ABORTION

Roe v. Wade v. Kristi

Why are pro-lifers spurning a young true believer?

By Sarah Kliff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Oct 31, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: drewand @ 08/17/2009 8:20:56 AM

    Please, stop forcing your well intended moral judgements on others. Given the choice most people would prefer that abortions not happen but it is wholey urealistic to denie people the choice. Maybe your idea of a realistic program is to adopt out unwanted babies. Maybe you prefer to imprison abortion seekers or force sterilization on mothers of unwanted babies. Maybe you should just mind your own business and family and stop forcing your views on others. It didn't work for Hitler and it won't wiork for you.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 08/16/2009 10:34:39 PM

    I pose this question to pro-life groups. Do you want to stop abortion? If yes, well I have some news for you, OUTLAWING ABORTIONS DOES NOT STOP ABORTIONS. WHEN ABORTION WERE ILLEGAL WE HAD A MESS. ABORTIONS WERE STILL HAPPENING BUT IN BACK ALLEYS. IF PRO LIFE GROUPS REALLY WANTED TO STOP ABORTION I THINK THEY COULD ALMOST DO IT. BUT THEY DO NOT WANT to put in what it takes to do it. THEY WANT TO CUT PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN ONCE THEIR BORN. THEY ONLY LOVE THE FETUS THEY DO NOT LOVE THE CHILD WHEN IT IS BORN. WHY DON"T THESE PRO _LIFE PEOPLE RAISE MONEY FOR FAMILY PLANNING FOR UNWANTEd PREGANICIES, CARE FOR THE MOTHER, EdUCATION EcT>>>> THEY JUST WANT TO OUTLAW IT THEY DO NOT CARE IF ABORTION STILL HAPPENS OR NOT AS LONG AS IT IS OUTLAWED. WHETHER IT IS LEGAL OR NOT ABORTIONS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN. WE NEED A REAL SOLUTION. NOT SOME DUMMY"S whose solution does not solve the problem.

  • Posted By: NevadaDemocrat @ 12/07/2008 4:34:37 PM

    She is a direct competitor for funding, that is why. If she is successful in her drive, they will be out of business. Everyone from Earth First to Right-to-Lifers would have to get real jobs if their organizations stated goals were achieved.

  • Posted By: chasesouthern @ 11/13/2008 11:06:36 PM

    Abortion is wrong anyway you look at it. The fact that the Supreme Court or Congress has not gone forward with doing away with it says a lot about the failures of our democratic government. The vast majority of citizens share the same views as me. Its wrong plain and simple. Should the popular vote not overrule? Or should the government protect the rights of "baby killers" and people that can't figure out how to put a condom on?

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/16/2008 10:12:53 AM

      "Abortion is wrong anyway you look at it."
      That is you opinion, not fact.

      "The fact that the Supreme Court or Congress has not gone forward with doing away with it says a lot about the failures of our democratic government."
      Actually it shows that or system works in that the Courts and Governemtn do not rely on the emoptions of peole but on factsa and science.

      "The vast majority of citizens share the same views as me. Its wrong plain and simple."
      Actually the "vast majority" do not agree with you. Most people (even most pro-choice people) would love to find a way to lessen the incidence of abortion but unitl there are fool-proof birth control methods and until boys and girls are taught to act responsbiy, and until there is a fool-proof pill for men, (to name jsut a few) abortion will contintue to be a valid and necessary procedure.

      "Should the popular vote not overrule?"
      No it should not. The people rarely have the intelligence or knowledge to understand the US Constitution, otherwise segregation would still exist, interracial marriges woul still be illegla inmost sttaes, and non-Christian children would still be forced to say Christian prayers in school. (In the 1930's and 40's, my Jewish parents were forced to say the "Lord's Prayers" in school, which was effectively forcing them to blaspheme as that prayer is not part of Jewish prayers.)

      "Or should the government protect the rights of "baby killers" and people that can't figure out how to put a condom on?"

      YAWNN!!

  • Posted By: christopherkidwell1 @ 11/15/2008 5:20:35 AM

    not-fooled, a lot of people would LOVE to adopt those children in foster care..... however, with the stringent butt-into their lives that the 'social services' insist on doing after a child is adopted..... I cannot blame most people for not wanting to adopt in the United States.
    They should pass a law saying this: one a child is adopted, it is the child of the adopted parents, and social services has to butt out of their lives after that.

