Stanek weekend question I: Would Jesus carry graphic signs of aborted babies?
A pastor asked an interesting rhetorical question in the letters to the editor section of the June 15 Jackson Hole News & Guide (“Speech debate”): “Would Jesus carry graphic photos [of aborted babies]?”
The pastor’s answer: “Have you ever seen the Passion of the Christ? You see, not only would Jesus carry graphic photos, he became one.”
Your thoughts?
[HT: Spirit One Christian Center; graphic via Flickr]
Jun.18, 2011 12:52 pm |
Weekend question |
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.
Just because Jesus’s story became a graphic anti-semetic Mel Gibson movie doesn’t mean (at all) that he would have supported people that claim to be christians intimidating women in their darkest hour.
Jane, that is the most pathetic statement I’ve come across in quite some time (not to mention false and insulting).
As for the question, I won’t answer it because it’s not the right question to be asking.
“Intimidating women in their darkest hour?” Okay. Whatever. You’re entitled that opinion, even if it’s a gross mischaracterization of pro-lifers.
As to the question, I’d like to respond with a question. “Would Jesus support the graphic images put on display in the Holocaust Museum?”
As the painting of Him above clearly demonstrates, He’d not only carry the signs but He carries the babies Himself. Our children are only on loan to us from Him, including the ones cruelly rejected by abortion.
Jane, if truth threatens strategy, then the strategy is flawed. “Pro-choice” is a deception, divorced from reality.
The Holocaust= genocidal atrocities committed against millions of people for being Jewish/gay/”other”
Abortion= women deciding that it’s not the right time in their lives to be pregnant
Quit comparing abortion to the Holocaust, it’s insulting to those who lost their lives and family, and it’s insulting to humankind.
As an added bonus, it makes you look really unintelligent when you try to misappropriate words like “genocide” and “holocaust” for your own cause
Honestly, I don’t think this question is one that can be answered with any certainty whatsoever, nor do I think it’s really that relevant.
Jesus had a very specific job He came to accomplish. And while certainly he advocated against injustice, perpetrated by humans onto other humans, His job on Earth did not involve any sort of political campaigns. And this was in Roman-occupied Israel, so it isn’t as if He lived in an era short on available injustice to combat or politics to campaign about. But He didn’t involve Himself with any of them because that was not why He came to Earth (which would, I suppose, mean that the answer to the question is actually a qualified no). His job was to be the sacrifice for sin. That is not a job we can emulate, nor should we even think about trying.
We, could, of course, start chasing down what-if scenarios about what Jesus would have done if He had not had the defined purpose that He did, but given that His life would have been such a wildly different thing in that case, I don’t think we could even begin to make good guesses. And I can’t imagine such an exercise would be productive, and frankly would smack of blasphemy to me (although, in fairness, that may be more a personal reaction than anything else).
I think the only really useful questions here are the ones we’ve asked before. Is the use of graphic signs permissable? Is the use of graphic signs right? In both cases, under the right circumstances, the answer to both is yes. Our purpose is not to be a sacrifice for sin but to obey God and be witnesses to the world. So while I don’t think Jesus would have carried them Himself, I also don’t think He would have spoken out against those who do.
“Abortion= women deciding that it’s not the right time in their lives to be pregnant”
That’s not abortion, Jane, that’s abstinence. Abortion=the ending of a human life not deemed worthy enough to live. And if I’m not mistaken, that’s what the Holocaust was as well, the ending of human lives not deemed worthy enough to live.
What?! The Holocaust can not be boiled down to something so simple as “deemed not worthy to live.”
Abortion is when a woman decides it’s not the right time to be pregnant.
Abstinence is when a woman decides it’s not the right time to have sex.
The Holocaust= genocidal atrocities committed against millions of people for being Jewish/gay/”other”
Abortion= women deciding that it’s not the right time in their lives to be pregnant
—
It doesn’t matter how you decide to dress abortion up. It doesn’t really matter if you try to “lessen” the atrocities of abortion by painting it to be an action a woman decides for herself, rather than something that is done to another. The fact of the matter is that an abortion deliberately ends the life of another human, often times for no other reason than convenience, often under the guise of the unborn not being a ‘person’ or under the guise of the unborn not being ‘fully human’ or some other dehumanization tactic. Disagree as you might, that’s not any different than what the Nazis did to any of your aforementioned groups (i.e., labeling them as ‘nonpersons’ and killing them because they had no moral right to live). It strikes me as odd how you can, in any good faith, sit there and tell me the two are unequatable and an insult to ‘human kind’. Apparently you think that it’s okay to define on group out of rights held all other humans so long as you think it okay to do so.
Isn’t that what the Jews, gays, Slavs, Gypsies and others were in the eyes of the Nazis, Jane, not deemed worthy to live? How can the Holocaust not be put in that simple of a description when such a description is quite true?
And can it not be argued that abstinence is when a woman decides not to be pregnant? She would have to have sex in order to be pregnant, so what say you?
Listen, some GUY, I will never ever accept anti-abortion arguments for someone who does not have a uterus. You should feel so embarrassed for assuming that you have any idea what it’s like to be pregnant when it isn’t the right time. You should feel disgusted that you villfy women who choose to end their pregnancies.
So now you discredit my argument because I’m a guy? Fine. I’ll let one of the females tell you the same thing, though you probably won’t accept their arguments any more than you’ve accepted mine.
I take pro-life arguments from women more seriously, though ultimately I still disagree
Guys may not have uterus but they were themselves the unborn, the fetus, etc. in the past aa well. And ironic Jane played that argument when her rights to murder her unborn were passed down by a Supreme Court then made of 9 guys who dont have uterus. Last I check women don’t have penises yet by her logic they would when the unborn are males.
Women can’t claim logicalky abortion is not right time to be pregnant when they are already pregnant. Tha decision comes before pregnancy. Abortion is purely a way to get rid of inconveniences that folks like Jane would condemn if those killed are born already.
Jane should feel disgusted that she vilify folks who fight for human rights to live including for unborn females. Last I check females get killed as unborn far more than males as unborn.
Well Jane, I guess by your logic women who have had hysterectomies can’t have valid opinions on the abortion issue, since they don’t have uteruses? Abortion= atrocities (murder, often performed very violently) toward millions of defenseless, innocent babies for being unplanned, imperfect, or a host of other reasons that don’t justify murder. Sounds like a Holocaust to me.
Oh come on, the hysterectomy line is stupid, you know I meant that women rather than men.
And one of the (million glaring) differences between the Holocaust and abortion is that the Holocaust killed born people. Abortion ends the life of a fetus, and you’ll never be able to convince me that the life of that fetus is more important than the mother it’s inside of.
As far as the Roe v Wade judges being all men, would you like to start a discussion on patriarchy and the disgusting lack of representation of women in our political/judicial system?
No Jane, your insinuation that only people with uteruses have a valid opinion was stupid. Who are you to judge that an unborn baby’s life is less important than the life of someone who has been born? Not to mention the fact that rarely, not in the vast majority of cases, does a pregnancy pose a serious threat to the life of the mother.
Jane, pro-lifers believe all human life is important, from the unborn to the elderly, no one more important than the other. Unfortunately, you value one set of human beings more than another.
As for the last part of your comment, would you like to post comments without any straw man arguments for a change?
You guys are the ones who brought up the 9 men voting on roe v wade, as if you were proving a point.
I feel so sad for all of you :(
Honestly, i feel so sad, and so much second-hand embarrassment for you. I will pray for you.
How about channeling your sadness, embarrassment and prayers for the assault on innocent life that has reached epidemic proportions? That being said, I apologize for calling your comment stupid, and I will pray for you as well.
Jane, you brought up the Holocaust, the absurd claims of Mel Gibson making an anti-Semitic film, and in another thread, the hypothetical situation of a pregnant 9-year old, all of them straw man arguments on your part. I can see why you feel so sad.
Jane, you embarass yourself here. I brought up the 9 male judges to expose your hypocrisy on this. You cant have it both ways. Can’t say men should have no say since they don’t have any uterus yet appeal to decisions of male judges who don’t have that either for support for your claimed rights. You were the one who brought up men as it proves a point then can’t stand it when it is thrown right back at you. The only point you have in bringing up the whole male gender issue is to further the idea that feminist aborts are men (and baby) hating folks.
What?? I didn’t bring up the Holocaust, “some guy” did.
And please, as if I’m the only one who thinks that movie is anti-semetic
http://www.google.com/search?q=passion+of+the+christ+anti+semitic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
No one said the unborn is more important than life of mother. It is a lie. You don’t believe your own rhetoric there since you advocate right to abortion for any and all reasons not just the hard cases like danger to mother’s life. You simply use that as talking point to falsely insinuate how our agenda don’t care if women die. And it is disgustingly dishonest of you.
You think that feminists are “men and baby hating folks?”
I am laughing so hard that I’m almost crying. Did Glenn beck tell you to fear feminists? Maybe bill o Reilly? Maybe it was your own fear of women, especially women who don’t need you? Omg this is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day, honestly.
So what if you arent only person who think The Passion is antisemitic? And we aren’t only folks who think abortion is a holocaust in itself. There are Jewish prolifers who think that too. Your rhetoric is purely empty of substance.
“What?? I didn’t bring up the Holocaust, “some guy” did.”
Wrong, Jane, he brought up the Holocaust Museum as part of a question on whether it was right to show graphic pictures there. You brought up the Holocaust.
You’re getting after me for hypotheticals in a post titled “would Jesus carry graphic signs of aborted babies?”
LOLOL
No, I absolutely did not. I mentioned anti-semitism and “some guy” brought up the Holocaust. Did you go to college? I’m nervous about your reading comprehension skills
I didn’t say I think feminist hate men and babies. I said your posts feed that perception. If you don’t want that perception stop giving your movement a bad name with your postings that bash a person’s maleness rather than address substance of the posts.
Straw man arguments, Jane, straw man arguments. You’ve been bringing up straw man arguments to try and win debates on this thread and on another thread. You may continue with your shallow laughter.
And it is you who want to claim to being right on dubious grounds others share your opinion of a movie. By your logic since many folks see feminis aborts as men haters they must be right. Logic fail in either scenario.
Why thank you, Morgan, for deigning to allow me to continue my laughter. You are truly a benevolent ruler
“No, I absolutely did not. I mentioned anti-semitism and “some guy” brought up the Holocaust. Did you go to college? I’m nervous about your reading comprehension skills ”
He brought up the Holocaust Museum, Jane, read the comment.
Unlike you, I can read. I know that he brought up the holocaust museum, which was asking about whether or not Jesus would approve of graphic pictures OF THE HOLOCAUST in the holocaust museum.
What is wrong with you, honestly? How does that not bring up the Holocaust simply because he only explicity mentioned the museum dedicated to it?
“Why thank you, Morgan, for deigning to allow me to continue my laughter. You are truly a benevolent ruler ”
(yawn) Nice try at being sardonic, Jane.
I might say the same regarding that little yawn of yours
Laugh at yourself Jane. You don’t have anything to say other than mock people’s male gender, religion and reading skills (like yours are anything to brag about).
Jane, what Some Guy brought up was a question about whether Jesus would support putting up graphic pictures at the Holocaust Museum. Sure, the question involves the Holocaust, but you brought up the Holocaust as a straw man argument against comparing it to abortion, when the point of the question was to try and indirectly answer the original question affirmatively (if I’m not mistaken).
omg yeah ~maleness~
Men are SO oppressed, aren’t they, Punisher. Poor sad little men, how dare I.
Never said anything about males being oppressed. Pure example you need to work on own reading skills before attacking others. And thanks for proving my point of how your hatred of men comes through loud and clear. Don’t want that perception? Stop giving your movement a bad name with posts like that. The bottom line is you can’t refute so you rant about others who disagree being men. If it was done to women the way you do it you cry foul and call it sexism.
Don’t tell me one way or the other how I feel about men, nor should you be telling me to “stop” doing anything.
One person does not represent a group of people. Being a feminist is only part of my identity, and I do not do damage to the feminist movement by being annoyed OR annoying on a pro-life blog. If you judge a whole movement by one person, you have some serious depth issues
If you really believe your own rhetoric then advocate for getting rid of all pro-abortion rights court decisions decided by men since after all they don’t have uterus and according to you shouldn’t make decisions in first place based on their maleness. Otherwise your comments are complete nonsense and you don’t really think men should not have a say. That is unless they agree with you.
Hypocrite much? You presume to tell us what we should say or how we should read. And I didnt judge a whole movement by one person. I simply pointed out the perception people have of your movement. Including prochoicers.. So much for your claim to superior reading skills.. Funny a person whose only substance is to attack gender of posters presume to tell us about depth issues. Pot. Kettle. Black.
And funny you have no problem how we feel about women and all. Can’t take what you dish out?
What? I don’t believe men should be able to make oppressive decisions regarding a woman’s body. I DO agree that the oppressed minority needs the assistance of the majority in order to reach equality, which is why I support men who are in favor of female body autonomy.
