As one of the most controversial topics in our society today, abortion often lends itself to rhetoric, hate, name-calling, and even murder. This is no-doubt, a touchy one.
First of all, we should stop the nonsense of “pro-abortion.” There is no such thing. That is a name used by the “pro-lifers” to make it sound like the “pro-choice” people enjoy killing babies. It’s slander. No one enjoys it. It’s just a matter of who we are going to violate. I’ll explain in a moment.
I may surprise many of you with my stance on abortion, being an Atheist. Many of my Atheist constituents may disagree with me. I'm not sure, as we hardly talk about this, but I'd be interested to know how the other Atheists feel as well.
But as I always do, I must approach it from an objective and logical standpoint with a consequentialist view of morality.
First of all, it is more than obvious that a baby growing inside a mother is far greater than just an extension or thing inside that woman. It is a life, and should be protected as such. I won't even entertain that debate, no more than I would entertain the stork theory of birth. It’s not a pimple, it’s not a tumor. It’s a child.
In short, we cannot get around the fact that stopping a heart is ending a life. Aborting a child with a heartbeat is killing that child. I could never do it.
The unfortunate thing about the topic of abortion is, someone's human rights will be violated either way.
Although there is a life growing inside that mother, pregnancy is still a medical condition. Making a law that prohibits a woman from having control over correcting a medical condition that is affecting her, is also violating her rights. If we allow her to terminate the pregnancy, we are allowing her to violate the rights of the unborn child. It's truly a sad occasion because it affects the human rights of two individuals with one single law, and I wish it was never a problem.
Unfortunately, it is.
I cannot support or endorse abortion, but I also cannot support a law that would violate the rights of one's own medical choices.
I know what you're thinking... what about the baby's choice!? I understand--but the one difference is, a baby has no conscious. They are not floating around in there thinking in a baby voice “I hope no one kills me” with their lip perked out. A child can't even begin to store things in their long term memory until the age of 4 or 5, just to put it into perspective.
So it seems that because the adult woman is looking at us with a conscious, it's easier to side with her. Knowing that the child is not feeling pain, and is not yet aware of it’s own existence, somehow makes it easier in the mind of society to terminate the pregnancy than to make the woman suffer though a condition that she doesn’t want to. That shouldn't always be the case, because a person having a lack of memory shouldn't necessarily open them up to torment at will, but a person not wanting to suffer through a pregnancy after a rape should also not have to endure that suffering.
To sum it up, here’s my opinion on the matter: I do not think that terminating a pregnancy within the first few weeks should be considered murder as in holding someone criminally responsible. However, the extremely late-term abortions are disgusting to me. While I do not think that life begins at conception, I understand that there is more than just a ‘growth’ happening there, and I can’t fully support abortion. Primarily, I don’t think that abortions should be used as birth control of the irresponsible women in our culture.
However, I also can’t support a law prohibiting abortion because it would infringe on the medical rights of the pregnant mother. It’s definitely a difficult topic to discuss, so I will open it up to you now.
124 comments:
Life is a life.
If life is not at conception, who declares when life begins?
And, when does life begin?
Does a fetus not need its human mother at the very point it is conceived?
So how is life created?
....When sperm meets egg; thus life begins.
From a bible standpoint, the bible never mentions abortion.
In fact when God ordered Moses to take a census of the people he told him not to count babies under a month old.
There is also a story in the bible about if a husband suspects his wife of cheating he can take her to the priest and they can make her drink the "bitter water" and she will be barren and suffer if she had cheated, but if she was faithful she would be fine. Basically an abortion in my opinion.
So as for christians being against it, I don't really believe they have a biblical leg to stand on. Just a moral one.
From the bible, there is no punishment or even a sin being commited in my opinion.
As a non-christian who does believe in a form of God, I pretty much agree with Smalley on abortion.
I would never do it myself, but I would never presume to take that right away from anyone else.
I also beleive the morning after pill should be over the counter, on the shelf, so teens could easily have access to them. I think teens should also not have to have parental consent or notification for access to birth control either, and proper sex education should be taught in schools, not the abstinence only garbage.
The focus for both sides of this issue should be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It would be such an easy compromise if christians would stop trying to control the sexual behavior of others.
If they really wanted to protect life then they would compromise on the birth control measures I stated, but in my mind its not really what they care about. They just want to control the sexual morality of everyone else and use the issue of abortion to do it.
That was a practice of old law- That does not mean God condoned abortion now does it.
-
It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image
(Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).
"That was a practice of old law- That does not mean God condoned abortion now does it."
Nor did he condemn it.
We should be protectors of those who are unable or afraid to plead their own cause.
- the unborn child
-
Proverbs 31:8
8 Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die
Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
the Bible isn't alone in declaring this truth. Science also declares that an unborn child is just as much an independent human being as you. The original human cell consists of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. At no point during pregnancy does the mother contribute any new cells to the child. The original cell divides itself and multiplies to provide development and growth for the child. Scientifically speaking, the child is just as independent at six months before birth as he will be six months after birth. Yes, the mother does provide nourishment to the unborn child, but she also provides nourishment to the newborn child!
At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother
Proverbs 6:16-17 says that God HATES those who shed innocent blood! Deuteronomy 27:25 says, "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen."
Who could possibly be more innocent than an unborn baby?! Yet, our society has become so wicked that it condones the slaying of 1.5 million innocent children every year. The Bible says that God HATES people who do this.
Abortion Is A Violation of the Golden Rule
brings shame, heartache, and Deep Regret,
destroys a Work of God, disannuls a plan of God, de-values human life, shows A Lack of Natural Affection, encourages sin, involves the Shedding of Innocent Blood, is An Act of Murder, shows A Lack of Faith
Proverbs 31:8 Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.
Why didn't Saul stand up for the babies of Amalek and refuse to murder them for God?
"Deuteronomy 27:25 says, "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person.The Bible says that God HATES people who do this."
Then God hates himself.
Read again David.....
Deuteronomy 27:25 (New International Version)
25 "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
The curses to be pronounced on mount Ebal.
The six tribes appointed for blessing, were all children of the free women, for to such the promise belongs, Ga 4:31. Levi is here among the rest. Ministers should apply to themselves the blessing and curse they preach to others, and by faith set their own Amen to it. And they must not only allure people to their duty with the promises of a blessing, but awe them with the threatenings of a curse, by declaring that a curse would be upon those who
do such things. To each of the curses the people were to say, Amen. It professed their faith, that these, and the like curses, were real declarations of the wrath of God against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, not one jot of which shall fall to the ground. It was acknowledging the equity of these curses. Those who do such things deserve to fall, and lie under the curse. Lest those who were guilty of other sins, not here mentioned, should think themselves safe from the curse, the
last reaches all. Not only those who do the evil which the law forbids, but those also who omit the good which the law requires. Without the atoning blood of Christ, sinners can neither have communion with a holy God, nor do any thing acceptable to him; his righteous law condemns every one who, at any time, or in any thing, transgresses it. Under its awful curse we remain as transgressors, until the redemption of Christ is applied to our hearts. Wherever the grace of God brings salvation, it
teaches the believer to deny ungodliness and wordly lusts, to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, consenting to, and delighting in the words of God's law, after the inward man. In this holy walk, true peace and solid joy are to be found.
"..Why didn't Saul stand up for the babies of Amalek and refuse to murder them for God?.."
-
Because he took a direct COMMAND from God.
so it is ok for the innocent child in the mother's womb to die, but not the babies of Amalek
Sounds a bit hypocritical eh ?
You've been waiting to say that so long, you blurt it out whether it makes sense or not.
Did I ever say it was okay for children to die in the womb? Did I say I supported abortion?
Someone needs hooked on phonics.
Because he took a direct COMMAND from God.
-
I wonder what it would have been like to tell God ....Sorry God, NO !!
-
Not me !!
There is a HUGE difference between making a tough decision between violating two people's medical rights to life, and an ALL KNOWING ALL GOOD GOD COMMANDING THE MURDER OF INNOCENT BABIES.
LOL... give me a break.
Did I ever say it was okay for children to die in the womb?
....Yes.....rape !!
Murder is murder ...
Can I borrow your Hooked on Phonics then?
That would be awesome... "But GOD, you said in Deuteronomy that you hated that!" That would so be me!
I would hope they would catch the pregnancy of rape in the first 2 or 3 weeks before a heartbeat, and terminate then, before anything is alive.
So it's ok to violate an innocent baby's life and murder it
-
The mother knows she is prenant and chooses to murder it, as does the one doing the abortion, as does the staff as does our government now.
-
So it would have been ok for Amalek to kill the Isrealites.
-
So David, how exactly would you have stopped that war and turned Amalek from its wicked ways?
David Smalley said...
I would hope they would catch the pregnancy of rape in the first 2 or 3 weeks before a heartbeat, and terminate then, before anything is alive.
-
OH - so you David now determine when life begins?.......WOW WOW weeee
What do you mean before anything is alive...
Is a sperm alive when it meets the live egg?