  • Posted By: christopherkidwell1 @ 11/15/2008 5:18:39 AM

    A fertilized egg is going too far to define personhood. I would say more a human embryo past the 1st week of life to be a person. Really, I have no problem with abortion if a female gets the abortion BEFORE the first week and I don't have a problem with birth control either..... however, I do have a problem with killing a human embryo by going into a woman's womb and scraping it out, at least once it is past the blastocyst stage.

  • Posted By: Risyros @ 11/05/2008 5:54:43 AM

    Whoever want abortion illegal should take, raise, nurture, pay food and medicall bills of those borned children. Hm I think not. Pro lifers only care that women are forced to give birth after that they give a damn. I had worked on childrens rights and i have faced physical, mental and sexual (child porn, human traffic), and its rare to see prolifers dealing with this real evil. Unwated children end death soon or later, abused by their parents, orphanages, or in the sex industry. Its a total lie the myth about giving kids for adoption. US has a very very burocratric system for adoptions to the point that even the wealthy and celebrities have to go to adopt to foreing countries. All people has the right to do with their bodies whatever they want. And whatever is in it its our decision what to do with it. Illegalize abortion takes away the fundamental right and control of your body. And please when a woman doesn't want a kid, she doesn't want it period. If care about a woman having an abortion then take care of the kid in all aspects, otherwise shut up. I think the goverment should pass a law where prolifers and churches must take care of the children of women forced to give birth. By the way is totally unfair for the middle class mantain unnecesarilly more kids and their mothers. Its easy to say don't have an abortion, its sin ,bla, bla, but wash their hands afterwards. Pro lifers should start taking care of the poor children, those in orphanages, those recovered from human traffic, becauese they sound more like pro hipocrites than pro life. Satrt helping those kids in extreme need, instead of wasting money, and bringing more unecesarily mouth to feeds creating future criminals and parasites of society. Star helping and not trying to screw up more this already decadent society.

    • Posted By: hamercubs @ 11/06/2008 10:41:41 AM

      There are thousands of couples in the United States who are looking for babies to adopt. Couples in the U.S. constantly have to look to other countries and pay extremely high prices to corrupt governments because there are no babies to adopt in America. If adoption was given as actual option instead of the supposed easy way out of abortion, maybe more people would choose adoption. The problem is the billion dollar a year abortion business.

      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/14/2008 6:00:42 PM

        Sorry, my mistake. You stated BABIES. I guess if they have passed their toddler years, they are not as valuable as the precious cherubs you are referring to.

      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/14/2008 5:58:54 PM

        http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

        There are 513,000 kids waiting to be adopted. If there are so many eager people wanting to be adoptive parents, I wonder why we have more than 1/2 million children still not going home with them.

  • Posted By: quazma @ 11/05/2008 4:47:37 PM

    It is very rare when a "Pro Life" person remembers to be "Pro Life" once these babies are outside of the womb. When we have these same people giving at LEAST the same consideration to those children who ARE alive, who need our help, (ie abused, homeless, malnourished, in foster care, etc.) THEN, and only then can I believe that this particular issue is not about CONTROL, but about LIFE.

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/14/2008 5:49:05 PM

      According to this site, there are roughly 513,000 children in our national foster care system.

      http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

      It's a shame we don't see the pro-life movement fighting as aggressively on behalf of the already born children in foster care.

  • Posted By: tigermom65 @ 11/05/2008 6:37:34 PM

    I find it quite interesting that in some states if a fetus dies as the result of violence against the mother
    ( including a car accident by a drunk driver) it is comsidered murder and that person is charged with, tried and convicted of murder.) However, if the woman chooses to have an abortion at the same stage of fetal development it is "just" and abortion and her right to do so. When Roe v. Wade went through we did not have the medical and scientific understand of fetal development we do today, nor the technology to watch and photograph fetal development. I also find it ironic that most ( not all) pro-choice people have told me that showing a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy photos of fetal development and allowing her to see and ultrasound of her fetus is "too emotional". I myself had an abortion. I asked to see the ultrasound they were doing and was told that I couldn't. 15 years later I was devastated to see the ultrasound of my son. He was 4 weeks earlier in development and I saw his arms, legs and ribs, his heart beating ,and his face. When my husband and I got home I just kept lloking at those pictures and bawling. He thought it was happiness.
    Had I been allowed to see that ultrasound I would have walked out. Being denied that information was NOT giving me a choice.
    I have also heard too many women (and teens) say they could never carry a baby and then put it up for adoption. It is easier to just have an abortion. I call that the "I can give it away so I'll kill it" argument.

