• SeanRenaud said on Dec 17, 2007....

  marked.

• crybabylu said on Dec 17, 2007....

  I really thought there has already been a blog about this, exact title.  Let me go look, bloc, because I thought it was on your blog.

• crybabylu said on Dec 17, 2007....

  Hot Button: Abortion, Christianity, Conception, and Quickening

  bloc posted on Nov 20, 2007 | views: 130 | Tags: religion, abortion, quickening, christianity

• crybabylu said on Dec 17, 2007....

  okay, I guess I get it, you are wanting it stated without argument, and I guess your last blog didn't satisfy the question you asking now...I will do some research on it, but you already know my personal opinion and that is; " a woman should chose what she wants done to her body"  I am a woman and that comes solely from being a woman, no conviction, no scripture, just stating that a woman should chose what her body goes thruogh.

• bloc said on Dec 17, 2007....

  Well, this one is a bit different I hope. In the others there was debate, I don't want any debate here. But, more importantly, I want to know what the Biblical underpinnings are of many Christians beliefs about life beginning at conception. 
  
  
  Many take such an adamant and absolute position that I assumed it was based on some clear Biblical bases, but when I asked I didn't get many answers. Basically, I'm not looking for personal opinions, but Biblical scholarship on the issue.

• crybabylu said on Dec 17, 2007....

  www.LifeBeginsAtConception.com

  "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."
  Jeremiah 1:5  

  You formed my inmost being;
  You knit me in my mother’s womb.
  I praise you, so wonderfully you made me;
  Wonderful are your works!
  My very self you knew;
  My bones were not hidden from you,
  When I was being made in secret,
  Fashioned as in the depths of the earth.
  Your eyes foresaw my actions;
  In your book all are written down;
  My days were shaped, before one came to be.
  Psalms 139:13-16 [New American] 

   

  Well, I cut and pasted this from the above website.  To tell you the truth, I don't remember ever reading that passage before found in Psalms 139:13-16. ...................................dee.

• crybabylu said on Dec 17, 2007....

  http://www.LifeBeginsAtConception.com

  This site is where I found the above scripture.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 17, 2007....

  Confirmed from Bible.com where I do most of my research, largely cus you can look up a passage, then look it up in many of the different versions. 

• bloc said on Dec 17, 2007....

  that's the only quote I've gotten in the past. Is that the only basis for the absolute view many take? 

• crybabylu said on Dec 17, 2007....

  which one?  I mentioned two.

• bloc said on Dec 17, 2007....

  the first. I don't see how the second says anything about when life begins.

• beyondtheveil said on Dec 18, 2007....

  bloc- You could call me a Christian of sorts. I was raised in the church and it has always been a part of my life whether I believe with certainty or not.  Your question was strictly "when life begins". Isn't it scientifically and biologically impossible for human life to begin at any time other than conception?
  
  And if you are going to bring in the virgin birth, that is not to be considered for a couple of reasons.
  

• Corianda said on Dec 18, 2007....

  Well, There are many differing views amoungst Christians.  Sme Christians believe that life begins as soon as is concieved because God creates everything and the verse someone mentioned earlier about God knowing you before you are born. There i also the all life is sacred argument and teating your body like a temple and putting all the chemicals to produce an abortion may not be seen as treating your body as one.

   Some christians may allow abortion if it puts the life of the woman in danger or if it affects the well being of existing children and or even in the case of rape allow abortion.

  Most christians accept abortion (to an extent) would only say use that option as a last resort, never use it as a form of contraception.

  I'm a Christian and I personally feel that is the womans choice wherever to opt for an abortion or not (then if she has religious views then considr that), then its checked over by doctors (in the UK 2 doctors have to approve of the woman's reasons and sign a piece of paper which then the woman has to take to an Abortion clinic of which they have been reffered to). I believe that it should only be used as a last resort. However its easier to comment looking out. If i was in the position of considering an abortion i may feel different.

  As a Christian i also believe that it's also the man's choice too, definately within marriage (with a few exceptions) because its his child too but the desicion is ultimately the womans.

• bloc said on Dec 18, 2007....

  "Isn't it scientifically and biologically impossible for human life to begin at any time other than conception?"
  
  
  no. It depends on what it means to be human. Sperm and egg cells are alive so human life is really a continuous chain all the way back to the first humans. The next question we have to ask is what it means to be "human" and this leads to the debate. I highly recommend this essay by carl sagan for a far better explanation than I can give. 

• bloc said on Dec 18, 2007....

  "and the verse someone mentioned earlier about God knowing you before you are born."
  
  I've never understood this interpretation of that verse because it seems that it would also apply to sperm and egg cells prior to fertilization.

• crybabylu said on Dec 18, 2007....

  I always took it that he created our spirits, and he is letting us just how intimately he knows us.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 18, 2007....

  Ditto. 

• beyondtheveil said on Dec 18, 2007....

  bloc- From the essay- "Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg". This says to me that no one can become human without fertilization and a fertilized egg is not a human being. I agree with this.
  
  From the essay- "Neither a sperm or egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or potential adult". I say a sperm and egg have the possibility of creating a human life, but the fertilized egg has begun the process of forming a human being.
  
  The question was not over abortion, or what is alive when sperm and egg are separated, or the treatment of living things. The question was when does life begin for the formation of a human being- and the formation of a human being begins with a fertilized egg, or conception.
  
  This does not mean I believe that there should be no abortion after conception, it means a human life does not begin to form until conception. And that was the question. Where am I wrong on this?
  

