Abortion Clinic Protests

I think the concern is the culture negotiates when it's ok to kill an innocent. One life shouldn't be treated as more valuable than another.

This is about as much of a religious argument as why rape is wrong. If you're a Christian, it would make sense why the argument against rape is wrong, but one can be an atheist and still hold a moral and scientific argument just as the Christian could also hold a moral and scientific argument against it.

Abortion 100% of the time has the intention to kill an innocent human being. When we've begun asking when it's ok rather than why it isn't, then we've entered into an age of ageism--where the youngest of the human family can be regarded as not valuable enough for the right to life and dignity.

If I'm out swimming with my two sisters in the ocean and both begin drowning at the same time, and I only have the ability to save one of them, I would have to make the choice--not out of deciding that one is worth more than the other--but because that's my only option. However, if I saved Molly while holding Kelly's head under water, even though the outcome is the same, it becomes a whole different scenario.
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
There's also the thought exercise where a fertilization clinic is on fire. You only have one chance to run in and rescue someone. You could use that one trip to bring out a 3 year old girl trapped inside, or you could use it to bring out a storage freezer containing hundreds of frozen embryos. What do you do?

Do you save the girl but let hundreds die? Or do you save hundreds and let the girl die?
 
Not if you were a family member of the mother who died.

I'm sorry that happened, but I believe God has our days already numbered! We can relax knowing that (something we all might struggle with a little bit).

Job 14:5-7
New King James Version (NKJV)

5 Since his days are determined,
The number of his months is with You;
You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass.
6 Look away from him that he may rest,
Till like a hired man he finishes his day.

7 “For there is hope for a tree,
If it is cut down, that it will sprout again,
And that its tender shoots will not cease.
 
In some cases, there is a guarantee.

I think sometimes some people have this vision in their head that all pregnancies go perfectly well and any anomalies are just minor and temporary. Such people need to do some research and actually see some of the truly horrible things that can go wrong, both with the fetus and the mother. We're not talking "he has an extra finger" or "he has Down's Syndrome" here.

I get what you are saying, but I believe we are still to trust God. We have four children, but I've had five pregnancies. We lost our twins. I still believe that all of this is in God's hands, regardless if we understand it or not. I had to trust God or I would not have been able to move on from that.
 
Oh, you did. :)

The part that says "spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage" seems very flawed though in this definition. It is suggesting direct or indirect?

Also, I'm also bringing up the question of what literally is an abortion? In other words, what's the process? What literally happens? I think this is an important question to ask as well.
I hear ya on the miscarriage part.

As far as the process, well... it's pretty graphic. I've seen the pics on anti-abortion websites. Very painful for the baby.
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
Sweet Pea,

I understand, but like I said before, not everyone takes a Christian Science approach to serious medical issues. When I get sick I go to a doctor, rather than just pray and say "Whatever happens is God's will".
 
There's also the thought exercise where a fertilization clinic is on fire. You only have one chance to run in and rescue someone. You could use that one trip to bring out a 3 year old girl trapped inside, or you could use it to bring out a storage freezer containing hundreds of frozen embryos. What do you do?

Do you save the girl but let hundreds die? Or do you save hundreds and let the girl die?

Are you kidding me? Sorry to be rude, but you can't truly be serious here, right?
 
There's also the thought exercise where a fertilization clinic is on fire. You only have one chance to run in and rescue someone. You could use that one trip to bring out a 3 year old girl trapped inside, or you could use it to bring out a storage freezer containing hundreds of frozen embryos. What do you do?

Do you save the girl but let hundreds die? Or do you save hundreds and let the girl die?

I've heard this analogy before. I'm going for what everyone would go for and what everyone should go for in a scenario like this...Let's go even further and say it's 1000 embryos and a 1-year-old. I'm saving the 1-year-old.

Here's the problem with this logic in the defense of abortion though...it's only one option given, and neither discredit nor prove the notion that either the child or the embryos are human beings. It's not a scientific analogy.

What if it there was a burning building with everyone on this forum and my 2-year-old nephew, Noah, inside. I like you and everyone here, but you're all toast -- I'm saving Noah (and I'm sure you would do the same for your loved ones if I was in the burning building). Does it follow that none of you are equally human? And keep in mind, I may save my nephew first, but I won't be slitting everyone's throats on my way out.