    It also angers me that a man has no choice in the fetus's being terminated, even if he says he wants the child and will raise it. That is also HIS child and he helped create it. If women don't want to be "forced" to carry and birth a child ( and I am not talking the rape, incest, life of mother cases) that is only partly theirs, then they should not have sex. Sex is a choice for the most part. When 2 other people are involved ( the father and the fetus he wants) that is not "just" your business anymore.

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/14/2008 4:38:54 PM

      This is why women have more a say about reproduction. According to this site, 84% of single parents are single.

      Here is the link: http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm

      27.7% of families with single mothers live in poverty, compared to 11.1% of single fathers. There is an obvious imbalance of who carries the burden of raising children in these situations. Perhaps when more men have stepped up and given more than their sperm, they will have earned more rights.

      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/14/2008 4:44:38 PM

        Sorry ... 84% of single parents are WOMEN :)

    • Posted By: 453347 @ 11/05/2008 8:50:04 PM

      Thank you! Well said. Another thought is girls get sent to jail for throughing their babies in the trash I say why, They are just preforming a late term abortion. It should'nt matter to pro-choice people when the baby dies. Trash, toilet, Doctors office what ever is good.

      • Posted By: AnAmericanForFreedom @ 11/06/2008 12:12:12 AM

        Well, if you can prove beyond a doubt that a set of cells can think, feel, etc... Then I am all for ending abortion and finding something better... But until someone can show me a beating heart, a working brain, an awareness of that tiny bump of cells I support a woman's right to choose. Pro-choice doesn't always mean pro-abortion. It means the freedom and privacy to make a personal decision.

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 11/14/2008 3:59:37 PM

    I was not looking at just where McCain claimed he stood on this issue; I also looked at the motive of his heart...motivated by political gain...why didn't McCain take the prolife stance up until the election year???

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 11/14/2008 3:55:23 PM

    Back in 1999, John McCain stated that we cannot overturn roevwade because it will cause many women to perform more dangerous methods of abortions. The strange thing is; in the 2008 ELECTION YEAR, when he had a shot at climbing the political ladder, he suddenly changed his story about abortion and made the claim that he does not support roevwade. I have a difficult time trusting anyone who really doesn't know where they stand on this issue. How convenient of McCain to amazingly jump on the prolife bandwagon only in this election year...bizarre. I choose the prolife, also, but I am not jumping a bandwagon just to get votes. Hypocritical and devious of McCain...but he didn't fool me.

  • Posted By: speakingthetruth @ 11/14/2008 10:27:47 AM

    Chasesouthern: The fact that the Supreme Court or Congress has not gone forward with overturning Roe v. Wade speaks profoundly of our democratic government - this would not be a democratic system if our rights were infringed upon by everyone else religious beliefs. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but no, the majority of citizens do not share the same views as you. And if the popular vote overruled, you would lose, just like Amendment 48 did (3:1) - so do you still believe everyone else has your same beliefs?

  • Posted By: Broadcast_girl @ 11/10/2008 2:13:33 PM

    what i believe with when a person is raped is not to abort the child even though it was given to them through a bad experience but to have the child and love it. things happen for a reason and i think that a person would be blessed rather than be a burden.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/10/2008 4:30:57 PM

      "when a person is raped is not to abort the child even though it was given to them through a bad experience but to have the child and love it. things happen for a reason and i think that a person would be blessed rather than be a burden. "

      The idea that things happen for a reason or that the child is a blessing is idiotic.

      Oh yeah, your sadistic god decided that the woman should be raped for some banal reason and be forced to bear the fruit of that horrid experrience and have to live with it the rest of her life. If ever there were a reason to ban religion, tear down all the houses of worship and imprison all the clerics as representaives of pure evil and terrorism, THAT one surely qualifies. That is one perfect reason why religion MUST be kept out of US lawmaking.


      • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/10/2008 9:31:10 PM

        Your comments reveal some bitterness and hate. You say the idea that things happen for a reason is idiotic, but you do not explain why this is so. The idea that things happen for no reason at all is not very comforting. Your worldview seems to give little meaning to our life and existence on this little planet.

