[BFritz]

I just thought about this, aside from the argument on the legality side that a person can be charged for double homicide when killing a pregnant mother but the mother can legally kill the child, consider this:

People can be tried and jailed for cruelty to animals, so abortion being legal is making unborn children less than animals such as dogs because it's ok to kill the unborn children but not a dog (or any animal).

This was a random thought, but opinions would be nice.

[Super-Card]

There is already a thread ALOT like this one, but I think abortion is wrong as a form of birth control. If your big enough to do the deed then your big enough to have the child.
Now in cases of rape, incest, and to save the mothers life then abortion is a personal decision and should not be judged by outsiders. It does not matter that a fetus has less rights than an animal. The mother should have the legal right to kill the child through abortion while it is still inside of her. Are the rights of the fetus more important than the rights of the mother? Does the mother not have every bit as much right to live as the fetus? It would be much harder to make it throught the loss of a wife you have known and loved for a long period of time, than a child you hve not even met.

[ComfortEagle]

I just thought about this, aside from the argument on the legality side that a person can be charged for double homicide when killing a pregnant mother but the mother can legally kill the child, consider this:

People can be tried and jailed for cruelty to animals, so abortion being legal is making unborn children less than animals such as dogs because it's ok to kill the unborn children but not a dog (or any animal).

This was a random thought, but opinions would be nice.

There are animal abortions all the time. I don't know the legality of it or not, but I know of vets who perform abortions, like on dogs that would be having a litter of mutts, etc.


There are laws against cruelty to animals, yes, but the argument that's always prevalent here is, "when does life begin" If it begins at conception, then the birth control pill could be a form of abortion as well. It's a tricky thing to nail down.

[Mr.Mister]

There is already a thread ALOT like this one, but I think abortion is wrong as a form of birth control. If your big enough to do the deed then your big enough to have the child.
Now in cases of rape, incest, and to save the mothers life then abortion is a personal decision and should not be judged by outsiders. It does not matter that a fetus has less rights than an animal. The mother should have the legal right to kill the child through abortion while it is still inside of her. Are the rights of the fetus more important than the rights of the mother? Does the mother not have every bit as much right to live as the fetus? It would be much harder to make it throught the loss of a wife you have known and loved for a long period of time, than a child you hve not even met.

Why only is some cases? You argue that a baby has its rights, but just because it is a baby of rape -- or even incest, does it automatically take the rights (that those in support of abortion being illegal would speak of) of the unborn away???? If abortion is okay to do it once then it should be okay for it to be done as many times as one would wish. Abortion should be a 100% pro-choice or totally against in all situations.

[EKY Sportster]

Why only is some cases? You argue that a baby has its rights, but just because it is a baby of rape -- or even incest, does it automatically take the rights (that those in support of abortion being illegal would speak of) of the unborn away???? If abortion is okay to do it once then it should be okay for it to be done as many times as one would wish. Abortion should be a 100% pro-choice or totally against in all situations.

I agree, with the exception of the "saving the life of the mother". Self-defense is always a valid reason to take another life. That would be the mother's choice. Other than that, it is morally wrong to abort. Legally wrong? No. Morally wrong? Yes.

[Super-Card]

Why only is some cases? You argue that a baby has its rights, but just because it is a baby of rape -- or even incest, does it automatically take the rights (that those in support of abortion being illegal would speak of) of the unborn away???? If abortion is okay to do it once then it should be okay for it to be done as many times as one would wish. Abortion should be a 100% pro-choice or totally against in all situations.

Because if a person is impregnated through an illegal action (rape) then why should the life of the mother be changed? What if the woman raped was a 12 or 13 year old girl? That young lady has her whole life ahead of her, but it will never be the same. She will never have a normal teenage life. Her friends and peers will never look at her the same. No person should have to go through that. For some people every time they look at that child it would be like being raped all over again. Now I'm sure that some would rather have the child and that is fine. I am not on the side of the fetus, but on the side of the mother. I think abortion should be avaliable to rape victims if need be.

Who said you had to be 100% ok with abortion or 100% against it? That comment makes no sense. There are diffrent circumstances for diffirent indviduals.

As far as the rights part of your post. The rights of a baby should never go ahead of the rights of the mother who is carrying the child.

[BaseballMan]

http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=211

http://christiananswers.net/life/home.html

**For biblical information on abortion.

[BaseballMan]

A woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances. Bioethicist Andrew Varga summarizes the abortion argument from rape and incest in the following way:

It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman's mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman's integrity and personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is justified in these cases.

Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are problems with this argument.

1. It is not relevant to the case for abortion on demand, the position defended by the popular pro-choice movement. This position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.

