Great posts as usual Noodle and Pep. I am completely in agreement.

Let me explain something.

Just because I am Pro-Choice does not mean I accept abortion.

I know, that's difficult for Pro-Lifers to understand. I can guarantee to you that the many of those who are Pro-Choice are people who want to find a way to have FEWER abortions, and would rather have NONE AT ALL. The difference is that they don't want to ban people from having that choice if and when it becomes necessary.

Many people who are Pro-Life don't understand that they have something in common with Pro-Choice people; neither group wants more abortions. Both groups want FEWER, if not NO abortions. If the two groups would WORK TOGETHER, maybe they'd realize how much they have in common and actually get something done.

I hate abortions. I wish they didn't exist. I wish there was a perfect form of birth control (besides abstinence, so just don't say it). I wish people were actually TAUGHT about safe sex and contraception, instead of deciding that sex is taboo and shouldn't happen except for procreation after marriage. I don't think abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, not at all.

Yet, I am not about to remove a woman's ability to make that choice if she so chooses, so long as her motivations are acceptable. And there are very few acceptable motivations.

Let me also explain something else, to FH: Please stop saying and assuming that I do not believe in God! You could not be any further from the truth. I just don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't believe God the same way you do. Is that acceptable to you?

So let me see if I understand this.....

Divorce granted when there is a valid reason, not on trumped up WS charges (WS are famous for making stuff up).

Valid reasons:

1. Proven Adultery
2. Proven Spousal abuse

....and the one's against this concept think that there will be those who will live w/o D and not get the financial benefits of the D (financial settlement via the courts, etc.)?

Hm.... so when a group decides to have a tantrum, we ought to make laws...... accomodating them? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Step back and take a real look.....those kinds of people will break whatever is the law. Like the mind of a WS, breaking laws thrills them.

Best to keep laws plain and simple. WS commits adultery, wants a D....let 'em give up all and go get it. They s/b willing to leave all behind, including their shoes. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> After all, isn't the A worth it? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

L.

Whether or not there's a law regarding either divorce or abortion I have never felt I could choose either of those.

So it's not the laws that are the problem.


On the other hand, years ago I had ruptured tubal pregnancy at 3 months along, and began hemorrhaging, waited 8 days before going to the emergency room, since I DID NOT KNOW I WAS PREGNANT at the time. My husband and I would have welcomed this child, I'm still heartbroken. But if the baby had not been taken, I would have died without any doubt. And the baby would not have survived either way. I'm sure some around here wish I would just go away, but the law protected me.

Also, I consented to treatment but had no idea what the treatment was, I was rushed into surgery as soon as we signed the papers.

Similarly Divorce might be an option in my future if I ever see a sign of WH again. But I would feel similarly tragic and without a real choice in that decision as well. And grateful for a survival mechanism.

(((((Pepperband)))))

The Lord is in the forgiving business for those who believe in Christ. That's not just "some" sins, that all of them.

NONE of us is without sin.

KNOW, Pep, that in Christ Jesus ALL has been forgiven. Consequences, such as "memories we have to live with," may remain, but the sin itself is forgiven and are no longer "held to your account" because Jesus took the penalty in your place and paid the price "in full."

God bless.

Mort,

If you are indeed a political scientist, you appear to be very narrowly read.

Ever here of Thomas Paine?

He wrote a little "book" called The Age of Reason. Have you every bothered to read it?

He was a Founding Father and Definitely NOT a Christain . . . He openly mocks all the basis premisis of Christianity.

Here . . . I've cherry-picked some text to help you broaden your education.

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

Well . . . you still think he was a Christian? Then try this one:

"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

-Chapter 2

O.K. are you getting his point? No?

"CHAPTER III - CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY.

NOTHING that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds everything that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.

But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear. The best surviving evidence we now have. respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say 'it is not true.' It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people who say it is false.

That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life."


Here is a link if you are interested.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/reason1.htm

I disagree with your premise. I think that being pro choice means that you do accept abortion, even if you don't approve of it or like it. You do accept it. You believe that a woman has a right to do it and that right should and must be protected.

I understand that much..it's the disconnect where you lose me.

How can it be both horrible AND something that should be an option?

When I saw for myself what it actually looked like...well I felt defiled just for having seen it.

I can only conclude that it is either unspeakably evil to the extent that it should be illegal in every situation OR it is just fine and there should be no limitations.

