Evidence for God from Science

"I am not pro-abortion like you ignorantly imply but believe that I can not in the end decide for another human what to do with their life."

We decide all the time what another hiumn being should do with their life.

I decide (with the state's law behind me) that my children will go to school.

We decide when criminals will go to jail.

We decide speed limits upon the roadways.

The problem with this argument is that in order for it to be valid, in the manner I think you are implying, you have to declare the child, "not human" which is precidely what pro-choice leads to and it indeed provides a definition that in the end can justify infanticide, euthanasia and eugenic population control.

I believe we can accept that that is not the intent of everyone who holds a "pro-choice" position. However, reason and applied values cannot be inconsistent in this regard and determine what the societal implications of such a position held may be.

In an abortion there is a decision being made as to what someone should do with their life. The life of the child is ended, and that is an imposed decision.

We can decide what we will value. We cannot in the end, decide the consequences.

Canuckster1127 wrote:"I am not pro-abortion like you ignorantly imply but believe that I can not in the end decide for another human what to do with their life."

We decide all the time what another hiumn being should do with their life.

I decide (with the state's law behind me) that my children will go to school.

We decide when criminals will go to jail.

We decide speed limits upon the roadways.

The problem with this argument is that in order for it to be valid, in the manner I think you are implying, you have to declare the child, "not human" which is precidely what pro-choice leads to and it indeed provides a definition that in the end can justify infanticide, euthanasia and eugenic population control.

I believe we can accept that that is not the intent of everyone who holds a "pro-choice" position. However, reason and applied values cannot be inconsistent in this regard and determine what the societal implications of such a position held may be.

In an abortion there is a decision being made as to what someone should do with their life. The life of the child is ended, and that is an imposed decision.

We can decide what we will value. We cannot in the end, decide the consequences.

It is a pity almost everyone is lacking comprehension of what I am implying. I am simply stating that I do not have the right, nor does anyone else to infringe upon the right for a person to decide what happens to their own body. I can love them enough to do everything in the world to guide them but in the end the decision has to be theirs alone. Legislating to ban abortions is not the answer either. If any of you really want to do something positive find out why it occurs in the first place. Find the cause and you can address the problem properly. If people refuse to allow abortion you will still end up with a problem (and with much more tragic results). You will end up with 47 million more babies to house. Now even if half the mothers keep their babies that still leave 23.5 million babies to find foster parents for. Do you have any idea of what that will be like for these kids. There is a shortage of foster parents already. Many children are condemned to a life of being shoved from one home to another. Just to get some idea of how bad the problem is in Australia they can not find enough foster parents to cater for these kids so they end up in group homes. In these group homes the children (through no choice) are often placed with their peers who may in turn have psychological problems. I think the best solution is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

As for not caring about the political side of things I don't see that as a problem. This problem is regarding this post is in the US (although it is happening here too). I was stating the situation I saw that has occurred over here when they were discussing the issue. I went to conferences, reviewed information and the only group (after submissions) who did not use any form of dirty tricks were the pro-choice group. Some really dirty tricks were played to influence the committee reviewing this issue by the anti-abortion proponents. This was the stupidest thing they could have done because the board after that regarded their side of the argument with suspicion.

The comment concerning making decisions for other people is right up to a point. They can choose to disobey what we instruct them to do. They have choice. Choice is free will. Justice Michael Kirby wrote an excellent article regarding the issue of free will. This is a very grey area in its interpretation and the law views it in this way: Free will is only applicable to the individual person on their own self. What they do to themselves is free will. As for abortion the issue becomes that of property and ownership (which sadly reflects the type of society we now live in if we view life like that), who owns the foetus in the first place.

Michelle wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:"I am not pro-abortion like you ignorantly imply but believe that I can not in the end decide for another human what to do with their life."

We decide all the time what another hiumn being should do with their life.

I decide (with the state's law behind me) that my children will go to school.

We decide when criminals will go to jail.

We decide speed limits upon the roadways.

