No matter who is elected.

If we focus our attention on what is being shown to our youth we stand a better chance of keeping them from getting pregnant in the first place. Check this out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27506234

Bill O'Reily is funny. When Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant he said it was clearly the parent's fault. Then when Palin was picked to run for office and it came out her DD was pregnant he said the parents are not to be blamed for their daughter's sitch.

Nothing is "being shown to our youth". Parents either allow their kids to watch certain programming, or they don't. European TV has been racier for years.

It's all about the parents being aware of what their kids view.

I agree about O'Reilly. He's a tool of epic proportions.

From your linked article:


And that continues to be the "message" brought to us by the proponents of Abortion on Demand.

"No consequences."

Do what you want to do and "remove" the inconvenient consequences you may run into.

And Bill O'Rielly has nothing to do with it.

jmho of course.

S. Ann Dunham was an unwed teen mother.
Lucky thing she did not believe in abortion!

Doesn't it make you wonder WHY he is so "supportive" of abortion? If it had been 12 years later, his mother might very well have made a different choice.

Did he feel so unwanted as a child? Did he feel that his mother was "punished" with him, just as he said he wouldn't want his daughters to be "punished" with a baby if they "made a mistake"?

Curious.

WH2LE

I don't know the why's and the why not's of why people choose to support abortions. I for one do not support them. I however am fairly certain of two things regarding them. 1 being that it took the supreme court to make Roe Vs Wade law and it will take them to unmake it. 2 that with or without it being against the law it will not stop woman/girls from having them done. No law can control people's actions they have laws against crimes and those same crimes are being committed everyday. Laws are made to try and maintain civility. However you can not make everyone follow the laws. That is the reason we have law enforcement. However they can only act after said crimes are committed.

Say for instance abortion was all of a sudden against the law, and a woman/girl found out she was pregnant and that she didn't want to have the baby. So she took drastic measures to end her pregnancy, yet she told everyone she miscarried. How will you know if she is being honest. What if she is found out to be lying. Then other women that really do miscarry that wanted to have their babies'. They would have to put their grief on hold because some other person decided to take advantage of a situation. Can you imagine if a poor mother really wanted to have her baby and miscarried and she had to be questioned like a common criminal. What that would do to her?

It would be great if people only made love to their spouses, only got pregnant for their spouses, and only had sex when they are married. It is what the bible says we should do. Yet the lord gave us all free will. Sometimes people make really ignorant choices. If they are smart the learn from their mistakes. If not then they are doomed to repeat them. With the war do you think that no pregnant woman get hurt/killed in the cross fire? No children? Atrocities are committed everyday. It is so sad. I wish I could do more to stop all the pain people suffer on a regular basis, yet I know I can only do so much. So I do what I can. I like the prayer

lord give me strength.

grant me the serenity
to accept the things i cannot change
courage to change the things i can
and the wisdom to know the difference

We can't all save the world, or even the people we love from themselves, however we can be the change we want to see in the world.

Check out this link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_re_us/safe_haven

My heart goes out to these poor kids.

I read this and I found it to be very touching. He is a beautiful writer.

My wife made me canvass for Obama; here's what I learned

By Jonathan Curley Jonathan Curley – Mon Nov 3, 3:00 am ET
More from Christian Science Monitor:

Charlotte, N.C. – There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better "ground game" and superior campaign organization.

I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.

Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again.

I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins.

I am the dreaded swing voter.

So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told.

At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me.

Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood.

We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, "Who is it?"

"We're from the Obama campaign," we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk.

Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time.

Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted.

We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work.

I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the "big things."

It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected.

It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore.

I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.

I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.

My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me.

Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.

Here is the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081103/cm_csm/ycurley;_ylt=AnOzFM2l120Kf7bC5ZafKEas0NUE

Well, this will be an unpopular view, but I talked to all of my kids - 8 of them, about abstenance, from the time they were very young. BUT, one by one when I figured out they were having sex, I talked to them about birth control.

Many think that is like giving them permission, but I think it is protecting them. I explained to my boys that they might be madly in love, but the girl could end up pregnant, and they will be paying child support for 18 years. And things may not work out, and they will be paying child support even if the girl hooks up with some other guy and she gives him the child support to make his car payments.

I advised the girls to wait until they were married, or they may end up with a guy who doesn't want to raise their child.

They were also raised by values against abortion.

My ex's first daughter (the oldest) held out until she was married. The second one has 4 kids by 4 different fathers. The third daughter held out until she married. My son's have no kids, and no abortions. My ex's only son did have sex with his wife before they married, but got married and has 2 sons. The youngest girls both had abortions.

So it doesn't work for each child. But the youngest two were 13 and 11 when my ex had his affair, and kind of went their own way. I had no contact with them, and their mom was off doing her own thing.

EXACTLY...there is definitely a MESSAGE of HOPE...

Simple....get all the men to 'keep their pride tied'. If they aren't willing to be responsible for birth control, they should just abstain.

Believer you have 8 kids. You are better than me. That is twice the amount I have and mind as much as I love them have me at times wanting to run out the house screaming. You should feel proud you did the best you could by trying to teach your kids the right way. The ones that have strayed will more than likely return to the right path. You know like the Prodigal son? It will all work out. I feel like we are all put in the situations we are in to learn from them. It is up to the person whether the choose to learn from it or not. The fact that some of the kids did the right thing is great, the fact that some didn't shows that they chose to follow their own choices and there fore will have to live with the consequences of their actions. If you don't mind me asking how old were the two youngest when they had the abortions and was it their choice or did someone talk them into getting them?

Amen to both Mimi and Cinderella.

DIG - My ex and I had a blended family. I have 2 boys, and he has 3 girls and a boy and the 2 sisters of his kids. When we married, they were between 2 and 10.

Their mom had 6 kids by 5 different men and has been a drug addict for 30 years. So there were lots of problems.

The 2 youngest had abortions at 15 and 17. They were on my insurance. And that is how I found out. I am a federal worker, and our insurance doesn't pay for abortions. So the claims were denied, and when I called, my insurance wouldn't tell me why. But I put two and two together, and talked to each girl. I let them know that it was against my beliefs and my insurance DID pay for the lab tests leading up to the abortions. So I took them both off my insurance.

Some people might think that is cold, but that is how I feel.

I don't think it is cold and the fact that you kicked then off of your insurance due to their poor choices is making them feel the consequences of their actions. I am sure it was hard for you to do but you have to teach them. Even if they are mad now. They will understand why you did what you did in time.

I certainly don't say I have the answer, however I did have this discussion recently with my 15 year old daughter. One of the things we discussed was the importance of making sure that if my child made the decision to have sex and ended up pregnant that I would still love them and accept them for who they were. That their bad choices would not take that love away or change it.

One thing I believe that we are not good at is not making our children feel incredibley ashamed when this occurs. I have been in a church that shamed a young mother. Instead of embracing her as a person, and helping her to not make the same choice again, the shame pushed her away, and well she ended up pregnant again. The shame her family dealt with. I could not believe what was being said and how it was handled. However she is living with the consequences and they are hard but I couldn't love her more for the steps she has taken to take care of her kiddos. What an amazing testimony she will have. And her boys are amazing. I am so thankful that she chose not to abort them, who know the potential they have or what they will become. One never knows if they will be the husband to someones child on this board, or save someone's life.

I believe for kids we need to teach them to wait, knowing however that just like us adults they will make the wrong choices. Look at what degrees we go to to bring our spouses back. What lengths are we willing to go to, to make sure our kids know how much we love them.

After this discussion my daughter then said, "mom if it happens to someone it's only 9 months out of their life to give to that baby. They can give the baby to someone who can't have kiddos." And she is right. However we have become an entitlement society and we dont want to be inconvenienced or have to deal with our consequences.

I wonder how many people who have had abortions have actually seen one performed and what happens afterwards. I did in my younger years when I was in nursing. I have to tell you the images still haunt me. I just don't get it. Nine months is such a short time.

I was checking out this website and I have to say looking at these stories,makes me think there should be a law against certain individuals having kids. This is heartbreaking, and the type of thing I was referring to. You can either have abortions or more sorry souls doing things like this to innocent helpless babies.

I really would like to hear others opinions on these atrocious stories.

http://www.parentsbehavingbadly.com/

Babies...born or unborn should not be punished for the deeds of their parents.

Using the logic that we either have abortions or more stories like this...one could justify any horror against another person or group of people based upon the behaviors of some in that group.

No matter how atrocious some of these stories are...and I KNOW first hand how bad some of them are...it does not begin to compare with the senseless slaughter of a million babies per year.

I am in no way justifying abortion. I am thinking more along the lines of sterilizing unbalanced individuals. I am sure that most of these sick people that have children show signs of being unbalanced long before they have kids. So why are they allowed to even to get to that point? You know like chances are if someone shows signs of improper sexual behavior like rape or beastitality etc. If they do not show they are getting better or have gotten help for these issues should it be ok for them to have babies and secondly what kind of person unless forced to do so would willing have babies by someone that is sick like this unless they themselves are sick? I don't understand it. I agree no child should have the sins of their parents visited upon them. I am not saying that we should make abortions be more acceptable due to these things. I never said that. I am saying I would much rather these people have abortions then bringing these poor babies into these unstable environments. I am uncertain as to what can realistically be done as far as keeping said sick individuals from having babies, but is doing nothing any better than continuing to allow this to happen? I mean we all have witnessed instability in people in one form or another. However I know just like you that they actually have sick people that prey on these poor mentally unstable individuals because to them they are easy pickings. I don't think forced abortions or sterilizations are any better but it is clear that something must be done the big question is what?

I mean we can either continually have people turn a blind eye to this type of behavior or we can try and corral it. However I am sure I am like most people that see these things like this happening on a regular basis would love to bring them to a stop. However my hands are tied. As much as I would love to take the law into my own hands to people to either intentionally or unintentionally doing things to cause pain to other but I have to have follow the law just like the next person the feels like I do. That is why I have so much sympathy and pride for people that have to try and bring people like this to justice. They not only have to try and keep things like this from happening, but they have to keep themselves in check to not become like the very people they chase.

That is a very dangerous slippery slope called eugenics. From Wikipedia:

I've stated this before and this board strongly disagrees with me, but I'll state it again anyway. I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion. What that means is that while I am against abortion I am also against taking another person's freedoms away. These two views do not have to be contradictory.

Anti-abortion laws don't work to prevent abortions. Plain and simple. All they do is take them underground and create greater risks to both the mother and fetus. They also generate a huge bias against the poor as rich women can easily go somewhere else and have it done safely. The question that really needs to be asked is why do women choose abortion even under risky circumstances?

In my opinion, it would be far more effective to address the various reasons that make abortion an attractive choice to these women. Some obvious things include education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as inform women of other options available. But also societal things - like providing health care to pregnant women, better maternity benefits (for some women, getting pregnant means losing their job and livelihood), better health care for children, better support for pregnant women in general. Basically, create a society that, with the exception of serious complications in the pregnancy, continuing the pregnancy to term is a viable option in even the most hopeless situations. There is no single answer but there are a lot of improvements that can be made, each one having it's own effect on the overall numbers. And doing so not only will have a real, measurable impact on the number of abortions, but it will also NOT infringe upon the basic rights of the mother as well.

DIG,

I've always held the opinion that you have to take a test and get a license to drive a car, but any moron can have children. I think parenting classes should be mandatory for your first born child.

Want2Stay

Drunk driving laws don't prevent drunk driving either. Homicide laws don't prevent murder. I guess we should toss them all aside.

The NUMBER of abortions that are performed illegally when there are laws against abortion are but a minute fraction of the number that are killed when abortion is legal. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of the truth.

Yes, some abortions will be done underground...or in back allies. That is where CRIMES are supposed to happen.

This is true. However, you can take away a drunk driver's license and keep him off the road to prevent him from killing anyone else. Unless abortion were punished by sterilization, you can't prevent someone from getting pregnant again.

I realize it's unpopular here but I still hold to it. Provide better choices and women will pick them. Right now I shudder to think of what a young, unmarried, pregnant girl's future holds in the US. In a great society like yours, it shouldn't be that grim. I'd wager that 95% of the women that have abortions now would choose something else if they could.

Again...ignorant to the facts. Taking away their license does nothing. They still drive.

Here's a thought...if someone performs an abortion...put them in jail. If someone has an illegal abortion...put them in jail. You have then taken away their ability to murder any more children.



Wow...you just don't know the facts do you. Later on they may wish they had chosen differently...but, when it is a matter of convenience in most cases...they CAN CHOOSE something different. They opt not to.

If there is nothing inherently wrong with abortion, and if abortion is truely a "privacy" issue and a "freedom of contraceptive rights" issue , then what possible difference does 1 or 100 abortions make?

It is illogical to say 1 abortion is OK, but we need to limit the number of abortions.

Anyone who says they are "pro-choice" abdicated their right to limit the number of choices ... if they truely believe it is a "right to choose."

If it is a RIGHT TO CHOOSE, then 1 or 100 abortions is equally a right choice.

The thread title is "How to reduce abortion numbers" and I'm addressing that question.

I don't understand what this sentence means:


Choice is individual. It's about choice for yourself - as in I choose what I want done/not done to my body. The opposite of this is you deciding what is done/not done to my body. When talking about numbers, we're talking about a population, not an individual.

Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. The difficulty arises with the fact that pro-life contradicts pro-choice when the choice is abortion. If the choice is to carry the fetus to term, there is no contradiction.

This is why I feel it would be more effective to proactively tackle the issues that make abortion seem like an attractive choice, rather than retroactively punishing those after they have done it. If their circumstances are so grim that risking jail is better than the consequences of carrying out a pregnancy, then clearly there is a serious problem.

Keep telling yourself that lie.

:RollieEyes:

I read in SAA something that I think is very relevant here. A lot of people say they are pro-choice because they believe that the mother (and father?) in this situation are in a good spot to make such a decision. But I learned reading SAA and other sources that folk's values change according to their behavior. So someone who wouldn't have an affair, for example, and finds themselves on that slippery slope, may have found that their values have changed temporarily. You read this on the board all the time.

I don't think it's a big stretch to think that a teenager or an adult in a situation that they didn't want to think would happen to them could see their value system take a temporary shift, too.

... and to the little body inside the womb. By the way, half of that little body inside the womb legally belongs to the father.

It's NOT only choosing what happens to your body - it is another person's body as well .... and another person's CHILD.

I do understand your logic. I used to work for Planned Parenthood - but my life experience has profoundly changed my views.

This philosophy has never made any sense to me.

If it's about choice...

Then isn't a woman who has an abortion taking away her baby's "choice" to live?

And for those who argue a fetus isn't a baby or human, tell that to God.

A 15 year old kid who can figure it out. Why not be pro-choice anti-abortion? You can choose to keep the kid or give it up, but NOT to kill it. I have 2 relatives that have adopted. One was on the waiting list for 3 years and the other for over 1 year. Then the consequences of the actions would be felt, not a quick, easy out.

Tabby, you continue to say this, but surely you have been able to see the logical fallacies in this assertion? The discussion is not and has never been about the WOMAN'S body, the discussion is about protection of the BABY'S BODY. I used to parrot these pro-abortion bumper stickers too, but truly when you think them through, they are really silly. And this is one of the worst ones.


Another leap in logic. One is either pro or anti abortion. And pro "choice" is not pro choice at all. The term pro choice is disingenuous doublespeak. This "choice" is never offered to the one whose life is up for grabs. So, no they are not "pro-choice" at all.

I consider myself to be truly "pro choice" because I believe the one whose neck is on the chopping block should get a "choice" too. Or at least DUE PROCESS under the law, the same as any other rapist or murderer.


But it is a "CHOICE" if one aborts and risks jail. With freedom comes responsibility and women are big enough girls to take responsibility for their actions. It would be more effective to proactively outlaw abortions and imprison abortion butchers and women who kill.

Both our kids are adopted.
One day about 2 months ago, I found out one of my physician coworkers was himself adopted into a family where his parents had 2 birth children and adopted 2 more.

My coworker said to me: "Being adopted has made me very anti-abortion. I am forever grateful that my birth mother did not abort me in her womb."

My 2 kids have said this also.

Like I said .... life experience has changed me .... and this is not my only reason for changing my views.

Not everyone views abortion as murder. Not everyone believes in the same God. Some cultures, China for example, have mandatory abortions. Some people view the fetus as a parasite on the woman's body. You combine these variables together and you have a person who sees abortion as nothing other than a medical procedure. So the choice is between a medical procedure vs. consequences of pregnancy*.

The consequences of pregancy vary from individual to individual. Perhaps she's a teenager who's parents are going to throw her on the street when they find out. Perhaps she is poor and has no health insurance and the pregnacy is already affecting her health and ability to keep her minimum wage job. Or perhaps she is a wealthy married woman who already has older kids and was looking forward to an early retirement with her husband travelling the world and a pregancy will inconvenience her. I believe that even the most shallow reasons to choose abortion, like the last one, can be made to look less attractive than carrying the baby to term. For example, if the image of pregnacy were improved so that even the wealthy socialite didn't feel like a fat slob in a bathing suit, she might decide its better to go on her cruise pregnant than risk her health for the medical procedure (assuming that's how she views abortion, which she probably does if she considers having one for such a reason). Again, there's no single answer and some solutions will be more effective (by the numbers) than others.

There is a lot that can be done and I believe it could be very effective.

*I just wanted to add that the "choice" aspect of abortion is the choice not to remain pregnant, not whether or not to have a child. One can carry the pregnancy to term and give up the child for adoption and remain childless. Pregnancy is a temporary condition and it is a women's issue. Though the fetus may have 50% of the father's DNA, it is the mother who is pregnant. I'm not saying this to be cold, but to try to focus on the issues that influence women to have abortions (terminate pregnancies) in the first place.

from the story:
Thank goodness the baby was found alive instead of in the garbage dump, DEAD, behind an abortion butcher's office, huh? At least we can give the mother KUDOs for not killing it.

But what about the baby's (future adult) choice?

Yes, I know.
infanticide is not new <~~~ link to wiki.

I choose not to be in favor of infanticide.

If you read this link, scroll down where different cultures are discussed.

It says:

"Christianity rejected infanticide."

Yes, I know I am not going to take a Chinese approach to infanticide:

"China:
Marco Polo, the famed explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi. China's society promoted gendercide. Philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BCE, who developed a school of law, wrote: "As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death." Among the Hakka people, and in Yunnan, Anhwei, Szechwan, Jiangxi and Fukien a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called "baby water"."

I agree. Just as the Germans once believed that murdering Jews was not "murder" but a duty to mankind to rid the world of subhuman pests. However, perspective is not truth. We are not talking about individual perspectives, but about TRUTH. And the truth is that abortion is murder. The truth is that killing Jews is murder. Killing a human being is murder.

Even so, if everyone has a right to their own PERSPECTIVE and there are no moral absolutes, as you assert, then those of us who say it is murder, based on a universal moral absolute are just as legitimate as those who disagree, no?

I would also add that one does not have to believe in God to know right from wrong. I know atheists who know right from wrong.


Exactly. It is a choice to KILL a human being. But no one is telling a woman what to do with her body. She is the one who got pregnant. The issue is the BABY'S BODY.

But if one advocates true CHOICE, they would want to give that "choice" to the one whose life is up for grabs. Let him/her decide their own fate. It is disingenuous to say you are for "choice" and then deny that same option to the unborn.

Yes, you were once a parasite in your mother's womb. As we all were. So what?

Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.

And there are also cultures that believe female genital mutilation is right and you can't convince them otherwise from a moral perspective because their beliefs are so much different from ours. You have to look to their direct individual needs.

But if the woman doesn't believe the fetus is a viable human, she isn't choosing to kill. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to kill but choosing to not be pregnant.

The key is making this the better choice for as many as possible, regardless of religious, cultural or moral background.

I also want to go back to this statement:
This is a related issue, but not the same issue. I firmly believe we need much better and more thorough sex education. Children, boys and girls, should go into puberty knowing everything there is to know about sex, pregnancy, STDs, birth control and yes, even abortion. They should be comfortable enough to ask questions and have discussions with their parents. We don't hesitate to teach our kids to look both ways before crossing the street, yet we keep them in the dark about the very serious risks surrounding sexual activity until in most cases, they've learned things from school mates and it is hard to know how accurate their information is.

Also regarding that statement is another underlying issue. It's so knee jerk to condemn the woman for getting pregnant but she didn't do it herself. Where is the father? At least these days there are DNA tests to prove who he is but in the past it wasn't so. If an unmarried women got pregnant, she bore the consequences on her own. At least this is one thing that is changing.

.... sometimes the father is trying to stop the killing of his child by a woman exercising her "rights over my own body"

If that's truly the case, then here on MB, a person who has an affair is not committing adultery as long as they don't believe it's adultery, but a choice.

So are they committing adultery or not?

so, if your ex husband doesn't believe that cheating is wrong...is he in fact not cheating?

Look, there are people out there that think sex with children is okay...that doesn't change the FACT that is isn't.

Abortion is murder. Anyone that supports the right to choose is in fact guilty by association. It doesn't matter if one believes it or not.

Scott Peterson would have liked his case to have been decided on him committing ONE homicide, not two. Abortion rights advocates wanted Peterson to get away with murdering his infant!




full article here

Using your logic, Peterson was exercising his right to choose abortion for his wife - he did not murder his child. He murdered his wife and aborted his child.

Except that he did believe cheating is wrong.

I'm not arguing this. But telling someone so doesn't change their beliefs and, therefore, their actions.

One could also say that anyone that supports taking a woman's right to her own body away is a misogynist, or at bare minimum in support of oppressing women.

I'm not trying to argue the (im)morality of abortion. People believe what they believe. All I'm saying is there are ways to reduce the numbers of abortion, regardless of theses differences. Many of these things can be done personally. You can volunteer for the united way or a womens shelter. You can donate money to help provide health care to pregnant teens - all sorts of things. Wouldn't you feel good if you could save even just one? You can call me a murderer if you want MEDC. But I have not only never killed anyone, I have saved lives and this is fact which is a lot more valuable than the opinion of a stranger on the internet.

"This is a related issue, but not the same issue. I firmly believe we need much better and more thorough sex education. Children, boys and girls, should go into puberty knowing everything there is to know about sex, pregnancy, STDs, birth control and yes, even abortion. They should be comfortable enough to ask questions and have discussions with their parents."

I agree with you on this. Parents need to step up.

If abortion is "OK" there is NO reason to reduce the number.

Which side of this argument are you on?

Again, the title of this thread is "How to reduce abortion numbers." This is what I'm responding to. I already said in my first post I am anti-abortion. I also said I was pro-choice and explained why that is not a contradiction in terms. Do you want to reduce abortion or don't you? If not, why are you reading this thread?

To point out inconsistencies in your logic.


If "pro choice" means ability to choose abortion if one wants to, there should not be a limit of that choice - WHAT is your LOGIC for restricting a legitimate choice?

If there is nothing wrong with having an abortion - then to speak of limiting abortions is illogical.

I want to eliminate abortion not reduce it.

I believe the individual should have the choice. I never mentioned a thing about limiting or restricting that choice. I am simply describing ways I believe would reduce the number of abortions without taking away the choices of the individuals involved. Rather that take away their choice, make it so the choice to have an abortion is worse than being pregnant - even for those who don't believe there is anything wrong with abortion in the first place.

I never there wasn't anything wrong. In fact, I said I was anti-abortion. However, I'm also against suppressing human rights of any kind - including a woman's right to her own body. This is not the same as being pro-abortion. Many women, including myself, CHOSE to remain pregnant. My son is alive today because of MY CHOICE, not some regulator's or any other third party. MINE. I cannot possibly illustrate how critical this is. To take that away from me makes me a broodmare, not the mother that I CHOSE to be.

So what that means is that I have to accept that some woman may choose something I do not support. So instead of sitting back, I will do what I can to influence things so that this choice is less attractive and made less often. It is far more effective than pure legislation and it doesn't turn these women into livestock.

I would like to eliminate war as well but it's not going to happen.

So, how do you think abortions can be reduced?

Tabby1 responded: Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.

Tabby, I'd like to spend a little time discussing these "talking points" you tossed out.


1. Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective.

This is the argument for "Moral Relativity." To embrace this philosophy means that each individual can decide what is right and wrong FOR THEMSELVES, and no one can say that they are "wrong." That is the "slippery slope" when "absolutes" that transcend all individuals are tossed out and are replaced with "whatever I want."

Some people will "argue" that "society" can decide some "absolutes" (i.e. premeditated murder is "always" wrong) AND impose that moral absolute on everyone in the given society, and often even on those who may be in a different society.

But then we are in the position of "ceding" to the "society" the definition of "right and wrong. That might be all that bad, except for the fact that society often changes its definitions and what was once "wrong" can become "right."

We are seeing that sort of thing with the issue of Homosexuals who want to be in a committed relationship BUT who want to change the definition of "Marriage." Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, DEFINED as between a Man and Woman.

Regardless of the religious aspect of marriage, "marriage" is by definition between genders, between a man and a woman.

With respect to a baby, it has been for thousands of years thought of AS a baby even while in the womb in the initial phases of development. But NOW people, and a lot of "society" wants to "redefine" that baby into something less "repugnant sounding" in order to make killing that unborn baby more "acceptable."

But abortion IS "premeditated murder" of a baby. All that is happening is a redefining of terms to make it seem more "acceptable," and to allow the "greedy" to profit by the procedure.


2. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise.

It IS the truth. That baby IS a distinct being, separate from the mother yet dependent upon the mother, as it is dependent on mother-father-others as an infant, for its nourishment and continued life. Regardless of what others "think," all they are doing is applying "moral relativism" to enable them to do whatever they want to do.


3. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs.

That people will DO what they WANT to do is not abnormal. People make those types of choices all the time. People drink and choose to drive. People have sex and choose to risk terminal STD's and getting pregnant as a consequence of their CHOICE to engage in an activity that they DON'T "have to" engage in.

SOME people will NEVER listen to any argument that what they are doing is "wrong."

Some people WILL listen, especially if give ALL the facts and not the slanted facts that they receive from places like Planned Parenthood.

Some people will NEVER "give up" their Affair Partner, and some will. Should NO effort be made to TRY to "change their minds?


4. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.

How about this for a "better option?" DO NOT have sex with anyone outside of being married to another person? How about DO NOT have sex without multiple birth control methods being used?

How about "thou shalt not kill" as a better option?

How about recognizing the inherent sanctity of life that is present in all human beings and that any given individual is NOT "entitled" to take that life from someone else, "just because they want to?"






Tabby1 - "choosing to not be pregnant" NECESSITATES killing the reason someone IS pregnant (the baby), according to the way you are using your argument. It is just another way to try to "clean up" the choice to kill a baby and try to make it something other than what it is.

Now, if you are serious about the "choice to not be pregnant," then do what I suggested earlier and REQUIRE a couple engaging in sex to use MULTIPLE birth control methods as their "choice" to choose "not to be pregnant." Do NOT play "Russian Roulette" with a loaded gun and "expect" that you can "take the bullet back" once it's been fired.

Take ALL the bullets out of the gun, remove the firing pin, put a bullet with no powder in the gun, or put the gun somewhere in the room so that it COULD be used, but the "odds" are extremely remote, if not non-existant.




Tabby, unless the woman was raped, she CHOSE to engage in sex knowing full well that ONLY women "get pregnant." So while I agree that the "father" has a responsibility, the "courts" have said that the father does NOT have ANY say in whether or not his girlfriend or wife can have an abortion. So "where is the father" is a "red herring" argument when applied to the abortion issue. The MOTHER relinquished the "choice" for abortion when she CHOSE to engage in sex, KNOWING that a pregnancy could result, as that is HOW women become pregnant.

So to "accommodate" her "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever she CHOOSES, abortion advocates now want to give her the "additional" birth control method of KILLING the resultant baby.

That's NOT a choice. That's an excuse for murder. And they try to take the "sting" out of it by relentlessly trying to call the baby something "sub-human" in order to not have to deal with "absolute moral standards."

Tabby, because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps Jew killing being wrong is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose Jew killing, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose Jew killing. It won't eliminate Jew killing but it will reduce their frequency.

Tabby, I just used your own logic on the crime of killing Jews. Does it make any sense to you? Instead of hanging key Germans at Nuremberg, should we have just let it slide on the basis that murdering Jews was ok in their perspective? That it was our obligation to "present them with better options" so they will be less likely to kill Jews?

Did we commit a terrible miscarriage of justice when we decided that the "perspective" of WW11 Germans was wrong and hung them at Nuremburg?

Since everyone is entitled to their "own perspective" should we therefore unlock our prisons and free the rapists and murderers? Because according to their "perspective" they are justified in raping and murdering.

I just don't think you have thought alot of this through carefully.

Eliminate "abortion on demand" and require legitimate reasons (i.e., rape, incest, REAL potential physical harm or death to the mother, etc.)

"Health of the mother," the way the law is interpreted today, is ANYTHING that is not what the mother "wants." "I don't WANT to be pregnant" is good enough to say the "mental health of the mother" is sufficient CAUSE to kill the baby because it would cause "undo stress" on her to actually carry and deliver the baby.

hey, I know! In 1973, the # of abortions was HALF of that in the years following. Perhaps we could cut the # of abortions BY HALF very quickly if we undid whatever happened in 1973?

So you would advocate that all individuals have a "choice?" Most particularly, the one whose life is up for grabs? Or just choice for some?

If abortion is murder, with absolutely NO variation in degree of "wrongness" from murdering a born person, and if there should be no attempt at reducing the numbers short of absolutely eliminating all abortions, then why is there usually an exception granted in cases of rape and incest?

Even if I'm raped, that doesn't give me the right to kill someone who didn't rape me. Or does it?

I have the same question too.

There shouldn't be any but if the goal was to at least reduce the number start with one allowed abortion per woman. You get preggers again and don't want the baby then it should be taken away and adopted. The woman then gets sterilzed. But there would be outcrys about privacy violations, reproductive rights, blah, blah so we know how far this would go...there will never be an answer to reduce abortions. Either they are allowed or they aren't.

Probably because with rape and incest the female didn't choose to have sex. Is it any less wrong? To people...maybe, maybe not. To God...no.

The topic of discussion is how to REDUCE the number of abortions.

Now if you want to expand the discussion to "all or nothing," I suppose we could do that too.

ML, the Nazi's execution of Jews was not as simple as various individuals acting upon their free will. There were a lot of other variables and many of the people who were closely involved in the actual treatment of these people (not just killing them but how they held them in concentration camps etc.) did NOT believe they were doing the right thing at all but were in circumstances where they felt they had no other choice (they did but that's a whole 'nother argument).

As for changes in the numbers of abortions pre and post 1973, this is unknown. There is no way to obtain accurate numbers of illegal or out-of-country abortions.

And FH, I am a 150% supporter of preventing pregnancy in the first place as the best means to reduce abortions. The first step to this is education. Until we can raise kids who can speak openly with their parents about all aspects of sexual relations and activities, this is a serious shortcoming both in your country and mine. I realize there is sex ed in most schools now but it needs to be stepped up and parents themselves need to get more involved. I first learned about sex at age 7 in the school playground from an 8 year old girl. My DS first asked me about sex at 5. Nowadays kids are even younger when they get their first piece of information. I know now that what I was told at 7 was not fully accurate and there was absolutely nothing about STDs, abortion, pregnancy, birth control or anything - just what the act actually was. This was hardly educational. But for some kids, this is all they get.

Tabby - you may as well hold your breath. Conservative Christians don't want to talk about preventing pregnancy. They only talk about abstinence. because discussing birth control would be giving permission.

If it's simply a medical procedure then why doesn't a parent have to authorize their daughter's abortion? An minor child can't get a tatoo or bring an asprin to school without parental consent but she can kill an unborn child...something is really wrong with that.

I'm probably not going to hit every point FH because I find I'm repeating myself a lot here.

It is not so simple as individuals deciding for themselves what is right and wrong (though I agree that does happen). We live in a global society now. People come from different religous and cultural backgrounds and generally carry their beliefs from their FOO. It is always difficult to fully comprehend another culture when you haven't lived it yourself. Think about what you would think if someone started preaching Islam to you as the truth - because they believe it's the truth. You have your faith and are strong in it. They do too. It's not so much moral relativism - they aren't making stuff up that is convenient to them. It is truly what they believe.

And this is why it will never be completely eliminated. But take drinking and driving as a parallel (since it has already been brought up). Aside from legislation, there are many groups that campaign to the public directly against drinking and driving (e.g. MADD). In my area, they sponsor cab rides home from bars. They pay for advertising to continually educate the public. They work so hard that most people now consider drinking and driving to be an immoral and unethical activity. To be accused of being a "drunk driver" is probably worse than many of the racial slurs of the past (at least around here). If it weren't for their efforts, do you think the few spot checks the police are able to set up would make much of a dent in the problem? Probably not.

See my response to Mel - I discussed my feelings on this there.

Cultural and religious differences make abortion permissable even under this. This is my point.

Same as above. If someone doesn't recognize this, then they don't.

I like this argument as part of an educational campaign. Sexual activity can be compared to a loaded gun in a variety of its facets, not just pregnancy. This is something young people really need to know before they engage in this risky activity.

But that misses the point, Tabby. Even if some Germans were forced to kill Jews against their will [a complete fabrication, btw] the belief of the German government was that killing Jews was a perfectly legitimate endeavor.

You stated that one's BELIEFS were a justification for anything. Therefore, using your logic, the Germans were justified in killing the Jews.

You tried to dance around that question, but that is the logical conclusion to your assertion.

So, let me try putting this another way so it is crystal clear:


I don't think you really believe this, Tabby. You fully expect to be treated with moral absolutes by society. I have never met a moral relativist who really believed it, rather, they just have not thought it through. When it came to their own treatment, FROM OTHERS, they always INSISTED on moral absolutes. And more importantly, killing is killing regardless of whether one "believes" it or not.

For example, if you discovered your bank account had been plundered by your banker, would you then say:

But if the banker doesn't believe that stealing is wrong, he isn't choosing to steal. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to steal but choosing to not be poor.

Do you see the problem with this logic, Tabby? All your banker has to do is tell you he "believes" stealing is aok in order for you to accept the theft of your money. So unless you admit you would accept his logic then you don't truly believe what you are saying here.

But I betcha do expect moral absolutes from your BANKER when it comes to the treatment of your money and would not accept the theft of your money.

You are asserting that one's "belief" is truth and will justify anything [except the belief that there are moral absolutes, of course] but do you see how ludicrous that philosophy is in practice?

Your argument that more sex ed is the answer makes no sense either. The problem is not lack of education, but a lack of MORALS, lack of moral leadership and a lack of good judgment that comes with being a teenager. All the education in the world will not overcome the lack of judgment and maturity in a 13 year old girl. Nor will it overcome the teachings of adults who teach these naive kids that wrong is right.

Some reasons for that are perhaps the parent may be the *cause* of the daughter's pregnancy, or informing the parent may place the child in danger. Just because someone contributed DNA to a person doesn't necessarily make them a wise and loving caregiver. In situations of a pregnant young girl, the potential for harm is much greater than when a child simply needs parental permission for an aspirin.

I am not advocating all-or-nothing thinking. Others mentioned and advocated for all-or-nothing thinking, and I simply had a question regarding where they stood in the case of rape or incest.

How can abortions be reduced when we have ADULTS misleading kids into believing that abortion is nothing more significant than removing a WART?

How can abortions be reduced when we have ADULTS, who should know better, taking young girls off to get abortions? Girls who cannot even legally get their ears pierced? Girls who do not even possess the maturity and judgment to drink alcohol?

And who will pay the price if the girl grows up and her left brain kicks in and she learns right from wrong? Who will pay that price when she sees the blood on her hands and realizes she was conned into commiting a heinous act?

I do not differentiate whatsoever between rape and incest cases and all else. The children of rape and incest are just as valuable as other children. Nor do I believe that being raped gives one a license to kill. Rape does not justify murder.

IMHO, this blood is shared by all that support/enable abortion...even with just a vote. I truly believe that they will indeed pay the price for harming TWO of God's children.

With incest there's a whole bunch of sick stuff going on there that has to be addressed and I don't think it happens that often compared to other types of pregnancies. As for placing the a pregnant teen in danger...that's a big what if and other than total nut jobs I don't hear of parents who willfully hurt their child over a pregnancy. It could happen, but disappointment is more common.


I agree.


Potential is the word here. I still don't see headlines all over the place that parents are beating the crap out of their pregnant daughters or worse. You said that parents don't necessarily make wise caregivers yet they are intrusted with everything else concerning their child.

I respect that. It is self-consistent. Thanks for replying.

It happens. Surely putting the young girl in harm's way is at least as bad as endangering the unborn?

I agree with you Jayne.

The argument concerning rape and incest is often used by pro-abortionists but it is an infinitessimilly small number compared to other reasons.

I don't believe in an exception being made in those cases.

RU486 perhaps?

Meaning you consider the morning after pill a valid form of birth control?

I wouldn't agree with that.

BK, the "issue" is NOT, under the current discussion, what I personally think is a "valid form of birth control."

The issue is a discussion of HOW could the current rates of abortions be reduced.

If you, or others, want to argue for NO abortion being legal, then whether I personally agree with that position or not (based upon MY belief in the sanctity of all life) is irrelevant to the "question at hand."

If you want to "allow" abortion proponents to "frame the question" as an "all or nothing" approach, then the election of Barack Obama should be enough to make it clear that HE is in favor of, and will support, ALL abortion for any reason including letting a baby who survived an abortion attempt die. HE will likely be appointing Supreme Court Justices who will continue the wanton slaughter of Roe v. Wade through "trumping" the Constitutional right to LIFE with the concept of "privacy" for any decision that a woman might make regarding her unborn child (or according to Obama, her born child that she "meant to" abort).

In addition, the election of Obama SHOULD make it clear that even some people who claim to be "Christians" do NOT believe that life is sacred and that children are gifts from God, complete with their own souls and individual lives.

I "did what I could" with respect to the abortion loving Obama and voted against him and for a pro-life candidate. Like it or not, the Government "sets the rules" and we cannot "take the laws into our own hands" and use one "wrong" to justify another "wrong," such as bombing clinics or killing abortionists. We CAN protest, we can get arrested for daring to protest, but we are to "submit ourselves to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1) and not return "evil for evil."

Others (believers, anyway) will have to answer to God for their SUPPORT of abortion when they had a chance to "speak out" (Vote for the government that they will "submit" to).

They chose secular instead of God. Just like the Israelites did on many occasions and received a "consequence" of their choice to turn FROM God TO secular society and perceived "needs".

Given the society that we live in. Given that we are to "submit" to the govenment (as Christians) while standing FOR God, even though I think all abortion is wrong just as I consider all premeditated murder to be wrong, I am willing to "make exceptions" for the "reasons" or "excuses" that pro-abortion folks always want to toss out as "stumbling blocks."

Can I "save" everyone from premeditated murder as I'd like to be able to do? No. I can stop myself and I can SPEAK OUT to others, such as family, that all murder is wrong and prohibited by God as an act of greed or revenge (not war or self defense or accident). But I CANNOT stop others from doing what THEY are going to do regardless of my opinion or belief.

