Abortion is murder. Period.

I believe that my nation (USA) has become increasingly intrusive in the lives of citizens. I think most Americans would agree that at least my government has become repressive. So we can agree some on this aspect. You see, pro-choice and pro-life people can find commonality.

The next question would be to limit the role of the government by clearly defining what that means, wouldn't it? That's the perpetual tension created in the US form of government called the checks and balances. Mostly that's held in place by the executive (President)who can veto unconstitutional laws which were created by the legislative branch (Congress) and the legality (constitutionality) of such laws as decided by the judicial branch (Supreme Court).

What happened? Roe versus Wade 1973.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that patients had a right to privacy as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (due process clause) as a result of BOTH Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton. Bet you never heard of the other case.
[link to en.wikipedia.org] For anyone interested, carefully read those cases. They established parameters about privacy, but also guaranteed the rights of having an abortion. But they also pulled out of thin air a definition of a person. No where is that definied by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. That's a major issue, isn't it? The privacy of the patient is only being defined as the mother, not the fetus who is not being guaranteed Natural Rights, see?

Are abortion rights constitutional ultimately? I would say no. Clearly we should reexamine such a significant legal definition and make the Court explain clearly why a fetus is not a human being with Natural Rights.

Christians have no more rights than any other citizens. They don't have more, but also don't have less. One of the arguments has been, "Christians are trying to impose their God's law (The Bible) onto the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights." Well that's complex. One could say that all law is a result of such documents as the Bible as well as the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, etc. We don't live in a vacuum. Laws evolve over time because of historical understanding of "Law" which were created by communities and written down. Post-Modern Christians are not suddenly creating this concept, it's as old as time and involves all of the previous "Codes of Law".

Whatever the USA people determine by their self-determination has no impact upon Brazil, does it? The people of Brazil will likewise decide themselves. That's what freedom is all about. Arguments about these issues are domestically decided. Americans are not trying to foist their decision on Brazil, and neither should you foist Brazilian ideas upon US domestic polict, right?

Your statement of comparing fundamentalists like fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalists Muslims is too broad. We're not beheading people in front of cameras, are we? Don't resort to such hyperbole. I won't bother to argue that point unless you press me. I can find lots of extremism in Muslim Sharia law, not to mention absolute lawlessness in some Muslims.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 07:29 PM

I don't know what this is, but it's clearly some extra-Biblical revelation, and as such SERVERELY WARNED ABOUT in Holy Scripture.

Example:What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 12:32

Example:Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

Example:I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:6-12

It's extremely dangerous and heretical to add or subtract from Holy Scripture. Speaking as though you are God, I can't imagine the consequences of such actions.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 07:36 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out some fallacies in your reasoning. All species are alive by definition, and hence we literally couldn't eat anything.

Humans are not the only species that have wrecked havoc. One could easily make the case that bacteria have wrecked more havok and caused more death and destruction than any other species.

So abusing unborn children is a lesser evil? I don't follow your reasoning. It's not logical.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 07:41 PM

So, looking at the Guttmacher Study in 2005, what percentage of abortions were the result of rape?
[link to www.guttmacher.org]
1 %

Is there anyone here who is saying that we should restrict rape victims from receiving abortion? No.

What about incest? How many became pregnant as a result of incest? 0.5% By definition almost all incest is non-consensual, isn't it? Therefore much of these statistics are RAPE and as such a subset of RAPE.

Let's not keep regurgitating those thoughts. No one is suggesting we restrict access to abortion for those reasons.

What's the larger issues, far beyond abortion for rape and incest victims?

Justice.

We need to have very strict laws punishing offenders with lifetime sentences particularly because of recidivism (repeat offenders).

If anything, most Christians will heartily agree on severe punishment for these folks in an almost universal voice.

Those victims will need far more support than a momentary abortion, won't they? That's what we should be aiming for, a long term commitment to help them cope.

But let's not use victims to push a pro-choice agenda, but actually help the victims. It's especially noxious to use them given they're a miniscule portion of those who use abortion.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 07:52 PM

What are you suggesting as a "fix" to the abortion dilemma? One of the very reason abortions were allowed was because women were killing themsevles in back alleys, with coathangers in their bathrooms, with abortion midwives, unclean/unsanitary conditions. Wives, mothers, sisters, teenagers were dying....

I discussed that fully. No one would like a return to such medieval practices.

You see, the real issue of abortion is about a "necessary evil", and this is something pro-choice and pro-life could discuss. No one wants to terminate life. Both sides know it's the ending of a human life. As such has severe ramifications for the mental health of the mother, and naturally death for the child.

What's happening NOW is harming both patients, isn't it? It's worse than barbaric. All you have to do is read and watch videos about the process of surgical or medical abortions. We wouldn't do that to a criminal. Why do that to a minimum of two patients?

We can both agree that the methodology of abortion needs to be changed.

I think we can both agree that based upon the Guttmacher study in 2005, that the reasons for choosing abortion can be alieviated so mothers won't chose abortion.

That's the second most important aspect of abortion.

All medical personnel know that some means of legal abortion must be created. However, does that mean that medical personnel should be accomplises to an abortion? NO. That's wrong.

This means we need to have a dialogue so that element is also reduced or removed entirely.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 08:13 PM

well duh!

No one likes compromise, and yet that's an aspect of the self-governance by any nation

Most probably, since so much time has passed, we need to have deep dialogues about abortion. Much has changed in medicine in the USA since 1973.

We can save more babies, but far more will be permantly disabled. Much of that can be prevented. If prevented, then far less abortions will occur.

However, this was not a significant factor in the 2005 Guttmacher study, was it? Read that report.

Most probably, while abhorrant to Christians, abortion by RU486 would offer the least risk, remove the element of medical personnel administering it, allow very early abortions, is safer, is less expensive (and poverty is a major issue), and causes less moral outrage.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

But there's caveats to such an idea. We can't just let anyone take Mifepristone or any abortificant whenever they chose. That would be unethical. It would clearly be murder by the parameters of Roe versus Wade (1973) as the induced abortion passed the second trimester.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 08:56 PM

Abortion is murder. Whether there is a soul present yet or not, the pre-planed intent is to end an innocent life. Therefore, whether there is a soul present or not is irrelevant because the intension is murder.

What does a soul mean? I've written a lot about the soul. CS Lewis said, "You're not a body. You're a soul inhabiting a body."

A soul is the consciousness that inhabits a physical form. It gives it life and awareness. Even earlier than 4 weeks, a baby in the womb is animated and reacting to the environment of the womb. It's clear that consciousness is present.

Some people argue the point and say no, but then if you really ask them, they'll admit that we can't test earlier than 20 weeks with brain monitoring devices, and therefore we really don't have an ethical way to determine what's going on.

I have provided expert testimony from a neonatalist physician demonstrating advanced nervous system development from 4 weeks on.

Since most women don't detect pregnancy until after 4 weeks, it's a moot point.

A young baby in utero clearly has a soul (consciousness).

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 08:54 PM

If one really wants to reduce the number of abortions, it would probably be helpful to look at statistics regarding who exactly is having them.
-----
"Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion"
**Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1998; 30(1): 24-29 & 46.
[link to www.prochoice.org]
-----
Abortion is not a 'necessary evil' as has been suggested. It is the byproduct of sexual immorality. Sex was created by God to be enjoyed by a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage. I know that, in these times, this probably sounds 'old fashioned', but God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and his laws are not arbitrary.

Most unwanted pregnancies occur because people willing disregard God's guidelines regarding sexual relationships, and then on top of that fail to use birth control. Abortion then becomes the last ditch attempt to avoid responsibility for one's poor choices. So desperate are these individuals to avoid responsibility that they are willing to murder another person to do so.

I agree. The society of humanity has declared that abortion is a necessary evil. God hasn't declared anything like that.

Because God is the Creator of Life, by definition, then anti-Life or the negation of Life can't come from God. Not ever.

If one chooses to follow God as a Christian, then one cannot allow abortion in their lives. If we do, then we need to seek forgiveness, or better not chose to do it all.

If women had the protection of men, not to dominate them, but to love, care, cherish them, then much of the issue of abortion would go away. It's an issue of broken relationships between heterosexual people.

Men are equally responsible because they persuade women that having a sexual relationship will enhance the relationship. It will prove that the woman love him more. It will cement the relationship. But does it really?

Most couples fight about two things: money and sex. Adding sex before you're really committed as a couple in wedlock only adds conflict. Momentary pleasure and lifetime consequences.

so is eating a big mac. I really don't give a shit either way.

