Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But... why are women's lives given so low a status?
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:This is, at least, intellectually consistent with the stated pro-life* position (as well as the Roman Catholic concept of "double effect").
El Salvador’s highest court on Wednesday denied an appeal from a woman with a high-risk pregnancy to be allowed to undergo an abortion, upholding the country’s strict law banning abortion under any circumstances.
Beatriz, a 22-year-old woman who asked that her last name be withheld to protect her identity, has lupus and related complications that doctors say will get worse as the pregnancy, which is in its 26th week, continues, possibly leading to serious illness or even death.
Her fetus, which has anencephaly, a severe birth defect in which parts of the brain and skull are missing, has almost no chance of surviving after birth, leading her doctors to urge an abortion to protect Beatriz’s health before it deteriorates further.
But in a 4-to-1 ruling, the court cited the country’s legal “absolute impediment to authorize the practice of abortion,” and ruled that “the rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those” of the fetus.
The court recognized that Beatriz has lupus, but it said that her disease was currently under control and that the threat to her life “is not actual or imminent, but rather eventual.”
quote:Beatriz now has permanent kidney damage and is progressing towards full kidney failure...
The two leaders also talked about the church's work in fostering peace and reconciliation; providing education and charity, and in fighting poverty and organized crime. The defense of human life, marriage and the family was also discussed.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Well, it's approximately accurate. There are obvious difficulties in counting the number of abortions in nations where abortion carries criminal penalties and is only available on the black market. The numbers for those countries represent a best estimate based on available medical data.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The other thing that amazed me in these reports is that the WHO is producing stats, that abortions in countries which ban them, or tightly restrict them, are higher than in those countries which are less strict. If I am reading this correctly, abortions in S. America run at 32 per 1000 child-bearing women, but in Europe at 12. Is this really accurate? If it is, it shows the insanity of banning abortion.
Of course, there may be confounds - I mean that there may be other reasons that abortions run higher in one area, e.g. lack of contraception, or just ignorance.
quote:Amazing it may be, but it has been true in many places for a long time, and is more evidence that the "pro-life" movement has nothing to do with life. When abortion is safe and legal, it becomes more rare. What's really amazing is that it is seldom noted that this actual, real-world pro-life trend is accomplished by the very simple notion of women making their own medical decisions. That's what the "pro-lifers" really oppose.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The other thing that amazed me in these reports is that the WHO is producing stats, that abortions in countries which ban them, or tightly restrict them, are higher than in those countries which are less strict. ...
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But... why are women's lives given so low a status?
quote:Not certain about this. I think when education is more prevalent and when women/girls are given more power to choose and be, that abortion rates lower. These factors do generally coincide, though.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When abortion is safe and legal, it becomes more rare.
quote:Wikipedia:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Not certain about this. I think when education is more prevalent and when women/girls are given more power to choose and be, that abortion rates lower. These factors do generally coincide, though.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When abortion is safe and legal, it becomes more rare.
quote:The variation in abortion rates in different provinces is not closely related to the variation in "regulations and accessibility". Quebec's rate is much higher than other provinces, for instance. But the general rate across Canada is lower than the US, for instance, by about 20%. Canada has a similar rate to western Europe (socialised medicine does that) and a far lower rate than that in poorer and/or more religiously-dominated countries
Abortion in Canada is not limited by criminal law but by the Canada Health Act.[1] While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.[2][3] Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.[4]
quote:Most of those don't really have anything to do with the sanctity of life..
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in from "Formerly Fundie", describing "10 Things You Can't Do, and Still Call Yourself Pro-Life"
Doesn't actually mention deliberately withholding education or birth control, but it covers all the bases (including those two by implication)
Pretty well cuts out all of the vocal anti-abortionists...
if they could be persuaded to hear these arguments.
I have these winged pigs, you see.
quote:Which woman? Or perhaps her child is a son. Does the article even say?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But... why are women's lives given so low a status?
quote:If you divorce "sanctity of life" from, say, starving to death.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Most of those don't really have anything to do with the sanctity of life..
quote:Ten points, of which:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If you divorce "sanctity of life" from, say, starving to death.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Most of those don't really have anything to do with the sanctity of life..
quote:The truth is that many "pro-lifers" have a deep problem with abortion on demand for lifestyle or economic reasons, and have convinced themselves that the majority of women - not them, you know, other women - are getting abortions just because they don't feel like having a kid. When these same "pro-lifers" have legitimate medical reasons for terminations - as do many women of course - they don't see it as a problem.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
quote:Is that the same way that pro-lifers overlook the Just Abortion theory, and the commonsense notion of aborting a foetus to protect the mother?
