Dismemberment Abortion

[Anglo-scot]

There is a religious moral case because life and parenthood are so precious , no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term.



Abortion is a Moral Decision by Rev. Debra W. Haffner



I believe that " The right of an individual to make their own choice about whether or not they will offer their body in the support of another organism is a moral good."
From this article:


Abortion is a Moral Decision by Rev. Debra W. Haffner

Improvisational morality. Put some high-sounding words together in some sort of order and try to make it sound logically coherent. I've got no respect for people who find their way into official Christian positions and then trash Christian morality.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I've never professed I didn't know when the UK act came into force. I know it was 1967. The stats I referenced show a steep climb in nos. of abortions from 1968 into the 80s. It's obvious that the liberalisation of the law paved the way for a vast increase in the number of abortions. On the other hand, no amount of sex education during that time has made a significant dent in the numbers. That some people to argue that pro-lifers are responsible in a repressive way for the current high numbers is plain ludicrous.

It's not obvious at all. What was illegal and hidden was now being seen, and as legal facilities improved, numbers increased.

 

[judith1]

I have explained my position but you don't want to accept it. All humans are equal, including unborn children. No-one has the right to kill another person, especially someone as weak and defenceless as an unborn child. This is a restriction of the mother's rights, of course, but one which is moral because it protects the life of another human being, namely her child.

My right to kill others is also restricted yet I don't complain about it. Husbands are punished if they kill their wives - yet another group of people rightly suffering restrictions to their liberties.

If societies choose to ignore the rights of the unborn, they tolerate and promote evil. I wish it were otherwise. If you feel that pro-life views are not Christian, then I suggest you take it up with religious leaders. I don't understand how killing an innocent baby because he or she is not wanted can ever be a Christian act.

awwwwww, poor you. Just so confused? You do not mind imposing your BELIEFS on any of us. If it so greatly concerns you, may I suggest some action your part? There are PLENTY fake abortion clinics run by Christians that dupe frightened young women and then, the methods they use are right up your alley. Just Youtube "fake abortion clinics." Maybe you can become a councelor....I mean, you know more than, say, most doctor's do! Just think of all the fetuses you will save. Much better chance saving the unborn at a place like that! Unless, of course, it's all an act. Actions always speak louder than words!

 

[Anglo-scot]

awwwwww, poor you. Just so confused? You do not mind imposing your BELIEFS on any of us. If it so greatly concerns you, may I suggest some action your part? There are PLENTY fake abortion clinics run by Christians that dupe frightened young women and then, the methods they use are right up your alley. Just Youtube "fake abortion clinics." Maybe you can become a councelor....I mean, you know more than, say, most doctor's do! Just think of all the fetuses you will save. Much better chance saving the unborn at a place like that! Unless, of course, it's all an act. Actions always speak louder than words!

Expressing opinions on a public forum is not imposing opinions. I read the first line of your post and saw the patronising and condescension so I won't bother debating with you.

 

[year2late]

I never argued it was legal fact. I have debated the morals. Others introduced the law to support their moral stance.

You backed up your moral stance with comments about out founding fathers being horrified of our "abortion culture".

Here is an example...

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu

REVOLUTIONARY SPIRITS: Faith, Politics, Opinion: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

 

[minnie616]

Improvisational morality. Put some high-sounding words together in some sort of order and try to make it sound logically coherent. I've got no respect for people who find their way into official Christian positions and then trash Christian morality.

The RCRC is not trashing Christian morality.
And I have no respect for people who call themselves Christians but who are intolerant of other mainline Christians religious tenets.

From the RCRC website...Religious Liberty.

Religious Liberty | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

Good policy is policy that allows for all people – regardless of their religious identity – to follow their own faith and conscience when directing the course of their life. When it comes to matters of reproductive health, RCRC believes that real religious liberty protects the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family, and her own faith. Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual.

Many Christian faiths and other religious groups hold beliefs that reproductive choice including access to legal abortion is a part of our religious tenet.

We believe that "Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. "

Here is a <SNIP> from an article about soul competency.

From a Huffington Post article:

Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion.
Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God.

Furthermore, it is a it is God-given right to hold your own belief and to reject state-sponsored religion. This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly. Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice. To restrict a woman's choice is to refuse her soul freedom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-schaper/most-women-under-40-haven_b_4360767.html

 

[judith1]

Expressing opinions on a public forum is not imposing opinions. I read the first line of your post and saw the patronising and condescension so I won't bother debating with you.

SHOCKER!!!! Justify your actions any way you want. Just another moral intruder.

 

[prometeus]

You describe my views as "bull crap" and "ignorant emotional banter".

