| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| being pro life outside the political arena | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 12 2008, 06:24 AM (4,740 Views) | |
| Axtremus | Nov 15 2008, 04:49 AM Post #226 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I looked at that last night and tried to correlate the above with this: http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm (It summarizes different countries' abortion laws.) I gave up because it's too late last night... any one wants to have a go at it, feel free.
|
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Nov 15 2008, 04:51 AM Post #227 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
we're number 1, we're number 1... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_pro_of_rea_65_mal-health-probability-reaching-65-male |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 15 2008, 05:12 AM Post #228 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It isn't a question of "claiming moral superiority." It's a question of upholding a moral issue that transcends individuals and individual circumstances, and which in my particular instance, I believe comes from God.
Yes, as is the additional concept of knowing that there are some principles that should not be compromised. There are times when compromise is the least mature and intelligent human action. ====
I don't know about other people, but I don't base my moral opinions on what I think I can achieve, but on what I believe is right or wrong. As to what I "can achieve," I'll do whatever I can to "achieve" minimizing abortions - provided that doing "whatever I can" doesn't necessitate me giving up the underlying position that abortion is killing a human life, and that ultimately, it is morally wrong in all but the rarest of cases.
No, the root cause of the problem is that people want to live according to whatever standards they set for themselves, with no further or higher accountability or responsibility. The explosion of cases of abortion are just one of many manifestations of this single underlying problem. Human beings think that they are the measure of the universe, and that their reason, logic, and desires are the ultimate standard - the only standard - that need be adhered to or respected. And if problems arise from applying those standards, all they need to do is modify the standards. In short, the problem is that human beings want to be God.
Speaking for myself, I'm not shouting, and I haven't "heard" anyone else shouting in this thread. But the fact remains: there are some issues in life that are lines in the sand, where any adult has to make a stand and say, "this is wrong, there is no compromise." That's guaranteed to make people on the other side upset, or angry, or feel like they're being "preached" at. But the correctness of a moral value is not determined by how many people are put off by its content. In fact, most moral values are things that don't come naturally to people, but rather, run contrary to our natural instinct, desire and self-interest. You seem to think that pro-life advocates wouldn't welcome anything less than a full legal ban on abortion. I'm not sure where that's coming from. With only a few exceptions, the vast majority of abortion limitation legislation proposed around the country has been compromising half-steps - things like banning partial-birth abortion, saving the lives of "aborted" children who have been born live, providing counseling regarding the alternative of having a child and giving it up for adoption, requiring parental consent for minors to receive an abortion, etc. And at every step of the way, these compromise measures have been opposed by the abortion-rights proponents, who give no quarter for even the most sane of limitations. Even the most strident pro-life person would welcome any of these compromise measures, and would be willing to accept such a "compromise" because it doesn't require compromise of the core moral value that they uphold. The same willingness to compromise has not been shown on the other side of the debate. Quite the opposite. There is indeed one side in this debate who is the most strident, preachy, and unwilling to accept legislative compromise. And it isn't the pro-life side. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 15 2008, 05:25 AM Post #229 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Don't bet on it. ![]() IT, a friendly suggestion: perhaps you can considering reading up more about IVF practices and procedures before continuing down this path of discussion. As a matter of practice, and with good practical and medically sound reasons given the state of the art, most (if not all) IVF procedures produce more fertilized eggs than what gets implanted into women's wombs. If one holds that "life begins at conception" and equate "conception" with the fertilization of an ovum, then it logically follows that IVF is, in effect, a procedure that deliberately creates and then kills lives. The way to get out of that is to define "conception" as something that begins at "implantation" (i.e., attachment to the uterine wall), not at "fertilization". The consequence down this path is that (1) Uniting one sperm and one egg is not "creating life" by itself. A "zygote" is "not life," "not human." A blastocyst is "not life", "not human," until it is implanted in the womb. (2) The use of some types of morning-after pills (the types that prevent the implantation of fertilized ovum) cannot be equated as "abortion" or "termination of life", while some other types of pills that terminates the development of an implanted blastocyst can still be equated with "abortion" or "termination of life." So, IT (and Luke's Dad, and M&M, and Copper, and Dewey, and who ever likes to claim that "life begins at conception), what's your view on this? Can you accept that uniting one sperm and one egg is not "creating life" by itself, that a "zygote" is "not life," "not human," that a blastocyst is "not life", "not human," until it is implanted in the womb? If you cannot accept the above, would you still allow IVF as practiced today knowing such procedures routinely create and destroy "human lives" intentionally and deliberately? |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 15 2008, 05:36 AM Post #230 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'll jump in.
No, I believe that this is indeed human life - human life destined to die if not implanted into a womb, but human life regardless. Beyond the fact that our mortality is actually part of the definition of humanity, there are many children who are born destined to die shortly after birth, and that fact did nothing to define them as something other than human.