Sorry that things arent as simple and laid out as you would like them to be. My comments here don’t encompass my beliefs, so your “gotcha” moments are really depressingly stupid.
I know that you were talking about perception, I do not care about perception and I took offense at the assumption that you could school me on the perception of the feminist movement.
The unborn is a huge oppressed minority which needs the majority (the born) to defend their lives.
Not my problem if you lack ability to see logical implications of your own rhetoric. And nice try moving the goalposts. You use the argument that those who don’t have uterus should not have a say. But now you argue those in majority ie in your argument those without uterus should have say in helping minority ie in this case those with uterus. There’s a term for that: bait and switch argument tactic you are using. And I didn’t okay gotcha games. Your arguments are that bad. If you admit it is not so simple then dispose of the stupid arguments about the gender of those who differ. It is immaterial and irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder.
I think it’s sexist to say that men should have no say about abortion because they can’t ever become pregnant. They’re human beings and the children created are equally theirs! How arrogant and WRONG I would be to tell my husband that our children do not belong to him simply because I had the privilege of carrying them in my womb when we had an equal part in creating them and we contributed equal amounts of our DNA. The unborn children are human beings, innocent, helpless human beings. It would be WRONG of men to sit by and do nothing to protect them!
If you’re having sex, you’re assuming responsibility for the consequences of sex, good or bad. Conceiving a child is a natural consequence of sex. If you choose to have sex, you’re assuming responsibility for any children you may create. But why should those children by punished with the DEATH penalty for choices that YOU made? I have been pregnant when it wasn’t “the right time.” I would never have even considered harming my daughter though! It wasn’t her fault that she was conceived at a time that didn’t seem “right.” I assumed that “risk” when I chose to have sex with my husband though! And furthermore, I was so very wrong… circumstances were such that it seemed like the absolute wrong time to be having another child, but it was the perfect time. I would never take it back! My baby girl is amazing and there will never be another like her!
Do you know what the real insult is to human kind, Jane? That you would treat the privilege women have to bear new life as some sort of disease. That you would deny the humanity of a whole group of people that do, in fact, belong to the human race just because they don’t fit your obscure criteria (yeah… exactly what the Nazis did!). Unborn children are discriminated against for their size, their level of development, their level of dependency and their location. They are given the death sentence for which their only crime is that they exist. Anyone who supports such a barbaric practice as slaughtering tiny human beings because the time “isn’t right” ought to be thoroughly ashamed! Yes, I said it… that “dirty” word… you should feel shame for your support of their murder! Some other dirty words… Personal responsibility for one’s actions!
To paraphrase Susan B. Anthony, it is a disgrace, an atrocity even, that when we consider that women were once treated as property, that we should turn around and treat our children as property, as garbage, to be disposed of.
Men themselves also use to be the unborn.
This blog is like a high school debate class…everyone trying to poke holes in arguments or shout STRAW MAN or BAIT AND SWITCH blah blah blah sorry to tell you the reality is:
-Women need abortions.
-Women will always abort pregnancies no matter what.
-Abortion is legal.
-Without legal abortion women will abort on their own, or by any means available.
So whatever your argument is, that is the reality. Your push to make abortion illegal or difficult to get does not change the reality that women will always seek abortions.
Congratulations on being the lowest common denominator everyone.
Jane actually pushes for lowest denomination when she argues that even if abortion is illegal people will still do it so let’s keep it legal. By that logic we should legalize all forms of murder as well as rape, battery, assault, etc won’t stop people from using them. And if you don’t want holes poked into your stupid rhetoric like Swiss cheese don’t use stupid rhetoric. It is that simple. And don’t whine about it when people call you out on your rubbish or call you out on posts that if said to women would be considered sexist and worse hate speech.
Jane, you want to talk about reality? The reality is that women and “doctors” who kill unborn children are killing innocent, defenseless human beings. Punisher is right… by your logic of “woman will do it anyways” we need to make murder of born persons, rape, theft–anything else you can think of–legal because people break the law.
I’m not whining.
And your argument regarding legalization is faulty logic and you know it!
Legal safe abortion does not, despite what your slanted biased “news” sources (lifenews, abortionbreastcancer.com, etc) may report, harm women, unlike rape and drugs and murder.
A fetus is inside of it’s mother, and it’s up to her if she’d like to continue the pregnancy.
Sorry to tell you the reality is that the only real argument you presented is in your last post and that argument is dong what you accused others of: appealing to lowest common denom. Also ironic that you accuse others of high school level debate and whine about what folks pointed out about your postings that are true indeed (like you do move the goalposts in your arguments) when you are constantly accusing people of lacking in reading skills yet whine about people saying you use strawman and so on. You are living in glasshouses. That is the reality.
Hard to claim our logic on legalization is faulty when you don’t show how so. More empty rhetoric.
It’s not a murder of a defenseless human being, it’s natural for many pregnancies to end in miscarriage and no pro-lifers seem to be angry at a woman’s uterus for providing a hostile environment for that defenseless human being…
You seem pretty riled up, Punisher. Are you annoyed because I’m a woman? And women scare you, maybe a little? Maybe you’re mad that I dont care about your opinions, or maybe you’re starting to see the fault in your ideals…
You completely missed the point. Abortion do harm women. Unborn women that is. The vast majority of abortions are don’t on females. But that is beside the point. The point is it is you who appeal to lowest common denom when you argue people will do it amyways. For one who complain alot about reading skills of others you do completely miss the point alot.
Or maybe a miscarriage, the accidental ending of a fetus’s life, would be considered manslaughter? That’s an accidental murder, right?
You completely missed the point. Abortion do harm women. Unborn women that is. The vast majority of abortions are done on females. But that is beside the point. The point is it is you who appeal to lowest common denom when you argue people will do it amyways. For one who complain alot about reading skills of others you do completely miss the point alot.
Abortion doesn’t harm women any more than any other medical procedure. Maybe women feel regret after an abortion because of people pressuring them to feel terrible, or people standing outside of clinics screaming at them. Those people hurt women, not safe legal abortions
Jane, born persons die naturally every day. Again, does that mean we should legalize murder? Miscarriages and abortion are NOT the same thing! Nice try. Abortion cruelly, unnaturally, purposefully ends the life of an innocent, defenseless human being, whether you deny it or not.
It is also natural for people to die. So does it make murder ok since it is doing what nature does?
Nice try playing card I responded in hostile fashion because you are woman. No, it is because your rhetoric is morally bankrupt. You are the one who constantly make other’s gender the issue. Not me.
I said unborn women are harmed by abortions.
We make a lot of decisions ever day that unnaturally extend or shorten our lives. Getting a bone marrow transplant is an unnatural extension of life. Smoking cigarettes is an unnatural shortening of life.
If you want to say that abortion is murder, then accidental death should also be punishable. What if a woman miscarries because she as uneducated and drank during her pregnancy? Should she be punished for the unintentional murder of her fetus?
Nice try, Punisher, you edited your comment to include the “unborn” part
Jane, quit trying to equate a miscarriage to abortion! They are not at all the same thing. A miscarriage is the natural death of a human being and they can’t be helped (unless someone caused it i.e. by harming the mother in some way that led to the death of the unborn child, in which case, yes, they should be punished for it and they are in many states). My mother lost a child, a boy, at 13 weeks due to miscarriage. How dare you try to compare her loss, my brother’s natural death, to someone purposefully going in and slaughtering an unborn child. I suppose a born person’s NATURAL death should be punished in the same way murder is?
How are we to know how she was caring for the pregnancy? Are you going to investigate all miscarriages to find fault of the mother? If not,maybe you don’t really care that much about abortion
Nice try Jane but you are lying.
I dIdnt edit post to include unborn part. Try not to lie again.
Oh my gosh, I just try SO HARD not to lie, but my feeble lady brain makes it so hard :( :(
You just hate women so much, it’s really sad
Jane, sexism goes both ways.
And actually, Jane, it is my understanding that they usually do try to figure out, if possible, why a child died if there is a miscarriage. As I said, many states will charge people for murder if they did something to harm the mother that resulted in her unborn child’s death.
Sexism does not go both ways, that’s like saying that “reverse racism” exists
lol… so what? Only men can be sexist? Only white people can be racist? Please! Now THAT is laughable! Based on your comments here, I think that YOU hate men.
The intentional ending of someone’s life by another is completely different than a life that ends due to illness or a host of other factors that are no one’s fault. I miscarried identical twins at 13 weeks despite making every effort to keep them alive. Drinking alcohol, by the way, while a despicable thing to do to an unborn child, rarely causes miscarriages.
Julie, yes, becAuse in those cases, the woman was intending to carry the baby to term. Then it would be a murder, because it goes against the mother’s intentions for her pregnancy
Killing a baby is only murder if the mother intended for it to live? Does that apply to babies who have already been born as well?
I urge you to take some classes, or do some reading, on social structure and oppression. Racism is conducted by the majority party, prejudice can be conducted by minorities.
I dont hate men at all. I dislike men who oppress women, but I dislike them for that reason, not because of their gender.
Ugh if a baby has already been born, then it is no longer in its mother’s body and she does not have body autonomy rights for something outside her body. Come on guys, My eyes are starting to hurt from all the rolling they’re doing
So you mean the pregnant woman in latter stages have 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs and possibly penis?
Roll your eyes at yourself. Your logic fails consistently.
No, because all of those things are attached to a fetus growing inside of her, the woman does not grow a penis, her fetus has a penis, and if she chooses to no longer carry that penis-having fetus to term, that’s her right and her decision
Thank you, Claire! Logic is apparently lost to some. *I* don’t decide the value of my children, born or unborn. They are valuable because they are alive and they are human beings. And Jane, my reason for bringing up that some states do punish people that intentionally harm/kill an unborn child was to answer that, yes, if a miscarriage is caused by someone’s actions, yes, it should be punished. I was answering your question. But most miscarriages are natural and it is silly and illogical to try to equate them to the intentional slaughter of an unborn child AKA abortion. Not to mention it is cruel to women who have lost children to miscarriage. My mother still mourns for my brother that she lost at 13 weeks. She saw him with her own eyes. She held him in her hand. She could tell you how very human he was. No one could ever tell my mom that an unborn child is a clump of cells and/or not human. I personally had a child born at 27 weeks. No one could ever make me believe the garbage that pro-aborts spew. My son did not magically become human because he no longer resided in my womb. He was already human and had he been full term, he would have been human during those last few months I would have been pregnant with him as well. He was human from conception.
A fetus is inside of it’s mother
I’d just like to point out that here we have a pro-abort who is calling a pregnant woman a “mother.”
Interesting. Carry on.
Can’t have it both ways Jane. If the fetus is her body or part of her body then she has a penis for organ if the unborn is a boy.
If you judge a whole movement by one person, you have some serious depth issues
Please do remember this when making comments here such as “you all really hate women. It is really sad.”
That’s fine, point it out all you want. A pregnancy is a human baby inside of a mother, it’s not like i think women have kittens growing inside of them
omg yeah ~maleness~
Men are SO oppressed, aren’t they, Punisher. Poor sad little men, how dare I.
Don’t look now, but your misandry is showing.
Why do you get to decide the terms? The penis is attached to a fetus which is attached to the woman. I’m not going to say that the woman grows a penis, because that’s ludicrous and stupid
If you admit the unborn is human then you dont have a real case to object to fact abortion kills millions of humans. Which is why it is compared to the holocaust and slavery.
A pregnancy is a human baby inside of a mother
Wow, I’m astounded!! Human? Baby? Mother?
I hope you know most pro-aborts here would STRONGLY disagree with you on these points.
Then Jane you don’t have any case to say then the unborn is own unique human rights of his or her own.
omg kel you are so snappy and on point today! I am really proud, to be honest.
My comment about the pro-life movement hating women is not from punisher’s comments, it’s from years of hearing the same anti-woman rhetoric coming from the pro-life movement: its followers, its leaders etc. Please don’t think that that was a snap judgement on my part
Kel- that’s fine, I am my own person and I do not reflect the pro-choice movement. Most pro-choicers know that a fetus is a human baby, btw, but believe (as I do) that whether or not that baby is born should be up to the mother. Many people choose to classify a fetus as a “clump of cells” because without the intent of the mother to have the baby, that’s all it is and all it will be
I had intended earlier to answer some of Jane’s posts, but then my computer acted up and I wasn’t able to. So, now I can answer some of these posts.
Jane said: -Women need abortions.
Wait a second, Jane. I’m a woman and I DON’T need abortions. I know plenty of women who don’t NEED abortions and didn’t have any. Also, do you have research to back up this claim because obviously it’s not true that ALL women need abortions because not everyone has needed one.
Jane said: -Women will always abort pregnancies no matter what.
Jane, another blanket statement. Again, do you have research to back up that women will always have abortions? I’m a woman and I didn’t have an abortion when I was pregnant. I know other women who didn’t have abortions, so what are you basing this on? The fact that SOME (not all) have abortions? Again, please be careful with blanket statements. You obviously are NOT speaking for me (and yes, I am a woman and yes I’ve been pregnant and NO I didn’t need an abortion and NO I didn’t have any).