• bloc said on Dec 18, 2007....

  @beyond
  you aren't wrong, I wasn't clear. Language can be so imprecise :/ The common conclusion drawn by many that human life begins at conception is that a fertilized egg is deserving of full human rights. I.e. that it's a full-fledged human being. 
  
  
  So allow me to rephrase. What is the Christian bases that a fertilized egg is deserving of full-fledged human rights?
  
  
  So what did you think of the essay?
  
  
  @crybaby
  that makes perfect sense. It's always difficult for me to understand how some religious people can take a very ambiguous quote and turn it into an absolute. I think that verse could be taken different ways. It could be a display of God's ability to see into the future. He knows us before we are formed (i.e. created) because he knows the future. This was my initial reaction to reading the verse.
  
  
  
  

• beyondtheveil said on Dec 19, 2007....

  bloc- I enjoyed the essay and it brought up many interesting points. I've always had a hefty respect for Carl Sagan due mainly for his ability, similar to Bill Moyers, to educate the masses. For instance, his series 'Cosmos' brought the universe into the living room and the minds of people like no other person I know of.
  
  As to your question, what is the Christian basis for a fertilized egg being deserving of human rights- I would say that to the Christian, a human being is the only form of life that has a soul. The point of conception would be the beginning of the formation of the vessel for that soul sent by God and to terminate same is killing, or in many people's mind, murder of an actual person. I would suggest that in the Christian  mind the human right to live after conception is given by God and not laws of humanity.
  
  To me, there is a much greater loss through abortion in an atheistic world than a religious world with an afterlife, but this is a personal opinion.
  

• bloc said on Dec 19, 2007....

  @beyond
  That's the point I'm getting at. What you've stated is the modern Christian view, but I've learned that it hasn't always been this way. Many Christians and Christian institutions believed that the soul entered the body and quickening not conception and that it was only "murder" after that point. 
  
  
  This is why I was asking for the actual Biblical sources that lead to the view that it's murder to kill a fertilized egg a couple of seconds after conception. 

• beyondtheveil said on Dec 19, 2007....

  bloc- As to the point of exactly when the soul enters the body, I know of no passage in anyone's bible that gives this information. Many Christians point to Genesis 2:7, but that passage is breathing life into Adam after he was created. All other passages in the Christian bible I know of refer to life springing from the womb.
  
  The time at which the soul enters the body supposedly is given in the Vedas and the Shastras, but that's not Christian. There are other non- Christian references.
  
  Everyone seems to have an opinion. Even Edgar Cayce has the problem solved. However, I don't believe you will ever be sited a Christian source of the moment the soul enters the body.
  
  
  

• bloc said on Dec 19, 2007....

  This is what leads me to wonder why there is such an absolute view about abortion and conception especially considering that this view hasn't always existed in Christian institutions. 

• stopmediabias said on Dec 19, 2007....

  I don't go to church and consider myself an apostate Christian.  I was taught from day one that abortion is a horrible thing.  I had a devout Catholic Grandmother who was responsible for this.  Even with this I never really cared about abortion and always figured its none of my business, but remained against it in opinion. 

  My change in this attitude came after seeing the Nova video on childbirth where they were able to implant a camera from start to finish.  After seeing that video I became a vehemently against it.

  As a Christian I don't think it is right to call it actual murder and I think a lot a woman have been hurt because other Christians have turned this into a religious issue. 

  I think it is a moral issue and am primarily against it because it is bad for woman and harms our young girls. 

• bloc said on Dec 19, 2007....

  @smb
  I certainly agree that abortions shouldn't be common practice, but I don't think that bad for woman in all cases. I'm not sure of your point of view, do you think it should be banned in all cases?

• beyondtheveil said on Dec 20, 2007....

  bloc- The 'absolute view' you mentioned of abortion and conception doesn't in any way necessarily represent the view of only Christian institutions. There are several atheist groups against abortion. Also, a national survey showed 51% of Americans were pro-choice to a point, but in the same survey only 30% considered it morally right.
  
  This means to me that there does not need to be a point at which the soul enters the body which is a completely unanswerable, and consequently meaningless question to begin with. I am pro-choice but uncomfortable like most pro-choice Americans. It is a purely moral decision.
  
  I believe the 'conception point' is best summed up by this from God and Science:
       "The science is not in any way unclear about the beginning of human life- it starts at the moment of conception. Evidence is presented from medical textbooks, the statements of doctors, and descriptions of abortions by those who have seen the 'products of conception'. Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb- they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated in the first three weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a 'person'. In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood".
  
  Also, consider this: If there is indeed a soul, that soul in my opinion would choose the body to inhabit, and that choice could be after actual birth. That is not an absurd statement if you consider the possibility of a soul.
  
  From a moral standpoint it is difficult to ignore that human life begins at conception with 100% of dna present for development. I believe this is the main reason for those who 'take such an absolute view of abortion and conception'.
  
  
  

• bloc said on Dec 20, 2007....

  I think your quote is wrong. Human life does not start at conception because all human life is a continuous process. What's ironic is that you quote makes this point later, "The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a 'person'."
  
  
  Conception doesn't magically make a person either. Human life does not begin at conception, it began with the first human. A cell with 100% dna does not make a human being. 

• bloc said on Dec 20, 2007....

  ok, I seem to have failed at keeping this discussion on track. 

• stopmediabias said on Dec 20, 2007....

  Bloc-I am 100% anti-abortion in all cases.
   