The problem with this argument is that in order for it to be valid, in the manner I think you are implying, you have to declare the child, "not human" which is precidely what pro-choice leads to and it indeed provides a definition that in the end can justify infanticide, euthanasia and eugenic population control.

I believe we can accept that that is not the intent of everyone who holds a "pro-choice" position. However, reason and applied values cannot be inconsistent in this regard and determine what the societal implications of such a position held may be.

In an abortion there is a decision being made as to what someone should do with their life. The life of the child is ended, and that is an imposed decision.

We can decide what we will value. We cannot in the end, decide the consequences.

It is a pity almost everyone is lacking comprehension of what I am implying. I am simply stating that I do not have the right, nor does anyone else to infringe upon the right for a person to decide what happens to their own body. I can love them enough to do everything in the world to guide them but in the end the decision has to be theirs alone. Legislating to ban abortions is not the answer either. If any of you really want to do something positive find out why it occurs in the first place. Find the cause and you can address the problem properly. If people refuse to allow abortion you will still end up with a problem (and with much more tragic results). You will end up with 47 million more babies to house. Now even if half the mothers keep their babies that still leave 23.5 million babies to find foster parents for. Do you have any idea of what that will be like for these kids. There is a shortage of foster parents already. Many children are condemned to a life of being shoved from one home to another. Just to get some idea of how bad the problem is in Australia they can not find enough foster parents to cater for these kids so they end up in group homes. In these group homes the children (through no choice) are often placed with their peers who may in turn have psychological problems. I think the best solution is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

As for not caring about the political side of things I don't see that as a problem. This problem is regarding this post is in the US (although it is happening here too). I was stating the situation I saw that has occurred over here when they were discussing the issue. I went to conferences, reviewed information and the only group (after submissions) who did not use any form of dirty tricks were the pro-choice group. Some really dirty tricks were played to influence the committee reviewing this issue by the anti-abortion proponents. This was the stupidest thing they could have done because the board after that regarded their side of the argument with suspicion.

The comment concerning making decisions for other people is right up to a point. They can choose to disobey what we instruct them to do. They have choice. Choice is free will. Justice Michael Kirby wrote an excellent article regarding the issue of free will. This is a very grey area in its interpretation and the law views it in this way: Free will is only applicable to the individual person on their own self. What they do to themselves is free will. As for abortion the issue becomes that of property and ownership (which sadly reflects the type of society we now live in if we view life like that), who owns the foetus in the first place.

Michelle,

Respectfully, I believe you are assuming if someone disagrees with you it must be because they don't understand your position.

I understand your position.

I do no agree with it.

A woman's right to her body in this regard is tempered with the right of the child to live and the responsibility of society to protect life, especially where it cannot protect itself.

You've made a decision in terms of how you understand life and what takes precedence in this situation. I disagree with the value judgment made and assert my position on a different hierarchy of values.

Bart

Michelle,

To echo Bart's statements, I understand your position as well. That's why I said I am anti-choice. You assert that we do not have a right to tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy, although we can guide them. I assert that she does not have the right to choose to end it.

Now, beyond this, I'm still looking for you to respond to K's original assertion. If a person is pro-choice (not necessarily pro-abortion), then on what basis do you reject infanticide? If a woman has a right to take the life of her child ten minutes before it is born, then why not ten minutes after? Does the location of the body actually matter? Obviously, no. The logical extension is to give the mother the right to end the child's life up to the point where he is aware of himself.

Of course, being anti-choice, we (I?) don't have that problem.

I think this will be my last post considering it appears the logic I present of being pro-choice on infanticide is not being responded to. Ultimately the argument I have presented, is a moral one which was also laid against the UN for not acting in Rwanda when they could have, but instead choosing to withdraw. The issue is whether we have a moral obligation to defend the lives of the innocent who can't defend themselves? I believe we do, but it appears Michelle does not. Thus, pro-choice to her is like the UN saying to the Tutsi's who were slaughtered in Rwanda, we disagree with the Hutu's slaughtering you, but surely you do not expect us to take away the Hutu's choice to take your lives? Such I believe exposes the "pro-choice" banner as the absurd position that it is, and I can agree with Jac that anti-choice when human lives are going to be lost or violently abused, is the only real moral position we as human beings should take.