        Also, many parents have told me they find great joy in parenthood and that, in fact, children can be a blessing.

        I'm also not sure that Broadcast_girl's comment warrants the violent extirpation of religion as you have described. Your description of the destruction of religion strikes me as just a little arrogant and intolerant.

        As far as blending religion and lawmaking, our legislative process is strictly secular per the Constitution, so I don't believe your fears are justified. Of course, voters' opinions may be influenced by their various religious faiths, but unless you favor restricting the franchise to atheists, there is no way to avoid this.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/11/2008 8:51:31 AM

          "Your comments reveal some bitterness and hate."
          Not at all. I am simply disgusted that people think that thier religious beliefs are valid for everyone.

          You say the idea that things happen for a reason is idiotic, but you do not explain why this is so. The idea that things happen for no reason at all is not very comforting. Your worldview seems to give little meaning to our life and existence on this little planet."

          I was specifically responding to Bradcast_girl's idiotic idea that women ar raped for a reason. That is what she was saying and that is absurd. I never said that thins do nto happen for a raso. I just reject the idea that they happen because some deity or supernatural force is paying checkers with us. THAT idea is far more discomforting. WE make our choices and our reasons. But the reality is that some things jsut happen out of chance. Some people may find that problematic. But I look at it as an opportunity to prove our skills and abilities to meet that chance and suceed (which does not always happen but at least we can learn from our failures as well as our sucesses)

          "Also, many parents have told me they find great joy in parenthood and that, in fact, children can be a blessing."

          Yes but THEY wanted their children. Again IU was addressing the absurd notion that Boradcast_girl expressed that a vicitim of rape should look at her pregnancy and the resulting progeny as a blessing. THAT is an absurd notion for most women.

          "I'm also not sure that Broadcast_girl's comment warrants the violent extirpation of religion as you have described. Your description of the destruction of religion strikes me as just a little arrogant and intolerant."

          Not at all. IF there really was a god and that deity did cause a woman to be raped (and often beaten in the process) my commnets are very accurate. Of course when I believed in god both I and my religion completely rejected the idea that god ever chose to let a woman be raped. That idea is obscene.

          "As far as blending religion and lawmaking, our legislative process is strictly secular per the Constitution, so I don't believe your fears are justified. Of course, voters' opinions may be influenced by their various religious faiths, but unless you favor restricting the franchise to atheists, there is no way to avoid this."

          My point is that there are people out there who ARE trying to blend the two. They say so very clearly. THAT is why I make my point. Look at the California Prop 8 passage. There is no valid non-religious reason for that to have even been on the ballot. Yet 52% of the people voted for it even though it is a clear and absolute violation of both the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the US Constitution.

      • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/10/2008 5:17:29 PM

        Another option in the case of rape or incest is giving the baby up for adoption. Very few folks would insist that the rape victim be compelled to keep or raise the child. The baby is an innocent party in the situation. If allowed to live and be adopted by a loving family, there is an excellent chance the baby could grow up to lead a normal, happy, and productive life.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/10/2008 5:28:32 PM

          "Another option in the case of rape or incest is giving the baby up for adoption. Very few folks would insist that the rape victim be compelled to keep or raise the child. The baby is an innocent party in the situation. If allowed to live and be adopted by a loving family, there is an excellent chance the baby could grow up to lead a normal, happy, and productive life."

          But why should the woman have to endure the possible physical and emotional trauma that can come with pregnancy? I have talked to several women who were forced to carry to term in the 1960's and all of them said that they suffered long term/permannet scars by being forced to carry to term. They had to admit being raped (which even todayy, as then, does unfortuatnely caryy a social stigma). They stand a chance of running into the child in the future (because it is very possible that the child will try to find her after they grow up.) The child also could be traumatized knowing that they re the prodcut of rape (and that could be found out too.) One of the women who did give her child (a boy) up for adoption had an absolutely horrendous experience of after years of therapy to recover from both the rape and felling forced to caryy to term then got married, had a daughter who when she grew up actually met the boy, fell in love with him, (the boy did not know he was the product of a rape and the girl did nto know her mom had been raped and had given up the boy) and got engaged. Only then did a quirk reveal that htey were siblings.

          Another of the women had a very very hard pregnancy (but not hard enough to have justified an abortion for health reasons in today's world) and suffered the consequences of that.

          The idea that forcing a rape victim to carry the product of her attack to term is not as easy or simple as you seem to think it is.

          • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/10/2008 5:41:15 PM

            No one should be insensitive to the reality that bearing a child produced by rape could be emotionally troublesome for the woman and child. Some of us are just not completely convinced that killing the child is the best solution. Who's to say that aborting the baby would not in and of itself emotionally scar the woman? Reports of women being emotionally scarred by aborting their babies are relatively common.

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/11/2008 8:37:58 AM

              "No one should be insensitive to the reality that bearing a child produced by rape could be emotionally troublesome for the woman and child. Some of us are just not completely convinced that killing the child is the best solution. Who's to say that aborting the baby would not in and of itself emotionally scar the woman? Reports of women being emotionally scarred by aborting their babies are relatively common."

              Yes there have been women who have been emotinally scarred by having an abortion. But every woman tha I know who aborted after begin impregnated via rape have all said that that was the one thing thathelped ease the scarring. Are there women who might feel differently? Yes. But that is why it should be a choice. Let the woman decide what to do after being raped, not the state or church.

    • Posted By: TalkSoup @ 11/10/2008 4:16:04 PM

      I think I get where you're comign from, sicne I have two children and tehy really are a blessing.

      I don't know if I could agree that a rape could possibly "happen for a reason".
      As for keeping teh child, I can't say if it would be a blessing or a burden. I really don't know how having a reminder would affect someone since I've never been in that situation. In fact, many women may handle it differently, and it may even depend on how the rape happened and who the attacker was...

  • Posted By: Apres Ski @ 11/10/2008 11:42:15 PM

    Get a life . . . okay a boyfriend! Sounds like you just need attention, honey!

  • Posted By: liberator @ 11/10/2008 6:08:59 PM

    Why don't pro-lifers spend as much time and energy to tackle the issues that result in women considering and following through with abortions, as they do on trying to legislate it? Wouldn't it be nice just to make Roe Vs. Wade an irrelevant law? This is a personal decision between a mother and a father if there's one in the picture. Any resulting moral questions are between the woman and God and moral judgment is reserved by God. We are mere mortals. Some people seem to forget that.

  • Posted By: kerryann63 @ 11/08/2008 2:53:19 PM

    Okay everyone's posted their opinions both pro and con. I have a more logical (IMO) hold on the situation. The minute the government starts legislating a man's right to have a vasectomy.....I'll be more open to discussing my right to choose.

    • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/09/2008 4:33:09 PM

      An abortion is in no way analagous to a vasectomy. A vasectomy is comparable to a hysterectomy or getting the tubes tied. Vasectomies, hysterectomies, sex changes, and the like are not regulated any more than any other similar surgical procedures precisely because they only affect the individual's own body.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/10/2008 10:33:43 AM

        "Vasectomies, hysterectomies, sex changes, and the like are not regulated any more than any other similar surgical procedures precisely because they only affect the individual's own body."

        Since the only body that is relevant is the mother's (the fetus/embryo has no rights and its "body" is of no consequence) they can be considered analagous.

        • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/10/2008 4:18:12 PM

          But some people feel that the the unborn baby is a separate body, particularly in the latter stages of pregnancy when the baby can survive outside the womb.

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/10/2008 4:33:51 PM

            "But some people feel that the the unborn baby is a separate body,"
            I understand that but it is not a universally accepted viewpoint, even in medical science.

            " particularly in the latter stages of pregnancy when the baby can survive outside the womb."
            THAT is a special circumstance. I am not a big fan of late term abortion except when no other way protects the woman's health or life.

            • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/10/2008 5:47:37 PM

              The circumstance is really not that "special." If modern medicine is available, which it is in the U.S., a baby born as early as 23 weeks into the gestation can survive outside the womb. For a soft-hearted guy like me, it's very hard to believe that we as a society should not protect that innocent little baby. I really find it hard to believe that little fella is not a person, even though I could hold him in the palm of my hand.

  • Posted By: LuvMyHappy @ 11/10/2008 4:16:26 PM

    I would like the same person to say being raped and having the baby would not everyday for the rest of your life remind you of how this baby came to be. I would never wish this on anyone nor have I had to go through it. But it is not our place to EVER decide someone's life who is already here. Explain to the 13 year old girl who is raped by her uncle to think of it as a blessing.

