"My body, my choice," I believe we can say the same here!

A President's job is to serve the United States. Looking after the welfare of other nations should be in our national interest, unless Jesus was wrong about the goodness of loving one's neighbor.

At the same time, Christians cannot be "America First," since we are supposed to be primarily citizens of the Kingdom of God made up of every tribe and nation. We must be advocates for the good of all people.

Persons who present themselves as refugees ASAP after crossing into the United States are legal aliens. You may disagree with the law, but it has a long history which includes refugees fleeing from oppressive governments like Cuba. If they can reach our shores or cross our borders, then are legally in the United States, subject to turning themselves into an officer of the law who will put them into the system for assessing their claim for asylum.

 

At what point does the unborn receive a "soul" (in your terminology)?

All you have done is restate your assertion.

 

Sure. But both have basic human rights. Someone who is in the country illegally may have their liberty constrained. But remember, refugees who turn themselves in to a representative of our government are not in the country illegally.

 

I am not a legal expert, but that may be a good argument to make.

A better one would likely be extending citizenship rights retroactively to the unborn in the same sense that children born to American citizens overseas usually have US citizenship. The unborn child is in the "presence" and custody of the mother -- living with her -- so I think a good argument could be made.

State laws are all over the place on this subject. I don't have an answer for you.

Yes, under Roe v. Wade's interpreted right to privacy, the government stays out of that decision.

Yes, it is quite complicated. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I am willing to learn.

Thank you for your insight and respectful tone. I appreciate you.

 

If a pro baby murder person sees my posts, perhaps they will hear for the first time the truth they are supporting the murder of babies. No word games. No cuddling. Just plain hard truth. It is irrational to approach baby murder with any other attitude.

I also try to be respectful and I’ve noticed you do as well, even when you disagree. I haven’t called you names, just disagreed.

I appreciate your calm responses even when I disagree.

peace to you

 

I had this argument with a nurse who worked in an abortion clinic in Augusta, Ga one time. She said that the "things" that they removed from a woman's body (the baby) was comparable to removing an appendix, a bit of tissue from the colon or breast for biopsy, etc. I asked her if the BABY cried when they used the solution method of abortion. She couldn't even look me in the eyes. I knew that it had. I told her that I had stood out in the lobby with a woman who was wanting an abortion and we could hear some of what was going on. When they use the method of "slicing up" the "fetus," of course there is no crying. The baby has already been murdered. In some cases, the child when using the solution procedure to abort, would cry as they removed it and placed it on the table. She finally admitted they would "help the death along" and then would throw the body in the can that went to the medical college for use. I don't know which medical college, but I would think it was MCG in Augusta. I can't be certain of where they sent them. I do know that they harvested parts. We had friends who had worked there, and they didn't stay very long. They stated that after watching all of those abortions, they finally came to the conclusion that murder is murder, whether it is a baby in the womb, or a person outside of the womb.

 

Roe mentions determining “viability” of the baby in the womb. I have long believed restrictions on baby murder could be argued through the “viability” statement in Roe.

Advances in medicine have made “viability” a reality as early as 20 weeks or so. Certainly late term baby murder could be made illegal under Roe.

Peace to you

 

I will answer your question directly. I hope you will answer mine directly.

First, I respect your position of pro-life compassion for the woman. I fully agree the women having abortions are victims of the pro-baby murder crowd. They often suffer medical problems throughout their lives, ranging from irregular menstrual cycles, increased miscarriages, and higher levels of breast cancer and cancer of the uterus; not to mention emotional and phycological issues.

Most importantly, they will answer to God for murdering their baby.

My wife and I support a local charity called “options for women; help for families” that helps women and couples that are considering abortion. They offer pre-natal care and life counseling, and continued care after the baby is born. They have helped several hundred women chose life over the past several years.

I have had discussions with members of the pro-baby murder crowd. I don’t yell or scream and I focus on the love of God for all His children and yes, I refer to abortion as baby murder, which it is.

peace to you

 

I have answered you directly. Will you answer me directly?

I notice you often criticize pro-life posters on this board and you have done so on this thread.

I have never seen you criticize a “pro-choice” person for their position.

Why?

H. Clinton said a woman had the right to chose an abortion until she agrees to take the baby home from the hospital.

Would you consider that to be pro-baby murder? Please answer directly.

