else.

"Hoffman's deliberate misuse and tarnishment of her name is damaging, and will continue to damage, Ms. Feldt's name and reputation," the suit states.

Planned Parenthood wants a judge to order Hoffman to shut down the Web site and transfer its ownership to Feldt. The suit also seeks unspecified damages.

There was no telephone listing for a Chris Hoffman in Pacific Palisades.

Planned Parenthood won a 1997 lawsuit over the name plannedparenthood.com, a fake site that purported to be the group's official site, Chervin said.

She said the organization also has won ownership to sites such as planedparenthood.com and republicansforchoice.org.

[me again]

Posted by PhoenixRises
The tactics of pro life protesters are less than honorable. 1. Posting the addresses of doctors who perform abortions.
2. Posting pictures of the kids of doctors and where they go to school.
3. encouraging the murder of abortion doctors.
4. Threatening the lives of abortion doctors and their families.
5. Killing people at abortion clinics in the name of God.I am sorry but I have not heard of this kind of violence by pro choice people. What justification should have been used by civilians to stop the Nazis from killing the Jews in the 1930s and 40s? Do unborn children have less of a right to live than the WWII Jews did? Sadly, many people will say "yes." :no:

How many children can this nation kill each year before the God of heaven unseats the great power of this country? All blessings come from the Lord, to include children. Yet we are killing His children like the Nazis were cremating living Jews in WWII. :no:

I am against making it "legal" to kill unborn children. Conversely, I am against making it "legal" to kill living Jews. While this analogy may seem horrific to some, it has a lot of practicality to it.

To those who choose to kill: They have become so warped that they accept as legitimate their "right" to kill unborn children. They will have to answer to God. :(

[PhoenixRises]

Me Again

As stated before. Who has the most rights.

1. The woman who is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant.

or

2. The fetus.

It is interesting that the people who speak loudly on this thread against abortion are men. What is a womans point of view on this subject?

what is a womans point of view on the following.

1. Is abortion justified in the case of forced rape and a pregnancy as a result.

2. Is abortion justified to save the womans life.

[North]

PhoenixRises,

Your view point helps explain why we are headed the way we are in the US.

Ridiculous tactics to associate a nut or two who kills an abortion doctor (and could be hardly called Christian) with the pro-life mov't. Even Pat Robertson criticized those using violence. Nice try.

To one of your questions about who has more rights i) a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant or ii) a fetus ......you have missed the point. In your utilitarian world you seem to believe that it is okay to kill for convenience. Hopefully your kids don't feel the same way when you begin to get a little frail. The natural end of your philosophical point of view was seen in its practical context in the Third Reich (the old, mentally frail, etc).

Frankly, scripture disagrees with your question assuming that a woman has the right to terminate a life 'because she does not want to be pregnant'. Read Psalm 139 and a host of other scripture. In fact link Ps 139 & the appropriate statement in the decalogue.

North

[itsjustdave1988]

PhoenixRises,

Pro-abortionists and anti-abortionist alike cannot do evil (intending the evil) such that good may come of it. The anti-abortionist tactics that violate this precept also sin against God.

Also, I see that you're still sticking to the premise that the woman and the unborn baby as varying levels of right to life. Why? Please explain. Does an infant have less rights than a grown up? Than why ought an infant growing inside the womb of a woman have less rights than the mother? Can you provide a rational argument for such a claim?

God bless,

[itsjustdave1988]

It is interesting that the people who speak loudly on this thread against abortion are men. What is a womans point of view on this subject?

what is a womans point of view on the following.

1. Is abortion justified in the case of forced rape and a pregnancy as a result.

2. Is abortion justified to save the womans life.

The eight women in my study group say that the intended killing of an unborn child is always wrong ... always. Even under the circumstances you describe above. But, ethics is not voted upon like a highway bill. You can determine the moral quality of these acts by reason, scripture, and prayer if you weren't so afraid of the answer you might find.