But I CAN push to eliminate "abortion on demand" as a "birth control measure," which is what the vast majority of all abortions are performed for. I CAN advocate for both "abstinence" AND for birth control measures to be used AT THE TIME OF SEX.

RU486 IS an "abortion method." However, for those who are doing to "do it anyway," AT LEAST it stops a pregnancy BEFORE a woman even knows she is pregnant and I would "include" that regimine in the "arsenal" of "at the time of sex" birthcontrol, to be used after EVERY sexual encounter if they do NOT believe in the sanctity of life.

The "issue" will never be an easy one. But at the present time I WOULD trade the very reduced numbers of abortions that would result from removing "on demand" for the current level of MILLIONS of aborted babies merely because the woman "wants an abortion" as a means of birth control.

In the sense of "do what you can to save as many as you can," I am NOT responsible for the choices of those who would "abort anyway," regardless of any argument or law to the contrary.

Agreed...so long as they do not conflict with God's law. If a governing authority...such as Germany (WWII) made it mandatory to serve in a war where their objective was horrible..one should NOT submit to the governing authority.

It is evident from all I have read and learned that the "governing authority" as stated in Romans 13:1 was really a way for Christians to fly under the Roman radar at the time.

I applaud anyone that stands up to a government that murders innocents. I think Paul Hill was a hero that is now receiving the blessing of heaven.

If we submitted ourselves to the governing authorities FH we would still be under England's rule. We are to fight the unjust even here at home. Sometimes that will require doing so with more than votes or prayer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 13 in Context
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By David Alan Black
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Covenant News ~ January 10, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently I received the following email from a DBO reader. It raises some very pertinent questions about the Christian’s relation to the state, and especially about the meaning of Romans 13.


Dear professor Black,

Your essays are fascinating and they resonate with my own opinions.

I am a Christian of the Reformed Baptist persuasion. I hold to the Scriptures alone, Lord willing to the best of my ability.

I have been struggling with some theological issues concerning the relationship between church and state for a long time now.

I hear some people saying that this nation was founded on Christian principles. I hear others saying that that is not true.

Could you answer a question or two for me?

How can I prove from the Bible that liberty of the sort spoken of by many patriotic Americans, including Thomas Jefferson (who was no Christian!) is a God-given right?

And if it can be shown from the Scriptures, then what forms the essence of this freedom?

If, as Dabney says, “Government is not the creator but the creature of human society,” isn’t he denying its God-given authority? If government is not the master, but a servant, “of, by, and for the people,” how am I to understand Paul's meaning in Romans 13?

When does government become illegitimate in God’s eyes? Christ submitted to death on a cross. He paid taxes. And yet, clearly governments sin against God, to the detriment of men. Is there an illegitimacy of government in God’s eyes that rests on something other than preventing personal obedience to the 10 commandments out of conscience to God?

Perhaps you could recommend some good books on the relationship between church and state. I have found only Martyn Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans 13 to be helpful so far.

Regards and may the Lord bless,

Mark S.


Here is a brief response:

Dear Mark:

I agree with you that there is a great deal of confusion about the Christian’s attitude toward the state. According to the limited insight God has given me, permit me to say a few things in response to your excellent questions.

I believe we may dismiss from the outset any thought of a servile, uncritical attitude toward the state. I stress this because so many Christians today believe they are to give unquestioning obedience to the state. Such an attitude is based on a faulty misinterpretation of Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (please read vv. 2-7 also). Statists are accustomed to appeal to this text as if it supported an unconditional and uncritical subjection to any and every demand of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The immediate context shows that Paul’s point is something quite different. He is at pains to show that the state performs properly what is forbidden to the individual Christian: it takes vengeance on the one who does evil (see verse 4). Christians, on the contrary, must never repay evil for evil (12:17), and therefore they are not to oppose this legitimate function of the state but are to submit to it. God alone may take vengeance, and it is the “sword” of the state that he uses for this purpose. Essentially, Paul is teaching the same thing that Jesus taught: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Jesus assumes that the existence of the state is willed of God – even the existence of the pagan Roman Empire. But the disciple of Jesus is not allowed to give to the state what is God’s. Whenever the state makes an illegitimate claim to what is God’s it has transgressed its limits; and the Christian will not render to the state what is unjustly required of him.

The state is often confused with the kingdom of God. Indeed, many Christians are guilty of this false association. The state is a temporary institution (see 13:11). It will pass away, whereas the kingdom is eternal. Therefore, as long as the present age exists, Christians need not oppose the institution of the state as such. Rather they are to give the state what it needs to exist (e.g., taxes) and submit to its right to bear the sword. This is the plain meaning of Romans 13.

Keep in mind that while the state is “ordained” of God, it is not by nature a divine institution nor are its principles equally valid to those pertaining to the kingdom. Elsewhere Paul uses the term “rulers of this world” (1 Cor. 2:8) to refer to earthly political leaders. The state in which they rule is willed by God and hence Christians have to affirm the state as an institution. But, as Paul says in another passage, Christians are not to allow their controversies to be judged by the state because Christians themselves will one day sit in judgment over the very powers that now stand invisible behind the state (see 1 Cor. 6:1 ff.). So there is no question of Christians obeying the state at any point where it demands what is God’s. For Paul at least, this meant that no Christian could say “Caesar is Lord” or “Let Jesus be accursed,” even though such confessions might be demanded by the Roman state. The state that deifies or absolutizes itself has freed itself from its proper constraints as the servant of God and has, in fact, become satanic.

Inasmuch as the state remains within its proper limits, the Christian will acknowledge it as the servant of God. But inasmuch as the state transgresses its limits, it is to be considered the instrument of Satan. But even when the state functions properly as God’s servant, the genuine state for the Christian – his politeuma (the Greek word Paul uses in Phil. 3:20) – is in heaven. (On the concept of our Christian citizenship, please see my essay, The Christian as Citizen.)

And so the Christian gladly acknowledges the place of the state in God’s earthly economy, but he also knows the state’s place within the divine order. For that reason he will see his task regarding the state as one of watching to see that at no point does the state fall away from the divine order.

Thus I am forced to conclude that, far from teaching that the state is to be accepted uncritically in all that it does, Paul’s discussion in Romans 13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits. How this works itself out in daily life is, of course, another topic and one I hope to address in a book that I am currently writing entitled Unleashing the Church.

Thank you again for writing, and my very best wishes and warmest regards,

Dave

http://www.covenantnews.com/daveblack050110.htm

emphasis mine

In regards to reducing abortion numbers. I seem to recall maybe a decade back, that women on welfare were offered $500 to use Norplant (a birth control implant which lasts for 5 years). This was in (I think) a large midwest city. Anyway, one of the civil rights groups threw a fit and they had to back off the offer.

Does anyone here recall this happening?

It would be nice to offer this to women who use abortion as birth control.



Aside to MEDC: this is not directed at you but at the whole group participating in this discussion.

I have never heard of such a thing but I do know that there is something they use in mares that have terrible heat cycles. It is some sort of implant that controls their heats for a number of months (not sure exactly how long but definitely not as long as 5 years). I can't say for sure but it must affect their fertility as well. There are drugs you can give mares in their feed for the same purpose, and these are actually quite dangerous for women to handle as they will effectively stop menstruation and supposedly sterilize them at least for a period of time. (disclaimer: this is all anecdotal I've never had a mare so I could be completely off base)

I do like the idea of long-acting BC, though I think 5 years might be unreasonable to expect someone to willingly take. Lives can change drastically in that time. Six months to a year would be better. That way if you've done it, then life changes in a way that you are ready and now want to get pregnant, you can. Though this could be my 40+ year old brain talking here as taking a 5 year BC today would have the same effect as a hysterectomy (though I don't plan to have more children I shudder at the thought of never being able to). Of course, long acting or short term, no BC system is 100% perfect (and obviously an implant-type thing would do nothing to protect against STDs, but that's not the topic here anyway)

The norplant (or any other brand) can also be surgically removed. I think they usually put it under the skin in the arm...as far as I know, it's a simple procedure. The five year thing is how long it takes to diminish its effectiveness.

Just how many "rape babies" have you tried to adopt?

***edit***

Do you think they are referred to as "RAPE BABIES" after they are born? Does this mean you are concerned about their welfare?

I'd happily adopt 5...sign me up.

I would take one too if it meant avoiding his/her slaughter and unceremonious dumping in the dempsty dumpster. You betcha!

Um.... It's my understanding that there's a waiting list to adopt newborns of any race. I don't think the adoption agencies or the birth certificates have a line stating whether or not the infant is the result of a forced encounter.

It isn't the infant's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, and therein lies *my* dilemma. I'm not trying to convince anyone else of anything, I'm just sayin.

But I think there are people waiting to adopt those babies.

About Norplant:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE4DB1339F934A25751C1A964958260

There's also IUD's which are effective for a lot longer and easily removed when the woman WANTS to get pregnant.

That's easy to say.

How many have you tried to adopt?

Are you on the waiting list?

I think it's ironic that someone who spouted off for a long time about how anti-American liberals are would have the United States join the most barbaric parts of the Middle and Far East as countries that punish rape victims.

Me too. It breaks my heart reading those accounts of discarded babies, toddlers starved (in the news yesterday), children tortured...

I would take in a kitten that was abandoned. You bet I'd take in a human baby if it was the only way to save it from abuse, torture and death.

IMHO RU486 is better than being starved to death when you are 4 years old.

Then you might wanna hop to it. There are plenty of orphans out there.

What I think is ironic is someone who imagines he has any credibility to express "concern" about the best interest of a child when he has just advocated its brutal slaughter and disposal in the dempster dumpster. :RollieEyes:

Sorry, but you forfeited any credibility when you supported abortion. Your "concern" is fake and you know it.

You completely failed to respond to my post. An Ad Hominem attack once again.

Anything to get out of explaining why you advocate the punishment of rape victims, I suppose.

Do you object to the killing of 5 year olds?

Logic is not your friend, is it, Krazy? Sorry I went right over your head.

you're kidding right? Krazy, the only person on these boards I have seen edited for personal attacks more than me...is you.

What have you done to help children or the underprivileged?

Why bother with rhetorical questions? Just make your insane case already.

Logic is not your friend, is it, Krazy? Sorry I went right over your head. [/quote]

And there's another ad hominem attack...you still haven't begun to address the fact that you advocate the punishment of rape victims.

Its a real simple question. Do you object to the killing of 5 year olds? yes or no?


pssst MEDC, he doesn't know what an ad hom attack IS.

Yet another ad hominem attack.

What does my being edited by moderators and helping children have to do with the fact that Melodylane advocates punishing rape victims?

tap, tap, tap, tap...... waiting for answer....

Pssst...age and wisdom definitely don't go hand-in-hand.


When I posted this:



You posted this:


Was that a textbook ad hominem attack? You betcha!

So, are you being dishonest, or are you really that ignorant?

My post was about you advocating the punishment of rape victims. Yours was about how I lack credibility.

I'll move on to the 5-year-old "dilema" once you've explained your stance supporting the punishment of rape victims.

No attack there from me crazy...unless I am attacking myself as well. :RollieEyes:

I am curious as to what you have done to help children. I know what I have done...I put my money where my mouth is...I am wondering if you do the same.

But sadly, I don't see an answer here! You get no cigar for this post, Krazy!

Please don't mar my good TGIF mood and make me grow impatient... Here it is again:

Do you object to the killing of 5 year olds?

I give to the United Way, and donate plenty of time and money to my son's school.

I don't know why it matters, since I'm not the one saying that every fertilized egg is a full-fledged human being.

Since I asked my question first, why don't we answer it first?

Your question has an obvious answer. Can you figure it out on your own? Here's a hint: My son managed to make it to age 7 so far.

My stance is that we do not ever punish rape victims. I prefer to punish liberals.

Ok, lets have an answer to my question, Krazy, enough dawdling.

Both admirable...well, at least the school stuff anyway. The United Way is a major contributor to slaughter houses.

I would suggest directly helping kids that need help before running with your words about what others should do.

Lots of kids need foster care...try it, it will help you just as much as it helps them.

No hints, a yes or no answer, please.

What a Palin-esque response. It was so cutesy and adorable that I almost didn't realize that you've still failed to answer my question!

For the record, I love the killing of 5-year-olds. Not just the idea of it...I love killing them myself. :RollieEyes:

What makes you think you're more entitled to a straight answer than I am?

bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk.......................

Yep, I'm shakin'. You betcha!

Sorry, I'm not playing that game. You can address what I said, or if you prefer we can just agree to disagree. It doesn't matter.

My side (the dark side) is winning, anyway. Has been for decades.

WE KNOW!

We?

Who's that? You and your small circle of rape-victim-hating friends?

Well, tell 'em to have a nice weekend.

you just don't get it Krazy.

What do you do to help victims of abuse Krazy? You throw stuff like this out there....but what do you do to help???

Make them unlawful.

The abortion doesn't end when the woman leave the doctor's office. It follows her for life.

I am personally acquainted with three people who have had abortions. All three of them carry a huge amount of guilt for what they did. All of them did it for convenience only.

One of them was my daughter.

My first grandchild was murdered.

My daughter was 16.

She went to a Planned Parenthood. They were pleased to "help her out."