I don't agree that it is an issue that allows for a neutral shrug of a position. I don't believe there is a middle ground. I think that is cowardice in the face of being confronted with the conflict between our desires and the realities of what we are doing to achieve those goals.

If that is a person....we have put nazi germany to shame with our callousness and there is no standard/reason/or justification that excuses it.

If not...none of the standards/reasons/justifications matter.

(((((10Swords)))))

If you really do think that there are "some around here wish I would just go away" (I have to make the assumption that you are referring to "Pro-Life" people), then let say that I would have to disagree with that idea. I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that you "should have died" instead of having surgery.

Or maybe I should just speak for myself (since TheRogueX and Weaver seem to imply that I am the sort of "Christian" that they despise because I stand on God's Word and, at least in TheRogueX's case, they would prefer that I didn't exist).

Too many people "buy" the arguments from folks like TheRogueX and Weaver because there ARE "grains of truth" mixed in with falsehoods that make their "arguments" sound "reasonable" to many, especially to those who want the "privelege" of "being their own god" no matter what.

But for most people, it's not solely selfishness and entitlement that drives them. They have, as do I, conflicting thoughts and emotions on many issues. Within Christianity itself, there ARE legitimate areas of disagreement where God has not chosen to reveal "all" to us. There are also areas where the truth has been clearly revealed and they are not open to disagreement, not, at least, if it is to remain truly Christian and not be just an appropriation of the name without submitting to the true and basic tenets of Christianity (i.e., the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc.).

So let me get back to your statement; "I'm sure some around here wish I would just go away, but the law protected me."

I don't know about any others, but I am not one of them.

I would submit that it was not the law that protected you, but that God protected you. The "law" was merely one "means" by which He protected you. But laws, just like so many other things, can also be broken, twisted, and abused. Another "means" that God used to protect you was the Surgeon and the medical team.

Let me simply try to "get across to you" what I am trying to say to you by using another of your statements as a "starting point."

You said; "Also, I consented to treatment but had no idea what the treatment was, I was rushed into surgery as soon as we signed the papers. "

My wife and I consented to treatment and we KNEW what the treatment was. My wife's fifth pregnancy (our 5th child) was an ectopic tubal pregnancy. Surgery was performed, and even though they couldn't find the fetus (they assume it spontaneously aborted), we CHOSE the surgery KNOWING full well what it meant and what we were "doing."

The "issue" for me is the prohibition against willful murder. "Thou shalt not kill," is better translated "Thou shalt not murder someone."

"Killing," imho, by itself is NOT prohibited by God. The matter of the "heart condition" is what God is interested in. Even in the "Old Testament days," God provided for "Cities of Refuge" for those who accidentally killed someone. God also commanded on occasion that the Israelites kill everyone in a given place (which certainly required of at least some of them the placing their thoughts and feelings in submission to HIS command even though they might not understand all the "why's). Because God is Sovereign, not us.

God allowed people, even with premediation in their hearts, to kill Jesus.

Why?

Because GOD, not us, is Sovereign. God allows things to happen because of His will and His knowledge of the "big picture." God knows that this world and all that is in it IS fallen, and that pain, suffering, anguish, etc. are part of THIS world, not part of heaven. So are "problems" that afflict the "innocent." It is not your desire, my desire, or God's desire that a fetus implant anywhere other than the place God prepared for them. But sin and a fallen world exist because God is not yet ready to end it and create a new world, free from the effects of sin. God will end it, but not until all that He has elected have "come in."

So God does provide for us in "common grace" and in His "special grace" for believers.

If someone were to break into my home and present a real threat to the life of my wife or children, I would not hesitate to kill that person. "Inaction" on my part is not acceptable. There ARE some who believe that I should not "kill" in that situation, and they are free to believe what they want. I will, if asked, offer up "WHY" I believe what I believe. I believe that God has given me a command as a husband and father to Protect and Provide for my family before anyone else and to "oppose" blatant and willful sin against God. Suffice it to say that I would NOT be put in a position to have to kill that hypothetical home invader if that person had not first broken several other commandments. I would not have "sought that person out to kill them" under any other circumstances.

Could someone "argue" that I would be, or am being, "hypocritical" in saying that I would kill in "this circumstance and not in that circumstance?" Sure. And I might be hypocritical, or seemingly so, but I would also want to know what THEY would do in similar circumstance and WHY they would do it.