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
#1. Overlooks Just War Theory, and the commonsense notion of fighting to protect the innocent which is compatible with a Pro-Life ethos.
quote:...because a combatant in war is equivalent to the unborn (and unbaptised) in the mother's womb?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Is that the same way that pro-lifers overlook the Just Abortion theory, and the commonsense notion of aborting a foetus to protect the mother?
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
#1. Overlooks Just War Theory, and the commonsense notion of fighting to protect the innocent which is compatible with a Pro-Life ethos.
I'm no fan of abortion, but sometimes it can be the least worst option: also, I'm not going to lay down any blanket proscriptions as to the situations in which the least worst option is abortion.
quote:Yet.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Indeed, no. Only one of them is capable of shooting/bayoneting someone.
quote:That's a really effective pro-life law they've got
Suicide was the most common cause of death in 2011 among 10-to-19-year-old girls, half of whom were pregnant, according to Health Ministry figures.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Hmmm, I wonder if ex-husband has ever worn a condom or masturbated. Or been kicked in the nuts.
above article
Court transcripts reveal that [ex-husband] has argued — and Judge [name] has agreed — that the abortion speaks to [ex-wife's] credibility. First, [ex-husband] says [ex-wife] was dishonest because she claimed to be Catholic but had an abortion.
quote:Sorry to be so long responding. Scrolling down the pages, I found "10 Things"
Originally posted by HCH:
I am unable to find the list of "10 Things" HB's link takes me to "Formerly Fundie", but I don't see it there.
quote:where the asterisk indicates "offer expires at birth"
This supports the contention by pro-choice supporters that efforts by pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus end at birth.
quote:This is typical. The angriest, craziest, least-compomisingest get treated as if they're the only. It's why some Christians have stopped calling themselves "Christians." The word has become twisted in the media to mean a narrow subslice of the far right.
Originally posted by Penny S:
In the comments under the Michigan story I noted one which spoke about Christian beliefs as though all Christian beliefs about the case could be expected to be identical. When they were clearly not. It doesn't help evangelical outreach much.
The poster didn't even use "all", just implied it.
quote:Hmm. Not convinced. It's my understanding that ectopic "pregnancies" are never viable - it's not a pregnancy, it's a tragic accident. I've never been at all sure why they're *ever* included in the arguments of the so-called pro-life brigade.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
quote:I have never been able to get my head around these cases, of which there have been several. Even if she *is* young enough and foolish enough to make a decision she later regrets, there's no WAY that's going to make the difference to her psyche or life that being a mother would. There's no coming back from having HAD AN ACTUAL CHILD.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Because Nebraska requires parental consent, and because she is in foster care, the state - well, actually a group of judges - gets to decide for her. And they decided, in their great wisdom, that she is not mature enough to make life-or-death decisions about her own body, but she is mature enough to have custody and responsibility for a baby imposed upon her.
quote:If you define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization, then it is by definition a pregnancy. Most pro-life types define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization. Ask them.
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
quote:Hmm. Not convinced. It's my understanding that ectopic "pregnancies" are never viable - it's not a pregnancy, it's a tragic accident. I've never been at all sure why they're *ever* included in the arguments of the so-called pro-life brigade.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
quote:Most doctors too, to be fair. It is the only place to draw the line.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If you define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization, then it is by definition a pregnancy. Most pro-life types define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization. Ask them.
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
quote:Hmm. Not convinced. It's my understanding that ectopic "pregnancies" are never viable - it's not a pregnancy, it's a tragic accident. I've never been at all sure why they're *ever* included in the arguments of the so-called pro-life brigade.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
quote:Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Implantation is a far more obvious point than fertilization. Fully half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. Relatively few implanted eggs are spontaneously aborted. If you define life as beginning with fertilization, God is a murderer on a grand scale.