My daughter, who is now in her 30s, cannot look at her other two children without remembering the one that was lost. She has suffered depression for years because of it. It has colored her life completely.

Had the law required her to get permission from her parents, I could have protected her and my grandchild.

Abortion is a quick solution with ever-lasting effects and is NEVER right, in ANY case.

I don't understand your post, MEDC. You're here on MB, not married, a parent, and you tell others what they should do. You aren't directly in a marriage, nor have you been for several years.

Just as Dr. Harley hasn't experienced infidelity in his own marriage.

These are people's opinions...and you're saying to shut up if you aren't doing...because that's what you heard Krazy saying?

I don't get any of this. Are you sharing opinions to get others to stop thinking what they do, change their actions, or to hear from everyone willing to tread in this thread?

I cannot begin to see a way from ascertaining anyone's "credibility" or winning an argument here. We are all anonymous posters on an internet board. How on earth are we really going to discern life from a fetus when we refuse to discern personal attacks from differences in opinions?

Understandable emotions in response to other's opinions...important beliefs held close to our hearts can feel like are opinions ARE ourselves, therefore attacked when not agreed with. Not unreasonable to feel, unacceptable to react to...whether you get edited for it or not.

If you want to change people, go door to door...so you can look into their eyes, and they can look into yours.

LA

But aren't you doing the same thing to MEDC with this post?
And why would you target MEDC for doing exactly what Krazy did by telling others to shut up? Why single out MEDC?

LA, I didn't tell Krazy to shut up. I am asking what he is doing. I have experience with marriage...so your point is moot. In fact, IMHO, you are not worthy of more of a reply.

Should you also follow this advice with MEDC?

Yeah...that makes sense...in the psychobabble world.

I'm taking bets.

This thread will be locked by 5:00 p.m.

Any takers?

not me...I am keeping my cool...

You're always cool MEDC, I think that's why you frustrate some people.

AMEN!

No, ML, I wasn't.

I asked him about his specific belief to put your money where your mouth is when his being on this board speaks otherwise.

MEDC contributes to this board.

I specifically did not address my question to you because you didn't make the statement he did.

Though you may hold the same belief.

What are you saying when you say, "You're doing it too, aren't you?"

You can see it that way no matter what I reply.

When I see two seemingly divergent beliefs by the same person, I'm going to ask about them. To that person.

You think I targeted, like with a pistola maybe.

I think I asked another poster about their statement.

LA

well LA, as I said I have experience with marriage and infidelity...so, what is your point?

But your analogy makes no sense, LA. MEDC is not lecturing others that they are not entitled to have an opinion if they have or haven't been married.

Krazy, on the other hand, is saying that folks here are not entitled to an opinion unless they are signed up on adoption lists. MEDC simply used Krazy's own logic against him.

Could you have overlooked that in your eagerness to indict?

she didn't overlook it Mel...it just fits her agenda.

Maybe we can agree on a few points.

I think most people realize that life begins at conception. Those that think the fetus is non human will never be able to stop abortion.

Also, abortions could be reduced to zero with excellent education on abstinence, talk about birth control and easy access to effective birth control.

Do we agree on that?

I don't agree. We have very effective birth control...that doesn't change the fact that no method is perfect.

Abstinence education does not work all the time as kids will be kids in some situations....

great ideas...but they will not bring the number anywhere close to zero.

Maybe reduced but not to zero.

Who's going to provide all this education, talk and easy access? Schools? The government? Planned Parenthood? Parents?

I thought we already did all of that? I think its unrealistic to believe that education can compensate for a lack of maturity and judgment, and most importantly, ADULTS who mislead young girls into thinking abortion is nothing more significant than removing a WART.

A huge part of the problem has been indoctrination of young girls who are taught that wrong is right.

I believe parents should educate their children. But to get there, we need to change our whole view as a society and become more open about talking about sex.

There are many countries who have a more open attitude, access to birth control and have a very low abortion rate, even though abortion is legal.

We also have to change the way we think about adoption. We give lip service to it, and there are thousands of couples waiting for a baby, but there are no babies with our high abortion rate.

And even though all birth control isn't 100% reliable, many accidents are from not using properly. I think that many are around 97% reliable, so that would eliminate 97% of the abortions.

So 97% of abortions are due to failed birth control? Where did you get that #?

All the education in the world will not compensate for the immature judgement inherent in teenage girls, though. It is not a matter of knowledge, but a matter of maturity.

Another major factor are ADULTS who brainwash girls into believing that abortion is no more significant than getting a wart removed. That is a HUGE PART of the problem. They teach children that wrong is right and are no better than waywards.

If we stick to the topic of how to reduce abortions rather than argue about the morality of it then yes we can agree on probably more than a few points.

This is generally the point upon which many people disagree. For the sake of continuing what could be an extremely productive discussion on reducing numbers, how about we leave this topic for another thread?


I agree this is a start but it has to be a lot more than handing kids a pamphlet. Also, in the absence of public health care, many people don't have easy access to effective birth control even if they do know about it.

There was also a post shortly past this regarding parents and I strongly believe they have a huge role in this. Unfortunately, too many parents back off from their responsibility in this regard. Therefore, schools should be involved as well.

Kids need to be knowledgable enough AND comfortable enough to discuss these issues with an adult, preferably their parent but at bare minimum a teacher or other respected adult, and be able to ask questions of any kind. There should be no embarrassment or shame in these discussions on either the part of the adult or the child. After all, it is an important part of our own biology, health and well being.

Thought this site might be of interested: http://www.christiancontraception.com/foreword.php

I found this paragraph to be very informative:

"No methods are perfect, and some should not be used by Christians. While most Christian couples are interested in controlling fertility, many have concerns about certain birth-control methods, and with good reason. As Christians we maintain that life begins at conception, yet many of the chemicals we use to prevent pregnancy are also known to interrupt life in its earliest stages. Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), estrogen-free pills (the mini-pill), Depo-Provera (the shot), Norplant, and the IUD all prevent the implantation of an embryo after fertilization as one of several major mechanisms of action. (47) Expulsion of a developing human being is quite different from simply keeping sperm and egg apart (by inhibiting ovulation, for example)."

I've been following this thread with interest. FWIW I'm not pro-abortion. I'm very anti-abortion but I know that realistically you can make it illegal etc etc (as it was for many, many years in my country) but backstreet abortionists thrive in that climate. It happened all the time here, or women went to Australia where it was legal.

The other point that keeps running through my head is that war kills many, many, many children (innocent children) yet I would hazard a guess that, being conservatives, most of the people putting forward their strong anti-abortion stance are pro-war. I can't help feeling that you (generic) feel "thou shalt not kill" only applies in certain circumstances.

Well, an embryo is NOT a parasite, a wart to be removed, or something not human. If the embryo was merely an unwanted growth, there would be no point in debating abortion. So I will agree to disagree on that and leave that for later, in the interest of PM losing her bet about the thread being locked.

I taught all of my children about the sanctity of life and didn't leave it up to the schools, just like I taught them all to read.

However, when they got to be teenagers, they made their own choices. But I talked to them about birth control and made doctor visits readily available for the girls, and condoms for the boys.

When I found out that my step-daughter had an abortion, I took her off of my insurance and explained that I won't support it.

And I think we really need to emphasize adoption. It just makes no sense to have so many abortions while their are loving parents waiting for babies. That will take a shift in our society's paradigms.

first off...I am a war at last resort person...I am anti-death penalty as well. BUT, that is apples and oranges. The number of child deaths from a war would NEVER be even a small fraction of the number that are killed from abortion each year. 35% of the black population is destroyed each year in this country...by abortion. Drop 12 bombs the equivalent of Hiroshima each year in just America and you have the death totals from abortion.

as for abortion being done in back allies...that is where crimes are supposed to take place...not in the light of day, sanctioned and paid for by our government.

Thanks a lot Believer!!

Backstreet abortions kill women AND babies.

MEDC, I agree with you about abortion, I just know that realistically women will always find a way, even if it's using a knitting needle or drinking gin and jumping off a table. A friend of mine had an abortion and it sent me into a deep depression. I tried to talk her out of it. I was devestated when she went through with it.

I firmly believe that realistic sex education is exceptionally important.

What are your current laws?

Well, now, PM, you still have 2 hours, and these types of threads are always locked.

If people KNOW they will be put in jail for twenty years for doing this, trust me, the number of abortions would diminish. And yes, women sometimes die in the procedure too...although a lot less than the pro abortion people would have you believe...and they DESERVE to die if that is what they are doing.

I will add that if you are in a back ally having an abortion...or laying on a doctors table while he butchers your child, IMHO, you have no right to take another breath. But, that's just me.


Laws regarding what?

Thou shalt not kill refers to MURDER, not deaths resulting from a just war. And I know you know that. But even if all war was unjust and could rationally defined as MURDER, it would not justify the wanton slaughter of the unborn.

What I find hypocritical are those who claim to object to war and the death penalty but say nothing about abortion.

Your laws regarding abortions.

These are ours and some history from Wikpedia.

"Abortion was criminalized in New Zealand by the British Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, adopted in New Zealand in 1866. The 1893 Criminal Code Act made the punishments for illegal abortion a maximum of seven years imprisonment for the women and life for the doctor. Illegal abortions continued to occur, however, and it was generally understood that abortions performed in good faith to protect the life of the woman or her mental or physical health would not lead to prosecution. The 1936 Committee of Enquiry headed by D.G. McMilland reported that one in five pregnancies in New Zealand resulted in an induced abortion. Some pregnant women died, were injured or infected, or abused by practitioners of illegal abortion. In the 1940s, the discovery of antibiotics made infection less likely, which also meant some doctors were more likely to assist.

Public debate increased following the legalization of abortion in Britain in 1967 and in South Australia in 1969. The legalization of abortion in Australia enabled New Zealand women who could afford to travel to have abortions in Australia. After a Royal Commission on New Zealand abortion law, Parliament passed the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act of 1977. The law caused much confusion over the demarcation of certain restrictions as to when an abortion would be legal, and led to a series of amendments that were passed in the following year to clarify the Parliament's intentions."

But the woman CHOOSES a backstreet abortion and takes that risk. The baby does not CHOOSE to be killed.

Secondly, the notion of women dying from back street abortions is a lie concocted by pro-abortionists to try and pander sympathy. They just made it up. Before abortion was legalized in this nation, the vast majority of abortions were performed by DOCTORS.

I would also point out that women die from abortions TODAY even though it is legal.

My sympathy is not elicited by someone who dies in the commission of a murder. That is a job hazard.

there are very few laws regarding abortion...and Obama has promised to remove every one of them when he takes office.

Yep.

Sounds to me like you're saying that someone who has had an abortion deserves to die.

While I understand how repellant abortion can be, until a man can get pregnant, I think that your stance is ridiculously harsh. Easy to pass judgement when it can never, ever be you in that position.

The ability to have a child is a gift that I would love to have.

and I KNOW if men were able to carry the babies, women would be marching in the streets to protect this slaughter of unborn babies.

"The ability to have a child is a gift that I would love to have."

MEDC - You are such a straight shooter and so different from most men, that I always (or almost always) enjoy your posts.

The ability to have a child IS a wonderful gift - too under-appreciated in my opinion.

Not only is it a gift, but an assignment, straight from God. I believe that those women who throw away a life so easily for convenience sake only will have a lot of explaining to do about why THEY decided that the person GOD decided to create was not worth living, unless they repent. Even my own daughter.

The Pro Abortion advocates attempt to limit the discussion to the most extreme and painful scenarios possible in an effort to not have to deal with the overwhelming majority of abortions; Abortions of convenience and as a form of birth control.

The strategy is to highlight scenarios both sides of the issue will agree are horrifying and argue that without allowing these rape victims to kill their babies we are punishing them. The other talking point claims it is better to allow a “Clean” legal abortion in a hospital than a back alley butcher job. Of course they don’t bother to provide statistics or proof. The only study ever done on rape/incest victims and abortions concluded abortions inflict added pain and suffering through a second victimization of the mother.

If you like extremes, listen to the audio of President elect Obama arguing against providing medical aid to a baby that survives a botched abortion of watch the clean, sanitized and completely legal, videos available showing partial birth abortion. If Pro-Abortion logic claims abortion must be legal to provide a solution to the very small percentage of pregnancies caused by rape or incest, why does that outweigh the logic abortion must be illegal to outlaw the horrifying practice of allowing a baby to be half-way delivered before crushing the babies skull to assure it is killed before the delivery is complete?

Pro-Abortion has been skillfully changed to be referred to as Pro-choice. Many claim Pro-Abortion and Pro-Choice are different. I can see how people would need to convince themselves of that lie in order to sleep at night. The latest spin is to even redefine the Pro-Life terminology and quickly the Pro-Abortion advocates are getting the MSM to begin using Anti-Choice. So should the Pro-Life crowd just call the pro-abortion supporters’ anti-life?


By Fr. Frank Pavone

"Well what about rape? Are you saying that woman can't have an abortion?"

The primary concern of this question, normally, is not Do you think abortion is OK in this instance?, despite the fact that this is how the question may be expressed. The concern which is uppermost for the questioner is, Don't you care about this woman? Won't you have compassion and help her?