This is why the analogy doesn't work to justify destructive embryo research or abortion, because the analogy is about who I am going to choose to save, not who am I going to choose to deliberately kill to benefit someone else. If it was a dilemma between a pot of flowers and a 1-year-old, then it wouldn't even be a dilemma because one is clearly valuable and the other isn't. The reason why this analogy holds more weight to the Pro-Life case is because both are valuable -- the dilemma is clear.

The reason why I would save the baby and not the 1000 embryos is because its suffering is greater, its chances of survival is much greater than the embryos -- medical triage staffs make these kinds of decisions all the time, but it doesn't mean the other one is not equal value.
 
Sweet Pea,

I understand, but like I said before, not everyone takes a Christian Science approach to serious medical issues. When I get sick I go to a doctor, rather than just pray and say "Whatever happens is God's will".

Yeah, I get that. However, we still need to DO God's Will and stop trying to perform FOR God, if that makes sense.
 
Sometimes I wonder if people bring up these extreme situations to take attention away from the issue at heart. Are we allowed to decide who lives and who doesn't because we don't want or like the circumstances? Can we kill someone for convenience or dislike of our circumstances? I understand someone not liking that a baby may be born, suffer for awhile, and then die. I feel for women who have been in these situations... it's truly heartbreaking. But isn't the outcome for God to determine?

Also, most of the abortions being done are not these extreme cases, anyway. They are people killing their babies because they don't want them. Period.

As far as the three-year-old... it's just such a silly question and it doesn't really deserve an answer. It's the question of someone trying to justify abortion.
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
Here's the problem with this logic in the defense of abortion though...it's only one option given, and neither discredit nor prove the notion that either the child or the embryos are human beings. It's not a scientific analogy.
I agree that it's a crude exercise, and I certainly didn't pose it in defense of abortion. My point was to demonstrate that there are all sorts of possible scenarios where we are forced to make life/death decisions and choose between one life and another.

What if it there was a burning building with everyone on this forum and my 2-year-old nephew, Noah, inside. I like you and everyone here, but you're all toast -- I'm saving Noah (and I'm sure you would do the same for your loved ones if I was in the burning building). Does it follow that none of you are equally human? And keep in mind, I may save my nephew first, but I won't be slitting everyone's throats on my way out.
That doesn't apply here because in the analogy, you don't know anyone in the building. All you know is that in one room is a 3 year old and in the other is a container holding embryos and you can only make one trip.

This is why the analogy doesn't work to justify destructive embryo research or abortion, because the analogy is about who I am going to choose to save, not who am I going to choose to deliberately kill to benefit someone else.
But that's the situation with the "life of the mother" cases. With the burning clinic, you could stand outside and not do anything, citing "God's will", or you could make a choice and save one of them. By picking one over the other, you are making a conscious decision that the other one will die, when you could have saved it.

The reason why I would save the baby and not the 1000 embryos is because its suffering is greater, its chances of survival is much greater than the embryos -- medical triage staffs make these kinds of decisions all the time, but it doesn't mean the other one is not equal value.
Yes it does. You are making a value decision. By saying "it's chances of survival is much greater", you are using that as a value criterion to make your decision on who to rescue.

As far as medical triage, those are indeed value of life decisions. Maybe they could save the guy with the traumatic head wound, but during the time it would take to do so, 5 others would die for lack of care. So they deliberately let the one guy die and save the 5. They are making the value judgement that 5 lives have greater value than one.

Throw in another wrinkle....what if that one person with a head wound is your child? Does that change your decision to let him die so you can save the other five?
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
Sometimes I wonder if people bring up these extreme situations to take attention away from the issue at heart. Are we allowed to decide who lives and who doesn't because we don't want or like the circumstances?
People are forced to make those decisions every day, in all sorts of circumstances.

Can we kill someone for convenience or dislike of our circumstances? I understand someone not liking that a baby may be born, suffer for awhile, and then die. I feel for women who have been in these situations... it's truly heartbreaking. But isn't the outcome for God to determine?

Also, most of the abortions being done are not these extreme cases, anyway. They are people killing their babies because they don't want them. Period.
Let's be perfectly clear, I'm against abortion for convenience.

As far as the three-year-old... it's just such a silly question and it doesn't really deserve an answer. It's the question of someone trying to justify abortion.
Only in extreme circumstances. Think a little deeper.
 
I agree that it's a crude exercise, and I certainly didn't pose it in defense of abortion. My point was to demonstrate that there are all sorts of possible scenarios where we are forced to make life/death decisions and choose between one life and another.


That doesn't apply here because in the analogy, you don't know anyone in the building. All you know is that in one room is a 3 year old and in the other is a container holding embryos and you can only make one trip.


But that's the situation with the "life of the mother" cases. With the burning clinic, you could stand outside and not do anything, citing "God's will", or you could make a choice and save one of them. By picking one over the other, you are making a conscious decision that the other one will die, when you could have saved it.


Yes it does. You are making a value decision. By saying "it's chances of survival is much greater", you are using that as a value criterion to make your decision on who to rescue.

As far as medical triage, those are indeed value of life decisions. Maybe they could save the guy with the traumatic head wound, but during the time it would take to do so, 5 others would die for lack of care. So they deliberately let the one guy die and save the 5. They are making the value judgement that 5 lives have greater value than one.

Throw in another wrinkle....what if that one person with a head wound is your child? Does that change your decision to let him die so you can save the other five?

You're missing the point in regards to what I mean in value of human life, not severity of one's state of health. The analogy is neglecting the issue of direct vs. indirect. This analogy is illogical and unscientific, and it doesn't even disrupt morality.

Your second analogy being my child with the head wound and the other five -- I'm probably still going to go by every means to save my child, but again, does that mean I am going to intentionally try and hurt the other five? This scenario, like the other, is also illogical.
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
Lysander,

One's state of health is a factor in judging the value of life. We know that as a fact because it happens every day, all over the world.

If you want to get into scenarios where you are forced to make a decision to deliberately take someone's life, we can do that too. Shooting scenarios, wars, etc. all fit that mold. But keep in mind, deciding to not save someone when you are fully capable of doing so is a deliberate decision to end their life.
 
Lysander,

One's state of health is a factor in judging the value of life. We know that as a fact because it happens every day, all over the world.

If you want to get into scenarios where you are forced to make a decision to deliberately take someone's life, we can do that too. Shooting scenarios, wars, etc. all fit that mold. But keep in mind, deciding to not save someone when you are fully capable of doing so is a deliberate decision to end their life.

RJ, using scenarios like self-defense against aggressors or something along those lines, isn't on the same level of philosophy and morality as the subject of abortion. While those subjects are also worth discussing and diving into, they don't compare as the same thing.

Take the Death Penalty for example. I am against the death penalty on all accounts and believe it should be abolished. However, just because, like abortion, I'm against the death penalty, that doesn't make them the same. One argument is that I don't believe the state, or anyone for that matter, has the moral authority to end someone's life as a means of punishment -- even if the subject is guilty of horrendous crimes.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a subject of an innocent life that is at risk of being deliberately killed despite its innocence.

I never discredit the extreme arguments people have like "what if its rape" or "what if it involves the safety of the mother's life" because those deserve answers too, even if they are rare. But there's a difference between saving one life despite the indirect death of another vs. saving one life by means of directly killing another. This is why the scientific argument can only go so far and morality has to get involved where science can't measure.
 
People are forced to make those decisions every day, in all sorts of circumstances.


Let's be perfectly clear, I'm against abortion for convenience.


Only in extreme circumstances. Think a little deeper.

Don't insult my intelligence because I disagree with you.

You are thinking with emotion. I am thinking biblically.
 
You're missing the point in regards to what I mean in value of human life, not severity of one's state of health. The analogy is neglecting the issue of direct vs. indirect. This analogy is illogical and unscientific, and it doesn't even disrupt morality.

Your second analogy being my child with the head wound and the other five -- I'm probably still going to go by every means to save my child, but again, does that mean I am going to intentionally try and hurt the other five? This scenario, like the other, is also illogical.

Exactly.
 
I'm 16 minutes into the video, so far, and the video has only strengthened my stance. Abortion is wrong under all circumstances. The babies are murdered. No matter which method is used. Plain and simple.

Verse mentioned in video:
Matthew 7:21-23
New King James Version (NKJV)

I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I have to pause the video until my children go upstairs (they just got home). Here's a website I saw a little while ago:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/10/why-we-shouldnt-abort-babies-that-are-going-to-die.html
 
Top