FLDS - Abortion Hypocrites

[Anguille]

This is much more complicated discussion than most any of us are willing to delve, in my personal opinion.

Let me start with saying that many people have their beliefs that abortion is wrong due to their religious beliefs or even religious upbringings, where "thou shall not kill" is taken to heart....and even some non religious people believe that killing the unborn is wrong just because it is a human being... that is being snuffed out before they have the chance to be born.

Let's face it, please let's face this head on and say the truth of what is: It is the termination of pregnancy, and pregnancy is the nuturing period for an offspring child to be, before it is born.

The Bible describes life in the beginning in Genesis 2, I believe, that Adam's life began with his first BREATH....God Breathed life in to him.....he was FORMED already by God, but breathing through his nostril gave him LIFE.

Think about this for a minute or two, for those Judeo/Christians among us...

I was floored when I read this passage, when searching for what the Bible has to say about abortion, even though it is not mentioned once directly in the Bible...floored because abortion is not listed soo I thought it would be good to try to find out when human life begins...thinking maybe this would give me some answers regarding abortion in the Bible.

It made me think that there was a distinction between the born and unborn...born meaning they took their first breath. And yes this is even our definition in today's times...if the baby is born and has taken his first breath and then dies, the baby is issued a birth certificate and then a death certificate.

If a baby is born in our society that never takes its first breath, it is still born....and is not issued a birth or death certificate I don't believe?

Then there is another passage in Exodus, where it speaks of a woman that was with child, that got pushed by a man in a fight with another man, which forced her "fruit" to depart, (a miscarriage)....but did not cause any harm to her....her husband could bring the man that caused this harm to judges and demand what restitution he deemed fair, (for the loss of his unborn child).

Now this to me means that the unborn child DEFINATELY is NOT just a clump of cells that is a parasite in the mother....he got restitution for his unborn child who was born dead....that departed from his wife due to this man knocking in to her.

But THEN the passage goes in to, the BUTS....

but, if later... this woman becomes sick or dies from the incident then the proper judgement is, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a life, for a life.

So if this woman went on to die because of this incident, then this man that caused this would be put to death, capital punishment....a life for a life.

So what does all this mean?

It means that the unborn child has value, but the born has more value....is "worth" more.....Doesn't it?



-------------------------------------------

Okay, taking all of this stuff in to consideration....

TO ME, there is a possibility that the unborn child does not have the same value as the born child, but does indeed have value.

This still makes abortion wrong in my own personal opinion....it is taking away a chance for this human being to be BORN....a termination of the pregnancy TOP, ......terminated.....

you can't terminate and kill something that isn't already alive....this is a fact.

---------------------------------------------

What I can't do, is insist that EVERYONE should think the same way as me...

people do their own soul searching on what is right or wrong, they also have freewill that gives them the chance to choose.

What I do know is that forgiveness is what is suppose to be offered to these women that have gone through an abortion, and love and kindness and compassion....through this, they will be won over, and they can heal.

care

Great post!! Informative and thoughtful!! I made me think about aspects of the abortion debate I hadn't considered.

 

[jillian]

Not ncessarily. Being anti-choice forces one to take a god long look at themselves, and take responsibility for their actions PRIOR to making stupid "feel good" decisions.

Because, of course, people choose to terminate a pregnancy because it "feels good". Right? That's silly. Being pro choice doesn't mean "pro abortion". I've alwaysthought it should be legal, readily available, and rarely used. But being pro choice means we don't impose our religious judgments (since that's what it is) on others.

And the reason the anti-choice crowd has little credibility with me is because I've never gotten a decent answer to this hypothetical:

person A and her husband go for in vitro fertilization because they've been unable to conceive. 3 of the embryos end up implanting. Person A's doctor tells her she cannot carry 3 embryos to term because either she or the babies will die. Person A is given the option of selectively terminating part of the pregnancy so she can bring one healthy baby into the world and live to see it.

The anti choice crew would have person A and/or her babies die. I've never gotten a different answer from the anti-choicers.... not ever.

 

[Ravi]

You are missing the point to the thread. The point is the obvious double-standard being used by those who believe the state should step in if they think a child is being abused in one instance and not the other.

As far as your question goes, you are mixing legal with moral arguments. My personal belief is that abortion outside of medical necessity is murder. My belief as far as the legality of abortion goes is that the state should not force the woman to give birth unless the pregnancy has reached the point in time where abortion is not legal.

I have no problem justify the disparity in my stances for several reasons. One, the reality of the situation. Women were having abortions anyway. I don't think that my personal beliefs and/or standard I hold myself to should consign others to witchdoctors and backroom, coathanger abortions.

Two, in the end, I will answer for MY sins, not yours. So long as your sins aren't affecting my life you are free to name your own poison as far as I'm concerned.

However, abortion DOES affect my life. Not in a big way, but when one of the verbatim soundbytes on this board is fearmongering that McCain or anyone else who is pro-life is going to have Roe v Wade overturned, I just get annoyed at listening to the same baseless bullshit.

It's funny, we share almost the same views on abortion. I don't think it's murder, though. And I also sincerely doubt that women get abortions at the last minute. So you either have to take me off your hypocrite list or add yourself to it.

 

[Ravi]

How come so many who are FOR abortion are opposed to the death penalty? That seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Most people that are sentenced to death are actually alive.

 

[Ravi]

yep! i think it was senator santorum?

care

Right. Boy, was I glad to see that guy leave politics.

 

[jillian]

I'm just wondering, since it's directed at me, why we should disbelieve the right wing when they say they're going to appoint justices to the supreme court who will overturn roe v wade.

Did I miss something? Or should I say that something as fundamental as the right to privacy should be eviscerated by stupid judicial appointments?

 

[Anguille]

....So you either have to take me off your hypocrite list or add yourself to it.

LOL!!

 

[Shattered]

Because, of course, people choose to terminate a pregnancy because it "feels good". Right? That's silly. Being pro choice doesn't mean "pro abortion". I've alwaysthought it should be legal, readily available, and rarely used. But being pro choice means we don't impose our religious judgments (since that's what it is) on others.

And the reason the anti-choice crowd has little credibility with me is because I've never gotten a decent answer to this hypothetical:

person A and her husband go for in vitro fertilization because they've been unable to conceive. 3 of the embryos end up implanting. Person A's doctor tells her she cannot carry 3 embryos to term because either she or the babies will die. Person A is given the option of selectively terminating part of the pregnancy so she can bring one healthy baby into the world and live to see it.

The anti choice crew would have person A and/or her babies die. I've never gotten a different answer from the anti-choicers.... not ever.

Well, consider this your first "different" answer. In your scenario, obviously if it's a life vs. death option, life should come in to play, and I don't know anyone with an ounce of common sense that would tell you differently. Even those that are anti-abortion, when faced dead on with that kind of choice, will make the *right* choice, and it doesn't have a damned thing to do with religion.

There are extremes to every scenario. However, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet" ain't it.

 

[Anguille]

I'm just wondering, since it's directed at me, why we should disbelieve the right wing when they say they're going to appoint justices to the supreme court who will overturn roe v wade.

Did I miss something? Or should I say that something as fundamental as the right to privacy should be eviscerated by stupid judicial appointments?

Well said!

 

[jillian]

Well, consider this your first "different" answer. In your scenario, obviously if it's a life vs. death option, life should come in to play, and I don't know anyone with an ounce of common sense that would tell you differently. Even those that are anti-abortion, when faced dead on with that kind of choice, will make the *right* choice, and it doesn't have a damned thing to do with religion.

There are extremes to every scenario. However, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet" ain't it.

Congratulations

You are the first anti-choicer who has given an answer other than person A shouldn't have the right to choose.

And I have no problem with you making a choice to keep a child who you weren't ready for. It's your imposing that decision on others that I object to....

And, ultimately, since life exists on a continuum, there's a point at which the governmental interest in protecting the potential life overrides my interest in controlling what I do with my body. That's essentially all Roe v Wade does at its most basic.

I certainly don't have to accept a presidential candidate who says he intends to make appointments to protect "the sanctity of the lives of the unborn" and I'm quite certain I'm not "hysterical" if I say that is what the candidate has said he will do and I believe he will try to, if not succeed.

 

[Shattered]

Congratulations

You are the first anti-choicer who has given an answer other than person A shouldn't have the right to choose.

And I have no problem with you making a choice to keep a child who you weren't ready for. It's your imposing that decision on others that I object to....

And, ultimately, since life exists on a continuum, there's a point at which the governmental interest in protecting the potential life overrides my interest in controlling what I do with my body. That's essentially all Roe v Wade does at its most basic.

I certainly don't have to accept a presidential candidate who says he intends to make appointments to protect "the sanctity of the lives of the unborn" and I'm quite certain I'm not "hysterical" if I say that is what the candidate has said he will do and I believe he will try to, if not succeed.

Then I don't think you're phrasing the question in the same manner you phrased it to me.. Most people I know (and that would be people from ALL walks of life, and no matter HOW religious) wouldn't expect a woman to choose death for herself in order to bring a child in to this world. Where would that leave her existing family?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm just wondering, since it's directed at me, why we should disbelieve the right wing when they say they're going to appoint justices to the supreme court who will overturn roe v wade.

Did I miss something? Or should I say that something as fundamental as the right to privacy should be eviscerated by stupid judicial appointments?

Unless you belong to a religion Jillian finds repulsive then your right to due process, to privacy, to religion, those are all forfeit.

The Constitution is clear also that one has certain other rights. We do not have to find them implied like one does the privacy part. The 4th Amendment is a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. I am sure the Founders did not consider the state of affairs we would find ourself in now where the State can just seize your children because they disagree with your religion ( you do remember the 1st Amendment?)

The 5th Amendment is the right to not incriminate your self. Our founders did not envision that the Government would create an entire court system where that right does not apply by simply claiming it is not a criminal proceeding while forcing the accused to prove innocents rather then the Government prove guilt.

All States must honor the other States legal documents as well, yet we have a State claiming that simply because they dislike a certain religion all birth certificates they present are fakes, even though they are registered in another State and are deemed evidence of birth in THAT State. No evidence provided to show this fakery, just the claim that this religion somehow illegally managed to register fakes into another States Data and birth record system in mass.

A right to face ones accuser, yet we have a State Agency seizing over 400 children in no danger what so ever, make spurious claims and then requiring the Parents to prove the claims false. Then conducting a kangaroo court with over 400 children and their parents and their lawyers DENIED due process in a 2 day event where the State presented no hard facts at all, just the nebulous claim the children were "brain washed".

A right to appeal, again denied by the higher Court for no apparent reason other then public opinion.

I can go on and on. But you people do not care.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And again. The States case is....

Child welfare officials told the judge the children were living in an authoritarian environment that left girls at risk of sexual abuse and raised boys to become sexual perpetrators

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080503/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

 

[Gunny]

It's funny, we share almost the same views on abortion. I don't think it's murder, though. And I also sincerely doubt that women get abortions at the last minute. So you either have to take me off your hypocrite list or add yourself to it.

There's no reason for me to be on it. My personal belief concerning abortion and the actions take by the state of Texas in regard to the FLDS compound are consistent. The welfare of the child should be considered first.

The law itself is hypocritical on the topic. The fact that I do not choose to run around with a picket sign protesting the law, or think that everyone should have to live by my rules makes my stance no less consistent.

And partial birth/late term abortions is a WHOLE different subject. For one thing, I believe they are illegal except as a medical necessity. I also don't think too many doctors would perform them without that medical necessity existing. Last I actually looked, there aren't that many performed.

Don't confuse my stance on abortion with those who think abortion shouldn't be performed under any circumstances. I consider abortion medical procedure that has its place where medical necessity dictates.

 

[Gunny]

Most people that are sentenced to death are actually alive.

So are unborn human beings. Otherwise, there would be no need for nor point to aborting them, would there?

 

[Larkinn]

So are unborn human beings. Otherwise, there would be no need for nor point to aborting them, would there?

The point would be to prevent them from becoming human beings.

 

[Shattered]

The point would be to prevent them from becoming human beings.

Looks like you managed to luck out.

 

[Gunny]

I'm just wondering, since it's directed at me, why we should disbelieve the right wing when they say they're going to appoint justices to the supreme court who will overturn roe v wade.

Did I miss something? Or should I say that something as fundamental as the right to privacy should be eviscerated by stupid judicial appointments?

You flatter yourself. It isn't directed at you specifically, and your argument is hardly original and/or unique solely to you.

Why is it you are willing to believe every little thing the "right wing" says it's going to do that you disagree with but just poo poo away any concern for what the left wing says it's going to do as if it's just someone's imagination?

 

[Shogun]

Doesn’t the father have a voice? Half of the genetic material came from him.

hehehehHAHAHAHAHAHAHahoahHOOHoohhHOHHewhhahzhahahahahahehehe,eee



'scuse me. I seem to recall asking that same question once or twice..

 

[Gunny]

Well said!

Yeah, if you're a fearmongering extremist who sees only one side of an argument.