Is there a difference.....

[Seeker47]

This is a link to an AP article stating that abortions are up since Roe-Wade as overturned.

https://www.breitbart.com/news/abor...icated-picture-as-women-turn-to-pills-travel/

The kindest thing I can say about this article is that it is highly one-sided and biased. It's factuality is questionable. I will leave my criticism at that!

My question, in God's eyes is there a difference between nationally supported and approved abortions, and abortions supported by States?

 

[homwardbound]

This is a link to an AP article stating that abortions are up since Roe-Wade as overturned.

https://www.breitbart.com/news/abor...icated-picture-as-women-turn-to-pills-travel/

The kindest thing I can say about this article is that it is highly one-sided and biased. It's factuality is questionable. I will leave my criticism at that!

My question, in God's eyes is there a difference between nationally supported and approved abortions, and abortions supported by States?

From Father's view, not wanting or desiring for anyone to die. God is true life for me and all. the abortions, all of them. there is a reunion for the Mothers, Father, friends that either chose to do it or not
that is how good God is to me anyways
I never know how, I do know somehow, someway, Father will come through it all. However my daddy chooses is righteous and each and every person knows this too
Romans 8:15-16

 

[Dino246]

This is a link to an AP article stating that abortions are up since Roe-Wade as overturned.

https://www.breitbart.com/news/abor...icated-picture-as-women-turn-to-pills-travel/

The kindest thing I can say about this article is that it is highly one-sided and biased. It's factuality is questionable. I will leave my criticism at that!

My question, in God's eyes is there a difference between nationally supported and approved abortions, and abortions supported by States?

To your question, no. Murder is murder, whether the government sanctions it or not. The "level" of government doing the sanctioning doesn't matter.

 

[GWH]

And so the question becomes, "How will it be possible to eliminate abortions in every state?"

 

[Eli1]

And so the question becomes, "How will it be possible to eliminate abortions in every state?"

I would say very similar to gun reform major. Very slowly, with baby steps despite all the (almost) monthly school shootings.

 

[GWH]

I would say very similar to gun reform major. Very slowly, with baby steps despite all the (almost) monthly school shootings.

Pun intended?

What should the fetal steps be?

 

[Eli1]

What should the fetal steps be?

I agree with your idea of what you shared earlier and you don't have to convince me that abortion is murder.
The question is how to approach liberals to convince them that abortion is murder or how to approach all the gun enthusiasts that guns take lives easier than knives or even your hands.

 

[GWH]

I agree with your idea of what you shared earlier and you don't have to convince me that abortion is murder.
The question is how to approach liberals to convince them that abortion is murder or how to approach all the gun enthusiasts that guns take lives easier than knives or even your hands.

May I suggest the steps to eliminating abortion based on my own experience:

At the age of 25 I thought "pro choice" sounded good, because I had never learned about fetal development. However, at that point I was confronted with two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb. This led me to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding.

And so I to considered the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.

Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”. How will this happen? By confronting everyone with the two photos that prompted my conversion, beginning in high school. This is the fetal step.

What should be the next step?

 

[Eli1]

What should be the next step?

Try to approach a liberal at an abortion clinic and ask them this question.
Because again, there is no confusion for me that the difference of a 7 months old baby in the womb or outside of it is the mode of breathing because both my twin kids were born premature 7 months old.

 

[GWH]

Try to approach a liberal at an abortion clinic and ask them this question.
Because again, there is no confusion for me that the difference of a 7 months old baby in the womb or outside of it is the mode of breathing because both my twin kids were born premature 7 months old.

Good deal, a twofer!

So, contemplating the nest step we would ask, "Are there any changes between conception and viability that might more reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality than viability?

There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life.

If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists“.

How might we achieve this step?

 

[Seeker47]

Let me clarify.....

God made it very clear that convenience abortion, sacrificing a child for the supposed promise of fertility, is a most heinous crime to Him. So much so that He commanded death to those who practice this abomination. He goes even further. In Deuteronomy, He states He will turn his back on those who allow this practice, even if they do not themselves commit the offense.

Has his wrath shifted? Can this be an act of atonement by the nation and a very grave risk for the states? This is not an academic question, the potential consequences could be staggering.

 

[Eli1]

How might we achieve this step?

I agree with you again but as i mentioned try asking a liberal about these finer details about human life.
You're a flexible guy right?
If the same methodology is applied to weapons, such as the rate of fire or the size of the caliber, you're very flexible and receptive of their criticism right?

 

[GWH]

I agree with you again but as i mentioned try asking a liberal about these finer details about human life.
You're a flexible guy right?
If the same methodology is applied to weapons, such as the rate of fire or the size of the caliber, you're very flexible and receptive of their criticism right?

Do you think the question regarding weapons was meaningful? If I said "yes" what would be your take away; but if I said "no" what would your understanding be?

Let me clarify.....

God made it very clear that convenience abortion, sacrificing a child for the supposed promise of fertility, is a most heinous crime to Him. So much so that He commanded death to those who practice this abomination. He goes even further. In Deuteronomy, He states He will turn his back on those who allow this practice, even if they do not themselves commit the offense.

Has his wrath shifted? Can this be an act of atonement by the nation and a very grave risk for the states? This is not an academic question, the potential consequences could be staggering.

Yes, and the actual consequences are already staggering, so we are devising a plan to solve the problem. I guess you saw my presentation of the first step and how to achieve it. Do you have an answer for how to achieve the second step?

