Abortion on Christian Grounds

[betsy]

Natural responsibility now? Again, does a woman not have a choice over when she should be pregnant?

She's always had that choice.

When you have sex was it only to get pregnant every single time?

Not unless she's so out to lunch she hadn't heard of birth control! Natural birth control....or UNnatural. Hello? Say again?

You hold up the word, "choice" as her badge to rights - she's never been deprived of that, you know.

I bring up the words, "responsibility" and |"accountability".....and yes, even the word, "choice!"

[Guest American Woman]

You ignored my question, betsy, so I'll repeat it again:

The question is - are you against birth control? Your answer is yes.

So I can only assume that you support the births of all the babies who are born in Africa only to die because there are too many of them and not enough food. You see that as the right thing "on Christian grounds?" Or do you perhaps think population control might be a tad bit more along the lines of the right thing to do?

[betsy]

They're not forced to have a job. If they don't have a job, they can't very well pay.

Well, basing it on this argument:

The freedom to use or not use one's body to support another life is only one freedom among many that must be held inviolate.

betsy:

Therefore fathers can claim the same "right." Why should they be forced to use and exert their body any more than they want (physically and mentally - by working) just so to support another life? The mother wants to experience motherhood and raise a child, then she can fend for herself and the child.

Why should she place a limit on the father's "right" and "freedom"?

What gives her the "right" to have her own slave just so she can exercise her maternal instinct?

Even if the dads are rolling in dough, why should they be forced to support another life? It's not like money grows on trees....whatever amount of salary a man makes, is obviously been earned through his labor. More so when it's the woman's choice to have the baby....not the man's.

Also how on earth can you compare another human being growing inside of you, using your body as an incubator, and going through excruciating pain evacuating this human from your body to having a job and paying child support? They're not even remotely comparable.

Well, how did the egg get in the incubator if nobody opened the door? Or the incubator didn't take the necessary precautions that are readily available, knowing fully well that's what the incubator's been built for?

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

What's wrong with medical science, btw? Don't I believe that science - knowledge - came from God?

Why shouldn't we use it if it came from God? Obviously science was given for a reason.

So all scientific knowledge comes from God, and was given for a reason, eh? So the knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies and to end unwanted pregnancies came from God, too - and why shouldn't we use it if it came from God?

Haven't I said that Christians act upon decisions? Didn't our God give us free will to make decisions in life?

Seems to me that you are arguing that one should have the free will to decide to have an abortion.

Your son is dying from bowel obstruction which can be remedied by normal medical procedures....then why not decide to let the God-given gift of science to save your son?

I agree. By the same token, you don't want a family yet, so why not decide to let the god-given gift of science re: birth control remedy it?

Isn't it arrogant of me if let's say with medical science available to do the healing, I ignore it and "pray" and try to force the hand of God to perform a miracle instead?

It's also arrogant of you to pick and choose when we shouldn't take advantage of what medical science is available to us based on your personal beliefs.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes both cases I mentioned of ending life support are "killing". And I never said whether it's morally ok or not to end a life that's dependent on a machine. But to take a stance, I would say it's morally ok to pull life-support in the first case (hopeless vegetative state) but not ok with other (patient with good prospects of recovering to decent health). And I'm arguing that abortion is more similar to the latter case than the first.

So I read you correctly - you do think it's ok to pull the plug - ie: "kill" - in some instances. It's not a black and white issue as to whether or not "killing" is acceptable - sometimes it is morally ok. So my point is this - simply presenting abortion as "killing" isn't a definitive argument as even you think it's morally ok to "kill" in some instances.

[betsy]

Just saw this ignorant edit to your post - please don't speak for me. Seriously.