Yes, and I'll go a step further. The surplus embryos thus created should not simpy be destroyed, but should be used in scientific/medical research. I don't believe that human embryos should be created specifically for this purpose, but in the case of a human embryo destined for destruction, this would be the most noble way for the embryo to be used - in short, the embryo would be sacrificed in the hopes of helping others, rather than discarded with yesterday's newspaper. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Nov 15 2008, 05:43 AM Post #231 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Is anyone going to accept the fact that from time immemorial this is a choice women have made and will continue to make in the future? Or are we just supposed to sit on our big throne on high and say "NO"? Women will still do it. Restrictions are OK IMHO. This obsession to will abortion away through the law is a non-starter. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 15 2008, 05:46 AM Post #232 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Not much IVF or that kind of stuff down here. Being backwards as we are, we engage in a more basic form of procreation. As for what Mr. Jolly Sr. thinks, I dunno. I'll ask him, next seance we have at the house... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 15 2008, 05:50 AM Post #233 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Speaking of apple, I notice she's pretty much stayed out of her creation.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 15 2008, 05:59 AM Post #234 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Wise woman |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Nov 15 2008, 06:09 AM Post #235 |
|
one of the angels
|
a couple things.. I have a friend, a 46 yr. old mother who suddenly and tragically died this week. I've been helping out. ---------------------- I originally posted this topic as a genuine solicitation of ideas. I am a member of my church's council and the Rome has been sending quite a lot of prolife chatter our way. Bishops are denying communion to those who voted for Obama (of course this is a voluntary punishment). Articles proclaiming the sanctity of life appear in the periodicals. Personally I believe life starts when it starts and abhor the semantics that attempt to determine viability for the convenience of living humans. That discussion is not really pertinent to reducing abortion. It seems that stridently proclaiming moral superiority has not helped the pro-life sector one bit. The choice people more strongly fight and proclaim their rights. It would be tres cool if the right would agree to sex education that works and the left would incorporate morality, responsibility, and perhaps a willingness to embrace the notion that life is 'sacred' (even if they have no clue what that means). It would be tres cool if Planned Parenthood could operate on the same street as a unwed mother's home. |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 15 2008, 06:19 AM Post #236 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Planned Parenthood is founded upon many of the same principles that created Auschwitz. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 15 2008, 06:25 AM Post #237 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
|
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 15 2008, 06:28 AM Post #238 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, these are the follow-ups to your response: (a) Those "human lives" were not just "destined to die," they were intentionally and deliberately put to death. (b) If you can accept "unwanted human lives created during IVF" being put to death, why can you not accept "unwanted human lives created during sex" being put to death?
In case, it follows that (c) You are actually OK with the performing experiments and the destruction of "innocent human lives" as long as such "innocent human lives" (i) never made it out of the petri dish, and (ii) were created with the intention of developing some into adulthood. (d) If you pins the coherence of your position on "having the intention" to actually develop a human life to adulthood (i.e., it's OK to create a bunch of innocent human lives and then destroy most of them, provided that there is an "intention" to eventually develop at least one of them to adulthood), then it should also be very simple for you to accept selective abortions (i.e., abort a baby because of congenital defects, because of gender, etc.). After all, a couple can, through a series of pregnancies, create a bunch of innocent human lives, and then selectively abort those with congenital defects or those not having the right gender or the right eye or hair color, as long as they have the "intention" to eventually develop at least one of them to adulthood. I put the above in very stark terms (I could have soften it using different words), but that's essentially what it is without verbal sugar-coating. I do think that you are being very pragmatic with those "extra" fertilized eggs. And in my book, pragmatism is good. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 15 2008, 06:30 AM Post #239 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Stupidity hangs in the air with some like a fog.. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 15 2008, 06:32 AM Post #240 |
|
MAMIL
|
When someone compares my viewpoint to those of Nazi sympathisers I'm afraid that I take exception. When someone tries to tell me that use of the morning-after pill is morally equivalent to a late-term abortion, or worse, infanticide, I take exception. No Dewey, both sides are strident and preachy. The sad thing is that neither side can see this. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 15 2008, 06:36 AM Post #241 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Sorry, Jolly. I did not know that Mr. Jolly Sr. has passed away. Thank you for your response. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 15 2008, 06:40 AM Post #242 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Who here has denied the historical reality that families - not only women - have opted to abort their unborn children throughout the ages? Or are you trying to make the (obviously incorrect) argument that simply having done so, and that the activity will continue into the future, makes an action morally correct?
"NO", what? "No," that it hasn't happened? "No," that it won't happen in the future - regardless of the law? No one needs to be perched on a throne to hold to certain moral values and say "No," this behavior isn't in accord with that value. We consider countless things in our lives wrong, both morally and legally, that nonetheless happen all the time. The argument to consider something morally acceptable simply because "people are going to do it anyway" is the most illogical, and intellectually empty, argument possible.
I know many pro-life people, and to a person, I don't know of a single one who thinks that abortion will be eliminated by making it more difficult to legally obtain. To a person, they - and I - believe that abortion is a symptom of a greater problem, the one I referred to previously. Some of them see it as a strictly moral issue, and think that perhaps that moral value can be instilled through improved education. Most of them, however, see it as a spiritual issue - that no amount of education, exhortation, or legislation will solve the underlying need for the transformation of a person's heart and life - the transformation of a person's ultimate allegiance, from serving only one's self (or even only a particular society), and offering one's allegiance to God, and living out one's life in accord with God's teaching regarding the preciousness of all human life. It is only this inner transformation given by God, not any imposed human laws, which will reduce the tragic number of abortions. Even in the case of those who have had such a transformation, and hold to a more permissive opinion of when abortion might be morally acceptable, the kinds of compromise that are needed to make our abortion laws even somewhat more humane would be possible. As it is, there is no tolerance for any sort of compromise from the abortion-rights contingent. Moral compromise is not possible. But legal compromise is possible, provided both sides are willing to compromise. The facts show that on the legal side of the issue, one side is willing to compromise, and the other is not. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 15 2008, 06:51 AM Post #243 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If a one-cell fetus is a life, and if killing a fetus is killing a human being, how could you possibly accept less? How can the circumstances matter if you are deliberately killing an innocent human being? Given the belief system that you've described, there's no way logically to believe that you'll accept anything less than a full ban. IT said that child abuse is not as heinous as murder, and you didn't chime in and say he was wrong. Presumably, rape and incest are no worse than child abuse, and therefore not as heinous as murder. Consequently, a woman who has been raped or the victim of incest should not be allowed to abort the child she is carrying, because to abort that child would be murder, and murder is worse than rape or incest. And, if life truly begins at conception, killing that life on day 1 or day 2 ... for example, with a morning after pill ... is just as bad as aborting it at seven months. Either way, it's a life. Moreover, the logical consequence of your belief system is that some forms of birth control, like the IUD, are also murder ... because the fetus is already formed, they just prevent it from implanting. That's why the pro-choice groups feel the need to draw the line in the sand. They know what your ultimate goal is, even if you try to hide it behind a smokescreen of half measures. Me, I'd be happy with some half measures. A reasonable shot at identifying when life begins, for example. Parental notification and consent. All of that places me squarely at odds with the women's rights groups ... so be it. But the true believers in the pro-life camp can't live with those half measures. It's just the first bite of the apple, as far as they are concerned. And do you know how else we know that the major pro-life groups wouldn't accept anything less than a full legal ban on abortion? Because they say so. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 15 2008, 07:05 AM Post #244 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Exactly. There is no arguing with someone who equates a fertilized egg with a human life. Destruction of human life = murder. Where's the room for compromise? What you fail to acknowledge, Dewey, is that the issue has already been compromised. Roe v. Wade, as imperfect a case is it might be drew a time line for permissible vs. non permissible abortions. That very liberal court struggled with the difficult moral question and struck a compromise between a woman's right to privacy over the most personal and profound issue she might ever face, and the sanctity of human life. That *was* a compromise. As Quirt points out, the goal of the anti-choice camp is to take that option off the table. The only reason that the pro-choice camp has become so strident is because they are defending their ground, which the anti-choice side is cunningly trying to chip away at - piece by piece. Personally, I would have no problem with additional restrictions, such as notice requirements, banning partial birth abortion (which was extremely rare anyway) and even reducing the gestational limit. But, the strident pro-choicers are not willing to compromise because they recognize the ultimate goal of the anti movement, and feel that each concession brings them one step closer to the anti-choice goal of a total ban on abortions (except for the more liberal minded of them, in cases of rape or incest). So, Dewey, what compromises do you think would satisfy the majority of the anti-choice group? |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 15 2008, 07:32 AM Post #245 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
You know, as wrong as I think it would be, I would not even get too excited if Roe v. Wade was overturned. I do believe it would be unfortunate, because I do think that the right to privacy should be within our constitutional protections. But, if it was overturned, all that would mean is that the states would be able to enact laws banning abortion. Certainly, some would. But, just as many, and probably even more, wouldn't. Of course, that won't stop the anti-choice movement. No, there already has been plenty of talk about constitutional amendments defining human life as beginning when egg meets sperm (See the Illinois statute that the fanatic right has held up as proof that Obama is a baby killer) . That would de facto criminalize all abortion at whatever stage. Man, we suddenly would be a nation in which a huge percentage of its womenfolk were murderers. 40% of all women between the ages of 40 and 55 have had an abortion. An estimated 1/3 of all women will have had an abortion. That sure would be a lot of wizened criminals walking in our midst. The good news is that even though abortion remains legal, the rates have gone down significantly over the past 20-30 years. Hmmm - maybe sex education and availability of contraception have made a difference. Statistics on abortion rates in US |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 15 2008, 07:47 AM Post #246 |
|
MAMIL
|
Worse than that - since a life is a life, the use of the morning after pill is as bad as killing a school child, and therefore presumably worthy of being punishable by the death sentence. Of course, with the morning after pill, you're not absolutely sure whether the murder has taken place or not - it's Schrodingers baby, so I guess life in prison would be a more appropriate sentence. From this layman's perspective, this argument is rather counter-intuitive. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Nov 15 2008, 07:57 AM Post #247 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
And let me add that rights carry the burden of responsibilities. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Nov 15 2008, 07:57 AM Post #248 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Nothing to be sorry about...I mentioned it here, but I don't talk about it very much...both my mother and father are dead. There's an old saying, that one is not truly a man until his father has died. As with many old sayings, there's a bit of truth there... Back to the scheduled discussion.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Nov 15 2008, 08:02 AM Post #249 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
You're confusing welcome with accept. We welcome any step that reduces the number of abortions. That doesn't mean that we don't feel there's still more to do. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 15 2008, 08:02 AM Post #250 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
They are destined to die if they are not placed in an environment that will enable them to continue to term. In this case, the term "destined to die" is one of biological, not theological, definition. Further, the terms "destined to die" and "deliberately put to death" are not mutually exclusive, not in this case, or many others.
Because the "unwanted human lives" caused by IVF were created in the process of, and with the intent of, creating life. Destroying an unwanted human life conceived during sex has no corresponding noble component - just the opposite, actually.
Yes. In fact, I believe that is not only OK, but is, perhaps, the only loving and noble thing to do with them.
No, your parallel is flawed. If you want to ask me about the morality of performing an abortion of one or more fetuses, while saving one or more in a multiple pregnancy, in order to save the life of the mother or the surviving fetuses, that would be an accurate parallel. Deciding to destroy the life of a single child in the womb, strictly on the basis of congenital defect or gender is not even close to the same situation. I have no sympathy for any parents who would abort a child simply based on the child's sex. I have enormous sympathy for parents who struggle with a pregnancy where the unborn child is determined to likely, or actually, have birth defects. To some extent, my family has had to deal with this very question. But even in this case, I do not think that the decision to abort is the morally correct decision, even while I'm convinced that many, if not most, of these decisions are made out of love and concern for the unborn child. I accept the sincerity and love of parents in this terrible situation, and I don't claim to understand why a loving God allows it to occur. Still, I believe it is the more correct position to choose in favor of the child's life, even then. And I say that without hatred, condemnation, or accusation, and in a spirit of love to people here, who from past conversations I know have faced this exact situation in even more stark terms than I. What I actually pin my position on is "the rule of love." As I've explained before, I believe that this is the fundamental rule that God has given humanity, and trying to apply the "rule of love" is the most reliable, while admittedly not perfect, way to see where God is in any given situation. I don't believe that to choose to kill another human life on grounds of the potential material difficulty that the child's existence would cause to the parents is consistent with the rule of love, because I believe love of life trumps love of physical circumstances. In fact, I want to say this. Many people who have wrestled with the issue of aborting because of birth defects have suffered the remainder of their lives with guilt and second-guessing about their decision. As much as I believe that such a decision is ultimately wrong, I also believe that God understands the heart. These parents were genuinely trying to follow the "rule of love." If such a decision was truly made out of love and concern for the unborn child, I am convinced that God will honor that intent. As Thomas Merton once prayed, "... the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you..." In a circumstance like that, I'm convinced that the unborn child is fully in God's loving care, and the remaining concern is that the parents' lives must now not be destroyed by that decision. The parents need assurance that God loves them, and honors the intent of their decision. I'll go even further along that line. Even for people who have opted for an abortion solely on matters of personal comfort or lifestyle upheaval, there are many who wrestle with guilt over that decision for years. These people need to know that their unborn children are also in God's loving embrace as well, and that God's love and forgiveness is available to them also, as it is for me despite my own many blunders and acts which have grieved God's heart. And having been forgiven, they - and I - need to be able to let go of the guilt, to accept God's love and forgiveness. Seeing a second life destroyed because of an abortion decision only makes the situation more tragic.
No, I'm not being pragmatic at all. I'm trying to find the highest application of the Rule of Love. I'm simply trying to find where God is in the situation. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |













4:26 PM Jul 10