So the fetus dies then comes back to life when the heart starts beating?
WHAT !!!!
"Who could possibly be more innocent than an unborn baby?! Yet, our society has become so wicked that it condones the slaying of 1.5 million innocent children every year. The Bible says that God HATES people who do this."
God does not count the unborn as a person. according to his own accounting method for Moses.
"That was a practice of old law."
Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
Which law is the right law then...they are both old laws...lol.
"...God does not count the unborn as a person. according to his own accounting method for Moses....".....Where did that come from ???
-
Have you ever seen the word "fetus" in the bible .....It refers to a "babe" in thw womb.
Old Law
-
Saved by Grace in the New Testiment
"...God does not count the unborn as a person. according to his own accounting method for Moses....".....Where did that come from ???"
God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and specifically told him NOT to count babies under 1 month old. So according to God and his census babies under a month old do not count as a person yet.
If the sperm is alive, then we are all pregnant!
Christians try to use the bible to condemn abortion but its NOT in there. In fact the bible places very little value on the unborn, and on the very young.
It is their own moral code that makes them feel its wrong, and since everything they know to be wrong they learned from the bible they assume the bible is what tells them abortion is wrong. But its not the bible it is from within themselves.
God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and specifically told him NOT to count babies under 1 month old. So according to God and his census babies under a month old do not count as a person yet.
-
What was God's reasoning for the census?
And where does it say God does not consider them persons?
David Smalley said...
If the sperm is alive, then we are all pregnant!
-
So a dead sperm is what meets the egg?
-
How is that possible?
What was God's reasoning for the census?
Don't you read your bible or do you just read what the pastor tells you to? Numbers Chapter 3
And where does it say God does not consider them persons? Numbers chapter 3
Unborn babies are not disposable clumps of tissue, despite the claims of many pro-abortionists.
And they are always human right from fertilization, because all the DNA coding needed to build each individual’s physical features is there in the fertilized egg.
"And they are always human right from fertilization,"
Can you prove that they have human rights from anything written in the bible?
Numbers 3, okay?
So where does it say God does not consider those less than month old as human?
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses saying,
12 Behold I have taken the Levites from among the children of Isreal instead of all the first-born that open the womb among the children of Isreal; therefore the Levites shall be mine;
13 Because all the first-born are mine; for on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated to me all the first-born in Israel, both man and beast; they shall be mine; I am the Lord.
14 And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying,
15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families; every male from a month old and upward, you shall number them.
16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded.
God said the Levites shall be his, he told Moses to count them for him, but said don't count the infants under a month old. So he didn't want them counted as his. Not counted as his children YET.
13 Because all the first-born are mine; for on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated to me all the first-born in Israel
Sucks to be the middle child...lol
Unless you are a Levite I guess, cause he claimed them instead of the firt born.
So the Levite middle children lucked out, unless they were only 3 weeks old, they got the shaft.
Your are taking things out of context
-
14-31. Number the children of Levi--They were numbered as well as the other tribes; but the enumeration was made on a different principle--for while in the other tribes the number of males was calculated from twenty years and upward [Nu 1:3], in that of Levi they were counted "from a month old and upward." The reason for the distinction is obvious. In the other tribes the survey was made for purposes of war [Nu 1:3], from which the Levites were totally exempt. But the Levites were appointed to a work on which they entered as soon as they were capable of instruction.
-
Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible
CHAPTER 3
Nu 3:1-51. THE LEVITES' SERVICE
-
39. twenty and two thousand--The result of this census, though made on conditions most advantageous to Levi, proved it to be by far the smallest in Israel. The separate numbers stated in Nu 3:22, 28, 34, when added together, amount to twenty-two thousand three hundred. The omission of the three hundred is variously accounted for--by some, because they might be first-born who were already devoted to God and could not be counted as substitutes;
and by others, because in Scripture style, the sum is reckoned in round numbers. The most probable conjecture is, that as Hebrew letters are employed for figures, one letter was, in the course of transcription, taken for another of like form but smaller value.
-
40-51. Number all the first-born of the males of the children of Israel, &c.--The principle on which the enumeration of the Levites had been made was now to be applied to the other tribes. The number of their male children, from a month old and upward, was to be reckoned, in order that a comparison might be instituted with that of the Levites, for the formal adoption of the latter as substitutes for the first-born.
-
The Levites, amounting to twenty-two thousand, were given in exchange for an equal number of the first-born from the other tribes, leaving an excess of two hundred seventy-three; and as there were no substitutes for these, they were redeemed at the rate of five shekels for each (Nu 18:15, 16). Every Israelite would naturally wish that his son might be redeemed by a Levite without the payment of this tax, and yet some would have to incur the expense, for there were not Levites enough to make an equal exchange. Jewish writers say the matter was determined by lot, in this manner: Moses put into an urn twenty-two thousand pieces of parchment, on each of which he wrote "a son of Levi," and two hundred seventy-three more, containing the words, "five shekels." These being shaken, he ordered each of the first-born to put in his hand and take out a slip. If it contained the first inscription, the boy was redeemed by a Levite; if the latter, the parent had to pay. The ransom-money, which, reckoning the shekel at half a crown, would amount to 12s. 6d. each, was appropriated to the use of the sanctuary. The excess of the general over the Levitical first-born is so small, that the only way of accounting for it is, by supposing those first-born only were counted as were males remaining in their parents' household, or that those first-born only were numbered which had been born since the departure from Egypt, when God claimed all the first-born as his special property.
-
I would strongly encourage you to study the text before making arroneous assumptions of its meaning.
Verse 15. A month old and upward
The males of all the other tribes were numbered, from twenty years and upward; had the Levites been numbered in this way, they would not have been nearly equal in number to the firstborn of the twelve tribes. Add to this, that as there must have been first-born of all ages in the other tribes, it was necessary that the Levites, who were to be their substitutes, should be also of all ages; and it appears to have been on this ground, at least partly, that the Levites were numbered from four weeks old and upward.
Verse 16. Moses numbered them
Though Moses and Aaron conjointly numbered the twelve tribes, yet Moses alone numbered the Levites; "for as the money with which the first-born of Israel, who exceeded the number of Levites, were redeemed, was to be paid to Aaron and his sons, Numbers 3:48, it was decent that he, whose advantage it was that the number of the first-born of Israel should exceed, should not be authorized to take that number himself."-Dodd, from Bishop Kidder.
-
The Adam Clarke Commentary
number all the firstborn of the children of Israel, from a month old
and upward, and take the number of their names;
that they might be compared with the number of the Levites, and the difference between them observed.
-
The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
11-13 God's right to use them
The firstborn all belonged to God, because He had set them apart for Himself during the Passover.
Now God is swapping the Levites for the first-born of all the people.
God's putting His possessions to good use.
-
40-51 Firstborn swap
God has Moses count all the firstborn in Israel, which was 22,273, and swap them for the 22,000 Levites.
The Levites were to be paid a "ransom" (five shekels a piece) for the extra 273 they couldn't match.
Now the Levites were legally God's possession.
Rich Cathers
Notes on Numbers
"Your are taking things out of context
I would strongly encourage you to study the text before making arroneous assumptions of its meaning."
I don't think so. What you posted does not negate what the text actually says. It doesn't matter what the purpose for counting them was. A one month old baby is no more capable than a 3 week old baby. The facts are that God did not even consider those under a month old a posession or even countable.
I have read and the studied the text, it is clear.
But that does not mean He excluded them as humans. He already laid claimed to those who were under 1 month old....Those WERE HIS BABIES.
....Wake up dear one...God already claimed them as His own. He was only trying to make the numbers fair.
....Where in the world do get that God did not think the bebies were human?
-
Taking scripture out of context does so much damage. Yes the text is clear, but you are not.
"He already laid claimed to those who were under 1 month old....Those WERE HIS BABIES."
Show me where he laid claim to these babies? Especially any of those babies who were not first born?
"He was only trying to make the numbers fair."
Fair? Fair for what reason... since when does God need to make anything fair?
Hosea 13:4
Yet I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but me; therefore there is no one who can save besides me.
.......
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall be condemned because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and thier women with child shall be ripped up
And the numbers where not even anyway. God made the Isrealites pay money for the number of first born that exceeded the number of Levites taken. He took the Levites instead of the first-born. They had to pay for the discrepency.
If God had counted the babies under a month old the numbers would have probably been more even. So the argument of making it fair is not true at all if you read the text.
IF is a huge word as IF you assume God did not know what He was doing.
But once again, where in the world do you derive that God did not consider the babies as human or we can disregard them in an abortion fashion?
-
Mark 10:14
14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Abortion is a terrible thing. Not too much good comes from it. If you do have an abortion and aren't effected by it, then you are a thoughtless, selfish person. Growing up I had friends that had abortions and some of them used it as a form of birth control. Needless to say they were no longer my friends. I don't agree with that form of birth control. It just makes no sense. They make you look at the unborn baby before you abort it. For some reason not too many woman are affected by this and they still proceed. I assume the responsibility of keeping the baby out weighs the decision to abort the baby. When I was there at the clinic, one lady who was about 50 years old was having one and she said, she was too old and thought she had hit menopause.