    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/10/2008 4:29:25 PM

      right on...that would be terrible for the mother and child...the mother would resent the child for what the child reminds the mother of, and the child would resent the mother for resenting the child...vicious circle...

  • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/06/2008 5:23:58 PM

    Pro-abortion individuals should refrain from using the Bible to make their case because it does more to undermine than to strengthen the pro-abortion cause. The Bible presents God as the Creator and the Sovereign of creation. In that role God alone has the ultimate prerogative to give and take away life. The Bible further teaches that God has delegated to human governments certain limited powers to take life if doing so meets well-established criteria for maintaining justice and order, protecting their citizens, etc., e.g., capital punishment and defensive war. Also, it is apparent from many Biblical texts that God allows men do defend themselves (with deadly force, if necessary) from assualts on their persons and other persons whose safety they are responsible for. In no place does the Bible ever indicate a man or woman has the prerogative to arbitrarily take the life of another human or even tamper with the development of a human before birth outside of the narrow and extreme exceptions mentioned heretofore.

    The pro-abortion movement is simply about women attempting to abandon the role of motherhood that nature has assigned them. It is also about women (and men) who wish to recklessly engage in intercourse without ever having to face up to the associated responsibilities like pregnancy and parenting. It is in reallity a very shallow , base, and selfish movement, although its adherents attempt to frame it in the grand language of "individual liberty" and "privacy rights." The pro-abortion movement is the epitome of irresponsibility, base selfishness, and rebellion against nature.

    • Posted By: Just thinking @ 11/06/2008 5:43:22 PM

      Silasdodgen ... so you would like to stifle what the Bible truely says in order to bring forth your interpretation of it? I am NOT pro-abortion ... I am pro-choice and you and others who continue to call it pro-abortion are more guilty of leading people astray than I.

      • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/06/2008 6:09:24 PM

        You fail to demonstrate how I have stifled what the Bible says.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/06/2008 7:35:33 PM

          Except that they TaNaKH (what Christains call the OT) has alwasy held that life begins at birth (first breath). That has always been the Jewish interpretation of it and since it is first and foremsot ther book, thier interpretation takes precedence.

          But that is irrelevant since religious texts have no standing in US law.

          • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/06/2008 8:34:25 PM

            The notion that the OT is primarily for the Jews to interpret is untenable for people who believe that the Old Testament is the word of God. If it is the word of God, then why must its application and interpretation be limited to one race? Presumably, if there is a Creator God, and if the Bible is His word, then surely it must have universal applicibility to all races of His creatures. If all men are created equal, then all men must have equal ability to determine by sound exegesis the meaning of sacred text.

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/07/2008 8:37:54 AM

              Too bad. It is thier book. It was given to them and it is theirs to define.
              Sort of like the idea that the US Supreme Cort has the final says on how to interpret the US Constitution. The other courts may make ther rulings but the Cort has the final say and can overule th lower courts and the people.

              The Jewish Rabbinate is the Supreme Court when it comes to interprettting the TaNaKH. They have ruled that the TaNaKH says that life begins at birth. Now ensoulment begins at conception but if the fetus dies the soul simply moves on to a new fetus to be born and live. The is the whole idea of the line about your god knowing the person in the womb. It is NOT about the fetus being alive. The idea is actually that all souls were created at the beginning of creation and that is how god knew us before we were born.

              • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/07/2008 3:15:27 PM

                One other point to consider. I am simply making my comments based on the idea that just because some Christinas read their book to say that life begins at conception does not mean that that is the only valid way to interpet it. Their interpretation is in clear conflict with what the Jewish interpretation is.

                THAT is one major example as to why the use of god or religionisn discussing US Law is invalid. To accept one religion's interpreation over another religions' as the basis for US Law is a clear and absolute violation of the Establishment clause of the US Constitution ( for that matter to use religious beleifs period as the primary basis for US can be argued to be a violation of said clause.)

                You have to understnad that what you or any religons believes is of no consequence to me. I no longer believe in deities or religions. They may have value fo some but they are not the only basis of morality, ethics and humanity in the world or universe. They may be personal truths but they are not universal ones.

                • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/07/2008 4:27:31 PM

                  I guess God must be a racist then, if He only gives books to one race.

                  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/07/2008 6:19:07 PM

                    Since the reality is that there is no god and the Jews wrote the TanaKH themselves (another good reason why they get to interpret it is its authors) others can read it si use it but he final interpretation is thiers.

