So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[93henfan]

I’m not fishing at all. Nobody wins in this debate, but you try to every time. It’s always your trigger issue, which I fully understand when you were indoctrinated starting at birth in CatholIc dogma.

You’re doing what you’ve been told. I don’t hold it against you, as long as you’re not shooting doctors or bombing medical facilities.

Eat a dick and go fish elsewhere.

[89Hen]

Eat a dick and go fish elsewhere.

Yup, I'm going to lose sleep over it too.

[dbackjon]

Simple answer. States' rights. Let the states decide..

Like slavery, right?

[dbackjon]

No, there's really not. Does the baby have rights is the primary question, everything else is a distant second. More distant than the second place to California in everything.

Does the mother have rights?

According to the forced-birthers, no.

[89Hen]

Does the mother have rights?

According to the forced-birthers, no.

And another who skipped the first issue. Why doesn't a mother have rights to beat her child? I guess I'm a forced-non-corporal-punisher in your book.

[93henfan]

Beating anyone is illegal.

Spanking is legal in 50 states.

I chose not to spank my kids.

I also chose to use birth control whenever I didn't want to create a kid, and I was totally pro-life on the two pregnancies I made happen with my swimmers. Yay team!!!

[89Hen]

Beating anyone is illegal.

So is killing anyone. Thanks for clearing that up.

When a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perp can get charged with double murder in most states. Go figure.

[93henfan]

Beating anyone is illegal.

So is killing anyone. Thanks for clearing that up.

When a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perp can get charged with double murder in most states. Go figure.

And I support the death penalty for that double-murderer!!!

[89Hen]

So is killing anyone. Thanks for clearing that up.

When a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perp can get charged with double murder in most states. Go figure.

And I support the death penalty for that double-murderer!!!

And so the discussion deteriorates without you answering the question I said you wouldn't answer.

[93henfan]

And I support the death penalty for that double-murderer!!!

And so the discussion deteriorates without you answering the question I said you wouldn't answer.

I'll answer your question: There is no right answer. I've always maintained that.

...despite the insistence of anti-abortion activists, the notion that life begins at the bright line of conception is at odds with many ethical traditions. In a number of religions, when an embryo or fetus becomes a person remains a mystery, something that occurs not in a single moment but in a series of moments, none necessarily more important than the next. And, for all the anti-abortion side’s embrace of ultrasounds, the medical community tends to agree.

“Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments,” said Arthur Caplan, professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. “The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.” That perspective, it turns out, has deep roots. It’s also one that resonates for many pregnant women who experience the embryo’s gradual passage to personhood on a visceral level.

Many religious traditions, including a number of denominations of Christianity, are ambivalent about the beginnings of life. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and many American Baptists don’t believe abortion is akin to murder. Presbyterians concede that they “may not know exactly when human life begins” and encourage their followers to make their own careful decisions on abortion. Unitarians are more overtly pro-choice and “believe not only in the value of life itself but also in the quality of life.”

Side note for full disclosure: 93henfan is a baptized member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The majority of Jews do not believe that life begins at conception but instead see the creation of life as something that happens over time. During this process, the fetus is seen as part of the mother, whose well-being, both immediate and future, takes precedence.

“The tradition holds that we enter life in stages and leave in stages,” Rabbi Elliot Dorff, bioethicist and professor of Jewish theology at the American Jewish University in California, told Slate. He pointed to Exodus 21, in which the Bible explains that if a pregnant woman is physically harmed and miscarries as a result, the punishment for her assailant should not be the same as if he killed another person.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... _time.html

[93henfan]

And before I get "but Slate"ed, I'll go ahead and give you my church's stance, right from their own publications:

Whenever sexual intercourse occurs apart from the intent to conceive, the use of contraceptives is the responsibility of the man and of the woman.

A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual ‘pro- life’ versus ‘pro-choice’ language in discussing abortion.

The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life. Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. Therefore, as a church we seek to reduce the need to turn to abortion as the answer to unintended pregnancies.

We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her. We are moved particularly by the anguish of women who face unwanted pregnancies alone. The panic and isolation of such pregnancies, even in the best of circumstances, can be traumatic. Poverty, lack of supportive relationships, immaturity, oppressive social realities, sexism, and racism can intensify her sense of powerlessness. The prospect of having and caring for a child can seem overwhelming.

Our ministry of hospitality to all people ought to include women who have had abortions, women who are considering abortions, children, families, and those who bear and raise children under all kinds of circumstances. This should be reflected throughout congregational life and church policy. Congregations are encouraged to support day-care centers and nurseries in their facilities. Services and shelter should be provided, especially to enable young mothers and fathers to continue their education and care for their children. Members should also be encouraged to become foster and/or adoptive parents. By our policies and practices as a church we need to indicate that we are truly supportive of children through the long years after, and not only before, they are born

Our congregations and church schools ought to provide sex education in the context of the Christian faith. Such education, beginning in the elementary years, needs to emphasize values such as responsibility, mutuality, and abstinence from sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Parents should also be prepared to teach sexual responsibility to their children in the home. It is especially important that young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly.