Jane said: –Abortion is legal.
Well, for all we know, the matter could be brought to the floor and abortion be voted illegal. I could skip down the street whistling “Dixie” for no apparently reason. The future is unwritten, what we decide to do with it will be part of what determines what happens.
Jane said: -Without legal abortion women will abort on their own, or by any means available
Research to back this up? By the way, if we got rid of abortion I, and several other women I know, wouldn’t find a way to have an abortion, so again, blanket statements and no research to back up claim.
Jane said: Abortion doesn’t harm women any more than any other medical procedure.
Tell that to the women who suffered from having an abortion–the ones who ended up dead or with infections from abortions, or the ones who just plain suffered guilt from them or other problems.
Jane said: Or maybe a miscarriage, the accidental ending of a fetus’s life, would be considered manslaughter? That’s an accidental murder, right?
You want to equate something that often happens through no fault of the women’s intentions with something that IS intentional? Oh I sure hope no woman who was devestated by a miscarriage sees your post. You’d rip that wound wide open. (I know some of these women who suffered miscarriage that had no intention of having their pregnancy end in the baby’s death who were devestated over the miscarriage, so not only did you insult them, but you also insulted me by the fact that I’m connected to them either by blood or by friendship).
As to all the Holocaust posts and comments, what happened in WWII is not a monopoly on the word “holocaust”.
Definition of Holocaust by the Oxford Online Dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/holocaust?region=us So, based on what the Oxford Online Dictionary says, the millions of pre-born human beings that lost their lives from induced(intentional) abortion is A holocaust of human life (and yes, I’m aware the dictionary says “especially caused by fire or nuclear war…” but it didn’t say that was the ONLY way a holocaust happens).
Also, abortion isn’t the woman’s decision to not continue a pregnancy, but rather the means a woman uses not to continue the pregnancy, but not the decision itself. The Oxford Online Dictionary defines “abortion” as: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abortion?region=us
Kel, I was going to bring up misandry, but was having some technical difficulties. Thank you!
So Jane, minorities are not capable of hatred? They aren’t capable of discriminating against members of the majority? What world do you live in? I encourage you to go to the dictionary and look up “sexism” and “racism” because the dictionary disagrees with you. I would show you, but this won’t allow me to paste the definitions.
I don’t hate women in the slightest. Wanting distinct human beings to be able to live their natural lives is not misogyny, its actual giving a crap about human rights. I don’t care what people do with their bodies, unless it is harming someone else. The fetus is another human being. It really isn’t all that difficult to figure out.
Punisher- that doesn’t make a bit of damn sense. The fetus is attached to the mother until she gives birth, at which point it’s its own independent being
Mother in Texas- just because you do not need an abortion does not mean that other women don’t need abortions.
I got bored and stopped reading the rest because it was toooooo looong and boring, but I appreciate that my words moved you enough to type all of that out
Jane, it’s intellectually dishonest to classify a fetus as a “clump of cells.” It really is. And it’s misleading to tell a woman considering abortion that her child is a clump of cells – it implies the lack of development, when in fact there is a great deal of development.
Most pro-choicers with whom I’ve conversed here and IRL do NOT admit that a fetus is a “baby.” Most of them refuse to classify it as “human” as well. They don’t even classify it as “life” though it can be nothing other than living. What I find interesting about your posts (and that I can at least respect) is that you are being honest in saying it’s human, it’s a baby, and the pregnant woman is a mother. And abortion won’t undo any of those things. You’re more honest than most. You believe the child is human and a baby, but you believe that child’s mother should be able to take his/her life at will, for any reason.
I happen to believe that the woman’s child is an innocent human who also has a right to live, and the pro-choice movement as a whole has done (and is doing) just about everything in its power to make sure women do not have abortions with FULL disclosure. A woman should be fully informed before she aborts. And she should know that her child is in fact human, with a heartbeat, fingers, toes, etc. Otherwise, she may be under the false assumption that it “isn’t a baby,” and “it’s only ‘potential life'” and whatever other slogans you want to throw at her. Because it isn’t the woman’s life who is being taken in this “surgery.” I know of no other surgery in which a human life is purposely and electively ended other than abortion – so it’s not just like any other surgery. There are (at least) two beings to consider. And at the very least, a woman needs to know this before she decides to go through with an abortion. It isn’t patronizing. It’s full disclosure.
Apparently, I’ve been remiss:
Very well said, Kel!
I do not have the time, nor the energy, to explain the complex reasons why reverse racism or sexism is not a real thing. Just because there’s a word for it in the dictionary doesn’t mean it’s a thing.
The easiest way I can explain is that old stupid argument “if there’s a BET, why is there no WET [white entertainment network]” and the answer is: ” WET is all the other channels”
Paladin, I’m just here debating like the rest of you, why does that make me a troll?
Lol Paladin.
Jane, I am part Latino and male. In your opinion, if I am discriminated against on basis of race or ethnicity that counts, but if I am discriminated against on the basis of my gender…. that doesn’t count? That’s nonsensical.
I do not have the time, nor the energy, to explain the complex reasons why reverse racism or sexism is not a real thing. Just because there’s a word for it in the dictionary doesn’t mean it’s a thing.
ROFL!
Kel-
Do you honestly think, despite the terms they use, that women don’t know that when they’re pregnant that they have a baby inside them? Except seriously, do you think women who seek abortions are across the board so dumb that they don’t know what is growing inside of them??
Rofl all you want Kel, the fact is that there can be official terms for misconceptions,
Jackborsch- yes. You are statistically likely to be at a disadvantage for your racial background, but not for your gender as a man.
People who experience the intersectionality of 2 minority classifications, such as Native American women, are at a higher risk for systematic oppression
Got it… minorities have magical powers that make them immune to hating people different from themselves and anything that seems otherwise is a mere illusion.
Statistics, likelyhood… those things don’t mean that sexism against men or racism against white people don’t exist, Jane. They do. Face it. You’ve shown a great deal of sexism against the men commenting on this blog.
So if someone despises me or treats me poorly simply for being male, it isn’t wrong? Right…..
Here is a question, plenty of Latinos dislike the fact that I am part white. They are not being racist? What would you call it?
Actually Julie, you don’t “got it” because you seem to be confused about….well, the whole thing, really
Jane says:
June 18, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Mother in Texas- just because you do not need an abortion does not mean that other women don’t need abortions.
You said “women need abortions” I was just showing you that not ALL women need them.
I got bored and stopped reading the rest because it was toooooo looong and boring, but I appreciate that my words moved you enough to type all of that out
Yeah right you appreciate it. Yeah, you expect me to believe that. Oookay.
It’s about systematic oppression, not about individual prejudice. And I would say that people being mad at your half white status are feeling uncomfortable that their monority race is mixed with the race that oppresses them
Not confused at all, Jane. I understand that people of any group can hate others that are different from them and show discrimination. I understand that sexism is hating someone and discriminating against them based on their sex, not just men discriminating against women. I understand that racism is hating someone and discriminating against someone based on their race and that white people aren’t the only one capable of that. It’s reality, a thing you seem to have trouble grasping.
Oh, good grief, Jane! Sexism and racism exist on an individual level too. So now individuals are also incapable of hatred and discrimination? Those are only group activities and it only counts if the group is the majority? Again, what world do you live in?
If your eyes are hurting from rolling, why don’t you just leave? You certainly don’t seem to care who you hurt by equating miscarriage with abortion. But then I don’t know why it would surprise me that someone who thinks it’s ethical to kill an unborn child would be heartless in other areas, too. Before 6 weeks, I saw my babies’ heartbeats on the ultrasound. By 8 weeks gestation, they were flipping around. Mere clumps of cells don’t do that.
First of all, you folks keep using the word “lying” but I’m starting to think that you might not know what it means.
Second, I am just debating like the rest of you, not looking for “excitement” though I do appreciate your film recommendation
Well Jane, I am sorry that my birth (which I had no control over) makes people “uncomfortable”. Really it tears me up inside.
All right, I can’t even joke about this. Do you realize how wrong that is? Just because white people have been huge jerks to one race doesn’t give everyone a free pass to hate on whites or mixed ethnicities. You realize that is completely dehumanizing, right?
Sheesh.
Do you honestly think, despite the terms they use, that women don’t know that when they’re pregnant that they have a baby inside them? Except seriously, do you think women who seek abortions are across the board so dumb that they don’t know what is growing inside of them??
Propaganda is very powerful. So is fear.
They’re not dumb. They’re misled – by the abortion industry and by those around them who seek to dehumanize the child. “Choice” obscures what an abortion really is. Do you honestly think that if more women were aware – fully aware – of the development of their child inside them, and got the chance to see that child moving on an ultrasound… that they wouldn’t be more likely to decide against abortion? In fact, we know this is the case. This is why the abortion lobby fights against every ultrasound law and every waiting period and every parental notification/consent law for minors, and even anti-coercion laws. They know that the more knowledge, love, and support a pregnant woman has around her, the less likely she is to abort.
Let’s see here. You falsely accuse me of editing my post to claim I inserted the word unborn in regards to unborn women as to how abortion does harm women. I did no such thing. Yet you falsely claim I did, in order to save face and win the argument at all costs. Lying is intentionally making a false statement. You did precisely that. That’s on you.
I don’t think there is any inherent fault in miscarriage just as I don’t find any inherent fault or problems with abortion. This does not make me a cold person-quite the opposite. Women should not be faulted for what happens with their bodies, whether by choice or by accident.
omg speaking of lying, Punisher, there you go again. Talk about the pot calling the kettle a liar
Can’t have it both ways. Can’t keep claiming over and over again the unborn is woman’s body then deny the pregnant woman has a penis when the unborn is male.
You can say that’s stupid all you want and say it does not make sense all you want, but on both counts that’s precisely the problem with you wanting it both ways. Can’t have it both ways. Logic fail on your part.
Oh yes, it does make you a cold person. Women who have miscarriages are victims whose children were taken from them. Women who have abortions chose to end the lives of their children. Huge difference. No one who had a miscarriage and fought like hell to keep her baby alive wants to be equated with someone who intentionally ended the life of her child. To imply it’s the same is cold and heartless. But like I said, this is not surprising considering the source.
I didn’t lie Jane. I didn’t edit my post to put in word unborn. You falsely accused me of that on purpose. Please show where I lied. I showed where you lied. That’s on you.
I said the pregnancy is INSIDE a woman’s body and that it’s attached to her. The woman does not grow a penis, the baby attached to her does
Come on now. You justify abortion by saying the woman is free to do what she wants with HER OWN BODY. Logical implication states that the unborn is part of her body, not merely attached to her body, as to be disposed of as she pleased. By such logic, her body has penis, if the unborn is male. And assuming no twins, four arms, four legs, two brains, two hearts, etc., etc.
Claire- an abortion can be a sad occaison for women too. What about abortions that humanely end the suffering of babies with severe deformities ? Those mothers fight like hell for those babies too.
I don’t think that’s cold in the slightest
It’s funny to me how you think a new baby, some Jesus, and a psychiatrist would heal this situation.
Actually, Jesus can fix it all by Himself.
I’d just love to sit in on the therapy session in which the counselor explains to this girl that, for nine months, her health, thoughts and beliefs just did not matter–that she was essentially less than a person.
So, telling someone to please reconsider killing their child… that’s treating them as “less than a person?” Pregnancy does not make one “less than a person.” It makes you responsible for the life you are carrying inside you, regardless of how he or she got there. It doesn’t lessen one’s value. Ignoring the fact that being pregnant means you have another LIFE to consider is reprehensible. But I get it – kill the child and it will be all better, right? Oh, no, wait… she’ll still need counseling. She’ll still need “some Jesus” – correction – JESUS. He is a person, not a condiment we add to our sandwich of life. And she’ll still need the love, understanding, and support of those around her. The difference is… she’ll either kill her child, or she won’t.
Ok Jane, so I understand your opinions I’ll recap:
You admit that a fetus is fully human, living, developing, and unless circumstances cause it harm it will be born. Yet, you argue for the right to kill it.
You think it’s ok to treat men and white people badly, because some men and some whites have systematically oppressed minority groups.
Mixed race people make minority groups feel “uncomfortable”. And that’s fine because they are oppressed.
Huh, very logical views.
So babies with deformities don’t want to live and don’t have right to live?
Yes, women have the right to do what they want with their own body, and as long as that baby is attached, it is attached to her inside her body. His STILL for the millionth (and last) time does not mean that the woman grows a penis. The growth inside of her, attached to her body grows a penis
No, you just want it both ways. You want to insist that the male unborn is woman’s body she feels free to dispose of, yet when logical implication is pointed out that means she has penis, then you try to distant yourself from such statement by saying it is not really woman’s body but just attached to it. Same type of tactic you used earlier when you say that men don’t have say on abortion since they don’t have uterus but then move the goalposts to say they have say as long as they support right to abortion even though they don’t have uterus. Having it both ways over and over again does not make your point- it undermines it.
