ARCHIVE: Abortion is always murder

[Amazing_Grace]

There's a couple of things I have to disagree with. It is hard for me to say that the 40s or 50s were morally superior. Germans were killing off Jews, and we kind of sat on the sidelines and picked our nose. In fact, we even turned away Jews seeking asylum. We also looked the other way when there was lynchings, segregated blacks as much as possible, etc.

That being said, why is it that there are so many people that want to adopt and are unable to get children unless they wait several years? It would seem that if there were so many unwanted pregnancies, that there would be some ProLifers and ProChoicers that chose to give the child up. It seems like there is a baby shortage. Is that true?

I hadn't thought of those things when referring to that time period, Beanie. I was mostly thinking about how secure we felt as Americans, but those are all good points.

I don't know what you're getting at in your second part of your post. There is a baby shortage. It sounds as though you are implying that there aren't that many unwanted pregnancies, although the number of abortions performed would negate that fact. If abortion wasn't so convenient, more mothers would have to carry the child to term and then it could be put up for adoption, but with abortion being more available now that isn't the case for the most part. When you don't want a baby and you are faced with the decision to not have the baby or go through nine months of pregnancy which includes physical and emotional pain, and then go through the pain of childbirth and giving the baby away, which do you think you are going to choose?

Don't think I'm saying I like the choice often made, but I can see why it is.

 

[beanieboy]

A_G -
I wasn't implying that there aren't that many unwanted pregnancies. To the contrary, I was questioning why there were simultaneously so many abortions performed and a baby need. While someone could argue about whether or not women should have the choice, it seems like if you have are pregnant but don't want a baby, and someone wants to adopt, that carrying it to term makes more sense, from a logical point of view.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If you want an infant baby you are going to have to go to another country to get one.

 

[Amazing_Grace]

A_G -
I wasn't implying that there aren't that many unwanted pregnancies. To the contrary, I was questioning why there were simultaneously so many abortions performed and a baby need. While someone could argue about whether or not women should have the choice, it seems like if you have are pregnant but don't want a baby, and someone wants to adopt, that carrying it to term makes more sense, from a logical point of view.

It seems logical to me, too, but most women don't want to carry a baby for nine months that they don't want, and then deal with the pain of giving that baby away. It seems easier to them at the time to just end the pregnancy and go on with their lives. What I don't think they realize is the trauma that goes along with having an abortion. Unfortunately you can't really know about that until it's too late.

 

[firechyld]

Knight.... I don't think you answered me about the contraceptive pill issue. I'm honestly curious as to why anyone would clasify it as an "abortifacent".

firechyld

 

[firechyld]

A question has just occured to me for all those who stand by the "children should be carried to term and put up for adoption instead of being aborted" school of thought...

I'm curious what your views in relation to adoption criterea... do you believe that adoption should be limited to nuclear family units? Should gay and lesbian couple be allowed to adopt or prevented from adopting? Single mothers? Single fathers? Polyamorous family units?

firechyld

 

[Elena Marie]

Knight.... I don't think you answered me about the contraceptive pill issue. I'm honestly curious as to why anyone would clasify it as an "abortifacent".

firechyld

Hi firechyld--

The Pill is considered a potential abortifacent because one of its functions is the interruption of normal endometrial growth with the intent of preventing the implantation of the human blastocyst. Because it is an artificial attempt at interrupting the natural progression of conception, it is an abortifacent.

 

[Zakath]

Elena Marie,

You wrote:

The Pill is considered a potential abortifacent because one of its functions is the interruption of normal endometrial growth with the intent of preventing the implantation of the human blastocyst. Because it is an artificial attempt at interrupting the natural progression of conception, it is an abortifacent.

In that case, since sports like marathon running interfere with the ebb and flow of endometrial tissue and implantation of ova, are these sports considered to be unacceptable for "real Chrisitans"?

 

[Elena Marie]

Hi Zakath--

Unless one is running a marathon with the intent of not getting pregnant, the answer would be no. Furthermore, while intense physical training may in some individuals interfere with the normal progression of conception, most athletes are capable of becoming pregnant.

 

[KurtPh]

So, if a couple have sex using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy, then this would be a horrible sin?

 

[KurtPh]

I must be having a brain freeze, but what are you referring to in your first statement? Did I say something racist? I sure hope not!

Oh, not at all! Sorry I left you with that impression. No, what I was refering to was the social and political climate of the 1940s and 50s.

 

[KurtPh]

If you want an infant baby you are going to have to go to another country to get one.

When those people start adopting children older than the age of 2 en mass, then you might have a case.