The governor of Virginia (Norsthrim?) said if a baby survived an abortion, the woman and the doctor would have to decide whether to let the baby live.

Do you consider that to be pro-baby murder? Please answer directly.

Thanks in advance for answering directly.

peace to you

 

Another question BB, if you don’t mind.

You have stated you are pro-life and I have no reason to doubt it. However, I have had, on occasion, interacted with people who use the same phrases and terminology, but don’t have the same definitions as I do.

You stated in an earlier post that your definition of pro-life includes respecting people and I understand what you mean. I’m curious if you have other nuanced meanings of pro-life.

So, I’ll give you my definition of pro-life, and see if we agree.

Let’s narrow the focus to regard babies in the womb, prior to birth.

I believe human life begins at conception. That human life goes through various stages of development before birth and after. You gave the medical terminology in a prior post; fertilized egg, zygote etc... a baby throughout the development stages, imo.

My definition of pro-life is that baby has a right to live. Unless that pregnancy causes life threatening conditions (very rare) to the mother, any deliberate termination of that pregnancy, at any stage, is murder of a baby.

Now, my question to you is how much of my definition of pro-life do you share? If you differ, please tell me how?

Peace to you

 

I will do so.

Thank you.

That’s terrific!

I want to point out that I am not generally criticizing people for having a pro-life position, I am criticizing them for doing other things like insisting that their failed political strategy and voting choices are the ONLY way that a Christian can be faithful instead of a proven, historical way that stays true to the teachings of Jesus and the power of the Spirit.

Because we don’t have “pro-choice” people on this site (at least, openly) since the site have severe restrictions on the topic:

Rule #2
Use discretion when posting. Not all topics are beneficial or edifying to the board. Topics and/or posts that would condone racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including but not limited to adultery, homosexuality, and pornography are strictly prohibited. In addition, topics and/or posts that seek to promote clearly unscriptural and controversial social and moral positions, such as abortion, are prohibited as well. The official position of The Baptist Board is that life begins at conception. Opinions, stated as fact, that would contradict the board's position on this issue will be edited or deleted entirely. The decision to deem a thread or post inappropriate will remain at the discretion of the Webmaster or his designee. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.​

I have been here about 20 years, and this rule was established at least 15 years ago when certain people didn’t speak strongly enough against abortion during a series of discussions. A decision was made by the moderators to banish a number of people and enact this rule.

As I understand it, she holds the most extreme version of the pro-choice position, although I am not aware of her making that claim that a child can be killed after birth and before taking the child home from the hospital like your statement implies. Do you have a credible source?

That being said, I do not agree with Hillary Clinton on many, many things, including her view on abortion.

That’s not correct. His words have been ripped from their context and shamelessly misused by “pro-life” people who apparently don’t think it is wrong to lie to further their cause. It actually undermines the cause because it discredits the arguments of pro-life people. Who wants to trust the word of a liar?

But if we pretend that the Governor actually said such a thing, that would be infanticide, a form of murder.

I am glad to do so.

 

I can't believe you still post your propaganda.

 

Okay.

That can be a barrier to communication and understanding. I run into that all the time here.

Almost every theological or moral position I hold has nuances. Things are rarely very simple.

If you don’t mind, I will critique each phrase.

Let’s narrow the focus to regard babies in the womb, prior to birth.

What I think you mean here is that a unique human life begins at conception. The sperm and ovum at both alive prior to conception, but each of them has 23 chromosomes from the mother and the father. At the moment of conception, a zygote is formed with (normally) 46 chromosomes as a single-celled unique being, although the woman is not yet pregnant. Over the next few days, the cell(s) of the embryo begin to divide causing the embryo (technically now called a blastocyst) to grow. For up to a two-week period, the embryo/blastocyst can occasionally split into twins, triplets, or more. Also during this period the embryo/blastocyst must implant in the wall of the uterus or they will die. It is estimated that from 30-70% of embryos fail to implant, although I think a more conservative number is about 25%-50%, but still dwarfing the abortion rate.

I am currently working through the question as to when human personhood begins since I’m struggling with the idea that God would give personhood to an embryo only for it to be immediately destroyed. Moreover, if a zygote is a person from the moment of conception, then are identical twins “half persons”? Of course not. Are chimeras (two different embryos with different DNA that merge) a “double people”? I don’t think so. Are conjoined twins (formerly called “Siamese twins”), one or two people? Generally, we count human personhood by the head and not simply by a single body.