  I am primarily against it because I believe it is bad for woman, secondary is my Christian beliefs.  Human life does start at conception because #1 you can't get a human life without conception and #2 even if you suction everything out a second after conception you have terminated life.  Where the issue as the whether it is murder comes in the sense of how can you murder something that has no consciousness, no feeling, no emotions, etc... There are studies that show a certain time when fetus's do feel something and react to stimuli but can this be classified as on the same level as a living breathing human.
   
  I know you didn't want a debate, I thought I'd see if I could put a different spin on the issue.

• bloc said on Dec 20, 2007....

  what are those christian beliefs, i.e. what is the Christian source of that belief?
  
  
  regarding your #1 and #2, can't the same be said of a sperm cell? You can't get life without a sperm, and sperm cells are alive. Also, technology will likely allow us to get a new human life without conception, not that I think we should go down this road. 
  
  
  you keep saying it's bad for the woman, but couldn't having the baby in some circumstances be worse for the woman?

• elaineandcotteralladams said on Dec 21, 2007....

  It should be unlimited in all and any circumstances. Taxes can pay for it.  It is a good form of birth control.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 22, 2007....

  Bloc-I am not going to get into a Christian discussion, if anybody who calls themselves a Christian and tries to say abortion is an ok thing is lieing to themselves and everybody around them.  How Christians reconcile their own sin is their business, this is why is shouldn't be a religious discussion.  If you looking for actual Christian doctrine look at the ten commandments.   

  Sperm cells are living but completely useless in creating life without an egg and if you apply your logic couldn't we say killing a man or a woman is killing future human life?

  In rare cases child birth is as harmful as abortion yes but to we legalize all abortion for these rare occasions?  Well the answer is yes since we've greased 50 million since Roe V Wade. 

  I think an important question here is: Is it morally correct to terminate human life because of convenience, especially when we work so feverishly to protect all forms of human and even non-human life?

   

• bloc said on Dec 22, 2007....

  "if anybody who calls themselves a Christian and tries to say abortion is an ok thing is lieing to themselves and everybody around them."
  
  This assumes that abortion 1 second after conception is equivalent to abortion at 8 months. What I'm asking is what Christian doctrine makes this assertion. I've pointed out that this has not always been the view of many Christian institutions and I've yet to get much of an answer from a Christian. 
  
  
  I look at a single cell and see something that does not have self conscience, does not feel pain, does not have emotions, etc. I look at a 6 month old fetus and I see a human that has most of these attributes. I do not see how it can be immoral to abort something that has none of these attributes and I'm asking why Christians feel that it does. I'm asking which Christian doctrine makes this claim and your avoidance of the subject leads me to conclude that you haven't the foggiest idea. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 22, 2007....

  At what stage do most of these things occur?  I mean most pro-lifers try to pretend like abortion is always partial birth.  Instead of that being an extreme.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 23, 2007....

  What is the difference?  The majority has always been, that 1 second after conception compared to 8 months after conception both circumstances will lead to a living, breathing human life capable of accomplishing anything.

  This is a terrible issue, there are so many variables that make it more complex.  

  I've been through several different Bible studies and done a far amount of research on religion and from a Christian side abortion is so horrible that there is no specific doctrine, it is almost implied right from the start that it is a bad thing.

  "I look at a single cell and see something that does not have self conscience, does not feel pain, does not have emotions, etc. I look at a 6 month old fetus and I see a human that has most of these attributes."

   Compare a woman pregnant for a week as opposed to pregnant for six months.  Both get killed in a car accident, how many lives lost?  You can't logically say there has only been three lives lost.   

  I would feel more comfortable if people would say that it is bad but are going to deal with the consequences and do it any way.  By trying to justify it or lighten it or lessen it we plant in our kids minds that abortion is a'ok.  

• bloc said on Dec 23, 2007....

  "I've been through several different Bible studies and done a far amount of research on religion and from a Christian side abortion is so horrible that there is no specific doctrine, it is almost implied right from the start that it is a bad thing."
  
  This isn't true as I've pointed out. Christian institutions in the past didn't not believe that life began at conception.
  
  
  Again, aborting 4 cells that have no emotions, feel no pain, and have no self awareness is not bad or immoral. 

• stopmediabias said on Dec 23, 2007....

  Ok bloc then let me ask you a question: If you had a daughter that got pregnant at age 18 and didn't want to deal with it and just wanted to get an abortion would you encourage her to get an abortion?

• bloc said on Dec 23, 2007....

  generally no.
  
  
  Now allow me to ask you a question. Are you familiar with ectopic pregnancies? Here is a quick overview. The fertilization of the egg occurs before the egg is in the uterus, it then travels down the fallopian tubes and implants in the uterus. An ectopic pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants somewhere it shouldn't, like the fallopian tubes. Ectopic pregnancies pose grave health risks for the mothers and the fetus will rarely survive.
  
  
  How do your views deal with this circumstance? 

• stopmediabias said on Dec 24, 2007....

  This is where this issue is very complex.  Obviously if everyone is going to die then we have to abort, this is not immoral.  Millions of people around the world want a baby and physically can't have one while millions of people abort babies because it not the right time, or they just got a promotion, or there afraid what people with think, this is what is immoral.

  I think a society that works to not having abortions through birth control and adoption is far better than what we have now.  There are woman who have had 4 or 5 abortions.  Now that it has become a political issue we tell our kids abortion isn't any worse than getting your tonsils taken out.  Planned Parenthood refuses to tell the truth on abortion and it is just sickening.  We have States where a 15 year old girl can get an abortion without a parent's consent but at the same cannot get a tattoo or a piercing.

