No One on this Board Supports Abortion

To be more specific - we saw a steady increase until 1990 (Bush1). Then it started decreasing, with a sharp drop in 1994-1995 (Clinton). A gradual drop continues until the present.

Fig 3, which I linked to, actually shows the same trend, with the only difference being in the abortions performed on girls under the age of 15.

 

Yet, you supported and voted for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

I am against abortion, but I would make an exception where the life of the mother is concerned.

You said, "Even so it does not justify killing one to save the other." I agree, it does not justify killing the mother to save the baby.

 

I praise God that we are indeed in a time when medical science is such that it is rare that we have to make the decision between saving the mother OR the baby.

I also pray that very few of us will ever be in the situation to have to make the decision between saving the mother OR the baby. Being pro-life means that both lives are precious. This is a decision that I would agonize over.

 

Wonderful response! Thank you!

 

Excuses? Not a chance. Just because a person believes that women shouldn't die as a complication of a pregnancy that is not viable doesn't mean the person is making excuses.

I think you somehow believe that I'm advocating termination of the pregnancy for every single ectopic pregnancy.

I'm not.

I'm advocating allowing abortion to remain legal in that instance of saving the life of the mother (it has always been legal, FYI).

So two deaths are better than one? In the situation I'm positing where the woman and her doctor have to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy to save her life, I want the woman and her doctor to have the right to choose.

If a speeding locomotive were bearing down on your two children and you could only save one, would you avoid saving either of them because you couldn't save both?

I hope not.

 

Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

 

The Topic of this Post Shows Us that there is GENUINE Guilt

Genuine guilt is evident by the topic of this post. I will continue to say that one who votes for a candidate who is pro-choice, is as guilty as the person who ends the life of the actual fetus in the womb.

He is pro-choice, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the doctor who knowingly ends the life of the fetus.

Why do you think that Jesus told the masses that the road to heaven is like a narrow path? The path to Heaven is narrow because many followers have compromised their walk with Jesus, and they shall be judged for their political choices in life. Political choices are like life choices, and should we link up and support someone that is knowingly sinning, we are as guilty for their sins as they are. We know what standard of the Kingdom is [Holiness], and Holiness does not resort to the taking of the life of unborn children for whatever reason.

Abortion is murder. Abortion is not like war. Abortion is not like the death penalty. War is allowed and so is the death penalty, but the murder of unborn children who can't defend themselves is reprehensible, and while it may not keep you from eternal life, it will have a price during that persons personal judgment.

Had Obama had 99 things that were right on the mark [no sin involved to accomplish these tasks], and one glaring sin, it would make that persons character poison in the eyes of God. To knowingly sin, and Obama is knowingly committing his support of abortion, and that makes him as guilty as the next man. There can be NO exception to the truth and the Word. He who knowingly takes a life has sinned, and abortion is willingly taking a life.

 

:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

Are yopu telling me that children, babies and women are not killed in war? Yet, you say it is legal?

Capital punishment is legal? Ask the 14 men in Illinois who spend years on death row before they were finally found innocent by a law student and dna. Who will take responsibility for them?

And please don't give me any double talk. I foght a 3 year war in Korea and lived through WW2 in London where children and other innocents were bombed to hell over 5 years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You Have NO Argument From Me on This

I think with all things in life, there are exceptions. I am only against abortions being done for the mere purpose of getting rid of an unwanted mistake. I am so thankful my parents did not think I was a mistake and aborted me.

 

Is anyone not concerned over the fact that our confiscated earnings (income tax) will be used for abortions and infanticide? I am in agreement with RD2 but when the law is that a woman can kill her child at any time during pregnancy, do not take my earnings to pay for it. :BangHead:

 

This argument is effective rhetoric, but it's absolute rubbish if you think about it.

Let's make the same argument for other freedoms:

"He is pro-gun ownership, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the homeowner who murders his wife with a gun."

"He is not against alcohol consumption, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the drunk driver who kills a child with his automobile."

"He is not a pacifist, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the soldier who slaughters innocents."

"He has spoken strongly against homosexual marriage, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the thugs who murdered gay rights advocates."

"He is for religious freedom, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the cult leader who led his group into mass suicide."

"He is for a free society, and those who bought into his campaign promises and voted him into office are as guilty as the criminal who uses our open society to commit evil."

I certainly hope we are smarter than this... :BangHead:

 

This isn't a validate analogy even as often as it's used.

When two people are drowning you will save the first one you can and then go back for the second if you can. You desire to save them both. You do not drown one to save the other. One may drown but it's not by your hand. You may make a choice to save the weaker first if you can discern that and if the conditions permit. It's an unexpected situation laid before you and you must act.

Abortion is a completely different matter. Here a deliberate choice is made to kill the unborn child to save the mother. Here you put yourself in God's role by deciding that one life is worth more than the other. You don't try to save them both - you decide to kill one of them. This is wrong no matter the reason.

Let God decide what happens. If both die so be it. If one dies so be it. If both live so be it. Do what you can to help them both short of killing one for the other.

Aside for all this the situation presented is rare and is nothing more than an excuse used to argue in favor of exceptions to a rule of no abortion. If there's one excuse then surely there can be another, and another, and so forth. The majority of abortions have nothing to do with these rare circumstances - they are just selfish decisions based on the false premise that "it's my body and I'll do with it what I want."

Let's call it what it is and deal with accordingly.

 

Yes, and she would rather die herself, because abortion is wrong and to make the exception would open the door to a million other situations not so dramatic and that's the larger point.

 

I believe that your analogies are deeply flawed. Abortion is a singular event, the murder of an unborn child. Pro abortion is, therefore, supporting the murder of an unborn child.

Similarly, gun ownership is a singular event. However, gun ownership by itself does not result in the murder of a wife. A second event is required, the use of the gun by the husband to murder his wife.

If one were pro-gun ownership only for those he knew were going to murder their wife then that one would be culpable. But that is not the analogy you used. The problem is similar for the other illustrations you presented.