Well, if you find that an ignorant response....perhaps you should make harder effort in verbalizing your views. I was just responding to what you've said:

As I pointed out, it's "killing" in the most basic sense of the definition. We "kill" lots of things, including sperm, but it's not all comparable to "murder, homicide, manslaughter" et al by a long shot, which is the mindset those who refer to it as "killing" rather than "abortion" are trying to conjure up. "Killing" in and of itself isn't always a horrible act. In fact, sometimes it's an act of mercy. As I pointed out, killing sperm, ie: birth control, is also "killing" but it certainly isn't "packaged" that way. Picking flowers is "killing" a living organism; as I said, referring to abortion as "killing" by the most basic definition of "ending the existence of a living organism" hardly makes it what it's being made out as. It's hyperbole. Scientists refer to "embryonic research," not "research on killed embryos." Moonlight Graham's 'science says it's killing' argument isn't what he's trying to present it as.

Fact though it may be, as I pointed out, birth control kills sperm, too. Yet we refer it as birth control, not "killing sperm." I could give countless examples of where ending the existence of a living organism is not referred to as "killing," but the one example makes my point.

Moonlight Graham has admitted to trying to make abortion an emotional issue, but we do not make laws based on emotions.

It is "killing" in the most basic "deprive of life" definition, but when one looks at the synonyms - "murder - slaughter - assassination - homicide" - the most often used definition of the word does not apply.

American Woman, on 03 August 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Fact though it may be, as I pointed out, birth control kills sperm, too. Yet we refer it as birth control, not "killing sperm."

They are BOTH "killing" by the basic definition - ending the existence of a living organism. You're just saying that it's morally ok to end a life that's dependent on a machine but not morally ok to end a life dependent on another's body. Yet they are both "killing," and to say otherwise is not to understand the definition of killing.

I didn't say they were the same. In fact, my argument is that "killing" is not all the same.

You seem to be flip-flopping as you go along....

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Well, if you find that an ignorant response....perhaps you should make harder effort in verbalizing your views. I was just responding to what you've said: [..]

Note that I referred to technical terms in each of those quotes. Now if you can show me where there is such a thing as "mercy snuffing," other than in your head, you will have a point.

You seem to be flip-flopping as you go along....

You seem to be losing it as you go along ..... so I repeat, please don't speak for me.

Edited August 5, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

Why the "on Christian grounds" qualifier?

See the title of this topic? Did you read the OP?

I've debated abortion in another thread without using my Christian values.

[betsy]

You ignored my question, betsy, so I'll repeat it again:

The question is - are you against birth control? Your answer is yes.

So I can only assume that you support the births of all the babies who are born in Africa only to die because there are too many of them and not enough food. You see that as the right thing "on Christian grounds?" Or do you perhaps think population control might be a tad bit more along the lines of the right thing to do?

On Christian ground, celibacy is the answer. Celibacy is the natural form of population control.

Education is being given to Africa. Pills are being sent to Africa. Since birth control devices are also being given to people in Africa - not only to prevent pregnancy but more so to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS - so what's the problem? Do they need more? Send more!

[Guest American Woman]

On Christian ground, celibacy is the answer. Celibacy is the natural form of population control.

Education is being given to Africa. Pills are being sent to Africa. Since birth control devices are also being given to people in Africa - not only to prevent pregnancy but more so to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS - so what's the problem? Do they need more? Send more!

Perhaps they aren't all Christians? So please answer the question based on the reality.

The question is - are you against birth control? Your answer is yes. So I can only assume that you support the births of all the babies who are born in Africa only to die because there are too many of them and not enough food. You see that as the right thing "on Christian grounds?"

Or do you perhaps think population control might be a tad bit more along the lines of the right thing to do?

Edited August 5, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

So all scientific knowledge comes from God, and was given for a reason, eh? So the knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies and to end unwanted pregnancies came from God, too - and why shouldn't we use it if it came from God?

So is the knowledge to create the atom bomb. The nuclear warheads. Chemical weapons. Do you think we'd still be around if every dick, tom and harry can get away using everything invented by man?

It is how we should use these things....if we're even supposed to use them at all. Knowledge shouldn't be used for evil purposes. That's why we have the brains to think...and a conscience that helps us discern. We're back to, tadaaaaa - free will.