• bloc said on Dec 24, 2007....

  i agree with you when you are talking about late term pregnancy, but not when talking about 4 cells. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 24, 2007....

  In an ideal world there would be no abortions period, only people who wanted children and could care them would get pregnant.
   
  In a slightly worse world parents who couldn't care for their children or didn't want them could put them up for adoption and they would be adopted.
   
  We live in neither of these worlds.  We live in a world where children don't get adopted, particularly if they aren't white.  Most people who adopt are well off financially adopt, most people want to raise a child that they can "raise as their own". Financially whites make up the majority of the upper class. 
   
  Its pretty much proven that readily available after the fact birth control has cut crime rates.  Sucks but it's true.  So we reduced crime.  Now we work on reducing abortions.
   
  I prefer not to discuss the extremes.  Most abortions have nothing to do with the safety of the mother, most aren't third trimester partial birth abortions either.  The majority are first trimester, the majority are done for for financial reasons. 
   
  Which means if we can improve the financial circumstances of the low income families abortions should naturally decrease.  Along with that crime should reduce.  People who have actual viable options are less likely to sell drugs and be involved in other criminal behavior.  O.J. Simpson aside you don't see a great deal of rich people commiting robbery or burglary.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 24, 2007....

  I think the statistic is 93% of abortions happen because of social reasons.  I think the adoption problem in this country is based a lot on the fact it is impossible to adopt an American.  I know people who adopted Korean kids because they spend years of wading through red tape trying to adopt an American and just gave up. 

  We have a problem in this country when something as horrible as abortion carries a complacent air among a lot of people.  With the invention of "pro-choice" they even found an easy way to talk about it.  I think people are ashamed about abortion, that's why is not talked about that much. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 24, 2007....

  And it should be talked about.  And the situation should be improved. 
   
  Adopting isn't THAT hard.  I'm a part of the process now so I can accurately speak on this.  There is too much red tape, but part of the reason for that is that we have pedophiles in this country and somebody decided that a foreign child is better off being molested in this country than unwanted in their own.
   
  That said adoption needs to be streamlined, most importantly across state lines.  I know that people are hesitant to give national control over something but this is obviously not something that states can deal with in a world where people move.  The laws differ and parents who've adopted say in New York have to repay, go through the process again in California (again speaking from experience) and the process is different because in CA you are required to mentor a child for 6 months prior to being able to adopt it, and at that point you still run the risk of somebody else having "scored higher" and getting the child.

• bloc said on Dec 25, 2007....

  I think my example of an ectopic pregnancy makes clear the fact that people who say that a fertilized egg is a human being don't really believe it. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 26, 2007....

  I think it merely shows that when two lives are in jepardy you save the sure bet (this obviously has many exceptions) over the less likely. 
   
  For me that example is sort of like, you're walking in the forest and find two injured men a black and a white.  The black man is missing a leg and the wound is infected.  He likely has hours to live or less.  The white man has a broken leg but will likely die of exposure if you leave him behind.  You can only carry one man to the ranger station ten miles from here who do you save?
   
  Well since you saved the white man you're obviously racist against blacks.  Though logically that simply isn't the case.  Only one of these individuals had a real chance at survival, so it was either save one or save none.  Which is (if I'm not mistaken) close enough to reality of an ectopic pregnancy.  Carried to term it will kill the mother, and realistically it will probably kill her before it's even ready to be born (though with current technology we MIGHT be able to save the child).

• bloc said on Dec 26, 2007....

  "when two lives are in jepardy you save the sure bet"
  
  What you're saying here is that the life of the human being is of greater value than the life of 16 cells. If someone really believed that the 16 cells is equivalent to a full human than they'd have to argue for invasive surgery to remove the 16 cells and try to save them.
  
  You're analogy doesn't fit because it assumes you can only save one. In my example you could save both, but it would require a much more invasive procedure on the mother.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 26, 2007....

  Well I've always said that.  I just think your example is a bit more cut and dry.  How often do mother and child survive the process?
   
  I mean for me this is kind of like talking about surgery on conjoined twins, say at the back of the head as I recall that's a particularly tricky one.  You're not saying one child is better than the other when you make the cut in their "favor" you have a choice save one and sacrifice one, or try to save both and mostly likely save none.

• bloc said on Dec 26, 2007....

  
  "or try to save both and mostly likely save none."
  
  
  Exactly, so why do we choose to save the mother? Because her life is worth more than that of 16 cells which feel no pain, have no self-awareness, and are not a human being. I.e. 16 cells are not equivalent to a human being.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 27, 2007....

  Bloc- What about the Lacy-Peterson law that says if you kill a pregnant woman you are in fact committing a double homocide? 

  If nothing interupts those 16 cells from becoming a human being then it has to be the quivalent.  If an interuption happens the actual interuption is what terminated this human life.  It is a moral tightrope, and if you cannot apply the "sure I'd be happy if my daugther got abortion" and come out with a yes then you there is something in your gut telling you that this is just plain wrong. 

• bloc said on Dec 27, 2007....

  " If an interuption happens the actual interuption is what terminated this human life. "
  
  This isn't true in my example. The life is still living during an ectopic pregnancy so it's a human decision to terminate it.
  
