Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

Skip, what if they did
your screaming my wife was in danger / dying.
While not right, don't decide for me.
Rika

We've already established I'm for exceptions. In this case (health of mother) it seems like you and I agree.

- Skip

[skipdup]

OK. After review of my posts... Maybe I haven't clearly established where I stand.

I am for reasonable exceptions regarding health of mother.

- Skip

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Mule

Froggy, help me convince them that sending me money will square it with God & I'll cut you in.

It's a deal!

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

Skip, what if they did
your screaming my wife was in danger / dying.
While not right, don't decide for me.
Rika

or, if you're saying "what if they wanted a court proceeding, to determin if mother's health was at risk, before allowing an abortion..."

then, that would be bad.

- Skip

[kstar]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Kurt,
Come on, I keep telling you this is not a heaven or hell question. For you read consequence instead of sin. How are we effected when 50 million lives (statistical modeling aside) are not here. Who laments what might have been with these people who were not allowed to have a life? I for one do lament the loss here. It becomes more poignant because the practice continues. It is still making our unhappy history that much sadder.

Doug:

When I previously sincerely tried to answer that question, here's what happened:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstarnes View Post
I think I understand your angle, Doug. I think you are asking what are the consequences of all of these potential lives no longer being with us, yes?

Assuming I do, we might ask the same question about "who will pay" for the lives lost in car accidents or wars. This assumes your question is only trying to focus on the consequences of the "lost lives" and not the question of the morality of abortion.

My answer is that everyone has already "paid" and continues to "pay", or in some cases "get paid". We are now living in this world without the potential benefits and detriments of those who might be here if they had not been aborted or died before living a full life.

The debate over abortion will continue while "we" live our lives without those who might have been . . . and enjoy the benefits of those who have passed who would have done bad and miss the benefits of those who have passed who would have done good. This is an obvious and easy question to answer, IMHO.

Best,

Kurt

Doug replied:

Kurt makes the point that isn't it all kind of pointless because we are left in a state already where we are paying for those who were lost in some horrific accident or whose life ended from a terminal disease. Kurt goes even further to the point that wars fall into this same question. To continue his point I would to say the holocaust is something similar that we paid for, are paying for, and will continue to pay for.

6 million Jews died in the holocaust and we will never know how their losses have effected our futures. 50 million children died at the hands of so called "death" doctors. Who knows how those lives might have effected our future.

It took something or someone to stand up and tell the world that Jews were not subhuman animals, but real human beings. This led some to take up arms and fight, to take action to stop the innocent killing. Unfortunately, it alone was not enough to get America involved. I speak up, because I want you to know that a fetus is not a subhuman group of cells, but a real human being.

This war on the unborn is not over. The deaths continue to mount, will we continue to lie to ourselves? That's why the question isn't pointless, it isn't over yet.

I'll try again! So your question is, what is the consequence of the "missing lives" that would have been with us had they not been aborted, yes?

I don't know! It's a wildly hypothetical question that creates more questions. Was the future super-Einstein in that group? Was the next Hitler in that group? Would it have brought more good to the planet than bad if all of these abortions had not occurred? I don't know.

My previous answer was that "here we are" and whatever situation we are in, whether it's better or worse than it would have been, "here we are" - our mere existence in the world the way it is now is the consequence, good or bad, to these lives that may have been.

I think it would be better if there were much fewer abortions, I just don't think that a prohibition is the path to an overall net-improvement in "goodness" to society.

I also don't think a "war" against abortion will be as effective as an attack of the problems that create these unwanted pregnancies (see Kang's previous posts).

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Mule

Froggy, help me convince them that sending me money will square it with God & I'll cut you in.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by skipdup

OK. After review of my posts... Maybe I haven't clearly established where I stand.

I am for reasonable exceptions regarding health of mother.

- Skip

Ok, how about rape and incest?

State decides?

Best,

Kurt

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Ok, how about rape and incest?

State decides?