One of the "favorite" ploys of those opposed to Christianity is to accuse Christians of "being perfect," or perhaps more correctly that Christians should BE "perfect" by whatever interpretation of "perfection" would be established by the one making such an accusation. The reality is that Christians are NOT perfect, they do make mistakes, but they "don't excuse" their mistakes or blame others for their "choices." Christians KNOW that God is the Judge and that God knows our hearts, and we are found guilty along with everyone else... unless the penalty for the guilty verdict has been paid for us, that someone else "took our place" on the gallows and stamped our bill "paid in full," exhonorating us from having to pay it.

Nor would you, my wife, or I "seek out an abortion" without a direct and REAL threat to our lives. It was not, in your case or in my wife's case, a question of "convenience" or simple callous disregard for life. It was a choice made that, given other circumstances, would not have been made, and most likely not even considered.

"Laws," like so many other things, are broken and abused by people every day, generally as a result of selfishness on their part. There probably, imho, wouldn't even BE any laws were we NOT living in a fallen, sinful, world. The only "laws" that would exist would be those that God would have written in our hearts, and THEY would all be for our protection and to bring honor and glory to God.

10Swords, "the wages of sin is death" is a far-reaching truth. It does NOT mean just that we die. It means that the whole of creation has been corrupted and is dying. "Bad things," like ectopic pregnancies, do happen BECAUSE we live in a "broken" world that is no longer "very good."

And God provides for us even in those situations, and within the realm of what is "possible" to us. That is one reason why "science" is so important. As has been said by scientists who believe in God, they are "following after God" and discovering what God "did" in creating all that is, and how things "work" according to God's design. But even in circumstances where we can't find a "cure," as in the surgery for the ectopic pregnancy, God still "provides" for those who are His children. "Science" is not the "end all" nor is "Science" a god, though some would seem to want to make it so. This "world" we live in is not the "end all" either. It is temporary and it WILL end, and then be replaced with one that doesn't end and one where the effects of sin are forever banished.




And God does provide just such a "survival mechanism." It is called Jesus Christ. The one who took ALL of our sins upon Himself and bore the penalty so that we wouldn't have to, that we would have a "choice," so that "survival" for us goes beyond this finite existence and carries on into eternity, where all the "problems" of THIS world will no longer exist. God provides the ONE way to "sure survival," and not all the ways that "mimic" the way or "sound good." That's because God, who IS perfect, is Sovereign, and not any one of us.

God bless.

Lots of things are horrible and yet options:

- war is horrible and yet it has to be an option

- the death penalty is horrible and yet it has to be an option

- many, many medical treatments (amputations, chemotherapy, colostomies) are horrible and yet they have to be options.

- prison is horrible and yet it has to be an option

- divorce is horrible and yet..... it has to be an option.

We live in a world where sometimes we have to pick between horrible options. It's always better if the situation never came up in the first place ... and yet... it doesn't always work out that way.

Pro choice means that you accept that sometimes the abortion is the least horrible chioce. It's an acknowledgement that there are worse things out there. Maybe some people believe there IS nothing out there that is more horrible. *shrugs*

This thread has gone all over the place. It's funny how one proposed law about marriage has brought out abortion, euthansia, whether the US is a christian nation, whether christianity is "right", etc. All those things seem tied together. I think that's why these problems are so hard to solve -- they hit on so many huge, "unsolvable" issues -- that there's no way that everyone is ever going to agree.

Morality and ethics of a society (ie. what that society happens to believe) does change over time. History teaches us that things that were once considered moral and ethical are no longer considered moral/ethical today. And, some things that were once considered taboo are believed to be "ok" by a wide number of people in today's society. This is different from the static morality/ethos of a particular philosphy or religious belief which exists outside of the popluarity of adoption. (So, for people who believe that morality is divinely determined, I'm not arguing that -- I'm just mentioning that society doesn't always follow that morality.)

Because of the existence of differing belief systems constantly rubbing shoulders, we have to deal with many of these issues. People on each side believe that the cons of the other belief system far outweigh the benefits and vice versa. With regard to abortion: I think it's safe to say that the people who are pro-life believe that the harm that is done by allowing abortions far out weighs any benefits of allowing them. And, people who are pro-choice (like me) believe that the harm in disallowing the choice far out weighs the harm done by outlawing them.