  "f you cannot apply the "sure I'd be happy if my daugther got abortion" and come out with a yes then you there is something in your gut telling you that this is just plain wrong. "
  
  
  This isn't true or logical. I'm a manager and I can tell you that I've never felt "sure i'd be happy if I laid off people", but at the same time I don't believe it is immoral to lay off people if the company is losing money. Not wanting to do something doesn't make it immoral.
  
  
  
  "what about the Lacy-Peterson law that says if you kill a pregnant woman you are in fact committing a double homocide?"
  
  
  I agree if we are talking about a pregnancy in the third trimester, I do not agree if we are talking about 16 cells that are about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
  
  
  . <- cells that size are not a human being.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 30, 2007....

  Everyone male and female that I know that has a daughter says they would never want their kid to get an abortion at any age.  Even the liberal faithful.  So it is not good for one of your kids but everyone else it is.  You here phrases like "safe medical procedure" and "No more dangerous than getting your tonsils out."  An ectopic pregancy is rare and extraordinary and will not if left untouched form a human being.  I would not say a medical procedure I believe to be physically, mentally, and emotionally harmful to woman should be a choice. 

  What makes abortion really horrible is there is no need for it.  Pregnancy is predictable and preventable and even if it does happen there are thousands if not millions of people who would take a baby.  We shouldn have to debate the morality of sucking a fetus out of womans uterus as being right or wrong, we just shouldn't do it.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 30, 2007....

  You're talking point is wrong here.  Nobody WANTS anybody to get an abortion.  Ever.  So saying that liberals don't want their daughters to get one is a stupid argument to make.

  What you need to ask is would they accept their daughter after she'd done it.  OR do they want that option to be open to their daughters.  Not would they want it done.  You might as well start talking about why amputations are wrong because nobody wants to get one.

• bloc said on Dec 30, 2007....

  "An ectopic pregancy is rare and extraordinary and will not if left untouched form a human being. "
  
  I thought you believed that it already is a human being! This is hugely important. I've been arguing that a fertilized egg is NOT a human being and you just agreed with me. I just want to make sure I read you right. Are you now saying that a fertilized egg is NOT a human being?

• stopmediabias said on Dec 31, 2007....

  Sean-When you say nobody wants anybody to get abortion ya ought to go to the Planned Parenthood website, they practically advertise it.

  How can we as a society say "ya we are pro-choice" but when asked if they would be ok with a wife, sister, or daugther getting an abortion they suddenly would be against it.  You are either against abortion or not.    

  Bloc-an ectopic pregnancy is a human life but it cannot grow into a human being because it is restricted in its growth.  If you think its perfectly fine and ok to suction an unborn fetus out of womans uterus then good for you, I don't.  Too sit here and try to justify abortion by claiming a fertilized egg is not a human life is splitting hairs.

  Are you ok with the fact that people today sometimes get 4 or 5 abortions?  Are you ok with the fact that Planned Parenthood preys on our daughters?  When we gave the go ahead to Roe V Wade did we know we'd be snuffing out close to 50 million as the years past?  Have you ever thought that if a woman goes to get a quiet abortion in secret she has fallen prey physically, financially, and mentally to unscrupulous doctors and staff who know they can get away with  anything  because who is going to tell on them?

  Don't bullshit yourself, saying abortion is a horrible abomination that harms our ladies doesn't make you a conservative or a liberal is makes you human.  We should take care of our ladies they deserve better.

• silverwhisper said on Jan 01, 2008....

  smb quoth:
  how can we as a society say "ya we are pro-choice" but when asked if they would be ok with a wife, sister, or daugther getting an abortion they suddenly would be against it. you are either against abortion or not.

  
  smb, are you actually incapable of distinguishing b/n legally permitting [x] while not partaking of [x] as a possible option?
  
  i am pro-gun rights. i do not own a firearm. by your logic however, this situation cannot exist. i think i just proved that you're wrong, though. :>
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jan 01, 2008....

  "If you think its perfectly fine and ok to suction an unborn fetus out of womans uterus then good for you, I don't."
  
  This is exactly what happens in an ectopic pregnancy. I guess you your brain isn't capable of dealing with the realities of what you say you believe.
  
  
  Your idea that the best thing for a woman, always without doubt in every case, is to not get an abortion is extremely naive. 
  
  "but when asked if they would be ok with a wife, sister, or daugther getting an abortion they suddenly would be against it. "
  
  
  I love how you put words in peoples mouth. You didn't ask me if I'd be ok with it earlier. I would be ok with it if that's what she choose to do. Here is the question you asked me:
  " If you had a daughter that got pregnant at age 18 and didn't want to deal with it and just wanted to get an abortion would you encourage her to get an abortion?"
  
  
  Notice how you are trying to pull a bait and switch here. I really wish you had an honest bone in your body.

• stopmediabias said on Jan 01, 2008....

  Silver-Let me give you an example to see if I can get across my rather illusive point.  I used to work with a woman who was what you would call a sweetheart and a consumate mom.  A very nice person that everyone loves to be around.  She told me she was pro-choice.  I asked her if she would personally get an abortion or be ok with/encouage (bloc there is no bait and switch I'm not that smart) her daughter if it ever came about.  ( I asked these questions very gently in that this can be a delicate subject)  She promptly said absolutely not under no circumstances. ( we are talking about normal circumstances, not circumstances of rape, incest, other,... different issues) 

  I asked her why she herself would not get an abortion and would be against her daughter and she gave the same reasons as everyone:

  1.  Abortion is bad for woman in many different complex ways

  2.  Everyone has to reconcile the moral aspects and woman are not fully capable under the present condition at the time.

  3.  Abortion is un-natural.

  4.  Abortion involves the termination of human life for reasons that aren't equal. (social reasons)

  I find it to be a major contradiction to say a woman would never ever inflict this on themselves or their daughter but would have no problem allowing it to be inflicted on other people.  This is why "prochoice" is brilliant, it lets people stand on both sides of the issue.

