This Oughta Be Interesting....

The bill is not too extreme. The bill is too lax. In the 21st century there is no medical necessity to intentionally perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. If a medical procedure required to save the life of the mother results in the death of an unborn baby, then that would the result of a necessary medical procedure and not the result of a decision to kill the baby.

 

And the size of the appropriation for building orphanages?

 

I disagree completely. My sister in law almost died from an ectopic pregnancy that wasn't caught. Another sister in law terminated her preganancy after suffering debilitating health effects that left her in a grossly debilitating state.

I'm flatly againt elective abortions, but have no problem with abortions being permitted for life and health exceptions.

I'm also aware of the fact that scriptuer is somewhat silent on the issue, which means my view that elective abortions are wrong is based scrictly personal conviction.

 

I believe abortions should be up to the woman. I don't think a religion has a right to force people to act. People choose in life and that free will should exist. We tried this before and many women just went underground for the procedure, they hurt themselves and many died. I just hope every Christian who demands that abortions stop are ready to start adopting some kids...We already have many a children without a home. No easy answers...to some who refuse reality perhaps. The deal is, abortion is not going anywhere whether you legalize it or not.

 

For the convenience of the woman, we should let there be murder? Will we disobey the will of the Father? Even supporting the right to "choose" is evil in the eyes of God (Romans 1:32 -- "Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." In other words, even condoning sin is itself a sin, and this includes voting for those who uphold abortion "rights."

And for those who say that we are only obeying the law ( Roe v. Wade ), I believe that it was Thomas Aquinas (could have been Augustine) who wrote that we are obligated to disobey and oppose any law that is immoral.

 

I'm a prolifer, one who has demonstrated on the street and marched in the bitter cold in January in D.C.

I will say though, even Old Testament law allows for killing in self defense. But it has to really be self defense. If that baby is really killing the pregnant woman, and nothing else can be done, then there is sadly nothing else left to do than to save the woman. How often does it really come to that?

For every other situation, life should prevail.

 

Maybe if a person is a one issue voter but most people take a variety of issues into account when voting. I am one of those and I will not be a one issue voter.

 

Yeah... we couldn't possibly expect people to take responsibility for their own "free" moral decisions or acts of charity.

 

FTR, if the state is responsible for the care of unwanted children resulting from irresponsible behavior then the state has the right to outlaw that behavior.

I don't want either but that is the only way that works.

 

It would be just as legitimate to say "I believe infanticide should be left up to the parents" or "I think spousal abuse should be left up to the abuser" or as alluded to earlier "I think murder should be left up to the murderer."

We know from biology that the child is NOT part of the woman's anatomy... certainly not after the zygote stage. It has its own DNA and individual potential. It is a life by any reasonable, moral, or scientific definition of the term.

Really? Murder of a 2 year old is every bit as much associated with the moral laws of religion as the murder of a 21 week old unborn.

Location does not determine personhood. Level of dependence does not determine personhood.

The first right... the right all other rights are founded upon is life. It is a religious concept but also a philosophical concept that underpins our claim as a people to any rights at all.

The prospective mother has already chosen. Elective abortions constitute well over 95% of the total. They have already exercised their freedom... now they have an incumbent responsibility.

Just because the exercise of freedom has unwanted consequences of responsibility does not give a person the right to deny another person their rights... especially not the right to live.

The rationale you use to arrive at your conclusion above would likewise fit this: A man's career is hampered by his wife. He chose to marry her and she gave him pleasure for awhile... especially sensual pleasure. He didn't take the long term into account. But now she has become unattractive and her personality bothers the bosses. So... according to your logic, he should have a right to kill her. Why not? People choose in life... free will should exist.

She is no more nor less a person than that baby in the womb of a mother intent on abortion. They both have unique dna. They both have individual potential.

Many women are hurt, disabled, or die during legal abortions now... and many more babies than ever before are dying and being tossed in the trash.

The fact is that the abortion rights people lied and fabricated evidence used to justify legalization. One of their leaders, Dr Bernard Nathanson acknowledged that their numbers were propaganda lies: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

More info based on "facts" and not propaganda (note the statistics source is the CDC):

Source: http://www.prolife.org.au/articles/abge005.htm

Further, deaths from legal abortion are understated. We cannot know by how much but this article provides anecdotal evidence that the officially reported numbers are grossly under reporting the actual figures: http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/deaths.htm

Currently, the people most able to provide reliable mortality data for abortions... are people who have a very much vested interest in keeping abortion legal... they make $$$ off of performing them.

So let me get you straight... We believe that life should legally be protected as a right so that makes us responsible for the consequences of the irresponsible behavior of others? I don't think so... although, we probably will be the ones to take them in.

