Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

The unborn is the aggresser in that situation, whether or not it is conscious of it. It has forced itself on the woman, therefore the woman is entitled to defend herself.

You're not serious. How could the fetus be conscious of it? How did the baby "force" itself on the woman? Does it not really boil down to one thing; that most women who get pregnant through irresponsible behavior, just don't want to experience the inconvenience of bringing the child to term in a single lifestyle?

The biology is that the unborn is the agressor. The danged embryo, at a very young age, sticks to Mom's tissue and invades it.

[Day] My goodness. You make conception sound like an assault on a woman. The invasion of the spermites

- If it happens to invade the uterine lining, Mom can respond and produce her half of the placenta. If the embryo invades any place else (like in the Fallopian tube), Mom can't respond. The embryo doesn't care, though, and continues invading, sometimes resulting in hemorragic tragedy. It's true that the embryo isn't conscious of what it's doing, any more than heartworms are conscious of what they're doing when they invade their host. Indeed, maybe this lack of consciousness, this lack of gaining permission prior to attack, is a criterion that should be applied to determine whether these blobs of cells should be treated like people.

[Day] I can't believe what I'm hearing. You make this whole reproductive thing sound like science fiction: War within the Womb - The attack of the blobs.

Now, I seriously question your argument that women get pregnant through irresponsible behavior (etc) because this phrasing makes it sound like it's the woman's fault.

[Day] Any woman having sex and knows she is in "bloom," and doesn't protect against pregnancy, is irresponsible. And if the guy doesn't check things out first, then he is just as much to blame. Both are irresponsible.

I don't know any women who have managed this on their own, though I do know women who have had it forced on them by others. No one seems to say anything in these arguments about the responsibility of the male. It seems to be OK for men to do whatever they want, with minimal penalty, while women have to suffer the consequences of the men's action.

[Day] I'm talkiing about consent on both sides.

If we were to apply similar thinking to men, I bet we'd get a different answer. Men have the basic right to be in charge of their own bodies.

[Day] They do? YOu mean they are free to take advantage of the weaker sex because they are in charge and the woman isn't?

[Jose]

My goodness. You make conception sound like an assault on a woman. The invasion of the spermites
...I can't believe what I'm hearing. You make this whole reproductive thing sound like science fiction: War within the Womb - The attack of the blobs.

Biology is weird, isn't it?

Any woman having sex and knows she is in "bloom," and doesn't protect against pregnancy, is irresponsible. And if the guy doesn't check things out first, then he is just as much to blame. Both are irresponsible.

It's hard to tell when you're "in bloom." It takes a lot of patience and consistency in record keeping. You can't just go by timing, because that's highly variable. Maybe a lot of people do go by timing, though, having been taught that more reliable methods are sinful. Another argument that we need better sex education in the schools.

If we were to apply similar thinking to men, I bet we'd get a different answer. Men have the basic right to be in charge of their own bodies.

They do? YOu mean they are free to take advantage of the weaker sex because they are in charge and the woman isn't?

No, that's taking charge of someone else's body in a way that may result in her body being invaded by a blob that is your responsibility. I bet you'd be upset if someone injected a solid tumor into you, and wouldn't take it out for 9 months even if it got to where it weighed 10 pounds.

What I worry about is that men will take advantage of the "weaker sex" because they are in charge, and try to pass legislation banning abortion.

[Daystar]

My goodness. You make conception sound like an assault on a woman. The invasion of the spermites
...I can't believe what I'm hearing. You make this whole reproductive thing sound like science fiction: War within the Womb - The attack of the blobs.

Biology is weird, isn't it?

[Day] No, but I think the way you are presenting it, shall we say, is a bit unorthodox.

Any woman having sex and knows she is in "bloom," and doesn't protect against pregnancy, is irresponsible. And if the guy doesn't check things out first, then he is just as much to blame. Both are irresponsible.

It's hard to tell when you're "in bloom." It takes a lot of patience and consistency in record keeping. You can't just go by timing, because that's highly variable.