• stopmediabias said on Jan 01, 2008....

  And Bloc- "I really wish you had an honest bone in your body."
   
  I think you need to just shut up. :>

• bloc said on Jan 01, 2008....

  "Too sit here and try to justify abortion by claiming a fertilized egg is not a human life is splitting hairs."
  
  NO it's not, it's the core of the issue. I agree with you when we're talking about a third trimester baby. However, 4 cells is nothing like a third trimester baby. There is a huge difference.
  
  
  Here is why I call you dishonest. You said this, "Everyone male and female that I know that has a daughter says they would never want their kid to get an abortion at any age. Even the liberal faithful." I never said that I would never want that. Never is a strong word that has a clear meaning. I call you out on this and now you are trying to justify this statement with one anecdote. It's bullshit.

• silverwhisper said on Jan 01, 2008....

  smb: so from the staggeringly massive sample size of one person, you generalize about all people who are pro-choice? truly stunning methodology. bravo.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Jan 02, 2008....

   Bloc-never mind, I honestly believe you don't care.  I think you take the opposite view and run with no matter how ridiculous. 

  Yes or fucking No, if your daughter came home and said guess what Dad I'm pregnant and getting an abortion.  Would you fly off the handle and try to talk her out it for her own safety or would you say yippee!  I love abortion!  Go for honey it is your choice as a woman!  Now if you say Yes I would fly off the handle because I believe abortion is not good then you have to apply those reasons to all woman.  That is my point.

  Silver-ask any woman who says they are "pro-choice" if they themselves would get an abortion and see what they tell you.

   

• silverwhisper said on Jan 02, 2008....

  right right right...and of course i can't possibly be pro gun rights and yet not own one myself. got it.
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Jan 02, 2008....

  I know a woman who's gotten an abortion.  So oh no I shattered SMB's complete lack of reality.  No it's apparently impossible to think that morality shouldn't be legislated.

  If I ever meet anybody who loves abortion I'll punch them.  Nobody says, hey I've heard of this crazy thing called and abortion!  Wanna get me pregnant!

  Your point is stupid.  Just because you wouldn't want somebody near you to go through it doesn't mean it should be illegal.  How many parents would encourage their children to join the military during a time of war?  Can you say that SMB?  That if your son had said I'm going to the Jungles of Nam that you'd say go get em slugger?  Or would you try to talk him out of it.  You're point almost literally does not exist.

  Honestly for me the bottom line here comes to that I would be more than happy to take abortion to the people and let the US vote.  And for everybody who votes against it they would have to pay an additional tax to aid in the support any children that exist because of their decision. 

• bloc said on Jan 02, 2008....

  my biggest problem is that I don't think abortion should be limited to a yes or no vote. This binary reductionism seems to only make sense to the fundamentalists. I certainly think that a 7 month old fetus is a human being. Yet I'm equally certain that 4 cells are not a human being. 

• silverwhisper said on Jan 02, 2008....

  perhaps those fundamentalists are more comfortable with boolean relationships than handle one-many relationships? :D
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Jan 05, 2008....

  I know a woman who's gotten an abortion.  So oh no I shattered SMB's complete lack of reality.  No it's apparently impossible to think that morality shouldn't be legislated.

  Sean- I have to say coming from you this is an incredibly knee-jerk response.  I didn't suggest we legislate morality and what difference does it make that you know a woman who's has gotten an abortion. 

  You think my point is stupid because you are missing it.  Would you ever say: "I don't use and would never use heroin, but other people should have the choice to make that decision for themselves."  (military service is necassary and yes I would encourage my son) Outside of morality, religion, the moral tightrope of having to decide human life or not human life, abortion is bad for woman both individually and in society.   Look at the statistics of suicide rates among woman who have had abortions compared to those who haven't.  Look at the statistics of horror stories of doctors who take advantage of woman who are trying to erase a mistake and keep a major secret.  There are statistics of woman who have died having abortions, stats of depression, ongoing guilt, breast cancer and on and on. 

   I don't think we will ever completely illegalize abortion, but I think if it is kept legal it should be regulated to protect our woman.  I believe if they told woman all sides of the story no-one would get an abortion, but hey that's me. 

    

• SeanRenaud said on Jan 05, 2008....

  Look at the suicide rates of the poor.  They seem to coincide.  Hell if you want to say that increased suicide rate is bad then being a US Marine is the worst thing we can encourage a young man to do.  More women die in natural birth than in abortion also. 

   
  I'll grant you depression and guilt, but only because I can't find stats on the girls who leave babies in dumpsters, or who have babies taken away because they are unfit parents, or too poor to raise them.  Breast cancer does seem to follow it.
   
  I always forget that you are actually sane on this issue and you don't really want to overturn Roe v Wade you just don't want people to get abortions.  You get into conservative retoric and it's easy to mistake you (despite normal font) for ALIEN or D6. 

• crybabylu said on Jan 05, 2008....

  " I don't think we will ever completely illegalize abortion, but I think if it is kept legal it should be regulated to protect our woman.  I believe if they told woman all sides of the story no-one would get an abortion, but hey that's me. "

  The above is from SMB's post above.

  Ditto!.......dee

• bloc said on Jan 05, 2008....