Seems to me that you are arguing that one should have the free will to decide to have an abortion.

I'm not arguing about it. I'm just stating a fact.

Not, "one should have the free will to decide." We already have that free will to decide.

It's already been given....so there's no question about having it or not (unless one is incapacitated to make it).

It's a question of discerning what is right or wrong. Good or evil. Ethical or un-ethical.

I agree. By the same token, you don't want a family yet, so why not decide to let the god-given gift of science re: birth control remedy it?

I'm not forcing anyone to stop from using the pills or other birth control devices. I'm just stating my Christian belief.....stating my views pertaining to abortion and birth control.

If I say abortion is murder....you don't have to take my word for it (although I pray that you eventually would see it that way for the sake of the innocents that are being killed). All I can do is debate and try to prove that it is so.

It's also arrogant of you to pick and choose when we shouldn't take advantage of what medical science is available to us based on your personal beliefs.

I don't know where you're getting those ideas....or if you actually even understand what I've written....

Generally speaking, wouldn't you pick and choose on anything presented in front of you? Wouldn't you use your better judgement? Be more discerning?

Ho-ho-ho....Hitler relied on evolution that's why he was trying for the master race! He had men of science - including doctors - who perform all sorts of horrific experimentations on humans.

Tell me you don't approve of them.....or do you?

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Perhaps they aren't all Christians?

So?

Did you see the OP on this topic? I'm even addressing those Christians who support abortion - thinking the Bible is silent on it.

Christians or non-Christians doesn't change the message of the Authoritative Book. It's not a relativist's encyclopedia.

So please answer the question based on the reality.

I did! I gave you two ways of reality: Christian and non-Christian.

The question is - are you against birth control? Your answer is yes. So I can only assume that you support the births of all the babies who are born in Africa only to die because there are too many of them and not enough food. You see that as the right thing "on Christian grounds?"

Or do you perhaps think population control might be a tad bit more along the lines of the right thing to do?

This is becoming like the other topic....what's with you? Once you get fixated on your point....you want to see the reply (the exact way you imagine it ought to be!)

Re-read my reply to you. If you don't still see my answer...then I've nothing more to say on the matter.

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

On Christian ground, celibacy is the answer. Celibacy is the natural form of population control.

I agree. Rapists should be celibate.

[cybercoma]

Well, how did the egg get in the incubator if nobody opened the door? Or the incubator didn't take the necessary precautions that are readily available, knowing fully well that's what the incubator's been built for?

The only times you have sex is for procreation then?

[BubberMiley]

The only times you have sex is for procreation then?

We are not here to discuss Betsy's dominion over her own body; we are here to discuss her dominion over everyone else's.

[cybercoma]

We are not here to discuss Betsy's dominion over her own body; we are here to discuss her dominion over everyone else's.

Oh, good point.

[Guest American Woman]

So is the knowledge to create the atom bomb. The nuclear warheads. Chemical weapons. Do you think we'd still be around if every dick, tom and harry can get away using everything invented by man?

You were the one who said that God gave man scientific knowledge, so why not use it - so now you're acknowledging that your argument wasn't a good one?

It is how we should use these things....if we're even supposed to use them at all. Knowledge shouldn't be used for evil purposes. That's why we have the brains to think...and a conscience that helps us discern. We're back to, tadaaaaa - free will.

That's right. A brain to think, and a conscience that helps us discern; such as using birth control to control overpopulated countries where children are born only to spend their entire lives dying. Good to see you recognize it.

I'm not arguing about it. I'm just stating a fact.

Not, "one should have the free will to decide." We already have that free will to decide.

It's already been given....so there's no question about having it or not (unless one is incapacitated to make it).

It's a question of discerning what is right or wrong. Good or evil. Ethical or un-ethical.

That's right. It's a question of each person discerning that for themselves. From where I sit, your beliefs against birth control, which allows children to be born where there is not enough food to keep them alive, is very wrong, and very unethical. In other words, I don't want you to have input on what I do because one person's morals and ethics is another's "evil," to use your word.