[Day] Then how much more so to use a condom? If a woman isn't sure, then she should protect herself ALL THE TIME.

Maybe a lot of people do go by timing, though, having been taught that more reliable methods are sinful. Another argument that we need better sex education in the schools.

[Day] No, we need to teach kids that abstinence is the right way to go. the abstinence programs are having good success. The problem with public school ideology is that they don't think students can learn to be moral and repsonsibile. they think hormones control them more than the right education.

If we were to apply similar thinking to men, I bet we'd get a different answer. Men have the basic right to be in charge of their own bodies.

They do? YOu mean they are free to take advantage of the weaker sex because they are in charge and the woman isn't?

No, that's taking charge of someone else's body in a way that may result in her body being invaded by a blob that is your responsibility. I bet you'd be upset if someone injected a solid tumor into you, and wouldn't take it out for 9 months even if it got to where it weighed 10 pounds.

[Day] The inconvenience of unwanted pregnacny is not an impossible thing to live with for nine months. Many have done it and are comforted by knowing they did the right thing. With the right support and attention, any woman can endure this period of inconvenience. It's so much better than destroying the baby.

What I worry about is that men will take advantage of the "weaker sex" because they are in charge, and try to pass legislation banning abortion.

[Day] Abortion should be banned and the law should punish men who take advantage of the weaker sex, unless it is consentual.

[Gaunt]

I'm not sure what "rights" you're talking about, but If the only "right" being violated is to do what a woman wants with her own body, where is that right found? Who authorized it? Are absolutes necessary for civil and social harmony?

I do not see that moral absolutes are necessary for civil and social harmony. The rights I am referring to are the right to control over one's body, which in this case is being denied because of gender, as Jose so eloquently pointed out. This right can be found in the 13th and 14th amendments of the United States constitution.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In this instance, the state is depriving the person of both liberty and property without the consent of the individual, and without the person having committed a crime. There is also a breach of equality, as Jose pointed out, in that men have the right to control over their bodies, but women would not if abortion were banned.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"Involuntary servitude" sounds like an unwilling mother to me.

The only side that depends on the humanity of the fetus is the anti abortion side. If the fetus is not a person from conception, there is no argument. If the fetus is a person, there is still an arguement, at least 2 in fact.

Right

So you agree that if the fetus is a person, there is still contention about whether or not abortion should be allowed? Doesn't that mean that the issue of personhood only matters to the anti-abortionist side?

No, but I think the way you are presenting it, shall we say, is a bit unorthodox.

How is it unorthodox? How else would you describe the embryo's behavior in the woman's body? Again, though "parasite" has been given a negative connotation, it accurately describes the relationship between the two.

No, we need to teach kids that abstinence is the right way to go. the abstinence programs are having good success. The problem with public school ideology is that they don't think students can learn to be moral and repsonsibile. they think hormones control them more than the right education.

Condoms are not 100 percent effective even if used correctly, and as you don't advocate teaching their proper use in schools, the chances of correct use drop. One can encourage abstinence and still teach the proper use of preventative measures.

The inconvenience of unwanted pregnacny is not an impossible thing to live with for nine months. Many have done it and are comforted by knowing they did the right thing. With the right support and attention, any woman can endure this period of inconvenience. It's so much better than destroying the baby.

Without that "right" support network, what do you expect the woman to do? Just because abortion is available doesn't mean adoption would disappear. They can co-exist depending on the wants and needs of the mother. If the mother is willing and able to go through with the pregnancy, then more power to her. If she is not, she should not be forced to. Even though many have done it, that does not mean that it is the correct solution for everyone.

the law should punish men who take advantage of the weaker sex, unless it is consentual.

The law should punish anyone who takes advantage of an unwilling individual, regardless of what races/sexes/religions/other the people involved are.

[Daystar]

I'm not sure what "rights" you're talking about, but If the only "right" being violated is to do what a woman wants with her own body, where is that right found? Who authorized it? Are absolutes necessary for civil and social harmony?

