ARCHIVE: Abortion is always murder

[beanieboy]

Are those who are strongly opposed to abortion ready to deal with the consequences of society if such a thing would be outlawed? Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

firechyld, I really think my first response answered all your concerns you raised in your last response.

Let me summarize...
If there are a tragic set of circumstances as in a fast spreading cancer there is a dramatic difference in the mindset if saving the mother AND the tiny child even knowing that the current technology will most likely not make it possible for the child to live than there is in the mindset of simply killing the baby.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Are those who are strongly opposed to abortion ready to deal with the consequences of society if such a thing would be outlawed? Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?

Beinie I have two points in response to your point....

1. Currently in the USA we have all the consequences you mentioned "Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?" and abortion IS currently legal!

2. Justifying murder based on a desire to create a society the way you see fit is wrong, if not "Hitler-esk". In other words... we have no right to deny another humans right to live based on other societal problems that are unrelated to that individuals birth.

 

[beanieboy]

Knight - while it exists, those raped usually have abortions, those who have been impregnated usually end the pregnancy, and those on welfare would INCREASE. Less abortions, more babies, and so, more children in the welfare system, more unwed mothers, more babies with DownSyndrome from incest, you wife having some rapist's kid, etc.

Are you prepared for these consequences?

 

[Amazing_Grace]

Beanie, abortion was illegal not so many years ago and if I have my facts straight, there was less crime and poverty in the 40s and 50s than there is now.

Just something to think about....

 

[beanieboy]

Beanie, abortion was illegal not so many years ago and if I have my facts straight, there was less crime and poverty in the 40s and 50s than there is now.

Just something to think about....

50 years ago, African Americans couldn't vote, eat in White Only Restaurants, marry white people, or many of the other Civil Rights that Martin Luther King Jr. helped lead them to.
There was less crime 50 years ago.

Does that mean that granting all Americans Civil Rights leads to higher crime rates?

Not necessarily. Nor does having two televisions in most homes lead to higher crime rate, the invention of the Internet lead to higher crime rates, having higher Lead Restrictions in house paint lead to higher crime rates, the introduction of bananas and kiwi fruit lead to higher crime rates - all which have changed over the last 50 years.

You know - when we had 49 states, there was less crime. Maybe it's all Hawaii's fault

 

[Amazing_Grace]

I guess I didn't make my point very clear. The tone of your post implied that if abortion were made illegal things like the number of people on welfare and such would be astronmical. I was just pointing out that it was illegal not too long ago and these were not huge concerns. When it was illegal the country did not fall apart, it was in fact in better shape in many ways than it is today. Not in all ways, obviously, but many.

I didn't mean to imply that there is a direct corelation between the legality of abortion and the increase in crime, although in re-reading my post I can see how you took it that way.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

HSG writes…Your statement is completely ignorant and only used by the laziest death penalty opponents (there are far more interesting arguments out there).

Capital criminals are guilty of capital crimes and therefore their execution is NOT murder in the same way it is not murder to kill to protect your country and or your family against a perpetrator.

Unborn babies are not capital criminals. They are innocent of any criminal action therefore taking their life is wrong.

Capital Criminals = GUILTY
Little Babies = INNOCENT

You know ND, this is pretty much immature. Do you alway name call when someone disagrees?

Once again I will revert to facts. Not everyone who is accused of a capital crime is actually guilty of it. Yet many are covicted no matter what.

Under the definitions posted above BOTH ARE MURDER! If you refuse to accept that, it is your choice when facing God, but the facts remain the same. Your ACL wants slow tortuous deaths of those accused and convicted, and also want participation by the family of the victim. That is sickening, Why do you not like bringing up THAT point in here?

You may as well ban me ND. I am not going to be called ignorant by a fool anymore.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

HSG thinks we should protect this person but HSG thinks its OK to kill this person!

What Knight supports (from Bob enyarts site under wrtings, Day 1)

"America’s death row inmates will be executed tomorrow beginning at 7:00 p.m. local time.
Lethal injection and other painless execution techniques are permanently prohibited. Prosecution witnesses, victims’ family members and friends may participate in the execution if so desired. From this day forward, those convicted of any capital crime will be executed.
All abortion clinics are ordered closed and padlocked by the local police or sheriff’s department.
Anyone aborting, attempting or conspiring to abort, or advocating the killing of an unborn child from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed.
Any manufacturer, provider, or advocate of, or anyone procuring, conspiring or attempting to procure, any abortifacient (such as RU 486, the IUD, or any birth control pill which also acts as an abortifacient) from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed."