  "Would you ever say: "I don't and would never X, but other people should have the choice to make that decision for themselves."
  
  This is the definition of freedom isn't it? I don't and would never eat meat, I think it's morally wrong, but I'm not asking for it to be a crime. I don't and would never used a "checks cashed" service, but other people should have the choice. I would never get a variable rate mortgage for my home, but other people should have the choice to make that decision for themselves.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jan 06, 2008....

  "Look at the suicide rates of the poor.  They seem to coincide.  Hell if you want to say that increased suicide rate is bad then being a US Marine is the worst thing we can encourage a young man to do.  More women die in natural birth than in abortion also."
   
  People don't choose to be poor and to compare the suicide rates of people who get abortions to people who fight in wars is a little outlandish.  Military service (unlike abortion) is an honorable thing that men and woman should be encouraged if they decide they want to go that way.  The statement "more women die in natural birth than in abortion" is not entirely true:  http://afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
   
  "I always forget that you are actually sane on this issue and you don't really want to overturn Roe v Wade you just don't want people to get abortions.  You get into conservative retoric and it's easy to mistake you (despite normal font) for ALIEN or D6. "

   

   I appreciate that but even though I know realistically R v W will never be overturned if I had to vote I would vote against it just based on the fact I believe it is bad for woman and not necassary.

   

  CB-Thank you,

   

  Bloc- the government has to restrict freedom up to a point if certain freedoms can harm individuals and society as a whole. 

   

  Look at cigarettes, they will either be illegal or highly regulated because they are bad for us and bad for society. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jan 06, 2008....

  But cigarettes shouldn't be illegal nor any more highly regulated than they are now.  And though I'm not a smoker I'll fight kicking and screaming for people to continue to have that right. 
   
  People should have the right to harm themselves.
   
  Also I said suicide rates of the military, I said nothing of going to war.  Just being away from your family on holidays is pretty rough and a lot of guys don't make the money (or don't budget properly to be accurate) to go home for the holidays, some can't deal with the stress of being shouted at or held responsible for things.  Even in times of peace the military (Marines in particular) have suicide rates that WAY outstrip the general population.
   
  The comparison isn't outlandish.  Particularly since more poor people get abortions, what you are seeing as abortion caused suicide (which is roughly what your arguing) could easily have another cause which is what I'm pointing out.
   
  Just like I'm sure that having money doesn't make you infertile but if you look at the rich in any country they tend to have less children than the poor.  Which obviously goes against common sense, you'd think that those with less means to have provide would in turn have less children.  But reality spits in the face of logic here.  There is a definite correlation there, but what's the cause? 
   
  Is Britney Spears insane because she got too much fame to fast?  Or would she be a white trash whore in the same situation minus the papparazzi if she'd never made it big? 

• inspiration2jms said on Jan 07, 2008....

  Bloc, I did not read all the posts here.  I read the first few and then it seemed to get a bit off topic and some seemed to me argumentative, (something you stated at the beginning that you did not want).
  
  I would like to comment first on crybaby's verses.  (I did not past the entire content of them here.)
  

  "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."
  Jeremiah 1:5 
  

  This does not necessarily mean that life starts at conception, it is more in relationship to the forming of the soul and not the physical being.  Look at it like this....  God knew Christ before his physical being was presented to us here on earth.  Get my meaning?  As for the next quoted scripture -
  
  Psalms 139:13-16 [New American]
  

  Sorry but I have to take a different view here.  The Psalms are beautifully written verse; however, they are songs that were written for the Glory and Praise of God, they are not the words of God, The Holy Spirit or Christ!  They are one man's opinion written in verse.  To say that these scriptures tell us when life actually begins is to accept the fact, a hundred years from now, that, like the Country and Western song I absolutely detest is right and it is okay to wait three days, put the picture of the person you love in a drawer and sleep with someone else!
  

  IT IS A GROUP OF SONGS PEOPLE!
  

• bloc said on Jan 07, 2008....

  
  @inspiration
  
  That's what I'm trying to understand. I can see how people could interpret that verse in many different ways and I'm wondering if this single and ambiguous verse is the sole Biblical reason for many Christians absolutist view on abortion.

• inspiration2jms said on Jan 30, 2008....

  bloc;  I understand completely how it can be confusing.  The Bible is a very hard book to understand.
  
  We are warned throughout the books included in it to not take the words and turn them into what we want them to mean.  But, how can you not if you do not understand the terms of speech and the laws of the land and traditional laws and customs of the time?  You Can't!
  
  One of my most popular sermons was one that got me fired from the United Methodist Church.  It was titled 'Meek Don't Mean Stupid'.  It totally went against the popular teachings of turning the other cheek and being sued for your cloak, et cetera....  (I have thought of posting it here.)
  
  In seminary, we were taught that the only Biblical verse regarding abortion is I Chronicles 28:3; however, if you actually read the verses before and after them you will see that they do not in any way refer to abortion or when life actually begins.
  
  Here is what I believe.  Harod BELIEVED  in the prophesy of the birth of Christ.  He BELIEVED  that Christ was to be king.  He also believed that Christ was meant to take his, (Harod's) place.  He was wrong but in his heart he knew that this event was to come to pass.  How stupid of him to think that he could stop it! 
  
  Regardless of all that Harod did he did not stop the birth of Christ.  He could not.  God chose that this son be born and that this son walk this earth.  How could it have been stopped by a mere mortal.  (That was not a question, the period was not an error.) 
  
