Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[daepp]

You'd have to agree that the condemned who is put to death certainly would not be around to to murder another, such as a guard, another prisoner, or Heaven forbid, some one on the outside.

That could be called pro-life!

On another note, I think the dirty little secret of abortion is the terrible psychological damage it does to the mother - often later in life.

I do not see all stages of the cells/embryo/fetus/baby as identical; however, I thinkt he 1973 court ruling has had a much greater impact on our society than the left will ever admit. It has made us a worse people - who do not value life (in many different forms) to the degree that we should.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

It's called hypocrisy, how does that change the argument?

Who's trying to change the argument? Doug started a firestorm and I brought some more fuel. Who brought the hot dogs and marshmellows?

[stevepaa]

actually what God says is very confusing. God condoned the killing of women and children and unborn by Israelites long ago. The accepted penalty for causing a loss of an unborn was a monetary penalty. It was not considered murder.

[Mule]

The world of the highly religious is so simple, only black or white, no gray.

[daepp]

Originally Posted by frogger

I thought this was interesting:

Catholics and Protestants have abortion rates that are roughly commensurate with their share of the population.
• Catholics represent 24% of the population and 27% of those having abortions — roughly 350,000 per year.
• Protestants represent 49% of the population and 43% of those having abortions — roughly 560,000 per year.
• 13% of those having abortions are self-described Born-Again or Evangelical Christians — roughly 170,000 per year.

Whassup?

How in the world can you ever prove these stats? Where did they come from, and how accurate could they be? And what do they prove - that Christians are sinners - we Christians are well aware of our failings. That's often why we got to church...because we are aware of our imperfect nature and wish to do better!

[cgarr]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I'm not sure why the line is drawn at birth by the left. Certainly the logical approach would be 6-9 months post birth or so. The kid is not really aware at that point and certainly cannot support itself in any way, perhaps less than when in the womb to be honest. What right do you/we have to force the mother to raise a child she doesn't want?

I play some devils advocate in the abortion arguments simply because it's interesting to see people twist themselves up in what they think is logic.

Excellent: Look back in history Len, WWll Hitler rationalized the killing if children by first killing their Parents, then the children since they had no way to support themselves any longer.

[72doug2,2S]

I know we tend to remove / insert emotion into abortion, but this post is meant to be reflection on how 50 million aborted humans would have effected our world.

35 years of this it's high time to discuss what we've done. Who is paying for this? We are not talking about 50 million criminals here. These are aborted people who now would have families of their own. Aborted people of which some would have made their own parents, had their parents given them a chance, Grand Parents.

Statistically the cure for a rare disease could have been found, or at least better understood if we had been blessed by the life one of the early aborted Doctors. Some of the aborted athletes may have set new world records we can only dream about.

I would like to know not only of the bad people we avoided by legally aborting them, although they had yet to do anyone harm, but I'd like to know about the young aborted professionals, and the 30 something aborted mothers and fathers. We should be able to determine our losses here with some statistical certainty. You see we know their losses (life), but we don't discuss ours. Why not?

What additional hardships do we now face without them?

[onewhippedpuppy]

I'm out, you kids have fun. When people start debating when a baby is a baby, and how I can't push my not killing morals on them, it's time for me to roll my eyes and go back to discussing pooping in people's trashcans.

[daepp]

Originally Posted by Mule

The world of the highly religious is so simple, only black or white, no gray.

That is so not true. Look back through history of the Christians who were tortured by their own faith questions. Or those who were tortured by their own sinning. Look at the writing of Augustine - or more recently, the trials Mother Theresa admitted to with respect to many "gray" areas - esp. faith.

Mule - you are the one who is defining Christians in black and white terms.

[lendaddy]

Indeed, what if a young couple wanted a brown haired child and got a blond one? What if a paternity test proves the child was the result of a one night orgy while on their Jamaican vacation? I fail to see how we have the right to force them to raise this unwanted collection of cells given the simplicity of putting it down prior to it becoming self aware. 3-6 months post birth maybe?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I'm yet to understand why it's a "woman's right" to kill a baby. Because let's not mince words here, that's what it comes down to. It's not "what to do with her body or her life", we're talking about killing a child here. At least skip the BS and get to the point. Of course, that's what it's all about, right? Phrases like "a woman's choice", "it's her body", "it's just a fetus", are just an attempt to remove emotion from the equation. Because lets face it, "suck a baby out with a straw" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

That is where the "pro choice" crowd is in complete denial. The "woman's" decision affects another life, not just her own. If it only affected her own, I don't think anyone at all would have a problem with it.