If the unborn is not woman’s body, but merely attached to her body, and not her body to where she has penis, then your argument of she is free to do whatever she wants with her own body does not apply at all to abortion. Nice try though.
Parents have the right to do what’s right to save their children from pain, much like making the heartbreaking decision to take a child off of life support if they are severly ill or injured.
A baby with spins bifida has a high likelihood of dying soon after birth, in excruciating pain. It’s up to the woman and her doctor to decide if a baby with deformities should have to experience that pain or avoid the suffering
No one has unfettered rights to do with their own bodies. Pregnant women can’t use hardcore drugs. Men and women alike are not allowed to drink and drive.
Heck, murder, rape, assault, etc., involve using one’s own body to harm others, too!
By such logic then parents should be allowed to kill their already born children if those children end up having deformities or if the parents suddenly think after birth, those children having deformities will grow up to suffer.
Jane, parental control is curtailed where it harms the children. Parents cannot beat their children, have sex with them, refuse to feed them, or deny them medical care. Abortion involves a parent directly harming their own child, which is not okay to do to a born child. However, you argue since the unborn child is defenseless and will die without their mother, she has the right to do whatever she wants to him or her. That isn’t logically consistent, unless you are also arguing that we not protect children from the ill wishes or negligence of their parents.
Honestly there’s no talking to any of you, nothing is based in logic, and the lack of education on this blog is apparent in the inability to understand simple concepts.
Enjoy Barack Obama as your president for another term, because the pro-life movement is it’s own worst enemy. All of this extremism and crazy anti-contraception and anti-abortion for a 9 YEAR OLD GIRL RAPED BY HER FAMILY MEMBER is something that is polarizing and will leave you high and dry with your loony bin thoughts.
Good luck to all of you, and may god have mercy on your judgmental souls
Don’t believed I judged anyone, Jane. I do believe you did.
Pot. Kettle. Black. On your claims nothing we say is based on logic. Actually nothing you say is based on logic. You talk two sides of your mouth. You bait and switch arguments repeatedly. And you complain when people poke holes many times into your arguments. Well, maybe the problem is your own lack of logic? Ever thought of that? You are truly deluded if you think you are very logic. Either the problem is your own position which no “logic” can redeem or if your position is as good as you say it is, then the problem is you are such a poor representative in terms of logically presenting it.
Funny though the same person who presume to judge people based on them being males and whites and presume to judge people’s logic and reading skills accuse us of being judgmental. Hypocritical much?
And I am NOT white either.
And logic somehow is equating abortions with miscarriage, when the former is intentional and the second is not? Or saying death is part of nature so it makes abortion ok but somehow other forms of murder is not?
Ah, give it up Punisher. I think she left.
1. The pro-life movement judges women all the time and scream at them as they enter abortion clinics, despite having no idea why the woman needs an abortion.
2. Good for you, Punisher, i’m not white either. What is your point?
Here-in lie the difference between prolifers and pro-aborts. Pro-lifers don’t pretend to judge what is right and what is wrong like on this issue. Pro-aborts insist on no judgment at all as way to defame the prolifers judgmentalists yet turn around and give themselves right to judge others.
Jane, I try not to judge anyone. I would simply like the unborn protected from harm. I fail to see how that is judgmental in and of itself. I’m not a big fan of picketing as a rule, I’ll give you that. But how is that different from any other legal protest for any other issue?
Can you name something judgmental I have said? Or how I am not being logical?
so, let me get this straight. If something is inside my body I can do anything I want to it. Like give it a disease, like take drugs and harm it, like drink too much and harm it?
No actually I can’t, there are laws against that.
When I pregnant with my one and only child, at five months along, a blood clot developed in my foot and I was told to abort the fetus so they could give me the medicines to dissolve the clot. Or I would die.
I asked why they couldn’t give me the medicines.
They answered “Because they will harm the fetus.”
I asked “Won’t an abortion harm the fetus too?”
“Well if you DON’T abort the clot will move and kill you and the fetus anyhow.”
I wasn’t told that sometimes clots dissolve all on their own.
I refused the abortion. 5 weeks later, after spending my time flat on my back with my leg elevated, the clot disappeared on its own. At 9 months my son was born normal, happy and healthy. He’s 34 and just told me they have just found out they have a 4th baby coming. 3 sons so far. I hope they have a girl so I can see my son turn into a giant mushy puddle when she crooks her tiny finger. LOL
Was my pregnancy convenient? No his father had just left me which was a good thing I found out later. I lost a job, but big deal, there are more jobs, but there would never be another child for me. I had a tipped uterus and it was amazing I was able to carry full term, as none of the other pregnancies made it passed the 2nd month. I ended up having to have a partial hysterectomy. Regrets? None.
I meant prolifers don’t pretend not to judge between right and wrong.
Jane wrote:
Paladin, I’m just here debating like the rest of you, why does that make me a troll?
(*wry look*) It’s rather telling that you knew I was speaking of you, ma’am, with such minimal information…
As to your question: the fact that you post knee-jerk replies rather than reasoned responses, the fact that you shower insults liberally and with minimal restraint, and the fact that you’ve largely restricted yourself to inflammatory posts on a blog with whose content you vehemently disagree (and express disgust), all point toward the conclusion that I reached. Does that clarify?
Mind you, trollishness is a treatable disease; lay down your flame-thrower (and other tools in the troll arsenal such as mockery, snide comments, lack of self-discipline in thought and action, and the like), practice at least a modicum of respect and self-restraint, and engage the actual issues (rather than red herrings and reflexive gainsaying), and you’ll probably find that the majority of us will be quite happy to chat with you. But life is far too short to argue with trolls; it’s up to you, then, to decide whether you want to be one, or not.
No, a mother who plays God and decides that it’s up to her to judge whether someone lives or dies is not fighting like hell for her baby. Yes, abortion can be painful. But it’s pain that the mother brought on herself. That’s a far cry from someone who has a miscarriage despite her best efforts to keep her baby alive. (That’s not to say that I don’t have empathy for women who have abortions.) You’re calling us judgmental, yet you have deemed that women have the right to judge who lives or dies. It’s that type of judgment that needs mercy.
Has anyone noticed how Jane has distracted from the main issue of this question? We were supposed to be discussing whether it’s appropriate to display graphic images, and instead we’re debating whether abortion is or is not ethical. That was probably her goal. Let’s not let her continue to succeed at distracting from the original purpose of this discussion.
You are right Claire. Personally I feel that they are ineffective, more likely to make people angry and defensive than change their minds about abortion. But the question is whether Jesus would approve, about that I have no clue.
Paladin, I was the only dissenting voice in the whole thread, so it was obvious from a common sense standpoint rather than a tell tale heart standpoint that I knew you were referring to me
Jane,
Well and good. Now… are you willing to hang your troll-suit back in the closet, and start over?
Going back to the original purpose of this particular blog:
Ephesians 5:11 (New Living Translation)
Share this
View In My Bible
11 Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, rebuke and expose them.
<< Ephesians 4Ephesians 5:11Ephesians 6 >>
Read Ephesians 5:11 in contextRead Ephesians 5View in parallelCompare Translations
20 plus years I have been using graphic photos as a part of my efforts outside of child sacrifice centers. Their use just plain saves children. Multiple stories I could tell. One includes a mother with the intended victim in her arms coming back a year plus later to say thanks, and telling me the picture played a significant part in her changed mind.
Further evidence: when we expose evil the devil seems to get quite excited – threats, assaults, even one threat at gunpoint. If the devil hates the use of these signs, we must be doing something right.
I’m not trolling! I am just arguing. There is absolutely no way I’m going to change any of your minds just as there is a snowball’s chance in hell that you’ll change my mind.
I come here because sometimes I get SO angry at the pro-life attempts to take away my rights, and it feels better to argue than to just stand by. Of course I also do activist work for the pro-choice cause, but sometimes it just feels good to vent and walk away from it
(*sigh*) You really might go back and look up the definition of “internet troll”, Jane. Since it feels good to “vent and walk away from it” on a blog on which you’re sure you’ll never convince or be convinced, doesn’t that strike you as the very definition of “trolling a blog” and stirring up acrimony for the purpose of your own enjoyment/satisfaction?
It wasn’t for my own enjoyment, sometimes I really do feel that it’s important to discuss things with The Other Side
“Pregnancy does not make one ‘less than a person.'”
Unless the pregnancy’s unwanted and various forces block a woman from ending it. Equating abortion with slavery is a funny smokescreen, considering that you expect women to give up their bodies–and really, control over one of the most significant decisions a woman can make–in service of new human life, willingly or not. And please, enough with that “abortion is universally traumatizing for every woman because I said so” garbage, because you know it’s not true. Quite honestly, knee surgery was more traumatic than the abortion I had, and I’m not alone in believing that.
Oh, and quick question. Girls are menstruating earlier and earlier these days. Would you be fine with an 6-year-old carrying a pregnancy to term? What about a real anomaly, a 5-year-old girl who experienced extremely precocious puberty? What would you say to them, Kel, once they got old enough to understand? I’m sincerely curious.
Then by all means, please do discuss. Just don’t troll… which you’ve mainly been doing, up ’till now.
Jane
I think Jesus would expect us to advocate for policies that were kind to both the mother and the unborn child.
Jane says:
“Listen, some GUY, I will never ever accept anti-abortion arguments for someone who does not have a uterus. You should feel so embarrassed for assuming that you have any idea what it’s like to be pregnant when it isn’t the right time. You should feel disgusted that you villfy women who choose to end their pregnancies.”
Well, Jane, a great many men would find it hard to take you seriously because you lack a penis.
Congratulations on your brand of feminism. You have proven to us all that you are every bit as ignorant and arrogant as any male chauvinist pig. You little oinker, you. ;-)
If you can find your way out of the sty some day, you might realize that a great many men suffer tremendously from abortion because uterine rights have trumped their rights as fathers. Men stand by and are powerless to save their babies’ lives because of your brand of radicalized autonomy. Less noble men see your brand of radicalized autonomy and use that as the means for using women and tossing them aside without so much as an afterthought when they get pregnant.
Well done.
The fact that you’re upset about us taking away your rights is pretty ironic, since you have no regard for the rights of the unborn. The right to life is the most fundamental right there is.
Regarding the original purpose of this discussion: I think that graphic photos have their place. If women want to have an abortion, they should own what they’re doing. If they think abortion is a morally legitimate “choice”, then I don’t know why they would find these photos so upsetting. It’s okay to do it, but not to see what it really entails? I don’t understand that.
I also think that compassion toward women considering abortion is key. They are women who feel very desperate and need help and understanding. I don’t think they should be approached with anger.
Gerard, I have seen you say some incredibly offensive things on this blog (just now you referred to women as pigs) so please understand that I find you repugnant and care about what you say in no way
You’re right, I do not value the rights of the unborn over the rights of the women carrying the unborn
You value the right to body autonomy over the right to life. That’s basically your view isn’t it?
I didn’t refer to women as pigs. I said that your brand of feminism makes you as foul as those your brand of feminism has labeled “male chauvinist pigs”. I was specifically addressing you and your incredibly piggish insult that suggests lack of a uterus means that the men here get the back of your hand, that they have nothing to say.
Why is it that folks like you always squeal the loudest when treated to your own medicine?
Gerard- I will not engage you in a discussion. I find you disgusting and from here on out I will not read your comments or respond to anything you may post.
Jack- I value body autonomy of born women over the rights of the unborn
It doesn’t make sense to hold the view that your personal right to do what you want exceeds someone else’s right to live. I have the right to body autonomy, but I do not have the right to kill or harm someone else for this right (except in extreme cases of self defense). Life trumps autonomy in every case except when the person being hurt isn’t born yet. That isn’t coherent.
Body autonomy is a nice fancy term, but the right to life should trump all over rights.
Fair enough, Jane. I find you equally disgusting.
Just throwing it out there, just as a side note and referring to no one in particular, that people with academic doctorates ( rather than medical doctor degrees) that insist on being referred to as “doctor” have some serious delusions of grandeur.
Hilarious!!
Why are MDs so much more worthy of being called “doctor” than people with other doctoral degrees? Does Gerard insist on being called “doctor”? I was not aware of this. I am, however, aware of many, many people with doctorates (not MDs) who refer to themselves that way, and I’ve never felt threatened by it.
Theresa
Some posts are just good for the soul. God bless you and I hope your journey always consist of people who are as pragmatic and kind as you.
Jane, Claire,
I only use my earned title of Doctor in professional settings. A Ph.D. is actually the higher degree than the M.D., so the academic doctor has every bit the right to expect to be called “Doctor.” At all other times, when not in professional settings, I prefer “Gerry”.
When I began teaching, I had the students simply call me Gerry, following in the tradition of many of my undergrad faculty. I reluctantly began using “Doctor” when a dean informed me that the title was required in discourse with students.
So, Jane, nice try. We all know you have a uterus, perhaps you’d like to develop a heart. Any more snorts?
Jill,
Interesting that the illustration of Jesus lacks the wounds in His hands and feet. At the resurrection, Jesus chose to carry those wounds with Him in His glorified body (recall His telling Thomas to probe the holes with his fingers, and to put his hand into Jesus’ side).
Jesus chose to keep the evidence of his slaughter for all the world to see, that hearts such as Thomas’s would come to conversion and believe. Similarly, I don’t think that He would mind the photos of slaughtered babies for much the same set of reasons.
At the same time, I believe that Jesus wants those photos used in a pastorally prudent manner, and that we give at least equal voice to letting post-abortive women know of His forgiveness and mercy.
Gerard, I don’t begrudge you your title at all.
If It Was Me. I learned to understand my value to God because of my son. I learned to understand my value because of the ones who didn’t survive. I saw incredibly unique individuals who came into being because I loved. I saw my own uniqueness, yet also saw I mattered to somebody besides myself. I mattered to those children.
The realization that it is not just a man and a woman , but that it is a man, woman and God co-operating in the creation of a new person is a soul deep feeling that cannot be explained to some people because they don’t see any greater Being than “I Want”.
Did you know pain receptors develop in a fetus before the pain inhibitors do? Scientific fact. The pain inhibitors do not form until after the receptors. And abortions are performed before pain inhibitors are fully formed. That means the fetus feels the worst of it.
One of the above posters said she had less trauma from an abortion than from other surgery. “what SHE felt” Nothing was said about what the fetus felt. Maybe hell will be peopled by the mothers , and the fathers who demand they abort, both of whom will be made to feel what it felt like for their child when he or she was aborted.
Would Jesus carry graphic signs of aborted babies?
It has been many posts since anyone discussed this question.
Well. . . . . I think it would depend on who the audience is.
I think in some cases He would, and in some cases He wouldn’t.
I don’t think He would want young children to see such pictures as it could traumatize them unnecessarily.
But, a young woman of childbearing age,
or a young man with a girlfriend that he might pressure into an unwanted abortion if he felt trapped by the pregnancy,
He might want them to see the graphic pictures.
He knows what our future is.
He would want someone who was at risk of aborting in the future to see it, so that they could be appropriately shocked and not have the abortion when the time comes.
But I don’t think He would want someone to be traumatized unnecessarily by it.
Girls are menstruating earlier and earlier these days. Would you be fine with an 6-year-old carrying a pregnancy to term? What about a real anomaly, a 5-year-old girl who experienced extremely precocious puberty?
These girls carried pregnancies to term. And most of them were raped.
What I would say is that these girls are in need of serious counseling. Considering I don’t counsel child rape victims, I wouldn’t be saying anything to them.
What would you say to them, Megan?
Equating abortion with slavery is a funny smokescreen, considering that you expect women to give up their bodies–and really, control over one of the most significant decisions a woman can make–in service of new human life, willingly or not.
Pregnancy is a temporary condition, and one need not parent at the conclusion of this temporary condition.
And please, enough with that “abortion is universally traumatizing for every woman because I said so” garbage, because you know it’s not true. Quite honestly, knee surgery was more traumatic than the abortion I had, and I’m not alone in believing that.
It doesn’t really matter to me how traumatic or non-traumatic you perceive your abortion to be. You ended a human life because you wanted to, and you’re not sorry you did it. So, I have no doubt your knee surgery was more traumatic for you. Does that change the fact that your child is dead?
Jane’s right on about about racism, sexism, and whatever-other-ism’s. As a society, we privilege males; that’s sexism. We also privilege whites; that’s racism. They’re ism’s because they’re true in general. When someone comes along who discriminates against white males, that’s neither racISM nor sexISM, because it doesn’t alter the slant of our entire society. You don’t get to be an ism all by your lonesome, no matter how unjustly you treat certain people because of their race or sex.
I don’t think Jesus would publicly display graphic abortion pictures. I feel like his vociferous public statements of judgment and/or persuasion tended to be aimed at people whose unjust, hypocritical actions were public and institutional in a way that abortion is not. I’m not exactly sure what I mean by that, but — if the gospels reported words or deeds of Jesus relating to abortion, I feel like it would look more like one of his one-on-one talks with various individuals (Zacchaeus, the woman at the well, the rich young man) or a story about an encounter between individuals that presented an opportunity to do justice, like the parable of the Good Samaritan. But whether he’d be talking with the pregnant woman/girl or with the guy (husband/lover/client . . .) who got her pregnant or with controlling (or apathetic) parents or with the priest who has to do the ritual to figure out whether it was adultery or with whoever else could conceivably take an interest . . .
Good grief, lapidarion. You’re distinguishing between acts and a state of affairs, and asserting that acts cannot be racist because the state of affairs is what counts.
That’s rationally absurd. Don’t you realize that by that rubric, the first instance of slavery on American shores could not have been racist — because there were no other cases? There was no prevailing slave system at the time the first slave was brought ashore, ergo it could not have been a racist act to sell that first slave. The act did not “alter the [non-slave] slant of [the] entire society.”
It’s like saying that a peaceful society’s first murder couldn’t have been murder in the case that it wrought no change for the worse on that society in general.
So if a black mob lynched an uppity white man because they thought blacks were superior, what would you call it? I’m not asking how likely you imagine it would be, nor am I asking you to infer weird ideas about how I think. I just want to know, would you not call it a racist act?
What would you call it?
Jane:”I will never ever accept anti-abortion arguments for someone who does not have a uterus.”
Wow, that’s really irrational.
Would you accept pro-choice arguments from someone who doesn’t have a uterus?
If your answer is “yes,” that’s a ridiculous inconsistency that shows you’re not interested in truth but in advocating a particular point of view. That’s fine as far as it goes, but pretending that it’s gender that concerns you would be disingenuous.
If your answer is “no,” you’re at least consistent but still irrational. An argument is valid and sound if its logical form is proper and its premises are true. The gender of the person posing the argument is utterly irrelevant.
One is left to wonder, then, what could nudge you off a rational path into a course where you gratuitously disenfranchise half the human race from serious conversation with you.
Do you heed any male medical doctors on issues of women’s health? Shall I presume that you disqualify the remarks of men who promote any feminist or reproductive cause of importance to you?
This is really cool stuff, guys. Let’s lobby for $500 billion in funding for prostate cancer research. If any citizen who happens to be a woman objects, from Jane we learn that their remarks are not admissible.
Wow, when I take Jane’s irrational view as a strategy, it sounds like a great way to promote whatever I want with impunity. And I get to express this in really self-righteous terms, as if the other gender should be ashamed of itself for presuming to have a voice!
Hey, am I allowed to speak about abortion if it’s a male fetus being killed? Or should I trust only women regarding its fate? But wait — we’ve established that the opposite gender can’t speak properly of a thing involving the opposite gender. What? You say that whether it lives or dies is not a male or female issue, but a human issue generally speaking, so women CAN speak to the issue of abortion even in cases where the fetus is male? Oh, I get it — so whether a fetus lives or dies is not a gender issue, but a human issue. But wait, in that case, why can’t men speak about abortion, since it’s not a gender issue but a human issue? Oh, it’s that they can’t speak about a woman’s role in abortion, in the case that they’re male. But they can speak about the unborn, since that’s a human, not a gender, issue? But isn’t that what they’re doing? Oh my aching head when I accept the logic of irrational people and try to make it work.
I really, really try to do right by your rubric, but it simply can’t be done right by. Sorry!
You’re right Kel, you don’t know what you’d say to a girl in this situation because you have nothing to say. I at least understand why some girls in this situation might choose to give birth. But if one of them came before you and wanted to exercise her other option, you’d have nothing to say besides the usual platitudes about the beauty of new life, good springing from evil, blah blah. Pregnancy is temporary, but the pain of being used just doesn’t go away. Abortion ends a life, yes, but an unborn baby’s claims on existence should not supersede the interests and wellbeing of the woman (or girl) carrying it. In this society, we don’t use people as a means to an end. Being a person doesn’t simply mean being alive–it means being able to have a say in how you use your body. Pregnant women shouldn’t be in a separate category in that respect.
For the trillionth time, Megan, nobody expects pregnant women to have less rights than anyone else. They have the same rights. Men and non-pregnant women may not kill another human being to further their body autonomy rights. The baby’s right to life is not overtaken by a pregnant woman’s wish to be not pregnant. I have a right to use my body in any way I want, until it harms or kills someone else. Pregnant women are no different in this respect.
Don’t think I have no sympathy for rape and sexual abuse victims, because I do. I really, really, do. I am one myself. But killing another distinct human being is not the way to fix that. Killing another human being will never make that pain go away.
the usual platitudes about the beauty of new life, good springing from evil, blah blah.
You know, when you “blah blah” things like this, it really reveals how utterly callous you are. And the “usual platitudes” would likely not be appropriate in that situation, but pleading for the life of an innocent would most definitely be appropriate. And I firmly believe that ANY woman who chooses to abort becomes the perpetrator of violence against another human being – her own child.
Pregnancy is temporary, but the pain of being used just doesn’t go away.
Are you saying the unborn child is “using” her mother and therefore causing pain, or are you referring to the actual rapist here?
Abortion ends a life, yes, but an unborn baby’s claims on existence should not supersede the interests and wellbeing of the woman (or girl) carrying it.
The unborn baby (“baby,” Megan?) has an awful lot more to lose than its “wellbeing.” The unborn child, if aborted, no longer HAS any interests or wellbeing.
In this society, we don’t use people as a means to an end.
In this society, we really have no business killing humans simply for existing.
Being a person doesn’t simply mean being alive–it means being able to have a say in how you use your body.
The unborn child cannot speak for herself. Therefore, she deserve an advocate to speak for her interests, first and foremost, the right to life. Without the right to life, we cannot possess liberty or happiness. Snuffing out someone’s life might help YOU to obtain more liberty and happiness, but it does not benefit the individual whose life was ended so you could continue to live unimpeded by human reproduction.
Pregnant women shouldn’t be in a separate category in that respect.
Pregnant women have rights just like anyone else. They also should be restricted from killing other humans, just like everyone else, regardless of that human’s location.
Megan: “Abortion ends a life, yes, but an unborn baby’s claims on existence should not supersede the interests and wellbeing of the woman (or girl) carrying it.”
The premise is that we understand what’s good for us.
What proportion of marriages (thought by both parties to be “till death do us part”) end in divorce? There’s a proportion of people who are incapable of knowing what’s good for each other.
What’s good for us is not a matter of existential whim. There are absolutes, and life is one of them. We don’t kill. That’s a good no matter what happens to me.
Numerous murderers have had their own good in view. Thinking about what was best for them is precisely what led them to murder. They didn’t murder because they thought doing so would be worse for them; they did it because they thought it best.
So how can you argue that killing is fine because it’s important to consider what’s best for the mother? How can “what’s best” ever involve killing — especially if human experience proves the “what’s best calculus” is prone to err wildly?
I know, I know. Lateral over to the “but it’s no different than a wart or a parasite” thing…
There are a lot of life’s decisions where we anticipate what’s best for us and act — but killing a human to gain some good is a vicious calculus. It’s the calculus of ancient fertility cults and of cultures bound to odd notions of magic and power.
“Without the right to life, we cannot possess liberty or happiness.”
Oh that’s funny, since depriving people of their lives is certainly acceptable in other circumstances–self-defense, punishment, war…and I’m pretty sure people in this country still sleep easy at night even when “innocent” civilians are “dismembered” in horrific bombings because we disagree with their country’s leaders. Somehow all that killing is okay, though, excpet when it comes to individual pregnant women deciding the fate of their bodies and futures.
Oh that’s funny, since depriving people of their lives is certainly acceptable in other circumstances–self-defense, punishment, war…and I’m pretty sure people in this country still sleep easy at night even when “innocent” civilians are “dismembered” in horrific bombings because we disagree with their country’s leaders. Somehow all that killing is okay, though, excpet when it comes to individual pregnant women deciding the fate of their bodies and futures.
Megan, are you saying you believe killing an unborn child is akin to self-defense, capital punishment, or war?
You’re saying you disagree with war and death and “horrific bombings” but killing our own children is agreeable to you?
Jane says:
June 18, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Or maybe a miscarriage, the accidental ending of a fetus’s life, would be considered manslaughter? That’s an accidental murder, right?
No…it most certainly is NOT murder. It’s an accidental DEATH Jane. Murder is the INTENTIONAL taking of a human life. There’s a big difference.
Human pursuits have long had their casualites, Kel, yet I hear nary a peep from prolifers about the tragedy of these lost lives. The “murder of innocents” only matters to your crowd when it comes to pregnancy. It’s all very ironic. And no, I don’t think abortion is “like war.” It’s not comparable to anything else in this world. There is no condition where one person exists inside of another one, to my knowledge.
Megan what you said is totally false and you know it. We also oppose euthanasia. It was our crowd who stood up for Terri Schiavo last I check. And plenty of us oppose the death penalty on grounds that some innocent people are put to death.
And your arguments are proof narcissism and selfishness drives many aborts in same manner what drives mothers to kill their already born babies and other children.