There's also the question of hypocrisy. If life begins at fertilization and half of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, where is the hue and cry from the so-called pro-lifers for research into diagnosing and stopping this gruesome and life-robbing phenomenon? Clearly they do not really think life begins at fertilization, or have given no thought to the practical outworkings of that belief.
Actually now that I think about it, "giving no thought" is a not uncommon attribute of pro-lifers in many areas. They give no thought to the feelings and predicaments of the women going into Planned Parenthood clinics that they scream at and bodily threaten, for instance. Or indeed to the fact that there are other reasons to go to a PP clinic than getting an abortion. And that there are other reasons to use birth control pills than to prevent pregnancy.
There is a huge contingent of so-called prolifers in this country who don't give much thought. It's a problem.
quote:This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
quote:Not really. Pregnancy (as opposed to "life") is held to begin at implantation by most in the medical community. Using fertilization as a standard creates some interesting twists in certain modern reproductive methods. For instance, if pregnancy begins at fertilization, then who exactly becomes "pregnant" when an egg is fertilized in vitro? The genetic mother? The petri dish? If the egg is frozen, is the genetic mother still considered "pregnant", even if the "pregnancy" stretches on for several years? What if the egg is implanted in a surrogate mother? Do we still hold that the genetic mother is the one who is "pregnant", despite the fœtus being gestated inside another woman (who is not considered "pregnant")?
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:Most doctors too, to be fair. It is the only place to draw the line.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization, then it is by definition a pregnancy. Most pro-life types define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization. Ask them.
quote:The Catholic Church?
Originally posted by L'organist:
What is it with these people?
quote:No it doesn't! Odds are that I will die naturally and In due course, and not be killed by anyone (let alone my own mother). That doesnt devalue my life, it just makes my life not relevant to discussions about the morality of taking life.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
quote:I should think the most appropriate first instinct would be to pray for all those concerned.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
OK, I-88, let's try this question: A 9-year-old was impregnated (by her stepfather, if that matters), and started a set of twins. The simple act of attempting to deliver would almost certainly kill her, even if she survived carrying the twins.
Does your morality run to ensuring three deaths or two?
Or does your morality insist that, because she carried the Mark of Eve, she should be punished for her many-times-great ancestors once ate an apple, regardless of any other circumstance?
(This case was discussed on the Ship not many years ago, FWIW)
quote:To recap this is a nine year old pregnant with twins.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
You frame the mother's death in childbirth as almost certain without saying why.
quote:Attitudes toward spontaneous abortion are relevant in a thread about attitudes toward elective abortion, surely.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:No it doesn't! Odds are that I will die naturally and In due course, and not be killed by anyone (let alone my own mother). That doesnt devalue my life, it just makes my life not relevant to discussions about the morality of taking life.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
quote:In so far as attitudes toward accidental or natural death is relevant to attitudes toward killing people, you are necessarily correct. I'm not sure how great a relevance exists though.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Attitudes toward spontaneous abortion are relevant in a thread about attitudes toward elective abortion, surely.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:No it doesn't! Odds are that I will die naturally and In due course, and not be killed by anyone (let alone my own mother). That doesnt devalue my life, it just makes my life not relevant to discussions about the morality of taking life.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
quote:I'm sceptical, do you have the evidence? I'm not really comfortable quibbling when it's such a sensitive matter, but the above doesn't seem right somehow.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I88: the stated position of the doctors, in a country where all abortion is illegal, due to RC teachings, was that an abortion was the only way to save the life of the child (the 9-y.o.). The death of the twins was almost certain, given that the mother was simply not mature enough to carry them past a certain point.
Oh, and the abortion happened and even the 9-y.o. child was excommunicated, not to mention the doctors and other workers involved. The child was, in the end, allowed back in to the church, only after some pretty vigorous protest and publicity.
But you will retreat into obfuscation rather than deal with the issue, so carry on, enjoy your refusal.
quote:In the light of scripture and tradition, your perfectly rational assessment of the figures is clarified as perfect psychopathy.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The relevance is that if you take life beginning at fertilisation:
- an estimated 40%-70% of all embryos are spontaneously aborted before implantation,
- another 1-2.5% implant in ways that mean that pregnancy cannot go to term (ectopic pregnancy, mole pregnancies);
- another percentage (for women who know they are pregnant the figure quoted in the UK is 1 in 7) are spontaneously aborted after implantation (miscarriages).
As another aside - apparently if a heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks gestation there is 78% chance that that baby will be carried to term. Which says that 22% of all babies will not. I assume this figure is greater than the 1 in 7 quoted above as not everyone will realise they are pregnant at 6 weeks gestation.
When so many fertilised embryos are not implanted and/or are spontaneously aborted, I actually don't have a huge problem with the 79% of terminations carried out under 10 weeks gestation and 91% of terminations carried out before 13 weeks gestation.
quote:Six I think, maybe younger. Peruvian girl I think, and others up from that record up to nine and ten. Look It up if you're interested. It's not a nice topic though as conception that young is usually the result of incest or rape or both. Horrible.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Much younger than nine? That "much" would, presumably mean younger than eight? Where? When? What happened to the health of all involved? Who was responsible for what was, presumably, a non-consensual process leading to conception?
Children of nine do not have pelvises developed enough to bear the weight of a developing baby. Younger than nine? Have you looked at nine-year-olds at all?
Do you think this is OK? That as soon as a child goes through the menarche it is OK to have sex with her and push her into child-bearing? Occasionally a girl will have early onset menarche - I knew of one while I was teaching. She developed breast tissue and body hair, but she still had the stature of a nine year old child. Making her pregnant would have been abuse, and compelling her to bear a child to full term worse.
Female humans are not just for gestation. Female children deserve to live through their childhoods without that being imposed on them.
quote:Nor should the millions of babies, mostly girls, killed In the womb. We're not in the game of utopias here, just the business of trying to do God's will and respect His creations.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I really don't see that this is a situation which should be held up as a model for what should happen.
quote:Well, in situations of abuse the very easy and relatively safe abortions in developed and pro-abortion countries often functions as a way of hiding the evidence of abuse. Some women have been forced into multiple abortions to keep an abusive relationship hidden, for example.
Originally posted by Penny S:
One wonders just how many more children have been saved from this situation by being in places where the pregnancy going to full term would have been prevented. Why are there men who do this horrid thing?
quote:It's the attitude towards death. If some deaths are ignored or passed over, and some made a big deal of, that may say something about what's really at issue with the ones made a big deal of. We do not know why 50% of fertilized ova spontaneously abort. If we did, we might prevent them, or at least some of them, from doing so. If one really and truly thought that life began at fertilization, one might be expected to have some curiosity, if not desire to prevent, concerning these spontaneous abortions. If they really are deaths.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In so far as attitudes toward accidental or natural death is relevant to attitudes toward killing people, you are necessarily correct. I'm not sure how great a relevance exists though.
quote:Go back 30 or more years and if a woman had had a number of miscarriages the procedure was to insert sutures (so-called Shirodkar stitch) into the cervix when next she became pregnant to stop spontaneous abortion.
We do not know why 50% of fertilized ova spontaneously abort. If we did, we might prevent them, or at least some of them, from doing so. If one really and truly thought that life began at fertilization, one might be expected to have some curiosity, if not desire to prevent, concerning these spontaneous abortions. If they really are deaths.
quote:Have any aged 9 or under given birth to twins? There's none in the Wikipedia list. Twin pregnancies carry more risk than single pregnancies.
Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
quote:I don't know, maybe.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Invictus 88:
quote:Have any aged 9 or under given birth to twins? There's none in the Wikipedia list. Twin pregnancies carry more risk than single pregnancies.
Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
quote:The girl was readmitted to the church, on the grounds (amazingly!) that the situation was out of her control. So, why excommunicate her in the first place?
It seems strange that there would have to be any public protest to overturn the latae sententiae excommunication, because such excommunication is resolved by private confession and penance, not by public lobbying. Either way, it sounds like these people were readmitted to the sacraments, whoch is good to hear.
quote:
The Doctors of WHO say: “Improvements in breastfeeding could prevent the deaths of 800,000 young children every year. It is the most effective strategy we have to protect babies’ lives.”
Meanwhile, the director of the anti-abortion group Personhood Ohio is campaigning for a law making the public exposure of breasts a crime because exposed breasts are “an offense to God” and “an offense to the public morality.”