I do not see that moral absolutes are necessary for civil and social harmony.

[Day] Rejection of absolutes is the foundation of liberalism. Note this definition of liberal: 3 a: Free from restraint or check. 4 b:Not bound by authoritariainism, orthodoxy, or traditional or established forms in action, attitude or opinion.

Liberalism feeds on feelings, not revealed truth or fact. Whatever "seems right" to a liberal, guides his attitude and behavior because he does not allow orthodoxy to restrain him. Where men govern their lives on the tide of shifting sands, where there are no traditional or established guidelines, there is no stability to society. The Bible says it best: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

The rights I am referring to are the right to control over one's body,

[Day] Where is it written or revealed that a woman has a right over her own body to the extent that it allows her to destroy her baby? Liberalism says, "I'll do it my way because it seems OK." We are not our own because we have been created by God. He owns our bodies. When abortions doctors destroy what they might think is a blob of cells, they are killing what God has specially created for a purpose. To liberals, God is anathema because he places restraints on our behavior. God calls us to repentance, but liberals call themselves to indulgence. God calls us to faith, liberals call themselves to feelings and science.

which in this case is being denied because of gender, as Jose so eloquently pointed out. This right can be found in the 13th and 14th amendments of the United States constitution.

[Day] You mean this right has been interpretted by seven liberal justices who rule by what seems right. You have to torture these amendments beyond reason to come up with a right to kill your baby.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Day] So depriving a woman the right to kill her baby is depriving her of life or liberty. Now please go back and read the definition of liberal and Prov 14:12. These two amendments dealt specifically with slavery. But leave it to liberal judges to twist, distort and squeeze them to apply to something so far out as abortion.

In this instance, the state is depriving the person of both liberty and property without the consent of the individual,

[Day] What liberty is being deprived? What property?

and without the person having committed a crime. There is also a breach of equality, as Jose pointed out, in that men have the right to control over their bodies, but women would not if abortion were banned.

[Day] Abortion is not a control issue. It is the wanton slaugter of innocent life.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"Involuntary servitude" sounds like an unwilling mother to me.

[Day] "Sounds like? Seem right?

The only side that depends on the humanity of the fetus is the anti abortion side. If the fetus is not a person from conception, there is no argument. If the fetus is a person, there is still an arguement, at least 2 in fact.

Right

So you agree that if the fetus is a person, there is still contention about whether or not abortion should be allowed? Doesn't that mean that the issue of personhood only matters to the anti-abortionist side?

[Day] Wasn't that part of what propelled Roe v Wade?

No, but I think the way you are presenting it, shall we say, is a bit unorthodox.

How is it unorthodox? How else would you describe the embryo's behavior in the woman's body? Again, though "parasite" has been given a negative connotation, it accurately describes the relationship between the two.

[Day] If that's how you see it, then you are entitled to it.

No, we need to teach kids that abstinence is the right way to go. the abstinence programs are having good success. The problem with public school ideology is that they don't think students can learn to be moral and repsonsibile. they think hormones control them more than the right education.

Condoms are not 100 percent effective even if used correctly, and as you don't advocate teaching their proper use in schools, the chances of correct use drop. One can encourage abstinence and still teach the proper use of preventative measures.

[Day] As long as it preserves sex for marriage, it has my vote.

The inconvenience of unwanted pregnacny is not an impossible thing to live with for nine months. Many have done it and are comforted by knowing they did the right thing. With the right support and attention, any woman can endure this period of inconvenience. It's so much better than destroying the baby.

Without that "right" support network, what do you expect the woman to do? Just because abortion is available doesn't mean adoption would disappear. They can co-exist depending on the wants and needs of the mother. If the mother is willing and able to go through with the pregnancy, then more power to her. If she is not, she should not be forced to. Even though many have done it, that does not mean that it is the correct solution for everyone.

