The Changing Face of Abortion

• Reply
• Report Abuse

Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/23/2008 5:21:43 PM

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/23/2008 6:07:13 PM

  Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/23/2008 5:21:43 PM
  Comment: Yes. But how can one argue that the free choice we have to go against God (ie. He decided Person A should be pregnant so an abortion would go against that) is more acceptable in one circumstance than another (ie. He decided that Person B cannot ever get pregnant so infertility treatments would go against that)?
  
  Does God do everything supernaturally? Who says that God cannot use medical technology to carry out His will for a person's life? If God would decide that a person woudn't bear children then they wouldn't plain and simple.... not all who go to the fertility clinic bear children... successful ratings depends on a persons age and that of their partner....
  
  As for the argument of free choice .... go back to Genesis.... the argument has already been made...... Selah!

  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse

    Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/23/2008 8:33:06 PM

    Sorry, I don't know about "Genesis." Our family stretches 3 large religions (Islam, Christian, and Buddhism) so my parents decided to raise us without emphasis on Scripture of a particular religion. I also don't quite understand what you are trying to tell me. My understanding is that you feel that God will only grant conception if he wants to and no amount of treatment will help that. However, my arguement is that just like everyone is entitled to seek infertility treatment, every woman should be allowed to seek an abortion. I feel that forcing multiple zygotes into the womb (infertility treatment) is no different than forcing a zygote out of the womb.

    • • Reply
      • Report Abuse

      Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/24/2008 11:08:43 AM

      What I was saying is about the argument that you presented to me on free choice and I reference Genesis to let you know that argument has been settled ???. Meaning for you to go back and read it for yourself??? as far as being raised with no particular religious view??? that is a shame (in my opinion) but an opportunity for you to study the view points on all three religions and decide for yourself which is true and which is not true??? I have studied a lot of religions myself???. I???m a Christian???
      
      My understanding is that you feel that God will only grant conception if he wants to and no amount of treatment will help that.
      
      Here is what I believe and here are some scriptures that supports my beliefs???. One is that children are a gift from God???
      Pss.127
      1. [3] Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
      God is the giver of life and is able to make a woman to conceive and bear children???
      Pss.113
      1. [9] He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.
      
      
      However, my arguement is that just like everyone is entitled to seek infertility treatment, every woman should be allowed to seek an abortion.
      
      This argument is weak ???. You are saying everyone woman should be allowed to seek having children through infertility treatments???. Thus giving the right to every woman to terminate a life through abortion???
      
      I feel that forcing multiple zygotes into the womb (infertility treatment) is no different than forcing a zygote out of the womb.
      
      So are you saying that zygotes (a fertilize Ovum) which has begun the process of life are not entitled to the right to life? And if so for what reason do you give this right to terminate this beginning of life?
      
      

      • • Reply
        • Report Abuse

        Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/24/2008 8:13:34 PM

        Yes, it was a great experience studying different religions, which only makes my point about Scripture more sincere. Your Bible has very many verses which are confusing and sometimes a little frightening. My favorite is the shellfish one from Leviticus. "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10).
        Abortion is a MORAL issue that transcends the teachings written so long ago as the writers could not possibly fathom the technology. Therefore, we should not argue for laws based on the SELECTED Scripture of the religion. I mean, I trust that you obey/believe ALL the rules set in the Bible and not just a few of them.
        
        So every woman must come to terms with her own morality, this is free choice. I do not think that a cluster of cells equals a child, but that is MY morality. If you do believe that a cluster of cells is a child, then there can be no exception made for rape or incest, as murder is murder. (This is not the same as murder in self-defense as the "child" is not the perpetrator.)
        
        The infertility thing had to do with manipulations of the zygote. If you use technology to create an embryo, why is that any different than using technology to destroy that embryo? Either way, isn't one playing God? Maybe instead of a termination of the embryo we could just suck it out and keep it on ice. That's what they do with the embryos not used in infertility treatment.....
        
        Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to encourage abortions. I just think that we shouldn't force our morality on others who live with us.