Megan: “Human pursuits have long had their casualites, Kel, yet I hear nary a peep from prolifers about the tragedy of these lost lives. ”
Do you follow pro-life people into other forums where they’re talking about other things, enough to know what they think about the other scenarios you only vaguely allude to yourself? No, obviously, because you’re not obsessively interested in their full range of interests as individuals. Few people would go so far to reach with sufficient warrant the general conclusion you’re nevertheless willing to claim with no shown warrant whatsoever:
“The ‘murder of innocents’ only matters to your crowd when it comes to pregnancy.”
At any rate, a person who advocates one particular moral issue is hardly obliged to embrace all. Failing to solve all the world’s problems does not impugn someone’s effort to resolve just one crisis — even a single crisis merely in their own neighborhood.
Jesus: “If you give a cup of cold water in my name, you’ve done as much for me.”
Megan: “Oh how convenient. You’re just giving a cup to the person in front of you. You’re a hypocrite if you don’t extend your reach to all who thirst.”
Think globally, act locally. Oddly, I think you use your perceived failure of your opponents to act globally as a bludgeon of sorts (“globally” not just referring to geography, but to the moral scope of one’s purview and, to your mind, obligation).
Rasqual,
There is a simple explanation for Jane and Megan.
Clinical Narcissism.
The I is all. I want what I want when I want it.
I come first. Me. My body. My rights.
But babies aren’t made by women masturbating, alone at home. They are made by having sex with men, who then become the fathers.
The raging narcissist never for a moment considers the rights, goods, or needs of another human being if they conflict with the demands of the I.
The needs and rights of the baby to live its entire life cycle unmolested are consumed by the I.
The rights of the father are ignored and trivialized, consumed by the I.
Jane and Megan suffer from a debilitating mental disease that sucks the humanity from all afflicted by it. Barring intense therapy and the grace of God, it is degenerative and leaves a devastating trail of destruction in its wake. It then seeks to rationalize its demands by minimizing, and devaluing others with statements such as,
‘I have a uterus and you do not. Therefore, your experience of being human and other is inconsequential.’
It isn’t rational, though the disease state has a coherent internal logic. The disease arises from intense trauma where the individuals themselves have been devalued and maladaptive responses to that trauma. Healing only begins when they become the victims of their own brutality, when they are called on their ugliness and find themselves increasingly isolated from decent society.
Pity for them must not beget leniency in response to their victimization of others.
That’s the core of pro-life polemics.
“In this society, we don’t use people as a means to an end.”
—
Do you live in a society where child support laws don’t exist? Is that not using people as a means to the end?
“I come first. Me. My body. My rights.”
It’s called self-preservation. If you had a uterus, I think your opinion on the matter of abortion would be a little different.
Ironic since many prolifers have uterus and many pro-aborts don’t have uterus.
All of them started out as unborn, fetuses, etc.
Funny aborts deny hating babies. But those who admit the babies that are unborn are humans yet believe they deserve to die so their mothers can advance in life, without babies in the way, delude themselves into thinking what they say is somehow not hateful towards unborn babies they admit are humans. Say that about any class of human being, considered minority by the left, and it would be deemed a hate speech. For that matter labeling the unborn parasites, mother’s rapists, etc., etc.
“It’s called self-preservation. If you had a uterus, I think your opinion on the matter of abortion would be a little different.”
If you really believe this, than you are either deliberately ignoring the large amount of pro-life women, or are not being honest. Also men who don’t want children could view it as “self-preservation” as well, but we can’t (and the decent of us wouldn’t dream of) force the mother of our unborn child to have an abortion, refuse to pay child support, or hurt our born children. It isn’t a matter of self-preservation, it is a matter of human rights and responsibilities.
Megan, I’d really like to know how you respond to Jack’s very obvious rejoinder to your remark, “If you had a uterus, I think your opinion on the matter of abortion would be a little different.” The only way you could say that is to be stunningly oblivious while conversing, concerning something you actually must know: that there are millions of people with wombs who share Jack’s view of abortion. Many of them are more zealous than he.
Seriously, how do you do a cognitive disconnect between what you surely know and the content of your remark? Is your premise that being a female practically entails being pro-choice? Yet that’s not only not obvious — it’s dramatically obviously false.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I would put it under the rubric of “prejudice,” rasqual.
Racism — or institutional racism, by contrast to individual racism, if you prefer — is a strong enough feature of our society that this distinction is worth making. So is sexism. It only lets things continue unchecked when we use the same exact name for unjust actions that reinforce the way we systematically privilege certain people in our society and for unjust actions that don’t reinforce that system directly.
While discriminating against an individual for being a male and discriminating against an individual for being female are equally wrong, only one of those in wrong in the additional way of reinforcing the systematic discrimination that is ongoing in our society.
Your “counter” examples on this issue were ignorant and distractive. Racism and slavery were prevalent among the Europeans who first enslaved people in America. Nor did I say that an action has to affect all of society in order to qualify as “truly, notably wrong” or something.
Re the trend of this comment thread: I know we all have lots of practice with the general issue of “what is the essential nature of pregnancy and thus of abortion” etc, but don’t you think the original question was really interesting? “Would Jesus carry graphic signs . . .”
lapidarion: You are a very confused person. You’re asserting things, but you’re neither arguing nor responding to argument. No one is rationally obliged to assent to mere assertions, so I’m not sure what headway you imagine you’re making on this issue.
Too late for editing:
Aside from the general sophomoric character of your apparent gravamen, you’re utterly failing to consider how arbitrary your scale of judgment is. Your scope of “society” is utterly subjective, dare I say uncritically assumed. Are you talking about neighborhoods? Towns? States? The whole country?
Why?
What are your criteria for asserting that an individual action in a particular locale cannot be racist in the case that a broader state of affairs obtains well beyond the subject’s view, acting as some apparent qualifier on the individual’s actions?
To a victim of a lynching, your armchair sociology is preposterous. That’s true whether the victims or perps are white or black. Even if it were possible that you spoke well of it all, you couldn’t possibly be speaking more irrelevantly of any of it.
Human pursuits have long had their casualites, Kel, yet I hear nary a peep from prolifers about the tragedy of these lost lives. The “murder of innocents” only matters to your crowd when it comes to pregnancy. It’s all very ironic.
You must not get out much.
And no, I don’t think abortion is “like war.” It’s not comparable to anything else in this world. There is no condition where one person exists inside of another one, to my knowledge.
Then why draw the comparison of loss of life?
Rasqual @8:38 summed everything up quite well.
Rasqual,
A few more posts like that, and I might be able to retire! :) Wonderfully said, on all accounts! (I have to congratulate you, too… I had to look up “gravamen”, so you added a word to my vocabulary, as well!)
It’s called self-preservation.
Megan, do you know what happens when one assumes? You assume first that if a woman in a crisis pregnancy doesn’t abort, her life is forfeit, which is absurd. Why is it absurd? Let’s address your second assertion:
If you had a uterus, I think your opinion on the matter of abortion would be a little different.
Plenty of us here have a uterus, Megan. That organ does not make us somehow above or beyond being rational human beings who are empathetic towards others. Your assertion here is patently false principally because there are so many of us here that are here only because we have a uterus, and that because we have that organ, we’ve found ourselves in crisis situations with that organ full of another human being that is our child with no means or method of providing either for that child or ourselves and were told by people like you that in order to preserve ourselves, we should kill that child and were appalled and incensed that that was presented to us as even a legitimate and legal option at all. Aside from the fact that these are our children we are talking about, I’d be just as disgusted personally if I complained of money problems to a friend who then told me that since I was experiencing money problems, why shouldn’t I find the first wealthy-looking stranger on the street, stab him in the face with a sharp implement and take his wallet since due to my condition it would be perfectly legal for me to do so. It’s normal to experience such an aversion (it quite literally makes me sick to my stomach thinking about it) to either situation-no uterus required. Having a uterus and being repulsed by such notions are not mutually exclusive conditions, either.
“cultures bound to odd notions of magic and power” – such as?
Reality: Start in the Wikipedia at Human Sacrifice. Needless to say, you’ll find more still under Child Sacrifice. At the other end of the spectrum, there’re cultures with “odd notions of magic and power” which didn’t kill people to gain power. On the other hand, some cultures that didn’t practice human sacrifice nevertheless believed that a hunter partook of his prey’s virtues in killing it. Dittos for sacrifices to deities.
Gees rasqual, every time I cite wikipedia here it’s met with derision. Probably depends on whose argument it bests supports huh?
My observation is that there has been a broad spectrum of cultures and/or faiths which practised human and/or child sacrifice at some stage of their history. This includes the more popular faiths.
The ones which didn’t tended more towards the non-deist end of the spectrum.
“You keep what you kill”?
Reality, I wouldn’t try to cite Wikipedia or any wiki to support your positions. A better way to go about it is to go to the Wikipedia page, check out the references and see if they are reliable and neutral (i.e. no agenda) and cite the reliable references themselves. I used to edit on Wikipedia and I saw a lot of misinformation and twisting of facts. It usually isn’t on purpose, but people all have their unconscious biases. Citing primary and secondary sources is usually preferable to tertiary sources anyway.
Don’t tell me Jack, tell rasqual. I rarely cite wiki, I always try to cite other sources which are more accurate. Wiki almost makes it seem like the sum of all knowledge is confusion.
Oh, sorry then. My bad, I mixed up the names. My comment is directed at rasqal then. Wikipedia isn’t particularly reliable or trustworthy.
The Wikipedia is a superb source for most of its information, not withstanding numerous valid criticisms it has earned. Jack’s advice concerning references is sound.
So have we figured out what stage in its evolution the abortion cult is in, since they’re still practicing child sacrifices the other major religions gave up long, long ago?
On the other hand, they’re infinitely more efficient and have achieved a far greater glory in that respect. For sheer numbers alone, they’re the envy of all!
Okay, personally I think the original question is too interesting to let go without another attempt. Even though the weekend is technically over. This must be what the Army Corps of Engineers feel when they’re trying to keep the Mississippi in its banks. Would Jesus carry graphic abortion pictures? So far Alice, myrtle miller, Gerard Nadal, and Cecilia have put themselves out there on the question, as have I. All on the first page of comments. Plus the answer given by the pastor who asked it in the first place, reported in the original post.
Any one else? Is this it?
lapidarion,
I think I already answered it, but I’ll restate. I am not religious. I have a general idea of what Christianity is about but I don’t purport to know what Jesus would do in any situation if I don’t specifically know a Bible verse to support it. Personally, I think images of aborted fetuses are not the most effective way to help end abortion, plus I would worry about young children being exposed to such images. They are nothing I would want my children to see. Some Christians, including my wife, have told me they think they are wrong. However, I believe in free speech and expression even if it isn’t something I would do. If people believe that they are justified and that Jesus would want them to show those images, I am certainly not going to infringe on that. For all I know, they are completely correct and my hesitancy is misguided.
I find that to be an absurd analogy rasqual. Abortion is not child sacrifice and not all religions have given up child sacrifice.
Hey JackBorsch,
Sorry, yes, I left your previous comment out of my little review because as I recall that comment was very brief and basically said “I don’t know.” (One or two other people also dealt with graphic images in general but didn’t get into the Jesus part.)
Jane,
“Abortion is when a woman decides it’s not the right time to be pregnant.”
“Quit comparing abortion to the Holocaust, it’s insulting to those who lost their lives and family, and it’s insulting to humankind.”
Trouble is she is already pregnant when she has an abortion and abortion is not what you say, it is the taking of a life.
My abortion killed a member of my family, my son, and many women have died from abortion over the years of it being “safe and legal”. Your statement is insulting to humankind ..to the over 53 million unborn who have died and to the countless women who have either died or suffered as a result of abortion.
I believe Jesus absolutely would.
I believe strongly that pictures of babies that have been aborted are necessary and have had an effect on the “bunch of cells” crowd. There are folks that simply did not know what abortion does to a growing, living human child. Now they do because of the graphic photos. They are horrified and rightly so. We all should be horrified.
America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion. Father Frank Pavone
A woman who was proabortion asked a mother “How can you allow children to see those horrible pictures?” The prolife mother answered, “How can you allow children to become those horrible pictures?”
Abortion is child sacrifice. Absolutely, Reality.
We sacrifice our children on the alter of convenience.
Notice I did not bring up religion???
I’ll separate out my points for Jane since she has said she doesn’t read long posts. But it’s gonna be long anyway, Jane, sorry; that’s just the way I communicate. English major. For the record, I have had the pleasure of experiencing pregnancy, and I am pleased to have a uterus, ovaries, cervix, clitoris, breasts, and so far as I know all the other parts women in general come equipped with.
Jane, do you believe that compelling a noncustodial parent to pay child support for his or her child, even against his or her will, is unreasonable?