[Day] The right support is always available. It is the choice of some to reject it because their mind is made up.

the law should punish men who take advantage of the weaker sex, unless it is consentual.

[Jose]

No, we need to teach kids that abstinence is the right way to go. the abstinence programs are having good success. The problem with public school ideology is that they don't think students can learn to be moral and repsonsibile. they think hormones control them more than the right education.

Condoms are not 100 percent effective even if used correctly, and as you don't advocate teaching their proper use in schools, the chances of correct use drop. One can encourage abstinence and still teach the proper use of preventative measures.

As long as it preserves sex for marriage, it has my vote.

Yours is an idealistic view, Daystar, but one that fails to match the actual reality either in the US or overseas. Teaching abstinence really doesn't work very well, especially in the rather large percentage of our society in which sex is part of the normal social fabric. No, abstinence won't do it. I think it is much more important to make sure that everyone knows the facts--the biology of what happens during and after implantation, the modes of viral and bacterial infection, the behaviors that increase or decrease risks, the relative values of various contraceptive devices (of which abstinence might be called a behavioral contraceptive device), the sociological and personal costs of sexual bonds with or without emotional commitment, etc.

That is, it is necessary to teach science honestly and fully, unfettered by religious overtones. It's foolish to teach only that sex is a sin, because a very large number of people will simply ignore it, as they do now. It's much more reasonable to teach the facts about sex, and about the consequences of sex--from disease transmission to pregnancy and the invasion of the parasite into the mother's tissue, to the emotional cost in the absence of adequate support--and thereby make it clear why the Tribal Elders who wrote the Bible defined unmarried sex as sin. Of course, a considerable fraction of their logic is now missing: contraceptives weren't as effective in biblical times as they are now, and bacterial diseases weren't curable. This makes it harder to explain why sex should be a sin, but the actual science will give people the understanding they need to see why an undesired pregancy might be a problem, as well as how to avoid it. To quote a student one of my friends overheard: "I don't know how I got pregnant! He never kissed me!"

It's interesting that this gets us to the same place we were in the creationism thread: science should be taught as science, without religious overtones. At least then, when people choose their "liberal" behavior, they have the facts to go on, rather than just "feel-good" or "feel-bad" emotions. If "liberal" moral behavior is based on facts, and on science, and on logic, with the goal of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, I'll take it any day over idealogical Moral Certainty. The latter is often good only for a few, since it is based on not thinking about anyone who might hold different views.

[Gaunt]

Wow, there is a lot of contempt for liberalism there...

The Bible says it best: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

Unless you know of some secret to not dying, I think it is fair to say that in the end, all ways lead to death. Heck, even Jesus died.

God calls us to faith, liberals call themselves to feelings and science.

What is faith but feelings? Anything that is not based on reason is based on emotion, that is to say feelings. So "liberals" as you so term them, use both feelings and reason to come to an answer, whereas you would have us only turn to feelings, would that be a fair assessment?

To liberals, God is anathema

There are liberal christians as well. I am not sure why you would say God is the one who restricts our behavior. I would tend to think we do that ourselves. He didn't even stop us from committing the sin that got us evicted from paradise! As well, considering that not everyone believes in a deity at all, let alone the Christian one, banning abortion because "God says so" seems to be a mite arrogant.

It isn't like the Christian god has a sterling track record with regards to children anyway. Doesn't Psalm 137:9 say "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." ? Obviously there are circumstances in which killing children (and quite nastily I might add) is acceptable in God's eyes.

You have to torture these amendments beyond reason to come up with a right to kill your baby.

First, I am not arguing that you should be able to kill your baby. Babies are born, fetuses are unborn. If you suffocate your child, I think you should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and no farther). The fetus doesn't even enter into the equation, save for the fact that it is being denied the use of the mother's body if she chooses.

Second, I don't think there was much torturing necessary to apply those amendments to the issue of abortion, especially with regards to the 13th amendment. Your lack of response to that amendment, aside from a meaningless, though witty, quip with regards to its "liberal" implications, seems to indicate that.

