Is Abortion Murder?

[susanpet]

As far as I am concerned, it is life at the moment of coneption. It has a soul.
Taking this life by abortion is murder.

Susan

 

[Helen]

Look at this, folks! Ten solid pages because a couple of men can't understand that a baby is a living human being before birth!

I doubt that a hundred more pages would cause either of them to change their minds!

I think the cases have been presented on both sides and what more is there to say?

 

[onevoice]

"Ok, is God saying that he knew everyone before they where formed in the womb? No, he is saying he knew Jeremiah. In fact, the implication is that he doesn't know other people before they are formed in the womb."
----------------------------------------------
I don't see that implication. Are you saying that Jeremiah was created differently than we or that God knew him and not everyone else? Does that make him special.. like another god or something??

also
-----------------------------------------------
"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
------------------------------------------------
Ok.. so the child wasn't born yet. . what does this say about a child not having life?

Do you have kids?? Have you ever felt a baby kick in a womb? I find it amazing to find that it is a PROVEN fact that children in the womb subjected to classical music tend to have greater mathmatical skills than those who don't. . . they LEARN, how can that be if they are not LIFE???

Also, my wife is 8 months pregnant right now. My baby kicks every time he hears my voice. He recognizes MY VOICE. He doesn't do it when just anyone talks. . . How can that be if he is just a blob of tissue. He responds to certain songs that are played...interesting isn't it??

I pity you. I suggest that until you become God, you best not be taking any life.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:

As I stated before, the bible is silent on millions of issues. If you suggest that we are to take silence as liberty, you are wrong. To use my previous example, the bible never mentions computer hacking and whether it is trespassing or not. Am I to assume that it is ok to hack another's computer simply because the bible is silent on the issue? I can't believe you would advocate this.

It mentions many cases of murder including slapping your parents resulting in the death penalty. However, you misunderstand my point and that wasn't it. Elsewhere in the Bible, it says not to steal, covet and several other sins that would clearly show that hacking another's computer is wrong.

I cannot over state that just because the bible is silent on an issue does not give one liberty to do it!

I agree, likewise it doesn't mean one can assume the Bible supports the argument and go around claiming that the Bible says it is wrong.

So, a fetus is not a child until it takes its first breath? Is that it's own first breath or would a ventilator count?

Ventilator counts.

More to your logic now though: A fetus is only a child when it breathes. Now, living has simple been reduced to the ability to draw air for one's self. Therefore, every patient or geriatric on a respirator can, according to this, be killed. This is true under your system because life is nothing more than being able to breath. Life is defined by drawing breath.

No, it is only the first breath we are talking about that establishes life. After that, you are alive until you exhale your last breath. Breath-to-Breath pretty much sums it up.

 

[Ransom]

Scott J said:

I actually should not have followed you down this path even this far. An organ can still never become an individual human being. An unborn child is an individual human being.

I wish post-it would answer the question: If a fetus is not a person, and since it is not a body part, what is it?

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by onevoice:
[QB]"Ok, is God saying that he knew everyone before they where formed in the womb? No, he is saying he knew Jeremiah. In fact, the implication is that he doesn't know other people before they are formed in the womb."
----------------------------------------------
I don't see that implication. Are you saying that Jeremiah was created differently than we or that God knew him and not everyone else? Does that make him special.. like another god or something??

Yes, it made him a Prophet.
God is all powerful and can elect to know people or choose people and direct their events and lives if he wants to. He can also elect NOT to know people before they are born. Which this passage is verifing.

Do you have kids??

Yes.
They are the reasons for my pro-abortion stand... LOL , Just kidding. Listen, just because my life was blessed by God, doesn't mean...

Have you ever felt a baby kick in a womb? I find it amazing to find that it is a PROVEN fact that children in the womb subjected to classical music tend to have greater mathmatical skills than those who don't. . . they LEARN, how can that be if they are not LIFE???

Do you have proof this happens before 6 months? If not, it doesn't apply.

