'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 21 2006, 12:49 PM) [snapback]352496[/snapback]</div>

Also, it would help to know which version of the Bible. Some people, me included, think many versions have been 'bastardized".

 

This is the point about the 10 minutes before and 10 after aergument. As SOON as you agree that is wrong, you MUST answer to yourself as to why. IF your answer is that the baby is viable, then you must acknowledge that as your definition. Now, Galaxee presented the viability rates...well, that changes with medical technology. It is NOT far-fetched that eventually, a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus, whatever would be able to be removed and kept alive to final stages artificially.

So, if viability is your standard, well, you cannot sustain that for long and be pro-abortion.

Regardless of your standard, you MUST take it to the logical conclusion. I was using this argument on a person and they eventually had to, in order to support their position, agree that you can kill a baby anytime before it leaves the womb. (pathetic)

Anyway, this post is not to state my position, as many already know it, but to ask all of you to LOOK at your reasoning and take it to a logical conclusion.

We are headed for a showdown. Some of our mish mash of laws are UNTENABLE. In Ohio, for example, it is a felony to kill a fetus UNLESS the mother does it (or gives permission). That kind of logic is unsustainable in the long term. Something is going to give. This law says NOTHING about at what stage the fetus is. Killing a pregnat mother can result in two counts of homicide (remember the California case?)

Why is it that we, as a culture, find it more tragic when a child dies versus an older person? Because of the loss of potential. No chance to live life. If you feel that way as well, at what point do you stop feeling that way. At 1 year, at 1 week, at 1 day, at 1 minutes, at birth minus 1 minute............

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 21 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]352756[/snapback]</div>

I don't accept your logic of viability. Clearly with test tube babies it has already been shown that it is possible to conceive and carry to term a viable fetus/baby without the mother, if necessary. So if your argument rests only on the issue of viability, then I can see where one would have a problem. However, the term "viable" as used in the discussion of abortion has to do with the natural biology of pregnancy. It doesn't have to do with whether, using every technology available, the society can keep a zygote/fetus/baby alive for a 9 month term. It's at what point does the fetus become a baby...an individual human capable of living outside of the mother's womb with minimal 3rd party intervention . As I've said, I think that point is most likely some time in the third trimester. If the question is one of whether the woman doesn't want the baby for any reason, then I have no problem with her eliminating the fetus before the third trimester. If she has known she's pregnant for 6 months, then decides she doesn't want the kid, then I have a problem with her poor decision making ability. That's when her life or the life of the baby must be materially adversely affected before I'd allow a termination.

Vince

 

It's a trade-off.

The only acceptable reason I can see for an abortion in the 3rd trimester is the life or health of the mother or the fetus. <- my opinion. OTOH, I don't have any problem with abortions in the first few weeks, for any reason the mother chooses. <- my opinion. Anything in between may or may not be "acceptable" depending on the circumstances. And what I would consider "acceptable" may not agree with what any of you would consider "acceptable". That's why this has to be a personal decision.

Ultimately, this is not an issue that should be decided by the Bible. Rather, it should be decided by the courts, as guided by the Constitution.

 

well, as far as medical developments go... i can see that advancing to the point of the earliest premature *birth* surviving... that is, the earliest point in pregnancy that a woman's body would go into labor and end the pregnancy.

seems to me there is a fundamental difference between medical tech for premature births from early labor, and artificially bringing to term an aborted 12 week fetus that was forcefully removed from the uterus.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Nov 21 2006, 08:08 AM) [snapback]352506[/snapback]</div>

New bumper sticker:

GOD IS THE ULTIMATE ABORTIONIST

Thanks Richard. That's great!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 21 2006, 08:15 PM) [snapback]352768[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for this point. NOW we must modify our definition of viability. The "viable" argument requires ever increasing convolutions. Is your defintion of"natural biology of pregnancy" based on the standard from 1850, 1900, 1990, 2007, 2025?????????? And who are YOU to decide if the mother's decision at 6 months plus is "poor decision making".

We must have a standard that is not created by A person. I am just pointing out that most, the vast majority, of people's arguments are visceral/emotional and are not logical/faith based. I put those together because both are virtually impossible to argue against. If your "logic" or "faith" belief is argued against, you are likely to stick with it. If your only reason is emotional, you can generally be twisted to and fro.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 08:31 PM) [snapback]352774[/snapback]</div>

A-HA....the Constitution...you mean the one that has NOTHING in it about pregnancy or abortion.......how about the "Declaration of Independence" that includes LIFE, liberty, etc and mentions A CREATOR.

The Constitution that says any powers not given to the federal gov't are reserved to the states or to the people? That Constitution!!!!

Courts, you mean a committee of 9 people that changes every several years?

BTW, I am too new to the Bible to know if there is anything in there specifically about abortion, so I won't go there.

When it comes to life, I think we need something higher than man. Man cannot create life, so I worry about us thinking we have the power to decide life/death issues. (Boy, we sure are good at ending life though, aren't we)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 21 2006, 09:09 PM) [snapback]352783[/snapback]</div>

Perfect example of boiling it down to the most simplistic stupid slogan. That shows great intellect. For you to like this Daniel is like me saying "Atheists, the ultimate religion".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 21 2006, 08:47 PM) [snapback]352884[/snapback]</div>

Why is it stupid? Are you opposed to the use of RU486? This is a drug that prevents a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus. Most fertilized eggs fail to become implanted, and go the same way as the ones blocked by RU486. So god is doing exactly the same thing as RU486 does.

I don't know the numbers, but I think most pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage. "Miscarriage" is just another word for natural abortion. It usually happens in the very early stages, before the woman even knows she is pregnant. If this happens naturally, who but god is responsible? That is, if he exists.

Maybe I need to amend the bumper sticker:

GOD (if he exists) IS THE ULTIMATE ABORTIONIST. But that might be getting a bit too long for a good bumper sticker.

 

Quick aside:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 21 2006, 01:50 PM) [snapback]352608[/snapback]</div>

Most companies would love to move away from animal testing. When a generic lab mouse goes for $10 plus, most everything else is cheaper. But the laws require animal testing. One of the things that annoys me about the extreme animal rights movement is that they target people who have no real influence to change the system.

Be wary of animal safe labels. There is a loophole, at least there once was, where the company could claim to be animal testing free by contracting the required testing out to a third company.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Nov 22 2006, 11:48 AM) [snapback]353008[/snapback]</div>

I find nothing extreme about guiding my purchases to attempt to persuade manufacturers to utilize alternative technology instead of harming life. The products on the general market do not, by law, have to be tested on animals. These same types of products are at other stores and have not been tested on animals. Even toothpaste no longer has to be tested on animals.

So far as loopholes are concerned, these animal safe labels are my only guide. It's the best means available to ensure that I'm doing my part. It's kind of like the argument on recycling. Why should one recycle when the recycable material may just end up in a dump somewhere? If enough people pay mind to something, movement occurs. This becomes a catalyst for progress.

 

The same people from "Save the Animals" are on the board of the "Pro Choice to Kill Babies" movement. An agreement is being struck that will soon require all experimental product testing be done on babies and animals will no longer be used.

Just wanted you to know this problem is already working itself out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 22 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]353088[/snapback]</div>

Daron, I think you mentioned the wrong organization. Didn't you really mean the "Evil Godless Murderers of Helpless Babies and Zygotes" movement?

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 22 2006, 12:51 PM) [snapback]353085[/snapback]</div>

I didn't mean to call you extreme. I meant extreme in the border-line violent protester. It's admirable to live by a princible.
It is only new and novel ingredients or compounds that require testing. The stuff that's been on the market for awhile, or are exempt for some reason don't require it. But I'm going off knowledge from nearly a decade ago.(Damn, I got old) At this point, most of our everyday products likely no longer need testing. If company is performing unnecessary testing, they don't deserve your business just for wasting resources.

Unfortunely, using animals in some research is unavoidable. New techniques and technologies may greating reduce the numbers needed, but completely eliminating the animal part may never be possible.

As to the labels, some internet digging might determine which companies are truly animal safe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 22 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]353088[/snapback]</div>

Hm, and this may be O.K....

Because most animals used in experiments are sentient beings, aware of their own existence, capable of feeling and processing pain and the related awareness (and fear of,) impending death. A foetus, and actually a new-born, is not capable of most of those things.

So, you might be onto something here....

BTW, abortions don't kill babies, they terminate pregnancies (which generally involve a foetus,) very much like spontaneous abortions/miscarriages.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 22 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]353102[/snapback]</div>

It's something like that. They have to keep changing names to outrun the IRS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 15 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]349733[/snapback]</div>

Hm, I actually find the "like me" part to be offensive.

Perhaps you should think of some of the things you particularly enjoy in in YOUR own life, then on HER birthday send her a card listing them. You know, stuff like "not brainwashed," "being intelligent," "having a life, like me...." While you are at it, emphasize the differences in your favor, and perhaps express some self-righteous pity for her miserable existence.

Then put a sticker like: "SAVE THE EARTH: SUPPORT ONE-CHILD POLICY!"

Think about it, it people have 3 or more kids, it doesn't matter if everyone started driving a Prius. Over-population is the real cause of environmental damage, depletion of resources, and to a large extent, of political upheaval and wars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Nov 22 2006, 10:57 AM) [snapback]353118[/snapback]</div>

There is legitimate controversy over whether animal testing is necessary in the development of new drugs.

HOWEVER, most animal testing is done in the cosmetics industry, where there is no need, either for the testing, or, more to the point, for the products themselves. How many animals need to be tortured to death so that we can have a new shade of lipstick, a new color of hair dye, or a new shampoo whose only reason to exist is because the people in marketing want to put the word "new" on the label?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 21 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]352756[/snapback]</div>

That is because California Code Section 187 which defines murder includes the unlawful killing of a fetus regardless of viability. Please notice that this code section specifically does not apply to abortions.