2. Since conception does not occur immediately following intercourse, pregnancy can be eliminated in all rape cases if the rape victim receives immediate medical treatment by having all the male semen removed from her uterus.

3. The unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger its mother's life (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy). It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother. Hence, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn is an aggressor.

4. This argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is not fully human. For if the unborn is fully human, then we must weigh the relieving of the woman's mental suffering against the right-to-life of an innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to relieve one of emotional distress.

Although such a judgment is indeed anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases abortion results in the death of an innocent human life.

As Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written,

"The unwanted pregnancy flows biologically from the sexual act, but not morally from it."
Hence, this argument, is successful only if the unborn are not fully human.

Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since the pro-lifer's position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer. The pro-life advocate merely wants to prevent another innocent human being (the unborn entity) from being the victim of a violent and morally reprehensible act (abortion), for two wrongs do not make a right.

As theologian and ethicist Dr. Michael Bauman has observed:

"A child does not lose its right to life simply because its father or its mother was a sexual criminal or a deviant."

Furthermore, the anguish and psychic suffering caused by rape and incest has been treated quite effectively. Professor Stephen Krason points out that…

"psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."
The pro-life advocate believes that help should be given to the rape victim...

to make it as easy as possible for her to give up her baby for adoption, if she desires. Dealing with the woman pregnant from rape, then, can be an opportunity for us -- both as individuals and society -- to develop true understanding and charity. Is it not better to try to develop these virtues than to countenance an ethic of destruction as the solution?[8]

[sherman14]

I just thought about this, aside from the argument on the legality side that a person can be charged for double homicide when killing a pregnant mother but the mother can legally kill the child, consider this:

People can be tried and jailed for cruelty to animals, so abortion being legal is making unborn children less than animals such as dogs because it's ok to kill the unborn children but not a dog (or any animal).

This was a random thought, but opinions would be nice.

I'm not even going to start about abortion because to many pro-choicers are on here.:mad:

[thecavemaster]

Baseball Man: Your leanings are pretty clear from other posts. You speak of breakthroughs in the counseling of rape and incest victims. Many rape and incest victims are not rendered magically cured by psychiatric science. To argue otherwise suggests a needful blindness on your part.

[RammsteinFan92]

I'm not even going to start about abortion because to many pro-choicers are on here.:mad:

Actually Sherman that's wrong because on one of your older posts about abortion everything "pro-choice" i said iwas bashed by the lot of conserveatives!

[DevilsWin]

How many Abortion threads do we need?

[ComfortEagle]

How many Abortion threads do we need?

I agree, can't we all just accept that some people are pro-Choice and some people are against abortion?

[BaseballMan]

Baseball Man: Your leanings are pretty clear from other posts. You speak of breakthroughs in the counseling of rape and incest victims. Many rape and incest victims are not rendered magically cured by psychiatric science. To argue otherwise suggests a needful blindness on your part.

Not necessarily. I argued that many cases have proven that the unborn child actually helped the mother in the later stages as it gave a sign of hope through counseling and help. No one said that these victims would ever be magically cured, not even the ones who have turned it around will ever forget about it. If your spouse or parent were killed, it would affect you forever, but your attitude in our you handle it will affect your mental health. It's arguably the same with rape and incest victims. They are victims who can receive help and can make the best out of life, even though a violent crime has affected them. They can be helped to see that the child that may be inside them is not the violent aggressor the rapist was. If they receive counseling and come to a decision that it's not a good time for the victims to care for a child, then they can also consider adoption either through someone closely related or any family that is willing.

[thecavemaster]

Not necessarily. I argued that many cases have proven that the unborn child actually helped the mother in the later stages as it gave a sign of hope through counseling and help. No one said that these victims would ever be magically cured, not even the ones who have turned it around will ever forget about it. If your spouse or parent were killed, it would affect you forever, but your attitude in our you handle it will affect your mental health. It's arguably the same with rape and incest victims. They are victims who can receive help and can make the best out of life, even though a violent crime has affected them. They can be helped to see that the child that may be inside them is not the violent aggressor the rapist was. If they receive counseling and come to a decision that it's not a good time for the victims to care for a child, then they can also consider adoption either through someone closely related or any family that is willing.

In some cases, I don't disagree with you. If you are suggesting all cases... wouldn't it be pretty to think so...

[RammsteinFan92]

How many Abortion threads do we need?

Ask Shemrman he's the one who keeps Harping on it!....he also blocked me cause he can't handle the power of the Liberal...lol

[BaseballMan]

In some cases, I don't disagree with you. If you are suggesting all cases... wouldn't it be pretty to think so...

I did not suggest all cases, but the point is, it is still wrong no matter the situation.

[thecavemaster]

I did not suggest all cases, but the point is, it is still wrong no matter the situation.

I respect your views on this matter. However, I do not directly equate a first trimester fetus with the person incubating it. Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, so to speak. It is your right (of course) to believe "god's" law disallows the practice, but we live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

[BaseballMan]

I respect your views on this matter. However, I do not directly equate a first trimester fetus with the person incubating it. Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, so to speak. It is your right (of course) to believe "god's" law disallows the practice, but we live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

Murder is also God's law and a law of the U.S. Many of our laws are founded on biblical truths. In our democracy or republic type government, we have a right as a people to vote on our laws. As of now, there is no law forbidding abortion, so it is legal in the U.S. But, we as a people, must keep on looking at what is right and wrong and we must have a basis for this. Our basis for our laws is arguably biblical laws. Our founding fathers wrote our constitution based on laws that were absolute biblical laws of God. It is not a theocracy as we all have different views, and so as a people we get to vote. If our people are educated on this topic more and given truthful, scientific fact as well as what our basis for laws (God's Word) tells about it, then we can vote as to whether we would like to rule abortion against the law. If it is one's conviction that it is wrong, then people can vote that way. If it is not one's conviction, then vote for it to be a choice. But lay all the evidence on the table, including the Holy Bible.

A theocracy cannot be run by man. It will not be effective and will be fallible. The U.S. has the best type of government that can be run by man. A theocracy can only be run by God himself for it to work perfectly. And according to the books of Daniel and Revelation as well as other biblical scriptures, one day we will have a theocracy.

[thecavemaster]

Murder is also God's law and a law of the U.S. Many of our laws are founded on biblical truths. In our democracy or republic type government, we have a right as a people to vote on our laws. As of now, there is no law forbidding abortion, so it is legal in the U.S. But, we as a people, must keep on looking at what is right and wrong and we must have a basis for this. Our basis for our laws is arguably biblical laws. Our founding fathers wrote our constitution based on laws that were absolute biblical laws of God. It is not a theocracy as we all have different views, and so as a people we get to vote. If our people are educated on this topic more and given truthful, scientific fact as well as what our basis for laws (God's Word) tells about it, then we can vote as to whether we would like to rule abortion against the law. If it is one's conviction that it is wrong, then people can vote that way. If it is not one's conviction, then vote for it to be a choice. But lay all the evidence on the table, including the Holy Bible.

A theocracy cannot be run by man. It will not be effective and will be fallible. The U.S. has the best type of government that can be run by man. A theocracy can only be run by God himself for it to work perfectly. And according to the books of Daniel and Revelation as well as other biblical scriptures, one day we will have a theocracy.

"Apologist"... one who argues in defense or justification of another person or cause... If you are not being an apologist, American Heritage needs a new definition.

[BaseballMan]

So you're saying I stand in defense of the Word of God and that makes me an apologist. That's fine by me. I actually thank you for it, because that is a great honor to me. I do respectfully stand for the truth of the Holy Bible. If you wish to write me off as an apologist so be it, if that, in some way, makes you feel better about your opinions. I just hope and pray that you may understand truly where I stand, and may seek to find the truth for yourself.

[thecavemaster]

So you're saying I stand in defense of the Word of God and that makes me an apologist. That's fine by me. I actually thank you for it, because that is a great honor to me. I do respectfully stand for the truth of the Holy Bible. If you wish to write me off as an apologist so be it, if that, in some way, makes you feel better about your opinions. I just hope and pray that you may understand truly where I stand, and may seek to find the truth for yourself.

Not "writing you off"... merely stating that you are engaging in apologetics, not to be confused with apologizing ("I am not ashamed of the Gospel"). My own spirit life includes the teachings of jesus, as well as Sufi mystics, Native American teachings, and other things. I respect any belief system that honors the dignity of human beings and the interconnectedness of all creation. I honor your right to believe as you do and to offer your understandings in the marketplace of ideas and images. If you understood me as being negative about apologetics, I apologize (ha ha).

[BaseballMan]

Not "writing you off"... merely stating that you are engaging in apologetics, not to be confused with apologizing ("I am not ashamed of the Gospel"). My own spirit life includes the teachings of jesus, as well as Sufi mystics, Native American teachings, and other things. I respect any belief system that honors the dignity of human beings and the interconnectedness of all creation. I honor your right to believe as you do and to offer your understandings in the marketplace of ideas and images. If you understood me as being negative about apologetics, I apologize (ha ha).

So your spiritual life includes the teachings of Jesus - does this mean all of them or just some? It also includes Sufi mystics which originated out of Islam and native american teachings among other things. So what is the basis for your beliefs? Why do you believe the way you do? What do you believe this way will guide you toward? I'd just like to know a little more about that so that maybe I could understand you a little better.

[ComfortEagle]

Done.