Pregnancies from rape a "gift from God"?????

[BarlyGurl]

I object to the usage of the word "viable" in describing a pregnancy that is deemed one that could be terminated through abortion.

Object all you want jimmy ectopic is NEVER VIABLE... the tiny baby always DIES! Fallopian tubes are not designed to function as the uterus, the baby cannot develop, when it does... without surgical intervention... the mother's life is at risk. The idea that the baby will just grow and develop and be born from the fallopian tube is fantastical and an error. I am not throwing around "viable" as if it is open to free interpretation here... and it's kinda offensive that you are implying such.

 

[smithbr8]

REREAD my post... miscarriage means to "miss carry", get it???? A baby begins at conception, it can be miscarried from that point up to the moment of labor. As long as the baby is dependent on the mother for its development any subsequent death is a miscarriage... it's death. MURDER is an intentional KILLING. I am talking about the abortion context here... I don't think you are asking about the differences in killing animals, manslaughter, accident...etc.
Also to clarify the definition of abortion. I am discussing the "abortion procedure" meaning the intetonal method used to kill the baby and eject it from the WOMB. Sadly, now there are "pills" available to supposedly prevent the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine lining... since I do not waiver that life begins at conception... these pills are abortifacents, and quite frankly... so is the IUD and some birth-control pills.

Doesn't matter. Clearly the mother chose to miscarry because the body wouldn't naturally do that, it'd carry the baby full term and go through delivery. Same thing with complications. The mother should rejoice at the opportunity to die during childbirth since it's murder either way.

If life begins at conception, then ending the life of the baby in ANY way is murder. Otherwise, there has to be some grey area for abortions as well, such as in these instances where the mother's life is in danger. It's an all or nothing...

 

[jimmydiggs]

Object all you want jimmy ectopic is NEVER VIABLE... the tiny baby always DIES!

So, if you were pregnant and the doctor says, "this child is going to die two weeks before the due date, what would you like to do?"

Do you say: "Well, it's not viable, so let's terminate the pregnancy now while it is still alive because it will not make it to term."

Fallopian tubes are not designed to function as the uterus, the baby cannot develop, when it does... without surgical intervention...

I am aware of this. Thank you for the reminder.

the mother's life is at risk.

Do two wrongs make a right?

The idea that the baby will just grow and develop and be born from the fallopian tube is fantastical and an error.

I agree, and as far as I can tell I have not said anything to allude such.

I am not throwing around "viable" as if it is open to free interpretation here... and it's kinda offensive that you are implying such.[/COLOR]

I provided common English definitions. If you have another, please, submit one.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Doesn't matter. Clearly the mother chose to miscarry because the body wouldn't naturally do that, it'd carry the baby full term and go through delivery.

Admittedly, I have a limited knowledge regarding biology... I am rather certain that you are wrong here though...

In case you did not know this, Todd Akin was a political figure, not a religious authority of any sort.

The mother should rejoice at the opportunity to die during childbirth since it's murder either way.

In some cases I think obedience would lead to this.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

If life begins at conception, then ending the life of the baby in ANY way is murder.

No, because not all ending of life is murder or even sinful.

Otherwise, there has to be some grey area for abortions as well, such as in these instances where the mother's life is in danger.

There is one situation that I wouldn't know what to do. That would be with both will die.

It's an all or nothing...

No.

 

[BarlyGurl]

So, if you were pregnant and the doctor says, "this child is going to die two weeks before the due date, what would you like to do?" NOW YOU ARE JUST BEING A JERK AND WARPING THE CONTEXT!!! An ECTOPIC WOULD NEVER EVER EVER develop to TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE DUE DATE. I'll go ahead and WHACK this dead horse once more..." FALLOPIAN TUBES ARE NOT THE UTERUS....THEY CANNOT SUPPORT A PREGNANCY... THE WOMB IS REQIRED... ECTOPIC IS NOT A VIABLE PREGNANCY...THE BABY ALWAYS DIES...THE ECTOPIC CONDTION IS LiFE THREATENING TO THE MOTHER.

Do you say: "Well, it's not viable, so let's terminate the pregnancy now while it is still alive because it will not make it to term." SEE PREVIOUS POST... I think today you are demonstrating a reading comprehension problem yourself.




I provided common English definitions. If you have another, please, submit one.

OH... SO it isn't the situational ethics being discussed here... you really just want to argue semantics of debate!!! I decline, we are done here JIMMY...

 

[jimmydiggs]

OH... SO it isn't the situational ethics being discussed here... you really just want to argue semantics of debate!!

No, I am not simply after semantics. All I have done is taken the words you have used, and the principles you have claimed, and explained why I think they need to be tweaked.

One of my examples to explain it, you have dismissed.

If an ectopic pregnancy can be aborted because the child would never be brought to life, would not abortion be justified in any situation where the child will not be born alive? I am testing the principle you claim to hold. I am seeking to know if you are consistent.

Just as when you said "murder is an intentional killing", well, if all intentional killing is murder, you have condemned hunters, the military, many police officers, God, and anyone who has killed a fly.

ECTOPIC IS NOT A VIABLE PREGNANCY...THE BABY ALWAYS DIES...

So, any pregnancy where the child will not make it to term, is one in which it would be justified to abort the child, correct?

THE ECTOPIC CONDTION IS LiFE THREATENING TO THE MOTHER.

So, if a pregnancy is life threatening, the unborn child should be killed?

SEE PREVIOUS POST... I think today you are demonstrating a reading comprehension problem yourself.

Care to explain?

I decline, we are done here JIMMY...

Suit yourself.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Doesn't matter. Clearly the mother chose to miscarry because the body wouldn't naturally do that, it'd carry the baby full term and go through delivery. Same thing with complications. The mother should rejoice at the opportunity to die during childbirth since it's murder either way.

If life begins at conception, then ending the life of the baby in ANY way is murder. Otherwise, there has to be some grey area for abortions as well, such as in these instances where the mother's life is in danger. It's an all or nothing...

I am just going to assume your conclusions spring from youth and natural limitations.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I am just going to assume your conclusions spring from youth and natural limitations.

While I most certainly disagree with her conclusions, she has some valid points about many pro-life arguments.


Regardless of whether she is young or not.

 

[BarlyGurl]

No, I am not simply after semantics. All I have done is taken the words you have used, and the principles you have claimed, and explained why I think they need to be tweaked.

One of my examples to explain it, you have dismissed.

If an ectopic pregnancy can be aborted because the child would never be brought to life, would not abortion be justified in any situation where the child will not be born alive? I am testing the principle you claim to hold. I am seeking to know if you are consistent. 1) I never said that... I said an ectopic pregnancy always dies. The surgical procedure is not an abortion. Abortion is killing and taking a baby from the womb/uterus... and sometimes babies die in the womb too. It looks like I have a good opening to throw your warped conclusion back at you... for your use of "brought to life". 2) Test all you want, as previously stated... I am confident of my situational ethics in this area... but I am not going defend statements you claim I am making that I have NOT.

Just as when you said "murder is an intentional killing", well, if all intentional killing is murder, you have condemned hunters, the military, many police officers, God, and anyone who has killed a fly. I did previously admire you... but again here... you represent your LEAPING conclusion as mine... its not... and I specifically pointed that out. SO you can wrangle all the "IF THEN..." logic you want to all by yourself...since you made it up.


So, any pregnancy where the child will not make it to term, is one in which it would be justified to abort the child, correct? MY position is Absolutely NOT, but you are free to think whatever you want... even in error.


So, if a pregnancy is life threatening, the unborn child should be killed? I have concluded you are an idiot...



Care to explain? I did the best I could...



BYE

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

A lot of this arguing back and forth -- from people who are really on the same side of the issue -- made me think perhaps we need to take a step back and re-think this whole issue.

I will submit that abortion is "killing." It is the ending of something that was alive.

Obviously, scripture has lots of examples indicating that sometimes killing is necessary. God himself orders the killing of thousands of Israel's enemies, just as one example. Today, we understand that some killing is "the lesser of evils." Most Americans have no problem with the killing of animals for food or other products for human consumption; killing out of self defense or in times of war is accepted (though it is still a serious business).

I think abortion is always a sin, even when it is necessary (as in the case of an ectopic, which, despite Babygrl's insistence to the contrary, is an abortion according to its definition). The issue here is not whether it is a sin, but whether it should remain legal. Many of us here are arguing that it should remain legal, not because it isn't a sin, but despite the fact that it is a sin.

Lying is a sin. Shall we make lying illegal? Yes, there are some cases where lying is illegal: fraud, perjury, lying while under oath, etc. But there is no law against, for example, telling a fish story or a little white lie. These things are absolutely sin, but I don't want to see the US passing laws against white lies. Gosh, I wouldn't be able to tell my son, "That is the most beautiful picture I've ever seen."

Likewise, I understand making some restrictions on abortion, but it must remain legal, and the only ones who have a right to make that decision are the woman, her doctor, and her God.