Because that IS what they are. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that what you posted is anything more than what I kindly described them to be.

In that case, please don't waste your time debating with me.

I am not debating you, I do not believe that yo can rise to that. I was merely pointing out what your posts are. Perhaps you should learn from that as clearly you can not defend them with any facts or rational intelligent thinking. Please come back when you can.

 

[judith1]

SHOCKER!!!! Justify your actions any way you want. Just another moral intruder.

AND typical. You are talking about your Christian Beliefs! Christians have no problem telling people about THEIR beliefs, and are the first to use it if THEY are uncomfortable because someone is imposing their beliefs to them. I love how the men are the one's that really think they know more about a woman's than the woman does. It's morally arrogant. IMO- something you clearly are not able to grasp. BTW? This is not a Christian Theology Forum....Just sayin'

 

[nota bene]

You are equating the life of the child and the quality of life of the mother. Both are equally entitled to life in itself. No pro-lifer argues otherwise.

But this doesn't matter. As you will see, no matter how often this point is made, the claim will continue to be made that those who are pro-life care more about the unborn than the mother or only about the unborn. Then, of course, after the baby is born, those who are pro-life care nothing at all. Expect endless repetition of these lies.

 

[iangb]

Improvisational morality. Put some high-sounding words together in some sort of order and try to make it sound logically coherent. I've got no respect for people who find their way into official Christian positions and then trash Christian morality.

There is no such thing as *true* Christian morality. The morality of a particular Christian depends on their particular interpretation of the Bible, which varies from person to person - I don't think you can definitively state that your version is superior to everyone else's. There are a great many Christian sect which are pro-choice (you can certainly read the Bible, particularly the OT, to infer a pro-choice stance), and historically there is much disagreement on Christian attitudes to abortion. Certainly other Abrahamic religions, (Judaism and Islam) do not believe that abortion is a sin from the moment of conception onwards.

If you have your own interpretation, so be it - but you can't expect all other Christians to agree with you.

 

[scatt]

Elective abortions are not tax funded by law except in cases of rape or to save the woman's life.

Birth control is not tax funded.
The ACA allows women who are insured to get their prescription birth control with no co pay.

So abortions are funded by taxpayers.

PPACA also uses taxpayer funds for abortifacients, yes.

 

[MaggieD]

It was in the news the other day. Kansas tried to ban it, but it has staunch defenders. Here's one version of the story (I tried to find one that seemed reasonably reported).

Kansas judge blocks ban on so-called 'dismemberment abortion' procedure | US news | The Guardian

Think about it. Dismemberment. Carving the developing baby up and bringing it out in pieces. I honestly don't understand how anyone's fine with it.

Once a society decides it's not a living human being, we might as well use the aborted remains as dog food. Kind of surprises we don't, actually.

Some will answer for this horror.

 

[minnie616]

...

PPACA also uses taxpayer funds for abortifacients, yes.

No taxpayer funds are used for abortifacients.
The PPACA requires health insurance to cover all prescription birth control with no co pays. The insurance does not have to cover abortifacients.

 

[scatt]

No taxpayer funds are used for abortifacients.
The PPACA requires health insurance to cover all prescription birth control with no co pays. The insurance does not have to cover abortifacients.

Health insurance is another tax since it's required by law.

The insurance has to cover abortifacients unless the insurance is from a closely held company.

 

[minnie616]

Health insurance is another tax since it's required by law.

The insurance has to cover abortifacients unless the insurance is from a closely held company.

None of the birth control prescriptions covered by the PPACA are abortifacients.
If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby decision than all I can say is...

What were the 5 republican appointed SC Justices thinking when they decided the Hobby Lobby case?
The Hobby Lobby case decided that sincerely held beliefs about contraceptives don't even have to be medically accurate!

The Hobby Lobby ruling, affirming that the corporation’s deeply held beliefs” allowed them to declare certain contraceptives as abortifacients when in fact they were not, set a precedent whereby TST could firmly declare a protected belief in the illegitimacy of anti-abortion state-mandated materials.

The Satanic Temple seeks to bypass anti-abortion legislation through religious exemption

 

[scatt]

None of the birth control prescriptions covered by the PPACA are abortifacients.

What were the 5 republican appointed SC Justices thinking when they decided the Hobby Lobby case?

Several are.

At least one thought PPACA was constitutional, and the other thought gay marriage was constitutional. Have you thanked Reagan and Bush for that yet?

 

[Lursa]

I have explained my position but you don't want to accept it. All humans are equal, including unborn children. No-one has the right to kill another person, especially someone as weak and defenceless as an unborn child. This is a restriction of the mother's rights, of course, but one which is moral because it protects the life of another human being, namely her child.

My right to kill others is also restricted yet I don't complain about it. Husbands are punished if they kill their wives - yet another group of people rightly suffering restrictions to their liberties.

If societies choose to ignore the rights of the unborn, they tolerate and promote evil. I wish it were otherwise. If you feel that pro-life views are not Christian, then I suggest you take it up with religious leaders. I don't understand how killing an innocent baby because he or she is not wanted can ever be a Christian act.

I'm very aware of your position. And I didnt say your views werent Christian. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you do not expect law to be based on it or to force it on women. Because it is you that refuses to discuss both sides of the issue. You claim both are equal in your beliefs, but cannot discuss anyway that can be done in practice, nor can you justify the harm done to women by your position.

As I said, unless you can provide compelling reasons why the courts would reconsider their decision to allow women to have abortions, then you should feel free to express your opinion and then also realize that women are also allowed the right to do what is right for them. If they believe as you do, they wont have abortions. That's what choice means.

And if you kill a person, you are infringing on their right to life. And the govt can protect that right to life without infringing on the rights of someone else. As noted, the unborn have no rights (in the US). You cannot preserve the unborn, or even act on it, without infringing on the Constitutional and civil rights of the woman, all the way up to her life. Again, if you want abortion to be illegal (I'm not sure if you said that or not) then you must discuss the legal aspects of it.

Otherwise, I have presented some of points that support my perspective that forcing women to remain abortion is immoral. If you choose to discuss that, fine. You have completely ignored the woman's perspective in our discussion. To me, that and your firm stance that women should not be allowed to have abortions, indicates that you do truly value the unborn above women. (As you also do not address how they can be treated equally, practically or legally, if abortion were illegal).

 

[minnie616]

Several are.

...

The medical community disagrees.
Emergency contraception and IUDs are not abortifacients.

Facts are very important, especially when discussing the health of the American public. Contrary to assertions made by some, emergency contraception and IUDs do not cause abortions, and therefore are not abortifacients. Here are the scientific facts.
Emergency contraception (EC) does not cause medical abortions. A woman can take mifepristone to cause a medical abortion, terminating an early existing pregnancy. EC however only works before a pregnancy is established. Review of the scientific evidence suggests that EC cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. EC is not effective after implantation; it cannot end a pregnancy and is not an abortifacient.

Read more:

http://www.acog.org/-/media/Departm...eImportantEC.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150127T1149330103

 

[scatt]

The medical community disagrees.

There is no medical community that has ever claimed proper use of these products will never result in an abortion.

 

[Lursa]

I have explained my position

Otherwise, I have presented some of points that support my perspective that forcing women to remain pregnant abortion is immoral. If you choose to discuss that, fine. You have completely ignored the woman's perspective in our discussion. To me, that and your firm stance that women should not be allowed to have abortions, indicates that you do truly value the unborn above women. (As you also do not address how they can be treated equally, practically or legally, if abortion were illegal).

Sorry, fixed.

 

[Lursa]

I discussed the balance and why I came down on the morality of supporting women and preserving their lives and futures. You seem to dismiss them completely. Not remotely Christian.

Sorry, I guess I did say this but was referring to your implied views on women and the free will God gave us all and that you seem to completely dismiss their lives and pain and right to self-determination and fulfilling their potentials. But I didnt mean that your overall views were not Christian, just that the lack of empathy for women seemed unChristian.

 

[Lursa]

But this doesn't matter. As you will see, no matter how often this point is made, the claim will continue to be made that those who are pro-life care more about the unborn than the mother or only about the unborn.

Well you have had many opportunities to show us how both could be treated equally in our society, practically and/or legally, and have never done so.

Why? Or, will you do so for us now?

Otherwise, my statement stands as true.

 

[Removable Mind]

I have explained my position but you don't want to accept it. All humans are equal, including unborn children. No-one has the right to kill another person, especially someone as weak and defenceless as an unborn child. This is a restriction of the mother's rights, of course, but one which is moral because it protects the life of another human being, namely her child.

My right to kill others is also restricted yet I don't complain about it. Husbands are punished if they kill their wives - yet another group of people rightly suffering restrictions to their liberties.

If societies choose to ignore the rights of the unborn, they tolerate and promote evil. I wish it were otherwise. If you feel that pro-life views are not Christian, then I suggest you take it up with religious leaders. I don't understand how killing an innocent baby because he or she is not wanted can ever be a Christian act.

All humans are not equal. That's a fact that you choose to deny.

 

[JayDubya]

When abortion is prosecuted exactly the same as any other homicide, then the born and unborn will be treated equally.