Before ending I would like to present a few articles. First, relating to "pro-choice" issue, here is an abstract to a response I would recommend reading the full page of:

Since abortion is impossible to defend on the merits (it kills a living human being, remember), "choice" has become the foundation of its political justification. Abortion advocates don't want to talk about facts or science, but they love to talk about "choice". "This is America...We're free to choose...You can't legislate morality!" Nothing has so clouded and confused the politics of this debate more than the misconstrued application of this one little term. The bottom line is this. Choice is nothing apart from the context to which it is applied. Individual choices are either recognized or restricted based upon the circumstances at hand. That's how our laws work. You simply cannot talk about choice in isolation.

For thirty years, however, abortion advocates have sought to bestow upon choice a nobility all its own, a nobility it has no claim to. They refuse to be called "pro-abortion", but they gladly accept the label "pro-choice" (despite the fact that there are countless other issues for which they are decidedly not pro-choice). The fact is, laws against rape, murder, assault, theft, speeding, drunk-driving and even smoking are all "anti-choice". They take away legal protection from one particular choice in order to protect a more foundational freedom. All such laws are "legislating morality". That's the only way society can survive. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. Therefore, anyone who defends legal abortion by simply arguing that people must be free to make their own choices is either ignorant or dishonest.

...

The "Choice" Facade - http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-B-2-choice.html

Now the argument that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body has also just been thrown into the discussion. However, if do we have a right to do as we want even if that means taking the life of another human being? Another page I quote here in whole:

There are a number of clear biological facts which easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1) An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

2) In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

3) In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

4) As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not that of the body in which he resides."

5) It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

6) It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row in the U.S. because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.

7) It has long been known that unborn children play a significant role in pacing a woman's pregnancy. Sir Albert Lilley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

<blockquote>Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.... It is the embryo who stops his mother's periods and makes her womb habitable by developing a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He regulates his own amniotic fluid volume and although women speak of their waters breaking or their membranes rupturing, these structures belong to the fetus. And finally, it is the fetus, not the mother, who decides when labor should be initiated.</blockquote>
Part of the Mother's Body? - http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2b-mothers_body.html

Kurieuo

puritan lad wrote:Ouch Michelle,

Why should we bother to have a Civil Government at all? Let's just let everyone act according to their free will. Why stop at abortion? Let's also allow all types of murder, robbery, rape, etc. Obviously, this is nonsense.

Of course we have the right legislate morality. What else are we going to legislate? Part of the Great Commission was to make disciples and to "teach them to observe all things I have commanded you". That means morality, defined by God's Law (Matthew 5:17-18).

And saying that God sent His Son to die for Hitler is quite presumptuous.

Of course, if you are correct, then you have no right to judge someone for judging someone. (You seem to be quite judgmental over the war that Bush allegedly started)

Just how is it presumptuous to say that God sent his son so that even Hitler if he believed in him could be forgiven of his sins? Are you implying that God would refuse to forgive even him? Read John ch. 3! You might find that all who believe are given that chance. Although I must admit it is a little too late now for Hitler. Still, if he were alive he would be forgiven by God if he chose to become a Christian. Which demonstrates the point I was trying to make.

Also where do you get the idea that I am judgemental of the Iraqi war? I am noticing quite clearly that Christians blatantly distort any viewpoint others have if it isn't to their liking. Every one of you who have criticized me he gone out of your way to distort every thing I have said. You are blatantly dogmatic. You are right and that is that in your opinion. On the other hand I will admit it if I am proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt. The fact is though none of you have proven me wrong.

As well it is very obvious you have little concept of law otherwise you would have been able to comprehend what I was meaning. That is probably my fault as law and political processes is something that I am involved with and I should allow for that fact.

As well it is very obvious you have little concept of law otherwise you would have been able to comprehend what I was meaning. That is probably my fault as law and political processes is something that I am involved with and I should allow for that fact.

Michelle,

A condescending attitude is not a particularly effective means of persuasion.

Perhaps, there are different values at work here, not varying levels of intelligence or education?

Again, you appear to believe that if someone could just understand what you were saying, they would have no option, but to accept the "truth" of what you have to say.

For my part, I believe I am a reasonably intelligent person, able to understand what you are saying in this regard. My values are apparantly drawn from a different source than yours with regard to abortion. Therefore, I come to a different conclusion than you do.

We can explore the differences in terms of those foundations if you wish.

Otherwise, I think perhaps we are doomed to continue to trip round the mulberry bush ad infinitim.

Regards,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:

As well it is very obvious you have little concept of law otherwise you would have been able to comprehend what I was meaning. That is probably my fault as law and political processes is something that I am involved with and I should allow for that fact.

Michelle,

A condescending attitude is not a particularly effective means of persuasion.

Perhaps, there are different values at work here, not varying levels of intelligence or education?

Again, you appear to believe that if someone could just understand what you were saying, they would have no option, but to accept the "truth" of what you have to say.

For my part, I believe I am a reasonably intelligent person, able to understand what you are saying in this regard. My values are apparantly drawn from a different source than yours with regard to abortion. Therefore, I come to a different conclusion than you do.

We can explore the differences in terms of those foundations if you wish.

Otherwise, I think perhaps we are doomed to continue to trip round the mulberry bush ad infinitim.

Regards,

Bart

Thankyou, finally someone with a brain! I do accept that you all have a different opinion, but I can not accept that you think pro-choice means pro-abortion. I have read the links suggested to me and view that as propaganda. There is no evidence to say that pro-choice actually is pro-abortion. Pro-choice might mean choosing to have the baby.

Michelle wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

As well it is very obvious you have little concept of law otherwise you would have been able to comprehend what I was meaning. That is probably my fault as law and political processes is something that I am involved with and I should allow for that fact.

Michelle,

A condescending attitude is not a particularly effective means of persuasion.

Perhaps, there are different values at work here, not varying levels of intelligence or education?

Again, you appear to believe that if someone could just understand what you were saying, they would have no option, but to accept the "truth" of what you have to say.

For my part, I believe I am a reasonably intelligent person, able to understand what you are saying in this regard. My values are apparantly drawn from a different source than yours with regard to abortion. Therefore, I come to a different conclusion than you do.

We can explore the differences in terms of those foundations if you wish.

Otherwise, I think perhaps we are doomed to continue to trip round the mulberry bush ad infinitim.

Regards,

Bart

Thankyou, finally someone with a brain! I do accept that you all have a different opinion, but I can not accept that you think pro-choice means pro-abortion. I have read the links suggested to me and view that as propaganda. There is no evidence to say that pro-choice actually is pro-abortion. Pro-choice might mean choosing to have the baby.

Michelle,

Sometimes I find in an conversation of this nature that it helps to suspend the debate for a moment and attempt to see what the other person is saying, to their satisfaction.

Why do you imagine, that someone with a position contrary to yours would think that a pro-choice position, does indeed lead to the aborting of unwanted children?

You state that Pro-Choice might mean choosing to have the baby. I agree with you. It might mean that. What else might it also mean?

Regards,

Bart

I am a christian who at least in part supports pro-choice.
Yet I don't support abortion and view infanticide as the horrible sin that it is.
Now more correctly I might say I am anti "anti-abortionists"
At least the extreme ones who believe protesting and harassment outside
abortion clinics is the answer.

I believe the answer lies in reducing the need for the abortion in the first place. Also in providing the support a mother needs to have the baby and
have it adopted by loving parents.

Now I would have to say I see the need to set stricter limits on abortion
with certain guidelines.

In a healthy pregnancy that needs to be set a cut off date where its too late for an abortion. The female should be required to undergo some form of counselling before deciding.

Now question I have for some of you
If your anti-abortion are you also against the morning after pill?