Pastors and other members of this church should be trained to provide counsel that is competent and respectful of the integrity of the woman, the man, and others who may be involved in these decisions. The professional expertise of the church’s social ministry organizations should also be utilized. It is important that those who counsel persons faced with unintended pregnancies respect how deeply the woman’s pregnancy involves her whole person —body, mind and spirit— in relation to all the commitments that comprise her stewardship of life. Counselors should seek to call forth her power to act responsibly after prayerful reflection upon all factors involved. Regardless of the decisions, our pastoral response must be a gracious affirmation of the value of women’s lives and assistance in dealing with ongoing implications of their decisions for their own well-being and their relationships

This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion.

An abortion is morally responsible in those cases in which continuation of a pregnancy presents a clear threat to the physical life of the woman.

A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse. This is especially true in cases of rape and incest. This can also be the case in some situations in which women are so dominated and oppressed that they have no choice regarding sexual intercourse and little access to contraceptives. Some conceptions occur under dehumanizing conditions that are contrary to God’s purposes.

There are circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant. In such cases, after competent medical consultations, the parent(s) may responsibly choose to terminate the pregnancy. Whether they choose to continue or to end such pregnancies, this church supports the parent(s) with compassion, recognizing the struggle involved in the decision.

The following stance ties in well with GannonFan's discussion:

Although abortion raises significant moral issues at any stage of fetal development, the closer the life in the womb comes to full term the more serious such issues become. When a child can survive outside a womb, it becomes possible for other people, and not only the mother, to nourish and care for the child. This church opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology. If a pregnancy needs to be interrupted after this point, every reasonable and necessary effort should be made to support this life, unless there are lethal fetal abnormalities indicating that the prospective newborn will die very soon.

http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resourc ... 1531260991

[CID1990]

I'm against Roe v Wade

I'm also against criminalizing abortion

how bout that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

I'm against Roe v Wade

I'm also against criminalizing abortion

how bout that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here.

[kalm]

Actually, there’s much more to the discussion of course. Many things matter.

That’s why it’s such a contentious issue.

No, there's really not. Does the baby have rights is the primary question.

Yes.

[dbackjon]

And before I get "but Slate"ed, I'll go ahead and give you my church's stance, right from their own publications:

Whenever sexual intercourse occurs apart from the intent to conceive, the use of contraceptives is the responsibility of the man and of the woman.

A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual ‘pro- life’ versus ‘pro-choice’ language in discussing abortion.

The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life. Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. Therefore, as a church we seek to reduce the need to turn to abortion as the answer to unintended pregnancies.

We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her. We are moved particularly by the anguish of women who face unwanted pregnancies alone. The panic and isolation of such pregnancies, even in the best of circumstances, can be traumatic. Poverty, lack of supportive relationships, immaturity, oppressive social realities, sexism, and racism can intensify her sense of powerlessness. The prospect of having and caring for a child can seem overwhelming.

Our ministry of hospitality to all people ought to include women who have had abortions, women who are considering abortions, children, families, and those who bear and raise children under all kinds of circumstances. This should be reflected throughout congregational life and church policy. Congregations are encouraged to support day-care centers and nurseries in their facilities. Services and shelter should be provided, especially to enable young mothers and fathers to continue their education and care for their children. Members should also be encouraged to become foster and/or adoptive parents. By our policies and practices as a church we need to indicate that we are truly supportive of children through the long years after, and not only before, they are born

Our congregations and church schools ought to provide sex education in the context of the Christian faith. Such education, beginning in the elementary years, needs to emphasize values such as responsibility, mutuality, and abstinence from sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Parents should also be prepared to teach sexual responsibility to their children in the home. It is especially important that young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly.

Pastors and other members of this church should be trained to provide counsel that is competent and respectful of the integrity of the woman, the man, and others who may be involved in these decisions. The professional expertise of the church’s social ministry organizations should also be utilized. It is important that those who counsel persons faced with unintended pregnancies respect how deeply the woman’s pregnancy involves her whole person —body, mind and spirit— in relation to all the commitments that comprise her stewardship of life. Counselors should seek to call forth her power to act responsibly after prayerful reflection upon all factors involved. Regardless of the decisions, our pastoral response must be a gracious affirmation of the value of women’s lives and assistance in dealing with ongoing implications of their decisions for their own well-being and their relationships

This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion.