Best,

Kurt

I think that's probably another good use of an exception.

[dewolf]

23 years ago I had a beautiful young girlfriend who was a virgin. After a party one night and several rounds of 'turps', she decided it was time we done the deed. Being intoxicated and young lends itself to a not clear thought process. So the deed happened. I might point out at this time my girlfriend was a chronic epileptic, who used several drugs to control seizures. She fell pregnant. Doctors told her and parents that pregnancy for her and unborn baby was unsafe. Abortion was the only option as the seizure drugs would harm the baby and it would be born with physical and mental defects.
Christian parents said no way to abortion. So girlfriend stopped taking her drugs. two months into pregnancy and several seizures later she finally died having a seizure. Mother and baby lost. This could have been avoided by either, abstaining from sex, or an abortion. Since she was already pregnant there was only one option. The world is a lesser place without this beautiful girl.
So Doug, crawl back into that self righteous hole you stepped from

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by dewolf

23 years ago I had a beautiful young girlfriend who was a virgin. After a party one night and several rounds of 'turps', she decided it was time we done the deed. Being intoxicated and young lends itself to a not clear thought process. So the deed happened. I might point out at this time my girlfriend was a chronic epileptic, who used several drugs to control seizures. She fell pregnant. Doctors told her and parents that pregnancy for her and unborn baby was unsafe. Abortion was the only option as the seizure drugs would harm the baby and it would be born with physical and mental defects.
Christian parents said no way to abortion. So girlfriend stopped taking her drugs. two months into pregnancy and several seizures later she finally died having a seizure. Mother and baby lost. This could have been avoided by either, abstaining from sex, or an abortion. Since she was already pregnant there was only one option. The world is a lesser place without this beautiful girl.
So Doug, crawl back into that self righteous hole you stepped from

Very sad story indeed. I, for one, would have had no qualms whatsoever about aborting the child in this particular case. It could have been done early enough in the pregnancy that any question about what it was could probably be seen as moot.

However, like I said before, the pro choice crowd has demonstrated that when given an inch, it will take a mile. Please don't take that as callousnous concerning your loss; I'm addressing the larger audience with this. I truly feel for you.

Anyway, we do get to hear many similar stories. We get to hear about the poor girl raped by her dad/uncle/brother/cousin/stranger/whomever. We get to hear about the poor folks of the world that cannot support another child in their lives. We get to hear about the children that will clearly be born with severe mental and/or physical handicaps. And on and on... we get to hear about the "worst cases" that really do manage to tug at our heart strings. These stories are all quite sad, and I'm afraid I would probably support an abortion if done soon enough in the pregnancy in these cases.

The problem with all of this is, however, that is not the demographic getting the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions (in our country) are given to middle to upper middle class whitebread women. Women who have chosen it as their method of birth control. Women who have careers (student or professional) that would be interrupted by a baby. The true face of abortion in this country is a young lady with a brief case and a lap top, climbing the corporate and social ladder. That face doesn't tug at the ol' heart strings so much, but yet it represents the majority of women choosing abortion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and interject a little personal opinion, based upon my own observations. These women could give a rat's ass about the poor and downtrodden they parade before us as the face of abortion. They are hiding behind that face to get what they want, and to hell with anyone else. Much less their own baby... it's all about them.

I find it sad that so many choose to play this sympathy card, sympathy that they try to shame the rest of us into having for folks they don't care about themselves. What a callous, cynical approach. They want access to their own abortions of convenience, and will bombard us with tales of almost statistically insignificant abortions of necessity in an attempt to shame us into allowing their own.

And the men running around out there knocking them up want that out; the out of a convenient abortion. So they join the shrill cries of "what about the ____???!!!" (fill in the blank - incest, rape, deformities, unwanted, etc., etc.) They could apparently give a ***** about those people either, other than in the context of a talking point o bolster their case. They know they would never get any sympathy for being unable to keep it in their pants. So they very cynically look to some one who can invoke that sympathy - the minority of cases that they prattle on about. And all the while these self serving bastards could really care less. All they want is pussy with a safety valve attached. They will stoop to any depth to get that.

So, there you have it. I guess I'm not really opposed to abortions of necessity after all. I'll give that inch. Problem is, the pro choice crowd will take that inch and go a mile, in a no-compromise grab for freedom to abort at any time for any reason. As purely a matter of convenience for women (and the men that got them pregnant) that should know better. That's where I have a problem with it.

[cool_chick]

The problem with all of this is, however, that is not the demographic getting the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions (in our country) are given to middle to upper middle class whitebread women. Women who have chosen it as their method of birth control. Women who have careers (student or professional) that would be interrupted by a baby. The true face of abortion in this country is a young lady with a brief case and a lap top, climbing the corporate and social ladder. That face doesn't tug at the ol' heart strings so much, but yet it represents the majority of women choosing abortion.

These are the women who could afford to go anywhere to get an abortion. No law is going to alter their path.

So, there you have it. I guess I'm not really opposed to abortions of necessity after all. I'll give that inch. Problem is, the pro choice crowd will take that inch and go a mile, in a no-compromise grab for freedom to abort at any time for any reason. As purely a matter of convenience for women (and the men that got them pregnant) that should know better. That's where I have a problem with it.

With all due respect, those people are very, very few. I'm wondering if you're imagining this to be "what *they* (whoever you think *they* are) think or something.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

What, you want a cut, too?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The "give an inch and they'll take a mile" thing is valid to a point, but it certainly is not limited to "pro choice" types. In fact, the pro-life crowd is the one I'm more concerned about when it comes to this strategy. These are the ones that seem to be hell-bent on doing ANYTHING to water down, dilute or otherwise trivialize the Roe v. Wade decision as part of a deliberate campaign to eventually batter it down entirely.

And I wasn't aware that we had to "allow" them to have their own abortions (thankfully). I find the practice abhorrent and especially dislike the fact that a percentage (a small one) would use the procedure as a form of birth control. However, it's not my place to decide to grant someone else "permission" to have the procedure done or not, regardless of their motives.

On the other page, you said I sounded egotistical and self-serving? Are you ****ting me? Exactly who the hell do you think you are presuming to be able to grant someone "permission" for a procedure done on their own body? Who died and left you in charge of everyone's health care? Are you really Hillary?

See the problem/hypocracy here? I certainly do.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

...
... especially dislike the fact that a percentage (a small one) would use the procedure as a form of birth control.
...

What do you base this one? I'd like to see exactly how small the percentage is that uses abortion as birth control.

Do we need to define "birth control" first?

- Skip

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Honestly, I don't know that we'll ever know this number. In order to get it, you'd have to first get a person to admit they had deliberately and recklessly engaged in unprotected sex while all the while keeping the option for an abortion in the back of their mind as an "out" in case of pregnancy (and their ONLY such "out"). I doubt you'd get people to admit that they'd done such a thing - even the ones who really had.

I am making a common sense assumption here that the overwhelming majority of abortions are given to scared young women who had birth control fail on them, did not use it properly, were outright lied to by their partner just so they could get laid that night, or otherwise got a "surprise", not ones that deliberately said "aww, screw it. I don't need no pill. If I get knocked up I'll just go see the doctor again".

I may not have the highest opinion of people sometimes, but even I would be stunned if there were many people THAT callous.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by frogger

What, you want a cut, too?

No problem guys. The way I see this we'll have more money than Billy Mays.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by dewolf

So Doug, crawl back into that self righteous hole you stepped from

You want to protect those who don't have a voice and you get nothing but love right back. It's so easy to make friends here.

[skipdup]

Here's what one study says wonen say...

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.

Sounds like birth control to me...

[sjf911]

Here is a compilation of statistics on abortion that may help you extend this thread to compete with "Is there a god".

http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf

[frogger]

I feel like killing a thread. Is there any "sin" in that?