Yes sir ladies and gentlemen if you buy or manufacture a birth control product will be KILLED! How about that. Yet Knight was denying that the use of a condom was a executional offence, yet here it is. The ignorant Bob Enyart doen't know that an IUD stands for Inter Uterine device, which is used to stop SPEARM for entering the womb and inpregnating a woman. In the same ignorance he included the birth control pill saying THAT is a Abortion item. Yet knight foolishly doesn't know the difference either!

But there is MORE! This is how those who are to die will die.

"America’s death row inmates will be executed tomorrow beginning at 7:00 p.m. local time.
Lethal injection and other painless execution techniques are permanently prohibited. Prosecution witnesses, victims’ family members and friends may participate in the execution if so desired. From this day forward, those convicted of any capital crime will be executed."

Yes sir-e-bob. The nice sssslllllloooooooowwwwwww tortuous REVENGE DEATH that is an act of condemnation according to God.

What about it knight? You like calling people ignorant. Here are the words THEM SELF. Why do you hide them? Why aren't the posted on this web forum for ALL to see the truth of your Hate and anger?

They also claim that this government is not an attempt to OVERTHROW US Government, but here is the beggining of his fantasy.

"
Chapter 1
Day One
"The twentieth century was not a good one for the United States," Candy judged. At 4:58 a.m., Candy Smythe, the 28-year old NBC executive secretary, finished preparing the room for the 5:00 a.m. meeting. "Nobody could foul up things worse than they’ve been over these last two years," Candy thought solemnly. "Good grief, especially last month, nothing could beat last month," she thought. Still, here she was, prepping NBC’s executive conference room at New York City’s One Rockefeller Center Plaza, for this emergency meeting.
"The last time these top execs got here this early, Mr. Radner was cursing about Peter Arnett and CNN broadcasting from Baghdad during the Gulf War," she thought. This time though, her boss wasn’t just angry. Fred Radner, the president of NBC News, was more than angry. He and his associates were bewildered. Even frightened, she could see as they filed into the room quietly. They were tired too, since most had only left a few hours ago about midnight. They all had rooms in the Waldorf Astoria which, conveniently, was a quick three-minute walk from the office.
"Whatever happened at 3:47 this morning (no one had yet told Candy anything), it had to be huge, news-wise," she thought. And it had to be bad. The country was in decline for decades. Over these last years, and especially these last months, people were thinking we were approaching our breaking point. "Did we break?," Candy wondered as she closed the doors, gladly shutting herself out of a crucial NBC meeting. Here's the letter Bob's been sending people and reading on his show.
"The last thing I’ll let my organization do is help this coup succeed," said Mr. Howard Toht, executive director of NBC News. "I agree with the other networks," he argued. "We should refuse to report anything for this coup government."
"It’s not a coup," said Linda Ratcliff, the chief operating officer of NBC News.
"It’s a coup," snapped Toht, "I don’t care how it happened, it’s still a coup."
"Do you still recognize the word democracy, Howard?," Linda Ratcliff asked sarcastically.

Let's see. Last I heard, ellections were run in broad daylight with the outcome very well known monthe BEFORE the new or re-elected president is named, yet even by his own hand, this is done in secrecy and hidden from EVERYONE so much so that it is BREAKING Early morning news, before most people are awake. In our constitution, this is against the law, yet the writer of this fiction says it is DEMOCRACY!

And this isn't even the best part. Spend $10, and get day two in which he has a woman stripped and publiclly flogged for demanding the right to have her LAWYER while in trial. Aren't these the GREATEST OF CHRISTIAN beliefs?

I don't expect this post to survive, nor me to be around. I am very sick of fools calling other people ignorant, when the fool has NEVER READ THE BIBLE EVEN ONCE. He only reads the verses his 'leader" tells him to read.

I am sorry to all those who truely wish to hear about the real christianity. You may still email me at webmaster_couple@yahoo.com.

Goodbye.

 

[KurtPh]

Beanie, abortion was illegal not so many years ago and if I have my facts straight, there was less crime and poverty in the 40s and 50s than there is now.

Oh, I don't know if I'd want to make that argument if I were you. It really ain't true, especially concerning poverty.

 

[Jaltus]

Are those who are strongly opposed to abortion ready to deal with the consequences of society if such a thing would be outlawed? Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?

Do you have any idea how many couples are looking to adopt? The rate is astronmical. The liklihood of getting to adopt is dropping substatntially. If there were more births, there would still be people looking to adopt those babies. Remember, adoption is a much better avenue than terminating a life. It is not the child's fault that it was conceived, so why blame him/her by killing them?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Beanie you write...

Knight - while it exists, those raped usually have abortions

Which is wrong! A son should not receive the death penalty for the guilt of his father.