As a child (under 18) I personally had one. It was terrible, but my Mother was in no shape to raise another child and I was a child. Bad parenting on her part, I should have been on birth control. I must say that if I did choose to keep the baby my life and the babies life would have been much different. Now why should I be called a murderer? If you met me you wouldn't feel the same way.
They should have a law that if you have one abortion you must enter counseling and be placed on birth control. You shouldn't be allowed to have multiple abortions, but I know this is violating someone's rights.
As for the morning after pill, it is over the counter, but you have to be 18 or older. I agree with this.
If you aren't a woman and haven't personally been through the situation, I don't think anyone should decide to make it illegal. I mean how many men on this blog have had sex (unprotected) as a young adult? Now what if you got pregnant? Do you definitively know what you would of done? I know what you are going to say, but what would you really have done at that age?
"But once again, where in the world do you derive that God did not consider the babies as human or we can disregard them in an abortion fashion?"
What I'm saying is that there is no biblical reference for the pro-life position. That in fact the bible places very little value on the unborn and very young. To say otherwise is a lie and a distortion of what the bible says. What I am saying is the pro-life position comes from a personal moral position, not a biblical one. There is nothing wrong with that, but to say that God condemns abortion is also a lie. Because he doesn't.
So debate the issue but God and the bible cannot legitimately be used as a source for the morality of it.
"As for the morning after pill, it is over the counter, but you have to be 18 or older. I agree with this."
It should be on the shelf to be picked up by anyone even someone under 18. Right now you have to ask the pharmacist for it.
It should be this way simply to protect those teens who have parents who would disapprove. The parents should not have the power to make such a life altering decision for another person. Parents should not be allowed to force an abortion or deny one either. By the time a teen girl gets the courage to tell her parents often times it is too late to do anything. The morning after pill readily available to them would save so many young girls lives and the lives of the babies they would abort.
Many passages teach us not to deliberately kill innocent human beings. Please read Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16,17;
Revelation 21:8; 22:15; Matthew 15:19,20; and Romans 13:8-10. In addition, please consider these specific passages.
Psa. 106:37,38 -- Israel was polluted with blood because the people shed the innocent blood of their "sons and daughters." But unborn babies are "sons and daughters." What then is the condition of our land when over 25 million "sons and daughters" have been legally killed?
Matthew 2:16 -- Herod is considered wicked because he slew the male children in Bethlehem. Luke 2:12,16 calls such children "babes." But Luke 1:41,44 also calls unborn children "babes," so how can it be acceptable to kill them?
Hosea 13:16; 2 Kings 8:12 -- When children or infants are dashed to pieces, it is a great tragedy to any nation. Yet unborn babies are children or infants, and in our nation they are dashed to pieces by the millions!
Acts 7:19; Ex. 1:16-18 -- Pharaoh commanded that Israelite "sons" or "men children" be killed as soon as they were born. But these same terms are used for unborn babies. Would it have been acceptable for Pharaoh to have had abortions performed to kill the babies? Is it any less wicked if people today do it?
Deuteronomy 27:25 -- "Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent person." What clearer description could be given for people who operate abortion clinics?
Abortion is wrong, therefore, because it is a failure to love, appreciate, and care for a human baby. It is also wrong because it constitutes the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. When people defend abortion, their arguments should always be evaluated in light of the fact that the unborn baby is a human being, a separate individual from its mother. Therefore, deliberately killing it would be just as wrong as killing any other innocent human being. What should a woman do if she has aborted a baby and now realizes she did wrong? She does not need to spend the rest of her life with the burden of unforgiven guilt. The Bible says abortion is wrong, but it also offers a source of true forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ. God will forgive if we will come to Him according to His conditions. Read and obey these passages: Rom. 1:16; 6:3,4; 10:9,10; Mark 16:16; Acts 17:30; 2:38; 22:16.
Dear Keep It Simple:
God's grace is sufficient in forgiving all sins.
I was in your same boat. But yes in reality I allowed my unborn baby to be murdered by the abortionist.
Thank God for his Grace and Forgiveness.
Titus 2:4 -- Young women should be taught to love their children. But an unborn baby is a "child," and a woman who has conceived is a mother even before the baby is born. The Bible tells us how we should act toward those we love (I Cor. 13:4-7), and this teaching definitely does not allow us to kill them (Rom. 13:8-10). We have clearly established that abortion is wrong without even (thus far) examining passages specifically dealing with murder. Abortion does fit the Bible definition of murder. But even if it did not, it would still be sinful because it is unloving, a lack of appreciation for God's blessings, and a gross abuse of our stewardship to raise our children as God directs.
Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." That which was conceived was called a "child" between the conception and the birth.
The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3
On the very night of Job's conception it could have been said, "There is a man-child conceived." The word for "man-child" (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means "man," i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.).
Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called "infants" that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16).
Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes "one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." If a baby dies before it is born -- as in an abortion -- the woman who conceived it is still a "mother."
In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born.
The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother."
Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.)
Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.)
What difference does it make what you call it, fetus, baby, son, child?
Makes no difference what term is used for it. The facts in the bible are clear. And the facts are that countless babies were killed, and that countless "babies" were ripped from their mothers wombs. By Gods order and at the hands of biblical figures you consider good men.
The word "fetus" just makes it less personal. Its still a baby, and the bible still places very little value on the life of that baby.
Its not even debatable in my mind, it just makes you feel better about your bible.
Paul said it best:
"The natural man is not able to accept things of the spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he does not understand these things because they are spiritually discerned."
There are atheists and agnostics who argue that the God who is presented in the Bible is cruel. For example, the online Skeptics Annotated Bible has an entire section devoted to biblical passages that, they claim, demonstrate that God is cruel. By labeling God as cruel, they are appealing to our human, moral sensibilities. The word cruelty is defined as "callous indifference to, or pleasure in, causing pain and suffering.” The question before us now is, Is God cruel? To answer in the affirmative, we would have to allow that God either doesn’t care about pain and suffering, or He actually enjoys watching His creatures suffer.
The atheists / agnostics who claim that God is cruel have a large burden of proof. They are not merely claiming to know about the actions of God; they are also claiming to sufficiently know the circumstances in which He performed those actions, as well as His motivations. Additionally, they are claiming to know the very mind of God, ascribing to Him the attitudes of indifference and/or sadistic pleasure necessary to define Him as cruel. Quite frankly, this is beyond the skeptics’ ability to demonstrate—they can’t possibly know the mind of God. “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
There is no doubt that God both allows and, at times, causes pain and suffering, but God’s goodness cannot be impugned because He commits an act that appears cruel to us. While we can’t claim to know His reasoning in every circumstance, we do know several reasons for actions that can appear to us to be cruel, especially if we don’t know—or don’t bother to find out—the circumstances:
To mete out just punishment - If a punishment is just, can it be said to be cruel? What critics usually do not understand is that God’s love is not diminished when He brings punishment on people. God is able to bring judgment on an evil group of people in order to spare those who are devoted to Him. To allow evil and wrongdoing to go unpunished would indeed be cruel and would indicate a callousness toward the innocent. When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14). Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good. Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
2. To bring about a greater good- Pain and suffering that produce a greater good sometimes can be brought about by no other means. The Bible tells us that trials and difficulties produce stronger, better Christians, and we should “count it all joy” (James 1:2) when we encounter them. God brings these about for our benefit, in order to refine us like gold in the fire of affliction. The Apostle Paul saw his own suffering—beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, cold, imprisonments—as a means of ensuring that he would be ever conscious of his own weakness, would remember always that the power at work in him was from God, not himself, and would never be deluded into relying on his own power (2 Corinthians 1:8-10; 4:7-12). Against nonbelievers, God's justice is vindicated when He causes pain and suffering to them because they deserve it. He demonstrates His mercy to them by warning them repeatedly of the consequences of sin. When, through their own rebellion, they bring upon themselves calamity, this is just punishment, not cruelty. The fact that He lets rebels go on shaking their fists at Him as long as He does indicates His mercy and patience, not cruelty.
To glorify Himself - God is glorified by the exhibition of His attributes. We all agree that He looks pretty good to us when His love and mercy are on display, but since each and every attribute is holy and perfect, even the exhibition of His wrath and anger bring Him glory. And that is the ultimate goal—His glory, not ours. Our tiny, finite brains can't even adequately imagine Him, much less call Him into question.
All these are worthy, valid, noble causes for pain and suffering. Contrary to the claims of skeptics, there are good reasons for God’s allowing evil and suffering in this world. We are privileged to know some of those reasons, but we do not always know why God allows evil and suffering. To trust God in spite of not knowing the reasons is not a blind leap of faith. Rather, we trust Him with the things we don’t understand because we see His faithfulness in those actions which we do understand.
