A Christian Nation?

[Kahuna]

But, if it is a child from the moment of conception - or whatever point you believe it is - then, it is life from that point on. How can you make exception for a child of rape or a child of incest? The instances where the life of the mother is endangered can be justified on the basis of self defense, but the child is not to blame because it is the child of rape or incest. Doesn't it deserve to live as much as any other?

[OldGreyEagle]

Actually Kahuna, yes

[LongHaul]

       First funscout, please dont take offense at how I word some of this I am not as articulate as I am passionate. I mean you no offense nor do I wish to make light your beliefs. You say several things which are conflicting in my opinion. You say that your views on abortion changed, is that the case or did your views on when life began change? When you favored pro choice and that a woman who had been raped should not be forced to carry the child did you actually think of the child as a child at that point? Could it be that when you saw your own child in your womb you redefined that concept? You also say; When you see Christians with different values it is because some of us have gone against the values. That doesn't make them right for Christians, it just means that we have "strayed" from our beliefs. The bottom line is that a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior. We are supposed to follow the Ten Commandments, but we are human, and so, not all of us follow them like we should. This is where my concerns are, in the first sentence you describe the subject as Christians with different values. They are still Christians in your mind but their values arent Christian values, then what makes them Christians? a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior. So I can accept Jesus as my savior and not share your values those of a person who also has accepted Jesus as her savior. We dont know what Jesus values were on this because he never wrote anything down, all we have is hear say evidence written after the fact. There are a large number of writings not generally accepted as reflecting the teachings of Christ which claim to report his teachings and the determinations as to the validity of these writings was made hundreds of years after his ascension. I dont want this to go all bible quotes on what is the Word and what is not Im trying to say that the label Christian Values is flawed and that claiming injustice because group A is trying to impose Christian Values on group B is wrong in the context its being used in this thread. Judaism accepts the Ten Commandments how are they then Christian Values? They predate Christ by a considerable time. At what point each of us believes life begins is a personal conclusion or belief. We associate with those who share our belief . Because the Pope, the Archbishops, the Whatever controlling body of major religion believes something doesnt make it Christian or Muslim, or Bahai. Debate a principle or value on its merit not its association or exclusion by some religious group.

 Kahuna,

 Self Defense? If you and I were mountain climbing and ended up hanging off a cliff on a single line which would break under both our weights would killing you be considered self defense in a court of law?

OGE,

Depends on when life starts! Why should I be held to your beliefs? The issue is one of LAW. We as a society need to decide when life is considered to have begun for the purpose of protection under the law. Problem is with the good comes the bad. If its life at conception what degree of protection do we afford it? Mom smokes, mom drinks, Mom rides a motorcycle, Mom sky dives (early pregnancy), does Mom become a living incubator? With a single grain of sand the avalanche is begun.

[OldGreyEagle]

Kahuna you asked, I answered, didnt say a thing about what you should beleive, only what I do

[packsaddle]

I think that OGE and funscout are consistent in their belief. It IS an all-or-nothing problem. If the fertilized egg has the same status as an adult human being, then the woman should have no choice and should be forced by the government to carry ANY pregnancy to term. There are two problems with that.

 

First, as an example, the tragic ectopic pregnancy. Either the fetus or both fetus and mother will die. Since the government is now making the choice, which alternative gets the nod? I think we know how the mother would choose. But to terminate any pregnancy is now murder...right? I asked this question many times and absolutely no one has wanted both to die. Murderers all.

Second, the truth is that she WILL have a choice, just not a legal one (unless, of course she has money and can travel). So the poor mother makes the choice and takes the RU486 route and she gets caught. Or the woman is on 'the pill' and gets caught. Guilty of murder. What is the penalty? I am still waiting on answers for that one as well.

 

It is so easy to condemn but those who want to make these decisions for other people should take on that responsibility. To call it murder is one thing. Fair enough. What do you do about it? Still waiting.

[LongHaul]

OGE,

I think you are answering my post not Kahuna's. I see from rereading my post that I didn't write what I was thinking I appologize. We as a society need to decide this question as a matter of law. The polar ends are life at conception and life at birth, currently the law is somewhere in the middle and hovering at "viable" with "mother's health" complicating things. It's easy to say life begins at conception and that's it, the hard part is what protection under the law do we give that life? What would be the penalty for fetuscide? Abortion would be premeditated from the mother's stand point and cold blooded from the doctor's. How do we legislate? How do we penalize?

LongHaul

[OldGreyEagle]

I have lived long enough to understand that there are laws of the land and there are my own personal values. While many times they coincide, its not necessary that all do. I expressed my own thoughts and ideas.

[Kahuna]

Self Defense? If you and I were mountain climbing and ended up hanging off a cliff on a single line which would break under both our weights would killing you be considered self defense in a court of law?

 

 

LongHaul: I don't think that's the correct analogy. If you killed me in that situation, it would be murder, but if you cut my line it might be self defense.

 

The correct analogy, I believe, is if you and I were in a car together and were crashed into by another car. The paramedics arrive with jaws of life and other equipment. Their triage exam reveals that it is impossible to save me, but possible to save you. In so doing, they would have to ensure that the wreckage was opened in such a way that I would undoubtedly die, but you would be freed and probably survive. The medics could proceed and would not be charged with killing me, as long as it met the "reasonable person" test.

[funscout]

Longhaul, no offense taken. I'll try to answer your questions.

 

Christian values come from the Ten Commandments AND from Jesus' teachings. Since one of those commandments tells us not to kill, Christians and Jews are supposed to value all life. If a Christian disobeys a commandment, it doesn't make him no longer a Christian. He should repent, but he is still a Christian if he continues to accept Jesus as his saviour.

 

When I was previously pro-choice in the case of rape victims, I didn't allow myself to think of the baby as a real baby. I guess it was sort of a Scarlet O'Hara situation, "I'll think about it tomorrow." My problem, however, is that I avoided thinking about it until my own pregnancy when I first saw my baby in utero. That's when I felt ashamed for having previously denied the truth that abortion is the killing of a child.

 

 

[LongHaul]

Kahuna,

You are correct I didn't phrase that correctly. I didn't mean to ask "What if I murdered you BEFORE I cut your line" the point was I cut your line and ended your life to save mine. That sounds like murder to me. As to the car accident senario society has made it legal for paramedics in that instance to decide who will die and who will live. The door has been opened, and that is what I have doubts about. If that accident happened in the 1960 south and I was black and you were white it would still be legal to let us both die trying to save you. Until we decide the issue of when life begins in the eyes of the law we will have someones civil rights being infringed upon, either the mothers or the fetus'.

 

funscout,

Would those be the same Ten Commandments that were put into the ARC of the Covenant and carried before armyies going into battle? The promise land was not empty when the Children of Isreal arrived. I agree with your reaction when you "saw" your child for the first time. You realized it was a person not an unidentified growing mass. I hope it was more due to your humanity and sence of motherhood than religion. That way there would be more hope for the Nation and the world as we are all human even though some make that hard to accept.

LongHaul

[packsaddle]

I'm still waiting for the answer from those who label abortion 'murder'. If you merely want to leave me waiting that is fine. However, to do so implies that you are merely stating a personal choice and that you accept mine. That is an endorsement of the pro-choice view and I thank you.

 

However, if your intent is to change law, you must address the consequences. If you just haven't thought about punishment for premeditated murder, just say so. If you are afraid to state your thoughts on punishment openly then I suggest your feelings are not as solid as you seem to think.

 

To control the decisions of other persons regarding their reproductive life is a very serious matter. If you intend to limit their choices by law, it is incumbent on you to explain that intent fully, including what you intend for lawbreakers. Less than that is incomplete and irresponsible, possibly dishonest. I am still waiting.

[evmori]

Abortion is murder. Partial birth abortion is even worse!

 

The only difference between abortion and killing someone with a gun is abortion is a medical procedure that ends the life of a child. Imagine if your mother had chosen to abort you.

 

The punishment for abortion should be the same as the punishment for murder since that is what it is. And there are exceptions such as etopic pregnancy. Rape & incest are not an exception. The mother can always put the baby up for adoption after the birth.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Thanks Ed, your honesty is refreshing even as I disagree. I am curious as to the rationale you make for an exception to the ectopic pregnancy.

Also, you have not addressed the women who use the IUD, the 'pill', and other birth control measures. Do they suffer execution as well? If not, why not?

[evmori]

Birth control kills nothing. It prevents pregnancy. RU whatever isn't birth control.

 

My rational for etopic is the mother's life is also in peril. A choice needs to be made. And the choice could be to let the child live instead of the mother.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Beavah]

And the choice could be to let the child live instead of the mother.

 

Yah, right. Sorry, Ed. In an ectopic pregnancy, the child will not survive. The only choice is whether or not to save the mother.

 

Packsaddle, in law we make distinctions based upon intent, and this is a good illustration. Killing someone where the intent is to protect oneself or the life of another we do not punish. Killing someone accidentally but while doing something wrong/foolish/harmful we call manslaughter and punish, but not as severely as intentional killing or (worst) premeditated killing.

 

In the ectopic pregnancy, or in a decision to remove a cancerous uterus while a woman is pregnant, the intent is to protect the life of the mother. Causing harm to the child is an unintended consequence of a good and just act. We don't punish that under the law. It is very much like Kahuna's EMT tale.

 

For an abortion, the intent to kill is premeditated. If we accept that the child is worth protecting as a human life, then the physician has committed murder for hire. And the woman has paid a hitman with the intent of having someone killed. In the case of the woman, there may be various psychological extenuating circumstances which may or may not apply. A young woman distraught over having conceived a child while in high school might be viewed differently under the law than a woman who has an abortion in order to keep her figure for an upcoming trip to the Bahamas.

 

How we deal with birth control drugs that prevent implantation is a trickier question, eh? They act post-conception. The Catholic/Christian Orthodox position here is the most logically consistent. But in American society, my guess is that we again look at intent. The intent of birth control drugs is to make the woman's body unlikely to get pregnant, not to cause harm to a specific child.