Abortion on Christian Grounds

[guyser]

Oh shady......

[bleeding heart]

And of course the very notion of such a law is preposterous on its face, anywhere that abortion is not illegal.

It makes a homicide charge dependent on a woman's choice (on what she claims was her choice, in fact), which makes it impossibly arbitrary. And not what is meant by "freedom of choice," at all.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh shady......

He may come up with this case, insisting he is right, since he said "charged" with murder, not convicted:

Nov. 11, 1996 Brenda Drummond (Canadian infanticide case) is charged with attempted murder for firing a pellet gun into her vagina two days before the live birth of her baby. The baby lives and suffers no serious injuries. The case is thrown out of court, since attempted murder, under Canada law, applies only when there is a human victim, and a fetus is not considered a human victim.

Of course the fact that the charge didn't stick in court likely won't make any difference to shady. Or perhaps I'm wrong and he'll admit that he was wrong.

I can understand the charge in the U.S. - since there's a charge if someone tries to kill you but there's no charge if you try to kill yourself, I don't see it as a contradiction to legal abortions.

Edited August 9, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

He may come up with this case, insisting he is right, since he said "charged" with murder, not convicted:

He may try , but then again, he would be wrong once more.

They tried to charge her w attempted murder since the baby lived.

But your point is well taken. I do understand that the US has laws on the books for this. Wasnt Peterson charged this way?

But not to worry, shady is in deny mode and cannot for the life of him admit screwing up.

Edited August 9, 2012 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

He may try , but then again, he would be wrong once more.

They tried to charge her w attempted murder since the baby lived.

But your point is well taken. I do understand that the US has laws on the books for this. Wasnt Peterson charged this way?

But not to worry, shady is in deny mode and cannot for the life of him admit screwing up.

It's not the U.S. per se, but rather some states have laws on the books for this - as some states rule that it's not murder - since birth hasn't occurred, murder can't occur. I think Petersen may have been charged - if not, others have. As I said, I can understand it. I realize that the baby hasn't experienced birth, but it is viable at a certain stage and even when a woman has been murdered or dies while pregnant, sometimes the baby does survive.

Edited August 9, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

It's not the U.S. per se, but rather some states have laws on the books for this - as some states rule that it's not murder - since birth hasn't occurred, murder can't occur. I think Petersen may have been charged - if not, others have. As I said, I can understand it. I realize that the baby hasn't experienced birth, but it is viable at a certain stage and even when a woman has been murdered or dies while pregnant, sometimes the baby does survive.

Correection duly noted and thank you.

I think where laws against abortion exist, the addition of a murder charge levied for the killing of the growing fetus seems about right, although diffulcult for me in many cases (which is beside the point )

[cybercoma]

It's not the U.S. per se

Canadians are likely to make this mistake as our criminal code is federal, although the courts and prisons are handled province-by-province. It seems strange that the United States wouldn't have a national criminal code, but different laws depending on what state you're in (especially considering how small some states are and how easy it is to travel between them). It just seems very impractical. But, meh... not my country.

[Guest American Woman]

Correection duly noted and thank you.

You're most welcome.

I think where laws against abortion exist, the addition of a murder charge levied for the killing of the growing fetus seems about right, although diffulcult for me in many cases (which is beside the point )

If there isn't a murder charge, is there no charge? That's what I don't understand. How can it just be nothing?

[guyser]

If there isn't a murder charge, is there no charge? That's what I don't understand. How can it just be nothing?

What I have a hard time with is the intent. Murder requires it.If a pregnant female (hmm...redundant I suppose)is killed can the accused have any idea she may be pregnant? She could very well have the tinirst embryo ( a day or 4 days old) inside. To what length do we go?

[betsy]

Why would someone who is against abortion be in favour of an abortion pill?

As a Christian, I am not in favor of the morning pill. I advocate celibacy before marriage.

And for married couples to use natural method of birth control (rhythm) or other devices that would prevent conception (condoms, iud, or any other new gadget there is that I haven't heard about).

However, the couple should be prepared to accept the consequence of their union with grace, should any of those methods fail.