An abortion is morally responsible in those cases in which continuation of a pregnancy presents a clear threat to the physical life of the woman.

A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse. This is especially true in cases of rape and incest. This can also be the case in some situations in which women are so dominated and oppressed that they have no choice regarding sexual intercourse and little access to contraceptives. Some conceptions occur under dehumanizing conditions that are contrary to God’s purposes.

There are circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant. In such cases, after competent medical consultations, the parent(s) may responsibly choose to terminate the pregnancy. Whether they choose to continue or to end such pregnancies, this church supports the parent(s) with compassion, recognizing the struggle involved in the decision.

The following stance ties in well with GannonFan's discussion:

Although abortion raises significant moral issues at any stage of fetal development, the closer the life in the womb comes to full term the more serious such issues become. When a child can survive outside a womb, it becomes possible for other people, and not only the mother, to nourish and care for the child. This church opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology. If a pregnancy needs to be interrupted after this point, every reasonable and necessary effort should be made to support this life, unless there are lethal fetal abnormalities indicating that the prospective newborn will die very soon.

http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resourc ... 1531260991

Well stated.

I think that goes in line with most Americans thinking - abortion is a personal decision that should not be taken lightly, but should be just that, a personal decision.

Also, highlighting the need to prevent the need for abortions in the first place. The most rabid forced-birthers are usually the same ones that refuse to address the issues, or allow discussion of what could be done to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place - education, easy access to birth control, options for the mother both during and after the pregnancy, support to allow the child to be healthy and stay with the mom, expanded adoption avenues.

[dbackjon]

I'm against Roe v Wade

I'm also against criminalizing abortion

how bout that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are for legal abortion for liberals and rich conservatives.

[BDKJMU]

Simple answer. States' rights. Let the states decide..

Like slavery, right?

Until we had a constitutional amendment outlawing it.
You want abortion to be constitutional? Have a constitutional amendment stating so. Otherwise, as the 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people>"

[BDKJMU]

I'm against Roe v Wade

I'm also against criminalizing abortion

how bout that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here.

Same here.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a summary of left-wing arguments/complaints I've seen.

1. You're not really pro-life because you don't support universal health care, free daycare, don't do enough to feed starving children in Ehtiopia, won't save the whales, etc.

2. If you don't like abortions don't have them. Also, if you don't like child abuse, don't beat your children. Everyone should have the right to determine their own version of right and wrong without the government stepping in to protect the rights of others.

3. What's the point of having any laws when they'll be broken anyways?

4. What's the difference between an abortion and a tonsillectomy anyways?

5. War on wimmin™. *guffaw*

All pitiful. What's funny is very politically incorrect azzholes like Cluck U honestly put up more cogent arguments than they do.

The only question that matters is when life begins, and I don't claim to have a good answer, but I know that "birth" is a garbage, immoral, and unscientific answer. Everything else is moral relativity and lazy thinking.

1-2)Why can't we have laws in place to protect peoples health and safety - even if it's a decision we might not agree? I agree - practice some restraint and don't have sex unless you're able to care for the child but i'm also a realist and understand that people will have sex in the heat of the moment and not wear a condom. Or they'll just bang with reckless abandon. But let's make that difficult decision safe.

3) We break laws every day. We speed, occasionally steal. I'm not sure if it's about the principle.

4) That's an AZ analogy there. Damn...

5) I never understood that one.

[Silenoz]

I think that goes in line with most Americans thinking - abortion is a personal decision that should not be taken lightly, but should be just that, a personal decision.

Real personal in the baby's case...

[SDHornet]

93 clearly won this debate. I also align with his stance on the abortion issue. I believe late term abortion is abhorrent and tend to side with medical science on this issue. As medical science/technology advancements make life outside the womb more viable at an earlier stage, I feel that the "allowable abortion timeline" (not really sure how else to put it) moves with it.

[Ibanez]

Like slavery, right?

Until we had a constitutional amendment outlawing it.
You want abortion to be constitutional? Have a constitutional amendment stating so. Otherwise, as the 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people>"

So are you saying every amendment after 10 should be repealed and the decision left up to the states?

Sometimes, the states don't make the right decision and need a central government to step in when the public health and safety is at risk.

[89Hen]

Well stated.

Stated? You mean quoted.

[93henfan]

Well stated.

Stated? You mean quoted.

I don’t believe the quotes were anything different from the stances I stated earlier and have always maintained. Sure, the ELCA didn’t use “lump” in their version, but then again, I’m way funnier than they are.

Next!

[93henfan]

89 scrambles to compare 93 quotes to ECLA quotes for effect....


FWIW, yesterday when I posted was the first time I had ever read the linked document from ELCA or really studied their official stance at all. Anything I posted before that was completely uninfluenced by their documentation.