Alternatives to Abortion

[Kit the Coyote]

what if it's inconvenient to abandon it in a manner that insures the baby's safety? What if complying with that requirement conflicts with one of the following over-riding criteria: "Women MUST have control over their lives, their bodies, their health and their futures"

what if, for example, the mother is in the north woods or the Labrador coast and the nearest nurse, policeman or fireman is many days' journey away? Would it be acceptable in those situations to abandon it to the elements?

In most cases no, I can see a case being made if not abandoning the child in the wilds would mean both lives would be lost though and even just the fear that that would be the case would likely be a legal defense.

It is hard to draw comparisons along these lines pre and post-birth from a strictly legal standpoint because the child's legal status significantly changes at birth. They are now a distinct legal entity under the law and as a minor, they require a legal guardian which the mother is NOT required to assume that responsibility but if she does so takes on the responsibility to protect the child until she can turn that responsibility legally to another.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Reading through this thread, and seeing the lengrhs that some people will go to to justify murdering an innocent human being is absolutely astounding, amazing, and disgusting all at once

 

[aikido7]

Reading through this thread, and seeing the lengrhs that some people will go to to justify murdering an innocent human being is absolutely astounding, amazing, and disgusting all at once

Abortion is a part of life.
Have you read about the priest in Numbers who gave an aborticient to a woman?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5:11-31&version=NIV

It’s sometimes known as the “Ordeal of the Bitter Water.”

I’m sure that pietistic sources have already “proven” that the passage says nothing about a priest performing and abortion.

 

[ok doser]

In most cases no, I can see a case being made if not abandoning the child in the wilds would mean both lives would be lost though and even just the fear that that would be the case would likely be a legal defense.

It is hard to draw comparisons along these lines pre and post-birth from a strictly legal standpoint because the child's legal status significantly changes at birth. They are now a distinct legal entity under the law and as a minor, they require a legal guardian which the mother is NOT required to assume that responsibility but if she does so takes on the responsibility to protect the child until she can turn that responsibility legally to another.

in case i didn't make it clear, i'm not interested in legality, i'm interested in the moral flexibility of the viewpoint espoused by theHorn

 

[genuineoriginal]

Abortion is a part of life.

No, abortion is a part of death, since the entire purpose of an abortion is to end a human life.

 

[The Horn]

Kit, no, she didn't "want to be born ". She had no consciousness and could not feel pain . No mind to enable her to "want to be born ". Consciousness does not develop until late in a pregnancy . Most anti-choicers don't seem to have brains either .

 

[SabathMoon]

Kit, no, she didn't "want to be born ". She had no consciousness and could not feel pain . No mind to enable her to "want to be born ". Consciousness does not develop until late in a pregnancy . Most anti-choicers don't seem to have brains either .

Actually, some say it is when the baby takes its first breath. Whether caused by abortion or by birth.

 

[aikido7]

No, abortion is a part of death, since the entire purpose of an abortion is to end a human life.

As I get older I have increasingly loved life. And death is a part of life.
It always will be.

Be aware that actions can often have understandable multiple purposes.

 

[aikido7]

Actually, some say it is when the baby takes its first breath. Whether caused by abortion or by birth.

Genesis recognizes this fact when it talks about God breathing into Adam’s nostrils to create life in him.

See Genesis 2:7....

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Genesis recognizes this fact when it talks about God breathing into Adam’s nostrils to create life in him.

See Genesis 2:7....

Thats stupid. The creation of the first man from the dust of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that for the rest of us, life begins at conception.

You seem to post quite a few dumb posts here.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

in case i didn't make it clear, i'm not interested in legality, i'm interested in the moral flexibility of the viewpoint espoused by theHorn

TheGorn has no morals.


A Gorn (Star Trek)

 

[ok doser]

[MENTION=10712]The Horn[/MENTION]

Kit, no, she didn't "want to be born ". She had no consciousness and could not feel pain . No mind to enable her to "want to be born ". Consciousness does not develop until late in a pregnancy . Most anti-choicers don't seem to have brains either .

looks like you've dodged my question again - how about answering it?

based on your statement "Women MUST have control over their lives, their bodies, their health and their futures",

can you explain clearly and rationally why women should not be allowed by law to kill their newborns, their infants, their toddlers if they wish to?

 

[ok doser]

Kit, no, she didn't "want to be born ". She had no consciousness and could not feel pain . No mind to enable her to "want to be born ". Consciousness does not develop until late in a pregnancy .

so you're ok with murdering people who aren't conscious? :freak:

 

[aikido7]

Thats stupid. The creation of the first man from the dust of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that for the rest of us, life begins at conception.

You seem to post quite a few dumb posts here.

I fail to see how God’s acts of Creation are stupid.
God pronounced his creation “Good.” At least a couple of times, anyway.
You probably mean to say you are uncomfortable with some of what is exactly in Genesis.

Others feel vexed by the fact that in the first chapter of Genesis, Noah puts pairs of every animal--male and female--into the Ark while the second chapter asserts he put seven of each animal in the Ark at a time.

When you say “the rest of us, life begins at conception.”

That is inaccurate.

Today--right now--children are born unable to breathe on their own. I worked in a hosptial for 14 years and we used to call these tragic cases “blue babies” because suffocation turns their oxygen-depleted skin blue.

I agree totally that I too often make “dumb posts.” You were probably trying to communicate the fact that certain posts I make are irritating to you because they don’t make good sense.

I am unafraid to be accountable for this.

They embarrass me so it is just common sense to conclude that they might very well be inaccurate or incomplete.

 

[ok doser]

When you say “the rest of us, life begins at conception.”

yes, at conception the living sperm cell and the living egg cell combine to form a living zygote, which is alive, and being alive, is a form of life

 

[genuineoriginal]

Others feel vexed by the fact that in the first chapter of Genesis, Noah puts pairs of every animal--male and female--into the Ark while the second chapter asserts he put seven of each animal in the Ark at a time.

I have corrected you several times that the passage does not say seven of each animal, but the passage does say seven mated pairs of all the clean animals and two pairs of all the unclean animals.
That is 14 and 4, not 7 and 2.

Genesis 7:2 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.​

"by sevens, the male and his female" = seven mated pairs = 14 animals
"by two, the male and his female" = two mated pairs = 4 animals

 

[aikido7]

I have corrected you several times that the passage does not say seven of each animal, but the passage does say seven mated pairs of all the clean animals and two pairs of all the unclean animals.
That is 14 and 4, not 7 and 2.

Genesis 7:2 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.​

"by sevens, the male and his female" = seven mated pairs = 14 animals
"by two, the male and his female" = two mated pairs = 4 animals

Thank you for parsing the two chapters. I understand your opinion now. It is always more useful to respond to information you don’t agree with using objective means instead of name-calling, put-downs and sarcasm.

People think that the different passages mean that God is contradictory or confused and so our faith is in vain. But the texts are filled with disparate theologies, contradictory traditions, remembered history and oral tradition.

Clearly there are two traditions about the Ark. Rather than choosing one over the other, the scribe who edited the passages chose to include both of them. Maybe he did not want to offend both communities of believers.

The question easily resolves to “which version are we going to follow?”

Jesus says “No sign will be given” in Matthew and the other gospels, yet in Luke [as I remember] said the “Sign of Jonah” WILL be given.

John asserts Jesus died a full 24 hours before the other three gospels tell us.

The Bible also says David and Elhanan both killed Golaith. David’s act was probably legendary: most great men of the Bible were said to have performed legendary feats. So many historians think Elhanan was the one who killed him and then during David’s time, a legend was concocted that it was David himself.

Different theologies and traditions in the Bible tend to throw existential fits when confronted with obvious discrepancies. They feel moral panic because they actually believe Christianity as a whole is threatened.

 

[ok doser]

... Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens ...

it's what's for dinner :chew:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thank you for parsing the two chapters. I understand your opinion now.

Clearly there are two traditions about the Ark. Rather than choosing one over the other, the scribe who edited the passages chose to include both of them. Maybe he did not want to offend both communities of believers.

The fable about only two (one male and one female) of each animal is from a misinterpretation of the verses, but it has persisted for thousands of years.
The only way that the passage makes sense is to understand that it is referring to seven mated pairs (14) of clean and two mated pairs (4) of unclean animals (consisting of one male and one female per pair).

Genesis 7:9 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.​

The animals went into the ark pair by pair.
This is seven pairs of clean and two pairs of unclean.

 

[aikido7]

The fable about only two (one male and one female) of each animal is from a misinterpretation of the verses, but it has persisted for thousands of years.
The only way that the passage makes sense is to understand that it is referring to seven mated pairs (14) of clean and two mated pairs (4) of unclean animals (consisting of one male and one female per pair).

Genesis 7:9 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.​

The animals went into the ark pair by pair.
This is seven pairs of clean and two pairs of unclean.

Be careful. Many believers sometimes use all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain how two opposite theologies, traditions and legends can be “true” at the same time.

They force their opinions into a painful, Procrustian bed to make sure it comes out the way they want it. They abhor contradictions and disparaties. They really, actually think their presence in the Bible renders Christianity null and void.

When I once pointed out that Matthew describes the Sermon on the Mount yet Luke terms the preaching as having happened by describing it as the Sermon on the Plain.

The woman I was talking to immediately jumped in and said “Mountains have plains, too.”

In one chapter of Genesis [around Chapter 30, I think, it claims the founding of Shechem was achieved through a deceptive, brutal, and bloody attack. Dinah gets raped, all males of the city were ordered to cut off their own foreskins.
And her two brothers butcher everyone.

But in another spot, Genesis also says Israel gained the city through a large monetary purchase.

No violence. No slaughter. No rape.