You continue...

those who have been impregnated usually end the pregnancy, and those on welfare would INCREASE.

Maybe, maybe not, but either way I don't see that as a satisfactory excuse for taking innocent lives do you?

You continue...

Less abortions, more babies,

That is your assertion. I assert that if abortion were illegal more young men and women would be more thoughtful and careful in their sexual activity (not all of them, but more of them). Furthermore, the world could use MORE babies not less!

You continue...

you wife having some rapist's kid, etc.

That is the difference between you and me I guess. If my wife were raped (Heaven forbid) I would want the rapist put to death NOT my child!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

HSG writes...

You know ND, this is pretty much immature. Do you alway name call when someone disagrees?

There are not sufficient names for someone who claims to be a Christian but then advocates murdering innocent babies and compares babies to "bacteria".

You continue...

Your ACL wants slow tortuous deaths of those accused and convicted, and also want participation by the family of the victim. That is sickening, Why do you not like bringing up THAT point in here?

First things first.... it is NOT my ACL! Its a fiction book you moron! Furthermore, I would love to participate in the execution of someone who murdered a family member of mine! Are you claiming that many of God's people were "sickening"? Family members often participated in the executions of wicked people. I would love to push a giant boulder on Osama Bin Laden! Let me at him!!!!

You continue...

You may as well ban me ND. I am not going to be called ignorant by a fool anymore.

I am not going to ban you since you have done nothing to be banned. However you are free to not come back if you choose.

I am POSITIVE you will find many Christian websites that will be sympathetic to your advocating murdering babies.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

HSG writes...

Yes sir ladies and gentlemen if you buy or manufacture a birth control product will be KILLED! How about that. Yet Knight was denying that the use of a condom was a executional offence, yet here it is. The ignorant Bob Enyart doen't know that an IUD stands for Inter Uterine device, which is used to stop SPEARM for entering the womb and inpregnating a woman. In the same ignorance he included the birth control pill saying THAT is a Abortion item. Yet knight foolishly doesn't know the difference either!

That might have been the stupidest paragraph ever written at TheololgyOnLine!

First... a condom is not a "abortifacient" therefore nobody would be committing any offense by using or manufacturing them.
Second... An IUD does NOT stop sperm from entering the uterus that's why its called "Inter Uterine" you see, because its already INSIDE! A IUD does however make the body reject the fertilized egg and therefore it is a abortifacient. (it aborts a fertilized egg)
Third... most (if not all) birth control pills ARE abortifacients!!!

HSG we should be paying you for this stuff, its great!!!

 

[firechyld]

I'm not quite sure I understand why the pill is being classified as an "abortifacient".

Also, regarding IUDs.... you are aware that preventing a fertilised egg from lodging in the uterus is not it's primary function? An IUD alters the course of both sperm and egg inside the reproductive tract, as well as creating a spermicidal environment within the uterus. Fertilisation is unlikely to occur.

The uterine wall is slightly altered, making it hostile. In the event that fertilisation does occur, the fertilised egg is expelled within 4 days of fertilisation. The IUD is one of the most effective means of contraception for those in monogamous relationships.

I'd also be interested to hear if this view covers only the older style copper IUDs, or the newer hormonal ones as well.

Thanks!
firechyld

 

[firechyld]

firechyld, I really think my first response answered all your concerns you raised in your last response.

Let me summarize...
If there are a tragic set of circumstances as in a fast spreading cancer there is a dramatic difference in the mindset if saving the mother AND the tiny child even knowing that the current technology will most likely not make it possible for the child to live than there is in the mindset of simply killing the baby.

*smile* I understood what you were saying.

However: in the example I gave (assuming that the pregnancy is wanted and that all attempts to save both lives have failed) the mother MUST choose between aborting the pregnancy to receive treatment, and refusing treatment and dying.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... hmm... difficult to express.

It should be noted that there ARE circumstances where it may be necessary to make that declaration of "We have to terminate the pregnancy to save your life". That "killing the baby" mindset does have it's place in the medical world, harsh as it may seem.

My point with the example was that a pregnant woman cannot be given chemotherapy. There's not a doctor in the world who would administer it. For her to receive the treatment that may save her life, she has to opt to terminate the pregnancy.

It's quite a sad situation... but it does happen.

firechyld

 

[beanieboy]

Beanie you write...That is the difference between you and me I guess. If my wife were raped (Heaven forbid) I would want the rapist put to death NOT my child!

Knight - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that I was undecided on the issue. This "difference between you and me" attitude comes off as haughtiness, and immaturity.

I was simply asking if people strongly opposed to abortion were prepared for the consequences. What I am getting back is more or less, "stuff like that won't happen," "people will be responsible" and other half thought out responses.

So, a father gets his 12 year old daughter pregnant. Because of the genetic makeup, the child will probably have some deformity. The child will probably have some special needs, and if the father is arrested, the mother and the 12 year old girl will have to support the child. Are you prepared for this reality?

Your wife gets raped. No, I don't think that is the fetus's fault. But, it's not like your wife is going to say, ah, well, I got a baby out of it! Score! Some guy held your wife down against her will and raped her. She's going to be tramatized for some time. And then she will start getting bigger, reminding her of it. And then she will have a baby that looks nothing like you. And if you choose to keep it, it will grow older, and you may think about what happened because of this kid. Are you ready for those consequences?

Are you ready for people who die because they may go to back alley abortion clinics?

Are you prepared for in increase in welfare? It is a very likely possibility.

Are you prepared for an increase in unwed mothers?

Are you prepared for an increase in young girls having kids?

These would be realities.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Firechyld writes...

I'm not quite sure I understand why the pill is being classified as an "abortifacient".

Because the pill is! Look into it.

You say...

It should be noted that there ARE circumstances where it may be necessary to make that declaration of "We have to terminate the pregnancy to save your life". That "killing the baby" mindset does have it's place in the medical world, harsh as it may seem.

I realize this is a tough topic an extremely tough to explain without talking one on one. But I still feel like your missing my point.

We both agree it would be wrong to let mother AND baby die in these tragic circumstances right?

So we agree the baby must be removed or something that will allow the woman to be be treated for her disease. Right?

We also agree these are the most rare abortion cases. Right?

Couldn't attempts be made to save this tiny baby?

Maybe they try placing the baby in another woman, maybe they try inventing ways to develop the baby in other ways.... none of these idea's are probably technologically possible yet but they may be possible some day if we try!

Necessity is the mother of invention.

But if necessity aborts than invention is murdered.

Not so long ago premature babies had little or no chance of survival. But through ongoing medical advances and efforts now we can save premature babies at an incredible success rate not to mention premature babies at younger and younger ages.

Who knows what we could think of if we shed the mindset of death!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Beanie writes...

Knight - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that I was undecided on the issue. This "difference between you and me" attitude comes off as haughtiness, and immaturity.

I was simply asking if people strongly opposed to abortion were prepared for the consequences. What I am getting back is more or less, "stuff like that won't happen," "people will be responsible" and other half thought out responses.

OK, fair enough...

Here is the point....

People generally are not responsible in that they do not take responsibility for their actions but abortion only creates an environment where people can take far less responsibility for their actions.... "hey, what if you get pregnant?"..."No problem, I will get an abortion".

Abortion is legal and people are less responsible than ever!

You continue...

So, a father gets his 12 year old daughter pregnant. Because of the genetic makeup, the child will probably have some deformity. The child will probably have some special needs, and if the father is arrested, the mother and the 12 year old girl will have to support the child. Are you prepared for this reality?

Two Points...

1. The father is a capital criminal and should be put to death
2. The baby is NOT a capital criminal and should not be put to death even though the baby is "less desirable" to many in society.

You continue...

Your wife gets raped. No, I don't think that is the fetus's fault. But, it's not like your wife is going to say, ah, well, I got a baby out of it! Score! Some guy held your wife down against her will and raped her. She's going to be tramatized for some time. And then she will start getting bigger, reminding her of it. And then she will have a baby that looks nothing like you. And if you choose to keep it, it will grow older, and you may think about what happened because of this kid. Are you ready for those consequences?

You make good points... sin has ongoing tragic consequences. Some of the consequences are painful and long lasting but many things in life have these types of consequences.... Take a woman who has had an abortion, she has to live with that for the rest of her life! She has to think every day about what she did!

Sin has consequences, consequences that even effect the innocent like the example you raised about the raped woman but justifying the murder of the innocent baby only compounds these consequences as now we have a father who is a rapist and a mother who is a murderer.

 

[firechyld]

Ah.... I think I see where you are coming from now.

However (still talking about our very specific example) I think it has to be admitted that until these very nifty ideas are feasible, our hypothetical woman is still in a situation where saving her life means aborting the pregnancy.

Remember that we are talking about a wanted pregnancy... I specified that so that we could be sure doctors and family were doing all they could to save both lives.

Regarding the pill... I'm actually quite well informed on matters of contraception, and I'd like you to explain why you think it's an "abortifacient", if it's not too much trouble. For clarification... are you referring to the standard combined pill, or the progesterone-only or mini-pill?

firechyld