To answer the question, therefore, let's start by addressing this point head on. We agree totally that the woman who has been raped has undergone a terrible trauma, which we can hardly begin to understand, and that her well-being is very much our concern. The pro-life movement is ready to reach out to such women, giving them counsel, healing, and compassion.

This approach, of course, differs in that it does not start where most people would start in answering this challenge: namely, with the rights of the child. It starts with concern for the woman, which is where the questioner is.

Having agreed that the woman has been victimized and needs our help, Will an abortion help her? By asking this, you are now questioning what is normally an unspoken, unchallenged assumption, namely, that the abortion is somehow a solution to the rape, and somehow helps alleviate the pain and trauma of the woman.

At least question this assumption, therefore, bring in the evidence that not only does the abortion not alleviate the trauma of the rape, but it brings a trauma of its own. Countless women suffer for years and decades after abortion.. I know of women who have been raped and then had abortions, and are in counseling not for the rape but for the abortion! In rape, the trauma is "Someone hurt me." In abortion, the trauma is "I hurt and killed someone else: my child." That brings even more grief.
Choosing life instead of an abortion is not based on insensitivity but rather on compassion, that is, the same basis on which Pro-Abortion supporters is challenge us to allow the abortion.

The compassion of Life actually is more inclusive than that of those who would allow abortion. Having established we care about the rape victim, Why can't we love them both? Why can't we extend to the child the same practical compassion which we both agree belongs to the woman? Why can't we expand the boundaries of those we welcome and care for? Why should helping and loving one (the mom) mean destroying the other (the child)? In reality, you cannot help one without helping the other and you cannot hurt one without hurting the other.

PM, just a suggestion, but it might help if someone could talk with her about what forgiveness in Christ means.

NONE of us is without the need for forgiveness. But the difference is the COMPLETENESS of forgiveness from God.

Hugs to you and your daughter from someone who knows and understands your "hidden pain."

God bless.

It's 4:58....how much are we talking about???

I might just "take" that bet!

Thank you FH. I agree. She won't discuss anything having to do with God right now, she too busy in yuppieland.

FWIW, most of us do not understand just how far God's grace and mercy extends if we only ask.

FH, what is your opinion of a 16 yr old girl who is brainwashed into believing abortion is no more significant than removing a mole and then grows up and learns to her horror that she has blood on her hands and has murdered another human being?

How do you think God will judge the person who lied to this girl?

It's not 5:00 where I live... not even close.

I'd be interested to hear the answer to this.

Husband - Great post, and I agree. I had a roommate who got an abortion when she was 8 months pregnant. And that was back when it was only allowed for the health of the mother. The doctors said it was best for her mental health. This was 40 years ago, and it stunned me, because the child would have been viable outside of the womb.

FH - The bet is 5:00 MB time, still an hour to go.

Mods, please lock this thread. I have a bet to win.

Thank you.

LOL, not quite yet, PM.

So I am wondering what husband and FH think about birth control..............

How theological do you want me to get, ML?


FH, what is your opinion of a 16 yr old girl who is brainwashed into believing abortion is no more significant than removing a mole and then grows up and learns to her horror that she has blood on her hands and has murdered another human being?

My opinion of her is that she is a child of God in need of knowing God and knowing God's love and forgiveness.

Please understand that I have "blood on my own hands," the blood of Jesus Christ. MY sins put Him on that cross as surely as if I pounded in the nails or pierced His side myself.




How do you think God will judge the person who lied to this girl?

How God will judge this person is already known. And it depends entirely upon that person's relationship with God, through Christ, or his/her lack of a relationship with God wherein they CONTINUE to be lost in their sins, ALL of their sins.

I could go into more if you'd like, but THE issue regarding "God's Judgment" is "saved or not saved." It really IS that simple, because Jesus took on Himself ALL the sins of those who accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

Remember, "vengeance (as well as forgiveness) is mine, saith the LORD, I will repay." God WILL repay, unless the sentence has already been "paid in full" for us by Christ.


One of my favorite hymns talks about this: "How Great Thou Art."

A girl I was dating many many years ago went with me to visit a young couple expecting their first baby. We were having a great time until later in the evening my date became pale a told me she wasn’t feeling well. She had picked up an expecting mother’s book that was sitting on the coffee table and while thumbing through the pages and looking at the pictures of the baby through varies stages of life was hit with the realization of what she had done. I latter found out her parents had pushed her to get an abortion when she was in her teens and the remorse and quilt overwhelmed her. I was shocked, horrified and repulsed but her repentance was genuine and complete and I believe God will forgive her but I’m not sure she will ever forgive herself.

Thanks for your answer, FH, that makes perfect sense. Even Paul was forgiven for murdering Christians when he repented, so I know there will also be forgiveness for those who repent of their crime of leading young girls to the slaughter mill.

Thanks

great post.

agreed..but some will never repent as their hearts (if they have one) have been hardened.

THAT has always been the "issue," MEDC.

But repentance of actions, alone, is not enough to answer the question that MelodyLane posed. She asked specifically about how GOD will judge, and THAT answer has also been given by God to us. "There is only one way to receive forgiveness of sin from God, and that is to believe in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior." That means THE "Jesus" of Scripture, not "any Jesus." Not "He is NOT the second person of the Trinity," not "there are MANY 'paths' to God" that do not include the ONLY way that God has provided.

To deny that truth is to do essentially the same thing that pro-abortionists want us to believe, "it's okay to do whatever YOU want to do because there is NO 'right or wrong' that is applicable to everyone regardless of individual desires or beliefs." THOSE people are "in favor" of "aborting" our ability to be "born again," into eternal life WITH God. It's sort of the same "we want to do whatever we want to do and we don't want anyone (God) telling us that we are wrong."

Wow, Thanks JoJo for digging this up.

http://alfafriends.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-from-aborted-baby.html

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/08/dan-gura-letter.html

No person on Earth has the ability to "abort" my communion with Jesus Christ. I have never met another person that wishes to take away my ability to have a union with Christ(nor do they seek to take away the physical life bestowed on me by my Savior). While they may have their won beliefs...and some may differ from mine...it does not impact my relationship with God.

I do not wish to TJ the thread. The discussion here is about abortion. If you wish to continue the discussion that you brought up, I will be glad to do it via email only.

Wow, I'm proud of us getting this far, without having the thread locked.

There is a poster here who had an affair and gave up the child for adoption. I wish she would chime in, because she has been there, made a pro-life choice and done the most loving thing.

So often I think that women just take what they perceive to be the easy way out. They claim that they could never give a child up, but have little problem ending the child's life.

Huh? What got under your skin MEDC? I have never said that anyone can "take away" your being born again, though there ARE people who think you CAN lose your salvation. I get asked a theological question about my opinion on a 'situation,' and you jump to "this is about abortion?" I believe that WAS precisely the subject that I was answering, but if you don't like the analogy to "turning away from God," okay, but kindly don't try telling me what I can or cannot post, okay? There is already too much "thought police" stuff running around the system.

But that's not what I was referring to anyway. I was referring to the movement to "secularize" America and to take any reference to God out of the "public life." In case you haven't noticed some of the changes that have been going on, as well as changes since the election of eliminating "In God We Trust" from the public reception area of the Congress, THAT is what I was referring to.

They've already pushed God out of the schools. But they CAN talk all they want to about abortion, birth control, etc., all under the "guise" of sex education that parents have no control over.

And if you don't think that Satan is actively abetting the process of trying to hinder people from turning to God, well, I do think he is.

There is no need to email you with anything unless you have something you want to discuss "off the air."

Huh? FH...read my post...the ACTUAL words. I was not telling you what to post. I had no problem with your answer as it pertains to abortion either. The other part is something we've discussed in the past and I clearly stated that I would gladly discuss that with you via email.

I have nothing "under my skin" as you said. In fact, I am more than a little confused by your post. I am exceptionally pleased with your position on abortion...AND your willingness to express your views.

Thank you for the offer, but I prefer to do my discussing in public.

I take it you are referring to, and apparently bothered by, the reference to "other ways" to God other than through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

Be that as it may, it stands the same as those who want to convince others that "their" view of a baby supercedes God's view. They want to substitute "their" truth" for "God's" truth.

Little difference between the two issues as they both seek to move people away from God and keep them away from God if possible.

My point is very simple and basic...a willingness to stand on the Word of God and "Man's" manipulation or rejection of it to foster whatever goal they want.

IF that is NOT true, why bother opposing abortion, infidelity, or anything else that runs contrary to God's revealed will? Either God IS absolute truth, or He isn't. There really isn't any "middle of the road" position, is there?

There are some exceptionally great people that do not believe in Christ that oppose abortion. There are many reasons beyond God to oppose killing an innocent baby.

And there are some people who supposedly know God exists, yet they choose to kill his children.

It is not just God's will that drives people. Some people have a basic sense of right/wrong absent any God in their life. I did not come to know Christ until my 30's. I always KNEW something as barbaric as abortion was in fact wrong. Nobody should need a God to tell them that.

So, yes, there are middle of the road positions in this and many other discussions. Not saying they are right...but they certainly exist...and are used by some very good...and some very bad, people.

Name one reason if you would? I would think that in every such case it comes down to what any given individual chooses to think is "truth" for them, but that it really doesn't "have to" apply to anyone else. That's the problem with "relativism," it is open to interpretation by anyone for themselves and not necessarily applicable to everyone regardless of "which side of any given issue" they happen to take or choose embrace.

In short, it is "me" centric and not God centric.

That is also why the Scripture clearly reveals that regardless of "human standards" chosen to "evaluate" someone else, there is NO ONE "good" except for God.



I understand that. They should KNOW better, but they choose, for whatever reason, to NOT make God preeminent in their lives. They choose to NOT "live their lives" FOR God, but only to have God a part of their lives in such areas as they want to "give to God" and to keep Him out of areas that they want to retain for themselves.




Yes, everyone has a God-given "sense" of right and wrong because God HAS written His moral code on everyone's heart. The "problem" is not with the "code," it is with Man's fallen sinful state that is at enmity with God. "Right" in one area does not "trump" being "wrong" in another area. It is for reasons such as that, that no one is without guilt and no one is without excuse for the way they choose to live their lives. The "goodness" is NOT dependent upon how someone "lives" or chooses to stand for "right" versus "wrong." "Goodness" is only granted THROUGH Jesus Christ and only because of what He has already done so that HIS goodness is imparted to us.



ALL "positions" exist. That has never been at issue. What is at issue is "Right" versus "Wrong" and the Standards used to provide a universal definition of them. That is "difference" between "absolute" and "relative" standards, between God IS Sovereign and God is NOT Sovereign. Particularly for the believer, this is crucial, because it DOES impact how we live our lives.


It's also interesting that this sort of thinking was the topic of our Pastor's message today, based on Psalm 100:3.

To mention a couple of points from that message may give further clarity to what I've been saying.

"Know that He is God." Means to recognize the FACT that He IS the LORD, Jehovah (HE and NO other), and to recognize that FACT as a certainty.

From that, we need to live as a theist (I exist for Him and for Him alone). The caution to believes is: Even though we are theists, let's make sure we not live as "practical atheists."

To put that in perspective, or to "frame it," we can look at statements from some "practical atheists," or "atheists in fact."

Huxley said "I want this world to NOT be relevant." "A meaningless wisdom frees me to my own erotic pursuits."

Gould - "Once you find out that there is no superior WISDOM, no superior CAUSE, it is LIBERATING if not EXHILARATIING."

Sartre - "Usless passions lead to despair - nothing to live for but ourselves."


But the reality of all these "moral choices" and how we live our lives results from this truth:

Without an answer to "Where did I come from" (origins), you cannot answer:

"Why am I here?" (the question of Meaning and Purpose of life);

"How should I live?" (the issue of morality).


Furthermore, imho, you cannot answer the question of "when does life begin" and "why would it be wrong to kill a baby that is developing in the womb."

Several people think they can "hedge" on this by saying "well, I don't personally think it's okay to do 'such and such,' like abort a baby, but it's okay if others disagree with me and want to do so for their own reasons." THAT is simply "moral relativism" at work and a denial of the Sovereignty of God, to say nothing of a refusal to STAND FOR God regardless of what "human opinion" of them might be.

As police officers, lawyers, and judges will often tell us, "Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse." And God holds the same position since HE HAS established the law AND revealed it to us so that we WOULD KNOW what He has set forth as HIS law and the standards that HE holds us accountable to.

In like manner, it does no one any good for a believer to tell someone else that "God was not right, you can believe whatever you want to believe and still 'get to heaven'." Basically, it's no different from what Satan told Eve, "God didn't REALLY mean what HE said." And God assigned believers the Great Commission for just that reason....HIS way or NO way.

This may be explained further down the thread (haven't been on all weekend) but if not, can someone explain this to me? What is the difference between MURDER and "just war"? Personally, I don't see how war is anything but murder but that could just be me.

I feel the same about those who oppose abortion but support war.

Husband1, I respect your opinion and by now if you've read this thread, you realize I disagree with it. No point beating a dead horse on this, however, I must respond to this statement:


Does anyone actually believe this? If you have ever been raped or know someone who has, you will realize that nothing can be further from the truth. These women are still vilified by society - even pressing charges against the rapist puts the victim in a position where people in authority are all but accusing her of "asking for it". As if the rape weren't enough, the aftermath is so utterly degrading. And what counsel, healing and compassion in a society that doesn't even provide medical benefits to this person? Even in my country where this is provided, counselling can be harder to come by. And don't even start me with the church's position - I have seen it far too often.