In Abortion Revisited, I was giving an anti-abortion argument based on violation of human rights....simply because I'm addressing others who don't believe in religion. I can't argue based solely on faith, stating simply that it is a grievous sin.

Addressing the pro-choice faction, if the morning pill is already made available....why not use it then?

Since by the looks of it abortion is here to stay....or it will take a long time before it gets repealed (if it ever gets repealed)...the stance from this viewpoint is how to do it as humanely as we can.

If we'd want to put down an animal in a humane way....why not a fetus? There is a debate on how much pain an unborn may feel - we don't exactly know. And since we don't exactly know, I guess the most humane way possible is to terminate the fetus with the morning pill.

Shouldn't we, as a society, be concerned at least about the pain, if not the outright killing?

My most concern when I seemed to have endorsed the morning pill was about killing the baby as humane as we could.

BUT....I rather hope - and will always be a strong advocate - that we do not kill the child.

Edited August 11, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

As a Christian, I am not in favor of the morning pill.

Why not? Do you know how the morning after pill works? Explain it to me, so I can gauge your understanding and your reasoning for being against it. Are you also against other forms of contraception (ie, birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, etc)?

[Moonlight Graham]

Hey btw sorry to anyone I didn't respond to. I just got a bit tired of this debate. Cyber and AW it was fun debating with though. I think I'll just go with the "agree to disagree" stance.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Smallc]

And for married couples to use natural method of birth control (rhythm)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[betsy]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I meant married couples who don't plan to have a child. Why? Surely you're not one of those who think Christian couples are not supposed to enjoy sex with their spouses?

Edited August 12, 2012 by betsy

[Smallc]

No, but you do realize that actual birth control was invented for a reason, I hope.

[cybercoma]

No, but you do realize that actual birth control was invented for a reason, I hope.

I guess you're not implying that it was invented because people couldn't count to 28 on a calendar.

[Smallc]

I guess you're not implying that it was invented because people couldn't count to 28 on a calendar.

[betsy]

No, but you do realize that actual birth control was invented for a reason, I hope.

I thought condoms and iuds and rhythmn methods were supposed to prevent conception?

Enlighten me. What reason is that?

[Smallc]

Condoms and IUDs are one thing (I didn't think that you liked those). The rhythm method is another things entirely.

[betsy]

Condoms and IUDs are one thing (I didn't think that you liked those). The rhythm method is another things entirely.

Aren't you reading my posts above?

[cybercoma]

I thought condoms and iuds and rhythmn methods were supposed to prevent conception?

So does the morning after pill, but you're against that.

[Smallc]

Aren't you reading my posts above?

I actually try not to.

[cybercoma]

Since betsy's obviously not going to answer, I want to clear up some misunderstanding about the morning after pills. It works by preventing ovulation by delivering a higher dose of the exact some thing that's in birth control pills. It is not an "abortion pill," as some people call it. They do not abort a foetus, instead they prevent fertilization, exactly as regular birth control does or IUDs.

Having said that, there is one abortifacient pill that has not been approved for use in the US. What this pill does, however, is prevent the zygote from attaching itself to the uterine wall. Again, this is not the same thing as aborting a foetus, in fact it would be the equivalent to discarding a seed. The zygote is merely a collection of cells. Any moral objection to this form of abortifacient would require the objector to reject fertility clinics. What they do at fertility clinics is fertilize a number of eggs and implant the most viable one, discarding the rest. This is exactly what the abortifacient pill does.

Betsy cannot possibly reconcile her rejection of the morning after pill with her acceptance of birth control pills or the use of fertility clinics. It's a blatant contradiction of beliefs.

[betsy]

I actually try not to.

Then you shouldn't be stating this:

Condoms and IUDs are one thing (I didn't think that you liked those). The rhythm method is another things entirely.

[dpwozney]

According to recent media reports, Marie Renaud wrote: "I had an abortion and I thank God I was able to."

Killing a child, before the child is born, is contrary to the commandments of the God of the Christian Bible. Romans 13:9 states "Thou shalt not kill".

Also, according to the God of the Christian Bible, repentance is necessary for salvation. Jesus said "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."