 

[Zakath]

Hi Zakath--

Unless one is running a marathon with the intent of not getting pregnant, the answer would be no. Furthermore, while intense physical training may in some individuals interfere with the normal progression of conception, most athletes are capable of becoming pregnant.

In the U.S. birth control pills are not infrequently perscribed these days for treatment of certain types of acne. (I'm really serious.) Do you know what the RCC's view is on medical use of something with abortifacient side effects?

 

[Elena Marie]

So, if a couple have sex using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy, then this would be a horrible sin?

Okay, so I should have said, "interrupt the normal progression of conception." No, the rhythm method is not a sin--avoiding copulation altogether is not sinful, for that matter. But copulating and then interrupting the development of a resulting human is a sin.

 

[Elena Marie]

In the U.S. birth control pills are not infrequently perscribed these days for treatment of certain types of acne. (I'm really serious.) Do you know what the RCC's view is on medical use of something with abortifacient side effects?

To the best of my knowledge, the Church's position is this: if a medication is necessary for the health of the woman taking it, and the woman is not taking it for the sole purpose of avoiding the consequences of copulation, then it is permissible. Although I don't know that a clear complexion counts as necessary for health . . ..

But in another example, some women must take BCPs to control extraordinarily bad menstrual cycles. In that event--and to the best of my knowledge--taking the drug is permissible.

IMO, it hinges on the reason for taking the drug. If one is taking the pill to control or moderate severe menstrual cycles, that's one thing. Taking the drug so you can have sex whenever you feel like it with whomever you feel like without fear of consequences is another issue altogether.

I'll do some checking on the Church's stance regarding BCPs prescribed for medical conditions.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

Hi firechyld--

The Pill is considered a potential abortifacent because one of its functions is the interruption of normal endometrial growth with the intent of preventing the implantation of the human blastocyst. Because it is an artificial attempt at interrupting the natural progression of conception, it is an abortifacent.

Under that definition, then condoms would be part of those disallowed and executable items. Yet knight and Jefferson both say they aren't included. So your reasoning is either faulty, or theirs is.

 

[Zakath]

HSG,

Good to read your posts again!

To me that would indicate that the area in discussion is probably not a moral one but one of social practice or preference. I think the issue you raise is that different churches have differing rules about such things.

Most religions tend to think similarly along basic moral lines. It is the areas of practice in which they differ so tremendously.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

To the best of my knowledge, the Church's position is this: if a medication is necessary for the health of the woman taking it, and the woman is not taking it for the sole purpose of avoiding the consequences of copulation, then it is permissible. Although I don't know that a clear complexion counts as necessary for health . . ..

But in another example, some women must take BCPs to control extraordinarily bad menstrual cycles. In that event--and to the best of my knowledge--taking the drug is permissible.

IMO, it hinges on the reason for taking the drug. If one is taking the pill to control or moderate severe menstrual cycles, that's one thing. Taking the drug so you can have sex whenever you feel like it with whomever you feel like without fear of consequences is another issue altogether.

I'll do some checking on the Church's stance regarding BCPs prescribed for medical conditions.

Again incorrect. The very wording of Day 1 makes the possession or the sales of these items executional punishment. Before defending a church belief, you need to get to KNOW that churches belief.

The rules stated in Day 1 does NOT leave any grey area of "unless the woman/man has this disease. It is perfectly clear.

"Any manufacturer, provider, or advocate of, or anyone procuring, conspiring or attempting to procure, any abortifacient (such as RU 486, the IUD, or any birth control pill which also acts as an abortifacient) from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed." Do not make exuses to make their form of religion more tolerable. I just is NOT there.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

HSG can you not see the difference?

1. An abortificant (IUD, RU 486 etc.) terminates a fertilized egg in one way or another.

2. A condom DOES NOT terminate a fertilized egg. It simply prevents a egg from becoming fertilized in the first place.

Please (for the moment ) just tell me if you can see the difference between the two items listed above.

 

[Elena Marie]

HSG--

The rules stated in Day 1 does NOT leave any grey area of "unless the woman/man has this disease. It is perfectly clear.

"Any manufacturer, provider, or advocate of, or anyone procuring, conspiring or attempting to procure, any abortifacient (such as RU 486, the IUD, or any birth control pill which also acts as an abortifacient) from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed." Do not make exuses to make their form of religion more tolerable. I just is NOT there.

What church are you talking about? The Roman Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, and I have said nothing that infringes upon the beliefs of my church, neither to make it more "tolerable" to you nor out of blatant disregard for its teachings.