I currently believe that human personhood comes very early to the embryo/blastocyst, but I have not reached a conclusion as to when it happens. It could certainly be when the human being (the body) begins at the moment of conception, or sometime a bit later after the possibility of twinning ends. In any case, a pro-life ethic seeks to preserve human life where it can be nurtured, so intentional abortion after the woman knows she is pregnant (generally several weeks after implantation) is wrong.

Knowing the terminology is important for discussion of the issue. If you are going to talk to a person knowledgeable in biology or a person familiar with the issues, it if fundamental to credibility. One can always “dumb it down” if necessary.

My father was a medic in World War II and served in a hospital in the South Pacific. He was responsible for the surgical suite and management of the drug stores. He later earned a degree in biology. My mother is a retired nurse. My brother is a researcher in organic chemistry, working primarily with health researchers. I have had biological training in high school and college, as well as about a decade of annual first responder training to handle medical emergencies. I have dealt with people in all kinds of life-threatening situations as part of my job. I have also had a colorful medical history which includes a rare disease (Cushing’s Disease) where I have to know and use medical terminology to ensure that I get the care I need. So I have the knowledge and vocabulary at my disposal to speak on both a high and low level, as needed. However, I try to be precise in my language (much to the contempt of some) to speak clearly and forthrightly.

Yes, I agree.

It is rare, but not unheard of. I have a friend who has severe epilepsy that has never been under control. She was raped in her late teens and became pregnant. She had previously been advised never to try to have a child because she and the baby would likely not survive the pregnancy. She decided to continue the pregnancy at tremendous risk to herself. Fortunately, she and the baby survived, but it was a rough time. I would have understood of she had chosen abortion, especially since the people at church condemned her for getting pregnant before marriage, even though she had been raped. (A number of people then and now believe that a woman cannot become pregnant as a consequence of rape.) It was very hard on her faith, and put even more pressure on her pregnancy. That’s when I started noticing the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement – many will get angry at an unmarried pregnant woman for her “sin” and shun her, so women who get pregnant out-of-wedlock learn that the church has nothing but condemnation for her, so they get an abortion to avoid the shame and trouble.

It is the taking of a human life. I cannot claim that in all stages/circumstances it is murder. I don’t use the word “murder” for rhetorical effect.

Done!

 

Your response was clear and concise and, quite frankly, fascinating. Thank you for being so forthright and sharing so much about your life.

Except for your statement concerning when “personhood” begins, I don’t think I disagree with anything you stated.

I am sorry for what your friend went through. I have never heard anyone argue a woman cannot become pregnant by rape, but ignorance runs rampant at times.

I have a new found respect for you, though you have a blind spot for Trump lol

Thanks again

peace to you

 

You asked good questions and did not load things up with insults.

I expect that. I am fine with people disagreeing with me on that point, especially since I'm working through it. However, I am interested to know WHY they disagree because I want to learn and figure it out. I don't know where I will land, but I intend to follow the evidence.

It's out there. I have heard it a lot. Several people in my college biology class (a Baptist school) had been taught that and were surprised to be corrected by the biology professor. It pops up from time to time in politics, for instance Todd Akin and Pete Nielsen. Also, here's an article that deals with the history of that myth.

Thank you for your kindness.

 

Lets kill and make up.

Here is a new disciple who would never have voted for Biden.

And Hazael said,
Why weepeth my lord?
And he answered,
Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel:
2 Kings 8:12

 

Such statements are one of the reasons you come across as so arrogant and condescending, or worse.

While the anecdote did have a valid point, attributing the hypocrisy to the entire pro-life movement is ludicrous, libelous really. By your own standards, it would make you a liar. Such a response is not sanctioned by the pro-life movement. I’ve known a great many who support the pro-life movement and all would be horrified by the wrong attitude you described.

If, however, you meant it about only some who support the pro-life movement, then you failed miserably at being precise. But the point is that there is plenty of contempt originating with yourself.

 

The President primary duty is to the USA! And to the legal citizens of this nation!

 

The Christian's primary duty is to be a witness and advocate for the Kingdom of God. That means, Christians should push the President to act righteously in his/her dealings with all nation and all people. If one is not an advocate for the present and future Kingdom of God, then one is not a disciple of Jesus, for that is what He has called us to do.