The key to it all for the pro choice crowd is convincing first themselves, and then the rest of us, that this decision only affects the woman. They go through all kinds of contorted machinations of logic to try to convince themselves that the fetus is not yet a "life" when it is aborted. The very simple, observable fact that if they do not interfere a baby is born is suppressed and glossed over. They simply cannot come to grips with that simple truth, so they try to change the nature of the argument.

They have been arguably successful (at least among themselves) in transforming the argument into both "when" "it" (the zygot, fetus, or whatever term they choose) becomes a human, and into a religious fight. It is neither; they have been using both of these arguments to dilute and distract from the only one that matters. Abortion ends a life.

There is quite simply no "when" in the argument; it will, pure and simple. Interfering with that process ends a life. Period. How hard is that for any reasonable person to understand? Really?

It really doesn't take some one with a religious bent to recognize the obvious simplicity of this argument. To acknowledge it, maybe, in some cases, but not to understand it. Introducing "religion" into the argument does serve, however, to further polarize it. It's a sure-fired way to attract atheist or agnostic fence-sitters into the pro-choice fold; they will join any anti-religious fray that comes their way. Like Johnny in The Wild One, when asked "what are you protesting", their answer (to paraphrase) is "I don't know; what have you got (that is anti-religious)?" They are a little too dim to think this one all the way through on their own, but they sure as hell know they want no "religious influences" in their life or in our gubmint. Label all pro-lifers as "religious", and you immediately get these folks in your camp.

[MFAFF]

Love your figures Doug.. 50 million huh...

And perhpas you could tell us that of the parents of those 50 million how many had kids later in life, after the abortion... say 50%?, 80%?..how many had more kids because they started a family at a different time...

The fact is that your figure is pretty meaningless. Yup 50m abortions, but that does not automatically translate into 50m less people.

If we apply your logic how many people alive now would not have been concieved or born had their parent(s) not aborted previously....because they had been single parent families unable to support the child they had etc etc... How many current doctors, scientists, policemen, soldiers. criminals, dop heads, pimps would not have been born? So which discoveries would you like ot have 'undiscovered'?, which arrrests not made, which crimes not perpetrated?

Its a circular arguement...

And Frogger...what does it mean if one goes thro life never being able to do a valve job on a 911? Would it mena I never grow up? Or never really born/ Its doing my head in...

[cool_chick]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

3-6 months post birth maybe?

Kill the sperm before it leaves the tube.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by cool_chick

Kill the sperm before it leaves the tube.

Really early, really late...either way it's no one else's business right?

[cool_chick]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Really early, really late...

Very, very very early.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by cool_chick

Very, very very early.

Or just get into the habit of rubbing one out 5 or 6 times a day.

Should lower sperm count significantly.

[cool_chick]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Or just get into the habit of rubbing one out 5 or 6 times a day.

Should lower sperm count significantly.

Destroy it altogether.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Or just get into the habit of rubbing one out 5 or 6 times a day.

Should lower sperm count significantly.

who has time for that?

[dagriff]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Killing kids is pretty black and white. A D O P T I O N!!!! Easy answer, win-win for everyone.

I hope you are adopted. If not, your comment is like me saying I know what it's like to be black.
In circumstances of the mother having a choice of abortion or adoption, You have no idea the emotional and psychological crap they are put through by the "Do-Gooders". In my case to the point of making a devout Catholic girl take her own life.

So, to all, unless YOU are actually pregnant yourself, keep out of it and S.T.F.U.

Sorry if I offend.
Griff.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Love your figures Doug.. 50 million huh...

And perhpas you could tell us that of the parents of those 50 million how many had kids later in life, after the abortion... say 50%?, 80%?..how many had more kids because they started a family at a different time...

The fact is that your figure is pretty meaningless. Yup 50m abortions, but that does not automatically translate into 50m less people.

If we apply your logic how many people alive now would not have been concieved or born had their parent(s) not aborted previously....because they had been single parent families unable to support the child they had etc etc... How many current doctors, scientists, policemen, soldiers. criminals, dop heads, pimps would not have been born? So which discoveries would you like ot have 'undiscovered'?, which arrrests not made, which crimes not perpetrated?

Its a circular arguement...

And Frogger...what does it mean if one goes thro life never being able to do a valve job on a 911? Would it mena I never grow up? Or never really born/ Its doing my head in...

I see your argument that the 50 million lost lives is easily replaced later by another group of meaningless cells. How fun and simple. You don't think this is the right time for you, just abort and have a family later.

Potentially some of what you say (later pregnancy) is arguably true, but the data suggests that women who have killed their children often have problems delivering future children. Not to mention all the documented emotional problems of ending the life of your own child.

The data suggests more problems not less in later pregnancies, thus suggesting there is a real negative population effect due to killing children. Imagine that!

So what have we missed by not letting these people on earth? Who is poorer because of our selfishness?