I'm not forcing anyone to stop from using the pills or other birth control devices. I'm just stating my Christian belief.....stating my views pertaining to abortion and birth control.

If I say abortion murder....you don't have to take my word for it (although I pray that you eventually would see it that way for the sake of the innocents that are being killed). All I can do is debate and try to prove that it is so.

Who said you were "forcing" it? Just by trying to get things to go your way is interference. At any rate, you're going to have to spend your whole life praying, I'm afraid, and it's one prayer God isn't going to answer.

I don't know where you're getting those ideas....or if you actually even understand what I've written....

Generally speaking, wouldn't you pick and choose on anything presented in front of you? Wouldn't you use your better judgement? Be more discerning?

Ho-ho-ho....Hitler relied on evolution that's why he was trying for the master race! He had men of science - including doctors - who perform all sorts of horrific experimentations on humans.

Tell me you don't approve of them.....or do you?

As I already said, you were the one who pointed out that God gave man scientific knowledge. You are now acknowledging that it's not all good, so as I said at the beginning of this thread, it's not a valid argument.

[betsy]

I agree. Rapists should be celibate.

Pffft. And I already had a rebutt to that. Go to topic, Abortion Revisited.

[betsy]

The only times you have sex is for procreation then?

Between a married couple....no. You can enjoy sex even if you don't plan to have children. Some have this misconception that Christians are not supposed to enjoy sexual relations....well, we're allowed. With our spouses.

Didn't Christ say somewhere that if you can't be celibate, it's better to marry? Or something like that....

But you have to know that having children could be the result of having sex. You have to be prepared to accept the child with grace, should you happen to concieve by accident. After all, it's not the child's fault why she/he's been concieved.

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

We are not here to discuss Betsy's dominion over her own body; we are here to discuss her dominion over everyone else's.

Oh, good point.

I'd imagine that's what someone would say when he doesn't have anything to rebutt.

I guess you ran out of steam again....that didn't last very long.

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

You were the one who said that God gave man scientific knowledge, so why not use it - so now you're acknowledging that your argument wasn't a good one?

That's right. A brain to think, and a conscience that helps us discern; such as using birth control to control overpopulated countries where children are born only to spend their entire lives dying. Good to see you recognize it.

That's right. It's a question of each person discerning that for themselves. From where I sit, your beliefs against birth control, which allows children to be born where there is not enough food to keep them alive, is very wrong, and very unethical. In other words, I don't want you to have input on what I do because one person's morals and ethics is another's "evil," to use your word.

Who said you were "forcing" it? Just by trying to get things to go your way is interference. At any rate, you're going to have to spend your whole life praying, I'm afraid, and it's one prayer God isn't going to answer.

As I already said, you were the one who pointed out that God gave man scientific knowledge. You are now acknowledging that it's not all good, so as I said at the beginning of this thread, it's not a valid argument.

You're full of "you said this..." or "You said that...."

I'm not even going to bother because obviously you didn't understand the gist of what I said....at least, not in its right context. I don't flipflop, AW.

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

And if I made a mistake or spoke too soon, and realized my mistake....I publicly acknowledge it. The topic, "Do you feel as we feel," is an example to that.

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Pffft. And I already had a rebutt to that. Go to topic, Abortion Revisited.

Riiight. And your rebutt got its butt kicked, and so you disappeared and never tried to re-rebutt. I assumed that was because your rebutt was to suggest an early-term abortion through the morning after pill.

Edited August 5, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

You're full of "you said this..." or "You said that...."

I'm not even going to bother because obviously you didn't understand the gist of what I said....at least, not in its right context. I don't flipflop, AW.

Yeah, right. Good call, though, pleading the Fifth.

[betsy]

Riiight. And your rebutt got its butt kicked, and so you disappeared and never tried to re-rebutt. I assumed that was because your rebutt was to suggest an early-term abortion through the morning after pill.

Oh yeah I gave my take on the morning-after pill. Go back there and read again!

Edited August 5, 2012 by betsy