                    And even if there was a god and he did write the whole mess, just because he gave it to one peole and gave them interpretations rights over it would not make him "racist (what a banal idea). He would be saying to everyone else, here is this book that I handed to the Jews/Israelites. If you let them they will share it with them, but do not be so presumptuous to try deeny that they are the keepers of this book and their interpretation is the last word. Just like our founding fathers gave the US Supreme Court the final interpretation rights for the US Constitution. Nothing racist about that.

                    • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/09/2008 4:51:47 PM

                      Just pretend for a second that there was a God, and He was the creator and all-powerful. So I still wonder why it would be fair of Him to favor one race over the rest by revealing Himself just to them. Just imagine, if there was such a God, it would be a great privilege and advantage to have a written word from Him. The race that had that direct link to God would be in a superior position to the other races since they would have more direct access to the divine source of power. This is all very hypothetical, of course.

                      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/09/2008 7:14:54 PM

                        Assuming that he did exist who ever said that god was fair. No one.

                        And yes he would have ended up putting the Israelites in a somewhat superior position because they chose to accept his laws and be the final arbiters, which is actually a very hard position to be in. You think it is position of power but it comes with very real and scary role . The old line with great power comes great responsibility comes to mind. That is the reason that in Judaism there has always been a core of great scholars who have to be able to interpret the TaNaKh and the Oral laws for the time they are living in. For example. In the late 19th and early 20th century the Greatest of teh RAbbinical schoalrs had to determine where, (for Orthodox Jews especially) electricity and automobiles fit into the laws of the Sabbath. they had to get reprts and studies from scientissts and engineers descrbingn exactly how electricity funcitoned and then made the determination that since lectricity created sparks which could ignite things that lectricity was the same as fire and that since creating a fire on the Sabbath was forbidden that turning on electricical things was also forbidden (even if it did not always cause a ral spark.) The sam for automobiles. Since the combustion engine is most dfinitely causing a form of fire, the use of cars is also forbidden. They have had to make determination on whether certain medical procedures violate the TaNaKH. It is a very serious and difficult responsbility.

                        But is in no way racist.

                        Of course since, in actuality the Israelites wrote the books and created the idea of the Abrahimc god, they still are the primary interpreters of the book they wrote.

                        • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/10/2008 4:27:47 PM

                          You have not established beyond all doubt that there is no God. How do you prove the existence or nonexistence of God? I am vaguely familiar with Christian apologetics, including the arguments of those who believe God exists. I do not find your statement that God does not exist to be particularly convincing. How do you prove that there is no God? How do you prove there is a God? Simply stating the fact one way or the other is not enough for me.

                  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/08/2008 7:39:36 AM

                    OK, this time without all the typos.

                    Since the reality is that there is no god and the Jews wrote the TanaKH themselves (another good reason why they get to interpret it being its authors) others can read it si use it but he final interpretation is theirs.

                    And even if there was a god and he did write the whole mess, just because he gave it to one people and gave them interpretations rights over it would not make him "racist (what a banal idea). He would be saying to everyone else, "Here is this book that I handed to the Jews/Israelites. If you let them they will share it with you. But do not be so presumptuous to try deny that they are the keepers of this book and their interpretation is the last word. Just like our founding fathers gave the US Supreme Court the final interpretation rights for the US Constitution. Nothing racist about that.

        • Posted By: Just thinking @ 11/06/2008 6:28:07 PM

          This sounds to me like you are trying to stifle what the Bible says. Pro-abortion individuals should refrain from using the Bible to make their case because it does more to undermine than to strengthen the pro-abortion cause.
          I say Jesus gave choices as documented throughout the Bible.

          • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/06/2008 8:26:06 PM

            Provide a chapter and verse where Jesus gave someone a choice to arbitrarily end innocent life, before or after birth.

  • Posted By: modern_realist @ 11/07/2008 12:25:00 AM

    Silasdogen- You talk of contraception, but the Pro-Pre-Born Individual community speaks out against teaching youth HOW to use them because they fear a little knowledge will lead them to make 'bad choices,' ie. premarital sex. If you could get your peers to understand the hypocrisy of abstinence only education, then there wouldn't need to be this debate. Keeping innocents ignorant never helped anyone.

