Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[peppy]

Talk to some parents that have children with problems, and see if their lives would be better without that child in their lives. It may be easier, but that does not make it right.

[cool_chick]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Who is poorer because of our selfishness?

The children you aren't taking in and giving a home?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Look back through history of the Christians who were tortured by their own faith questions. Or those who were tortured byt heir own sinning.

Personally, I'm more in favor of torturing Christians FOR their faith.

[daepp]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Personally, I'm more in favor of torturing Christians FOR their faith.

What a stupid point.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Stupid is as stupid does. Maybe you guys should think about how the rest of the universe feels, with all of you trying to cram your beliefs down everyone else's throats.

[nostatic]

so we're back to the question of how many unwanted babies have been adopted by the rapid "pro-life" people. Numbers please, of babies you personally have adopted.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

Well done...abortion will never cease to be a dividing issue because facing what exactly happens during an abortion is horrific and painful. There is death.

Using the, "kill the sperm before it leaves the tube" arguement is incidental to facing the reality of abortion but serves to some as humor against the horror, perhaps a buffer.

Make no mistake, I have no desire to force anyone to have a child they do not desire or want, nor would I want to legislate against abortion at the federal level since I think the debate is more properly a states issue and should be resolved there.

But, abortion is a nasty, brutish business where the death of a child occurs, often in concert with the death of hope.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by nostatic

so we're back to the question of how many unwanted babies have been adopted by the rapid "pro-life" people. Numbers please, of babies you personally have adopted.

112.....no wait, 113.

Not sure how many I'm keeping though as several don't look ready for the test(and we both know what that means).

[MFAFF]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

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?

I see your argument too... how easy to see how many unwanted kids belong to dysfunctional families, as these families can offer the emotional, social support needed in order to nurture a child to adulthood and independance....

There is no doubt documentation to to support the correlation between that and how well balanced these kids can be and their subsequent valued contribution etc etc etc etc.....

If we take all of these 'murdered' kids, and work out the situation into which they would have been born, the nature of the family they would have inhabited and then made an informed view on their potential there might be some value in your figues.

The simplification that they all have 'a right to a life' neatly side steps the issue of 'what is that life'? The simple... they have 'a life' is not good enough. We know how important those first few years of life can be and so should we not be considering the overall view... a life sure.. or a life where the child's potential can be explored and developed.. or merely a life and sod the future.

That women who have abortions suffer both physical and emotional problem subsequently is clear, in the same way that those who smoke, drink, eat crap food have both physical and emotional problems in the future, yet, I would suggest that the call to limit the damage caused in using those would be met with a 'hands-off'... it is not as if the effects of an abortion are unknown or hidden. The choice therefore of the woman to do this to herself is a red herring. Use the termination of an unborn child as your moral stand point, not the damage it does to the mother.. as it then permits any damage to a person that is effectively self inflicted to be controlled, selected and ultimately banned...do you want that?

Can I ask you then your view on contraception? By this action you are preventing a life...just how many Nobel prize scientists have not been born becuase of that...talk about wasted potential...

[kstar]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[berettafan]

abortion is NOT a religious issue. it is a common sense issue about taking the life of an innocent child. yet again the child murderers have constructed a premise that is a complete fallacy.

the argument of the quality of life that child will have.....sorry it doesn't hold water (how's that for a pun!). i have a relative who is a complete loser. does every drug he can find, drinks himself to sleep every night, bums a car from another relative all the time. in short, a pitiful existence. should i send him to a dr. to be put to sleep since the rest of his life is likely to be nothing but misery and suffering?

i'll say it again, just because it is in your womb and feeding from you does not make it your body. not any more than the week after it is born and breastfeeding (essentially doing exactly what he/she was doing before birth).

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Can I ask you then your view on contraception? By this action you are preventing a life...just how many Nobel prize scientists have not been born becuase of that...talk about wasted potential...

Surely you see the distinction between preventing a life from starting and ending one that has.

[nostatic]

every sperm is sacred

[kstar]

Originally Posted by nostatic

every sperm is sacred

Every strand of DNA is sacred.

[nostatic]

every nucleotide is sacred

[cairns]

I know more than a few women who had abortions early in life. Some went on to have kids, some didn't. None of them ever regretted the decision.

Of course it's the sanctimomious males making this argument. And, let's face it, they could care less about the emotional impact some woman might endure- they're just trying to impose their beliefs on others and using every argument in the book- from emotional distress to the farcical "murder" to do so.

Very few, if any, of them have ever experienced rape; they have no idea of what it might be like to be sixteen, pregnant, alone and scared, or for that matter, 49 and having a child who would certainly be deformed, etc. etc. But nooo, they care all about someone's emotonal distress...while they're picketing and bombing clinics and harassing the ***** out of the patients and doctors.

As to the murder argument- isn't murder defined as the unlawful taking of another person's life. And hasn't our Supreme Court ruled that the taking of life by means of abortion is legal? They did? And isn't there considerable difference about when a fetus becomes a person? Yes?

Well then case closed. It ain't murder. Period. What is murder is killing a doctor who's performing abortions. Which the most zealous of "pro-lifers" obviously condone.

I really wish they'd take a chill pill.

Think about it; if Queen Isabella and the rest of her Christian zealots had taken a chill pill history might have taken a much differrent turn- and Muslims, Jews and Christians would be living in harmony today. As they were before those rascally Christians screwed things up- and started "murdering" and torturing those who believed differently- all in the name of their own beliefs- and their "God" of course.

[Wrecked944]

I have a friend who is a TOTAL genius who suggested that we could solve many of the world's problems simply by putting a tastless, odorless contraceptive formula into every beer.

Give it a thought before you laugh.


Contraceptive beer is the new black. However, I will still wear black since it represents the "old school" black and I like to kick it retro.

[nostatic]

no, they're thinking about the unborn baby. That's what's important.

Who's going to take care of it? Oh...umm...somebody. I can't adopt it, but dammit, it it wrong to murder the baby.

Oh, but it is OK to kill someone on death row. Because killing them will prevent even more murders :-/

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

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

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.

[peppy]

[QUOTE=cairns;3719889]I know more than a few women who had abortions early in life. Some went on to have kids, some didn't. None of them ever regretted the decision.

Of course it's the sanctimomious males making this argument. And, let's face it, they could care less about the emotional impact some woman might endure- they're just trying to impose their beliefs on others and using every argument in the book- from emotional distress to the farcical "murder" to do so.

Very few, if any, of them have ever experienced rape; they have no idea of what it might be like to be sixteen, pregnant, alone and scared, or for that matter, 49 and having a child who would certainly be deformed, etc. etc. But nooo, they care all about someone's emotonal distress...while they're picketing and bombing clinics and harassing the ***** out of the patients and doctors.

As to the murder argument- isn't murder defined as the unlawful taking of another person's life. And hasn't our Supreme Court ruled that the taking of life by means of abortion is legal? They did? And isn't there considerable difference about when a fetus becomes a person? Yes?

What is wrong with having a deformed baby, women can have normal pregnancies in there 40s, 50s, and beyond.

When the Supreme Court made their ruling in 1973 do you think they saw a 3D ultrasound or knew that 23 week gestation babies could survive.

I have seen a 19 week gestation baby grasping a needle in the womb of his mother. I know what life is because I have seen it.