Jivin J’s Life Links 3-25-09
by JivinJ
This seems to be another case where Obama feels he can make a number of wholly untrue claims about his policy because he knows the majority of the American public is too lazy to check the facts.
Unfortunately we see women who are making decisions about terminating a pregnancy because of the severe economic crisis they’re facing….They simply don’t believe they can afford to bring another child into the world.
But hasn’t the belief that they can’t afford a child been one of top reasons women have been giving for years to justify their abortions? Why would PP, which thinks any reason for having an abortion is legitimate, suddenly find this unfortunate?
The fact is that neither science, medicine, nor religion gives us a verifiable answer as to when a cell or a collection of cells becomes a human being.
Mar.25, 2009 10:37 am |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Lambuth University is a Methodist College and the United Methodist Church is clearly pro abortion. they used to belong to Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choices but recently withdrew their name due to pressure from their members. Check out their denominational headquarters website and they support abortion. That is why many have left that denomination including me. My poor grandfather who was a pastor in that denomination would turn over in his grave to see where they are now.
I am so sick of people saying, “Well, science only answers what a human being is. Yeah, and science says that life begins, really, at conception, but we have to employ our individual philosophies to answer this question.”
I personally love philosophy and am leery of science, but, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to hear people saying, “I don’t want to acknowledge their rights and that’s my choice. To take away my ability to violate other’s rights is a violation of my rights.” There is no more debate over whether or not life begins at conception- it’s only the debate over whether or not humanity begins at conception, and humanity in born AND preborn human beings must develop. No one is born with their own philosophy, it develops after years of experience. To hold this against the young- their lack of individual wisdom- is nothing more than intolerance and I am so sick of it being paraded about as fact.
Home > Our Faith > Church and Society > Social Principles> Abortion
From the United Methodist Church
This from their website and from a letter to me explaining their position on abortion.
Abortion
The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born.
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.
We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161.K.)
Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church – 2004. Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.
Technically that makes them pro-life. Nearly everyone supports the choice of the mother when the pregnancy would kill the mother.
Moral Relativism Defined::::::::
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “[W]hat I don’t want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach. {…}
QUESTION: […D]o you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. I think there’s always an ethical and a moral element that has to be … a part of this.
===========
So, guiding his decision is science, but also ethics, so long as those ethics are not based on an rigid ideological approach?
I suppose, by definition, ethics should CHANGE over time, eh?
Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Oliver, you must not have read the statement. Everyone does accept that if the life of the mother will be lost to then it is better to save one than lose two. Read their statement. They support abortion period.
Oliver and Maria,
I think this is where terms must be clearly defined. Those who support abortion usually give the fuzzy definition of abortion as “the termination of a pregnancy.” Of course, anytime one gives birth they are terminating the pregnancy, so that is why that is a very sloppy definition. I think abortion is most accurately defined as “the direct killing of an [unborn] embryo or fetus [while still inside of a woman] as a means or an end.” The parts in brackets are technically understood as part of the definition of fetus, but we note them for emphasis.
Now the reason I say this is because we now have to decide what is to be done in the “life of the mother” situation. And what we should do to save the life of the mother is either induce labor early or remove the baby via a C-section. What this accomplishes is saving the mother’s life while not directly killing the unborn, nor willing it, yet it is a secondary unwanted effect, however foreseen. My point is that in the life of the mother case, we do not commit an abortion because an abortion involves direct killing as a means or an end. This may seem like splitting hairs to some, but we hold to an ethic which looks at means, ends, the action-in-and-of-itself, as well as intent. In life of teh mother, you do not directly kill the baby. You do not will the baby to die, nor do you kill the baby in order to save the mother’s life. You save the mother’s life, and an unfortunate consequence is the death of the child.
So I think these distinctions are very important. God love you.
The AP has an article suggesting that the downturn in the economy means more women are having abortions. One Planned Parenthood CEO said the recession was a factor behind rising abortion numbers, and also oddly claimed….
I’ve also read that the number of vasectomies are also rising, supposedly due to the poor economy. Too bad. Some men may make a “choice” they will regret.
Oliver, it is still wrong to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. You cannot abort the baby to save the mothers life – this is doing a evil to accomplish a good. Not morally permissable.
And what we should do to save the life of the mother is either induce labor early or remove the baby via a C-section.
Bobby: hmmm, I dunno. I might be misunderstanding you here.
If a woman has cancer of the uterus and needs her uterus removed to save her life then this would be permissable. The baby will die because of the hysterectomy but the action is indirect since the intent of the operation is to save the mothers life.
Likewise, say a mother has some sort of illness that requires her to take a certain medication/treatment and the baby dies or labor comes on due to the medication. This is also alright since the primary action is to help/save the mom, but the indirect result is the death of the baby.
Inducing labor leading to death (say at 18 wks) is this permissable? Just wondering….
Bobby: upon rereading, I think I misread you!
“Bobby: upon rereading, I think I misread you! ”
OK… I think we’re on the same page. Obviously I’m outlining the principle of double-effect. To induce labor early, you would need a sufficiently grave reason, like the 9 year old Brazilian girl, for example, who may very well have died if she had continued pregnancy. You do everything you can to try and save the baby after you remove him, but you don’t kill him. The purpose of the induction or C-section is to save the mother’s life because that is the only thing you can do to prevent the mother from dying, not to kill the fetus. Otherwise they would both die.
Does that make sense?
1) The United Methodist Church should be ashamed of itself for so many reasons. That the church founded by two of Susannah Wesley’s youngest children (she had 19 in all), formed because of persecution due to their father’s teaching that Christians should live pure, holy lives has now taken a very Unitarian stance on almost every issue… it pains me. I grew up Methodist. I left when it was obvious the church had become so open-minded their brains had fallen out.
2)I just covered the “life-threatening” abortion clause in depth with Asitis on one of the other threads (I’d have to look to see which one.) Basically, it’s a fallacious argument. There are no cases where either c-section or medical care aimed to accelerating fetal lung development and careful timing of induction of labor cannot be used to make an attempt to save both lives. Obviously, not every child will be saved… honestly, not every child survives even a full term birth or there would not be the sadness known as stillbirth or fetal demise. However, to call a child whose pregnancy is carefully monitored, medications administered to speed fetal lung development, and NICU specialists available to provide every possible chance of survival as an abortion, is, of course, egregious misuse of the term. There is no pro-life law that would forbid such actions, they are clearly life-affirming. Therefore, the concept that abortion must be accepted in cases of maternal endangerment is patently false.
HELP!!! Can someone help me find the website that was featured sometime in the past month or so that listed the ways to discuss abortion that involved using a toddler as a comparison? I’m in a pretty intense debate over at http://www.babycenter.com on their The Debate Team section and I need to remember how some of that was phrased.
Elizabeth I know what you’re talking about, but I can’t remember the name. I’ll look through the archives real quick and post it. :) I think it was Human Life International
Oops, it’s actually the life training institute.
Here’s the website. http://www.prolifetraining.com/
Elisabeth,
I don’t know if this is specifically what you have in mind, but at the end of one of the LTI podcasts, Serge discusses how medically speaking, the newborn is more like a fetus still in the womb for the first three months. It’s almost like pregnancy is three months “too short” (I know I”m gonna get jumped on for that one), at least that’s the idea that Serge argues. I can find out which podcast that was for you if that’s what you’re looking for. In fact, I think they have the transcripts online. Let me know.
Bobby what an interesting idea!
I know for a fact that the newborns brain grows significantly in the first three months after birth and that this is a continuation of a phenomenal growth spurt that happens in the last trimester of pregnancy.
In fact, if you measure a newborn’s growth spurt at 6 weeks for example, you will see that it is significant (ex. head circumference will grow by a cm OVERNIGHT)
Does that make sense?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 25, 2009 3:13 PM
yup, but I think this is VERY VERY rare
Even chemo is now done in the second and third trimesters quite safely.