Was it the child's fault that it should die? Can you give me an example when the intended killing of an unborn child is the ONLY way to save the woman's life? Becase I described a real life instance of a doctor saying such a thing, the woman had the baby anyways and didn't die. Huh! Go figure, doctors aren't God after all.

[PhoenixRises]

Does an infant have less rights than a grown up? Than why ought an infant growing inside the womb of a woman have less rights than the mother? Can you provide a rational argument for such a claim?

Does an infant have less rights than a woman bearing the fetus?

IMO yes.

Than why ought an infant growing inside the womb of a woman have less rights than the mother?

Why should a woman have less rights than the fetus? That is a two edged question?


Can you provide a rational argument for such a claim?

Nothing I can say will convince you since you obviously have made up your mind on this subject.

[PhoenixRises]

1. Is abortion justified in the case of forced rape and a pregnancy as a result.

2. Is abortion justified to save the womans life.

The eight women in my study group say that the intended killing of an unborn child is always wrong ... always. Even under the circumstances you describe above.

This kind of rational is exactly why the democrats are fillibustering the court judges in congress. More moderate stances on this subject is a must.

I am all for banning partial birth abortions.

I am not for banning abortions in ALL cases such as in cases of rape and incest and in cases to save the mothers life.

[PhoenixRises]

To one of your questions about who has more rights i) a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant or ii) a fetus ......you have missed the point. In your utilitarian world you seem to believe that it is okay to kill for convenience. Hopefully your kids don't feel the same way when you begin to get a little frail. The natural end of your philosophical point of view was seen in its practical context in the Third Reich (the old, mentally frail, etc).

Come now. Implying I am a nazi is bordering on namecalling.

This is a typical tactic of anti abortionists. Demonize the pro choice people and make them seem like anti life people.

[North]

Originally posted by PhoenixRises
Come now. Implying I am a nazi is bordering on namecalling.

This is a typical tactic of anti abortionists. Demonize the pro choice people and make them seem like anti life people.

Oh please! I did not call you a Nazi. I said the natural end of your philosophical outlook is what happened in the Third Reich in terms of utilitiarian ethics (killing the inconvenient). I think you and many pro-abortion/pro-choice folks do not intellectually follow your philosophical approach to the natural conclusion. Society will just move that way and then it is a case of......oops how did we get here.

You did not address any of the issues in the post because I think your postion is not really defendable in terms of ethics as commonly understood & certainly not with any scriptural basis.

North

[PhoenixRises]

Scripture does not deal with this issue. Show me in scipture where aborting a fetus is murder. You will be hard pressed to find such a text. It has to be exact and not some vague text about God knowing us before we are born. He knows the sparrows as well when they fall but does that mean we cannot hunt birds?

[kevingaily]

Hi Everyone! :)

Click Here (http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html) for a site that discusses the Scriptures and abortion issue.

[itsjustdave1988]

PhoenixRises,

Does an infant have less rights than a woman bearing the fetus?

IMO yes.

Why? Is it not human?

Than why ought an infant growing inside the womb of a woman have less rights than the mother?

Why should a woman have less rights than the fetus? That is a two edged question?

Actually, although you seemingly fail to see it, there are not just two edges to this question. The third answer, one that I believe is the correct one, is that they are both human lives and have equal right to live. It is not a matter of who's rights are greater. No innocent human life should be deliberately and intentionally killed. If everyone would simply apply this principle there would not be over 1.3 million abortions every year the U.S.

Can you provide a rational argument for such a claim?

I believe I can. However, you've already proved from Exodus that killing a fetus is a sin against the will of God. What other proof do you need? Furthermore, you have yet to respond to my argument from ethical principals. Is it because you can't respond convincingly?

[PhoenixRises]

In the first few weeks the fetus does not look human. It looks very much like any animal fetus for the first few weeks.

An argument can be made that the fetus is human in the last three months of the pregnancy. But not much before that.

If it cannot live without the mother it is not really a full human being YET.

As to the texts that the person quoted. Sorry I do not buy that theology. Very weak arguments IMO.

The choice should remain the womans. If you can convince her to not abort then fine. I am all for that. Otherwise???? It is her choice not yours.

[PhoenixRises]

Well I have said my say on this matter. It seems we are going in circles.

I will vote democrat to defeat the busybodiy Republicans anyway. LOL

[Xianyang]

Originally posted by PhoenixRises
It is interesting that the people who speak loudly on this thread against abortion are men. What is a womans point of view on this subject?

what is a womans point of view on the following.

1. Is abortion justified in the case of forced rape and a pregnancy as a result.

2. Is abortion justified to save the womans life.

My personal opinion when it comes to rape I for one agree on abortion. If you guys seriously think that women who were raped are suppose to keep it just because you said so then you guys are seriously sick! You may just read rape stories but I for one know what happens to them. It's full of grief! :( You'd never understand because there is hardly stories of men getting raped!

If it was due to consented sex or immoral sexuality then they must keep the baby. The baby should be saved rather than save the woman's life.

[itsjustdave1988]

In the first few weeks the fetus does not look human. It looks very much like any animal fetus for the first few weeks.

I met a gentlemen who had "Elephant Man" disease (I don't recall the real name of the disease). He didn't look human at all. That's certainly no sure criteria for determining humanity, is it? I think genetically speaking, he and every human fetus is indeed human. They have their own unique genetically human code, distinctly different from that of the mother and the father. The whole debate about when it becomes human seems to be overcome by a sound understanding of genetics.

An argument can be made that the fetus is human in the last three months of the pregnancy. But not much before that.

If it cannot live without the mother it is not really a full human being YET.

Rubbish. Science knows that it's human at conception, even if you haven't realized it. Even our laws do not dispute that fact. The dispute is whether it should enjoy the same human rights or not. There was a time when children did not enjoy the same human rights either, but that didn't make them any less human. Indeed, in some countries, I would argue that this is still the case. In our country, it is certainly still the case with unborn children.

Killing a fetus is a sin. You've shown that yourself when you cited passages from the Book of Exodus. Even secular ethicists have shown that to deliberately and intentionally kill a human life is not ethically permissible. To claim otherwise is just absurd.

[itsjustdave1988]

If you guys seriously think that women who were raped are suppose to keep it just because you said so then you guys are seriously sick!

They don't have to keep it, they just have to refrain from killing it. Rape is unfortunate, but it hardly constitutes justification for killing another innocent human life. You want to punish someone, punish the rapist, not the unborn infant. Do you think any child is conceived without God willing it? I don't.

[Xianyang]

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
They don't have to keep it, they just have to refrain from killing it. Rape is unfortunate, but it hardly constitutes justification for killing another innocent human life. You want to punish someone, punish the rapist, not the unborn infant. Do you think any child is conceived without God willing it? I don't. :rolleyes:

So letting it develop for 9 months then give it for adoption is the answer? Do you know how many children are ngelected in orphanage in the states and americans go to africa and asia to adopt children? Numerous!

The rapist is punished but they only get a few years. After that they can go back doing the same crime again.

Everything is within the willings and allowed of God even killings or destruction of properties or rulings in a country etc...

[cdhale]

Actually, I think the reason that people in the US go to foreign places to adopt children is because the demand is so strong in the US that you must wait several years before it is your turn to adopt an infant.

I suspect that though there surely is some abuse and neglect that takes place at orphanages, this is actually a rare occurence. Perhaps you watch too much TV;) . I have been involved with several children's homes (due to my church work). In the vast majority of cases the children there are not orphans, but are taken from an abusive situation and placed in the home. So the abuse/neglect actually occurs in the home and they are taken to the children's facility where they receive better treatment than ever before.

Of course, most of these children are not available for adoption.

There certainly is no shortage of parents who want to adopt. This excuse cannot be truthfully used to argue for abortion. Ethically and Morally, it wouldn't matter if there were adoptive parents around anyway. It would still be wrong to kill the baby.

clint