Pro-Life

30 years ago the Supreme Court's "Roe vs Wade" decision made it legal to have an abortion in all 50 states. I am not a good writer or ideal for the argument of this issue. But I will say that I am against abortion.

I believe that the destruction of a fertilized egg at any stage in its life from conception to before death by old age is murder and subject to judgment by God. Whether or not the government of this nation provides penalties for this murder does not make it any less right.

The whole point of me saying anything is that I hope that I too might cast my vote against this "cleansing for profit and convenience" of a certain people group.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court ruled, for the sake of convenience, to redefine an entire people group. 1857 On March 6, the Supreme Court decided that an African-American cannot be a citizen of the U.S., and has no rights of citizenship.

Please join me in protecting the sanctity of all human life by voting for representatives in government that favor life, talking to your friends and family, supporting anyone else who champions life, petitioning your representatives or any other peaceful means.

Please note that I am encouraging a peaceful discussion. I also made the topic of this thread quite clear. So you are reading this thread on your responsibility.

Peter Gransee

Amen Peter, well said. God is the only true and just judge. His judjement is final and forever.

Wow Peter, what made you decide to bring up this subject? It's a very controversial subject and there are arguments for both sides.

I agree geepondy! It is a very controversial subject. Enough to make some people quite angry.

I don't bring it up because I like controversy. I brought it up because this year is the 30th anniversary of what I feel is a bad decision by our elected officials. We are a democratic nation. And I feel like I haven't always stood up for what I believe in. Sometimes, because I don't want to offend anyone and possibly loose a sale. Profiting from silence on a decision originally made out of convenience is just too ironic.

Peter

I am with you Peter! Well said!

The "pro-choicers" can candy coat their propaganda all they want, but the truth remains:

Abortion kills human babies.

And that's evil.

Wow! Peter, my wife and I feel the same way (we're Roman Catholic, so big surprise .

Kudos to you for having the courage to stand up for what is right!

Hmmmm ... Peter, I just realized this was in an open arena rather than in the Arc forum. Interesting.

OK. I don't know why, but OK.

I am not going to state an opinion in the incessant "Pro-Life / Pro-Choice" arguements, but simply an opinion on forcing others to do what YOU want them to do because you may not approve of what THEY might want to do.

If one believes that an abortion is against God's will and teachings, and that He will settle the accounts of whomever goes against such, then why not allow others the choice to follow or not, as they see fit?

I see no mandate for believers in the Christian God to assist him in enforcing - that is His domain entirely.

Educating, preaching, opening minds, helping, ministering to, and many other things, yes.

Enforcing, no.

He's perfectly capable of that himself.

He in fact gave the freedom of choice to all his children, eh? He had His reasons for that.

Shouldn't you grant others that same freedon of choice? (As if the ability to grant freedon of choice is within your power - only the power to obstruct other's freedom is within your power.)

Bottom line: If both God and the government grant freedom of choice in this or any other area, it does not mean that YOU must agree or take part.

You certainly may educate, try to sway, enlighten, whatever, but it is NOT your mandate to take away the freedom of choice that God granted all of us.

He'll settle it just fine on His own.

(This is the first time I've argued either for or against anything in this area, so I'm just typing the first things that come into my mind. This is not something thought out and prepared, just my instant opinion based on 56+ years of experience.)

We are each individually responsible for our own salvation or damnation, and that is the way it should be and MUST be.



(Flames to dev/null, BTW.)

I agree abortion should not be used as a primary birthcontrol device, but there are always legitimate reasons where an abortion is the best thing to do...

edited, thanks for correcting me Darell.

You da man, Bart. But I think you mean "birth control" not "anti-birth control" which sort of negates the whole idea...

The more I learn about life, the more I realize how few absolutes there really are. The "absolute" that I do hold near and dear is that an open mind will set you free.

Legal or not, women will continue to get abortions. If it's legal, it will be a safer process. Also I agree that just because your country legally allows abortion and in your mind if whatever God you believe in or not believe in, allows or not allows abortion, if you yourself don't agree with abortion, then don't do it. I also think that a women's opinion on this subject should be weighted much more heavily then a guy as she is the one who is going to make the final decision.

"an open mind will set you free."

In 1959 my mother of 29 years of age was pregnant with her fifth child fathered by my wife-beating alcoholic father.Abortion was illegal at the time so in desperation my mother had a "backroom" abortion.......and died.I was 9 at the time. When I say I'm definitly pro-choice I hope you can understand why and if not,tough.Its dam hard to believe in God when your moms dead.

Thomas, you present a good argument. I knew I should have included the bit from my source essay that anticipates the use of the word "choice". But I was trying to take it easy and not write too much.

The concept of "choice" may help de-evolve the whole discussion into ambiguous mush. Then again, maybe it just worked out that way without our help.

Regardless of what any person or government does, you will have a choice on a lot of things. I am not saying your ability to choose is wrong. I am saying that life is sacred. There is a difference.

Instead of arguing if your neighbor has the right to choose whether or not to shoot you as you get out of your car, shouldn't we rather discuss if shooting someone is right or wrong? The choice will always be there in spite of how blue in the face we get talking about it.

I see the discussion of choice as actually confusing the core issue.

A government that says that murder is wrong does not remove your choice. They simply encourage you, by persuasive means, to choose another means of dealing with your dilemma.

Darell, you introduce two more supplements to the question of right and wrong: Moral ambiguity and having an open mind.

The idea of separating ourselves from moral absolutes is for each man to be the final determiner of right and wrong. Problem is, behaviorists have shown this to be somewhat counterproductive when unleashed on a community.

It also tends to favor those in power (elitism). One person may say that murder is right. Never mind that someone has a different definition of what murder is or may not like your usage put upon them. So the system favors the powerful taking advantage of the weak. Absolutes are not just a good idea, they are hard to escape.

One of the purposes of government (and the community) is to protect the weak. Not saying it always does a good job at that, but we must try.

As far as having an open mind, that is a tolerance argument we used to see a lot of in the 60's. It was a way of diverting from absolutes. Some people would say that truth and morality where ambiguous (lacking an absolute). I understand that there are indeed, quite a few absolutes.

If you are alive, your brain is not totally open to everything. "Hmmm! How about I not eat this year?" Oh, you can do that. Your test of not taking on nourishment will probably last longer than you originally planned. Being open to everything is not optimal for the long term health of your body or your mind. If you tolerate anything, including someone wacking your legs off, then obviously you won't stand for anything.

I could use a lot of supposedly clever arguments and take many bunny trails but it should not divert us from the core truth: Murder is wrong. Abortion is murder.

Yes, you have a choice. This doesn't affect its wrongness.
Yes, what is wrong is debatable but the fact that there is a wrong and a right is inescapable.

An interesting discussion would be if someone wanted to debate whether or not abortion was murder.

Peter

Originally posted by Mrd 74:
In 1959 my mother of 29 years of age was pregnant with her fifth child fathered by my wife-beating alcoholic father.Abortion was illegal at the time so in desperation my mother had a "backroom" abortion.......and died.I was 9 at the time. When I say I'm definitly pro-choice I hope you can understand why and if not,tough.Its dam hard to believe in God when your moms dead.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mrd 74, you have my sympathy. Although I will post in a public forum about my pro-life feelings, out of respect for you, I do not feel comfortable with the idea of talking about your particular case. I would need to know you better since your particular case is not as easy one to discuss.

Peter

I should probably stay away from this topic, but CPF has shown itself in the past to be capable of civil discourse on controversial issues. I don't think that we will change each other's minds, but we will probably come away thinking about our own 'sides' of the issue, and where we might be able to find common ground.

At the core of this discussion there are some beliefs.
1) I simply do not believe that a fertilized egg is human with the full rights and privileges ascribed to a child.
2) Even if I were to grant the fertilized egg such rights with regard to all other people, I believe that the explicit parasitic relationship between the fertilized egg and the mother gives the mother special privileges to override the rights of the fertilized egg.

With regard to the first point, the question of 'who is human' is actually _very_ difficult. Why is a fertilized egg 'human' but a dolphin not 'human'? How is it that killing a single fertilized egg is murder, but that killing an entire cow to eat is simply farming? Now, I won't make the claim that every 'pro-lifer' has to become vegetarian...but I will make the claim that deciding what is and is not human at some point becomes a discussion of faith rather than a discussion of logic.

On the second point, a woman should have the right to make choices about her own body, regarding things like which foods to eat, how much exercise to get, which medicines to take and which to avoid, which recreational drugs to use and which to avoid (I am specifically thinking of the _legal_ ones here, such as alcohol, caffeine, theobromine, nicotine), what sort of transportation to use, what sports to play, etc. In other words, women should have the same rights to their own bodies as men. In my mind this includes the right to do things which _might_ injure a fertilized egg or a fetus. If one considers a fetus to be human with rights that trump those of the mother, then many 'normal' things would have to be illegal for any woman who was or who might become pregnant. Rights, even the right to life, are _always_ balanced between people.

Imagine that you have a rare blood type, and that someone needs _your_ blood or they will die. Their right to life cannot be used to compel _you_ to give up your blood. I might try to convince you that you should donate some blood, but in the end it is _your_ body and thus _your_ choice.

Now, all that said, IMHO it still comes down to belief, and if you believe that a fertilized egg is _human_ and abortion is murder, then you should speak out to prevent abortion.

However I see an even darker side to the debate, one that is not about protecting the unborn, but instead one that is about _using_ the unborn as pawns to control _adult_ sexuality. Many people believe that abortion is murder. But I believe that they are being used, not to protect the unborn, but to make the unborn into a punishment.