Also, my wife is 8 months pregnant right now. My baby kicks every time he hears my voice. He recognizes MY VOICE. He doesn't do it when just anyone talks. . . How can that be if he is just a blob of tissue. He responds to certain songs that are played...interesting isn't it??

I have said that after 6 months it should not be aborted.

I pity you. I suggest that until you become God, you best not be taking any life.

Please refocus your pity for the tens of thousands of women who have to endure back ally abortions due to man's past ignorance on the issue of life and human rights. Save it for those who died and left families behind. Save it for the future women who will have their basic human rights stripped away because a President wants to be reelected and they must go back to the alleys and coat hangers.

[ August 22, 2002, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
An organ can still never become an individual human being.

Actually, that's not true, now that we can clone humans. Don't dismiss this argument as nonsense, it is not. The same argument applies to an unfertilized egg as well and more people will accept that argument over the lung example. An egg, a lung, and a fertilized egg can become a person if it is developed and nurtured correctly for about nine months.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]You are once again wrong. These arguments are indeed non-sense. A lung requires an unnatural event to take place in order for it to become a human being. An egg requires a natural event to take place. But an unborn child required a natural event which has already taken place, specifically the successful fertilization by sperm.

An egg can develop into a person if fertilized. The dna within a lung can be developed into a person if manipulated. An unborn child is a person based on what has already occurred. Your two offerings are potentials. The unborn child is a reality.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:
[QB]Scott J said:

I wish post-it would answer the question: If a fetus is not a person, and since it is not a body part, what is it?

A body part... until it can survive as a breathing individual. Just as an egg is a female body part, so is a fertilized egg. If you have problem with the term body part. What do you classify a female unfertilized egg as. A body part or a person?

[ August 22, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Scott J]

Please refocus your pity for the tens of thousands of women who have to endure back ally abortions due to man's past ignorance on the issue of life and human rights. Save it for those who died and left families behind.

Post-It, All decisions have consequences and risks... including the decision to have sex. These women you refer to made a decision. This fact does not make it their human right to kill someone else rather than being inconvenienced with the consequences.

Save it for the future women who will have their basic human rights stripped away because a President wants to be reelected and they must go back to the alleys and coat hangers.

As opposed to the noble politicians like Clinton and Gore who changed their abortion position when the California and northeast vote was more valuable than the Tennessee/Arkansas vote? Get real. If we were going to anonomously poll elected officials on whether they really cared about this issue, my guess is that the anti-abortion group would be much larger than the abortion group.

And again, no one has the "human right" to take someone else's life simply because the other person is inconvenient. This is especially true with regard to abortion since 99% of the time the other person would not be a problem if it weren't for bad moral decisions. Of course judging from some of your other posts, we probably shouldn't oppose acts of fornication by our kids either.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:

What do you classify a female unfertilized egg as. A body part or a person?

Neither, it is a natural product of the woman's body. If not fertilized, it will be expelled. When fertilized, it implants and begins its development as a human being.

 

[onevoice]

Please refocus your pity for the tens of thousands of women who have to endure back ally abortions due to man's past ignorance on the issue of life and human rights. Save it for those who died and left families behind. Save it for the future women who will have their basic human rights stripped away because a President wants to be reelected and they must go back to the alleys and coat hangers.
----------------------------------------------

The problem with our society as a whole is that nobody thinks they have to take any responsibility for their actions. Have sex. . have baby, I feel no pity for a someone having a back alley abortion. . they are murderers. I pity the poor baby that is being killed. As far as I am concerned the back alley abortionists deserve the death penalty. No, I pity you and everyone in our society who has been brainwashed to believe that anything that feels right to us is not sin. I pity a society who feels that we can do anything we want to do and no one has any right to tell us there is a right or wrong. I pity those who will murder innocent life to try to hide another sin. I pity those who think that killing their child will leave no emotional scars. I pity you, sir, and I pray that God have mercy on you and change your heart.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Scott J:
A lung requires an unnatural event to take place in order for it to become a human being. An egg requires a natural event to take place. But an unborn child required a natural event which has already taken place, specifically the successful fertilization by sperm.