I will assume that you support forcing a person to give income earned by their use of their own body to the custodial parent of his or her child. And I agree that this is just, because the child is both the father’s and mother’s child, and the custodial parent has expenses in caring for him or her and may lose time or opportunities because he or she is caring for a child. I will further assume that you consider this true even if the custodial parent is a single father, assuming the socioeconomic realities usually applying to single mothers (poorer living conditions, lower family income, etc.) applied in this particular case, while the mother had a high-paying job. So it can be just to force a mother to support his or her child.
Why then can “child support” not be compelled during pregnancy? If it is reasonable to take from a person’s financial resources to compel her to support her own child, a similar argument can be made for compelling her to remain pregnant. As the only person who can safely house and feed the child, she has a responsibility to do so (just as it is considered abuse not to house and feed one’s born minor children). The argument that it can cause more work for the mother, or more effort, is not an acceptable reason to exempt her from care for her child.
The standard response of those who support a right to dismember a child is to claim that the case of pregnancy is different because the child is attached to the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. It is indeed true that we have a right to bodily autonomy. No one has the right to force me to do something I’m not comfortable with, or cause me pain or injury. But having kids changes things. Sometimes I’d rather not feed my children. Sometimes I’d rather sit on the couch or go for a walk. But I do feed them (if they need that). Because they are my children, I have responsibilities as well as rights. When I was breastfeeding my children, I in fact used my body to care for them. Until 4 months after birth, every bit of nourishment my daughter received came from my body. She refused to drink from a cup or a bottle of any sort until after she was weaned. My kids weren’t easy to nurse, either. I was nursing for sometimes 14 hours or more a day. Not just growth spurts; all the time. I also know what it’s like to have a difficult pregnancy–debilitating cramps. Constipation. Insomnia. Gall bladder attacks. Back pain. A little boy who liked to turn sideways and straighten out (causing a great deal of pain). Four months of afterpains, the first time around. 11 months before he could sleep through the night, the second time around. Some rights–like just ignoring my children rather than feeding them, or not changing poopy diapers–I never had. Some rights–like the right not to breastfeed, or the right to let my son (who it turned out had an undiagnosed allergy, and was probably in incredible pain for his first year of life) cry rather than going to him at night–I chose to forego because I wanted what was best for my children. At 3 and 1 1/2 I still do many things for them, like feeding them, helping them dress, bathing them, and supervising them. I cannot always go to the bathroom, eat, or sleep just because I want to. I don’t resent them at all. They’re my kids.
Abortion goes beyond just not feeding and taking care of one’s baby. Abortion is the dismembering of that baby. Any right a woman might have not to be pregnant is far outweighed by the child’s right not to be dismembered. Especially past viability, there is no need to kill the child. In fact, it is more dangerous to kill the child than deliver him or her–the difference between delivering a child and aborting him or her is only that the child is killed. When time is of the essence (if the mother’s life is in danger), there is no good reason to pause and kill the baby, unless the goal is not the preservation of the mother but the killing of the baby.
I do not believe women need abortion. Please explain why abortion is necessary.
I agree with what some others have said–that Jesus might show a picture of an aborted child to specific people, but not others. He has the advantage of knowing everyone’s mind and heart, whereas we don’t have that insight. His approach to the people he ministered to was always individualized–in one healing he makes a point of laying on hands; in one he heals from miles away. Sometimes he confronted people with their sins and shortcomings, but at others he simply forgives, or tells them to sell their possessions and give to the poor. I think abortion pictures are appropriate responses to:
“It’s just another medical procedure” (Here’s the result of the medical procedure)
“It’s just a clump of cells” (Nope)
“Safe and legal” (Not so safe for this little girl or boy)
“Right to choose” (showing what is being chosen)
“bodily autonomy” (Showing the person whose bodily autonomy is violated)
I find it ironic that many who think these pictures are horrible and shouldn’t be shown are those who support the procedure. If it’s just another procedure, the same as a removal of a wisdom tooth or appendix, why are the pictures of it so offensive?
Jane, bodily autonomy cannot be absolute. If nothing else, we cannot do something with our bodies that would infringe on another’s bodily autonomy. Rape is such a violation–a man does not have a right to rape someone under the auspices of bodily autonomy.
Abortion cannot be justified under bodily autonomy because it violates the child’s bodily autonomy. Children have a right to violate their parent’s bodily autonomy. If a nursling bites his or her mother, and she throws him to the floor and he dies, she might not be found guilty of murder just because she was shocked and reacted quickly, but I don’t think anyone would call it a justified killing out of self defense. I certainly can’t hurt my one-and-a-half-year-old son when he pulls my hair or hits me, even if he hurts me. He is a minor and I am his mother and my right to defend myself does not extend to a right to hurt him when he hurts me. Can I bring legal charges against my own minor child if he or she pinches me? Nope. It is different from if someone else pinches me, which would be assault.
Jane, I would like to reiterate what other posters have said on the area of miscarriage: conflating miscarriage and abortion is hurtful to women who have experienced miscarriage.
I am one of those women. I believe I have experienced a number of very early miscarriages between 10 and 14 days, but my only confirmed miscarriage was at 21 days. The physical pain was exceeded only by the emotional pain of knowing my only child (at the time) was dead or dying. I named her Ruby. I had to deal with doctors who didn’t believe I had been pregnant, just that I’d wanted to be, even though I’d had a positive pregnancy test. Then she demeaned my daughter by calling it a chemical pregnancy–my daughter was not a chemical, and her age at death does not change her humanity. I was not hurt by your comments because I expect that kind of callous disregard from people who think my daughter’s life had no value and that I should have the “right” to dismember my unborn children. But I am hurt by the institutionalized disrespect this society has for the very young, and I would be hurt if someone close to me were to demean my child.
I find your comments about women endangering the lives of their unborn children to be uninformed and hurtful. You see, I probably did cause my daughter’s death. I have a condition which makes it difficult for my body to process carbohydrates. In order to make sure I don’t accidentally kill my children, I maintain a very low-carb diet. I did not know about this condition, or how I should eat to maximize my chances of carrying a pregnancy to term, when I conceived Ruby. I didn’t know when I conceived my daughter Hannah, who survived, either. But Hannah got lucky–I was eating more healthily, maybe. She was stronger, maybe. And I’m so glad to have her today. Now I maintain a strict diet and take an anti-diabetes medication. As someone who unintentionally caused the death of my child, I resent the implication that this is the same as an abortion, coming from someone who thinks my child had no value and did not deserve better than death. I do not believe that women who cannot afford drugs, maintain special diets (no one who hasn’t done this understands how hard it is), or get prenatal care should be punished. I don’t believe women who drink or do other dangerous activities, not knowing they are pregnant, should be punished. I think if a woman deliberately without coercion takes an action which harms her child, this should be treated the same as if she had done that to a born child. I think that if a woman (with full knowledge and consent, in the absence of coercion–pretty rare) has her unborn child killed, she should face legal consequences. First and foremost they deserve help with their real problems–substance abuse, medical problems, financial problems, relationship problems. They deserve to have their humanity respected. I believe there are charities to help with this, and I support one of them. I would help myself if there were not a charity that could help. They deserve to have their female nature respected by not treating their pregnancy or femaleness as a problem, or assuming that the pregnancy or their born children are a problem or the source of it. Pregnancy is a unique and wonderful (though sometimes trying) aspect of being a woman. Becoming unpregnant doesn’t fix the problems that made abortion seem like the best option. Women shouldn’t be told that pregnancy is a problem or abortion is a solution–pregnancy is part of what makes us women, a unique and good part of being a woman rather than a man. To say that a woman must have the ability to become unpregnant any time she wishes is denying the experience of being female; it is saying that unless she can be unpregnant–like a man–she cannot be a full human being. This, to me, is the ultimate sexism.
Gerard, a man who stands by unable to intervene while his child dies is not all that noble. He either had sex with her knowing she was pro-choice, or didn’t bother to find out. Thus he is complicit (though perhaps unwillingly) in his son or daughter’s death. Unless she deceived or misled him about being pro-choice, and he didn’t just “stand by” but pleaded for his child’s life, including offering marriage if they were not married, and pledging to support the child, and offering to raise the child himself–he is complicit. We live in a world where a quarter of pregnancies end in the mother killing his or her child. A man who cannot restrain himself from having sex with a murderous woman is not much of a man. I have more sympathy for a man who was pro-abortion, and participated in one, and converts than a man who claims to be pro-life and can’t keep his pants zipped.
Jane, I see that you are very concerned about oppression. Most of us are also. We are horrified by the Holocaust, by rape, by slavery, by abuse, by genocide. And we are also horrified by abortion, because we see it as the denial of all rights to the child, and the horrific, painful death of a child. When we compare abortion to other forms of oppression, it is not that we have any desire to cheapen these forms of oppression, or hurt those who were hurt by these types of oppression or feel kinship with the oppressed. We just see the similarities between abortion–a horrific oppression of unborn babies–and other forms of horrific oppression. The intent is never to say that the Holocaust, or slavery, or genocide isn’t that bad. No! We are just saying, the killing taking place in legalized abortion is horrifying too. We try to draw on common ground–such as the fact that most people agree the Holocaust was a horrible denial of rights which resulted in the death of many innocent people–to explain why we consider abortion a horrible denial of rights that results in the deaths of innocent human beings. I don’t personally use this tactic, because I feel it is not generally effective–it tends to inflame rather than inform. But know this is not the intent.
I do think abortion is oppressive. A whole class of people are assumed not to have rights because of their age and location. It is wrong to oppress people because of their gender, their ancestry, their age, or their disabilities. All of these groups have been oppressed at some point in history–those who deny they are oppressed now don’t deny they were once oppressed. I am pretty sure that almost everyone here is a woman and/or a minority; white males are few and far between (though we welcome them too). As a woman I feel the implication I need abortion to be equal to a man is much more offensive than any other form of discrimination against women that still exists today. I think it results in institutionalized ageism against my children before their births as well. I cannot find a doctor who will uphold and celebrate my children’s rights. Can you imagine being unable to find a pediatrician for your child who was not a racist? As a pro-life woman I face that each time I am pregnant. I once found out that my doctor thought before a certain age, children were acceptable subjects for research–just a few short months ago my son was that age, and I was trusting this woman to care for him. Abortion is oppression.
Jane, I can tell from your posts that you are very concerned about the way our society discriminates against women and minorities, and I commend you for that. I find it interesting that you chose to come here when you do not agree with us, and do not expect to change our minds.
Are you surprised that most of us (even Dr. Nadal) are not white men? That we don’t want to oppress people or take away choices, but we want to protect children from dismemberment?
What makes you so sure that women need abortion, and that taking away the right to legal abortion would oppress women? Why is it you feel so strongly that the ability to repudiate our unique ability to become pregnant is a necessary part of equal rights? Why is it that you disagree with the women here–women who have had abortions and haven’t, women who have adopted children and birthed them, women who had difficult pregnancies and have difficult children–and who still say “I don’t need abortion. I never needed abortion. Abortion didn’t take (or wouldn’t have taken) away my problems. Abortion cannot make us equal. Abortion oppresses us and our children.” Why do you come to this forum and mansplain that we are wrong and we need abortion to be equal?
:) Okay, this is two words that I had to look up in two days, on this forum (cf. “gravamen” and “mansplain”); I’m starting to lose confidence in my command of the English language, here…
The highlighted statement below sounds like a personal attack of the education of another person not on the subject itself. I guess she ran out of any reasonable arguments and attacked the person instead.
Jane says:
June 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm
No, I absolutely did not. I mentioned anti-semitism and “some guy” brought up the Holocaust. Did you go to college? I’m nervous about your reading comprehension skills
Just to clarify- I know it is off subject but it was brought up that white men have never been oppressed. That is a completly false statement. I come from Irish immigrants ,tell those men that they were not oppressed.
“If you had a uterus, I think your opinion on the matter of abortion would be a little different.”
This sentence illustrates the pitfalls of relativism. Jesus, if he were preaching to us today, might in fact have to resort to powerpoint presentations including such pictures of destroyed fetal children because: his parables would not and could not be comprehended by abortion advocates.
In order to embrace the notion of abortion, one has to suspend a function of their own brains. Abortion is unnatural, it is murder, and humans have a natural tendency to abhor murder. In order to bypass this natural abhorrence, abortion advocates have to think in a broken way.
Relativism is attractive to narcissists because it appeals to: “If only you were me, could you understand my point of view.” Humans and other mammals have a great capacity for empathy and compassion. So, we don’t need to fully inhabit another’s mindset in order to feel empathy. However, to the abortion advocate, who’s compassion and empathy have been willfully short-circuited, they can only imagine that you can be compassionate if you first indulge their narcissism.
Gerry, you are very astute. Narcissism is absolutely a side-effect of coping with an abortion. Only if I am the center of the known universe, is it acceptable to kill my child. If I am not the center, if I am a participating member of an interdependent society, then obviously killing my child is wrong.
Healing from the aftermath of an abortion must and does include healing from the narcissism. So I say to our resident abortion fans: get well soon! :>) !
Now, I really got to get back to what I was doing before getting sidetracked on this very long thread!
It’s called self-preservation. If you had a uterus, I think your opinion on the matter of abortion would be a little different.