Not my idea, angel; Serge’s. He discusses in the last 10 minutes or so of LTI podcast number 4 http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/lti-podcast-episode-4-serge.html . There is a secular medical-like book that confirms this too that Serge discusses http://www.amazon.com/Happiest-Baby-Block-Crying-Newborn/dp/0553381466/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235827179&sr=8-1
Bobby #4 is very short only 3 minutes. Good grief, the video is annoying and the blonde chick does a poor job of presenting the prolife counter points.
Am I watching what you intended?
I found it… I’ve got the debate narrowed down to development… I just keep repeating “Either the previability fetus is a person, with the rights of the person (which would then mean that in order to end that person’s life any other person, including the mother would need a compelling reason that would somehow override that basic right to life) or the previability fetus is not a person. in which case it is the property of the body it inhabits and can be disposed of at will.”
And I follow that up with “Is the previable fetus a person, or not, and if not, why not?” (I originally was saying human, and was told that it was human but not a person, hence my use of that term.) I’m not getting any straight answers on that one, btw.
Elisabeth, don’t let them take you down the personhood rabbit hole.
Tell them that “personhood” is a philosphical idea used only to discriminate against a certain class of humans.
For example, we once saw slaves, Jews, the mentally handicapped, and the physically handicapped as “non-person humans.”
Personhood is used ONLY to deny rights to a group of humans. By its nature it is used by a group in power to discriminate against a weaker group.
Tell them that a fetus is a human being period. Keep them on the scientific fact. There is NO line that can be drawn re: personhood that is not arbitrary.
Fight them on ANY criteria they give.
Well, that’s what I’ve been pressing them on… what makes one human more or less of a person than another human? I’ve brought up the fact that that was the argument used for slavery. They’re talking in circles and getting really upset with me… and I haven’t said anything inflammatory. I just keep asking them what makes the difference, and they’re freaking out.
I hope you don’t mind that I popped over there, Elisabeth. I’m posting under Rebecca.Pope2
Actually, I hope I’m in the right thread…I’m posting in the one where the original question regarded abortion as birth control.
Bobby, I’m very familiar with The Happiest Baby on the Block (thank heavens for it, Arielle was a fussy little thing!) I’m actually in the process of becoming certified to teach the methods outlined therein.
The work of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Development (most definitely secular, although I love the people there dearly!) teaches that pregnancy is actually 18 months as far as child development is concerned. It makes sense if you think about it. It is just about 9 months that many children begin to stand and take first steps (obviously a wide range there, but on average) and that is the stage of development where most animal babies are born. However, with the amount of brain development necessary for the human mind, there would be no way to safely birth a baby at that point… so babies are born “halfway through” so to speak, somewhat like a baby kangaroo who is born and then crawls into mama’s pouch to finish developing.
Yeah, that’s the thread!
BTW, I was just thinking, “Don’t know this person from around the board, but LOVE the post!” ROFLOL, I so should have realized it was YOU!
Haha thanks. I don’t know what it randomly put me as Rebecca.Pope2. Rebecca is my first name, but I don’t remember ever telling THEM that. It’s a conspiaracy!
Angel,
“Bobby #4 is very short only 3 minutes. Good grief, the video is annoying and the blonde chick does a poor job of presenting the prolife counter points. Am I watching what you intended?”
No, that is a VIDEO from RH Reality Check that LTI responds to on their hour long podcast. Here, go here http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/ and on the right side bar, you’ll see a little mp3 player under the heading “LTI Podcast” with LTIPodcast7.mp3, LTIPodcast6.mp3, etc. Click on LTIPodcast4.mp3. That should do it.
That is the infamous Amanda Marcotte that they respond to in the video you watched, BTW.
Good work, Elisabeth.
More of Obummer’s signature style of
*False Hope: we already know the stem lines are not viable…how many times has he blurbed, “If we can put a man on the moon…” LOL, he must have just been informed we in fact HAVEN’T. (That’s called contemptuous pigging-it slop!)
*Fetal Destruction: means more $$ for the Monster Science Industry…hey “Frankies” need jobs, too.
*Demoralize the Unborn