Really? Last time I heard, the waiting list for parents wanting to adopt a new born was still full and long. Please cite statistics supporting the lack of parents wanting to adopt babies.

Maybe. Maybe not. Before Roe, at worst there were about 100K abortions per year. In the 33 years since Roe, there have been an average of over 1,000,000 per year.

The "reality" is that we are dealing with a scientifically verifiable, morally undeniable life... and its intrinsic value and inalienable right to live.

Shame on anyone who calls themselves a Christian and is yet so callous towards the life of the innocent and sin of murder.

 

Maybe if a person is a one issue voter but most people take a variety of issues into account when voting. I am one of those and I will not be a one issue voter. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't claim libertarianism then vote to legalize the arbitrary denial of the most fundamental and foundational of all rights- the right to live.

 

Not quite sure what you are saying, Scott. The abortion issue is not the sole determinant of who I vote for and I would vote for a person with whom I disagreed on the abortion issue. I vote for candidates of various political parties, including Democrats, and independents.

 

To be accurate, RvW was less about abortion, and more about individual constitutional rights vs states' rights. RvW did not legalize abortion. It put elective abortion in federal hands instead of states' hands. Overturning RvW would not make abortion illegal. It would return to the states the authority over how to legislate it.

The mail reason we're told that RvW legalized abortion is because it's an effective fundraising tool for prolife groups, and some of them, like the National Right to Life organization, aren't exactly cash poor.

 

I am saying that I won't... and I won't not only because of distinctly religious conviction.

Foundationally, governments can only protect or confiscate rights. Without a very, very strict protection of the right to live... we have no genuine rights. Any politician who will support abortion not only promotes the immoral murder of millions (numbers that dwarf Hitler's genocide), they seize the right for government to determine what is a valuable life and what is not. In the case of abortion, government has made an evaluation and taken the official policy that an unborn is a person whose life is not worth protecting.

You lament the power abuse of government over the people... then contradict the very core foundation of that position by assenting to their right to deny protection for life. You cannot be consistent if on the one hand you complain about government confiscation of rights and liberties while on the other hand supporting politicians who believe government has a right to confiscate the right to life then sell it back to abortionists, aborting women, and the supporters for votes.

 

I disagree completely. My sister in law almost died from an ectopic pregnancy that wasn't caught. Another sister in law terminated her preganancy after suffering debilitating health effects that left her in a grossly debilitating state.

I'm flatly againt elective abortions, but have no problem with abortions being permitted for life and health exceptions.</font>[/QUOTE]The aboriton debate shouldn't be about ectopic pregnancies, if the doctors could save both the baby and the mother in those cases then they should, but we know with an ectopic pregnancy the chances of saving the baby are not there.

The women that go to the abortion clinics every day to butcher their babies don't have ectopic pregnancies, they have babies that are growing in their womb that they don't want, so they are going to have them murdered.

Other than an ectopic pregnancy, what other health concerns are there? If we let doctors murder perfectly healthy babies because of minor health concerns for the mother, where will it end. Will they be able to use clinical depression or possible postpartum depression as a reason to kill the baby?

The rule should be that the doctor works to save both lives if possible, but never should have the goal of killing either the baby or the mother. Abortionist are not trying to save the life of the mother, they are simply committing legalized murder.

 

Scott J,

Well stated. Abortion is murder, nothing less. Those who support abortion are abetting in a crime as heinous as those of which Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan committed before and during WWII.

How can a Christian support this murder of the most innocent among us? I will never vote for anyone who does not oppose abortion. It seems to me that almost 50 million deaths should satisfy the most blood thirsty among us. This smoke screen that the fertilized egg is not yet a baby is garbage. As I have stated before, that fertilized egg, absent outside influence, will develop into what it already is-a baby.

 

These children deserve to be protected, they have every right to live, even in the cases of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

3,000+ were killed on 9/11 by the Islamic terrorists, 6,492,000+ have been killed since 9/11 by the abortionists!

 

How can a Christian support this murder of the most innocent among us? I will never vote for anyone who does not oppose abortion.

Amen!

This is actually a strategy for the Democrats to win the White House, I think. If a pro-choice Republican like Guliani were to win the primary, millions of us would stay home, or vote for someone else -- throwing the election to the Democratic nominee.

I'm not a one-issue voter, but the character of the candidate comes first, in my book. And that includes protecting those who can least protect themselves, in which category I include the unborn. So, on that basis, there's no way I can support a pro-choice candidate, period.

 

It is more than morality to me. This goes to the very foundation of what it means to be a free people with inalienable rights.

If government can arbitrarily grant a class of people the "privilege" to kill members of another class for no other reason than convenience... then we have no freedom, we have no rights.