Megan,
I am a woman, I have a uterus, I’ve been pregnant and I’m pro-life and definitely against abortion. How do you figure that IF Dr. Gerard Nadal had a uterus he WOULD think the way you think he would feel when some of us who do have uteruses do NOT think and feel the way you do? Dr. Gerard could very easily still be pro-life if he had a uterus. Having a uterus doesn’t necessarily mean that person with the uterus is for abortion. There’s people with uteruses who are against abortion–as I stated, I’m one of them.
Reality: It wasn’t meant as an analogy.
It think you’re in thrall to a common misconception, namely, that modern civilizations are incapable of primitive things like child sacrifice, because we’re scientific and enlightened.
And yet it was moderns who killed tens of millions in the last century in an attempt to create utopias.
And it is moderns who have killed tens of millions of unborn children in order to gain for the mother what the mother in the act denies the child. To gain some perceived quality of life, the child is obliged to give up its own.
That is precisely child sacrifice. The child loses life so that the mother might gain some perceived good.
How can you not understand this, other than by willful blindness?
Abortion was an accepted and well-known medical procedure, yet according to both canonical and apocryphal gospels, no where in Jesus’ ministry does he address it or turn its abolition into a social justice issue. If he passed up the opportunity to decry a practice that was widespread (as well as far riskier) in his own time and place—while otherwise leading a life of sociopolitical radicalism even to the point of risking execution—what is there to suggest he’d participate in “pro-life” fanaticism now? That said, although I doubt he’d carry graphic, photoshopped, and otherwise misleading signs of aborted and stillborn fetuses, he would likely be nonetheless invested in social justice; to that end, it’s quite possible he would feature surgical images in a Powerpoint presentation in a teaching seminar for Ob/Gyn residents—were he an MD invested in gender equality and medical education. It’s also possible he’d be grateful that he was able to have a safe abortion—were he a 9 year-old rape victim who was impregnated and who likely wouldn’t survive carrying a pregnancy to term. After all, although he did sacrifice himself, it wasn’t simply as a token gesture of gratuitous self-sacrifice, suffering for suffering’s sake, or submissive victimization. In order to continue his ministry—a ministry characterized by active protest and performative discipleship that resists suffering to the point of risking it for the larger cause of social justice, bodily integrity, and freedom from oppression—I prefer to continue supporting the related causes of reproductive and LGBT rights. Based on Christ’s ministry, those are among the causes for which I think he would proudly carry signs in the here-and-now. Everything in his ministry suggests he saw people’s bodies (even female bodies) as more than property, as more than sites of reproduction, production, and sexual enslavement. Fulfilling such a ministry is impossible unless pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, adoption, contraception, comprehensive sex ed, and other reproductive rights resources are legal, accessible, and as safe as possible.
Wow, Andi. Just . . . wow. I guess your arbitrary special pleading for causes you believe in just writes your agenda on Jesus without considering other possibilities:
“Everything in his ministry suggests he saw people’s bodies (even unborn bodies) as more than property or unwelcome parasites…”
Jesus would be overjoyed to perform abortions on women, in your weird, warped world. Good grief.
At any rate, by your account Jesus was a major fail and his followers remain major failures. I’m not sure what you find attractive in such a bozo when contemporary pro-choice feminists seem in possession of greater gifts, influence, and power than he or his followers have ever been in respect of the social justice issues you imagine he advocated.
And rape was part of war back then, murdering newborns was part of life as well, etc., Yet Jesus did not mention those either. By your logic, argument from silence means Jesus endorsed them as well.
And sorry, you are seeing what you want to see in Jesus’ ministry. He came to save sinners from their sins, period.
He did not come to encourage sinners to go on sinning in unrepentance.
He also spoke of marriage as originally intended between one man and one woman by God at creation. Hardly an endorsement of all those causes you want to so use Jesus to support.
Jesus did not have to say abortion is wrong or gay lifestyle is wrong or rape is wrong or murdering newborns is wrong for us to know that He saw all of them as wrong.
His words on murder state it is not just the act that is sin to God, but the heart behind it that leads to it is sin to God. Not just the act of adultery but the lust.
You are basically using making a mockery of our Savior dying for our sins to claim he endorsed those very sins He died for.
Jesus also spoke of words like go and sin no more, repent or perish, believe or be condemned, etc. He was equally harsh with self-righteous legalists (who overthrew God’s law and substituted their own laws) and antimonians alike. Sadly, you are a combination of the two Andi, given you wish to throw out God’s moral law (as antinomians do) to claim Jesus condoned breaking it yet make up your own laws as how you wish Jesus would advocate (your own form of legalism where you make up your own rules and laws to bind us which overthrow God’s moral law, the very thing Jesus condemned in Pharisees).
Andi, do you think that any of his followers understood what Jesus was about? Because the early church universally condemned abortion, and even found and cared for “exposed” infants (babies left to die, mostly girls; the “safe and legal” abortion of the time).
Sometimes I think that some people can only understand something when they can relate to it. Do they lack imagination and the ability to Imagine what being that in utero baby is like? I hope not!
Self awareness dawns before being born. You hear your mothers voice, her heartbeat, and you are affected by the motion of her walking. Everything she eats or consumes in medications or drinks, affects you, even her smoking sends nicotine through your system and can cause you to be born underweight.
My daughter in law worked at a deli counter where her tummy was near a warmer form some meals she prepped, and her son would kick away at the heat, until she moved away from it. My niece worked in a factory and when a loud noise occurred, her baby would be startled and jump in answer. My own son liked when I played orchestra/symphony music ( and he’s a musician who plays multiple instruments now).
When I was in college I participated in an experiment in a deprivation tank. I became aware of my own internal sounds, especially my heartbeat. I thought a lot. I wonder if anybody has ever piped in the sounds a baby would hear as an experiment or perhaps even a teaching experience for those who have not the imagination to understand a pre-born child?
I feel so refreshed by the idea of a Jesus who cared about increasing the actual quotient of justice in people’s own lives. Instead of as set forth for them according to “principles” that don’t actually value them as individuals. Could we have more of this Jesus please? He’s a winner, whether his “followers” follow him or not.
A Jesus the meaning of whose life cannot be summarized simply as a private drama of transactional atonement between him and God. A Jesus who cares about making things better for people, who is not out of touch with their lives — just, wow.
Lapidarion, that is the Jesus I know. He cared about the weak, the sick, the disabled–and so many times he stopped and healed them. It “interfered” with all his important work, but he healed the blind and the lame, he touched the leprous, he blessed babies in a culture that did not value them. He healed Samaritans. He ate and drank with those whose lives were full of sin–drunkards, prostitutes, tax collectors. And he called them to be better than they were. He told them to stop sinning, to follow him. He loved them as they were–but loved them enough that he called them to sobriety, chastity, and poverty. That is my Jesus.
That doesn’t mean that he would approve of abortion, because abortion is a grave injustice to the unborn. And Jesus was once unborn. A baby did not just appear in Mary’s arms–no, Jesus had a normal gestation, beginning (presumably) as a single cell, travelling down Mary’s fallopian tube to her womb, implanting in the womb, developing into a fetus, slowly becoming a baby. Jesus’ coming was to Mary’s womb. And He is God–he knows what it is to be an embryo, a fetus. I do not believe he condones killing the unborn anymore than he condones killing women, babies, persons with homosexual attractions, black people, sick people, or old people. He upheld a child as the “least of these,” telling his disciples to emulate that little one. He upheld the dignity of a woman as the daughter of Abraham, though there is no record of him calling any man a son of Abraham. Would Jesus have loved and helped a pregnant woman? Yes–and her child too.
Andi,
Reread the Gospels. Jesus said “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them.” That doesn’t mean kill ’em off so they can come to Him.
What a warped view of Jesus’s time and message you have. Jesus didn’t preach death, He preached life. He said “I am the Truth and the Life, He who comes to me shall not die, but live.”
He raised people from the dead, He didn’t kill them off. The little girl, Lazarus, the Centurion’s servant to just name a few.
He died for our sins, in order to open the door for new life. In a sense a woman who gives up her life for the sake of her pre-born child is doing the same thing–giving up her life so another can live. Jesus rose from the dead, and so does anyone who rises from the dead to enter Heaven.
Through baptism you die to sin and our own life to rise again to a new life in Christ. With the Holy Spirit you receive gifts and graces to walk in that new life.
young christian woman: To me too, that is an exciting Jesus (in the first paragraph).
I do disagree with you about who can be wronged and in what ways when we’re talking about pregnancy, but this thread has already had a pretty fun (or “fun”) go-round on some of the broader issues. To respond to one point, though, I don’t believe that what you said about the “status” of Jesus before he was born is required by any of the commonly accepted Christian scriptures that deal with the issue — and actually, none of the “pro-life” scriptures that I’ve come across turn out to be nearly so pro-life as pro-life commentators would have them be, which, if you’re interested, I’ve written about here (though not including [yet!] the ones that would be most relevant to the point you mentioned). This is not, of course, to say you don’t have other reasons for believing the things you do.
lapidarian: Bear in mind that it’s as possible to err in reading scripture through a prism of classical liberalism as through a lens of pro-life commitments. It’s no surprise that distinctions that can fund an idea of “rights” are not found in many scriptures cited by pro-life folk, who are comfortable with the prevalent deontological language of the Bible.
Your linked commentary on various scriptures was a good read.
If we are talking about violently dismembering a human being at the earliest stages of life, I think that the onus is on pro-choicers to prove this is okay. The baby has a lot more to lose.
The Bible most certainly is clear that Jesus was conceived inside Mary, and did not have him come into the world a baby but at least a fetus. Were her pregnancy anything other than the normal length, I would think there would be mention of it. People knew how long it takes to have a baby. Counting months after marriage was not beyond the technology of the time, and the consequences of having sex earlier were grave enough it was probably rare. Someone would have mentioned it if Mary had a 6-month or 2-week pregnancy. If the pregnancy took the normal length of time, it is reasonable to believe it went through all the normal stages. If you want to argue that maybe Jesus came into being already implanted in the womb, I have no way to refute it, but I think the view He went through the normal life cycle after his supernatural conception is more logical–his human life was like ours. I don’t think a cogent argument can be made that Jesus was never an embryo–and if He was an embryo, that Embryo was fully God and fully Man. And if the Embryo Jesus was fully Man, why wouldn’t every embryo be?
There can be no other point than the joining of the DNA from the egg and the sperm that a human being starts. All of science agrees–life does not arise from nonlife. People and animals reproduce after their kinds. To hold that the human being before birth is not human, or not alive, is illogical. To argue for the right to kill this living human being is barbaric. If the unborn are living human beings, they are deserving of legal protection. Jesus’ ministry is full of lifting up those society considered less (including babies) and using them to shame the powerful. I don’t think that those who claim women need the right to kill the smallest and most vulnerable among us are heirs to the tradition of Jesus. Will read and respond to your blog post there.
Jane said:
A baby with spins (sic) bifida has a high likelihood of dying soon after birth, in excruciating pain. It’s up to the woman and her doctor to decide if a baby with deformities should have to experience that pain or avoid the suffering.
Wikipedia says:
Ultrasound screening for spina bifida is partly responsible for the decline in new cases, because many pregnancies are terminated out of fear that a newborn might have a poor future quality of life. With modern medical care, the quality of life of patients has greatly improved.
about.com says:
A study published in 2001 found that with appropriate medical care, at least 75% of children born with the most severe form of spina bifida (myelomeningocele) will most likely live until their early adult years.
I rest my case.
Proverbs 24: 10 – 13 indicates clearly and strongly enough (moreso than many other verses that I’m aware of even) that Jesus would hold such a sign, and furthermore that he would do everything he possibly could to end elective abortion, as God himself says the following (I understand thru Solomon) (American King James – via Biblos.com):
10. If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small.
11. If you forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death, and those that are ready to be slain;
12. If you say, Behold, we knew it not; does not he that ponders the heart consider it? and he that keeps your soul, does not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
Definition of FORBEAR (via merriam-webster.com):
transitive verb
1 obsolete : to do without
2 : to hold oneself back from especially with an effort <forbore mentioning the incident>
3 obsolete : to leave alone : shun <forbear his presence — Shakespeare>
intransitive verb)
1 : hold back, abstain <have forborne from taking part in any controversy — Abraham Lincoln>
2 : to control oneself when provoked : be patient
If “forbear” in verse 11 is defined by the contemporary definition here, “to hold oneself back from especially with effort,” or by any other possible definition I have found, then it is indicated clearly here that if a person knowingly holds back (I presume at all), especially with an effort, from trying to rescue people on their way to being killed unjustly, God will not only know it, but he will also cast him/ her into hell for it, and/ or render him/ her death on earth according to what he/ she has allowed to happen to others.
Also, if “he” in verse 12 refers to man, and not God, in the statement, “does not he that ponders the heart consider it,” then I would gather that those who ponder the heart – which could refer to all people – would and should at least consider helping those in such great need. But I believe “he” refers to God.
. . . meaning I believe that makes more sense.