Would you agree that a surgury to keep a person alive is an unnatural event? It would seem so from your argument. If that is your stand, then medicine has no place in human life at all and the argument ends since abortion is an unnatural event.

An egg can develop into a person if fertilized. The dna within a lung can be developed into a person if manipulated. An unborn child is a person based on what has already occurred. Your two offerings are potentials. The unborn child is a reality.[/QB]

non sequitur What already has occured is equal with the insertion of DNA into an egg. Both are potentials. Both are realities.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by post-it:

What do you classify a female unfertilized egg as. A body part or a person?

Neither, it is a natural product of the woman's body. If not fertilized, it will be expelled. When fertilized, it implants and begins its development as a human being.</font>[/QUOTE]In that case, change my verbiage..."body part" to "natural product." A fetus is a natural product of a woman's body.

[ August 22, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Helen]

Post-it, very bluntly, not only is your ignorance appalling, but you have swallowed the pro-abortion myths and lies hook line and sinker without ever checking anything on your own.

You wrote:
God is all powerful and can elect to know people or choose people and direct their events and lives if he wants to. He can also elect NOT to know people before they are born.

Right. God creates people but doesn't know them. What do you think they are, accidents? Cosmic chances? Perhaps you think David was only speaking for himself when he wrote

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place...
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
from Psalm 139

You are still holding to the six month garbage. I presume you figure if a person is not breathing he is dead. Why do you think we have machines that breathe for people in hospitals -- when their brain waves are still quite active? Are you going to call them dead? I wasn't...

I know I am AWFULLY glad you are not a paramedic! Why give a person mouth-to-mouth -- he's not breathing. He's dead. Post-it said so...

Baloney! THE WORD TRANSLATED 'BREATH OF LIFE' IN THE BIBLE IS NEPHESH AND IT IS ALSO TRANSLATED 'SOUL'. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BODY!!!!!!!

Please, PLEASE try a little real scholarship and research on your own!

And then you showed just how fully you have swallowed the lies presented by the pro-death people when you stated, "Please refocus your pity for the tens of thousands of women who have to endure back ally abortions due to man's past ignorance on the issue of life and human rights. Save it for those who died and left families behind. Save it for the future women who will have their basic human rights stripped away because a President wants to be reelected and they must go back to the alleys and coat hangers.

I can't believe people still believe that! THAT WAS A TOTAL LIE FROM THE BEGINNING! Here -- if you bother reading anything I link at all, which I seriously doubt now, but which others might be interested in at least:

http://www.roevwade.org/illegalmyths.html

and here:

More on Illegal Abortion Myths
By Dr. Frank Beckwith
Anyone who keeps up with the many pro-choice demonstrations in the United States cannot help but see on pro-choice placards and buttons a drawing of the infamous coat hanger. This symbol of the pro-choice movement represents the many women who were harmed or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on themselves (i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger") or went to unscrupulous physicians (or "back-alley butchers"). Hence, as the argument goes, if abortion is made illegal, then women will once again be harmed. Needless to say, this argument serves a powerful rhetorical purpose. Although the thought of finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.

The chief reason this argument fails is because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. In fact, as we shall see, this fallacy seems to lurk behind a good percentage of the popular arguments for the pro-choice position. One begs the question when one assumes what one is trying to prove. Another way of putting it is to say that the arguer is reasoning in a circle. For example, if one concludes that the Boston Celtics are the best team because no team is as good, one is not giving any reasons for this belief other than the conclusion one is trying to prove, since to claim that a team is the best team is exactly the same as saying that no team is as good.

The question-begging nature of the coat-hanger argument is not difficult to discern: only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does the argument work. If the unborn are not fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn are fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.

