Partial-Birth Abortion Defined

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Artimaeus, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read this short article from the LEXINGTON-HERALD LEADER . If you can read this article, especially the last paragraph, and still do not believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, then I have absolutely NO confidence in your ability to discern right and wrong. I am embarrassed that you call yourself a Christian. I am embarrassed you that call yourself a Baptist. I am embarrassed that you call yourself a human being. Death to "Roe v. Wade"

    ATTENTION MODERATORS: I hereby give my permission for posters to be as blunt, mean, rotten, vicious, and nasty as they please (THIS THREAD ONLY) toward me, excluding profanity.
     
  2. delly

    delly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Artimaeus, I just can't understand how anyone could call themselves a Christian, much less a Baptist, if they believe in a woman's right to kill her child. This is absolutely so horrible, I can't imagine how any woman, who has any caring for children, could consent to this brutal act.
    I submit that any woman who carries a child to full term cannot be in danger of losing her life at that stage. There are far too many medical services in this world to allow that to happen.

    I disdain those who call themselves pro-choice. That's just another term for pro-death.

    I do think a woman has a right to choose, but only whether to become pregnant or not. We have access to so many types of birth control in this country, there is little reason to become pregnant unless one has no self control or just plain stupid. I've always thought the best birth control was to keep one's knees together.

    God gave all of us the ability to control our actions, but so many use that old excuse, "I just couldn't control myself" as a reason for doing whatever they want, then they cry when the consequences of their sinful actions is a child. I don't know how they could justify abortion at any stage, unless it was stricly to save the mother's life, then everything possible should be done to save both lives.
    There is absolutely no reason for killing a child one minute before it is due to be born. It is really odd that one can kill a child just before birth and it's perfectly legal, but kill it one minute after birth and it's murder.

    For those who whine about pregnancy from rape, there is a simply solution. If you are raped, go to the emergency room. They can take care of it then and there. They can't make you charge anyone if you don't want to but you are stupid if you don't. Why let the one who raped you do it to other women.

    To Christians who believe in pro-choice, I would ask how you can say a woman's body is her own to choose. The Bible says our bodies are temples and that we are not our own, but we belong to God. We need to quit teaching young women that this sin is okay and start teaching them to be responsible to God and themselves. It doesn't take a lot of brains to follow the "herd" mentality.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Artimaeus, I think everyone knows what the partial birth abortion procedure consists of. However, many PBA opponents have implied that this prucedure is legal up to full term. It is not. Generally, elective abortion is illegal after the 6th month. That includes elective PBA's. Unfortunately, I have personally seen several prolife fundraising groups make it sound that elective PBA's are legal upto full term. While I'm sure this generates a lot of fundraising, it does so on an inplied falsehood. As honorable as their intentions are in regards to the pro-life movement, their methods in this case are not completely honest.

    Now, in regards to Roe v Wade, you appear to again have accepted the false notion that Roe legalized abortion. It did not. It was legal, however individual states were allowed to regulate or restrict the practice. Many states allowed abortions in the 1st and second trimesters (the second trimester is the national limit now). I'm in favor of Roe v Wade on the issue that was brought before them, but I'm not in favor of elective aboortions being legal up to the second trimester. Overturning Roe will not make abortions illegal.
     
  4. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seriously doubt that, though a majority probably do at least have a vague general idea.

    I did not imply that partial-birth abortions were elective proceedures up to full term. I merely stated that they were legal and the taking of a human life.

    I have read the decision (The Cliff notes Version). Texas said it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion except to save the life of the mother and the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional. What was illegal is Texas has been overturned and because of that ruling it is now legal. I have no interest in arguing legal semantics or technicalities. Milions of abortions which would have been illegal are now legal as a direct result of Roe v. Wade

    A: Abortion is the taking of a human life.
    B: Abortion is not the taking of a human life.
    Pick one. If the answer is A then I fail to see how that can be reconciled with being in favor of Roe v. Wade, pleas explain. If the answer is B then, I stand by my embarrassment.

    Perhaps not but, it would be as significant a step in the right direction as the original decision was in the wrong direction. Society has now deteriorated to the point that states would not revert to their pre 1973 resolve of protecting children.
     
  5. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Delly, you Go girl!

    [​IMG]

    Diane
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Roe v Wade was primarily centered around an issue of privacy. That is, whether individual states regulating abortion differently violated the implied right of privacy present in several amendments. The issue of whether abortion is taking a human life was moot, since some states allowed it, and some did not. Roe v Wade was not arguing whether abortion itself was appropriate. Rather it argued whether it was constitutionally proper to allow states to vary on the issue. The court decided they could not. On that precept, I agree with the court. What I do not agree with is the lack of the Federal Government to make any legislation following the RvW decision to further regulate or restrict abortions nationwide. Then again, if they had done that, the states where abortions were legal up to 6 months would be screaming.

    Actually, you're wrong about that. If Roe were overturned, legislation that was on the books at that time (unless that legislation has been altered by new legislation) would go into effect. But I don't think Roe should be overturned. I think legislation to regulate abortions more restrictively should be introduced at the federal level. The problem with the PBA ban that has been at issue lately is the lack of health exepion clause. Had a health exception clause been included, it likely would have been upheld. Bill Clinton refused to sign similar legislation because of the lack of the health exception clause. He said very succinctly, that if they include such a clause, he would sign it. They did not include it, and he refused to sign the bill. When GW Bush signed this same legislation, I stated on this board that it would likely be overturned due to the lack of the health exception clause. And it was. This legislation was nothing more than a flexing of muscle to attract voters, not to mention a big waste of time. If congress were serious about the issue, they would be reintroducing the same legislation with a health exception clause. But they're not serious about the issue.
     
  7. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Privacy was the nail that the majority hung their hat on to decide the issue but the issue was and is the right of a woman to kill her unwanted and unthreatening unborn baby. The Supreme Court said, yeah, sure, go ahead.

    It is important but, irrelevant to the outcome as to WHY the Supreme Court said it was alright to kill 30 million babies and counting, the point is, they said it was OK. It was and is an extreme stretch of the concept of privacy, a fact not lost on the minority decision of the court.

    Abortion should not be regulated. It should be treated for what it is, the taking of a human life.

    I'll leave it to the lawyers to sort out the details of what happens immdeiately the day after it is overturned but the end result when the dust is settled will be that states will merely adopt something similar to what is commonly practiced nationally now and the final result will not be much of an improvement.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    She already had the right to do that if she were to travel to another state. That was the nail the case hinged upon, not whether abortion itself should be okay.

    Again, a typical pro-life propaganda statement. Abortion was legal before Roe, yet the pro-life movemenet so often throws out the "30 million" number to make us think that if Roe v Wade had gone the other way, the number would be zero. That's a complete fallacy.

    I disagree. I personally don't think that individual states should vary on the topic. I think it should be consistent from state to state (note, however, that I disagree that elective abortion should be legal upto 6 months).

    That's a matter of opinion. I happen to share that opinion, but it's still a matter of opinion. However, the fact is that abortion has never been illegal across the board. Not before Roe, not after. If Roe is overturned, then abortion will still not be illegal. Some states may
    Since many here on the bb have argued that it's a states rights issue, they'll say that this would be a good thing. I can understand that POV. However, what I said earlier stands as factual: If Roe is overturned, state laws that were in effect at the time of Roe will go into effect again, and no additional legislation will be required, unless the states choose to reexamine the issue for their state.
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    As someone who was saved later in life and spent most of her adult years being pro-choice, I just would like, in Christian love, to call your attention to this statement. This kind of attitude does come across from some Christian pro-lifers to unsaved people and makes them even more entrenched in their views and anti-Christian feelings.

    Christians should disdain sin but not people. I was looked down on by some Christians before I was saved and it had an impact on me. I was still accountable to God for rejecting Christ -- I will always say that. But we are told to speak the truth in love.

    I had a child (after scheduling and then cancelling an abortion) while being a pro-choicer and was able to rationalize abortion due to my spiritual worldview at the time. Christians need to realize that people are blinded (and scritpure says this) by their false views. Accountable, yes, but also blinded (I am not making excuses for them).

    I did not become pro-life until I was saved and it took about a year for me process the whole thing. I was very quiet about it because I knew that to question anything pro-life would bring, at the least, confusion from other Christians and maybe even condemnation. I was afraid to say the wrong thing, yet God was gently working on me and opened my eyes to why abortion is wrong. [​IMG]

    When I do talk to pro-choice people who are not saved, I try as much as possible to use it as way to talk about God and Christ. I start with the fact we are made in the image of God and what that means.

    I think JohnV is right -- there were many states where abortion was legal before Roe v Wade. If it wasn't so in your state, you just traveled to another state.

    Dealing with believers who are pro-choice is a whole other deal. I actually have had little experience with that.

    I hope everyone sees that this message was posted out of love -- love for the Savior who saved me, love for the unborn, love for my fellow believers standing for truth, and love for those blinded as I was. But it is a love I only know from Christ loving me. [​IMG]
     
  10. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Art, agree 100% with the Original Post!
     
  11. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Johnv sez:
    I had just as soon the "legalities" be left as is, rather than some nebulous loop-hole (similar to the disabilities act :mad: ) like health exceptions
    When this first became "THE LAW OF THE LAND", if my memory serves correctly, it was to be limited to the first tri-mester. That don't mean squat now, does it?

    Same thing will transpire re: the "health exclusion". Every infanticide addict in and out of the established "ABORTION INDUSTRY" will have um-teen dozen "illnesses/conditions/parameters" that will qualify as "HEALTH EXCLUSIONS". The only real difference is that there will be one more form for the killer(s) to fill out!
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. There are, whether we like it or not, non-lifethreatening health exceptions for having an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies are a common exception. A mother should not be required to have her fallopian tube rupture and be on her death bead in order for her to obdain a medically necessary abortion. Anencephalic fetuses are another example. Dead fetuses are another. In these cases, the body typically miscarries the fetus. I don't think a pregnant woman should be required to wait until her body miscarries. In the ideal world, all babies would be born healthy, and all pregnancies would be miscarriage and complication free. But this is not the real world. If a doctor deems an abortion as medically appropriate, then a mother should be allowed to decide make the choice to have one or not. Certainly, there will be those who say "there's no such thing as a medically necessary abortion", but that is a person's opinion at best. We can't call for something being illegal or restricted based on personal opinion, nor can we call for something being illegal because it conflicts with our religious reasons.
     
  13. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    She did not have the right in Texas. She wasn't the slightest bit interested in attaining equality among the states. She wanted to be able to have an abortion in Texas and she won that right.

    I apologize for using a generalized number. the last estimate I saw through Dec. 31, 2001, was 40,985,400 or 1,463,764 per year. From 1967, when the first states started relaxing their abortion laws, through 1973 with they were legalized nationwide a total of 1,884,100 or 314,017 per year were performed. Does my using the more accurate number of 32,192,916 for the number of abortions over and above those that would have been performed without Roe v. Wade make it more palletable. I know, other laws may have been passed by various states to change the exact number but, the idea is the same. Even considering the "hard cases" (rape, incest, unacceptable qulity of life babies, etc.) that reduces the number to only 32,031,951 babies aborted for the convenience of the mother

    I agree. I just think they should all be equally restrictive and not eqaully lenient.
     
  14. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Killing an unborn baby is murder and I don't care at what stage it is done.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    DH,

    We totally agree on something.
     
  16. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that the stage is irrelevant and that it is killing a human being but, killing is not always murder. Self-defense, justifiable homicide, war, etc. is not murder. The unborn should be accorded the same protections as all other human beings. To purposely take the life of an innocent human being is murder.
     
  17. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I am neither hateful nor nasty. I have friends who sadly have had abortions. I think it's sad. What if that child could have grown up and cured cancer, aids, or lead us into peace.

    It is a human life. BUT, i'm for stem cell research. But, instead of getting rid of the embryo's I think that they should allow them to grow and be born, so that someone who is without a child, may have one. There are so many good parents out there without children who want them deserpately. They want to matter in a child's life.

    sometimes I wish there was a way to transfer a child from the body of a woman who dosen't want it, to the body of a woman who does.

    I know I know my mind is warped :rolleyes:
     
  18. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would never think that merely because you disagreed with me on something. When you read my response, please, understand that my emotion is strong about the issue but, my "voice" is calm toward you. I would never carelessly hurt your feelings.

    Sad is waaaaay too mild of a word to be used about abortion. Every 20 seconds a little baby's heartbeat is stopped by someone who is committing cold blooded murder just because they can. It is a travesty, a prime example of the horrible result of a warped and twisted and evil mentality. We, Christians, need to stop playing into their hands by adopting their words and phrases and political correctness. We need to be very straightforward about this unjustifiable homicide.

    I am all for research but, not at the expense of these babies. I have no problem with people donating their organs or their entire bodies to science. However, stem cell research is being used as a point of justification in saying, "See, there is some good about abortion". Not you, Lea, but those who are seeking to justify it.

    Having a desire for a good outcome is never warped. We all should be so warped all the time.
    :D
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,179
    Likes Received:
    325
    I once read an early Church Father who said that killing a baby in the womb is so awful that "murder" is too good a name for it (or words to that effect).

    Isaiah 1:18
    Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

    HankD
     
  20. sdcoyote

    sdcoyote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    But let's be sure to remember that God loves those who have committed murder in the past - indeed - he saved Saul.

    I want to share this testimony -

    Three years ago, one of my college students (non christian) had an abortion her freshman year. She later told me she had also had an abortion in high school.

    After it was over she came to speak to me about it. I could tell that her spirit was being convicted. She was riddled with guilt and shame. Truly, she was ready to take her own life. I really had never known the impact that abortion has on the women who receive them until I spoke with this young woman.

    Anyway, I did not judge her; I told her God loved her, but the seed, to my knowledge, did not germinate into acceptance of Christ.

    Last fall, she came to me talk to me once again, pregnant. What a blessing God granted me to be able to discuss with her the many options open to her other than murder.

    Anyway during the midst of the conversation, I blurted out to her that my wife and I would take the child, no questions asked, if that was her choice. I had not even spoken to my wife about it, but knowing my wife's attitude toward abortion and love of children, I knew that she would agree with the decision.

    The girl later told me that it was that statement which convinced her to not kill the baby.

    Although, eventually, she decided to let her mother & dad (who are Christian) raise the child, the Lord taught me a valuable lesson that day.

    Pro-life folks must not just be demonstrators at clinics or preachers behind pulpits. Actually, I think sometimes that can be detrimental to the cause. They must be you and me, willing to accept the responsibility for someone else's mistakes.

    After all, isn't that what Christ did for all of us?
     

Share This Page

Loading...