So depriving a woman the right to kill her baby is depriving her of life or liberty. Now please go back and read the definition of liberal and Prov 14:12. These two amendments dealt specifically with slavery. But leave it to liberal judges to twist, distort and squeeze them to apply to something so far out as abortion.

Nope, as there is no "baby" that is being killed in the case of a first trimester abortion. There is a fetus, but as it is incapable of surviving through the use of its own organs, I would hardly categorize that as a "baby." You can (arguably) categorize it as a "person" or as a "human being" but that is hardly the same thing.

The 13th amendment deals with slavery, but the 14th amendment deals with citizens rights. That is to say, if you are a citizen of the United States, you are entitled to those rights. Incidentally, fetuses, as they are neither born nor naturalized as US citizens, are thus not entitled to those same rights. Though, even if they were, it still does not excuse infringing on the rights of another innocent person against her will.

You mean this right has been interpretted by seven liberal justices who rule by what seems right.

I never even mentioned the word liberal until this post, nor did that thought cross my mind. Please do not put words into my mouth. While you may not believe that people have the right to their own bodies, surely you can see why some people might choose to believe differently. (as an aside, I believe the US Supreme Court has 9 Justices)

What liberty is being deprived? What property?

The liberty to decide how one's body is going to be used would be denied. The property is the body the organs of the individual that are being conscripted for the purposes of breeding.

Abortion is not a control issue. It is the wanton slaugter of innocent life.

I very much disagree. It is a control issue with regards to who can control the woman's body. The "wanton slaughter" is merely an emotional tool used to compel people one way or the other.

Wasn't that part of what propelled Roe v Wade?

I don't know why you keep bringing up Roe v Wade, as it has no part of my arguments against the banning of abortion. The only relationship Roe v Wade has is that it agreed that abortion should be allowed.

If that's how you see it, then you are entitled to it.

Unless you can come up with a more accurate description of it, I do not see how you could see it any other way.

[Jose]

God calls us to faith, liberals call themselves to feelings and science.

What is faith but feelings? Anything that is not based on reason is based on emotion, that is to say feelings. So "liberals" as you so term them, use both feelings and reason to come to an answer, whereas you would have us only turn to feelings, would that be a fair assessment?

Now that's an interesting point. I think you're right: God calls us to feelings, but liberals call themselves also to science. This fits with current psychological understanding, that some of us process information emotionally, and others process information by thinking about it in a geeky way. I'm the geeky type. Bush is the emotional type. Kerry is the geeky type. There are a whole bunch of in-betweens, but I wonder whether a dogmatic acceptance of biblical teaching might actually work very well with the emotional-type of neural wiring. It probably explains, in part, why we find it so hard to communicate between groups--as the Bush vs Kerry National Ranting seems to reveal.

To liberals, God is anathema

There are liberal christians as well.

I dunno, Gaunt...there are those who will say, in all caps, that those people are not True Christians.

I think, now, that I see why some people (including the Bush camp) use the term "liberal" is if it is a term of great contempt, describing someone who is barely human. They have taken the literal translation of Daystar's quoted definition (thank you, Day, for providing it!), and considered it only in the context deciding everything emotionally. In that sense, it would be awful, and I can see why they would be worried. But, if we take the geeky view, and bring in a comparison of all sorts of extra data and criteria, we can turn "liberal" into an honor.

It isn't like the Christian god has a sterling track record with regards to children anyway. Doesn't Psalm 137:9 say "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." ? Obviously there are circumstances in which killing children (and quite nastily I might add) is acceptable in God's eyes.

Well, of course. This is a common behavior among chimps, under certain circumstances. This is clearly the Bible's verification, through God's word, of our genetic kinship with chimpanzees, and our descent from a common ancestor. You couldn't ask for a stronger statement than this!

[Daystar]

Wow, there is a lot of contempt for liberalism there...

The Bible says it best: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

Unless you know of some secret to not dying, I think it is fair to say that in the end, all ways lead to death. Heck, even Jesus died.

[Day] This is not speaking of physical death. It is spiritual death, that is, separation from God from in sin. When man sins against God, he lives in darkness and has no spiritual life.

God calls us to faith, liberals call themselves to feelings and science.

What is faith but feelings?

[Day] An example to show that faith is not feelings was when God told Abraham to pack up and leave without telling him where to go. All human reason and emotion would say, don't go. Abraham trusted God and went in spite of his feelings or reason.

Anything that is not based on reason is based on emotion, that is to say feelings. So "liberals" as you so term them, use both feelings and reason to come to an answer, whereas you would have us only turn to feelings, would that be a fair assessment?

[Day] Most liberals do not trust God to influence and direct their lives. This leaves them with the resources of human feelings and reason, which may seem right, in many cases, but in the end are the way of death. Human reason says that if a man's good deeds outweighs his bad, then he is worthy of God's favor. Human feelings and reason say that since sex between unweds feels so good and promotes the relationship, then God looks with favor upon it. Human reason and feelings tell us not to turn the other cheek. Human reason and feelings tell us to avoid speaking about the Lord where he may not be wanted. Human reason and feelings tell us to cherish the things of the world. Yet, faith tells us to do just the opposite of these things.

To liberals, God is anathema

There are liberal christians as well. I am not sure why you would say God is the one who restricts our behavior.

[Day] God restricts no one because he will never interfere with our free will. What he does is show us a better path then the one we're on; a path that leads to eternal life and victory over sin.

I would tend to think we do that ourselves. He didn't even stop us from committing the sin that got us evicted from paradise! As well, considering that not everyone believes in a deity at all, let alone the Christian one, banning abortion because "God says so" seems to be a mite arrogant.

[Day] If the Bible is God's word, and "Thou shall not murder" is one of his commandments, then abortion is murder because the life he creates in his mind is a human being even before he was conceived:

"Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Ps. 139:16). God saw you before your Mom and Dad even knew each other.

It isn't like the Christian god has a sterling track record with regards to children anyway. Doesn't Psalm 137:9 say "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." ? Obviously there are circumstances in which killing children (and quite nastily I might add) is acceptable in God's eyes.

[Day] Yes, it is true that God allows young children to be destroyed. He allows sinful man to destroy what he creates, just as he allows sinful man to lie, steal, hate, war, etc. In this sense alone is it "acceptable" to him because he knows exactly what he is doing. There is no man who can offer a satisfactory explanation why innocent youth are destroyed. OTOH, no one is innocent in God's eyes.

You have to torture these amendments beyond reason to come up with a right to kill your baby.

First, I am not arguing that you should be able to kill your baby. Babies are born, fetuses are unborn.

[Day] In God's eyes, the baby existed before he was conceived. Man imposes his feelings and reasoning above God when he decides to kill what God creates. Man is more concerned about his man-made laws which will one day be overturned at the bar of Divine justice.

If you suffocate your child, I think you should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and no farther). The fetus doesn't even enter into the equation, save for the fact that it is being denied the use of the mother's body if she chooses.

[Day] This is a perfect example of that which seems right, but its end is the way of death. God created women to bring their babies to full term. Man's reasoning says that she has the right to do what she wants with her body which also belongs to God.

Second, I don't think there was much torturing necessary to apply those amendments to the issue of abortion, especially with regards to the 13th amendment. Your lack of response to that amendment, aside from a meaningless, though witty, quip with regards to its "liberal" implications, seems to indicate that.

[Day] Please explain what wording in these amendments can be interpretted to mean that a woman should have the right to have her unborn baby destroyed.

So depriving a woman the right to kill her baby is depriving her of life or liberty.

[Day] There is a way that seems right to a (wo)man, but its end is the way death

Now please go back and read the definition of liberal and Prov 14:12. These two amendments dealt specifically with slavery. But leave it to liberal judges to twist, distort and squeeze them to apply to something so far out as abortion.