If we read the Bible carefully, rather than seeing God act out of cruelty, we see Him acting out of His love for us. For example, the book of Job is often pointed to as an example of God’s sadistic actions against an innocent man. The book declares that Job was innocent of the suffering that came upon him, which appears to favor the claim of the atheist. But to claim that it proves God is sadistic betrays a very superficial understanding of the book of Job.
In the Near East during the time of the patriarchs, a common belief was that God always blessed the righteous and brought suffering on the unrighteous. The book of Job is a polemic against that theology. The story shows that man’s view of God’s justice needed to be modified. We need to understand that God is not limited to using suffering as a means of retribution. He also uses it to tear people away from the earthly things that so easily entice them. Additionally, Job brings people closer to understanding God’s work of atonement on the cross. If mankind continued to think that God couldn’t allow an innocent man to suffer, then we would have missed God’s plan for redeeming the world. For God allowed the suffering of a perfectly innocent Man (Jesus Christ) in order to bring His own to salvation. So this book of Job ends up being an invaluable contribution to the history of redemption.
In summary, the skeptic must bear a very large burden of proof in claiming that God’s actions are characterized by cruelty. In context, the biblical passages which appear to paint God as cruel actually do no such thing. In fact, with a proper understanding of the Scriptures, we see that God’s actions are always motivated by, and consistent with, His holy and perfect character.
Recommended Resource: Knowing God by J.I. Packer.
I love the built in scapegoat.
We can't understand, so we must just accept horrific things because it is above us.
I just have to call bull*&**
The bible is understandable, Gos is understandable. Accept it the way it is, believe in it, love it for what it is and stop trying to make it into something that makes you, as a human being, feel better about it.
"We can't understand, so we must just accept horrific things because it is above us."....That is not what he is saying GOOFY.
-
Sometime, just as Smalley points out, we cannot understand why our loving God allows bad things or institutes suffering.
That is exactly what he is saying.
You are not blind, you can read it for yourself. As a human being you cannot wrap your mind around the cruel and horrific things that are in there.
You have to find some way to justify, to be able to believe in it. Saying we can't understand and it is above ourselves is the way you do it.
It is where your faith comes in. Because without faith and without the hope of a master plan, you could not as a human being with feelings simply accept some of the awful things in there. Your faith is what makes it rational, and something you can hold on too.
Now that I can agree with !! Kuddos
"It is where your faith comes in. Because without faith and without the hope of a master plan, you could not as a human being with feelings simply accept some of the awful things in there. Your faith is what makes it rational, and something you can hold on too."
-
Those without faith will never understand
To Anonymous...
"It should be on the shelf to be picked up by anyone even someone under 18. Right now you have to ask the pharmacist for it."
I really don't think that my daughter when she is 14 or 15 that made a irresponsible decision to have un protected sex in the first place, is now responsible enough to make a responsible decision the next day to take the morning after pill. I want her to come to me and If I see in my experience that the morning after pill is what's best for my daughter I can take her to get it (We can make that decision together)
So, then "girls" under 18 aren't going to use the morning after pill as a form or birth control? If you have to have a parent with you every time you decide to get the pill, the teen might not depend on that pill and be more safe (condoms).
Very naive Keep it Simple.
What of the girl who doesn't have the kind of parent who she can go to. What happens to the girl whos parents would beat her or kick her out if they knew. What of the girl who is so afraid of the disapointment from her parents that she doesn't tell and ends up pregnant.
The morning after pill is birth control. Its just a higher concentration of normal birth control so that a pregnancy doesn't occur in the first place.
And as a parent I know you want to believe that their greatest influence is you, but its not. It is their peers.
If you think being scared to tell your mom is going to keep a teen from having sex you are fooling yourself. It is so much better to know that they could protect themselves if they needed to.
Also, by the time a teen girl works up the nerve to tell you, its already too late for the morning after pill, then abortion becomes a consideration. Why not stop the need for that consideration from even happening.
A lot of good opinions going on here. And thanks Keep it Simple, for sharing that story with us. I know that must have been very difficult for you.
Let me add this to the mix...
A 9 year old girl was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins. Her parents, who were against abortion as Catholics, decided to have an abortion for her sake.
The Catholic church excommunicated the mother. the doctors, and the 9 year old girl for murdering the unborn babies, but they said the rapist stepfather could come back to church as long as he repented.
Full story is here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
I have the following questions:
1) Did you think this abortion was justified?
2) If this were your 9 year old, would you make her go through the pregnancy?
3) What is your take on the stepfather being allowed back, but the 9 year old being punished by the church?
4) What would you have ruled on this topic?
The Catholic church excommunicated the mother. the doctors, and the 9 year old girl for murdering the unborn babies, but they said the rapist stepfather could come back to church as long as he repented.
Full story is here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
-
YIKES - Hypocrits !! Tough decision for the parents too...Now, I really do not know what I would have done.......Well, first a pair of dull scissors come to mind !!
1) Did you think this abortion was justified?
....Biblically...No, it is still murder on an innocent unborn child. The unborn is innocent and should not have to suffer murder
....As a parent, this would be so so HARD I cannot even imagine until I was in the asme scenario. Honestly, I would probably do the same...I just don't know. God that is a hard one.
....Way back when, child barring at a young age was acceptable, but I do not know how old those girls where then.
2) If this were your 9 year old, would you make her go through the pregnancy? ...Answered above
3) What is your take on the stepfather being allowed back, but the 9 year old being punished by the church?
...The Catholic church, especially, in this case are hypocrites. If God is capable of forgiving the rapist, He most certainly will forgive for the abortion. It would be the parents asking for forgiveness as the child is under their authority. But the Catholic church needs to look in the mirror for its own sins before passing judgement on this innocent 9 yr old. NOW THAT TICKS ME OFF !!
-
4) What would you have ruled on this topic?
Wow....I am just absolutely flabbergasted. But first all, being a Christian, I would pray, pray and pray more for divine wisdom.
-
Good question David.
Rape is not a cardinal sin... so foul. So disgusting. I agree with the dull pair of scissors
Is idolatry a cardinl sin in the Catholic church?
-
Sin is sin to God and he hates idolatry, but that is another topic.
-
So back to the dull scissors !! Now that would be justified !!
Rape is not a cardinal sin... SICKENING !!
I would be glad to talk to the POPE on that and hold him accountable to his own sins then !!
Mr. Smalley:
As for the Catholic church, their enitre faith systems defies the very mean of PURE GRACE and the Cross.
Once they are held accountable for that sin, then they might be able to view sin as sin, as per the other poster.
This deserves a...Catholics are more uffeedd up than some prisoners. This is just purely maddening and points to the reason why I am Atheist!
1) Did you think this abortion was justified?
Yes. Abortion was the right decision, in my eyes.
2) If this were your 9 year old, would you make her go through the pregnancy? Hell, No! I would of killed that bastard if it were my daughter. Ohh, you didn't ask that...Sorry-
3) What is your take on the stepfather being allowed back, but the 9 year old being punished by the church? I would of killed that bastard if it were my daughter. I thought you were asking that this time...She should of never been punished, but that's Christians for you...<- I know I am going to get hell for that one.(No pun intended)
4) What would you have ruled on this topic? You should know that answer.
The only sin that God will not forgive is that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirt.
So if He will forgive all other sins, what right does the Catholic church have to say that God will not forgive the abortion?
They don't. If they did, then they are saying the blood of Jesus Christ was not sufficient to forgive all sins that were forgiven on the Cross. ALL SINS WERE FORGIVE...past, present and future. ALL..not some...ALL
And if you say not ALL are forgiven, then you are adding a requirement or stipulation to grace, which defies its very own meaning.
I agree with the poster above
Oh I agree. The Catholics are so far off from the New Testament, I'm surprised they're still Christians.
Nonetheless, if the girl was a Baptist, would it change anything?
This is one of the FEW times I would support an abortion.
It has nothing to do with a locked in set of morals or spiritual ethics, but I think the abortion of two embryos that do not yet understand pain and suffering or sorrow or sadness, and have no psychology or cognition yet, is LESS HARMFUL than the psychological, biological, and otherwise medical problems that would come from a 9 yr old having babies from a rape.
Does anyone disagree with this?
2) If this were your 9 year old, would you make her go through the pregnancy? Hell, No! I would of killed that bastard if it were my daughter. Ohh, you didn't ask that...Sorry-
........AGREED - LOVE IT
-
She should of never been punished, but that's Christians for you...<- I know I am going to get hell for that one.(No pun intended)
....Don't pass judgement on "CHRISTIANS" please. Keep it to the decisin maker ...It was the Catholic Church. I am a Christian, and I would never have condemed this child.
My God is faithful to forgive, and yes is willing to forgive the rapist ....
...Vengance is the Lords.....
Give me my dull scissors !!!!!!
Nonetheless, if the girl was a Baptist, would it change anything?
Ok, you know I am Baptist. So I will give it my best shot.
As a mother/parent, I honestly do not know what I would do. Both are problematic at all costs. I would pray until blood dripped from my head. Right now, in my mind, I would say ok to the abortion. But that would kill me inside because I know it is an innocent baby too. But then so is my 9 yr old child.