Unfortunately, those beliefs tend to make having any kind of dialogue impossible on the subject. The topic becomes polarized because no one wants to compromise their position -- their beliefs are so strong that they feel they can give no quarter. It degenerates into a "shouting" match of disparate opinions with neither side being willing to concede that the other side may have any point at all because to concede that would be tatamount to giving quarter or comfort to the enemy.

I don't know if that will ever change. I don't really think it will. I believe that both sides will continue to suffer and that there will be casualties on both sides -- until... until we either face something that is so much larger than ourselves that we band together and let go of our differences or until we die out. Or, perhaps, like in science fiction novels, someday we'll take to the stars and be able to separate ourselves over vast enough spaces that such differences no longer matter.

Until then, around and around and around we go.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

TheRogueX - I don't know if I understand your question. I think I do, but let me ask you a question in return and then try to answer your question as I perceive I understand it.

Have you, TheRogueX, stopped beating your wife yet? How do I define "beating," how do you define "beating," and to fully "trap you," I get to determine if any answer you give to the question is "adequate" and "convicts you" no matter what. Is that about how the question you posed to me goes?

So let's get back to attempting to give you an answer to "I don't believe God the same way you do. Is that acceptable to you?"

You are free to believe anything you wish just as I am free to believe anything I wish to believe. AND I won't sit here and wish you didn't exist simply because I disagree with what you have chosen to believe and that you believe everyone should believe "as you yourself believe."

What is "unacceptable" to me is when you try to put forth your "belief" as FACT, as TRUTH, and you subsituted OPINION for proof. You can rant all you want about "Christians" or as Weaver puts it, "Those types of Christians," who believe in the God of the Bible and who surrender their lives to Him through Jesus Christ.

TheRogueX, let me put it as plainly as I can. Christianity stands or falls upon the PERSON of Jesus Christ. If he is not who he said he is and if he did NOT rise from the dead, ALL of Chrisianity is false and no better than any other "faith" or "belief" that proceeds from the mind and the imagination of Man.

Christians do not believe a concept or something simply because is "sounds good." Christians believe because there is a PERSON, and that person is the OBJECT of, and reason for, our belief. Christians believe because of the grace of God and NOT because of anything we have done or could do.

So, given that, I have always agreed that you believe in "god." Just not the God of the Bible. Everyone believes in some sort of "god," even if their "god" is no god, just nature.

Is that acceptable to you?

This intrigues me. Are you saying that everyone believes in "something larger than themselves" and that <whatever> is god or a god or maybe many gods?

This sentence seems to contradict itself.

If I believe in some sort of "god" that isn't a god, but is just nature -- then is that really a god? *scratches her head* Or, are you saying that I believe it's a god but it isn't?

What does belief confer? Acknowledgment? Surrender? Worship?

Mys

Well, I hope no one else minds too much,

But,

I continue to be thankful I was not aborted,

Whether I was sentient at the time,

At that particular time,

In my life,

Or not.


With prayers,

Myschae - you said "This intrigues me. Are you saying that everyone believes in "something larger than themselves" and that <whatever> is god or a god or maybe many gods?"

If you want to word it that way, then I could see where you might see some sort of "contradiction." But that isn't what I said.

What I said is that everyone believes in some "god." That "god" can, but does not necessarily have to be, "something larger than themselves." Many people, for example atheists, believe that THEY are the "top of the chain." There is no one, and nothing is, "higher than," or "larger than" if you will, themselves. This is the thinking, the "belief" if you will, that "I am sovereign," with all that the term "sovereign" conveys.


"If I believe in some sort of "god" that isn't a god, but is just nature -- then is that really a god? *scratches her head* Or, are you saying that I believe it's a god but it isn't? "

Question 1 - yes, it's a "god."

Question 2 - yes and no. Yes, it's is a "god" to you, but No, it is not the one true God, who exists regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks.


"What does belief confer? Acknowledgment? Surrender? Worship?"

If by "belief" you are referring specifically to "Christian belief," then it confers salvation, the creation of a new nature, that results in the sorts of things, among other things, that you cited.

If by "belief" you mean anything that someone believes either by faith or by proof, it does not "have to," though it can, be expressed by the actions you cited. The "point" is that sincerity of belief does NOT, in and of itself, confer truth to that belief. "True belief" is founded in truth. And "truth" by its very nature is "absolute." Truth cannot also be False, Right cannot also be Wrong, God cannot be "not God." Truth exists regardless of a given belief and, in the realm of religion, can be known to Man only by revelation of the truth to those who do not have "all the knowledge" inherent in themselves. In the specific case of Christianity, God not only provides the information, He provides proof that what He has said is TRUE and can be accepted as truth. There is "objective" proof, not just "subjective" feeling.

Thus, someone COULD worship a rock or could surrender their belief in the need for scientific proof that life arose from non-life, contrary to all the proof that IS available to science that life ONLY comes from life. But worshipping a rock does not make that rock a "real god" and belief in evolution does NOT confer truth, it merely states an opinion that should never be construed to be absolute fact and truth. But those very same people CAN also choose to consider that ANY alternative to THEIR belief might actually be possible, much less the real truth. And they CAN choose to attack anyone else who might sincerely believe in something different and wish that they never existed. "Sincerity of belief," once again, does NOT, in and of itself, make that belief TRUE.

Pro choice means that you accept that sometimes the abortion is the least horrible chioce. It's an acknowledgement that there are worse things out there. Maybe some people believe there IS nothing out there that is more horrible. *shrugs*


I believe that there are indeed plenty of things out there just as horrible as this...but the difference is that we recognize them as horrible. We call them crimes against humanity. We put people to death for doing it.

We don't blur or ignore completely the inconveneint issues.

We don't compare divorce to murder [and especially not from a legal standpoint].

If a 12 year old is raped by her father and becomes pregnant...we can all agree that is horrible.

Still...if the fetus is in fact alive...does that crime justify a rather savage murder of an innocent person...does the suffering or potential suffering of one person give that person the right to kill someone who had ~nothing~ to do with it simply because they are inconvenient or will create more suffering for the original victim by existing?

I would say obviously not. Many disagree. If I accept that then all of the formerly abused children turned killer/rapist whathaveyou had better be let out of prison with a big apology from the state.

The entire acceptability of something like abortion is firmly entrenched in something that can not be proven or disproven....that what is being cut up and removed is NOT alive, not human.

Pro choice position says...

You can show me a stack of examples that suggest it might be..that it might feel pain...that it had brain function and a heartbeat before the woman even knew she was pregnant...and that is not good enough.

I have to be shaken by the lapels...I have to be convinced...I have to be COMPELLED to disagree with this practice. I need 100% certainty.

I have to wonder why? Why the vested interest? Why the resistance?

What does it take away from us as individuals to demand 100% certainty that it is NOT alive before we make it OK to destroy it?

Really what?

What is being protected and guarded?

I am not convinced whatever it is is worth it.

Personally...if I'm wrong I'm willing to pay that price...potentially having the blood of thousands or even millions of innocent individuals on my hands is not something I can assent to. Even without confirmation that this is for certain the case...the POTENTIAL is too great to allow me to consent to it.

So it won't have MY consent.

If I hear you correctly then you believe that this is what each individual can best do...follow their own conscience and not impede on others or insist that others agree with them because the result is an unwinnable fight with many casualties.

I think there are some threads of agreement...I see what you are saying and I don't think that I personally have the right to enforce my will because it is my will nor do I think that others should be forced to deny their own...yet we make laws every day. Every day we create structures that say...you may do this, and not that with our collective consent.

We say..you may not murder...we will not consent to this action.

Like it or lump it that is the law.

So that is really the focal point of suprise for me.

Murder *is* illegal.

Yet something that very possibly COULD be murder is not.

Where is the intense investigation?

Where is the scrutiny?

Why do we not show people exactly what an abortion produces and then ask their opinion?

Can you hold a sliced off face in your own hands and not believe that what you held was alive?

Confronted with actual physical evidence would we have the same verdict?

I doubt it very much. I doubt very much that the majority would agree that what they held in their hands was an aceptable price for the freedom to "choose".

10Swords -

ForeversHers said it all so eloquently that I don't know that there's much I can add.

I don't believe in abortion.

What happened to you wasn't abortion - you had a life-saving surgery. The unfortunate consequence was that the child you were carrying died, but then, that child would not have lived anyway. It's a very hard situation, and one I'm very sorry you had to live through. But no, I don't see that as murder, as abortion in any way. I know there are some that do. But I think most pro-life people feel the way FH and I do.

After all, the choice here was to lose 2 lives or 1 life. It's a horrible choice, but obviously, it's better to save one than to save none. And again, I'm sorry for your pain and your loss.

You will never find a person more against abortion than me. Never. And I find your words to be sad that you think anyone would cast blame on you for this. You suffered from a medical condition that left you no other choice. I am sorry for the loss you had.

Myschae, with all due respect, "Pro Choice" means nothing of the sort, not as it is applied to the Abortion Question. In fact, I'd venture that many who claim to be "Pro Choice" on the abortion issue are TOTALLY against any executions of criminal for any reason. Instead, they would advocate for "Pro Life" and "letting the person live" no matter how "inconvenient" it might be for others, especially for victims of crime and mayhem.

"Pro Choice," as used by abortion proponents means that NOTHING supercedes a woman's desire for an abortion for any and all reasons. It is NOT dependent upon a "life or death" choice for the woman. It can be, but it is not the "Standard" that is used. The "Standard" is simply the woman's right to decide the fate of another person with NO appeal to anyone else. "What woman wants, woman gets."

That's selfishness, not abortion due to real necessity (i.e., the life of the mother would TRULY be at risk, a forced pregancy as in the case of rape, etc.).

"Pro-Life," on the other hand, affords the opportunity for "choice," but the Standard is first the sanctity of all life and second the welfare of the woman, not simply because she chose to engage in sex and "got pregnant somehow." The "Pro-Choice" position should be the choice to engage in sex or not to engage in sex, but NOT to hold someone else accountable for YOUR choice(s) and for someone else to PAY THE ULTIMATE PENALTY for your CHOICE, and NOT because of anything they did to you.

Agree completely. The loss of a child from a medical emergency...especially where the pregnancy is nonviable [you can't carry a child in a fallopian tube any more than you could in your eyeball] has nothing at all to do with abortion. People die every day, even children. Some situations are beyond the current ability of doctors to intervene.

But the "horribleness" of a just act does not justify an unjust act. I am confused about why you made this analogy, myshae, because surely you can't fail to see that there is no moral equation between getting a colostomy and killing an innocent human. Were you drawing such an illegitimate equation as a joke to mock the use of the word 'horrible?" Because I know you know these are not legitimate analogies because "horribleness" is not a standard why which we judge right from wrong. If you don't know that, I am frankly ......horrified.



Least "horrible" for WHOM? I really can't think of anything that is more "horrible" than being ripped to shreds, can you?

There is more than one person involved in this situation, after all. Do only SOME people get a "right" to be protected from "horribleness?" Are only SOME people entitled to this ever coveted "CHOICE?" Choice for some, but not for others? Perhaps some people are a little more equal than others? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I would clearly consider that a "horrible" thing if it were ME who was to have my body parts ripped off until I was dead. I think that is most "horrible."

So, who gets to decide who is protected from horribleness and who is not? Who decides who gets all these cute "choices?" Or can we ALL "choose" to be protected from horribleness since folks around seem to so love "choices?" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Noodle, I could not ascertain from what you wrote if you were addressing your comments directly to me or just stating your thoughts in general to everyone.

So if I am "off base" in my comment here, I ask your forgiveness because I am assuming that at least this part of your post WAS directed at me for comment, since the header of your post showed you responding to my post.



No, this is definately not what I would say. I am NOT in favor of anarchy and DO believe that sometimes we must intercede and fight for what is right, even if most others think what they are doing is "right" and serving their own purpose.

For example, millions were killed in Nazi Concentration Camps and we could not "ignore" it and let them continue doing what they wanted to do without raising an objection, up to an including, "imposing" our will on their will.

In the abortion areana, since Roe v. Wade, we have slaughtered (in my opinion) millions of innocent children on the alter of personal desire and wanton behavior. We "blame" the children for our being pregnant or for possible life-threatening complications(instead of rare and real life-threatening issues) and use, most often, EXCUSES to rid ourselves of our "responsibility for our own actions," and in the process, rid ourselves of innocent babies. We even go to the extreme of saying that IF someone other than the mother terminates the pregnancy then they are guilty of murder, regardless of what "age" the developing fetus is. The "Standard" is "wanted" or "unwanted" by the mother, and the mother alone.