    Next- Even if a cluster of cells were to be declared a 'person,' without a valid birth certificate, they wouldn't have the rights entitled a citizen in the same way that illegal immigrants don't have full rights. Extrapolating: they wouldn't be eligible to receive medicare or welfare, or claim the services of any government agency; (now it gets even more fun ^_^) could we as a society then bring suit against any couple who had an OOPS moment outside our borders? The mother would be harboring an illegal alien, since the cells began to divide outside our borders. How could we then be certain of the TRUE nationality of any given cluster of dividing cells? The only answer would be to make it illegal to have sex at all outside of a supervised government office or without there being a registered notary present to be certain of the circumstances that led to said cluster of dividing cells.

    • Posted By: silasdodgen @ 11/09/2008 4:43:10 PM

      I have never heard of a sex ed program that taught abstinence only. Abstinence does tend to be effective . . . .but only if people behaved more like humans than rabbits.

      • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/10/2008 11:46:06 AM

        thing is, most humans act like rabbits rather than humans and you dont need a study or scientific investigation to figure that out. abstinence is a great idea on paper, but doesnt hold up against human desire and urges. it doesnt work, and should be banned from education. inform kids in everyway possible, because at the end of the day they will make the decision with or without god, mom and dads consent, and the government. you can teach it, but very few humans on earth would prefer abstinence until marriage. im glad, in fact enthralled i get to have wonderful, and often amazing sex with my girlfriend that i love. and im one of the guys that would keep the child if a pregnancy occured, so dont get me wrong. but i know what its like to be abandonded as well, and i wish that on no person or child.

        • Posted By: TalkSoup @ 11/10/2008 1:29:48 PM

          Ever think that the desire for sex is a HUMAN trait?

          This is our youth you are talking about. They are not acting like "rabits" or any other animal.

          • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/10/2008 4:24:43 PM

            and, umm, not to correct you but the DESIRE is a trait in all beings...everything reproduces. everything. flies, camels, spiders, bears, rabbits, humans, bacteria, sea horses (the father actually carries the eggs in this case), fish, grasshoppers, snakes, racoons, squirells, fox, wolves....they all have the DESIRE to mate and reproduce...

            WE (humans) are still part of nature, we were created by and through the laws of nature, and we are bound by it. in fact, we are just as much an animal as your "pets" so dont get too high and mighty. we can still equate war with a couple of monkeys and a few sticks, it became a game of whose stick is bigger...

            so yes, humans can be like rabbits...i have a few friends that could give a rabbit a run for its money in fact...

          • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/10/2008 4:18:24 PM

            did you read what i wrote? thats what i was saying, humans can act like hormonally juiced rabbits!! thats why abstinence education doesnt work....

            ever seen or heard what a few 13-14 yr old boys talk about?? or "grown" men for that matter? we are reproducing machines, its what we are born to do. and yes it is our youth that we should be thinking about...

            and we should be thinking about EDUCATING them in everyway we can think of about sex, contraceptives, and abortion. ignoring human tendencies through abstinence and thinking that the pastors daughter (as an example ive witnessed myself) is under an oath of selebacy or is even monogomus is going to hurt rather than help. get them informed about they're choices...CHOICES...

            i remember myself at an age where all i wanted was to get laid to "be a man", and i learned most of what i know not from "health class" or "sex ed"...i learned from my friends, the last people i should have learned from and the last people any child should learn from. EDUCATION is the answer, abstinence is ignoring natures tendencies. i applaud any person, and especially hormone enraged teens, that can abstain from sex until marriage, but in REALITY, in REAL LIFE, it has been shown to be utterly inefective against teen pregnancies (see gov. Palin), unwanted pregnancies, and teen abortions...

            get to the ROOT of the problem and this debate will cease to exist in the future... but when everyone is scared to talk about it to they're kids and then they get angry when they're son comes home and says he has a baby on the way then the only person they need to be angry and frustrated with is themselves, not others and they're personal choices to have sex or get abortions.

  • Posted By: TalkSoup @ 11/10/2008 1:43:15 PM

    I have a question for the pro lifers? I am not looking to argue, I just want to knwo your point of view on a coupel of things.

    What about s situation where continuing teh pregnency is a risk to the Mothers life?

    What about a case of rape or incest where there would be major emotional damage to the Mother?

    Waht about a case where it can be proved that the baby, if born, will not have the ability to live a normal life (severe handicap or defects to the point they don't expect the baby to live very long)?

    I've always thought on the pro life side, but these issues leae me a little confused......

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse