News Article: Obama Lifts Ban on Abortions

[tidepws]

I was using this specific situation as an example to show how you can look at the same thing in two different ways. If one can post seemingly non-graphic image, why can one not post a graphic image of the same process.

If you have problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. Using his logic.

 

[Tide n True]

I was using this specific situation as an example to show how you can look at the same thing in two different ways. If one can post seemingly non-graphic image, why can one not post a graphic image of the same process.

If you have problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. Using his logic.

I get your point, but it's a path I don't really want to take. Be careful what you wish for, as they say...what if he actually did allow such pictures?

 

[Tide1986]

Please, quit with the drama. Personhood is not black or white. I took an entire graduate course on personhood (beginning and end of life issues). This is one of the blurriest lines in all of ethics. "Potential being" could incorporate anything from implantation, and possibly even before that.

For instance, here is just one well-known list of criteria that a famous theologian believes must be present for somebody to be a "person":

Link to random essay
[/LEFT]
[/LIST]

If personhood isn't black and white, then it makes sense to err on the side that includes more "persons" -- that'd be the "democratic" way. Also, the referenced definition of a "person" is quite disturbing: there are soooooo many human beings who would fail the definition and be subject to elimination as a result.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[tidepws]

...what if he actually did allow such pictures?

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me. I'm not really affected by graphic images. But I know it would disturb most.

 

[gmart74]

there are soooooo many human beings who would fail the definition and be subject to elimination as a result.
Posted via Mobile Device

this is exactly the reason why i have always advocated post-post-term abortion. the basic tenet of the philosophy is this- If by age 15 you show absolutely no potential to become a positive member of society, then you are aborted. This eliminates that whole pesky "when does life begin" question.

 

[CrimsonCT]

I bet if I posted a picture of a partial birth abortion, I'd be banned permanently. Don't trivialize the issue.

We haven't been talking about late-term abortion, and hardly defending it. One of the primary contentions for the past 10 pages has been whether life arises immediately after conception, and TommyMac in fact alluded to my posts on this issue when he referenced "potential persons." The picture is thus quite relevant.

 

[jthomas666]

I was using this specific situation as an example to show how you can look at the same thing in two different ways. If one can post seemingly non-graphic image, why can one not post a graphic image of the same process.

If you have problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. Using his logic.

Try again. There's a difference between graphic and non-graphic. If you are confused about the difference, I suggest you consult the fetcher rules.

 

[bayoutider]

Let's try to keep some resemblance of good taste and order here.

 

[tidepws]

Try again. There's a difference between graphic and non-graphic. If you are confused about the difference, I suggest you consult the fetcher rules.

I bet you were a hall monitor as a kid... maybe even moonlighted as an after-school crossing guard. Hell, you still might.

 

[TRUTIDE]

It's pretty sad to see unborn babies referred to as "potential persons" or "potential beings." I guess it kind of helps to salve the consciences of those who advocate their brutal executions. :mad2:

I agree. I would think that "potential" would reside in the sperm and the ovum. Once they combine, we now have a unique, living organism more commonly referred to as life (or a human being). This human being will then start to grow and develope untill death. He/she may have the "potential" to be a great athlete or a great scientist sometime down the road but the potential of life has already been realized at fertilization.

 

[jthomas666]

I bet you were a hall monitor as a kid... maybe even moonlighted as an after-school crossing guard. Hell, you still might.

You lose.

 

[TommyMac]

Please, quit with the drama. Personhood is not black or white. I took an entire graduate course on personhood (beginning and end of life issues). This is one of the blurriest lines in all of ethics. "Potential being" could incorporate anything from implantation, and possibly even before that.

For instance, here is just one well-known list of criteria that a famous theologian believes must be present for somebody to be a "person":

Link to random essay
[/LEFT]
[/LIST]

Whatever helps you to sleep at night?

 

[It's On A Slab]

I bet you were a hall monitor as a kid... maybe even moonlighted as an after-school crossing guard. Hell, you still might.

But if you don't think this forum has rules, think again.

Violate the fetchers rules, and risk a quick timeout. Someone I know quite well (uh, me) got sent to the penalty box during his first few weeks on TideFans.:biggrin:

 

[It's On A Slab]

What can I say, unlike the Obama/PP supporters, I have the ability to think for myself. I can see that it is hard for you to understand why I do not follow the company line. One would think that a abortion proponent would welcome compromise. Compromise just defeats the purpose though, does'nt it. Let's just leave it in a state of confusion. This is obviously just a one sided conversation anyway.

Instead trying to define and tear down my values, why don't you work on these folks for a while...NRLC Mission Statement

I'm not tearing down your values.

I'm asking you to justify your reasoning.

If you leave room to abort fetuses in case of rape or incest, why not hair color, gender, sexual orientation (if a gay gene is found), or any other factor in which the unborn fetus has no choice?

Still waiting.

 

[SavannahDare]

Aren't y'all tired of this thread yet?
:beatdeadhorse5:

As I see it, there is no "good" solution when it comes to terminating vs. not terminating unwanted pregnancies. I've known women who've had abortions at all different stages of pregnancy. I haven't known a single one who wasn't adversely affected (emotionally) by her choice to abort. I've known women who decided not to abort, some of them giving the baby up and some of them keeping the baby. They too suffered in their own ways for their choices, even the women who were happy they kept the baby they thought they didn't want.

Still, most women are glad they currently have the choice, even if they regret the one they make.

It's tragic in many cases, really. But y'all go on trying to bicker each other into submission. DT_popc:

 

[bayoutider]

The strong emotions surrounding the abortion issue may lead those on both sides of the issue into the sin of self-righteousness. Jesus was greatly offended by self-righteous religious people who thought they were better than those they considered "sinners."

The Pharisees were a Jewish sect noted for their strict observance of the laws of God. Tax collectors were among the most despised people in Israel. As agents of the occupying Roman forces they often extorted excess taxes and were considered traitors to their people. That is why Jesus used a Pharisee and a tax collector to illustrate the sin of self-righteousness:

Then [Jesus] told this story to some who boasted of their virtue and scorned everyone else: "Two men went to the Temple to pray. One was a proud, self-righteous Pharisee, and the other a cheating tax collector. The proud Pharisee 'prayed' this prayer: 'Thank God, I am not a sinner like everyone else, especially like that tax collector over there! For I never cheat, I don't commit adultery, I go without food twice a week, and I give to God a tenth of everything I earn.' "But the corrupt tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed, but beat upon his chest in sorrow, exclaiming, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.' I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home forgiven! For the proud shall be humbled, but the humble shall be honored." (TLB, Luke 18:9-14)

Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly by God:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

As Christians, we need to remember that we are all sinners in God's eyes (Romans 3:23), and that God loves all His children, even those who believe differently than we do (Matthew 5:43-48). We cannot afford to let our strong feelings on abortion issues blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39).


LINK

 

[gmart74]

I am getting tremendously tired one one poster talking about the the difference between reckless pregnancy and forced pregnancy and a few other posters continually morphing the argument into whether the child should be aborted bc of hair color. it seems they cant quite allow themselves to see that the original poster is talking about the responsibility of the mother as opposed to the qualities of the child (bc of rape or bc it has the wrong eye color)

so if people are going to argue that:

Post #1 "I believe the sun is yellow"
Post#2 "I believer a white dwarf is white"

then i think is is a completely stupid conversation that needs to be put to sleep.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

I'm not tearing down your values.

I'm asking you to justify your reasoning.

If you leave room to abort fetuses in case of rape or incest, why not hair color, gender, sexual orientation (if a gay gene is found), or any other factor in which the unborn fetus has no choice?

Still waiting.

The typical argument concerning the rape or incest exception is one that analogizes it to self-defense. The pregnancy has been forced upon her and she is entitled to defend herself from the consequences of an attack, e.g. as if someone has forcefully chained somebody else to her.

However, I'm still of the opinion that most of these things being debated shouldn't really matter because the Constitution's idea of liberty clearly suggest that a woman and/or family should be able to make their own decisions concerning family size free from government interference up to at least the point of viability (maybe 22-24 weeks).

Zones of privacy are created from the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, 4th Am, 3rd Am., 5th Am, 9th Am., with roots in the 1st Amendment. I find it absurd that so many here who are staunchly against the gov't spying on them or interfering in their business decisions, etc. support gov't interference in one of the most personal and private decisions one can make about their own family. Coincidentally, these tend to be the same folks who complain about overpopulation, welfare, Medicaid, and just uneducated & low-income masses in general.

I also think that any government action on abortion that is not firmly grounded in medicine may run afoul on separation of church & state grounds, e.g. those based on "conception," which could medically be either implantation or fertilization.

 

[92tide]

The strong emotions surrounding the abortion issue may lead those on both sides of the issue into the sin of self-righteousness. Jesus was greatly offended by self-righteous religious people who thought they were better than those they considered "sinners."

The Pharisees were a Jewish sect noted for their strict observance of the laws of God. Tax collectors were among the most despised people in Israel. As agents of the occupying Roman forces they often extorted excess taxes and were considered traitors to their people. That is why Jesus used a Pharisee and a tax collector to illustrate the sin of self-righteousness:

Then [Jesus] told this story to some who boasted of their virtue and scorned everyone else: "Two men went to the Temple to pray. One was a proud, self-righteous Pharisee, and the other a cheating tax collector. The proud Pharisee 'prayed' this prayer: 'Thank God, I am not a sinner like everyone else, especially like that tax collector over there! For I never cheat, I don't commit adultery, I go without food twice a week, and I give to God a tenth of everything I earn.' "But the corrupt tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed, but beat upon his chest in sorrow, exclaiming, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.' I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home forgiven! For the proud shall be humbled, but the humble shall be honored." (TLB, Luke 18:9-14)

Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly by God:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

As Christians, we need to remember that we are all sinners in God's eyes (Romans 3:23), and that God loves all His children, even those who believe differently than we do (Matthew 5:43-48). We cannot afford to let our strong feelings on abortion issues blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39).


LINK

Jesus obviously did not know what he actually meant when he said all of that stuff. luckily there are plenty of folks to clarify those issues now

 

[bayoutider]

Jesus obviously did not know what he actually meant when he said all of that stuff. luckily there are plenty of folks to clarify those issues now

You got it.