 

[Eli1]

Do you think the question regarding weapons was meaningful? If I said "yes" what would be your take away; but if I said "no" what would your understanding be?

The point here major is learning or try to learn on how to talk to different people in different audiences while also correcting yourself.
I have mentioned Paul several times in Greece on how he was able to change hearts.
So if you go to an abortion clinic trying to hit people with a Bible (figuratively by judging them or being hard on them) not only you're not gonna change any minds but you might even push them further by spreading your approach and message to their friends as another 'crazy Christian' from their point of view.

So, learn and adapt major.
We all know that abortion is murder ( i hope we all do ) but how you talk to a liberal at an abortion clinic who doesn't know, is the hard part.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

The point here major is learning or try to learn on how to talk to different people in different audiences while also correcting yourself.
I have mentioned Paul several times in Greece on how he was able to change hearts.
So if you go to an abortion clinic trying to hit people with a Bible (figuratively by judging them or being hard on them) not only you're not gonna change any minds but you might even push them further by spreading your approach and message to their friends as another 'crazy Christian' from their point of view.

So, learn and adapt major.
We all know that abortion is murder ( i hope we all do ) but how you talk to a liberal at an abortion clinic who doesn't know, is the hard part.

I came upon a site some time ago and it makes very good secular arguments against abortion. I have kept the important facts and figures in my mind to present when a discussion starts. Now this only works on those who will actually engage that way. It doesn't work for nut bag crazy activists. I usually start with this question, " There have been over 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade, that's more than the population of Canada, can you justify that?

 

[GWH]

The point here major is learning or try to learn on how to talk to different people in different audiences while also correcting yourself.
I have mentioned Paul several times in Greece on how he was able to change hearts.
So if you go to an abortion clinic trying to hit people with a Bible (figuratively by judging them or being hard on them) not only you're not gonna change any minds but you might even push them further by spreading your approach and message to their friends as another 'crazy Christian' from their point of view.

So, learn and adapt major.
We all know that abortion is murder ( i hope we all do ) but how you talk to a liberal at an abortion clinic who doesn't know, is the hard part.

Re "So if you go to an abortion clinic trying to hit people with a Bible (figuratively by judging them or being hard on them) not only you're not gonna change any minds": Yes, which is why that is not the step I suggested. Do you have any idea what I said it was or did it fly right over that Albanian head of yours? Practice what you preach re "learn and adapt"!

(P.S. You can call me LC. :^)

 

[GWH]

I came upon a site some time ago and it makes very good secular arguments against abortion. I have kept the important facts and figures in my mind to present when a discussion starts. Now this only works on those who will actually engage that way. It doesn't work for nut bag crazy activists. I usually start with this question, " There have been over 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade, that's more than the population of Canada, can you justify that?

Okay, and let us hope they say "yes" or "no". Then what do you say in either case?

 

[Eli1]

Re "So if you go to an abortion clinic trying to hit people with a Bible (figuratively by judging them or being hard on them) not only you're not gonna change any minds": Yes, which is why that is not the step I suggested. Do you have any idea what I said it was or did it fly right over that Albanian head of yours? Practice what you preach re "learn and adapt"!

(P.S. You can call me LC. :^)

Bro, you’re talking to a Christian audience about abortion.
Why?
What’s the purpose of this discussion?
Everyone here (I hope) knows that abortion is murder.
I have a few ideas why you mention this topic while you ignore guns but I’m trying to walk with you not ahead of you.

 

[Eli1]

I came upon a site some time ago and it makes very good secular arguments against abortion. I have kept the important facts and figures in my mind to present when a discussion starts. Now this only works on those who will actually engage that way. It doesn't work for nut bag crazy activists. I usually start with this question, " There have been over 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade, that's more than the population of Canada, can you justify that?

Not a bad suggestion but like you said Rose, depending on the mood and emotional distress level of the person who is going to have the abortion the best you can do, I have found, is to try to help people you know something about as opposed to strangers who might get triggered, angry or even attack you.
People that you know are usually family and friends and since you know something about them then you can suggest ideas which don’t make them angry.
Maybe the other option is to try to listen to the stranger on the street why she is trying to have an abortion and maybe suggest other things like give up the baby for adoption as opposed to murder or depending what the situation is.
This is a very complicated and personal topic so if you try to make people feel guilty they’re going to have an angry response at you because they know it’s wrong.
Almost all the females that have this procedure are affected and traumatized on some level so they know it beforehand.
The question is how to get them to change their minds without pushing them.
It’s not an easy topic.
It’s a very difficult topic!
Just like guns is a difficult topic despite killings of many children in schools.

 

[Dino246]

May I suggest the steps to eliminating abortion based on my own experience:

At the age of 25 I thought "pro choice" sounded good, because I had never learned about fetal development. However, at that point I was confronted with two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb. This led me to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding.

And so I to considered the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.

Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”. How will this happen? By confronting everyone with the two photos that prompted my conversion, beginning in high school. This is the fetal step.

What should be the next step?

The argument of viability = personhood fails miserably when you consider that a great many post-birth persons are non-viable on their own. If we take the viability position to its logical conclusion, then it is merely "abortion of a non-viable mass of cells" to refuse life support for those who have suffered a major injury or illness. Then you get people redefining "viability" based on other factors in order to encompass rare edge cases, just like they do with murder of the unborn.

Try again.