You read stuff like that and you might almost start to think that maybe these anti-abortion guys are actually more interested in policing female sexuality than in actually protecting “life” …
quote:I have been away from the Ship for months due to having been attacked OTJ with a long recovery afterward, still in progress.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Six I think, maybe younger. Peruvian girl I think, and others up from that record up to nine and ten. Look It up if you're interested. It's not a nice topic though as conception that young is usually the result of incest or rape or both. Horrible.
Anyway, you're asking inappropriate questions about sex with children now. OF COURSE it's not ok to have sex with children, why even ask?
All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian, and that abortion is not a salve for rape.
quote:Yikes!! Hugs and prayers for what it is worth.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I have been away from the Ship for months due to having been attacked OTJ with a long recovery afterward, still in progress.
quote:If they are not human beings at that stage, then well and good.
If "killing in the womb" is not Christian, then how should we handle all the pre-born death CK mentions in statistical form above? Are these embryos committing suicide -- and if so, isn't suicide a sin?
Are these embryos being murdered? If so, by whom?
quote:Well, duh.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
...maybe these anti-abortion guys are actually more interested in policing female sexuality than in actually protecting “life” …
quote:But if you believe that the child in the womb is made in the image of God also, then why should its life be deliberately terminated due to anothers sin? That child has committed no sin either. That's the root of the whole objection to abortion, even in such cases.
Originally posted by Porridge:
And as to this -- "abortion is not a salve for rape" -- who here has suggested that it is? An abortion does nothing to remove or even lessen the trauma of rape. Abortion obviates the necessity of a woman -- or in the case under discussion, a female child -- from spending 9 months of her life (that is, one-tenth of a 9-y.o.'s entire existence) gestating her attacker's offspring.
quote:Turning that sentence round, in the light of real world evidence, scripture and tradition turn out to be a terrible moral foundation.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In the light of scripture and tradition, your perfectly rational assessment of the figures is clarified as perfect psychopathy.
quote:Precisely. Let's note especially the "being" aspect of that phrase. I'm recalling dimly a long-ago high school biology class, where 'life' has various properties: some form of respiration, reproductive capacity, locomotion (? maybe ?) and I don't remember the rest. Does a biological product which is incapable of existing independently of the maternal body really qualify? Which of the two most intimately involved -- nubile human female or zygote-embryo-fetus attached to her uterine wall -- is actually performing the life functions here?
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If they are human beings at that stage,
quote:There's nothing certain in medicine, as you well know. There is nothing uncertain about the RISKS of being pregnant and giving birth at the age of 9. Trivializing a little girl's life and health by calling these very real risks "alleged" AFTER accusing another poster of psychopathy makes for a nice set of black cooking utensils.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:I don't know, maybe.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Invictus 88:
quote:Have any aged 9 or under given birth to twins? There's none in the Wikipedia list. Twin pregnancies carry more risk than single pregnancies.
Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
I know twins are a relatively greater risk, I just wondered if there were other factors involved for there to have (allegedly) been a near certainty of maternal death.
quote:And that's an interesting exclusion, given that there are soooo many Christian justifications and examples of killing outside the womb. The death penalty is acceptable to many Christians. War is acceptable to the vast majority of Christians (just look at the pounding pacifists take on these boards). Christians have killed people for heresy, witchcraft, demonic possession, etc. Christians murdered millions of indigenous peoples around the world. Christians invented the blood libel and the pogrom. A Christian can say, "Kill them all, God will choose His own" and still become a saint.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
... All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian ...
quote:Apart from the Inquisition end of the spectrum, a key difference between killing in war and executing criminals, and abortion, is that in wartime it is self-defense, and in execution it is killing people who (in theory) are not innocent and deserve it. The whole idea of abortion being a sin is that it is killing an innocent human being.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And that's an interesting exclusion, given that there are soooo many Christian justifications and examples of killing outside the womb. The death penalty is acceptable to many Christians. War is acceptable to the vast majority of Christians (just look at the pounding pacifists take on these boards).
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
... All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian ...
quote:So if one believes we are all born in sin and deserve Hell, abortion should be no problem.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Apart from the Inquisition end of the spectrum, a key difference between killing in war and executing criminals, and abortion, is that in wartime it is self-defense, and in execution it is killing people who (in theory) are not innocent and deserve it. The whole idea of abortion being a sin is that it is killing an innocent human being.
(My own position is over on the "Different Take on Abortion" thread, but I thought I'd point that out.)