Unfortunately, this is yet another area that needs to be addressed that could help reduce the number of abortions (probably not that many as I don't think the greatest amount are rape victims and even if there was support available, many might still choose abortion, but probably not as many)

Baloney. This is so far from today's reality it is laughable.

I get the distinct impression that you just throw stuff out there without really having any knowledge of what you speak. This is nowhere near today's reality. Not even close.

Tabby, people can question the war in Iraq, but war in itself is not murder. If we did not fight and win WW11 and stop Hitler, for example, the world would have been at the mercy of Nazi facists. Do you really believe that WW11 Allied soldiers were "murderers" for wiping out the Nazis? Equating our brave soldiers to abortion butchers is sickening and morally offensive.

But lets say that every war is murder, a ridiculous notion, how would that justify abortion? More humans have been slaughtered in US abortions than in all world wars combined. How do you justify that?

huh? What does this have to do with abortion and the point he made about the presumption that abortion is somehow therapeutic for rape victims?

Exactly.

It is just another statement thrown out there without any thought as to what is being said.

Have you explained why you support the punishment of rape victims yet?

Maybe it's simply a matter of "If it's good enough for rural India, it's good enough for Melodylane".

ridiculous statement. ML does not support the punishment of rape victims. Her not wanting a child to be killed is not being in favor of the punishing of rape victims.


ML is a respected member of this board that has helped far more people than you could ever imagine. You on the other hand tend to just want to be inflammatory and aggressive. Perhaps it is time to take a step back and evaluate why you feel the need to attack Mel.

Krazy, I will post it AGAIN: I do not support punishment of rape victims.

You have obviously never been raped, nor do you know anyone who has.

another diversion....

War itself may not necessarily involve murder, but when a human being kills another human being, it is murder - and war typically involves this. Yes, the WW11 allied soldiers were murderers, as were the Nazis. Just because wiping them out meant for a better world doesn't erase the fact that men killed other men. The end does not justify the means. Although according to you and MEDC, God forgives everyone except women who have abortions - they "deserve to die", right? Did the Nazi's deserve to die? Probably, but isn't that a judgement meant for God? (forgive me, I'm not the same religion as you so I could be wrong)

And for the record, it doesn't make the soldiers any less brave or honourable for defending the principals that they did. But it doesn't justify killing either.

That's a load of hooey.

Tabby, a bit of background on me...

I was a police officer in Philadelphia. I obviously am very familiar with rape. I have also been trained by WOAR to deal with rape victims. In addition to this, I was sexually assaulted at a young age by a priest and have volunteered my time and efforts to work with all types of physical and sexual abuse victims.

The law enforcement community and court system are exceptionally aware of the emotional impact of sexual assault. Special care and consideration is taken with victims of sexual assault. Courts are also very well equipped these days to handle assault victims.

So, Tabby...what are your assertions based on? What are your qualifications and experience in these matters? I have laid out my experience which you have seemed to question. Now I would like to know yours.

http://www.woar.org/

Tabby...this post makes no sense. Does a police officer murder a criminal that is trying to kill him? Does a person protecting their family MURDER an intruder intent on harming his family.

Look Tabby...I am not picking on you here. You mentioned early on that you felt that some people in your life looked down on you for a lack of education. Are you wanting to cause conflict here...or would you like to become educated about the things of which you are speaking?

Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person.

Tabby, this reflects a shocking deficit of critical thought. Killing does not constitute murder, unless it is unjustified. Unless a war is unjustified, it is not murder. We all know the difference between killing and murder. Using your "logic," one is a murderer if they kill someone in self defense.

I would also point out that if those "murderers" in WW11 had not fought the Nazis you would living at the mercy of evil, cruel men. Thankfully, others do not think like you or there would be freedom nowhere in the world.

There is no moral equation between abortion and war. First off, in order for the equation to be rational, we must equate unborn humans to enemies such as Nazis and terrorists. Nazis and terrorists are not innocent humans, the unborn ARE. The unborn have committed no crimes against humanity. It would be much more logical to equate abortion butchers to terrorists and Nazis. [abortion butchers have killed far more people]

Secondly, in the case of abortion, there is the intentional targeting and taking of innocent life. In the case of warfare, there is loss of innocent life, but the intention is not the intentional targeting of innocent life. To try and parallel abortion and the consequences of war is false and engages in moral equivocating. One targets innocent life [abortion], the other does not. [warfare]

Even so, no matter how the morality of war is spun, it can never justify the intentional and purposeful targeted slaughter of millions of innocent humans. NOTHING could justify that and this war assertion is nothing more than a diversion.

And lastly, Tabby, must I remind you that you have no grounds on which to object to anyone's opinion here since you have stated that ones "belief" will justify anything. My "belief" is that abortion is murder. I don't even have to support my "belief" according to your standards.


That's a load of hooey. [/quote]

Let's see if thats "hooey" by just taking a look at America alone:

Total killed due to abortion since 1973 - 49,000,000 (35 MILLION) deaths

US WAR DEATHS:

Revolutionary War - 4,435 deaths
Civil War (both sides) - 498,332 deaths
World War I - 116,708 deaths.
World War II - 407,316 deaths
Korea - 25,604 deaths
Vietnam - 58,168 deaths

TOTAL 1,110,563(1.1 MILLION)

49 MILLION ABORTIONS
1.1 MILLION WAR DEATHS

We could even add in Hitler's concentration camp victims [11,000,000] and still be at ONE THIRD the # of US abortions since 1973. "Hooey?" No. Mass slaughter, YES.

Hi Mel...just a little correction...hope you don't mind. US abortions since 1973 ...almost 49 million.

worldwide there are in excess of 46 million abortions PER YEAR.

Thanks for the correction, MEDC. My #s must have been outdated:

Then being in favor of a woman's right to choose is not being in favor of killing babies.



Just how many people do I have to help before I can post any ridiculous nonsense I choose, and feel entitled to do so without being questioned?

I respect Melodylane for everything she's done for victims of infidelity, but that shouldn't buy her any leeway on other issues.

Would it make you feel better if I added a little passive-aggressive smilie to my "aggressive" posts?

Is it just me or is there a total lack of critical thought on display in this post?


I'm not sure of the number...but when you get your first one it might be easier to figure out.

Can we get back to how to reduce abortions, or should we just get this thread locked?

I shudda posted this today instead of last Friday.

:RollieEyes:

LOL PM.........

But this thread has actually made it longer than most. And I am interested in discussing how to reduce abortions.

Over the years, I've opened up my home to four pregnant young women, and only one got an abortion. The other three had the child and are thankful they did.

a few surefire ways to reduce abortions:

make it a crime that is punished by a lengthy jail term.

make adoption more attractive to women.

educate women as to the actual abortion procedure (pro abortion people have fought this tooth and nail)

sterilize any woman that still chooses to have an abortion that is not for health of mother, incest or rape.

give fathers a say in keeping their children alive

do not allow kids to have a medical procedure without the permission of their parents.

stop believing that groups like Planned Parenthood actually give a hoot about women.

You ask a bunch of stuff in different posts so bear with me.


My experiences include volunteering at the local women's shelter. I did this in the past after I left my first (abusive) husband. I did it again last winter. Laws have most certainly improved in that time, but some things remain the same. Just because the laws are better doesn't change people's attitudes who are enforcing them.

IMO, killing is killing, though circumstances of self defense is a far cry from premeditated murder. To bring this back to the topic at hand, a woman who's life or health is in danger due to complications of the pregnancy could be considered to be acting in self defense. However, that argument doesn't wash with the Pro-lifers.

I never said I lacked education. I'm actually highly educated but in the area of science, not religion. I ask most of my questions to try to understand these things better - to analyze them I suppose since that's what I've been trained to do. I don't embrace or dismiss a theory lightly - I like to know everything there is to know about it before I pass judgement on it. This includes religious beliefs as well as scientific theories.

If so, then abortion isn't murder. This is the crux of the abortion debate, but also not the topic of this thread (though for some reason it keeps straying back to this).

If killing a human being is wrong, it is wrong no matter what. The bible says "Thou shalt not kill". In a courtroom murder is something more than just the killing itself - i.e. certain conditions are required. What about accidental killings for example a car accident (no liquor, high speeds or other traffic violations involved)?

Jumping to ML here now:

First of all, Nazi's and terrorists may be enemies, but they are distinctly human. Of that there is no argument.

The executioners of 911 targetted innocent life. War goes a lot further than 2 groups of armed men shooting at each other across a field. Most women who have abortions do not believe they are killing a complete human being. Their intent is to terminate pregnancy. You can call it anything from ignorance to outright satanistic if you want, but they aren't intentionally "targeting" an innocent life.

You are intitled to your belief and you don't have to justify it to me. But I'm entitled to mine also.

Sorry, but the US isn't the first country to go ever to war. It isn't the only country to lose lives in war, even in the wars listed. And believe it or not, there are wars going on right now that the US isn't involved in. How about some world stats?

Tabby...MURDER is unlawful killing. There certainly is a difference. Abortion cannot legally be considered murder at the moment as it is legal. It is against God's law...hence peoples use of the term murder.

Sorry things are so backwards in Canada. Women are treated very well here in the states in terms of sexual assault. It wasn't always that way...but it sure is now.

Your comment



makes NO sense at all as the vast majority of pro-life people ALWAYS put the health of the mother first.


WHAT?

I find your posts so lacking in critical thought and direction that I find it difficult to imagine they are serious.



this really makes no sense.

First of all, thanks medc for finally answering the question of this thread. I have a few comments and questions on your suggestions:

What about making adoption more attractive to men also? For the most part, it is married couples seeking to adopt (though not necessarily, but it could be a single man as easily as a single woman). Aside from making the process easier, how would you go about doing this?

I don't know that anyone has fought this - I've never had difficultly finding information on this. However, I never learned this in the "right" places (eg home or school). This should definitely be part of sex education - schools should provide it but parents should make sure they get ALL the information known at the time. True, this is pretty gory but how in the world can anyone make an informed decision without all the facts. Many aspects of life are gross and icky - get over it and learn what is necessary.

What about sterilizing the man that raped her? What about sterilizing high risk women (e.g. prostitutes)? The trouble with this one is how the heck are you going to prove it, especially if she had it done illegally.

I actually agree with this one regardless of the topic at hand. I believe it is still required here.

In our United States, those with faith-based agendas are able to petition the government for change and have the same panoply of rights as the secularist. The establishment clause creates a framework that separates church from state while protecting the free expression of religion. Those who would repudiate the establishment clause expressly reject our American form of government.

As to this topic, which stirs such passion--it may be instructive for those who hold faith based ideologies to remember that strident rhetoric, polemics often are ineffectual agents of change, and that extremism in a pluralistic society runs the risk of losing credibility. The most effective theists (who are agents for faith-based agendas) are always the ones who can modulate their tone to hold a wide appeal to a large cross section of Americans.

Any discussion (about abortion) that does not expressly focus upon the law of the United States is primarily internet grandstanding b/c wishful thinking is more akin to fantasy than reality. Those who believe that abortion is murder, life begins at conception etc., can petition the government for change but the law as it stands is as follows:

First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second, the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering the woman's life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

It is most unlikely that in the foreseeable future the high court will overturn a woman's constitutional privacy rights on this issue. At best, perhaps some future unknown court would hold that the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus (for federal purposes) is co-equivalent w/ a woman's privacy rights and consequently federal law should not be implicated at all. That would throw the matter back to the states and each one would be able take up the issue in their legislature.

The above scenario is highly unlikely but if those with faith based agendas seek to effect that type of change it is within their rights. Still, extremist rhetoric (that fails to recognize the establishment clause) is not part of the solution (for any agenda be it faith based or secular) and IMHO displays an Anti-American ideology.

--Brix

What else might it become? A puppy?

I think men that rape should have their peckers cut off...but the problems with that is there are a lot of women that cry rape even when it didn't happen. So, there would need to be a fool proof way to handle this issue so innocent men are not subjected to undue punishment.

Tabby, drop the rape issue. It is a VERY , VERY small percentage of cases. The issue here is rape on demand...not health of mother or rape. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience sake. No other reason.

As for adoption...we are talking about the PREGNANT WOMAN and making it more attractive to her. The adoption of newborns is not an issue...there is plenty of interest in adopting a baby put up for adoption.

Yes, the pro abortion crowd has fought education for years. They want the procedure to go by without the patient knowing what is actually happening and what their options are. They have even fought this in court.

I got this off the UC San Diego site - it is pro-life, but I noticed that most other sites quote the same figure - less than 1% of abortions are because of rape.