The position of the Catholic church is pretty explicit. Abortion and birth control are _both_ considered wrong. What this says to me is that sex for fun is considered wrong (which I disagree with, but which is a fine moral stance for someone to take). But this also says to me 'A child will be your punishment if you have wrong sex.' No matter what your stance on sex outside of marriage, I believe that it is _wrong_ to use a child as a punishment.

In my mind, any legislation which basically says 'Abortion is illegal except in the case or rape or incest.' is explicitly saying 'We will punish people who have the wrong sort of sex, and the unborn child is the method of punishment.' The child of a rapist or an incestuous union is just as much an innocent as the child of two people having fun. If abortion is murder, then _all_ the unborn should be protected equally.

I believe that there are other examples of using the threat of an unborn child as punishment. In my mind this is an evil point of view. I can respect someone who stands to protect the life of the unborn. But I do not respect the line of argument that say 'protect the unborn' but then develops legislation that means 'use the unborn as cannon fodder'.

It would seem to me a worthy goal to try to reduce the _need_ for abortion, rather than waste so much time arguing about abortion itself. But this would mean, for example, _not_ stigmatizing a single mother, who was clearly having sex outside of marriage. This would mean teaching people about birth control and making it easily available. This would mean _not_ 'curing' homosexuals into redirecting their desires. This would mean providing the socialized medical and prenatal care that is so expensive when you want to raise healthy children. But it seems to me that many of the organizations which are against abortion are also against those things which have a chance of reducing the need for abortion.

IMHO, in an ideal world there would be no abortion, not because I believe that abortion should be illegal, but because I believe than in an ideal world no one would ever _need_ or _want_ an abortion.

-Jon

It all boils down to the question of "At what point does the fetus/fertilized egg have a soul?"

Since none of us will ever know the answer to this in our physical lifetime, we cannot say with any degree of certainty whether abortion is murder, in the moral and humanitarian sense of the word, or not.

If the situation arose, I would choose to err on the side of caution, others may not.

Jonathan and Stingray,

Thanks for speaking your thoughts! I only have a 10' pole which isn't long enough for this one so I have tried to keep away as well. There is no monochromatic solution to most of the BIG questions in life. You two have spoken thoughts close enough to my sentiments that I need say nothing and I can always point my fingers at you two and say" Hey, they said it!"

A notable quotable once said: "There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that life is to be taken seriously" Now I'm not sure of the context or the literal here............

- Don

Well at least a topic that won't start any controversy!

To me, it's an issue of freedom. As long as there are people who believe that there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, and those people are in a majority - both of which I believe is true, then it is the DUTY of our government to protect that right. To do otherwise would be to cater our laws to the moral ideals of special interest or religious groups.

Respectfully, I would say that the main purpose of any particular religion is to control people's lives. I think we've come a long way, and I find it refreshing to be able to say "there is no god!" without being shot - hey, you can't do that in every country, but we're not there yet. If there's an anti-abortion argument, let's keep "god" out of it, or many will have trouble holding back the snickers. If you believe in this, that's fine. I hold no offense as long as the beliefs are kept out of politics, but I really can't pretend to take it seriously.

As far as human life goes, I associate that with meaningfull higher thought. (Sadly lacking at times everywhere, but that's another topic.) I personally can't see any human thoughts going on without any information present. That is, until baby pops out and starts to see, hear, touch, smell - and learn - it's just not a person to me. If you drop a lobster in a pot, or so I'm told, you can hear it scream. By this I don't mean to belittle human life, but to point out that simple responses aren't what I'm talking about.

The State of California passed about 1,600 new laws that went into effect on January 1. Here is a summary of some of these new laws that relate to this thread.

Without mentioning my position, I will note that I was conceived shortly after the end of WWII inspite of my financially strapped parents' use of a diaphragm etc.

"A number of health-related laws took effect in the state on Jan. 1, theAP/Sacramento Bee reports (Brice, AP/Sacramento Bee, 12/29/02). Summaries of some of the laws appear below.

"Abortion rights: The law maintains abortion rights in the state in the event that the Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision (Shuck,Stockton Record, 12/31/02). The law mandates that "the state shall not interfere with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to ... obtain an abortion" but restricts abortion when the fetus can live outside of the womb (SB 1301).

"Emergency contraception: The law requires California hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape survivors. Under the law, health care providers must offer EC to sexually assaulted women and dispense the pills to women who request them. Women who cannot afford the pills will receive them at no cost (AB 1860) (California Healthline, 9/6/02).

"Human cloning: The law makes permanent the state's five-year moratorium on human reproductive cloning, which would have expired yesterday (SB 1230) (California Healthline, 9/23/02).

"Stem cell research: The law provides legal protection for embryonic stem cell research, which includes research on stem cells taken from cloned embryos, and establishes a broad regulatory framework for the research. The law states that an approved industry review board must review stem cell research. In addition, the law requires fertility clinics to inform patients that they may donate their unused embryos for medical research and to obtain written consent for embryo donations. The law also prohibits the sale of embryos (SB 253) (California Healthline, 9/23/02)."