There is never a 'soul' present.

We have clear evidence of Near Death Experiences (NDE) over two hundred years of them. We know that consciousness is different than the intellect. Even a neuroscientist who intimately knows the structures of the brain and functions has had a NDE. There's really little argument about consciousness. Really consciousness is the soul.

Dr. Eben Alexander


Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/21/2013 10:46 PM

But you see, by commenting you have proven that you do care. You're lying. It's an emotional trigger issue. It's about making choices to end life. Why not engage the conversation and talk about what you believe and why? Are you willing to learn more and explore what you believe? I am. I hope you do.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

The same can be said about rape, murder, bestiality, theft etc.

It's murder, and will have the penalty of Hell come judgment day.

First off! how many adopted children do YOU have OP? Probably none would be my guess. Having worked with kids in foster homes and seeing them bounced from home to home. I can say many of them have had horrible lives. Abused sexually and mentally, some violently beaten. The suicide rate of these kids is astronomical compared to the national average. Very few make through the system to lead happy productive lives. I suggest any of you pro lifers should go volunteer at a teenage group home for a few months, so that you can get over your highly selfish and delusional ideals. If a child is not wanted and brought into this world without love they can look forward to a lifetime of misery, drugs and crime. Their are a few that make it in this world but they are the few! You stand on your god damn soap box and scream for them though! but you people usually just scream and don't do a damn thing for them! I see you line the sides of the road with your signs yelling at traffic, but what I don't see in the throngs of you holier than thou idiots are adopted children. No adopted children? Then shut your fuckin pie hole!

Kill the kids so their life doesn't suck. Yeah, you are a fool.

No we don't. And no we don't. And Dr. Alexander is either delusional or a scam artist. I don't give a shit either way.

No bring them into the world so you can sleep better at night! Stupid Fucktwit!

You surprise me. As someone who's spent many decades working with youth, it mellowed me, not made me angry or abusive to those I disagree with.

If we both care about children, then we have commonality. Rather than argue about one aspect, why not work together to help as many children as possible?

People assume much about that person on the other side of the issue. A Christian pro-lifer might assume terrible things about a pro-choice activist. Likewise the reverse. Demonizing people will not help the children.

Birth is only one miniscule portion of a child's life. Making sure parents have good skills, secure jobs, health care, good diet, an ability to direct their lives (autonomy), able to mentally improve themselves, spiritual direction, etc.

I can assure you that Christians throughout history have deliberately been the first to give to help the poor and disenfranchised, help refugees, unwed mothers, marriage training, uncover child abuse (though some groups have hidden it in an evil and repugnant way), etc.

Many Christian groups have deliberately given money from tithes and offerings to support orphanages, helped create orphanages in foreign countries, built schools and hospitals towards that purpose and more, created orphanage programs in Korea and Russia, etc.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/24/2013 03:08 AM

If you didn't care, or didn't have strong feelings, then you wouldn't bother to reply. His credentials are impeccable and if you watched the video, you'd know that.

You are evil.

ellowing eny women to die due to complicationz of continuing harmful pregnenciez iz murder too.

continuing pregnency cen ceuz life eltering heelth demege to the mother, which cen ceuze her to die. we need to ellow ebortion. mejority of women who choze ebortionz do it becuze it iz necezzery for their heelth, life in denger. it iz between her end the doctor.


ebortion iz not enything women choze for fun or convenience.

ebortionz ere risky, cen permenetly demege women. itz zomething only to conzider when the pregnency iz putting the motherz life,heelth et rizk.


but meny hozpitelz (due to enti ebortion opinionz) weit until the mother iz lying on the hozpitel bed dying to do the ebortion. elot of timez by then itz too lete.

when they could heve done the ebortion weekz, monthz eerlier zeved the mother.

do you know how meny motherz die eech yeer due to not being ellowed the ebortion they need? when there iz e heelth problem for the mother during pregnency. or the fetuz iz too deformed to zurvive birth enyweyz)


.

Change your user name to broken brain girl

Firsty, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by writing in that way, but let me just say that it doesn't impress. Hopefully, you are just having some bizarre keyboard issue.

Secondly, your assertion that the majority of women seeking abortions do so because it is necessary for their health is demonstrably false.