-
As far as not allowing the parents or child back into the Catholic Church, David I am a Baptist, so you know that arguement.
Sin is sin in God's eyes. I think of the thief on the cross. He was the apitomy of evil too back then. But Jesus forgave. And if Jesus's death on the Cross affirms that all sins were forgven on the Cross, as the Bible states, then the Catholic church has no right to tell these parents their sins would not be forgiven. Make sense?
-
Anything, and I mean anything, that defies the meaning of Grace, in religion/bible/church, in my opinion ( and many others ) is a religion cult going against the very God they say they believe in.
-
I believe in the Cross and Christ's atonement for all sin, past, present and future.
But for the Catholic church to treat this family as they have, they need to be held accountable to the SIN OF HYPOCRISY.
-
This whole situation is HORRIFIC and sickens me beyond belief. I would like to introduce this man to Lorraine Bobbet, if you know what I mean....And I just want to wrap my arms around this child and family...God bless those parents and that child....
Lorraine Bobbet-Yes, he would be crying like that little girl and it would affect his entire life like he did her life.
Molestation is so much more common than people realize. I personally have been through it as well as many others. Most of the time the pervert, I mean perpetrator have no punishment, because the victim never speaks up. What really goes un-noticed is that it happens to boys a lot more than people think. I just wonder is the outcome any different when a little boy is molested by a man versus a little girl after they grow up. Like down the line how are relationships affected. (A little off subject)
Keep it simple
So sorry to hear of your trajedy too. So so sorry.l
As for the boys, I think it impacts in the same magnitude, but in different ways. Know what I mean.
Thanks for sharing your story... ((( hugs )))
-
Well I am from Texas and cling to my guns and bible...Maybe a shot gun to the mid section is better. But then I'd have to cut his hands off too. OKAY...now I am geting off topic !!
Sounds like our morals aren't that different after all.
David:
I never questioned your "morals" per se. Only your issue with no faith in God.
That is what separates ys. Remember you at one time had that faith.
Nothing like debating with the blondie, huh ?
It's all good..Well except your lack of faith !!!
it's been interesting.
BTW - Just loved how you through the "baptist" statement in the Chorch of Christ Church at the debate !!! That had me laughing
I like this blog conversation than most I have had. Denese, I may not agree on a lot of things you say, but you sure do give me a good laugh. I have to agree with a lot of what you said on the above posts. The Lorraine Bobbet was a classic comment and well used!
Mr. Smalley please keep your page open and don't move it to Facebook. No offense but I won't follow Facebook and I would miss these discussions. Facebook and Myspace are just not my cup of tea. I prefer Lipton.
Keep It Simple:
Well, thank ya very much there MiSSY/SIR?
assuming you are a miss by your flower, well, then again ya just never know these days.....And that is another topic!!!
.....URGH !!! There I go again.
-
Blessings to you and your family !!
...In your profile, sounds like you have been richly blessed with some grand-babies !!
...Guess you can call on me if anyone ever tries to hurt them...I will bring good ole COLT with me !! He might be 45, but still smokin hot !!!
Mr. Smalley,
thank you for opening up this discussion. I am trying to understand your position and so far, this is what i have concluded, please correct me if i am wrong:
A.The only things that are real are material things
Babies are real things
Therefore, babies are material things
B.Material things start with no value
Babies are material things
Therefore, babies start with no value
C.Wanted material things gain value
Wanted babies are wanted material things
Therefore, wanted babies gain value
D.Unwanted material things MAY be discarded
Unwanted babies are unwanted material things
Therefore, unwanted babies MAY be discarded.
(please note the word may in contrast to the idea of should/ ought)
hoping to hear from you soon.
Although humans are material, there is something very real about the human connection. We have love, we have passion, we have feelings, we have thoughts.
Those are made up of materials and chemical reactions, but they are also made up of experiences and emotions because we have evolved as a species to have such things. I wouldn't consider people as "things" to be discarded when unwanted. That's an oversimplification of what I've stated above.
A more accurate way to put it would be: At no point, am I EVER pro-abortion. I don't think anyone is. But the fact remains, that sometimes, (as in the case of the 9 yr old above) terminating an early pregnancy is actually what causes the least amount of harm, and therefore becomes the lesser of two horrible options. It's never 'good' and I would never be 'happy' to choose the death of anything.
As yet another example, if my wife and I were pregnant with a child that was found to have a horrible illness which would cause him/her to be in constant pain every second of every day, and not live past the age of 12, we would consider terminating the pregnancy.
It's not a given, but that option would be on the table for us. The thought process would be: ending the life now before feeling and suffering begins causes less harm than 12 miserable years of life with pain, suffering, medication, and early death.
Moreover, if my wife was raped and became pregnant, I would not raise another man's child after such a horrible act. I would not have a constant reminder of the act done to my wife, and it wouldn't be fair to the child to be born in such conditions. To even think that a loving god would force life into this world in such a horrific manner is despicable itself, so I sure hope that's not the rebuttal to that one.
The point is, as long as there is 'something' that makes us consider it, for either health reasons, rape, or children having children, we can't rightfully make a law prohibiting people from having that choice. Perhaps laws around abusing abortion as Keep it Simple alluded to above, would be more appropriate.
Your strategic logic above reminds me of this brief note once posted by Jason on my blog:
God = Love,
Love = Blind
Blind = Ray Charles
Therefore, Ray Charles is God!
So no, babies are not "just material things" to be discarded.
Mr. Smalley,
Thank you for the quick response.
Would it be possible for you to expound on the difference between how i understand your argument, specifically section D, from "it's not a given, but that option would be on the table for us" and "Moreover, if my wife was raped and became pregnant, I would not raise another man's child after such a horrible act. I would not have a constant reminder of the act done to my wife, and it wouldn't be fair to the child to be born in such conditions."
at this point, it seems that in its context, the baby is unwanted and that the option of terminating the pregnancy is on the table. I am not saying that it should be done or it is to be done, i just see it as the option is there.
on a side note, in my understanding of your argument, i see "terminating the pregnancy" as a form of discarding. would you prefer i use a different term?
lastly, i just want to acknowledge that i have not said that you are "pro-abortion" nor do i see you that way.
again, thanks for the discussion.
Do you know how many mothers who were raped were blessed with the child they bore .... The child was not a disappointment either.
In their book, Victims and Victors, David Reardon and associates draw on the testimonies of 192 women who experienced pregnancy as the result of rape or incest, and 55 children who were conceived through sexual assault. It turns out that when victims of violence speak for themselves, their opinion of abortion is nearly unanimous—and the exact opposite of what most would predict:
Nearly all the women interviewed in this anecdotal survey said they regretted aborting the babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90 percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion. On the other hand, among the women profiled in the book who conceived due to rape or incest and carried to term, not one expressed regret about her choice.*
There's a parallel between the violence of rape and abortion. Both are done by a more powerful person at the expense of the less powerful.
Abortion doesn't bring healing to a rape victim. Imposing capital punishment on the innocent child of a sex offender does nothing bad to the rapist and nothing good to the woman.
Creating a second victim never undoes the damage to the first.
Adapted from Randy Alcorn's book Why ProLife? (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004).
and it wouldn't be fair to the child to be born in such conditions."
WHY?
but they are also made up of experiences and emotions because we have evolved as a species to have such things"
-
From what have we evolved?
How do materials and chemicals have emotions?
insouciantpoet & anonymous,
Let me turn the questions to you. Because I don't know your gender, it's hard for me to word this correctly, but if you (or your wife) were raped and became pregnant...would you have the baby and raise that baby as a member of your family?
Secondly,if the baby was going to be born with a horrible disease that will cause them to suffer every minute of every day and then die at the age of 12, would you allow that suffering to begin by having the child?
Finally, if your 11 year old daughter was raped and impregnated, would you allow her to have the child?
Mr. Smalley,
A. to choose/want is an ability of a highly adaptive brain
Humans have a highly adaptive brain
therefore, humans have the ability to choose/ want.
B. to choose/ want puts value into things
people have the ability to choose/ want
therefore, people have the ability to put value into things.
from here proceed to section C and D.
if the baby were unwanted, then it MAY be discarded.
(please note the difference between the function of MAY as opposed to should/ ought. Just to point out that i am not accusing anyone to be pro-abortion.)
who else has our adaptive brain?
If i were a materialist, i would hold that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. value is just placed upon a material thing by the adaptive human brain's ability to choose.
lastly, it does not follow to say that since if rape is wrong, which i do think it is wrong, therefore the pregnancy MAY be terminated. unless you say that the pregnancy in itself is wrong or unwanted. if it is unwanted, then it MAY be terminated. if it is wanted and still CONSIDERED for termination then i would say that the person is inconsistent.
on a side note, to make an argument for either position based upon appealing to how unfortunate the three scenarios may be, is to commit a logical fallacy.
going back to my question however, i would still like to know the difference between your response to the three scenarios that you have presented to both me and anonymous, from section D of my understanding of your position. am i understanding it or not? if not, how so?
also, what are your thoughts on the two syllogisms that i presented in this response?
thank you again for this opportunity, i hope you have a great weekend.
insouciantpoet...
You have posed it very well.
The life of the baby only has value if you want it. So the life has no value on its own, its worth is determined by those around it and affected by it.
How difficult is that for anyone to admit?
I can see why the question is avoided. The ugly side of life is often ignored.
As for myself, 19 yrs ago I was a 17 yr old teen mother, its not the end of the world or the end of your life, and I have never regreted that choice.
If I was raped and became pregnant I honestly believe I would still have the baby.
I don't like that argument above either that someone could not raise a child of rape. If you honestly believe you would treat a child of rape so badly that their life would be awful and not living is better, then that says something about you, not about the child or the circumstances of its birth, or that its life could not have value to you. That argument just creeps me out and makes me feel icky. In cases like that adoption is an option if you feel that child would somehow be less in your house.
Medical issues are different, to me anyway, than just the choice of life or death for the healthy is.
A short life of pain and suffering? Its probably more humane to end it before it starts. It is so rare for that to happen though that its not even a consideration for most people.
An 11 yr old, if it was my daughter, I would get her the abortion. I would know I was part of killing a life and I would accept that fact. I wouldn't pretend otherwise or try to justify. I would be making the choice for the well being of my living child over the life of another child. I would own that and live with it.
I do not think it should be illegal though, and prevention should be a much bigger focus than it is right now. Proper access to prevention methods would make this issue pretty much a moot point for anything other than medical issues.
Please don't let assumptions fly. Your post was otherwise very well thought out, but don't put words in my mouth about treating a child of rape "so badly that their life would be awful."
Did I say that? I would appreciate you speaking for yourself and leave out any assumptions you may have about my thoughts. If you don't understand them, ask me, but don't assume and put words in my mouth.
My purpose in saying that I would terminate a pregnancy of rape is because at some point, we would have to be honest with the child about his/her biological father, and that would have tremendous psychological effects. I know what it's like to raise a child that is not biologically mine (for 10 years so far), and the complications that already come with that. Adding a rape to the mix would be a devastating blow to one's consciousness and self worth.
Not to mention, my family is full, and we are done having kids. We now have a plan for life and would not let a rapist determine our future by altering everyone's lives around us, including our children.
A child of rape wouldn't be "our child," but the child of my wife and a sick individual, and I wouldn't raise it. I have no problem admitting that.
Secondly, I am not so much 'avoiding' the question of a child's value, as I am frustrated by an attempt to oversimplify a very complex issue.
Insouciantpoet keeps trying to break everything down to step 1, step 2, step 3... and that's that! It's just a gross oversimplification, and abortion can't be handled that way. We're not putting together a desk from Target, we're talking about human life and when it begins, and the difficult ethical decisions surrounding that.
Again,
God = Love
Love = Blind
Blind = Ray Charles
Ray Charles = God.
It doesn't always work, does it?
"I would not have a constant reminder of the act done to my wife, and it wouldn't be fair to the child to be born in such conditions."
What conditions would make not living a better choice? These are your words. It is easy to assume with your choice of words that this child could not have a happy life in your house. Again though adoption is always an option.
"My purpose in saying that I would terminate a pregnancy of rape is because at some point, we would have to be honest with the child about his/her biological father, and that would have tremendous psychological effects."
Be honest here, it would not ruin their lives to the point that they would rather not live. Be honest in the fact that it is you who would rather not live with it, not the child.
"I know what it's like to raise a child that is not biologically mine (for 10 years so far), and the complications that already come with that."
As do tons of other parents in this country, is your child not a happy well adjusted kid? Is his life so hard because of that fact? No. I have family raised in the same way, they are beautiful, happy, smart young people who in no way were damaged by it.
"Adding a rape to the mix would be a devastating blow to one's consciousness and self worth."
I'm not sure this is true, sure it would hurt some to find this out, but its not devastating, especially if you had parents who loved you and raised you no differently than any other child in your house. Again it is you who couldn't handle it, not the child.
"A child of rape wouldn't be "our child," but the child of my wife and a sick individual, and I wouldn't raise it. I have no problem admitting that"
Then I assumed nothing, you said what I said with your own words, you yourself could not do it, it has nothing to do with the well being of the child. Because if you could do it, the child would be just fine. Thats why I said it says more about you.
You are making insouciantpoet's point here. The worth of the childs life depends solely on your want for it or not.
You obviously can raise happy well adjusted children, because you do it right now. But for you, and from your own words, depending on where that child came from would determine the value you place on it and if you would allow its birth. It doesn't have enough value on its own merit.
I dont think he/she is trying to over simplify it, but to make the topic more honest. Skirting around the hard parts is not being honest.
He is right in the fact that it really has nothing to do with the well being of the child in most cases, but with the wishes, wants and needs of the parents that would put enough value or not on its life to allow its birth or not.
Absolutely no one has an uncomplicated perfect life, and life plans rarely work out the way you plan. Half the time you would not react to a situation in the same way you said you would when it actually happens to you.
"In short, we cannot get around the fact that stopping a heart is ending a life. Aborting a child with a heartbeat is killing that child. I could never do it."
But you could given the right situation and the value you place on the life of the specific child.
What value?
"I know what it's like to raise a child that is not biologically mine (for 10 years so far), and the complications that already come with that."
-
I do too David, I have two step children. They may not be mine biologically, but I love them both as if they are mine. We have a very special and unique relationship and I love them because I love my husband. I cherish their lives and count them as blessings
I have no problem admitting that terminating the pregnancy is partially due to my own inability to deal with it, but if that were the reason alone, I'd probably deal with it and have the child.
It's the combination of all things: the child, medical reasons, my other children, our plans, psychological effects, etc.
But I became frustrated when you put words in my mouth as if I said "I would treat the child so badly that it would be better for it not to live." I never said that, and yes, you did assume.
"it wouldn't be fair to the child to be born in such conditions."
Then maybe a better choice of words should have been used. It not being fair to be born under such conditions implies the conditions would be so bad that to be fair an alternative to birth needs consideration.
"It's the combination of all things: the child, medical reasons, my other children, our plans, psychological effects, etc."
Other than medical reasons, none of these things involve the well being of the child. Its all about the well being of those in control.
I'm not saying its wrong or right, just be honest about what it really is. Don't make an excuse that its the best thing for a healthy child, because obviously it isnt. It may be best for the one who has the power of the choice at the time, and they should own that.
I had never heard it posed the way insouciantpoet put it, and he/she has made a very strong point about the value we place on the child being the thing that tips us to either side of this decision. The healthy child itself has no value without us giving it or not giving it.
It was quite profound for me, and I will see it differently from now on. I will say I had a lightbulb moment there.
Bravo insouciantpoet!! Its very hard to change anothers mind, but you succeeded.
Mr. Smalley,
you say that i am oversimplifying the argument. if so, then show me where. I have been constantly asking for the difference between the propositions within the syllogisms which i have presented and what you are arguing for. how is it different? i would really like to understand where you are coming from and how my syllogisms detract from what you are saying. In order for me to progress in this discussion i need to know what exactly it is that you are saying; furthermore, if you think that my syllogisms are invalid or unsound, show me. Just because you toss in an invalid and unsound argument does not mean therefore that mine is invalid and unsound as well.
to anonymous,
thank you. i appreciate the kind words. In light of the issue then, i would like to present something to consider...
If materialism were false, then materialism as a system of thought is unreliable, which would make any claims that would follow from it unreliable as well. .
if materialism were true, (and at this point i am assuming that evolution is true as well)
A. then things start with no intrinsic value.
B. that our behavior is adaptive
C. this behavior is caused by our brain
D. our brain is also adaptive
E. the underlying neurology is also adaptive
F. that our beliefs are adaptive especially in light of things that we discover.
It is important to note that the an adaptive brain is a tool which is used to foster survival and reproduction; however, in light of the truthfulness or falsity of an idea. it is unreliable. If something is true, fine. If it is false, fine.
for instance: at one point in history people thought that the world was flat. it doesn't matter whether they were right or not as long as their behavior caused them to survive. later down the line, we learned that the earth is round, its still fine. as long as we survive.
another example would be, if we were in a forest and the bush behind us shakes. we can either flee or wait and see what it is...if it were a wild animal, fine. if not fine as long as we survive.
what makes killing innocent children different from hugging your daughter tight enough to where you do not crush them? both behaviors are brought about by our adaptive brains.
furthermore, if beliefs are adaptive, this implies that at some point our beliefs would change, such as morals. if this were the case, it holds little weight and is unreliable.
moreover, materialism as a system begs the question and is self defeating.
a. the only things that are real are things that are empirically verifiable
b. material things are empirically verifaible
c. material things are real.
the method of empiricism only deals with things that can be perceived by the senses to begin with. Moreover, how does the idea of materialism stand with with this syllogism? it cant because it is empirically un-verifiable.
to sum this all up, if materialism were the true, then it is unreliable. and any claims it would make, pertaining to itself, such as values placed upon anything holds no weight and is unreliable.