Even some pro-choice advocates, who argue for their position in other ways, admit that the coat hanger/back-alley argument is fallacious. For example, pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren clearly recognizes that her position on abortion cannot rest on this argument without it first being demonstrated that the unborn entity is not fully human. She writes that "the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [9]

Although it is doubtful whether statistics can establish a particular moral position, it should be pointed out that there has been considerable debate over both the actual number of illegal abortions and the number of women who died as a result of them prior to legalization. [10] Prior to Roe, pro-choicers were fond of saying that nearly a million women every year obtained illegal abortions performed with rusty coat hangers in back-alleys that resulted in thousands of fatalities. Given the gravity of the issue at hand, it would go beyond the duty of kindness to call such claims an exaggeration, because several well-attested facts establish that the pro-choice movement was simply lying.

First, Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life -- admits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible. [11]

Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. [12] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. [13] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths. [14]

This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.5 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year. And even if we grant that there were more abortion-related deaths than the low number confirmed, there is no doubt that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths cited by the abortion rights movement is a gross exaggeration. [15]

Third, it is simply false to claim that there were nearly a million illegal abortions per year prior to legalization. There is no reliable statistical support for this claim. [16] In addition, a highly sophisticated recent study has concluded that "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the prelegalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year. [17]

Fourth, it is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." [18] It seems that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers" eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our present day.

Dr. Frank Beckwith is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Culture, and Law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar at Trinity Graduate School, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California Campus. He holds a Ph.D. from Fordham University.
Prior to coming to Trinity, Professor Beckwith held full-time faculty appointments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas(1989-96) and Whittier College (1996-97). His many books include Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. His articles and reviews have been published in numerous journals including Journal of Social Philosophy, Public Affairs Quarterly, International Philosophical Quarterly, Focus on Law Studies, Simon Greenleaf of Law and Religion, and the Canadian Philosophical Review.

Notes:

[8] John Nolt and Dennis Rohatyn, Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1988), 172. in The Problem of Abortion, 2nd ed., ed. Joel Feinberg (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), 103.

[10] See Daniel Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice, and Morality (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 132-36; and Stephen Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), 301-10.

[11] Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 193.

[12] From the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease Control, as cited in Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, Abortion: Questions and Answers, rev. ed. (Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 101-2.

[13] From Dr. Hellegers's testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Constitutional Amendments, April 25, 1 1974; cited in John Jefferson Davis, Abortion and the Christian (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), 75.

[14] From the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease Control, as cited in Wilke, 101-2.

[15] See Davis, 75.

[16] See note 10; Callahan, 132-36; Krason, 301-10.

[17] Barbara J. Syska, Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D., and Dennis O'Hare, "An Objective Model for Estimating Criminal Abortions and Its Implications for Public Policy," in New Perspectives on Human Abortion, ed. Thomas Hilgers, M.D., Dennis J. Horan, and David Mall (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981), 78.

[18] Mary Calderone, "Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem," in American Journal of Health 50 (July 1960):949.

from here: http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html

Here are some other statistics and such:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/abortion_policy.htm

http://www.lrtl.org/themyths.htm

I literally beg anyone reading this to look at those two links at least. There are no graphic pictures, no shock value. Just some essays and a few tables of statistics. But it really is time that we dispelled this lie about the back alley abortions and deaths.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Helen:
[QB]Post-it, very bluntly, not only is your ignorance appalling, but you have swallowed the pro-abortion myths and lies hook line and sinker without ever checking anything on your own.

Due to your hostile nature and histrionics in this post, I will wait until you become civil again before addressing any posts you care to make.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Helen:
Look at this, folks! Ten solid pages because a couple of men can't understand that a baby is a living human being before birth!

I doubt that a hundred more pages would cause either of them to change their minds!

I think the cases have been presented on both sides and what more is there to say?

Amen Helen, once again you get right to the point.
While I am typing I must say that the earlier posts that said Post it was lazy are very far from the truth. I don't have any particulars on his blood pressure but I feel certain his fingers are tired. Grace and Peace to all.
Murph

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
don't have any particulars on his blood pressure but I feel certain his fingers are tired. Grace and Peace to all.
Murph[/QB]

I think everyone is tired now! God Bless you Murph for stepping out, it would have been two more days of debating with you in LOL .

 

[TomMann]

Perhaps I'll look at this arguement/discussion from a different angle. First, I am a hardcore, dyed in the wool, six point calvinist. I don't know what the sixth point is yet, but feel sure that if it is based on as much scripture as the other five, I'll have no trouble ascribing to it...... Appropriate to say also that I hold to the absolute predestination of ALL things.

There has never been an abortion in the history of mankind that has taken God by surprise. Don't believe he has ever sat back, slapped his forehead and said "I can't believe they did that." And it is within his absolute right and power to intervene and stop any of them. And yet, he, at times, he does nothing.
Why would God allow it? Same reason he allows any other sin. Same reason he allowed the persecution and murder of his saints. To provide a testimony against those who commit such acts.

That testimony against us will wind up with one of two dispositions.
(1) By God's grace it may be used to grant conviction to repentance and new life.
(2) By God's wrath it may be used to bring judgement at the Great White Throne.

Yes, I acknowledge that abortion is a sin. But it is a forgivable sin. Forgiven for those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

We should always encourage our fellow man/woman to avoid sin. But when they do sin anyway, as we have all done, we should be ready when conviction comes. Ready to let them know they can be forgiven and, if they trust in Jesus, have been forgiven.

I think a more appropriate sign (than "Murderer")for an abortion clinic demonstration would be. God Loves You! or Jesus Died for You! He did ,after all, die for us while we were yet sinners.

My apologies if I have failed to offend anyone. I'm new at this and haven't sharpened my spikes yet. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
Look at this, folks! Ten solid pages because a couple of men can't understand that a baby is a living human being before birth!

I doubt that a hundred more pages would cause either of them to change their minds!

I think the cases have been presented on both sides and what more is there to say?

Amen Helen, once again you get right to the point.
While I am typing I must say that the earlier posts that said Post it was lazy are very far from the truth. I don't have any particulars on his blood pressure but I feel certain his fingers are tired. Grace and Peace to all.
Murph</font>[/QUOTE]I got here too late to read 11 pages or to proof read my post, but have my thoughts and they are the same as Helen's. I wonder if anyone ever thought about the pre-birth of Christ! Pre-birth meaning while He was in the womb of Mary. Now let's look at the initial fertilization of the egg in Mary by God. I can and will not see it in a different way, that when God did this, Jesus was on His way as a human baby(God in the flesh). This was the start of Jesus as a human, period. Would any one who has posted that a baby is not human for X amount of time venture to say Jesus was not Jesus until X amount of time? There was only one difference, it was God who fertilized the egg and not Joseph but that in no way makes the scenario different. A baby is human from conception the same as Jesus was Jesus/God from the beginning. Case closed! Boy, it's a good thing that they didn't decide that He wasn't human or from God at that time, and to quell any gossip, decided to abort, if there were clinics then. Women/men who believe in abortion so as to satisify there own selfish reasons for abortion have much less of an excuse than Mary as she could have been stoned to death if Joseph had so wished as per their belief of adultry as Joseph knew it wasn't his. World wake up...abortion from any stage OR reason is MURDER in the FIRST DEGREE!

God Bless............Alex

[ August 23, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
Would you agree that a surgury to keep a person alive is an unnatural event?

Yes it is... and this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what we are discussing.

What already has occured is equal with the insertion of DNA into an egg. Both are potentials. Both are realities.

Does it really have to be this basic with someone as intelligent as you are? A reality and a potential ARE NOT the same.

I do not believe that cloning of human beings is a good idea. However very shortly after an egg is fertilized by whatever means, it is an individual person that we should protect.

[ August 23, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]