'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

I'm sure others have viewed wikipedia's information concerning abortion. (Just a side note - 46 MILLION abortions are performed every year. This was a little difficult for me to wrap my head around. It's staggering.) But on to my point......evidently, it wouldn't matter much if abortion became illegal as almost 50% of all global abortions are performed in areas where abortions are illegal. This remains one of the reasons that I'm oppossed to making abortion illegal. If someone wants to have an abortion, there will be a venue to facilitate that abortion whether it's legal or not. A woman's health will be at signifiantly more risk having an abortion performed in an illegal venue.

Now on to a problem that I have with abortion....does it not trouble anyone that after 8 weeks, the fetus has it's arms and legs and has started to form (or already has) it's internal organs? How can one not consider this life? This fetus is sucked out with a vaccum and if it's too big, it's chopped into pieces and then sucked out (at least that's how they used to perform the surgery years ago). I'm not being judgmental of anyone as I am pro choice. It's just that the nature of abortions bother me deeply and in reading a lot of other people's comments, it's evident that others that have my position do not seem as concerned about this practice.

Why can't we at least ammend legalized abortions to accommodate a shorter gestation period? A shortened gestation period in which a fetus isn't fully developed containing a central nervous system and all of its organs? A fully developed fetus has to experience pain during the procedure.

I should also mention that I do agree with Vince concerning the overpopulation of this planet by humans. We have to start thinking about sustainability and the long term health of our planet. This is a main reason that my husband and I chose not to have children. For all the illness and mismangement we subject on this planet, we will ultimately suffer the consequences.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 20 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]352158[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. First rule as Pope: I say, let the priests get married. To whoever they want to. No more sex with little boys.


Second rule under Pope TJ: No more popes. When Christ left, he said to Peter, 'Build my church'. He said nothing about 'Oh, and make sure you leave someone in charge, a Pope kind of guy; I'll give him a ring and talk to him specifically about revisions and all'.

Nope..


As to my congregation, it's easy to join. Just believe in the peaceful message that Christ brought: Which was love one another. Be good to one another.


Don't let the man made rules stop you from that. Christ said to have faith like a child's. Which is to say, easy. Don't complicate things.

Abortions are not an easy thing to deal with. I know of a pastor, whose wife was pregnant. And she had two children, almost grown, already. The doctor came and told her, and her husband, that due to a complication, if she gave birth, she might die.

Simple as that. The choice was made, after careful thought, to abort the child, since, she had two to still take care of; to be there for.

It was not a easy choice. And when the pastor told his church, which I thought was very brave, literally more then half the church left. Now, what does that say about compassion? About being a 'Christian' and showing some love?

Yeah. Not much.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 20 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]352211[/snapback]</div>

This could work. You get to be pope, close the office and fire yourself. Give me 10% for the planning.

I'm not sure how long ago this pastor made that decision, but I wonder why they didn't end up deciding she would just need a c-section if the giving birth part was what was going to kill her. Maybe it was if she carried the babies past x days, it would kill her, I don't know... Tough call on their part.

In that position, they'd have to do a pretty good job of explaining the situation in order to not lose half the congregation. Many people could not sit under leadership that would in any way easily choose abortion... or for example, the pastor of a church didn't have an abortion, but supported the pro-choice position, a lot of people would find that the position on the issue does not match up with what they find to be biblically sound.

There are far too many abortions going on in this country for all the women to have been going to die if had not the abortion been done. This needs to be shortened up to just include that absolute few where we lose the mother if we don't take that child.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 20 2006, 02:51 PM) [snapback]352211[/snapback]</div>

I'd join in a second. And I gave up church-goin' 20 years ago!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 20 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]352199[/snapback]</div>

Just to clarify, that's a global estimate, and includes (as you said) estimates from countries where abortion is not legalized. I wonder if RU-486 is included in those estimates?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 20 2006, 03:50 PM) [snapback]352256[/snapback]</div>

I just read it. It is included as "medical."

 

again... we're talking about the whole concept of abortion here, and the discussion is running circles around late-gestation partial birth abortions.

from the wiki article:
"In 2002, from data collected in those areas of the United States which sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 86.7% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 9.9% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks."

note that the fetus is considered nonviable prior to 20 weeks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 20 2006, 05:01 PM) [snapback]352264[/snapback]</div>

The fetus may be nonviable prior to 20 weeks but the fetus has arms, legs and internal organs after 8 weeks. This is troubling to me. What percent of the 86.7% of abortions performed prior to 12 weeks were performed on a fully formed fetus? You're in the medical field....isn't it probably that these fetus feel pain?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 20 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]352211[/snapback]</div>

Serious question...do you discount all of Christ's teaching about getting through the father through him alone? Works cannot bring salvation? What is easier than simply believing? I only ask this because I seem to remember you are a minister (or were you formerly a minister?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 20 2006, 06:20 PM) [snapback]352280[/snapback]</div>

I am currently a pastor.

A preacher.

I believe in what Christ taught. I have said that time and time again. I do think that man put a lot of words in Christ's mouth. It's human nature.

As I also said recently, I agree with Billy Graham. Who just changed his (decades) long POV: Who am I to say who gets into heaven or not?

God only knows.

It's really quite simple. to me. Christ said, "No one knows when my time to return will be; only the Father."

If Christ did not know, who am I to know what God has planned? I am here to preach the Good News. And to me, that entails speaking about Peace, Love, and Understanding.

 

Very interesting discussion. I have to agree with Daniel that address stickers are fair game for self-expression, even if it happens to offend me. I respect and in fact would be willing to fight for the sender's right to express her views.

Here's another situation... I Kentucky you can pay extra to get pro-life license plates. However, the request to develop a pro-choice plate was denied. That really steams me!

Despite my extreme irreverence, I do hold very strong religious beliefs. There is a Biblical arguement differentiating between the life of a person and the life of a fetus. In the Old Testament, the punisment for killing a person is death, whereas the punishment for harming a woman and causing her to miscarry is a monetary fine (to the husband, of course!) In other words, it could be argued Biblically that a fetus is property, not a person.

To me, the question isn't whether abortion kills life...of course it does. So does removal of a cancerous tumor or the amputation of a leg. I think the more important question is does abortion kill a person. Then you get into very muddy waters when you define personhood. I believe it's an extremely personal opinion that the government should not interfere with. For example, my sister had a very difficult time getting pregnant. Once she did, from the moment of conception, she and her husband considered the matter concerned a person who they already loved. And I wouldn't belittle their feelings. But I did not happen to consider it a person until he was born and I knew him and loved him. I would argue that I'm entitled to that opinion as a matter of faith. With such widely divergent views all based on personal faith or lack of it, I see absolutely no way the government can legislate it.

Peace --

Marjorie.

 

Marjorie, that was beautifully stated.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov, 01:10 PM) [snapback]352267[/snapback]</div>

At the risk of opening up another can of worms,... I'm more troubled by the lack of laws protecting poultry from pain at slaughter than I am about the pain of a 20 week old fetus during an abortion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 20 2006, 04:10 PM) [snapback]352267[/snapback]</div>

well, i think saying "fully formed" is a bit much. the framework is there, yes.

pain is, to oversimplify, a result of the activation of nociceptive pathways. now i'm no expert of prenatal developmental neurobiology... but in the rat, gestational day 15 is considered when these pathways are developed enough to conduct a signal. rat gestation lasts about 22 days.

translating this across species obviously is quite difficult. i haven't really dug into the human literature. plus, there are other factors involved. is nociceptive pathway activation alone really enough to cause the sensation we know as pain? are there other factors? are they developed yet too? there are a number of receptors and neurons involved in pain perception.

i'll have to do more digging before i can really make any kind of conclusion. from an evolutionary standpoint, pain isn't really needed before birth. but there's lots of literature out there to look through.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 20 2006, 07:55 PM) [snapback]352300[/snapback]</div>

I agree that "only God knows" what is in someone's heart..IOW, did they "truly" accept salvation. However, I don't see how you can get around believing in Christ.

Thanks

 

I'd say it's pretty obvious that a zygote does not feel pain. So why do the fundamentalists oppose RU486?

And why do they oppose barrier methods of contraception? Granted that those are not 100% effective, but why oppose their use?

Studies have repeatedly shown that kids who are given accurate informatiopn about sex delay their first sexual encounter, and are more likely to use contraception, and therefore less likely to get pregnant. So why do the fundamentalists oppose sex education?

To an outsider it looks as though the fundamentalists want women to suffer, and the best way to increase that suffering is to take whatever measures they can to maximize the number of pregnancies and make sure the women have to carry those pregnancies to term, no matter what that involves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov, 06:57 PM) [snapback]352381[/snapback]</div>

Oh, you mean like Bush's new appointment to head the Office of Family Planning, Dr. Eric Keroack?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 20 2006, 10:35 PM) [snapback]352376[/snapback]</div>

Easy. GOD only knows. We, man, have messed up the Word of God so bad, that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out some day, that Mel Brooks was right.

(as seen in the immortal classic, 'History Of The World Part One' : Moses walks down the mountain, with three tablets, and says, 'I give you these fifteen-' and then drops one tablet, and says, 'Oy-TEN! TEN Commandments!')

 

I think we are getting somewhere here. As long at no pain is felt, it's ok to rip a human limb from limb and dispose of them in a garbage can. Why limit this to the young?

Can't we start doing this with the elderly, misbehaving 9 year olds, drunk drivers, burn victims, our nasty neighbor and just about anyone else we deem necessary?

Medical technology has the ability to put anyone 'under' to the point they wouldn't feel it if you put them into a grinder. Why limit the process to just those of us who are in the womb?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Nov 20 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]352306[/snapback]</div>

I REALLY wish people would get themselves better informed before using the Bible to support abortion:
Exodus 21:22-24: “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

The punishment for causing a woman's fetus to die is DEATH, not a "monetary fine".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Nov 21 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]352477[/snapback]</div>

To begin with, I'll reiterate that if it comes from the Bible then it's garbage anyway. Additionally, you've presented the English translation of the Bible, which further screws up any argument you're trying to make. But how you managed to connect abortion to that verse is very Bushesque. The verse appears to be referencing a physical struggle between men who harm a pregnant woman and she either miscarries or the baby comes out damaged. So what does that have to do with abortion?

Furthermore, that verse also talks about "the owner of the woman". Seems to me that that alone calls into question how legitimate that verse is. And if you can't agree that a woman is owned, then how can you say that the rest of the verse is okay?

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 20 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]352389[/snapback]</div>

It was Ronald Reagan who first came up with the idea of subverting the will of Congress by appointing to high administrative office a person who was fundamentally opposed to the statutory purpose of the agency he was to head. But it has now become a staple of conservative politics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 15 2006, 09:26 PM) [snapback]349879[/snapback]</div>

You might point out to her that some 2/3 of all fertilized eggs either fail to implant, or do implant but result in miscarriages; this indicates that god is the ultimate abortionist :_>


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 21 2006, 10:22 AM) [snapback]352459[/snapback]</div>

Because "those in the womb" are not persons. If you can't see the differences between a fetus and "the elderly, misbehaving 9 year olds, drunk drivers, burn victims, [y]our nasty neighbor and just about anyone else", then your ethical senses need serious re-adjustment.