Anonymous,
Whose mind has been changed? I'm unclear as to what championship you are awarding to insouciantpoet for simply restating the argument using steps A B & C in what appears to be a logical yes or no approach to a very complex issue.
Insouciantpoet,
My complaint with your approach is that it is not necessarily about the value of the baby. We can't say "The baby is a 4, and my life as it is, rates as a 7, so kill the baby." It just doesn't work that way, but I get the feeling that you are trying to get me to admit something of the sort.
You keep trying to use those syllogisms to say, if A, therefore B, and so C is always true: as if it's always going to follow that logic. But one small thing could change the entire formula for each situation. You can't lock down very complex issues like this by using that type of logic.
It may be reliable to a degree, but it's not an absolute, so I refuse to subscribe to that application of philosophy when so many variables play a role.
"My complaint with your approach is that it is not necessarily about the value of the baby. We can't say "The baby is a 4, and my life as it is, rates as a 7, so kill the baby." It just doesn't work that way."
It really does...
Can you honestly think of a situation, and I'm serious about being honest, where the well being of a healthy baby results in termination.
Take 2 healthy unborn babies, two different sets of circumstances for the parents, one is wanted the other is not. The babes themselves are exactly alike and healthy in every way. Do the babies have the same value? No. Why? The parent places the value given their own personal "variables".
What is the difference between the babies that one could be born and one could not. The difference has nothing to do with the babies obviously. The difference is the value the specific parent has for the specific baby. The "variables" are of those in control, the baby itself is not a variable unless the parent makes it one by placing value on it.
Insouciantpoet has made a perfect argument, and I think to say otherwise is just excuses to make one feel better about a situation you otherwise would not want to be in.
I personally will no longer see someone who says it is best for this healthy baby to not be born, or to say that its not fair to be born under these conditions as being genuine about their reasons. That is what I am giving Insouciantpoet credit for.
Honesty about a hard choice is much more difficult to deal with than a rationalization about a choice that made you feel ok about it. We are human, we all do it.
I can actually almost agree with you--I see where you're going, and I've often said that decisions are based on value. But I want to challenge you for just a moment to take a slightly different perspective.
It's not so much about the 'lesser' value of the baby, as it is about the value of harm rising that is caused by a child being born in certain circumstances. In other words, the 'value' of the actual child does not play a role for me--all human life is equally precious.
So when that 9 year old became pregnant, that didn't change the value of the babies growing inside her; they are still a 10 as all babies are. But it did drastically increase the rate of harm that would be caused by a 9 year old girl going through a pregnancy. The value of the harm is what changed, not the value of life.
So while the babies are still a 10, and most pregnancies and suffering are about a 3, in this particular situation, the suffering bursts off the charts and is practically impossible to overcome. Again, the value of the babies did not change but the situation is so drastic, it becomes more harmful for the babies to be born.
What I'm trying to say is, no one is stating "Since the pregnant person is a child, therefore the babies inside her are of lesser value, so let's kill them" (as if they are subject to appraisal).
But sometimes, on rare occasions, the level of harm surpasses the value of the child without it changing at all. Because those situations do exist and we can't possibly make a law for each one of them, it's nearly impossible to make laws around prohibiting it altogether.
Remember, I never started this post defending abortion. But you came on here trying to make me agree to 'appraising children' like my property, and that's not what I've said at all. Again, it's not that simple.
If you would actually force a 9 year old girl to have twin babies after being raped by her stepfather, I would have to question YOUR respect for the 9 year old's life, as that would be considered abuse.
In drastic cases, abortion is not the 'best' option, but rather the one that causes the 'least' amount of harm in a terrible situation.
Insouciantpoet keeps trying to make this about the baby's value, when it's not. It's a terrible argument from someone that has only evaluated the situation from one angle. To call it 'perfect' is intellectually dishonest, and begs of the possibility that insouciantpoet is returning as 'anonymous' to pat himself on the back.
to anonymous,
please seriously consider my critique of what was being argued for earlier and the reliability of our judgments and beliefs, namely, if materialism were true, then our value system is unreliable. and materialism itself as a system and that which follows is unreliable.
I would like for you to consider, another idea of values. That is, things would have intrinsic value, that is, they are valuable, in themselves, regardless of whether or not we choose to acknowledge its value.
A. Everything has value
B. Babies are part of everything
C. Babies have value
A. Discarding valuable things does not remove its value
B. Terminating pregnancy is discarding something that is of value.
C. Terminating a pregnancy does not remove the its (baby) value.
if value is not determined by our will
and our will helps us to choose
then whether we choose something or not does not affect its value.
A.Our mind (notice the shift in terminology from brain) lets us correspond with reality
B.corresponding with reality lets us correspond with the intrinsic value of things
C.our minds lets us correspond to the intrinsic value of things.
by discarding something that is of value, shows that our mind is not corresponding with reality.
i will be honest to you anonymous, this is where i truly stand. that whether we choose something or not does not mean that we put it on a value scale, rather we just do not understand its true value and thus not correspond with reality.
the reason why i hold to this, specifically, that babies have intrinsic value is because i believe that humans are created in the image of God.
I understand that the phrase image of God has been interpreted as having an immaterial soul, now if that were the case, then indeed there is something of extreme value that people would be disposing of, if they take away any life. and again, our minds lets us act in correspondence to the reality that it does have value! therefore, we must act accordingly, that is, to protect it.
there is also another way to look at the image of God, that is, instead of interpreting it as an immaterial soul, i would see it as bearing the dominion of God. in the ancient world, statues, which bore the image of kings, were used to mark out their territory/ dominion. If we are to take this same approach then we may see that humanity is marking out God's territory and shows his dominion. destroying that which bears the image of God is basically an attack on God and His dominion. If this were the case, not only is human life worth protecting, it would be an attack on God himself if one were to just carelessly take away another human beings life. the role of our minds is therefore to correspond to the reality of God and his dominion. i adhere to this one over the earlier idea.
I am anonymous just so there is no confusion.
david...
"So when that 9 year old became pregnant, that didn't change the value of the babies growing inside her; they are still a 10 as all babies are."
That is matter of opinion only. Maybe to you all babies are a 10 but not to all who are in the situation. Plus this situation probably makes up no more than 1% of abortion, and laws could be made to protect the extreme cases. The option of abortion is predominatly used by those who are placing a value less than 10 on the childs life and a higher value on their own life situation.
"Again, the value of the babies did not change but the situation is so drastic, it becomes more harmful for the babies to be born."
Again opinion about value, but the harm would be caused to the 9 yr old not the baby, so the 9 yr old is valued over the baby. I would choose my 9 yr old over the unborn baby as well, but I would not kid myself that I was not killing something innocent.
"Insouciantpoet keeps trying to make this about the baby's value, when it's not."
But in my mind and almost every case it really is at its core.
insouciantpoet....
"I would like for you to consider, another idea of values. That is, things would have intrinsic value, that is, they are valuable, in themselves, regardless of whether or not we choose to acknowledge its value."
This is also a matter of opinion and your own judgments about value. There is no such thing in this world as intrinsic value, you made that point for me. Value is given by us, plain and simple.
"if value is not determined by our will"
It is so the rest of the argument is a moot point to me.
And I have a very different idea about God and our creation so I will leave your theories on that to you.
I am just looking at the reality of what it is. What is really happening at the core of the issue and those involved. I believe you hit it right on the head.
If i would get arrested for killing a Hawk or Falcon or something endangered why do i not get arrested for killing a human?
My opinion on the subject has always been very similar to smalleys' in that abortion should not be used as a contraceptive. That being said, I have also believed for a long time that if the pregnancy is still before the fourth week(before brain tissue has begun to grow) the woman has a right to choose what to do. This opinion is largely based on the idea that before this a living being has yet to grow and therefore is still part of the mother and not separate.
p.s. i happen to have this in my bookmarks. worth a read http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
David posses some questions that I feel the need to answer. Now in this scenario, I'm the male so I will assume the part of the Father of the 9 year old, I will change the scenario to fit me by saying that either a stranger or a known family friend rapped my 9 year old daughter.
1) Did you think this abortion was justified?
Absolutly and I completely fail to see how this decision is "Hard" to make. It makes me a bit sick to think that some people have to actually think about the fact "my NINE year old daughter is pregnant with twins that were put there by a rapist" and have to question themselves if there should be an abortion or not... she freakin NINE years old man!
2) If this were your 9 year old, would you make her go through the pregnancy?
Absolutly not, to do so would just be plain evil. Not to mention the complications on her body, she may not even survive the birthing process! Even if she did, I would assume medically speaking that her body would be completly fucked by it! it's happen before! Young girl gets raped, forced to have the baby anyway, Oh guess what? shes so ripped up inside from being birthing at such a young age that she cannot have another child for the rest of her life... to even toy with the idea of letting a CHILD bare another CHILD is twisted.
3) What is your take on the stepfather being allowed back, but the 9 year old being punished by the church?
This doesn't suprise me one bit, but it is still shocking and disturbing to the highest degree. It is a thing of evil. The church is clearly saying that The mother and daughter in this case are not worthy of their religion, but the step father IS!?
4) What would you have ruled on this topic?
What would I have ruled? I would have sent the bastard to jail.. because I know what other prisioners do to child molesters.
Warning:
What follows may be considered disturbing and abit hypocritial.
I have had this conversation with my sister many a time on what we would do if someone, anyone, where to hurt her child *my nephew*
First.. I would hope that the police catch him before myself or my sister found him... because we would torture him slowly, and we have detailed how we would do this and we would do this with much satisfaction. We wouldn't kill him, but we'ed make damn sure the rest of his life was full of pain and suffering. In short, I would go to jail and be locked up probably on a life sentence. Thats just what I would do to someone who hurt my 5 year old nephew.. I cannot imagine how i'd feel if someone hurt my very own child.
If the police did capture him, I have a plan for that as well.
I'd make friends with a lifer, or at least someone who is in prison for a very long time with nothing to loose.
I'd ask him.. do you have children you need to put through school/college? Do you have a wife that needs help? Do you have siblings or anyone you care about that needs help? Consider it done. Your children will get the best education I can affored. Your wife will no longer have to worry etc. ect. You just have to do one thing for me. Make sure *insert rapists name here* suffers dearly, don't kill him, make him suffer.
My views on abortion(and life in general)
are that when a creature is intelligent enough to realize it exists is when "life starts" so to speak.
We dont actually die just from our heart stopping. we die from the lack of oxygen to our brains becauseof the heart stopping. so in my idea if a child in the womb is incapable of processing thought to conscientious level, and it is NECESSARY for the mother to get rid of it then sure. but i do not support abortion as an out for irresponsible people. and i do not support abortions after about a month, simply because there is no reason to be taking away a potential life unless necessary. not to mention like david said, i cant simply say that the mother does not have a right to get rid of the baby. but there may be better options like adoption if you cant afford the child. those are just my thoughts
-Shane
-Shane
In order for us to be having this discussion our dads sperm had to get in our moms egg. That is when life starts. when that sperm gets in that egg the process begins and cells start dividing. How is it rational and logical to say that life doesn't start untill there is self realization? Plants are living things. I don't think they realize it but they are. It also appears that life starts in the father since sperm swim around and somehow know to find the egg and get in it before another sperm does. I do not support abortion. I feel that even in rape cases though tragic that child could grow up to be a great person. Even more than abortion I am against government intervention in our lives. I do not believe I would make an anti-abortion law if I was in the position because I am pro- liberty above all but I would hope that people would make the choice to have the baby. -Matt
as a women who has had an abortion, i can tell you that until you have been through it, you cannot understand it.
contrary to popular belief, many women who have abortions do love their child. i certainly did, and still do. we do it for the benefit of others, and of the child (as weird as that may sound). i realised it was unfair for me to bring a child into a world that was unready for it. i could not have supported the child financially, and certain family members would have disowned me, being that i was a teenager at the time. i know that even i was the best mother in the world, i could not give my baby the life it deserved... and what is that saying? o ya.. "mother knows best". i do not trust the adoption system, and dont see it as a good option. the system is overwhelmed with unwanted children, floating from foster home to foster home.
it has been almost a year since i lost my baby. and not a day goes by that i dont think of it. it was like experiencing a miscarriage. i still carry the feeling of extreme loss and a feeling of "unwomen-ness" and unworthiness.
i realise that i had the right to decide what happens to my body, and that every women has more purpose then just being a mother. it is so easy for a man to just simply turn away and never look back, because of their bodily circumstance. my mother always used to say to me, "you may never be certain of a lot of things in life, but one thing you can be certain of, is who your mother is."
it is the "pro-lifer" that is trying to take away rights from women. the "pro-choice" people are simply staying, do with your body as you please. your saying that it is violating the rights of the baby seems harsh to me... probably because i still feel the pain of the loss, but i believe that while life begins at conception, to be human is to think. early abortions in my opinion are not violating human rights.
to all the jugmental people out there, put yourself in the position of a unwed teen mother, as a homeless women, or a raped women. remember their rights, their stuggles, and remember that it is not your body, it is theirs. you have no right to control it.
....continued \/\/\/
i did not ask to get pregnant. i thought i was being safe. i was on birth control that was suited to my body. that was until the pharmaceutical company, without my permission, changed my prescription to its cheaper generic brand. and lets just say there is a REASON it is cheaper. it messed up with the hormones of my body and even though i asked to switch back, they told me to wait another 3 months (i had already been on the substitute for 5 months)to "gain proof it is not suited for my body. it was in that last month that i got pregnant. the hospital i had the abortion at is using my story to help a possible law suit to the pharmaceutical company in question.
so please, whether or not youd have an abortion yourself, understand that you cannot understand until it happens to you. and instead try to decrease hatred towards these women, and allow them to come out of the shadows and get help to recover and reclaim their lives.
....continued \/\/\/
i am canadian, and i learned that last summer our prime minister stephan harper stopped the use of safe abortions by doctors without borders in the democratic republic of congo. why? because of his own religion. these people in the DRC have been plagued with war and mass killings and rapes since 1960. in 2008 there were 40 000 REPORTED cases of rape. the abortion preformed there were to help rape victims, and to save the lives of the already living (such as situations where the woman gets raped, pregnant, then castrated during pregnancy which is obviously life threating to the baby and mother). now these women feel they have no control of their own bodies, even when they we victims and did not ask for it. they are now necessarily dieing, or living life with an unwanted baby with no foreseeable future.
i want to so desperately become an activist against this. i would speak publicly, and on national tv would tell the world that i have had an abortion... if i could just save these women. if i could just make people realise there own short-sited perception of women... if i could just make people see that women are not "walking uterus with legs". it is a natural human right to control over their own body, a human right to not be judged, and human right to recieve any help needed. pro-life isnt trying to take away anybody's rights, but instead saying to each her own... make the best choice for yourself.
^^^ last sentence meant to say pro-choice.. sorry. but i wrote this in a hurry, as this is an extremely emotional subject for me. so again, sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors... tears prevent proper sentences... lol.
Okay, I'd just like to weigh in with my opinion on this. I haven't read most of the comments and I'm mostly doing this just to waste time I should be using to do homework, but of what I have read, most people are forgeting one thing. Until a certain age, parents decide what is best for a child, in regards to medical conditions. For example, a child might not want ot get a needle, but the parents will make them since it is the best thing for that child. Now, I'm not saying that lives aren't important, but I think if given the choice of having a child when you aren't ready for one and don't have enough money to support it or getting an abortion, most people would choose to get an abortion because it's best for the baby. Would you rather have it not come into this world or have it come into this world making you use all you money to support it and yourself and then becoming homeless? It would be better to not have the baby at all.
Now, you could be thinking "But what about when parents do have enough money and just don't want a baby?". Well, they should be in the right too. If it's okay for any group of people, it's okay for everyone. Otherwise you are discriminating against people. If you're fine with being hypocritical about discrimination, then I guess it would be fine with you.
Alex
I'm a Christian. But my belief that abortion is the same as killing, didn't come from my belief. But because I believe it is murder, I believe it is a sin. As I believe, lying and sex before marriage are sins, I do NOT believe that the government has a right to pick which "sins" to make illegal. The law is only there to protect us. Not to put in there beliefs. If we make it illegal, it should also be illegal to lie(which would put every politician in jail;)). They're only job is our physical protection and safety.
ps- I just saw you on youtube. I love that you are hosting these debates, without the random screaming matches:)
-Lindsey
Hello Dave
I am an atheist too but, different of what the creationists usually think, that doesn't mean I approve abortion and I do not, because I think nobody has the right to intentionally kill another person that is not threating his life, and a fetus is a person.
If the parents are not in condition to have a child, then leave it to someone else. Steve Jobs was abondoned by his biologicals parents after he was born, but he was born. If their parents have choosed to abort him, that blog would not even exist His parents decision to let him live changed a lot the world, and changed to a better world, that is why nobody should be selfish enough to abort (except victims of rapers, that have no fault on being pregnant),because you never know what the future have storaged for you or your son/daugher and they have no fault if their mother got pregnant and doesn't deserve to "pay for her mistake".
This is my very opinion about the theme.
Here's the bottom line:
If you needed blood, organs, or any other tissue from your mother today, she has a right to turn you down and say no, even if it means you will die as a result. It's her body. As an adult, you don't have a right to demand it of her, or force her to donate any part of her body against her will for your own survival.
The same is true of your body -- nobody can demand that you donate any part of your body for their survival (even if you happen to be the direct cause of their need for blood, organs, or whatever).
Nobody has the right to do such a thing now, and never had special rights as a fetus to do it. Nor should any fetus be allowed to do it today. To say otherwise is heading down a dangerous path of eliminating bodily autonomy, stating that someone has the right to steal flesh for the sake of their own lives.
Post a Comment