        • • Reply
          • Report Abuse

          Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 11:41:28 AM

          Speaking of Leviticus most people like to point out this scripture to justify homosexuality???. If you notice it say ???they are an abomination to you??? Not to God??? as Peter thought and God corrected him in
          Acts.10
          [11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
          [12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
          [13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
          [14] But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
          [15] And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
          [16] This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
          
          This law was given clearly to the people to be distinguish from the rest of the world and to present themselves as such even in their daily diets??? now God has bridged the gap and make all one in Christ
          Gal.3
          1. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
          Now if you look at Leviticus 20 [7] Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. This scriptures tell that the following scriptures are an abomination to God which led???s to Leviticus 20: [13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And nowhere else in scripture does God says that what was an abomination or unclean about men with men is now clean or not an abomination???
          

          • • Reply
            • Report Abuse

            Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/25/2008 1:01:10 PM

            I must say that I'm very glad that we can be on opposing sides of the issue without being mean and nasty to each other.
            
            However, for me, it all really boils down to whether or not one believes the organism should be afforded the same rights as a human being. If you believe the zygote is a human, you would never kill it. If you believe the zygote is a bunch of cells with no more rights than a tumor, then you should be able to terminate your pregnancy.
            
            No amount of Scripture will ever change one's mind about that distinction.
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            

            • • Reply
              • Report Abuse

              Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 1:51:01 PM

              Yes we can debate without calling names.... but I have to confess that I have been outspoken before...lol... it depends on the person to whom I'm debating with....
              
              Let us look at it from a scientific aspect...There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.[5][6]
              
              Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:
              
              Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
              Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
              Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
              Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
              Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
              Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
              Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
              

              • • Reply
                • Report Abuse

                Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/25/2008 4:27:42 PM

                Hmm. Tumor cells also fit all those characteristics...However, I don't think that you are talking about whether or not the zygote is alive (as I'm sure we would all agree that it is), but whether or not its stage of development is such that it crosses the line from "unworthy of protection" to "worthy of protection."
                
                Here we make the distinction that some things are more worthy of our protection than others. For example, if you have been following the election coverage lately, you will know that one of the views that Gov. Palin supports is the killing of wolves for predator control. As she is pro-life, one could assume that she views the life of a wolf as less worthy of protection than that of a zygote. That is where she draws her line.
                
                The problem with this issue is that no one draws their line in the same place. Having said that, we can't even agree on birth control! Some believe that prevention of fertilization is acceptable (the Pill), while prevention of implantation is not (an IUD). Some believe that any form of birth control is unacceptable.

                • • Reply
                  • Report Abuse

                  Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/26/2008 10:37:35 AM

                  Here is the problem that I have with your views and that is you want to call or give names to the un-born child that deprive it of it humanity therefore making it easily to destroy???.. this is the same tactics that most racist people employ when the try to justify killing of others not like them???. Example??? we call indians ???savages??? and wipe the out in a savage way???. Hitler says Jews are less than human and slaughter them by the millions, racist calls blacks animals and enslave and kill them, now we call children (unborn) fetus, zygotes, bunch of cells so we can justify killing them by the millions ???.
                  
                  No matter how one spins this??? they cannot deny that being a fetus, zygote or a collection of cells in the normal process of HUMAN life and all 6 billion humans that are now on the face of the earth have went through this process??? and I have never heard of a woman given birth to anything else but a human being! So we already know from the offset that when the doctor comes in to the room and announces ???you are pregnant??? to a woman??? we don???t make any assumptions that this is a zygote, fetus or a collection of cells that formed in her body???. The normal saying is ???you are going to have a baby???
                  
                  Another problem is that you or shall I say those who give the label of life to the egg of a bald eagle and pass laws that even taking the egg of a bald eagle to sell it will garner you with a $500,000 fine and 2 years in jail??? yet we say terminating a zygote (to use your term) is not to be punish or look at as a crime??? so not only have people like yourself elevated animals above humans you give examples of Gov Palin not being as pro-life as she should be when it comes to animals!! Unbelievable???..
                  The problem is that you and others are drawing the line in places that don???t concern human life??? next thing you know we will be taking the African Lion to court for harassing and killing the antelopes in his area???. As for methods of prevention of pregnancies ??? there have been methods and prevention controls in place for decades and people still refuse to use them ??? so it doesn???t matter what others believe is acceptable or not when people still don???t use protection.
                  
                  

                  • • Reply
                    • Report Abuse

                    Posted By: Mesothelin @ 09/26/2008 6:40:09 PM

                    Oh Bojack. It is clear that you do not feel the same empathy for all living creatures, an opinion which is as valid as mine. Is not all life sacred?
                    Yes, the saying is "you are GOING TO have a baby," NOT "you have a baby." My view is that she does not have a baby YET. Your view is that she already has a baby. These opposing views are both valid. I would argue that the actual responsibility we have as a society is to ensure the HEALTH of the zygote as opposed to just the EXISTENCE of it. If you feel abortion is such an abomination (but not like shellfish right? *wink*), then we should also be advocating for free pre-natal care for all FIRST. It is no victory for any if we save their existence without preserving their future. Also, I think more women would keep their pregnancies if they didn't have to worry about pre-natal care.

                    • • Reply
                      • Report Abuse

                      Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/29/2008 2:51:22 PM

                      My view is to not stop the process of life your view is anything goes???. I disagree that both views are valid???. Being that you finally called or acknowledge the unborn as being a baby??? now you saying that it should be killed??? totally endorsing murder of the unborn (baby)???
                      I would argue that the actual responsibility we have as a society is to ensure the HEALTH of the zygote as opposed to just the EXISTENCE of it.
                      Actual responsibility of society is to recognize that all human life is precious and no one has to right to terminate the unborn regardless of the health of the baby???. If we start suggesting that life is not worth living if the health of a child is in a weaken state then what stops us from killing all those in the hospital who are in weaken states of existence???. Oh I forgot we do this already???
                      If you feel abortion is such an abomination (but not like shellfish right? *wink*), then we should also be advocating for free pre-natal care for all FIRST. It is no victory for any if we save their existence without preserving their future. Also, I think more women would keep their pregnancies if they didn't have to worry about pre-natal care.
                      
                      Your ignorance of why God gave dietary laws to the Jews was to distinguish them from among other nations??? and the abomination was to be to them not to God??? as Peter found out when he was told to eat unclean animals???. But that is another subject ???. To worship other gods is an abomination and Molech or Baal required child sacrifices ??? sending or passing their children through a fiery sacrifice ???. These practices are abominable in God???s sight especially since man is made in His image??? and any blood spilled was a sin against God especially innocent blood???.
                      As for having victory in preserving their future??? What kind of garbage is this??? can you preserve your future? NO! You cannot even guarantee that you will be living tomorrow let alone pay your bills???. If you have been following the economic crisis???. As far as women keeping their children if pre-natal care was available???. Give me a break???. Most abortion occur without even thinking about pre-natal care??? and they happen for selfish reasons???. Meaning I (the woman or man) don???t want the responsibility or they are to selfish to share their lives and it is expedient to do without the emotional demands of children???.
                      
                      

                    • • Reply
                      • Report Abuse

                      Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/29/2008 2:50:46 PM

                      Sacred meaning set apart for God???. Well it depends what god you are worshiping???. India the set apart the rat and the cow as being sacred???.. Christianity set apart that which is made in the image of God???. (mankind) not objects, birds, creatures, or four footed beast???.
                      
                      Rom.1
                      [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
                      [19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
                      [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
                      [21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
                      [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
                      [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
                      
                      Yes, the saying is "you are GOING TO have a baby," NOT "you have a baby." My view is that she does not have a baby YET. Your view is that she already has a baby. These opposing views are both valid.
                      My view is to not stop the process of life your view is anything goes???. I disagree that both views are valid???.

            • • Reply
              • Report Abuse

              Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 2:12:31 PM

              As for changing the mind of one person through scriptures.... there is no need to change one's mind... sub-conscience tells those who have engaged in abortion that it is wrong.... I tell you this through experience in my family and others that I know... to try to justify something by reducing it as a bunch of cells to me is a shot in the dark.... peoples conscience will be revealed during judgment day....
              
              Rom.2
              [11] For there is no respect of persons with God.
              [12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
              [13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
              [14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
              [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
              [16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
              
              You say no matter what amount of scriptures I show you that you or shall I say people will not believe.... the purpose of showing scriptures is not always used to convinced people but to ensure that once anyone stands before God that they have no excuse and they are going to be judge according to what the have heard...
              2Pet.2
              [20] For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
              [21] For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
              [22] But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
              

        • • Reply
          • Report Abuse

          Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 11:43:40 AM

          Maybe instead of a termination of the embryo we could just suck it out and keep it on ice. That's what they do with the embryos not used in infertility treatment.....
          
          Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to encourage abortions. I just think that we shouldn't force our morality on others who live with us.
          
          I like when people say we shouldn???t force or morality on others who live with us???. Yet nowhere in the world does one live that morality (rule, laws, practices) aren???t governing a body of people ??? if so you would have anarchy all over the world???. Which ultimately leads to war??? so are you suggesting that we are to be lawless? Morality is the standard of conduct that is generally accepted as right and proper. There lies the dilemma or shall I say debate that what is the generally accepted conduct concerning this matter???. Each side has presented it???s case but few are accepting the others opinion???. I can make the argument that the side that I???m on has determine that life is worth fighting for???. Your side or where you stand I don???t know but standing in the middle of such a debate is to be against the right of the unborn to exist??? just my opinion???. Selah!
          
          

        • • Reply
          • Report Abuse

          Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 11:43:05 AM

          So every woman must come to terms with her own morality, this is free choice. I do not think that a cluster of cells equals a child, but that is MY morality. If you do believe that a cluster of cells is a child, then there can be no exception made for rape or incest, as murder is murder. (This is not the same as murder in self-defense as the "child" is not the perpetrator.)
          Your definition doesn???t even line up with science ??? they have already conceded that life begins at conception???. As for the case of rape or incest ???. Yes it is murder to abort even this life??? there are options like adoption ??? I remember watching a movie ???Braveheart??? I believe or something similar where this guys wife was raped by his enemy and his wife asked him would it bother him if she bear this child??? he said the child is innocent the father is not so why should I punish the child???. Or something like that??? I found it profound that a movie would bring out this point ??? especially in Hollywood???.
          
          
          
          The infertility thing had to do with manipulations of the zygote. If you use technology to create an embryo, why is that any different than using technology to destroy that embryo? Either way, isn't one playing God?
          If you use the word create??? in a Christian???s mind create is to bring something out of nothing or to bring into existence through your own intellect???. And only God can do the first portion of this definition???. Science through their intellect can help bring along a process that has already been establish and help facilitate that which is known???. Thus they do not hence create but duplicate a process through technology that God has already created. So my point is if you think technology is creating in the since that the scientist are playing God then you don???t have a clear understanding of God nor what science has done in the process of helping those who have trouble conceiving. When technology is use to produce (which is the definition of technology) either a method to help a process along the way it is being use towards the benefit of mankind???. Once technology is used in the capacity to produce weapons of destructions (ie??? guns, Nuclear weapons) then it is the purpose of the design, production, and use of technology that one implements that determine if they are playing God. This is done by deciding who has the RIGHT to live or die; thus the are determining the worth of that person and are playing God. Abortion is not technology or shall I say new technology it is methods of killing used by the means of evil men???.. example Hitler use saline to kill Jews and saline is a method abortionist use to kill the unborn. Thus abortionist like Hitler have determined who is aloud to live and determines who are the undesirables in life and are fit for elimination??? Thus putting themselves in the role of God???.
          
          

        • • Reply
          • Report Abuse

          Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 11:42:05 AM

          Abortion is a MORAL issue that transcends the teachings written so long ago as the writers could not possibly fathom the technology. Therefore, we should not argue for laws based on the SELECTED Scripture of the religion. I mean, I trust that you obey/believe ALL the rules set in the Bible and not just a few of them.
          
          I disagree that the abortion issue transcends the writings of the past??? It is true that it is a MORAL issue???. But technology has nothing to do with the same act that was being committed in the past (killing of children) for selfish reasons, than it has to do with the present of killing children for the same reason??? here is a scripture that most don???t know??? it shows what the prophet (one who speaks for God) thought of the act of ripping the children out of the stomachs of women???.
          2Kgs.8
          [10] And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die.
          [11] And he settled his countenance stedfastly, until he was ashamed: and the man of God wept.
          [12] And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
          [13] And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.
          
          Notice that the man of God calls it Evil???. And in this prophecy was fulfilled in 2Kgs.15 [16] Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.