  That being said, if a child is meant to be born, he/she shall be born.  There is nothing we can do to stop it.  Perhaps those of us that are led to the decision of having an abortion, (yes, I said us) have found ourselves in that position for a specific reason that has nothing at all to do with the child that may have been born, had that been God's will.
  
  Did that make sense to you?  I hope so.
  
  Please do not take it to mean that we are absolutely helpless in this life.  The Bible tells us that the purpose of ALL life is death, the important thing is what we do with the life we have here.  We are taught to accept that Christ was sent as our saviour as a sacrifice to save us from eternal death and we are told to mimic in deed and desire the love that was displayed by Christ while he was here.  Do so and you can not go wrong.
  
  Love, Janet
  

• Canbuhay said on Aug 12, 2009....

  I know this hasn't been looked at for a while because the question needs to be answered clearly. I think the authour of the question misunderstands what Christianity teaches about abortion, (let alone the nature of faith but that's another topic all together). Christians recognize that the word "abortion" is not mentioned in our scriptures. It would be foolish to claim otherwise. We also know the Bible doesn't define when human life begins - though clearly from these passages in Jeremiah, Psalms and Luke, the unborn human beings are recognized as human beings before birth. What scripture clearly teaches though is that human life has inherent dignity and worth. Jesus calls His followers to love their neighobours regardless of age, gender, race or culture. The question then is not what Christianity teaches - it teaches that we should love people. The question we need to answer as Christians (and as a society) is what constitutes people? There was a point in Christian history when some Christian thinkers said abortion was okay before quickening, the point when the fetus could be felt by the mother. But this wasn't due to theology - this was due to the amount of scientific knowledge they had. Because they didn't have the tools we have, they didn't know exactly how the process of fertilization worked. They didn't know what we do about when life begins. But this means that they were willing to protect the fetus as soon as they knew it was alive. They recognized that the infant in the womb was a human being and therefore, they understood that the child should be protected. This was true of the ancient Jews as well. The Bible writers didn't signal out abortion because they didn't have to - the sanction against murder already covered it. If you follow levitical law, you'll realize it covers almost every aspect in life, including what to do when a member of their community was made "unclean". Being unclean included for women, getting a period and giving birth. Nowhere in their laws, however, was a description of what women should do after undergoing an abortion. The law didn't have to cover that because abortion was not tolerated. In other words, the debate here is not what Christians believe, as if faith is merely a preference that religious people have. Neither is it about whether or not a person is meant to live or die. The question that needs to be answered is what is the unborn - not in my opinion but in reality. See, if the unborn are human beings, then we need to show God's love to them as equally as we show them to born people. If they are human beings, then we don't kill them through abortion. It means that we can't just say "if God wanted to He'll let this child live" and then proceed to kill that child. We wouldn't do that to a born child and so we shouldn't do it the unborn one. The pro-life position makes two important claims: First that biology tells us that human life has fertilization. The second is that human life has inherent value. Christianity helps us answer the second question, not the first.

• bloc said on Aug 15, 2009....

  thanks for the comment canbuhay. I'm not sure why God couldn't have made the first point clear in the bible. I.e. when a human being is created. Surely God could have provided the knowledge necessary for people in past times to understand how and when a human being begins. I find it odd that an issue which is front and center in modern american christianity isn't clearly dealt with in the Bible. The Bible was written in a time when there was a word for egg and for seed. It would have been very easy, for such an important issue, for God to have said that during sex a man puts seeds into a woman and that inside the woman is an egg. When the seed enters the egg human life is created and thou shalt not kill after this point. I'm sure God could word it better.
  
  
  Biology doesn't tell us when a being exists such that it should be bestowed with core human rights, and most people know instinctively that 4 cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence are not morally equivalent to a 4 year old girl. This hypothetical makes it clear. Imagine there is a building on fire and you rush in to save anyone inside. On one end of the building is an 8 year old girl and on the other end are 10 fertilized eggs (it's a fertility clinic). If you can only save the 10 eggs or the single 8 year old girl which would you save? Clearly the fertilized eggs are not morally equivalent to the 8 year old girl.
  
  
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Aug 17, 2009....

  Bloc-Your two worlds is so aggravating it isn't even worth arguing with you.  You paint this picture as if all these innocent little abortionists are just removing a tiny speck with 4 cells when you know that is not what is happening.  Plus go to any doctor, any person with a medical license and ask him/her when life begins.  You are also comparing a live growing human to something fertilized in a clinic?
   
  Look at your baby, right now, go look at your baby.  Now shrink it down and think in your mind if it wasn't convenient, if it was a bad time, etc etc etc however you people justify it some subhuman would cram a large suction hose into its brain for the purpose of ending its life, are you really fucking serious here!!!??? 
   
  I'd rather you would just be honest and say ya know what?  Abortion is terminating human life, it is a homocide, but no-one gives a shit it is our right to determine what we want to do with it, not this trying to make stupid justifications that make absolutely no logical sense.

• bloc said on Aug 20, 2009....

  " Plus go to any doctor, any person with a medical license and ask him/her when life begins."
  
  
  You realize that the sperm and egg are alive right?
  
  
  btw, 4 cells don't have a brain to be sucked out. I'll stop focusing on 4 cells when you stop acting as if all fetuses are like a breathing baby. You are the one claiming that 4 cells is equal in rights to a breathing baby so it makes sense for me to focus on that. 

Comment on "abortion: Christians, conception, and quickening"

Currently tagged	abortion politics religion life christianity Common Sense Saddened by the question (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment