Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[Crow]

This thread contains pictures of aborted babies.




I am placing this warning here not to sensationalize this thread, but because when an image of an aborted child was posted in another thread, a person requested that there be a warning posted. This is a reasonable request. I would not want young kids to be looking over my shoulder when these images load. Many people are unable to stand looking at graphic pictures of dead babies.




It was made evident in another thread that some people still do not realize the extent to which our society condones the murder of children. There is a misconception that lumps of unrecognizable human tissue are being aborted. This thread is going to show exactly what goes into the incinerators and medical waste containers, so if you have a weak stomach or cannot bear to look at the images of dead children, please procede no furthur in this thread. If you wish to add photographs, please do so. Sometimes it is necessary to see the fruits of evil to understand the wickedness of those who promote the murder of babies. Look at these pictures yourself and decide if these are lumps of tissue.





This thread contains pictures of aborted babies.

[Crow]

This is the product of an abortion. Is this a human or is it a lump of tissue?

[Crow]

This baby was killed in the first trimester--12 weeks.

[Crow]

Another murdered child.

[Crow]

That "shroud" you see is a black plastic garbage bag.

[Crow]

This one really bothers me because I took a picture of my nephew a few days after he was born and he was sleeping in a very similar position.

[Crow]

Sozo posted this in another thread, and some of the responses made me realize that some people truly don't understand the scope of what is going on in abortion clinics. They have been deceived into believing that what is being removed from the womb is just a blob of tissue. Here it is again:

[Lighthouse]

:madmad:

Murderers should die at the hands of the law!

[Crow]

Here's a baby killed at 24 weeks of gestation:

[Crow]

Abortion fees (http://www.houstonwomensclinic.com/fees.html)


Canadian abortion fees (http://www.kensingtonclinic.com/fees.htm)


More abortion fees (http://www.hopemedical.com/3.htm). Note the ironic name of this facility.

More abortion fees (http://www.volunteermedical.com/4.html).

Here's a place that does abortions at six months.

[Crow]

Some people still believe that late abortions extremely are rare, and done before the baby is able to live outside the womb (viable).

When you look at the weeks of gestational age at which these abortions are being performed, keep in mind that John's Hopkins Hospital gave these percentages of viability for babies born at these gestational ages:

- at 23 weeks = 15%

- at 24 weeks = 56%

- at 25 weeks = 79%

Here are statistics from other sources cited below:

Survival rates by gestational birth age Weeks of gestation at birth

23 weeks- 30% survived
24 weeks- 52% survived
25 weeks- 76% survived

1MacDonald H, Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2002). Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics, 110(5): 1024–1027.

3Wood NS, et al. (2000). Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(6): 378–84.



These @#$% are killing babies who can survive outside the womb.

Late term abortion providers. (http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/late.html)

[Crow]

Let's put the abortions statistics in perspective. (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.htmlbible.com%2F abortstats.htm)

[Poly]

Sad and tragic thread, Crow. :(

Thanks for the courage to start it.

[Knight]

:cry:

[Zakath]

A few additional related statistics...

Christians make up the great majority (about 70%) of women obtaining abortions...

43% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant

27% of women having abortions claim to be Roman Catholic

One in five women having abortions claim to be born-again or Evangelical Christians

Source: 1995 Alan Guttmacher Institute study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html)

===============================
Incidents of Violence Against Abortion Providers
1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)

[Knight]

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. - Proverbs 29:2

[Zakath]

Perhaps the self-proclaimed "righteous" should look to cleaning their own house first... :think:

BTW, I thought the "ruler" here was GW Bush - a devout evangelical Christian...

... which "wicked man" did you have in mind, Knight?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Zakath

1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)

Okay, so it's not organized crime. But, I'm sure if they had the govenment behind them, they could do better.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Zakath

A few additional related statistics...

Christians make up the great majority (about 70%) of women obtaining abortions...

43% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant

27% of women having abortions claim to be Roman Catholic

One in five women having abortions claim to be born-again or Evangelical Christians

Source: 1995 Alan Guttmacher Institute study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html)


Ok you got me? Why the need to post this?
So what?! You think just because some of these are done by Christians that we're going to take up for them or something? Having ones baby butchered to death is wrong no matter who does it. Or is it to let us know how wicked some can be, even those who claim to be Christians? Certainly no argument there. So now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to how sickening it is to have ones own baby murdered.


===============================
Incidents of Violence Against Abortion Providers
1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)
Again, what's your point? Who around here do you expect to get defensive and take up for any of these who do such awful things?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Poly

Ok you got me? Why the need to post this?
So what?! You think just because some of these are done by Christians that we're going to take up for them or something? I think that if you Christians were halfway effective at getting your own to stop patronizing abortion providers you'd be most of the way toward eliminating abortions in the U.S.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to how sickening it is to have ones own baby murdered.Translations: Stop distracting us from wallowing in the depravity of humankind...

Again, what's your point? Who around here do you expect to get defensive and take up for any of these who do such awful things? I don't think any such thing. There are many people who read boards like this that never post a thing. It's good for them to see that things aren't so "black and white" as some people might assume...

The solution to human problems are not always as simple as passing another law... something you Christians should be the first to acknowledge.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Sozo

Okay, so it's not organized crime. But, I'm sure if they had the govenment behind them, they could do better. Yes, it's very disorganized crime. One might think with the power of the almighty allegedly behind their efforts they'd be more effective... :think:

[Crow]

Originally posted by Zakath

A few additional related statistics...

Christians make up the great majority (about 70%) of women obtaining abortions...

43% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant

27% of women having abortions claim to be Roman Catholic

One in five women having abortions claim to be born-again or Evangelical Christians

Source: 1995 Alan Guttmacher Institute study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html)

===============================

No kidding, Zakath. You were a Christian, and you don't know that Christians are just as capable of doing evil things as anyone else? This thread was aimed at our own as well as at the non-Christians. Killing babies isn't just a Christian issue, just as drive by shootings aren't just condemned by Christians.


Incidents of Violence Against Abortion Providers
1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)

Do you believe that I or most of the Christians here think that it's OK to kill or otherwise assault abortion providers? Aside from the fact that your list looks pitiful against the human lives snuffed out each year in abortion clinics, being anti-abortion does not mean that you support violence against abortionists. They should be shut down by legal means. And those who murder abortionists should be put to death for murder.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Crow

No kidding, Zakath. You were a Christian, and you don't know that Christians are just as capable of doing evil things as anyone else? Not according to some Christians...

This thread was aimed at our own as well as at the non-Christians. Killing babies isn't just a Christian issue, just as drive by shootings aren't just condemned by Christians.Thank you for clarifying that point.

Do you believe that I or most of the Christians here think that it's OK to kill or otherwise assault abortion providers? Well, I would hope not, but I read an awful lot of bluster about executing people for certain sexual activities, etc. It's hard to separate the data from the noise sometimes, if you get my meaning...

Aside from the fact that your list looks pitiful against the human lives snuffed out each year in abortion clinics, being anti-abortion does not mean that you support violence against abortionists. On what basis will some Christians, not you particularly, justify going to "war on terrorism" for killing children and adults in the WTC attacks, but not going to war on those who would kill children every day in every major city in the U.S.?

:think:

There's a cognitiive dissonance issue here...

They should be shut down by legal means. And those who murder abortionists should be put to death for murder. I think we would agree on these last two statements... :thumb:

[Poly]

Originally posted by Zakath

There are many people who read boards like this that never post a thing. It's good for them to see that things aren't so "black and white" as some people might assume...


Well, while we're on the subject of making sure that people who read boards like this are reading what's good for them, I think it should be made known that anything you would have to say will be coming from one who doesn't think it's absolutely wrong for an 8 year old child to be raped. :rolleyes:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Poly

Well, while we're on the subject of making sure that people who read boards like this are reading what's good for them, I think it should be made known that anything you would have to say will be coming from one who doesn't think it's absolutely wrong for an 8 year old child to be raped. :rolleyes: So are you happy now that you've dragged Knight's bankrupt argument back out of the archives... it's a poor attempt to divert the thread, Poly.

I think that all rape is wrong, regardless of the age of the victim.

I also believe that human slavery is wrong and that torturing and killing people because of their religious beliefs or sexual practices is wrong.

Which is more than I can say for certain biblical literalists...

[the Sibbie]

Yikes! Those are some horrible pictures! :mad: Especailly the ones without heads! :madmad:

It's amazing to see how rapidly a child grows from week to week. The growth rates are drastic!

[the Sibbie]

Zakath, I wonder how many of those "Christian" women attended the church that you used to pastor?

[erinmarie]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

Yikes! Those are some horrible pictures! :mad: Especailly the ones without heads! :madmad:

It's amazing to see how rapidly a child grows from week to week. The growth rates are drastic!

My baby brother was born at 26 weeks gestation and weighed 1 pound 13ounces. He looked smaller than most of the pics Crow posted.

Also, my oldest daughter was born 19 days after her due date, and looked smaller than all of the babies in the trash bag. It's just sad to think of the depravity of the people who commited those acts.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

Zakath, I wonder how many of those "Christian" women attended the church that you used to pastor? My, my, getting catty aren't we... :cattyfan:

Since our church was only a couple of hundred people at a time, probably not that many.

Judging by the baby boom that went on there among the young marrieds, I don't think there were many of them getting abortions during the time they attended... :think:

Much as I'd love to stay around while you sharpen your nails, I've got to head out for a meeting.

:ha:

[Crow]

Originally posted by Zakath

Not according to some Christians...

Some Christians think it's OK to have an elective abortion at 28 weeks. We've got fools in our camp too.

Well, I would hope not, but I read an awful lot of bluster about executing people for certain sexual activities, etc. It's hard to separate the data from the noise sometimes, if you get my meaning...

Christians are instructed to obey the law of the land, and that law prohibits killing people for certain sexual activities. Paul addressed it, I can't recall exactly where, I'm too lazy to look it up right now, and I'm certain you are familiar with this.

On what basis will some Christians, not you particularly, justify going to "war on terrorism" for killing children and adults in the WTC attacks, but not going to war on those who would kill children every day in every major city in the U.S.?
:think:
There's a cognitiive dissonance issue here...

Abortion doesn't get people's attention like the WTC. It isn't splashed accross the news to the same extent, and there's no gathering of weeping survivors of the murdered. We don't perceive it as an evil assault on the motherland.

Someone killing unborn babies doesn't quite present as personal a threat to most people as "Someone might drop a plane on my butt!" I think personal safety lies closest to the reason why terrorism elicits a far greater response than abortion. Adults are not in danger of abortion. Let something loose in this country that would end a few hundred thousand adult lives a year, and you'd see a somewhat heightened reaction.

Both issues need to be addressed. But do I believe that a terrorist act and a social/legal issue need to be handled or should be handled in the same manner? No. Force is appropriate to deal with terrorist attacks. Abortion is legal in this country. It should be dealt with by working to change the laws.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Zakath

So are you happy now that you've dragged Knight's bankrupt argument back out of the archives
Yes, very much so because it clearly drives the point home that one can't give much credit to any point you're trying to make.
... it's a poor attempt to divert the thread, Poly.


And just what do you call it when you try and take the attention off of babies being aborted by diverting everybody's attention to the abortionists being killed, Mr Kettle?

I think that all rape is wrong, regardless of the age of the victim.


Yes, we all know, Zakath. You believe rape is wrong but you don't believe in absolutes...blah, blah, blah.

It's still just as ridiculous as it ever was. :kookoo:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Poly

Yes, very much so because it clearly drives the point home that one can't give much credit to any point you're trying to make.

And just what do you call it when you try and take the attention off of babies being aborted by diverting everybody's attention to the abortionists being killed, Mr Kettle?


Yes, we all know, Zakath. You believe rape is wrong but you don't believe in absolutes...blah, blah, blah.

It's still just as ridiculous as it ever was. :kookoo: And you believe in absolutes, so you believe it's right to torture and kill people because of their sexual orientation...

...you're part of a group that believes human slavery is moral and good

There's plenty of foolishness to go round among us humans, Poly.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Zakath

And you believe in absolutes, so you believe it's right to torture and kill people because of their sexual orientation...
Torture? I've never said anything about torture. If you're referring to a quick death for homos then you're right.

...you're part of a group that believes human slavery is moral and good
I'm sure you're idea of slavery is anything but biblical. (nice way to take advantage of what most people will assume you mean when you say "human slavery"....cheap)

There's plenty of foolishness to go round among us humans, Poly.
So by stating "us humans" are you admitting you're foolishness in not believing in absolutes?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath

Much as I'd love to stay around while you sharpen your nails, I've got to head out for a meeting.

:ha: Run like the wind Zakath!!!!

When the going gets tough... Zakath gets sick... or gets going to a meeting.

The women of TOL gave ol' :zakath: a healthy beating today! :up:

That was awesome!

:zakath: :sibbie: :crow2: :cattyfan: :emarie: :Poly:

[Poly]

Originally posted by Knight

Run like the wind Zakath!!!!

When the going gets tough... Zakath gets sick... or gets going to a meeting.

The women of TOL gave ol' :zakath: a healthy beating today! :up:

That was awesome!

:zakath: :sibbie: :crow2: :cattyfan: :emarie: :Poly:

See? There's Poly reading Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". She passes it down the line to the other "Shesmackers" till it reaches the Sibbie who wollups Zakath with it. :D

[Crow]

Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps the self-proclaimed "righteous" should look to cleaning their own house first... :think:

Christians are just as guilty of abortion as non-Christians. The whole nation's house needs cleaned when it comes to abortion.

BTW, I thought the "ruler" here was GW Bush - a devout evangelical Christian...

You think that the President rules in a Democracy?...wait, no, Republic?....wait, no, Representative Democracy?...oh, whatever the heck this is?

:darwinsm:

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Poly

See? There's Poly reading Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". She passes it down the line to the other "Shesmackers" till it reaches the Sibbie who wollups Zakath with it. :D :darwinsm:

[Balder]

The graphic pictures are very effective at communicating the horror of abortion. I'm no longer a Christian, but abortion is not acceptable by Buddhist standards either.

But I wonder about the selective thinking here. Many of the people here, I am guessing, while rightly outraged by the violence perpetrated against these innocent babies, will nevertheless support execution of homosexuals and possibly adulterers, will defend Biblical descriptions of the mass slaughter of pagan children as "necessary" and divinely ordained, and will not say a peep against the thousands of civilians who die in our war efforts abroad. If you are truly against harming precious, sentient life, then why the narrow scope? Why be so tightly and murderously focused on this one issue, and yet so noncommittal about these other instances of human violence and atrocity?

I expect here all sorts of "conditions" to be offered, all sorts of contextual reasons why other sorts of human murder should be excused or defended (or at least ignored).

But it seems hypocritical to me.

Peace,
Balder

[Crow]

This happens to be the abortion thread. It's not the only issue. It's the issue we're discussing here. You're welcome to start threads on any of those issues you wish.

[Balder]

I have! But they're mostly being ignored... :)

[Crow]

Try pictures.

[Turbo]

It's really simple, Balder:

Protect the innocent.
Punish the guilty.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Balder

But it seems hypocritical to me.

Maybe you haven't given the topic then appropriate amount of mental attention.

Tell me....
Is all killing murder?

[Balder]

Is all killing murder?

In the tradition I follow, the prohibition is not against murder, which is a particular kind of killing (according to Judeo-Christian formulations), but against killing itself. Buddhism is more sweeping in its condemnation of killing as a "solution" to our problems.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Balder

Buddhism is more sweeping in its condemnation of killing as a "solution" to our problems. Does that include fish?

[Balder]

Sozo,

I take Crow's post #39 to be a request that I not take this thread on a tangent, so if you want to talk about this topic further, you can post to me on one of my threads in the General Theology forum.

To answer your question, though, Buddhism originally promoted vegetarianism, but not all Buddhists follow that anymore. The emphasis is on not killing human beings in particular, while also protecting all life to the greatest extent practical.

[cattyfan]

I'm a late comer to this thread today.

First, thank you for the warning. I was the one who originally requested it (before the lengthy discussion by some other posters) because I became very literally physically ill when yesterday I unexpectedly came across a graphic photo. I appreciate the warning. With the chance to brace myself, I went ahead and read all of the posts from page one.

Secondly, many of you know when I originally came to TOL, I was adamantly and loudly pro-choice. I was badgered, challenged, questioned, threatened, called names, and sent notes. But it was the quiet voices which caught my attention. And it was because of those gentle, thoughtful messages I began to examine my beliefs. I prayed, contemplated, read Bible passages, looked at pictures of my nieces and nephews. I researched, read, and prayed some more.

Then I received the following note:

abortion change of heart

Hi :cattyfan: .

I was wondering about something... I don't mean to pry or anything, but I remember last fall when you were new to TOL you made some posts saying that you supported keeping abortion legal. Then a few months later I read that you had had a change of heart and that you are now against legalized abortion.

(Correct me if I'm mistaken.)

What role, if any, the discussion(s) on TOL played in your change of heart. And if they did play a role, to what extent?

The reason I ask is that I often see debates on TOL that go like this:

Christian: This (law/situation/school curriculum/court's decision/common perception/whatever) is terrible! We've got to stop this!

Scoffer: Then get out there and DO something about it instead of whining about it on the internet.


The way I see it, "whining about it on the internet" IS doing something about it. This is, after all, a public forum set up to facilitate debate. And the people who are here, whether they post or just read, know that and are here of their own volition. And every now and then, someone changes their heart and mind about something based on the discussions here.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

Thanks for your time,
:turbo:

This is how I responded:

to be honest, Turbo, the discussions on TOL have caused me to question my support of legalized abortion. I am not fully turned, but I am having serious second thoughts about many of the things I've said here and other places.

Part of it has been the gentle words of people like ebenz and Nineveh and others like them...part of it has been the cold words of posters classifying "fetuses" as non-people, when I know from seeing 2 of my nephews born at 5 and 1/2 months and being fully formed little beings that they are, indeed, people. And part of it has been the blatant ignorance of some of the posters in the pro-choice camp.

When I was in college, I was militantly pro-choice. I went to a very liberal school, and that was the accepted viewpoint. Since then, I hadn't been challenged on my beliefs (I'm 37 now), and, because of that, I hadn't examined why I held those ideas. The debate on TOL has forced me to seriously take a look at what I think and why, and, frankly, I didn't like my reasons. They don't seem as sound now, or even, in some cases, logical.

The debates here have caused me to take a closer look at who I was and who I would like to be. Without these discussions, where we get to remain anonymous while learning, I'm not sure I could have reached this point. I still have trouble with the topic, knowing pregnancy would kill me (kidney problems,) but to look at the subject from an objective point of view, I can't say I honestly support abortion…and even personally, knowing pregnancy is death for me, I don't believe I could really terminate. (That's something I've never told anyone, but always felt.)

by the way, Sozo's vitriole did not help...in fact he hindered the process. When faced with that kind of anger, I, like so many, dig my heals in. It's the soft voices, that helped me think.

1 Kings 19:12-13 "...And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave."

Job 26:14 "and these are but the outer fringe of his works. how faint the whisper we hear of Him! Who then can understand the thunder of His power?"

I hope this answered your question...you're always welcome to ask me anything. I'll try to answer as honestly as I can.

Kindest Regards,

cattyfan

I should have given some credit to Sozo, as it was his anger towards me which originally got my attention.

The pictures on this thread made me sob. The easy dismissal of those same photos by some posters made me sob harder. My time here at TOL has forever changed me, and I am no longer pro-choice. I may be stubborn, but I'm not stupid. Those pictures clearly show children whose lives were ended by unnatural means. That's murder.

:cattyfan:

[erinmarie]

Now you're making Me cry! :cry:
That was a wonderful "statement".
Thank You!

[Sozo]

:thumb:

[the Sibbie]

Yes, thank you :cattyfan: for sharing your testimony!

[Poly]

Wow, Catty. I admire you beyond words. :cry:
You, whose life is in danger if ever becoming pregnant, would take such a stand. I only hope to match this kind of integrity that I've found in you.
You are my new hero!!!

[cattyfan]

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life.

[Poly]

Originally posted by cattyfan

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life.
Ok, Catty, you keep this up and I'm going to have to ask you to pay me for a new keyboard. This one keeps getting wet.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Balder

In the tradition I follow, the prohibition is not against murder, which is a particular kind of killing (according to Judeo-Christian formulations), but against killing itself. Buddhism is more sweeping in its condemnation of killing as a "solution" to our problems. Well thankfully most people aren't as dumb as you are and most people can see the difference between "killing" and "murder".

You see.... most people are smart enough to realize that when a lady is being raped in a grocery store parking lot and she stabs the attacker in the throat with her pocket knife she didn't commit a murder. In fact what she did was a good thing!

You..... on the other hand will live your life making a fool of yourself because your too stupid to make this simple distinction.

“And will you profane Me among My people ...., killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live,...� - Ezekiel 13:19

[Knight]

Originally posted by cattyfan

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life. Actually it is us (TOL and it's mod's and admin's) that are honored to have such an honest and frank Christian woman like you Catty as a member of our website.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Knight

Actually it is us (TOL and it's mod's and admin's) that are honored to have such an honest and frank Christian woman like you Catty as a member of our website.
Here.. Here!!

btw...

I'm sorry if I was too abrasive in the beginning, catty, and thank God for those who softened the blow. You are a testimony to the need of a great site like TOL, and how important it is that those who stand firm in the faith, continue to support it.

[cattyfan]

originally posted by Sozo

I'm sorry if I was too abrasive in the beginning, catty, and thank God for those who softened the blow. You are a testimony to the need of a great site like TOL, and how important it is that those who stand firm in the faith, continue to support it.

apology accepted, but given that it was you who got me to initially pay attention, I don't think you need to apologize. And thank you for the support.

[ShadowMaid]

I just came across this thread, and I was near tears when I saw that one picuture of the child with a severed head next to where is actually should have been. I can't understand how people can do that for a living. What a beautiful being, and they can killed it, heartlessly. It makes me so mad. I can hardly stand it.

I'm only 14 (almost 15 now! :) ), but I'm actually looking forward to getting married young, and motherhood.

Until then I just cry, and go to some abortion protests. Which I actually thoroughly enjoy. I feel so much better with how I spent my time that day. But yet I still feel so sad, knowing that I didn't stop aborion, and sometimes it seems that I only made someone madder and stick with abortion even more.

It's very sad to see young girls, only a little older then me yelling from a distance saying that we're full of it, and so on.

From this thread, I feel my duty to go out and try my best to stop all of this. It shouldn't happen, and we shouldn't be silent anymore.

[Lighthouse]

Catty-
Thank you. You are a great and wonderful person.

Sozo-
I feel the same way as Cattyfan. You seemed nothing more than abrasive and full of...hot air, when I arrived here. But somehow I saw your point, and I changed my mind. You are now someone I respect deeply.

[Crow]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Catty-
Thank you. You are a great and wonderful person.

Sozo-
I feel the same way as Cattyfan. You seemed nothing more than abrasive and full of...hot air, when I arrived here. But somehow I saw your point, and I changed my mind. You are now someone I respect deeply.

Like you and catty, Sozo grew on me too. He's always been availiable when I need a point of theology explained, he's never held back from telling me when I was wrong, and he's been kind and helpful in recommending books that have helped me to understand the Christian faith better.

He ain't so bad once you get to know him. But don't tell Sozo that. :chuckle:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Poly

Torture? I've never said anything about torture. If you're referring to a quick death for homos then you're right.Death by stoning, the preferred biblical method for killing malefactors would be considered torture by most modern societies.

I'm sure you're idea of slavery is anything but biblical. (nice way to take advantage of what most people will assume you mean when you say "human slavery"....cheap)This thread is not about human slavery, but to address your point, I understand human slavery to be the buying and selling of human beings as chattel property for the purpose of involuntary servitude.

Is that different from your definition of human slavery? :think:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight

Run like the wind Zakath!!!!

When the going gets tough... Zakath gets sick... or gets going to a meeting.Well some of us actually do have to work sometimes, Knight.

Gotta afford that Internet connection so I can help build up your post counts... :geek:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Poly

See? There's Poly reading Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"...

And the wise man proclaims it with his keyboard. :geek:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Crow
...You think that the President rules in a Democracy?...wait, no, Republic?....wait, no, Representative Democracy?...oh, whatever the heck this is?
Just to ease your confusion since you appear to have missed that high school civics lesson, the United States is a democratic republic.

The office of President is the chief executive and has authority over the executive branch of the government and the military. When the political party to which he belongs has a sufficient majority in both houses of Congress, it could be said that, as the head of his political party, he "rules" for all practical purposes.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by cattyfan

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life. What a blessing you are to The Body of Christ, TOL, future children that might just not be aborted because of your opinion, myself and even the entire world. Thanks for your honesty and your seeking (and finding) Truth. I bless you, and ask The Lord God, my Father, to bless you; with all manner of spiritual and physical blessings. Grace and peace be multiplied in your life. The Lord is glorified by your testimony, and when He is lifted up, He is able to draw all the world to Himself. :thumb:

[Crow]

Originally posted by Zakath

Just to ease your confusion since you appear to have missed that high school civics lesson, the United States is a democratic republic.

The office of President is the chief executive and has authority over the executive branch of the government and the military. When the political party to which he belongs has a sufficient majority in both houses of Congress, it could be said that, as the head of his political party, he "rules" for all practical purposes.

In theory, Zak. In practice, it's got elements of several systems, hence my tongue-in-cheek post.

With the Supreme Court free to function in a loose-cannon capacity if it so desires, a system of rising to the top that requires an expenditure of funds that leave any candidate indebited to a political party and it's various donors, and having to prostitute himself to the whims of a fickle voting public, the President has power to lead whoever feels like following him, and often ends up on the other end of the leash.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Crow

In theory, Zak. In practice, it's got elements of several systems, hence my tongue-in-cheek post.Watch those "tongue-in-cheek" things, it's too easy to bite yourself... ;)

With the Supreme Court free to function in a loose-cannon capacity if it so desires, a system of rising to the top that requires an expenditure of funds that leave any candidate indebited to a political party and it's various donors, and having to prostitute himself to the whims of a fickle voting public, the President has power to lead whoever feels like following him, and often ends up on the other end of the leash. It seems to be pretty much what the founders intended, if you read their writings. They wanted the branches of the government somewhat at odds with one another to keep too much power from accumulating in any one place and producing some form of tyranny.

The government was designed to make the president go cap in hand to the Congress for money while the Congress depends on the Executive branch to enforce its laws. The courts were supposed to ride herd on the other two branches to keep them within constitutional bounds while the president appoints justices and Congress approves them and funds them.


All in all, the system has worked pretty well over the last 200+ years. Not that there haven't been rough times, but generally things work out and the Republic shakes, rattles, and rolls on down the road. As Mick Jagger and the boys once sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."


I'd prefer this form of government to just about anything I've ever seen implemented. Theocracies, included.

[Crow]

Originally posted by Zakath

Watch those "tongue-in-cheek" things, it's too easy to bite yourself... ;)

It seems to be pretty much what the founders intended, if you read their writings. They wanted the branches of the government somewhat at odds with one another to keep too much power from accumulating in any one place and producing some form of tyranny.

The government was designed to make the president go cap in hand to the Congress for money while the Congress depends on the Executive branch to enforce its laws. The courts were supposed to ride herd on the other two branches to keep them within constitutional bounds while the president appoints justices and Congress approves them and funds them. As Mick Jagger and the boys once sung, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."

All in all, the system has worked pretty well over the last 200+ years. Not that there haven't been rough times, but generally things work out and the Republic shakes, rattles, and rolls on down the road.

I'd prefer this form of government to just about anything I've ever seen implemented. Theocracies, included.

This form of government has done well. It's not perfect, but those pesky humans keep mucking things up.

My point being, we have a government in which there is a designated leader, but when all is said and done he's not the head of the government.

Oh, well, back to abortion...

Zakath, do you think that elective abortion of a fetus is something that should be legal?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Crow

This form of government has done well. It's not perfect, but those pesky humans keep mucking things up.Darn those humans. If we could just deal with them, we could really get things to run smoothly, don't you think? ;)

My point being, we have a government in which there is a designated leader, but when all is said and done he's not the head of the government.He's the "head of state". I'm not sure we have a single "head of the government".

Oh, well, back to abortion...

Zakath, do you think that elective abortion of a fetus is something that should be legal? Yes, I do.

My reasoning is that I believe that the less government involvement in the lives of the people, the better. Thus as few things as possible should be illegal. Just those necessary to allow the smooth running of society. Based on human history, this is a somewhat idealistic view, I do realize that. So, over time, we've tried to compromise between too much government interference (totalitarianism) and too much personal freedom (anarchy). The pendulum swings back and forth and tends, over time, to settle somewhere mid-way. I'm not sure the abortion pendulum has had sufficient time to swing to center yet.

That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.

I could say similar things about any number of topics ranging from divorce to going to war.

That's merely my opinion. I do not, at this point, want to endure another debate about "absolute" morality...

[edited to fix incorrect tags - Z]

[cattyfan]

originally posted by Zakath

That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.


given that statement, Zakath, what kind of restriction on abortion would you support?

[Crow]

Originally posted by Zakath


That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.

I could say similar things about any number of topics ranging from divorce to going to war.

That's merely my opinion. I do not, at this point, want to endure another debate about "absolute" morality...

Fair enough. I'll try to stay away from absolute morality.

You say that abortion should not be completely illegal. I agree with that, but suspect that it's a much more restrictive view than yours. I have no problem with ectopic pregnancies being aborted. No good can come of trying to save this pregnancy at this point in our knowledge and technology. I have no problem if there is an acute life-threatening condition that would kill the mother, such as would occur in some injuries or when you have some early ruptured placenta previas, and other clear threats to the mother in which the fetus cannot be saved. I know of a case where a woman was found to have advanced uterine cancer early in her pregnancy, and the cancer was incompatable with not only her life but the fetal life, but a hysterectomy bought her a slim chance of recovery. It's tragic, but I don't think abortion should be illegal there either.

In what circumstances do you think that abortion should be illegal? Personally, when I supported elective abortion, even then I could not support elective abortion of a 26 week fetus. Where do you draw the line?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Crow


He ain't so bad once you get to know him. But don't tell Sozo that. :chuckle:

Hey! I have a reputation to keep! What are you trying to do to me?

:D

[Crow]

Originally posted by Sozo

Hey! I have a reputation to keep! What are you trying to do to me?

:D

Depart from me, oh Ye cursed!

There, does that help? :chuckle:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Zakath



The solution to human problems are not always as simple as passing another law... something you Christians should be the first to acknowledge.

The point is that the law not just to punish. When the laws are just they tend to teach people what is right. When atrocities are made legal by a society people use it to justify there own wicked behavior. Hitler was a master at it

[Sozo]

Originally posted by deardelmar

When atrocities are made legal by a society people use it to justify there own wicked behavior.

Well stated! :thumb:

[Crow]

If someone you know is considering abortion...

We cannot know how many abortions could have been prevented if women knew there were resources availiable to help them whether they chose to keep their child or put that child up for adoption. Financial needs are often cited as a reason women abort their children, as well as lack of housing, employment, child care, and medical care.

There are resources availiable and people who are ready to work with a woman in a crisis pregnancy and provide for her needs and the needs of her child, and not just counseling, which isn't going to put a roof over her head, food on her table, provide daycare for her other kids, or put maternity clothes on her back. Here are some groups who will assist them.

Birthright (http://www.birthright.org/htmpages/services.htm) 1-800-550-4900 Help with adoption or keeping the baby and obtaining financial and non-financial resources.

Pregnancy Resource Center locater (http://www.optionline.org/locate.html) Search that locates assistance by zip code.

American Adoptions (http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/index) Helps those who wish to place their baby for adoption find resources and choose an adoptive family.

There are many other resources out there. We never know if someday we will be put in the position of being able to assist a woman to give birth to her child instead of aborting the baby. We need to be ready and willing to help these women.

[Lighthouse]

Go delmar! :bannana: Go delmar!

[cattyfan]

still waiting for Zakath to bother answering the direct questions he was asked...(I'm hoping he'll answer in a straight-forward manner, rather than talking around the question as so many people try.)

[smothers]

Ran across this on the web:

The attached article succintly describes a dilema I have. I don't trust the pro-life crowd to tell the truth about abortion. Nor do I trust planned-parenthood either. Both have a religious/ideological/monetary axe to grind.

I don't think a fetus is a person until it has brain activity. That doesn't happen until about week 20. A non-person does not have rights and thus can be "killed" at the discretion of the mother.

I view the pictures on these threads as suspect at best. They may or may not be doctored. Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others? I think that point is 20 weeks.

-------

Abortion: Sides Battle For Cyberspace Domination
by Patrick Goodenough
January 11, 2001


(CNSNews.com) - Alarmed that women looking for abortion information on the Internet tend to come up with pro-life sites - some containing disturbing images - one of Britain's largest abortion agencies has launched an Internet "gateway" to overcome the problem.

But pro-lifers say the campaign shows that they have truth on their side, that women may reconsider when faced with the reality of what they are considering doing to their unborn children.

Marie Stopes International says its research shows many women looking for "non-judgmental" information about abortion on the World Wide Web instead end up with inaccurate information and shocking pictures of abortions.

"To protect vulnerable women from the worst excesses of anti-abortion websites," MSI said, it has set up a "safe abortion internet gateway" at abortion-help.co.uk, which it hopes will attract more search hits.

"There are sites out there that purport to be offering non-judgmental advice and once you get into them you're confronted with these fairly difficult images, a lot of which ... are manufactured," MSI spokesman Tony Kerridge explained.

In Britain, he said, pro-life organizations - "for whatever reason, I don't know how" -tend to appear higher up the list of sites offered by Internet search engines.

"If women type in keywords [in a search engine like Yahoo!], they tend to get a list that will have anti-abortion organizations before pro-choice organizations.

"A lot of women were deterred from exploring the Internet further because they came up against that kind of blank wall - that was the general thrust that came back from the qualitative research we did."

MSI is advertising the new site address, he said, and "looking into ways of getting our name further up the list on search engines and on more search engines so that we're more prominent."

Kerridge accused some pro-life sites of using deceptive methods.

One anti-abortion group, he said, had set up a site using the name of a pro-abortion organization, but with the suffix .org rather than .com, in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

"People were genuinely typing in what they thought was [the name of] a genuine site that would give non-directive advice and the first thing they saw was this graphic imagery.

"There are people out there who aren't that confident with the Internet, and it's unfair that they should be confronted with that. They're going in for some information to help them make a decision, and they come across particularly nasty materials, almost pornographic stuff."

Some sites, Kerridge charged, used graphics that had been "doctored" with special software or blatantly untrue captions.

Pictures purporting to be "aborted fetuses" were actually stillborn babies. "They'll present a 20-week fetus as an eight-week fetus, for example. They're playing mind-games. We've even seen things that have obviously been doctored. They'll go to pretty much any lengths."

Kerridge also accused some pro-life groups of "misinformation."

Asked for an example, he said they were "forever banging on about what they call post-abortion trauma syndrome." Yet MSI offers women free post-abortion counseling, he said, and "I think less than two percent take it up."

"Most women, their immediate response to having a termination is relief - they've solved the problem, they couldn't contemplate having a baby at that particular point in their lives."

In the FAQ (frequently-asked questions) section of the new abortion site, the question "How will I feel afterwards?" gets the answer: "Very few women experience feelings of extreme guilt or depression after abortion. Initially, most of our clients report feelings of relief, bit it is not uncommon to feel a bit 'low' for a few days."

'Money-spinning business'

MSI carries out around 35,000 abortions a year. Last July it set up a service enabling women to book online for a consultation leading to an abortion.

Invited to respond to its latest campaign, the British pro-life charity Life (lifeuk.org) said MSI was not offering "honest, straightforward help and advice" as it claims.

"By failing to tell the truth about the effects of abortion on the physical and mental health of women they are denying women the right to make a fully informed decision," said Life spokesperson Rachel Heath.

"Abortion always has two victims; one dead, the other wounded," she said. "Where is the practical help and advice for those women who want to keep their unborn child?"

Heath said abortion was a "big money-spinning business and MSI is one cog in the wheel."

Meanwhile the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (spuc.org.uk) said the MSI initiative "proves that the pro-abortionists are becoming ever more desperate to get their message across."

"The campaign emphasizes choice, but in fact it is a campaign against freedom of speech and information," said spokesman Dominic Baster.

"It is a tacit admission that pro-lifers have truth on their side, and that many women think twice about aborting their unborn child when faced with the reality of what abortion entails. Every surgical abortion stops a baby's heart from beating, and this is the truth which Marie Stopes International wants to hide."

[Aimiel]

Where did you come from, who moved the rock, and what is that smell?

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Where did you come from, who moved the rock, and what is that smell?

Is it your habit to answer a post you disagree with by reducing yourself to an ad hominom attack? Isn't that rather childish? If you have problems/disagreement with the argument, perhaps you should address them.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by smothers
Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others?

And until that question is answered (if ever) do you support the murder of innocent babies?

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

Is it your habit to answer a post you disagree with by reducing yourself to an ad hominom attack? Isn't that rather childish? If you have problems/disagreement with the argument, perhaps you should address them. No, but seeing you online was very startling. Yes, I guess it is childish.

OK, the child is human at moment of conception. It is one second two human cells (tissue), and the next it is a human zygote. Next question.

Would you please answer my earlier inquiries?

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

No, but seeing you online was very startling. Yes, I guess it is childish.

OK, the child is human at moment of conception. It is one second two human cells (tissue), and the next it is a human zygote. Next question.

Would you please answer my earlier inquiries?

Sure:

Where did (I) come from? London, England

Who moved the rock? The web-master

What is that smell? Probably the milk you let spoil in the fridger. :)


My origional question was "When is a baby a person? It is evident at conception that the biological creature is human. I argue that it is not a person with the same rights as my five year old until it is a person. I view personhood as starting when the baby has brain activity. One can therefore terminate a pregnancy prior to the point of personhood.

[smothers]

Originally posted by On Fire

And until that question is answered (if ever) do you support the murder of innocent babies?

That is a rather loaded question. It is full of emotionally-laden adgectives and asumes that question has not been answered.

Would it be fair to rephrase your question as:

"Do you support the killing of babies?" The adgectives blur the argument.

Mark

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

My origional question was "When is a baby a person? It is evident at conception that the biological creature is human. I argue that it is not a person with the same rights as my five year old until it is a person. I view personhood as starting when the baby has brain activity. One can therefore terminate a pregnancy prior to the point of personhood. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Does your five-year-old have any brain activity? It doesn't seem that you do.

A baby is an infant person, whether you 'view' it that way or not.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Does your five-year-old have any brain activity? It doesn't seem that you do.



My five year-old has brain activity. It is self-evident that I do as well. One without working brain synapses would not be able to type. You can of course question my mental health or the veracity of my argument.


A baby is an infant person, whether you 'view' it that way or not.

Can you tell me why you think a baby is an infant person with the same rights as you or me?

[Aimiel]

Let's see, if you don't pull them out of the womb, piece by piece, or just take them down into the birth canal low enough to throttle them before their head is 'born' then let them have maybe some food and shelter, they'll become five-year-olds, or maybe older, if they're graced by The Lord, with long enough life, and form their own opinions, and, hopefully, join this struggle against the murder of the un-born. There's not a single one of the 40,000,000 who have been murdered so far that are able to join us, so we have to try to speak for them.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

You can of course question my mental health or the veracity of my argument. I do both, thank you.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I do both, thank you.

Can you tell me why you think my arguments are wrong?

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Let's see, if you don't pull them out of the womb, piece by piece, or just take them down into the birth canal low enough to throttle them before their head is 'born' then let them have maybe some food and shelter, they'll become five-year-olds, or maybe older, if they're graced by The Lord, with long enough life, and form their own opinions, and, hopefully, join this struggle against the murder of the un-born. There's not a single one of the 40,000,000 who have been murdered so far that are able to join us, so we have to try to speak for them.


You are confusing the potentiality of becoming a five year-old with that of having the same rights as a five year-old.

Until a certain point none of those 40,000,000 were persons with the same rights as you or I.

[Aimiel]

You can't separate define someone as a non-being by those type of standards, just for convienience sake. You're trying to find a way to justify murdering that tiny little baby, because you 'say' it is not a living being yet. That it is not capable of thought. That it is not 'viable.' Well, if you weren't given food after you were born, you would have died. That is murder, whether or not you ever had a brain or a thought.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

You can't separate define someone as a non-being by those type of standards...

What standards would you use?


That it is not capable of thought. That it is not 'viable.'


Actually I argue that a creature is only human if it has brain-waves. You can measure brain-waves. I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.


Well, if you weren't given food after you were born, you would have died. That is murder, whether or not you ever had a brain or a thought.

If you re-read my argument, you will find that I argue a human being is not human until after it has brain-waves. If I were killed prior to having brain waves (before or after birth) that wouldn't be murder. You can only murder a person.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by smothers
Actually I argue that a creature is only human if it has brain-waves. You can measure brain-waves. I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.Since what many religionists refer to as "the soul" only seems to be manifest in humans with functioning brains, I would concur with this assessment.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by smothers
Is it your habit to answer a post you disagree with by reducing yourself to an ad hominom attack? Isn't that rather childish? If you have problems/disagreement with the argument, perhaps you should address them. Aw, just punch him in the throat and move on.

[Balder]

Aimiel, I don't personally support abortion, but it seems to me that if you don't have any qualms about your God killing billions of people at once in the possibly near future, and sending every single one of them to unspeakable endless torment, you shouldn't have a problem with a mere 40,000,000 fetuses who will get a ticket straight to heaven thanks to the doctors....

[smothers]

Originally posted by Balder

Aimiel, I don't personally support abortion, but it seems to me that if you don't have any qualms about your God killing billions of people at once in the possibly near future, and sending every single one of them to unspeakable endless torment, you shouldn't have a problem with a mere 40,000,000 fetuses who will get a ticket straight to heaven thanks to the doctors....

If we are to take the bible at face value one comes to the conclusion that sin is passed through the male "seed" and we are all born sinful. I am not sure what the Bible says about when we can be punished for these sins.

Aimiel would probably say that the babies are innocent and not accountable for their sin-nature until some arbitrary time. People past this age are automatically guilty and deserve hell unless they ask for forgiveness from the person who aranged for the sin-nature in the first place.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by smothers
...Aimiel would probably say that the babies are innocent and not accountable for their sin-nature until some arbitrary time. People past this age are automatically guilty and deserve hell unless they ask for forgiveness from the person who aranged for the sin-nature in the first place. Not presuming to speak for Aimiel, but I would find such a belief remarkably disingenuous for someone who claims divine authority for biblical text.

Making up an alternate soteriology to salve someone's conscience is tantamount to ignoring what the biblical text actually teaches...

I know people who claim to believe what you desribe and they cannot support it scripturally...

[Balder]

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that babies are doomed too?

[cattyfan]

originally posted by Zakath

That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.


I asked this a lot earlier, and I'm still waiting....

given that statement, Zakath, what kind of restriction on abortion would you support?



Originally posted by Zakath


That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.

I could say similar things about any number of topics ranging from divorce to going to war.

That's merely my opinion. I do not, at this point, want to endure another debate about "absolute" morality...



and Crow asks this:


Fair enough. I'll try to stay away from absolute morality.

You say that abortion should not be completely illegal. I agree with that, but suspect that it's a much more restrictive view than yours. I have no problem with ectopic pregnancies being aborted. No good can come of trying to save this pregnancy at this point in our knowledge and technology. I have no problem if there is an acute life-threatening condition that would kill the mother, such as would occur in some injuries or when you have some early ruptured placenta previas, and other clear threats to the mother in which the fetus cannot be saved. I know of a case where a woman was found to have advanced uterine cancer early in her pregnancy, and the cancer was incompatable with not only her life but the fetal life, but a hysterectomy bought her a slim chance of recovery. It's tragic, but I don't think abortion should be illegal there either.

In what circumstances do you think that abortion should be illegal? Personally, when I supported elective abortion, even then I could not support elective abortion of a 26 week fetus. Where do you draw the line?





now that this thread is "active" again, I'm sure Zakath will get right on answering...:chuckle:

[avatar382]

The attached article succintly describes a dilema I have. I don't trust the pro-life crowd to tell the truth about abortion. Nor do I trust planned-parenthood either. Both have a religious/ideological/monetary axe to grind.

I don't think a fetus is a person until it has brain activity. That doesn't happen until about week 20. A non-person does not have rights and thus can be "killed" at the discretion of the mother.

I view the pictures on these threads as suspect at best. They may or may not be doctored. Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others? I think that point is 20 weeks.

I completely agree with this point of view.

I think that attaining personhood is not unlike attaining adulthood.

Children generally do not have the rights and responsibilites that adults do. They do not have the same capacity. Likewise, At conception, the human zygote does not have a brain, it is not yet capable of and has never possessed thought, consciousness, emotion, etc and for this reason, I don't believe the zygote is a full person.

Another point: Just because a child is a potential adult does not mean it is an adult at that point in time. Thus it is my opinion that the zygote at conception is a potential person, but not a person at that point in time.

[One Eyed Jack]

Any and every human being is a person (regardless of their stage of development), and abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

[smothers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Any and every human being is a person (regardless of their stage of development), and abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

Could you set a trend for me?

What are the arguments that support the statement that every human being is a person regardless of their stage of development.

If the prior sentance is true then of course abortion is murder. If the prior sentance is false then there is a stage in human development in which killing a human is not murder.

Do you agree or disagree. If so why?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by smothers

Could you set a trend for me?

No.

[smothers]

At least you are being a consistant Christian in this matter. Not one person has supplied any argument against my position. I would even accept "I have no other evidence besides what is in the Bible." as an argument. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least I would know there is no extra-biblical reason for your position.

I would assume that if the Bible had a position on the matter, and you based your reasoning on it, you would be able to point to evidence outside the bible to support your position.

If you want to get rid of abortion, you should perhaps come up with a logical defense for it. The abortion pictures are horrific and offensive, but are not compelling evidence against abortion. They only outrage those who see it against your position.

I haven't made up my mind on the matter. Perhaps a Christian can pray for wisdom from God and state why my personhood argument is incorrect.

Mark

[cattyfan]

gosh. what a surprise. still no response from Zakath. :rolleyes:

[Lighthouse]

He's still circumventing my question to him, elsewhere. Although, he gave a more direct answer, last time.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Balder

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that babies are doomed too? Some folks believe that, yes.
“Babies are born as the damned fruit of the lust of their redeemed parents. From the first, they are the offspring of Gehenna or Hell; they are justly children of wrath because they are sinners. If they die unbaptized, they are condemned to everlasting torments for the guilt of their birth alone�
- Pope Gregory I


Infant damnation was one of the harshest of Calvin's doctrines. Believing that all human beings were guilty of original sin through their participation (as biological and spiritual descendants) in Adam's sin, the early reformed thinkers taught that the infant in the cradle, without God's unmerited grace, was as liable to damnation as any adult. The best known account of this belief in New England letters is in Michael Wigglesworth's poem, The Day of Doom, first published in 1662 and widely reprinted and read for over a hundred years. Wigglesworth described the pleas of unelect infants who had been cast into hell to God and God's uncompromising reply:

"O Great Creator, why was our nature
Depraved and forlorn?
Why so defil'd, and made so vile
While we were yet unborn?

You sinners are and such a share
As sinners may expect
Such you shall have: for I do save
None but my own Elect."

Notes on Congregationalism and Calvinism in Early 19th Century New England (http://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?DocID=963)

The idea that infants were not damned was promoted in the U.S. mainly by the Unitarians in the early 19th century...


[edited to add resources - Z]

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cattyfan

gosh. what a surprise. still no response from Zakath. :rolleyes: Hardly.

Try yesterday afternoon...

Post #94 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=573371#post573371)

Is that what you were looking for? :think:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

He's still circumventing my question to him, elsewhere. Although, he gave a more direct answer, last time.

"circumvent"? How so? Which question?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by smothers



I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.



I guess you are still waiting for your "rights" to kick in, uh?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

"circumvent"? How so? Which question?
The one about your relation ship with God. All I wanted was a direct yes or no, and you didn't give one. But that's another thread.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

The one about your relation ship with God. All I wanted was a direct yes or no, and you didn't give one. But that's another thread. Here's a thought, dimhouse, if it's on another thread, then why not bring it up there?

If you have nothing substantive to contribute, why try to drag this thread off topic? :think:

[Lighthouse]

Which comes first? Heartbeat or brain waves? Either way, I would argue that if one of those is where life begins then pro-abortionists are free game...seeing as how they have neither a heart or a brain.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Which comes first? Heartbeat or brain waves? It is immaterial. One can sometimes use electrical stimulus to keep a heart beating after brain death, though an individual is considered legally non-living at that point.

Either way, I would argue that if one of those is where life begins then pro-abortionists are free game... What's a "free game"? Something you download without having to pay for it?

[Lighthouse]

free game means that you can kill it without consequence. It was a joke.

[cattyfan]

No, Zakath. I was referring to the questions posed to you in posts #70 and #71, and restated for your convenience in post #100.

[Anne]

An unborn baby's heart starts beating by the 21st day of life. Brain waves are detectable by 45 days. Abortion is definitely murder. Little babies are being murdered who have a beating heart and brain waves.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers Until a certain point none of those 40,000,000 were persons with the same rights as you or I.


At the moment of conception that individual, at that point in the human life cycle, had the same rights as you do to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[avatar382]

What defines a person? What characteristics does a "person" have? Personally I believe a "person" to have the following qualities:

-Alive
-Human in Origin
-Sentient (defined as consciously possessing interests, and a sense of self among other things)

Do you agree that a being lacking one of these three qualities is not a person? If not, why?

[Poly]

Originally posted by avatar382

-Sentient (defined as consciously possessing interests, and a sense of self among other things)


This one seems to describe babies who have an interest in sucking their thumb in the womb. And others who have an interest in avoiding irritation when a "stress" test is done, causing them to kick up a storm while in the womb. And most unfortunately, others who have an interest in trying to avoid pain, by thrashing around violently just before they are murdered in the womb.

[avatar382]

This one seems to describe babies who have an interest in sucking their thumb in the womb. And others who have an interest in avoiding irritation when a "stress" test is done, causing them to kick up a storm while in the womb. And most unfortunately, others who have an interest in trying to avoid pain, by thrashing around violently just before they are murdered in the womb.

My understanding is that the scenarios you describe typically happen during the late 2nd and early 3rd trimester, after the fetus has developed a functional central nervous system.

How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

My argument is that personhood develops gradually, the zygote at a few days old doesn't yet have it, while the fetus at the 2nd/3rd trimester does.

[Poly]

Originally posted by avatar382
How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.


Wow, such a factual sounding statement and yet it's nothing more than some idiot's opinion.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by avatar382
How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish........

You're disgusting. :vomit: I hope you're not a parent.

[avatar382]

Originally posted by Poly

Wow, such a factual sounding statement and yet it's nothing more than some idiot's opinion.

It's not opinion, it's fact.

If you disagree, why don't you add something positive to the discussion and tell us what sentience a brainless cluster of stem cells, which is what a human zygote is at concecption, could possibly have?

[avatar382]

Originally posted by SOTK

You're disgusting. :vomit: I hope you're not a parent.

I'm disgusting because I merely pointed out the fact that a blob of cells with no central nervous system, brain, nerves, spine (zygote at conception) shares the quality of not being sentinent (not having interests) with simple organisms like bacteria, ameobas, etc? :confused:

[Anne]

By eight weeks the hands and feet of the unborn baby are almost perfectly formed, and fingerprints are developing.

By nine weeks the unborn baby is sucking her/his thumb.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by avatar382

I'm disgusting because I merely pointed out the fact that a blob of cells with no central nervous system, brain, nerves, spine (zygote at conception) shares the quality of not being sentinent (not having interests) with simple organisms like bacteria, ameobas, etc? :confused:

Yes. :down:

[avatar382]

Originally posted by SOTK

Yes. :down:

Are you suggesting that my statement was in error? If so, could you please offer an argument against it? (specifically that zygotes at conception are not sentient beings)

Or are you merely playing "kill the messenger" who is only repeating what is verifiable fact?

[Anne]

Typical pro-abort:doh:

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart, brain waves and are fully formed or almost fully formed.
An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.:bannana:

[avatar382]

Originally posted by Anne

Typical pro-abort:doh:

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart, brain waves and are fully formed or almost fully formed.
An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.:bannana:

Things you should know about my position:

1.) I personally look down on abortion in general and believe 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be criminalized. You should stop bringing up the evils of aborting the fully/almost fully developed, you are preaching to the choir.

2.) I believe the government should regulate the minimum possible. I believe the power of the goverment should be limited to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its people.

My motivation for supporting the legalization of 1st trimester abortion ONLY is because I see its restriction as unnecessary and dangerous government involvement.

3.) Crucial: The disctintion between sentinent unborn and not sentinent unborn is important to me because I consider sentience to be requisite to personhood. Thus, not sentinent = not a person.

4.) I am hoping that this thread evolves into an interesting philosophical discussion instead of the emotionally charged insult fest it currently is...

[Crow]

Originally posted by avatar382

My understanding is that the scenarios you describe typically happen during the late 2nd and early 3rd trimester, after the fetus has developed a functional central nervous system.

How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

My argument is that personhood develops gradually, the zygote at a few days old doesn't yet have it, while the fetus at the 2nd/3rd trimester does.

I've got a question for you then--do you believe that abortion of viable infants should be illegal? At this time, there are abortionists who perform elective abortions at 28 weeks.

Here's data for survivability and the source cited. It varies somewhat by which source you pull up, the newest ones have the highest percentage of survivability since medical techniques improve constantly.

Survival rates by gestational birth age Weeks of gestation at birth

23 weeks- 30% survived
24 weeks- 52% survived
25 weeks- 76% survived

1MacDonald H, Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2002). Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics, 110(5): 1024–1027.

3Wood NS, et al. (2000). Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(6): 378–84.

Here is an example of a physician who does elective abortions 26 weeks LMP which works out to about 27-28 weeks of gestation. Is this acceptable under your "personhood" qualifiers. He does "medically indicated" abortions for fetal anomalies or genetic disorder or medical problems to 36 weeks. Sounds legit, until you apply the personhood theory. Since by your qualifications personhood is a consideration, this guy is killing persons because of their disabilities. Or do the disabled have less personhood?

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this old saw has been played out time and time again. Historically, when personhood has been used a qualifier to granting human rights, it has spawned evil consequence. The US history of slavery. Selling one's kids into brothels in Thailand. Firebombing "mudpeople's" churches. Genocide against Jews and Gypsies. "Personhood" definitions, which are arbitrary, don't lead to good, the lead to evil.

If personhood is indeed a legitimate entity, then when does it occur? 16 weeks? 20 weeks?

(this is not directed to you specifically, avatar 382)

If those who demand that Christians demonstrate scientifically when "ensoulment" occurs would be so kind as to give us evidence of the same quality they demand indicating when "personhood" is invested, then we would at least have some basis for a more productive discussion. I haven't really seen much evidence that one's arbitrary designation of personhood being a good way to determine whether or not one is entitled to the most basic of human rights--the things which are necessary for bodily survival. I've seen much historical evidence that when a designation of personhood determines said rights, the end achievement is invariably evil.

[cattyfan]

Keeping this on the active page...

Zakath,

please read post #117. thanks.

[avatar382]

I've got a question for you then--do you believe that abortion of viable infants should be illegal? At this time, there are abortionists who perform elective abortions at 28 weeks.

Not only do I believe that abortions at the "age of viability" should be illegal, I believe abortions should be illegal at the development of the central nervous system, which is generally agreed to be sometime in the second trimester, weeks 12 - 24.

I think drawing the line for abortions at 12 weeks is reasonable. Any later than that and the fetus may be a sentinent being...

If those who demand that Christians demonstrate scientifically when "ensoulment" occurs would be so kind as to give us evidence of the same quality they demand indicating when "personhood" is invested, then we would at least have some basis for a more productive discussion. I haven't really seen much evidence that one's arbitrary designation of personhood being a good way to determine whether or not one is entitled to the most basic of human rights--the things which are necessary for bodily survival. I've seen much historical evidence that when a designation of personhood determines said rights, the end achievement is invariably evil.

Simply put, the rights to the things necessary to bodily survival are obtained when a being is capable of an interest in bodily survival.

A fetus at 24 weeks that can be seen squirming in the womb while a physican dismembers it clearly shows this interest. At conception, the zygote does not. It is not yet capable of having interests...

I don't think sentinence is an arbitrary disctinction, we as people use it all the time.

Consider this:
-Generally speaking, killing a human is a henious crime.
-Most people will agree that killing an mammal such as dog, cat, or dolphin is henious. (animal abuse laws)
However few object to the killing simpler animal life, like insects and lobsters. (we boil lobsters alive before eating them)
Fewer still object to the killing of bacteria.
No one objects to killing plants, since we eat them...

Why is it that we can legally "put down" our dog, but it's generally much harder to "put down" a human being?

Why is it that taking a saw and cutting your cat in half would land you in jail for animal abuse, yet fishermen bisect earthworms in a similar manner all the time?

Why is it that even the most hardcore animal rights activist has no problem killing plants?

You get the point...

Sentinence is what makes people people, it is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382

Things you should know about my position:

1.) I personally look down on abortion in general and believe 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be criminalized. You should stop bringing up the evils of aborting the fully/almost fully developed, you are preaching to the choir. On what grounds do you consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion a crime?




Posted by Avatar: 2.) I believe the government should regulate the minimum possible. I believe the power of the goverment should be limited to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its people. I agree the government should be in the business of protecting "Life." The Republicans passed the ban on "partial birth" abortion over the objections of the pro-abortion Democrats. Bush signed the bill into law after Clinton vetoed the same ban twice before. The point is our government "IS" engaged in protecting "LIFE."



Posted by Avatar: My motivation for supporting the legalization of 1st trimester abortion ONLY is because I see its restriction as unnecessary and dangerous government involvement. Restriction unnecessary and dangerous government involvement? Wait a minute, a government of the people by the people and for the people are divided on protecting human life. The Republicans are for protecting human life, Democrats are for destroying human life. Obviously we need more Republicans and less Democrats in Congress. The issue of abortion will only be resolved in favor of the baby's life, when Democrats are replaced by Republicans in Congress.




Posted by Avatar: 3.) Crucial: The disctintion between sentinent unborn and not sentinent unborn is important to me because I consider sentience to be requisite to personhood. Thus, not sentinent = not a person. You have retreated into an illogical intellectual cul-de-sac. Observation, the basis of scientific inquirey, requires you to acknowledge that the human life cycle at its begining, left undisturbed by an abortionist, will under normal circumstances provide a live natural birth of a human child.

Posted by Avatar: 4.) I am hoping that this thread evolves into an interesting philosophical discussion instead of the emotionally charged insult fest it currently is...


I'm hoping that this thread will evolve into a logical discussion of of abortion.

[avatar382]

On what grounds do you consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion a crime?

As I've stated before, I consider anything 1.) alive, 2.) human, and 3.) sentient to be a human person.

By the 2nd trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, gaining sentience, and therefore, I believe is a person with full rights.

I agree the government should be in the business of protecting "Life."

You forgot that I added the qualifier "of people". My whole point is that in the first trimester, a zygote is not a person because it lacks sentience.

You have retreated into an illogical intellectual cul-de-sac. Observation, the basis of scientific inquirey, requires you to acknowledge that the human life cycle at its begining, left undisturbed by an abortionist, will under normal circumstances provide a live natural birth of a human child.

You are confusing a potential person with an actual person. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? NO! The fact that a 1 week old zygote may become a person if undisturbed does not mean that *at that point in time* the zygote is, in fact, a person.

Time is everything. Children are potential adults, but they are not given the rights of adults until they are actually adults...

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382

As I've stated before, I consider anything 1.) alive, 2.) human, and 3.) sentient to be a human person. Why do you qualify human life at all? What gives you the right to qualify human life.

Posted by Avatar: By the 2nd trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, gaining sentience, and therefore, I believe is a person with full rights. From conception to natural death is the human life cycle. Reason and logic would require one to admit that an uninterrupted pregnancy leads to a live birth. All that is required is about nine months of normal developement. It is human at conception and it is human at birth and it is human at death. A continum that represents the human life cycle. Why would any sane individual interrupt that lifecycle without acknowledging they have terminated a human life at what ever stage it was in?



Posted by Avatar: You forgot that I added the qualifier "of people". My whole point is that in the first trimester, a zygote is not a person because it lacks sentience. Again, who gave you the right to qualify human life? Are you playing God? The human life cycle in all its many manifestations shows your right to qualify human life to be erroneous and morally repugnant.



Posted by Avatar: You are confusing a potential person with an actual person. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? NO! The fact that a 1 week old zygote may become a person if undisturbed does not mean that *at that point in time* the zygote is, in fact, a person. Is an acorn a tree? Yes, in its early stages of growth. One thing is certain, destroy the acorn and there will be no fully developed tree. Destroy the zygote and that human being in its earliest stage of developement will cease to grow and develope into a full term baby.

Posted by Avatar: Time is everything. Children are potential adults, but they are not given the rights of adults until they are actually adults... True, but killing the child takes away any chance at adulthood. Similarly, killing the developing child in the womb takes away any chance at reaching adulthood with all the rights obtained by the transition from infancy to adulthood.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

An unborn baby's heart starts beating by the 21st day of life. Brain waves are detectable by 45 days. Abortion is definitely murder. Little babies are being murdered who have a beating heart and brain waves.


A heart beat is a sign of a working hypothalmus. The brain is working on auto-pilot. The heartbeat, as Zakath pointed out in a previous post, does not make someone a person.

Brain waves aren't detectible until about the 20th week. Brain synapses don't start to develop until the early to mid second tri-mester. Without brain-waves it isn't a person.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

By eight weeks the hands and feet of the unborn baby are almost perfectly formed, and fingerprints are developing.

By nine weeks the unborn baby is sucking her/his thumb.

Looks good in a GE commercial, but it doesn't prove conciousness. By day one the baby has the DNA instruction set necessary to carry it into full development. It is clearly alive, but isn't human until around the 20th week.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

That would be rather difficult to do. The spermazoa and ovum don't merge until about 12 hours after intercourse. The zygote doesn't travel down the falopian tube for several hours (days?)


Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart,


It is true that the heart is beating, but that does not mean the fetus is a human in any constitutional sense.


An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.



This isn't true. A baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb indicates that the lower brain functions common in all animals exist. The sucking motion is instinctual. Without this ability, the baby would not be able to take in nutrients without its umbilical chord.

Nature is crueler than any abortion doctor could every be. The evidence that two-thirds of conceptions fail regardless of abortion provides a powerful new argument in favor of choice in the early trimesters. Perhaps it is possible that God ordains, for reasons we cannot know, that vast numbers of souls be created at conception and then naturally denied the chance to become babies. But science's new understanding of the tenuous link between conception and birth makes a strong case that what happens early in pregnancy is not yet life in the constitutional sense.

The zygotes that do implant soon transform into embryos. During its early growth, an embryo is sufficiently undifferentiated that it is impossible to distinguish which tissue will end up as part of the new life and which will be discarded as placenta. By about the sixth week the embryo gives way to the fetus, which has a recognizable human shape. (It was during the embryo-fetus transition, Augustine believed, that the soul is acquired, and this was Catholic doctrine for most of the period from the fifth century until 1869.) Also around the sixth week, faint electrical activity can be detected from the fetal nervous system. Some pro-life commentators say this means that brain activity begins during the sixth week, but, according to Dr. Martha Herbert, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, there is little research to support that claim. Most neurologists assume that electrical activity in the first trimester represents random neuron firings as nerves connect--basically, tiny spasms.

The fetus's heart begins to beat, and by about the twentieth week the fetus can kick. Kicking is probably a spasm, too, at least initially, because the fetal cerebral cortex, the center of voluntary brain function, is not yet "wired," its neurons still nonfunctional. (Readings from 20- to 22-week-old premature babies who died at birth show only very feeble EEG signals.) From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically "impossible" before these connections form, says Fisk, of the Imperial College School of Medicine.

[smothers]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Why do you qualify human life at all? What gives you the right to qualify human life.



The question of humanness is one of those hard questions. Its implications are serious and profound. As sentient beings we have (or were granted by God) an intellect that allows us to tackle these hard-questions. We have the right to qualify a human life, because we HAVE to qualify a human life. Who else is going to do it?


Posted by Avatar: From conception to natural death is the human life cycle. Reason and logic would require one to admit that an uninterrupted pregnancy leads to a live birth. All that is required is about nine months of normal developement.



No one is disputing that.


It is human at conception and it is human at birth and it is human at death.

If you define a human as one that has human DNA, you are correct. A human being is not neccesarily a person.


Why would any sane individual interrupt that lifecycle without acknowledging they have terminated a human life at what ever stage it was in?



It is true that you have terminated life. All members of our taxonomic domain (look it up.) are alive right after conception. Don't get hung up on this obvious fact. Potentiality for personhood does not equal personhood.


Again, who gave you the right to qualify human life?


As sentient beings we are born with the rights to qualify human life. Obviously we can't do this arbitrarily. The one thing that divides us biological and philosophically from other animals is our ability to think. This ability isn't even its beginning stages until around the 21st week.



Are you playing God?



Are we not playing God when we place low doses of small pox in a child to protect him from small pox infection? God is rather silent on these specific issues. I know of no sacred text that describes embryonic development in the same detail as a medical journal. One is left with the assumption, that God has left the decision to us.


Posted by Avatar: True, but killing the child takes away any chance at adulthood. Similarly, killing the developing child in the womb takes away any chance at reaching adulthood with all the rights obtained by the transition from infancy to adulthood.

Get to a different argument. This one isn't working.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers

The question of humanness is one of those hard questions. Its implications are serious and profound. As sentient beings we have (or were granted by God) an intellect that allows us to tackle these hard-questions. We have the right to qualify a human life, because we HAVE to qualify a human life. Who else is going to do it?

There is no right to qualify human life. Human life in its natural state is self evident. It needs no qualification. The only purpose for qualifying human life is to make an arrogant and presumptive case for its destruction.




Posted by Smothers: If you define a human as one that has human DNA, you are correct. A human being is not neccesarily a person. If you are basing the right to kill a baby on its state of maturity, you have lost the argument. You are denying the baby the right to life