"2. Number of Abortions from Rape and Incest
less than 1% of women who have abortions do so, because of rape or incest (AGI)

A. Rape
•A recent Justice Dept. report returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes. Nat. Crime Victim Report, US Justice Dept. Aug. 95, R. Bachman
And how many pregnancies result?
•About 1 or 2 for each 1000. This translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.
•A study of 1,000 rape victims, who were treated medically right after the rape, reported no pregnancies. L. Kuchera, "Postcoital Contraception with Diethylstilbestrol," JAMA, October 25, 1971
•In another series of 117 assault rape victims, of whom only 17 were given hormone treatment after the attack, none became pregnant. Everett & Jimerson, "The Rape Victim," 237 OB & GYN, vol. 50, no. 1, July 1977, pp. 88-90
Only one or two out of 1000? Please explain.
There are about 100 million women in the United States old enough to be at risk for assault rape. Let’s use a figure of 200,000 forcible rapes every year. The studies available agree that there are no more than two pregnancies per 1,000 assault rapes.
So much for the numbers. Let’s look at it from another angle and see if that figure makes sense.
•Of these 200,000 women who were raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk of pregnancy.
•A woman is capable of being fertilized only three days out of her 30-day month. So divide 133,000 by 10, and 13,300 women remain.
•One-fourth of all women in the United States of child-bearing age have been sterilized. That drops the figure to 10,000.
•Only half of the assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm. Cut it in half again. We are own to 5,000.
•Fifteen percent of men are sterile; that drops the figure to 4,250. Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600.
•Another 15% are on the pill and/or are already pregnant. Now the figure is 3,070. Now factor in something that all adults know. It takes from five to ten months for an average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Using the smaller figure, to be conservative, divide the 3,000 figure by 5, and the number drops to about 600."

Here is why "pro-choice" is not the same as "pro-abortion":

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6256644&page=1

Sickening.

By what standard? Not yours. You have said that if one does not "believe" they are killing, they are not committing murder. So, I can refute that statment with your own logic. By your own standard, if *I* believe that war deaths are not murder then they are not. I don't even need to bother defending that view, I can just use your own logic. <shrug>


Abortion is a moral issue, one can hardly discuss a moral issue without discussing... morals. A better word would be UNJUST. And I think you are smart enough to know the difference. You are just being willfully obtuse.

If the LEGALITY of a killing justifies it, then you must admit that the NAzis were justified in killing Jews because it was legal under German law. Oh wait, you did! It is justified because they "believed" they were not killing a "complete human being." ["subhumans"]

I betcha you might protest that logic if I said I was going to kill YOU because I "believe" you are not a complete human being.


Yes, and so are abortion victims. They are not puppies or tomatoes. They are humans. There is no argument there.


Again, you are back to "belief" means truth, which is nonsense. Using your standard, the 911 terrorists did not believe they were killing "innocents" and were not committing murder. Thier "intent" was just to rid the world of blue eyed demons.

Murder is murder based on the truth, not on one's "belief." Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer did not belief he was doing anything wrong; it doesn't mean that is true.

Tabby, it appears we are back to the same old, completely refuted arguments that you made last week. You couldn't defend them last week and you can't defend them now. They make no sense, Tabby, and continually repeating them doesn't make them any more coherent.

Why do you care who kills the baby?

At the end of the day the baby is dead.

Is it somehow worse to you that the mother doesn't want it to happen?

Now you know how all of us Pro-Lifers feel about EVERY abortion.

So whats the problem? Maybe the Chinese govt decided they have "CHOICES" too? It is their "belief" that this is not murder so they are fully justified, using your logic.

I thought you were pro-choice?

I guess its good if the mother kills the baby but BAD if the Chinese govt kills it?

not quite sure how that logic works.

How do you figure?

My wife and I support a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. Neither of us would want her to have an abortion, except in extreme, rare circumstances.

Therefore, we are pro-choice and NOT pro-abortion. Duh.


Oh, I've already logged more than one. Do I get my free pass yet?

weasel word semantics. puhleese :RollieEyes:

Nor are you "pro-choice". Not unless you advocate that "CHOICE" be extended to the one whose life is up for grabs. If not, then it is disingenuous doublespeak to say you are "pro-choice." It is bullcrap.

One is either for or against; pro or anti, you can't weasel out of that.

Since I am pro-choice, then YES!!!!!


Read carefully! The Chinese gov't has TAKEN AWAY the mother's choice. THIS is what I'm opposed to!

I really don't know how you read this into my posts. I've said from the start, I am pro-choice, anti-abortion. It isn't good if the mother has an abortion. It isn't good if the Chinese gov't (or any other) forces the mother to have an abortion. It isn't good if any government takes away a persons control over their own body, no matter what it is. THAT is my point. You want to eliminate abortion by legal means. I want to reduce them by other means. That's the difference. The end goal is the same - fewer abortions. I don't know why you feel the need to insult me repeatedly over this.

sure he is pro abortion...but just for those that choose to kill their baby.

"Hey, I would never molest a child or commit adultery...but if you want to...go ahead."

:RollieEyes:

all this concern for the murderous moms rights...but what about the babies right to live and not be pulled apart piece by piece.


this is absolutely ludicrous.

But the Chinese goverment believes it is a good thing. Therefore they are justified because one's "belief" justifies anything. Right?

Secondly, the Chinese government also has "choices." They choose to exercise those "choices."

Nope...not unless you're incapable of seeing the difference between the two terms. I thought I laid it out for MEDC so that a grade-schooler could understand it...maybe I can attach pictures to my next attempt.


Duh, yes I am. I am for the right of the mother to choose to have an abortion or not.

Can you wrap your brain around that simple concept, or do you always try to gaslight anyone who has an opinion that offends you?

Yes, I am pro-choice whether you like it or not. It is a fact, not an opinion.



Funny...I've never heard a single fetus speak out against abortion. Giving a fetus a say in the matter isn't going to help your cause. Did you ask your dog if it wanted to be fixed, too?

Disingenuous doublespeak? Laughable.

If you can't understand the difference between supporting the right to choose, and going to the clinic and having an abortion yourself, you shouldn't be debating the topic because you are too myopic (at best) too even begin to have a sane discussion.

It's either your way, or no way. :RollieEyes:

Yeah, I'm pro-choice. If that makes me pro-abortion, why do I have two children? Shouldn't I have aborted them?

If it can't be true, why are my kids still alive?

It's amazing that pro-life people fight this point, only so they can continue assocating the term "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion".

It's all about name-calling.

Since you so big on CHOICE how about we let the baby be born and when he/she can CHOOSE (which you advocate) we can ask him/her if it's OK to kill them?

because you and your wife decided that your kids were worth more than someone elses.

Ah, so now you're a psychic. Whatever it takes, huh? Twist and distort reality until it "lines up" with your preconceived notions.

Actually, my kids are alive because we didn't choose to abort them, even though we support the right of others to make a different choice.

You're not dumb. You are only being obstinate.

What utter nonsense! But when you compare a baby to a dog what else can one expect.

I wonder, when your children were fetuses, did you love them? Did you rub your wifes belly. Did you both talk to them?

Or did you show zero emotion until the 'fetus' was viable?

The more interesting question (to me) is do you respect the rule of law while opposing Roe?

In other words ya ain't pro-choice. You're pro WEASEL WORDS.

Of course I respect the rule of law, in principle. I do not respect BAD LAW, such as Roe versus Wade.

I love my kids at least as much as you do, and as an added bonus I won't support an idiotic point of view that dictates my daughter would be forced to carry a baby to term, even if it's the product of a rape.

I would question the love of any parent who believes their daughter should endure such a thing, if she is ever unfortunate enough to be impregnated by a rapist.

What are you, five?

No, I'm pro-choice.

Was today's episode of Sesame Street sponsored by "weasel words" or something?

I question the "love" of any parent who would mislead a young girl into believing that abortion is a moral choice. And may God help that parent when that girl grows and realizes how you have deceived her into committing such an trecherous act, Krazy. The blood of your grandchild will be on your hands. And so will the black stain on your child's soul.

So, you respect the laws you agree with.

Talk about WEASEL WORDS...Roe versus Wade is only a bad law in the opinion of pro-lifers. It is a fine law in my opinion.

Leave it to a Christian to try and assert an opinion as an absolute fact.

Do you respect Jim Crow laws?

Nice try at evading the questions.

I didn't ask you if you loved your children.

So based on your comments rape is the only reason you support abortion?

I guess when your swiss-cheese logic is exposed, you try the Drama Card.

My daughter will be intelligent enough to make her own decision without being brainwashed from birth by the church, mommy, and daddy.

Any god who would have my daughter carry a rapist's baby is no god I will ever worship, anyway.

If you wish to put your god above your children, feel free.

I choose to put my kids first.

it's funny that you stick with this hollow argument. Not a single mainstream argument has been made to make a rape victim carry a child to term. If that and the health of the mother were the only exceptions, I would jump for joy.

The 3000 or so abortions each year, although sad, would be a drop in the bucket compared to the million that occur now.

No, rape is not the only reason I support abortion.

I am not some huge Christian tool who honestly believes that everyone should think and act as I do. I am not so self-righteous that I pretend to know what is best for everyone else.

A 16 year old? How will a 16 yr old make any such "decision" if her creepy parents have never taught her right from wrong as many pro-abortion parents have failed to do?


Any parent who would influence her daughter to believe that rape justifies murder is harming her and leading her to commit an action that will stain her conscience.

They always love to trot out the rape and incest words to try and demonize the pro-life crowd.

It's an oft used tactic. That and insults to others intelligence with Sesame Street comments. :RollieEyes:

Right...except for the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

ah, and yet another insult to Christians.

Mods???

sorry, she expressed her PERSONAL beliefs...not a political platform. I guess you know the difference.

I understand that you morally oppose Roe and believe it is bad law, but what I was trying to get at is your position on the bombing of Planned Parenthood clinics or the murder of Doctors that perform abortions?

By disregarding the victims of rape and incest, you are doing a fine job of demonizing yourself.


Excuse me, I insulted a lack of intelligence.

Platform for Republicans

Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions

Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing

Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion

Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them

That's not an insult to all Christians, ***EDIT***.

I would never advocate murder.

Then why do you keep bringing up rape?

As far as your other comment. It just proves what I said to medc.

When in a corner start calling names. Very intelligent.

If that's the case, why did pro-lifers vote for her in droves?

Actually its an insult to secularists, because the implication is that only Christians know right from wrong.

I directly answered your question, and you can't address the rest of the quote.

If you're going to be self-righteous, at least have the cajones to admit to it.

I am against it for the sole reason that these types of actions would actually harm the pro-life movement in the long run. I shed not a single tear for an abortion doctor that gets whacked though. Tactically, it is a bad move...but I understand a persons pain that drives them to this act. I also understand the death penalty...but I oppose that as well.

WHY NOT? She has perfectly sound views on abortion. She objects to ALL ABORTIONS except when it threatens the LIFE of the mother, which is logically sound.

Yeah, right.

If I want to know right from wrong, the last person I'd seek out is a hardcore Christian.

baydog@zoominternet.net

let's chat about how big a baby I am Krazy.

They voted for McCain...just like people voted for Obama. I applaud her personal beliefs...many do. But again, that is not the party platform.

If you're really gonna be pro-life, stick to your guns.

Not even the life of the mother is worth snuffing out the life of a *sniffle* precious little baby.

If it was God's will for the mother to live, he'd make it so.

***edit***

I'm only as self righteous as you are.

You want people to be allowed to kill their babies.

I want babies to live.

We are both imposing our beliefs on nother human beings. But in my scenario they both get to live.

Hmmmm...I want both of those things.

that's what I thought. See Krazy, when I insult someone, I am willing to be a man about it adok them in the eye. You chose hide behind a keyboard.

Ahhh, a wisher.

***edit***

it doesn't appear as though I am the one hiding.

***edit***

If you could figure a way for the baby to be born while the mother can retain the choice of not being pregnant, then this is perfectly reasonable.

FWIW, they can do embryo transplants in animals. I have never heard of them attempting to do so in humans. Are there religious objections to that?

What kind of tool are you then?

i just want to be the last person to post before this thread gets locked!

The type who's pro-choice and not pro-abortion.

You know, what I don't get is why someone so disdainful of Christians comes to a Christian website to post anti-Christian rhetoric. There are only about a hundred thousand other places you could go share your beliefs; why choose here?

Well, I guess when it comes right down to it, I'm more tolerant than you are.

Sure they have their beliefs and they actually have their reasons for mandatory abortions. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them, just like you don't have to agree with mine.

And these "choices" oppose my belief that the mother should have freedom of control over her own body. As it is, the gov't is treating her like a 2nd rate broodmare strain that needs culling. I don't agree with this. That is what pro-choice is about.

I'm going to ignore the next 5 or so pages (probably more since I began typing this) as you guys are just exchanging insults and the thread will get locked anyway. Again it's too bad. The topic could have been a good one but if you just want to insult people rather than exchange ideas about what all sides have in common then that's what happens. I don't agree with Krazy's approach but I do understand where he's coming from.

I do not believe that transplants are possible once the mother has conceived in the womb. As too religious objections, it would depend on the religion.

there are things more important than our constitution. I also think that we are obligated to oppose unjust rule and laws. That is why this country was formed in the first place.

Iam, check this out: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4326505.html

I don't know much about it myself, though I have heard of it used in broodmares (top quality racing mares that had problems carrying their fetuses to term, so they transplant the embryos into another mare - not sure if the jockey club actually allows it or not but probably the resulting offspring can then become breeding stock).

Enough with the personal attacks! This thread is now locked.