Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - When does life begin?

In response to When does life begin? posted by pink101:

The point of viability...The embryo is on a life support system outside it's own ability to survive.

Careful. You are on a dangerously slippery slope here. Are we, as a society, going to embrace an ethic that allows caregivers to pull the plug by THEIR choice on those who they are caring for? If a person is on life support, does that mean he/she is no longer really a "life"?

It seems terrible to me that abortion takes place and I would not want to lightly enter into any decision making that might lead to it.

Explore that. WHY is abortion "terrible"? Why does it SEEM terrible? If the pre-born baby is NOT a living human organism, then having an abortion should present very little in the way of moral difficulty. The fact that it DOES, I think, should tell us something. We know, deep-down, that abortion typically kills a living, human organism. We know this, and it understandably bothers us. Or at least it should.
.
But, I can see situations where women are pregnant in which a marriage or a family might be destroyed. Bringing such a pregnancy to an end makes sense to me.

This is rationalization. I understand that sometimes we must rationalize the taking of innocent life, as our war planners did in World War II when we bombed civilian cities. But, we should never do so to the extent that we just casually accept killing.

Of course, if the embryo is brought to term, every option is changed.

Okay, and...
.
So, what changes once a live birth has been achieved? How does that first breath make such a difference?

GREAT questions!

The ONLY difference is that this dependent baby is now outside the woman's body. That's it. But this isn't a big enough difference IF you take pro-choice logic to its LOGICAL end. Nothing should change, because a brand new infant is still 100% dependent. If someone is unwilling to provide that care, the baby dies. He/she cannot sustain his/her own life without external care.

» Brian Tubbs - Realism

In response to Abortion Factors posted by Migisi:

Migisi, I am personally opposed to abortion on demand. Nothing changes that. Just as I'm personally opposed to the destruction of ANY innocent life. But I'm a realist. I understand that innocent people are killed in war AND I understand that some innocent babies will TRAGICALLY be destroyed to protect a mother's life and/or because our society will be unable and unwilling to outlaw all abortions. I'm a realist.

Take the Founding Fathers. Many of them, including Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, John Adams, etc., were anti-slavery. And these guys were 100% anti-slavery in that they didn't own any slaves at all. Franklin and Hamilton, in fact, co-founded abolitionist societies. BUT...

They compromised on the issue of slavery in order to get the Constitution signed and the United States up-and-running.

Lincoln was anti-slavery, but he compromised on the issue by subordinating it to the cause of the Union. Preserving the Union was his first and most important cause. Next to that, abolition of slaves. He was able, via support for the 13th amendment, to accomplish both. But he compromised.

I am pro-life, but I'm a realist - and I see that compromise will probably be necessary.

But that's speaking as a citizen. Not as a pastor or Christian. I remain 100% pro-life and will encourage others (men and women) to value and protect human life from conception to natural death.

» pink101 - When does life begin?

In response to When does life begin? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
This question of abortion is outside my ability to comprehend not being a woman capable of bearing a child.
.
But, from the position of a mature adult in a democratic society, I understand the depth of the issues involved. To argue the points on a religious basis throws our Constitutional legal system into a mishmash of the law. And, that's what we have regarding abortion. Society needs rules so that order can be secured--or something like that, right? Didn't you just make that claim?
.
If pro-life people want to turn the questions into a Constitutionally righteous argument, I think they're going to have to go for an amendment to the Constitution. Other than that, the question will always be settled along the lines of Roe vs Wade as long as we remain a democracy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Empty shell

In response to Empty shell posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Obviously, I have no problem with aborting an empty shell, Migisi.
.
Blighted ovum being common, I wonder how many first trimester abortions are actually performed on blighted ovums. Something to think about.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - When does life END?

In response to When does life begin? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
If a person is on life support, does that mean he/she is no longer really a "life"?
.
Is that person determined by medical professionals to be brain dead? Are life support machines merely keeping the body alive? Yes, I think in this case it means that he/she no longer has life. Because I believe this, I have declared in a legal document called a 'Living Will' that no machines shall keep me alive under those circumstances. My CHOICE to control my own body to the very end - and let it die.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Cessation of Brain Waves

In response to When does life END? posted by Migisi:

I read somewhere that the medical community generally defines death as the cessation of brain waves. So, if the brain is no longer functioning other than to tell the heart to beat, the person is considered dead. Am I correct in this? Have some of you read the same thing?

» pink101 - Cessation of Brain Waves

In response to Cessation of Brain Waves posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The brain doesn't tell the heart to beat. It just beats as long as it is nourished by blood.
.
A truly marvelous muscle indeed.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Reponse to Pink

In response to When does life begin? posted by pink101:
This question of abortion is outside my ability to comprehend not being a woman capable of bearing a child.

I'm sure there are many decisions made by certain people that are beyond your personal comprehension (same with me), but that doesn't mean you can't have a voice in the matter. In a separate post and thread, I wrote of a 14-year old teenage mother suspected of sexually abusing her 18-month old daughter. That is TOTALLY beyond my comprehension, but I most CERTAINLY have an opinion about it - and will, if given the opportunity, be heard at the table of societal public opinion!

To argue the points on a religious basis throws our Constitutional legal system into a mishmash of the law.

Just about ALL of our major legal principles can be traced back to religion, Pink. Nevertheless, I disagree with you that the pro-life position comes down to religion. A discussion of fetal development - where the baby is at 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 20 weeks - is NOT a religious question. It's a medical issue. And it's very pertinent (or at least SHOULD be) to abortion policy!

» Brian Tubbs - Response to Pink part two

Society needs rules so that order can be secured--or something like that, right? Didn't you just make that claim?

Yup! And protecting human life is one of the most fundamental rules a society must concern itself with.

If pro-life people want to turn the questions into a Constitutionally righteous argument, I think they're going to have to go for an amendment to the Constitution.

The pro-life community IS pushing for such an amendment.

Other than that, the question will always be settled along the lines of Roe vs Wade as long as we remain a democracy.

Roe v. Wade is terrible constitutional jurisprudence, and even many pro-choicers admit this! The Supreme Court conceptualized the trimester system and manufactured abortion rights out of thin air! Face it. They announced new policy - and they aren't supposed to do that. That's the legislature's perogative.
Your statement about democracy is strange. A democracy reflects rule by the people - not rule by an unelected oligarchy of lifetime judges!!! The pro-choice lobbies don't want abortion policies put to democratic votes, because they KNOW that abortion will be restricted. It wouldn't be outlawed totally, BUT it would most certainly be restricted. And the pro-choice crowd knows that.

Put abortion to a vote tomorrow, Pink, and it's bye-bye to ALL third-trimester abortions and most second-trimester abortions. (Except for protecting the mother's life, of course).

Doubt me? Look at the public opinion surveys. The American people overwhelmingly support RESTRICTIONS on abortion. So, why don't we have those restrictions? The COURTS! Don't give me this democracy stuff. The pro-choice movement does NOT want democracy involved in abortion policy.

» Migisi - Response to Pink part two

In response to Response to Pink part two posted by BrianTubbs:

.
The American people overwhelmingly support RESTRICTIONS on abortion.
.
What are those restrictions? Can you list them?

-- posted by Migisi