Would you go as far as the Pope and be against birth control altogether?

Its been many years since I have been in school, but at what stage does
the brain form? At what stage does it change from a collection of cells and become a fetus?

A normal female in my understanding can miss one period then test and see if she is pregnant. That maybe the time she maybe decide to abort or not?

Given rape, unprotected sex and such the morning after pill needs to be made available.

Another question might be at what point should the father have the right to say that he wants his daughter or son?

Yet in all this I still think that simply making abortion illegal is not the right
solution!

Michael

Michelle wrote:Who am I to tell someone else what choice to make in their life. I am not God and neither are any of you! The minute any of us enforce our will on others we become tools of the devil.

When I read this, I just had to react...

If I would see someone on the verge of murdering my child, I would stop him -- knock him senseless if I had to. I would enforce my will on the would-be murderer. Would that make me a tool of the devil?

It is not wrong to stop other people committing evil actions. You are right when you say God uses pain and evil: God has a plan for everything. But that does not justify it. When you see a man being thrown into a pit somewhere by a gang, you would not simply walk by, thinking 'It's all right, Joseph was thrown into a pit too and look how well it all turned out in the end!'

Michelle wrote:It is very obvious that you are dogmatic about your opinion (your opinion must be Gods as well) apparently.

Yep; there are strong inferences from Scripture that this is the case.

Michelle wrote:My main point on all of this is that their is a deep seated root cause on this and until we address it abortion will always remain a problem.

It's called sin.

Michelle wrote:Just think of Martin Bryant, or Adolf Hitler and yet despite this God still loved them enough to send his son to die for them too!

You think Jesus died for Adolf Hitler? I don't. He died for His sheep.

Kurieuo wrote:Firstly, I think it is the right of every human being to be able to live their life without being abused and having their life taken from them.

I have a different kind of question. Obviously it's right to stop someone murdering a human being, with violence if needed. Would the same thing apply to people on the way to abortion clinics? I wouldn't mind trying to stop a crazed man with a knife, but it wouldn't feel right to physically stop a hurting young girl from letting her baby be killed. What is your take on this?

Jac wrote:That said, I'm not pro-life (specifically).

I'm anti-choice.

Are you? I'm more of an anti-termination type of guy.

Michelle wrote:My original question to everyone was where do you all get the idea that pro-choice automatically implies pro-abortion?

Kurieuo didn't say that anywhere, just like you didn't compare Kurieuo to Hitler.
Start listening to each other, the both of you.

Michelle wrote:You are even above God himself, who right throughout the Bible warned of the consequences of taking away free will.

God? Wasn't He the Guy who warned of the disastrous consequences of abusing free will? Wasn't He the One who provided the Jews with reams of legislation?

Michelle wrote:I am simply stating that I do not have the right, nor does anyone else to infringe upon the right for a person to decide what happens to their own body.

Only the part of that 'body' involved isn't her own body anymore. It's her baby's body.

Michelle wrote:If people refuse to allow abortion you will still end up with a problem (and with much more tragic results). You will end up with 47 million more babies to house.

Most of them can actually live with their mothers. Most women who doubt whether they should have an abortion, and in the end choose to keep the baby, let him/her stay.
And killing humans to avoid a housing problem doesn't seem a very legitimate solution to me.

Michelle wrote:Now even if half the mothers keep their babies that still leave 23.5 million babies to find foster parents for. Do you have any idea of what that will be like for these kids. There is a shortage of foster parents already. Many children are condemned to a life of being shoved from one home to another.

So if I see a person and I think, 'He might very well be unhappy for the rest of his life, given the percentage of people who feel unhappy right now', I would be allowed to kill him if I desired?

Michelle wrote:Just how is it presumptuous to say that God sent his son so that even Hitler if he believed in him could be forgiven of his sins?

IF. But Hitler didn't believe. Ergo, Jesus's atonement was not for Hitler. It COULD have been, from a human point of view, but it was not.

Michelle wrote:I do accept that you all have a different opinion, but I can not accept that you think pro-choice means pro-abortion.

No one thinks so, as has been said on several occasions.

Michelle wrote:I have read the links suggested to me and view that as propaganda.

Naturally, pro-choice is unbiased and balanced.

Michelle wrote:Pro-choice might mean choosing to have the baby.

When people talk about 'pro-choice', they always seem to mean the right to abort the baby.

bluesman wrote:If your anti-abortion are you also against the morning after pill?

Yes. It's also a form of abortion.

bluesman wrote:Given rape, unprotected sex and such the morning after pill needs to be made available.

Only when having the baby would endanger the life of the mother -- which includes situations where the mother is suicidal.

bluesman,

I have to simpler solutions.

1.) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

2.) In the case of rape, adoption.

Simple enough? Murdering an innocent baby is never an answer.

bluesman wrote:Another question might be at what point should the father have the right to say that he wants his daughter or son?

At the point before moving down the path of sexual intercourse.

bluesman wrote:Yet in all this I still think that simply making abortion illegal is not the right solution!

It's already illegal in God's Eyes. Contrary to popular opinion, the Supreme Court is not the final authority.

Thou shalt not murder.

I like the fact that God's Word makes these debates simple.

I have been trying to stress the point that for some reason no one is doing anything about prevention. The following might help explain things a bit better.

Lately on the news there has been condemnation of the retail corporations and their use of children in provocative advertising. They are being criticized for sending the wrong message to children to act sexually. Now most of us are aware that the large retail giants (despite denying this) have been doing this for a long time. Children begin to grow up in a society that sends out the message to be accepted they must be sexy! By the time they are adults this message is ingrained on their mind.

As Christian parents we have the love and sense to teach our children otherwise. However what have we done to actually stop these greedy corporate giants preying on children for profit? Have any of us begun our own clothing label and tried to beat these retail giants at their own game. And please don't ask me to do it, as I don't sew very well.

Or have any of us been involved in programs to teach our children appropriate behaviour. Teach our children appropriate sexual behaviour and you will reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. And sitting back and allowing these corporate mogels to do get away with sexual exploitation wont help either. don't buy any clothing from them that has been used in a provocative way in advertising. No consumer interest no profit and they will try for something else to suit the consumers needs.

Anyway while on the subject of society. Sorry guys this is not for you! But the mums may relate to this. When I had children I was in hospital and all the other mums were counting all the fingers and toes of their babies. A common thing I guess. However I didn't. Mind you I was ostracized for it. I felt so awkward about it and felt it was wrong. My reasoning being that to me this is my child and any deformities it may have don't matter. I love this baby unconditionally. I felt that these other mums may have been afraid if their babies were anything less than perfect.

Over the years all the other mums were entering their children into beauty pageants and the like but I never. I have always taught my children that beauty comes from within and has nothing to do with looks. My daughter is anything but beautiful in facial looks as she has a slight deformity, however as a person she is beautiful. She is also intellectually disabled and at times there are occasions when she gets frustrated because she cant make sense of things.

Yet despite all this because of the manner in which she has been brought up she sometimes shows incredible wisdom. She could have corrected her deformity however the waiting list is too long and it is only to improve her looks. I brought her up to know that vanity is wrong and that her as a person is what is important. She matters, not her looks. Because of the way she has been brought up she doesn't see things the way most people do in society.

She knows that she cant look after a baby herself. That would mean a small child looking after a baby. She has made the choice not to worry about anything like that. She has told me time and time again she isn't interested despite knowing about sex herself. I believe that this shows wisdom. For a person with an intellectual disability she has the sense to realise the responsibility involved; she understands that sex is not a substitute for real caring.

This real caring is what a lot of people lack in our society today. A recent government report on homeless young people in Australia discovered that more than half the young people on the streets came from affluent backgrounds. These young people all stated that they couldn't understand why their was no love in their families and why their families were different from others. If young people aren't loved at home they will try and find a substitute and usually this results in unwanted pregnancies.