Nope, as there is no "baby" that is being killed in the case of a first trimester abortion.

[Day] That it is no baby is man's reasoning and excludes what God says about that life which he foreknew.

There is a fetus, but as it is incapable of surviving through the use of its own organs, I would hardly categorize that as a "baby."

[Day] "Your eyes saw my unformed body...." There is a way that seem right to a man......Abortion doctors, unless they repent, will understand one day that what they did to the life in a woman's womb was wrong.

You can (arguably) categorize it as a "person" or as a "human being" but that is hardly the same thing.

[Day] Human reasoning that is the way of death.

The 13th amendment deals with slavery, but the 14th amendment deals with citizens rights. That is to say, if you are a citizen of the United States, you are entitled to those rights. Incidentally, fetuses, as they are neither born nor naturalized as US citizens, are thus not entitled to those same rights. Though, even if they were, it still does not excuse infringing on the rights of another innocent person against her will.

[Day] I suppose I could simply cite these same verses over and over, but I don't know what else to say and am convinced they are true. I could offer non-Biblical reasons why it is wrong for a woman to have her baby destroyed, but there would be no teeth in them. We are careful to listen when E.F Hutton speaks, but what about God?

You mean this right has been interpretted by seven liberal justices who rule by what seems right.

I never even mentioned the word liberal until this post, nor did that thought cross my mind. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[Day] Sorry, the "liberal" part comes from my mouth

While you may not believe that people have the right to their own bodies,

[Day] "You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body." (1 Cor. 6:20)

surely you can see why some people might choose to believe differently. (as an aside, I believe the US Supreme Court has 9 Justices)

[Day] Right, all I ever said was that seven of them ruled in favor of abortion. BTW, six of the seven were democrats. And, yes, of course, we are all free to believe what we want.

What liberty is being deprived? What property?

The liberty to decide how one's body is going to be used would be denied.

[Day] The cornerstone of liberalism is being "unbound to to what God says is best for us. "There is a way that seems right......"

Abortion is not a control issue. It is the wanton slaugter of innocent life.

I very much disagree. It is a control issue with regards to who can control the woman's body.

[Day] "You are not your own, but have been bought with a price...."


The "wanton slaughter" is merely an emotional tool used to compel people one way or the other.

[Day] Is "Thou shall not murder" emotional? Or, is it a commandment of God? Is the life that dwells inside a mother's womb something that God wants destroyed?

Wasn't that part of what propelled Roe v Wade?

I don't know why you keep bringing up Roe v Wade, as it has no part of my arguments against the banning of abortion. The only relationship Roe v Wade has is that it agreed that abortion should be allowed.

[Day] Right, Roe v Wade made killing babies lawful. My question is what wording exists in the constitution that even remotely suggests that a woman should have the right to kill her baby? Would you at least that in the case of partial birth abortion, it is a baby being destroyed? Was it a baby a week before? A month? Five moths? Eight months?

[Gaunt]

You are free to interpret Proverbs 14:12 however you choose, but it does not mention spiritual death; merely Death.

An example to show that faith is not feelings was when God told Abraham to pack up and leave without telling him where to go. All human reason and emotion would say, don't go. Abraham trusted God and went in spite of his feelings or reason.

That is not a case of faith not being feelings, but rather it is a case where one set of feelings won out over another. It is possible to experience two sets of conflicting emotions at the same time (thus "feeling torn" between two things). In this example, Abraham allowed faith and duty to win out over desire and reason. That does not make faith less emotional; it simply means that faith is a powerful emotion.

Human reason and feelings tell us {Lots of things} Yet, faith tells us to do just the opposite of these things.

Faith, again, is just another feeling, though a very powerful one. It is not based on any sort of rational foundation. Reason tells us that there may be different appropriate actions based on the specific situation. It allows us to have variables, and to come up with a different answer if the problem is similar, but different in key ways. It is the balance to feelings. Reason may tell us to turn the other cheek if it is prudent to do so. Feelings tell us to react or not, depending on which feeling is strongest at the time. Without reason, imperfect balance that it is, feelings are dangerous things, faith included. You may have faith that if you jump off a tall building, god will catch you. Reason tells us that you are likely to plummet to your death.

God restricts no one because he will never interfere with our free will.

You said earlier that "To liberals, God is anathema because he places restraints on our behavior."

If the Bible is God's word, and "Thou shall not murder" is one of his commandments, then abortion is murder

The Then does not follow logically from your If statement. God says do not murder. Abortion, at least before the fetus is capable of surviving under the power of its own organs, is not murder. Though denial of an organ results in death for the fetus, it is not murder because the intent is not to kill the fetus so much as it is to free the woman. Therefore, that statement does not do anything to prove your case.

Yes, it is true that God allows young children to be destroyed. He allows sinful man to destroy what he creates, just as he allows sinful man to lie, steal, hate, war, etc.

God COMMANDS young children to be destroyed in the bible, and in the psalm line I quoted he said that those who smashed the heads of the infants of babylon on the rocks would be happy, indicating his approval for the action, as opposed to acceptance.

In God's eyes, the baby existed before he was conceived. Man imposes his feelings and reasoning above God when he decides to kill what God creates. Man is more concerned about his man-made laws which will one day be overturned at the bar of Divine justice.

Not everyone in the world is a Christian. Why would it be acceptable in a democratic environment containing a multitude of varying faiths to ban an action on the basis of one?

Man has been killing what God creates since he was formed. plants, animals, whatever, something is dying to feed man. Our desire to survive is what we place above the animals we kill. Our desire to be free is what we place about the lives of our oppressors. The Israelite's desire to claim the land of Canaan (based on their desire to have faith/listen to what they believed was God) was placed above the lives of those who were living there at the time.

Man IS concerned about his manmade laws, underwhich abortion falls. If it is against your faith, and your religious code of laws to have an abortion, then you are not forced to have one. We are not arguing eugenics here, but rather the option to do something. No one is being Forced to have an abortion against there will, nor is this the top of a slippery slope that might lead to that situation.

I could offer non-Biblical reasons why it is wrong for a woman to have her baby destroyed, but there would be no teeth in them.

I think this is the crux of the issue here. You offer religious justification for the banning of abortion. Justification based on faith. Justification based on emotion and feelings. You admit yourself that the Rational arguments against abortion do not have any teeth. Not everyone in the world, or in fact even in the United States, shares your belief system. Therefore, I do not see how you can justify banning abortion outright for all peoples. I can understand you justifying it for Christians, but what about Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Atheists?

And, yes, of course, we are all free to believe what we want.

Apparently not, as women are not allowed to believe themselves in control of their own bodies, or at the very least are not allowed to act on that belief.

Is "Thou shall not murder" emotional? Or, is it a commandment of God? Is the life that dwells inside a mother's womb something that God wants destroyed?

1) No, there is a rational basis for it.
2) It might be. It is possible that it is both in fact. God need not be irrational in his commandment.
3) I don't know, nor does it matter in the context of this discussion.

My question is what wording exists in the constitution that even remotely suggests that a woman should have the right to kill her baby?

It does not suggest that anywhere. Babies are born, fetuses are not. Mothers who practice infanticide are held accountable for their actions.

Would you at least that in the case of partial birth abortion, it is a baby being destroyed?

Technically no, as I've said before "Babies" are born, and I have already agreed that the fetus can be considered a person from the moment of conception and it will have no impact on my arguments. However, I will agree that in that case abortion should be banned, as the fetus is capable of living outside of the mother at that point, and thus the arguments for her self defence or slavery are both rendered moot.

Was it a baby a week before? A month? Five moths? Eight months?

It is a baby the moment it is outside the womb. However, I think it deserves protection when it is capable of existing independent of its mother.