I’ve heard that term for the first time during this election process. And, knowing that they are using it as a euphemism for infanticide, I get angrier every time I hear it.
Yes, you have the right to your reproductive system. By all means. Take the pill. Insert IUDs. Remove the whole durn uterus. But once another life inhabits that space, your “right to reproduce” is trumped by his right to LIVE.
“Oh, but I OWN my body. I can do whatever I want with it, and anything else in it.”
And my landlord owns my duplex. I’d like to see her use that logic after murdering ME.
“How can you be sure when life begins, anyway? Is it conception? The first heartbeat? The first breath of air?”
I believe without a doubt that anything with a heartbeat is alive. So, yes, there is a gray area before then when we can’t be sure. But I’d rather err on the side of life, instead of mistakenly killing a baby and then having to report to my Maker why I destroyed His creation. So I believe life begins at conception.
“So are you going to be a “one-issue” voter, then?”
Anyone who can fool himself into thinking that shoving a pair of scissors into a newly birthed infant’s head is NOT murder is too much of a fool to be my president.
There. I’m going to go calm myself down now. Thanks for listening.
My senior paper was on the issue of abortion. Through my research, I discovered due to the expanse of our medical knowledge, its actually harder for researchers and doctors to deny human life in utero. Genetics have proven that at the moment of conception, all the material needed to have a baby in nine months is right there. It made the issue of abortion very clear for me.
It’s difficult to live in such a liberal area of the country and feel such an important issue is pushed aside due to a woman’s “reproductive rights.”
Amen!!! I can’t believe they call it reproductive rights! After hearing a certain presidential candidate say he wouldn’t want his daughters to be punished for making a mistake – he totally lost me. I have never voted pro-choice and don’t plan to start now.
And you can’t tell me that when I saw my little ones heart beating on the ultrasound at 6 weeks old, that he wasn’t a REAL baby yet.
So glad to finally hear fighting words from the other side! 🙂
hahaha, amen!
AMEN! I had this same conversation with a friend…so we know who we won’t be voting for! I’m with you on this one!
I, too, believe life begins at conception, that we should ALWAYS err on the side of life, and I’m passionate about it!
I would like to point out, though, that the IUD specifically works by not allowing a conceived child to embed in the uterus – effectively, it starves the new life to death. The Pill also can work in a similar fashion (it doesn’t *just* prevent ovulation, it prevents implantation).
I took (yet another) childbirth class last night, and was excited to tell my husband some of the new things I learned. I had asked what the baby does during labor, and the birth attendant who was teaching the class related a story of how one lady had birthed her child’s head, then complained, “He’s *kicking* me!” while her baby was still half inside her. Immediately after I told my husband this, I started to weep, trying to understand how anyone would condone a partial-birth abortion. What does it matter where or how old the baby is?
Oh girl, you are preachin’ to the choir here! You stay right up on that soapbox and I’ll be right there with you.
You bet I’ll be a one issue voter if I have to be. Life is life. Period. Also, just because a child may be “damaged”, doesn’t give anyone the right to murder it. That’s why I’m so glad that one particular candidate has had the guts to stand up for what is right. Phooey on the other side!
Can I gently point out that it is not always black and white?
I have no love of Abortion. I really don’t. But I had to chose between my life and my son’s. And I am thankful that I didn’t have to beg for my life. I didn’t have to appeal to medical authorities, I was able to chose to live, even when that meant my son was dying. Reproductive rights meant that I could be here today, even if my son is in heaven. They mean that I can kindly, and gently remind others that nothing is black and white, and that life isn’t always life.
http://mrsspitspouts.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-matt-kaufman.html
whoa… I think I must have been out of touch with the news, or something… would you mind sharing where the candidate says that he is NOT opposed to partial birth abortion? I thought it was banned several years ago. Is someone saying that he would reverse that?
nevermind. I did a google search. 🙂
Obama did not vote “nay” in the partial birth abortion act that was passed. Nor did he vote “yay”. He voted “present.” Which was a way of saying, “I’d rather not answer the question, please.”
Another thing about this whole “debate” is that with the increase of prenatal testing comes the decrease of special needs children. Roughly 90% of children with Downs Syndrome are never born. Some people that have children with defects similar to Evan’s have been strongly urged to abort them. It makes want to cry when I think about it.
AMEN. Amen and AMEN. I love your reference to how your landlord owns your duplex. LOL. Perfect.
Be careful in your phrasing there. Reproductive Rights cover everything from abortion (as you mentioned) to IVF, IUI, or even taking fertility drugs. So you disagree with abortion. Don’t count out our other reproductive rights, such as the right to have children by the means necessary. They unfortunately go hand in hand. If one gets put through governmental controls, best believe, they will also take away other rights as well.
AMEN!! 🙂
I believe human life begins at conception. I believe that abortions are a very violent way to end a life. I believe there should be restrictions not only as to how late in the pregnancy they can be performed, but also the processes by which they are performed.
Someone mentioned abortions after testing positive to things such as Down’s Syndrome. Many of those tests prove to be wrong when the baby is allowed to live and is born.
I have also known times when the doctor said it would seriously damage the mother’s health (if not kill her) to have the child. My mother is one such person. Having my husband nearly killed her, but she would not have had it either way.
Obama specifically stated (granted, to Planned Parenthood) that he would, as one of his first presidential acts, remove ANY and ALL restrictions on abortion. This includes partial birth. 🙁
And to the commenter above who talked about choosing between her life and her son’s, I’m sure that you made the right choice in that instance. I would never presume to judge you for that at all, and my heart goes out to you for such an agonizing decision. So please don’t take the rest of this personally, just…informationally?
I’ve read of many mothers that were told their baby would be fatal to them, who decided to trust in God’s providence and ended up having a healthy pregnancy and birth–both mother and child alive. I always think about that…how often is it *really* fatal? I pray I never have to make a choice like that–sacrifice myself in hopes that we both live, knowing we both could die. This isn’t some hard and fast “well just trust God and it will all work out, tee hee!” statement, but it is a point of fact. More of a side note, really.
My main point is, there are ways to safeguard the mother in such cases without needing to make abortion legal or so accessible. I mean, do you really think they let moms just die before roe v. wade if it was discovered they had an ectopic pregnancy? No! It’s possible and very preferable to outlaw abortion in general and yet make sure that there is a way out for those whose lives are truly direly threatened–and ways to make sure that is not abused. But even before abortion was legal, in many countries including our own, it was performed on women who were in life threatening situations. Often, due to the lack of technology, this wasn’t discovered until it was a life-and-death situation. But all the same, it happened. And there’s nothing stopping it from being provisional again, but pro-choice propaganda.
This is totally off-topic, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!
I totally agree with you! And when they say, “But it’s her body!” Really? It is? She is killing her body or is she taking a life out because she can’t deal? The baby is being killed…
Obama didn’t even bat an eye to a story about a nurse who cradled an aborted DS baby for 45 min until he died. That is just horrifying.
I’d better don my flame-retardant suit here, since I seem to be the lone dissenter.
I’m an evangelical like the rest of you, but I’m not sure what the right thing is for the government to do about abortion. The government makes rules, but since this is not a totalitarian state, a lot of things are left up to us, and I think that’s how it’s supposed to go.
For those of us who believe life starts early, and would always want to err on the side of caution, of COURSE we would never choose abortion. (And I hope you wouldn’t choose IVF either, if it were going to result in extra frozen babies..) But please consider the status of women who don’t believe that. Forcing your beliefs on someone else against their will has never been a good way to change anyone’s mind.
I just got done reading “Freakonomics,” and it presents (among other interesting things) a pretty stark & sad picture of the lives led by unwanted poor children. I feel that I’m better off focusing my efforts on helping the poor, rather than hurling internet invective or my vote at Roe v. Wade. (Not to mention, the party that claims to be pro life has been in power for 12 years, yet Roe v. Wade stands.) If the poor weren’t living such desperate lives, there would be a lot fewer people making desperate choices.
I’m going to be voting for the poor people’s party in the fall.
Hi Beth! Our portion sizes are “normal”…not “distorted”. The typical, regular size adult plate is full, and the boys eat on a plate with 4 copmartments and they are usually full too! I am getting pictures onto each meal as soon as we eat it. I have 2 kids…3 and 1. They can both pack it in…inherited their daddy’s metabolism! They (almost) always eat what I plan. Occasionally I give them a different veggie. Hope this helps!
Erin
Mrs.B: Would you suggest, then, that those of us who value the lives of the elderly, the handicapped, or say, Mexican people not oppose those who don’t, and who would seek to end their lives for whatever reason? Is it wrong to force the belief of “do not murder” on society at large?
In nearly every society, across time and across cultures, murder is one of those social taboos, and rightly so. Abortion is murder; calling it anything else is misleading semantics. I can choose to believe that a rock on the ground is a fluffy pillow, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be soft and cuddly to lay my head on in reality.
And personally, I would gladly take in as many of those “unwanted” children as I could. I’m sure the over 1 million childless parents on years-long waiting lists for baby adoptions would as well.
Roe v. Wade stands, yet there have been victories. It has been a hard fight, but well worth it. Obama would seek to undo those victories, but there have, indeed, been victories. And you are mistaken; a pro-life party has been in power for 8 years, not 12. And before that, we had 8 years of a pro-abortion power, who also sought to undo the progress made by the pro-life president before that.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “poor people’s party”; is there another political party I’m not aware of? Because it’s certainly not the current 2 main parties, Democrats or Republicans. Despite what the media tells you, the Republicans are actually more friendly to the poor than the Democrats. Social programs are a vicious cycle that take more and more money out of the hands that would give if they could even get by, while creating a false dependence on a government with a broken system and overly bureaucratic machine that costs far more than it helps. And then this tends toward socialism, which is really elitism masquerading as compassion, totalitarian control pretending to be leveling the playing field.
But more than all of that, the reason I will be voting pro-life is because my votes are really, literally, the only hope I have of actually saving unborn lives. Because I can give hand ups (not hand outs) to the poor. I can be a force of social change. I can contribute financially, educationally, and in almost every way to bettering the lives of poor people around me–helping them escape poverty and giving them the tools to stay out of it. What I cannot do by myself is prevent an unborn child from being murdered while it is still legal.
I agree, Mrs. B. Well-spoken.
Today I read a blog of a woman who had to make the decision to induce 19 weeks early, and thus lost her baby to save her own life. It was the worst decision she’s probably ever had to make and she could have prevented having to make it in any way possible. Unfortunately, it’s what had to happen in this situation.
Not everything is black and white when it comes to reproductive rights. Palin doesn’t want sex education in schools but is pro-life. Does that make sense to you? People arn’t supposed to get pregnant when it’s unwanted, yet we arn’t teaching our kids how babies are made??? How is that pro-life? Kids and adults need to know everything that goes into and comes with making a baby. They need the resources to be good parents. Unfortunately, our society makes it very difficult to be a single parent (or a parent in general!). That’s not pro-life either. There needs to be an openness about adoption and the adoption process and this needs to be embraced by our society, in order for people with unwanted pregnancies to be supported. You shouldn’t have to go on welfare to take care of kids. Abortions are usually done by desperate people in desperate situations. The one person I know who has had an abortion was in a desperate situation, and would take it back in a heartbeat and will always live with the pain of it.
I believe abortion should be allowed, but regulated. I do not believe in restrictions that limit the health of the mother. As for reproductive rights, I believe that people should be able to meet their reproductive needs in any way possible. That means IVF, ICSI, FET, birth control, tubal ligations, visectomy, c-sections, donor eggs, donor sperm, surrogacy, and gay and lesbian reproductive rights.
To add to what MrsB said, studies show [PDF] that social programs that support poor women and families do more to reduce abortions than limits on abortion do, period. I have to believe facts, so if the goal is to save the most babies, I’ll vote for the candidate that proposes how to support women and families most effectively, rather than the one who promises to “win” this silly debate – just as the president we’ve had the last 8 yrs has promised. What’s more important- the “principle of the thing” or the practical goal of saving babies’ lives?
It bothers me that people equate induction due to pre-eclampsia (or any other pregnancy disease that would take mother and baby’s life) with abortion.
It bothers me that we’re getting stuck up on that.
I never intended to take away life-saving measures.
What I want to end is the life-TAKING, which has no other reason for being than inconvenience. And poverty is not a reason. Adoption costs nothing for the pregnant mother. Medicaid will pay for prenatal care, labor, and delivery. Even the six week check up. And most cases, Medicaid doesn’t have to, because the adoptive parents are willing to pay those fees.
Sure, you have to deal with morning sickness, exhaustion, the big belly, the backaches, and labor. But you chose to be the one to have sex before marriage. If you didn’t know *before* that this is what caused babies, well, you know now.
As for social programs that support poor women and families vs. “winning this silly debate,” would you use that argument for domestic abuse? Would you focus more on the care of the woman and ignore the fact that the perpetrator needs to be punished? If you truly believe that abortion is a crime at *all*, then you have to agree that consequences must be put into action. If we don’t instill the fact that “this is wrong; you must be punished,” how will people ever understand that this IS wrong?
Because most of America, it seems, doesn’t see anything wrong with abortion.
So, yes, please, those social programs sound wonderful; but at the same time, make the crime illegal!
Joanna: Which candidate is this that you and Mrs. B speak of? Surely it can’t be Obama, because if we’re going to go with the practical goal of saving babies, that couldn’t be him. Not only did he strike down a bill that had to do with compassionate care and prevention of infanticide that specifically protected abortion providers and roe v wade, he did it because we must “protect roe v wade” even if it means making infanticide legal. And one of his campaign promises and repeated intentions has been to remove ALL restrictions on abortion, including overturning the ban on partial-birth abortion. That doesn’t really sound like babies will be saved to me, more like those who can legally be slaughtered will be expanded to include those who couldn’t have before, and the numbers will increase, not decrease.
Okay…I have to respond to this. First off, I am passionately pro-life but I am not for forcing my beliefs on other people or legislating MY morality. We live in a country with many different people with different beliefs and if they make a choice that differs from mine…so be it. Did God not offer us the choice to follow his commandments from the beginning? Why should others not be allowed to make those choices…the same choices we made without the proverbial gun being put to our heads. We have freedom to choose and so do others. We cannot legislate our version of morality on others and God never commanded us to do so. In fact were told NOT to stand in judgement of other people. Trying to legislate away their rights and tell them their choices are BAD is judging them.
Furthermore, it isn’t black and white. If a child is conceived during rape or incest…that fetus exists because a woman’s or child’s rights were violated. So by making them have a child we are trumping their rights twice. First they are assaulted and then society tells them they have no rights in regard to the fetus either. Nice. It is not our business to make those gut wrenching choices for other women…I am sorry but it isn’t. This goes too for the women who have to abort or they will die. It is a shame people want to use the political system to condemn those women to death.
Ms. Taft your analogy about murdering the elederly is weak. That involves one person taking away the rights of another person while still retaining all of their own. Abortion involves 2 distinct people’s rights and 2 people’s bodies. You are essentially telling people they should have to choose whose right’s supercede….not the same at all. When a young teen is forced to have the baby of her brther after incest and she has to be institutionalized afterwards…is that an acceptable loss??
Also, Republicans and conservatives are also well known as the party that tries to block sex ed in schools and birth control training and dispersement in schools. They also allow for pharmacists to deny women the day after pill. Many conservatives are also against birth control period.
They are coincidentally also against more funding for the government agencies that would have to support the onsalught of children that would then go into the system if abortion were abolished. We would be up a creek without a paddle. All of these kids would need food, fostering, clothing and basic necessities, medical care, and more. Also remeber a large portion of these babies would be deformed or handicapped (hence the reason why an abortion was wanted) the costs would be astronomical. Who will be paying these bills???? Conservatives don’t want to…so who will? Who will adopt all these children? Not easy to come up with answers is it???
IMO people that are so gung ho about abortion and want to abolish it then please come to the voting booth with a BIG check and your adoption papers filled out. Put your money and 18 years of your life where your mouth is.
Okay…also about Obama and the infanticide bill…please stop spreading misleading unthuths. He did not vote present to cop out. There was already a bill in place that protected these babies and required doctors by law to render aid to them. The bill you mentioned in the comments was a second bill which was completely redundant except it snuck it a few sneaky words that might undermine Roe versus Wade. Obama was willing to vote yes to protect babies but not to undermine RVW espcecially when the bill wan’t even needed because a previous bill had partial abortion births already covered.
And…actually voting present is sign of something important. These bills are commonly used to sneak in some language that undermines the platform of the other party or to sneak in some wasteful spending. By voting “present” you basically indicate that you are in favor of the bill but not the “extras” or amendments that were snuck in. It may sound silly to people on the outside but those in the legislature know what is going on. When a bunch of people vote present on your proposed bill they are basically saying we acknowledge it but it needs to be revised before we can say yes. This sends a loud and clear message to the bill sponsors.
Voting present is also better than being absent like when McCain skipped the vote on the 21st Century G.I. Bill of Rights which he claimed to support in public, but ignored.
One other point. Has the fact that murder is illegal stopped the practice altogether? No. Abortions will continue too but we will see the return of back alley quacks with butcher knives performing abortions like in days past and young girls and mothers will dying on those tables from infections and unskilled hands. If life truly matters then their lives matter to. Taking away choice results in the pendulum swinging in some unfavorable places.
Tiffany: I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s not the case. My facts about Obama’s vote come from several sources across the spectrums of bias, but I won’t bother you with the links when it’s just as easy to google it yourself. 🙂
Secondly, I would love to adopt, but the waiting list is years long and while ironically being financially able to care for children the cost of adoption is currently too prohibitive. The whole system of adoption in this country needs to be reformed, but that’s another subject. Part of the problem is that there simply aren’t enough babies, actually, not that there aren’t enough people willing to adopt. And I have
Thirdly, I fail to see how the right to life for any human being could possibly be trumped by the right to choose or the emotional turmoil one might go through to have a child from a difficult circumstance. Please explain that, because otherwise, my analogy stands.
Fourthly, yes, God gave us a choice to obey or not obey His commandments. And He gave us clear consequences should we choose to disobey–death comes to mind, for instance. He had some pretty stern words for murderers in general and people who harm children specifically.
Frankly, I’m not sure where you are getting most of your information. Most abortions happen far before there would be any possible indication of “deformity or handicap”, and even into the second trimester such tests are unreliable as to their accuracy. And it is a misnomer that Republicans in general are against birth control or sex education. Most conservatives agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is better than murder, but often have to hold sway against less-than-stellar practices that parade as the normative but are in fact not a good idea. Sex ed? Good. Parental consent? Good. Birth control? Good. Sex ed and birth control with out parental consent? No. Unfortunately, those stipulations are what the media jumps upon and twists around to mean that “all” Republicans are somehow against them, when in fact, they would prefer to allow parents the right to parent.
Yes, everyone’s life matters. But we can’t prevent people from making stupid choices, no matter how legal or illegal they are. Back alley abortions still happen, and in fact jumped in number after abortion was legalized. But I find it poor logic to legitimize something evil just to make it safer to do the evil in the first place. Evil should not be easy.
I’m going to bow out for now, it’s clear that emotions are beginning to run high–unfortunately not in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. Ciao 🙂
And this has been a repeated issue, so I have to respond to this: “First off, I am passionately pro-life but I am not for forcing my beliefs on other people or legislating MY morality.”
I have a hard time believing you would not “force your morality” on someone pointing a gun at your face while his buddies steal all your belongings and viciously beat your husband in the background.
Would you walk away from that thinking, “Well they *obviously* had a different sense of morality than I did” and then not seek justice and restitution?
I believe stopping the beating heart of another human, when no other life is in threat *because* of that human, is a crime just like those I mentioned above.
Ms. Taft I am sure you have read many sources that say Obama voted for infanticide (although I doubt they were unbiased) but that is WRONG. An act of legislation already in place protected those babies already…this is fact…sorry if you don’t want to believe it. Neither a yes or a no vote on that bill would have changed what the law required. It only allowed wiggle room for a different agenda. But righties love to bring that up without the all important context.
So you think we need to flood the adoption system with babies because no wants the older children? Wow…sucks to be an older child I guess.
Women have a “right” to not be pregnant if they don’t to be. If a woman is raped or the victim of incest she was made the unwilling host of a child and her rights were violated and she shouldn’t be forced to continue to carry a child she does and did not want. If I were in that situtation I would choose to have the baby but it is not right for me to make that decision for anyone else under any circumstances.
You may feel that sex ed and birth control are good but your party isn’t backing legislation at the state or federal level to make access to these easier…in fact they impede them. Sarah Palin is one such example and we know how well that turned out for her daughter.
And why isn’t pro-life across the board. Why is war okay and the death penalty okay…we both know conservatives are generally happy to support both. Why do they get to decide who is worthy of life…kinda hypocritical don’t ya think? Babies get killed in wars all the time but those are okay I guess.
I wouldn’t abort a baby either so your example is lost on me.
But it is comparing apples and oranges they are both fruit…but very different in nature. You may be able to separate the mom from the baby and say mom relinquishes all her rights (even if she never wanted to relinquish them) but many don’t agree. It may involve someone else’s body but it also involves your own. I see it as being neither here nor there. I won’t use the political system to take their choices away. I made MY decision about this matter and I don’t need to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.
I thought conservatives were about limited government…NOT.
So much has been said here already – yikes! I’m just glad that you have the guts to post and comment your true position on this matter, Beth. Many Christians would not be so courageous. I’ll just say “Amen” to you and Mrs. Taft. If we don’t “impose our morality” on others, than we aren’t protecting unborn children. THEY are the ones without choice here….
Tiffany – What *is* your decision on the matter? I’m still very unclear. You say you are pro-life, but honestly, you sound more pro-choice to me. You sound as if *you’ve* made the choice for life, but also that you are just fine with others making the choice for abortion.
I am pro-life. I am pro-life when it comes to my body and my baby, and I am pro-life when it comes to another’s body and her baby. I am pro-life because I believe, unless that baby is a threat to the mother, that the baby has the right to live. (Which, by the way, is very similar to my stance on the death penalty, so they really are not polar opposites as you would suggest. But now I’m making babies sound like convicts, so I’ll move right along here…) I believe some rights weigh heavier than others. And I believe the right to life is one of the heaviest rights out there.
I believe any baby in my womb has the right to live. I believe any baby in your womb has the right to live. I believe any baby in any womb has the right to live (See above exception.)
Thus, I’m not very pro-choice. At all.
put me in the pro-life all the way catagory, and yes I will be voting with my morals in this election, from local elections all the way up to the presidency.
Beth I belive that I am accountable to God for MY choices. As far as other people are concerned we are told not to judge. And God gave me the choice so I think other people should also have the choice…without a proverbial gun to their heads.
You said you believe you have the right to decide for everyone and their bodies. I think it is their body, their choice, their accountability.
For me, I am pro-life. I won’t abort a baby under any circumstances. I don’t even agree with those that do it but I admit that it is not my right to step into their lives and make that choice for them.
That makes abortion a non-issue for me and I won’t vote for any candidate based on their stance on that issue except it clues me in that conservatives want more governmental control which I am not in favor of. I also won’t vote for any candidate who toutes their Christian religion too much because this country is full of wonderful people of varying religions or no faith at all and a GOOD Prez should represent them all…not just the ones that are like him/her.
Religious people are the most judegmental people in the whole world despite what God commands ironically.
I think it’s very easy to say this or that even though we have never been faced with that choice or put in that situation. Not everyone’s lives are as great as ours pertain to be. I hope nobody is put in the position where they have to consider abortion. Probably nobody who’s commented has been in that position. So it is very hard to say what people should or should not do if we have nothing to compare it to in our own lives.
Beth,
I have been a lurker off and on and just recently subscribed via bloglines. I just wanted to tell you how much I admire and appreciate your courage for even posting about such a topic. You are obviously well-educated and informed on the matter, and I wish others were, as well.
As for those who keep mentioning the cases of rape or incest being cause to allow abortion to remain legal, might I point out that those cases comprise a very small percentage of abortions performed?
In the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, it was found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.
Kathleen DeZeeuw said, “I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape,’ feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we’re being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side.”
The Guttamacher Institute conducted studies stating that “fourteen thousand abortions per year are due to rape or incest, which amounts to 1 percent of all abortions.” Still yet other studies show that pregnancies due to rape are much rarer, as few as one in a thousand cases.
I agree that it is not our place to condemn others; that is God’s job. We must offer grace and acceptance to those hurting women who are suffering from the aftereffects of abortions. (but that does not mean we condone or pardon sins) We all need Jesus’ forgiveness.
Every. Single. One. Of. Us.
I’ll end with a quotation from Randy Alcorn:
“There’s a parallel between the violence of rape and abortion. Both are done by a more powerful person at the expense of the less powerful.
Abortion doesn’t bring healing to a rape victim. Imposing capital punishment on the innocent child of a sex offender does nothing bad to the rapist and nothing good to the woman.
Creating a second victim never undoes the damage to the first.”
http://epm.org/artman2/publish/Prolife_abortion/index.shtml
We all need Jesus’ forgiveness.
Every. Single. One. Of. Us.
So because you think we all need Jesus you get to make our decisions? Don’t remember that in the Bible.
Bonnie,
I was in that position. I was a 17 year old honor student who found out she was pregnant. I had my parents kick me out of their house b/c I was pregnant, and my Catholic School kick me out too. But I choose LIFE, and now I have an amazing, intelligent beautiful daughter to show for it. My life has been harder than it would have been if I’d had an abortion, but guess what? I wouldn’t change it for the world!
Ohhhh sooo teeeempptinnng….muuuust resist….
Hi again everyone,
“Real life” has kept me away from the computer a bit. However, I was wondering how those of you who believe that abortion is absolutely murder at all gestational ages, equivalent to murdering an adult, interpret this verse:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22;&version=51;
Interesting scripture. It does indeed seem to value the life of those already born more in that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is “life for life” if you read a bit further.
Wow, this is definitely a heated discussion! First off, I want to say that I am pro-life. However, that’s not what my comment is about. I see a second issue being discussed that goes far beyond the abortion issue, and that is what I want to look at (so please do not assume that anything I mention is being compared with abortion).
For those of us that are Christians and follow the morality laid out in the Bible, what part do we share in politics? I agree that it is not our job to judge. Sin is sin. And we are all sinners. However, does that mean that we should not make any laws that tell someone they can’t do something? This is something that I struggle with- I don’t have an answer to it. I am very glad that murder and theft are against the law. I am glad speeding is illegal because I really don’t want someone crashing into me because they were driving too fast. But where do we draw a line? When can we say someone should have rights and choices in one area, but not in others? I know some people might say that if an action only affects that person (suicide, etc.), then they should have a right to choose. However, I believe that most of our actions do affect others. But then, there are many things I believe are wrong and devastating, though I don’t think we can make them a man-made law (pre-marital sex, adultery, deceit…). So, it comes back to my question: what role do we have in lawmaking? As Christians, do we have to leave that up to everyone else so that we are not forcing our ideas on others? If we should be involved in politics, what issues should we push? I personally would like to see steps taken and laws passed to do away with most abortions. I would also like to see steps taken to protect the poor and protect the environment (I am in no way comparing these issues). Would it be wrong for me to do my part to push for laws that will take away others rights while protecting the poor or the environment? The Dominican Republic has a law against cutting down trees- even if they are yours and you planted them! They took away our “choice” to cut down trees. But they made the law to protect the environment, and I’m glad that the D.R. still has so many beautiful trees left! I realize this is such a small, silly issue compared with bigger, more emotional and serious ones out there. All this is to say, where is the line? When can we as Christians become involved in fighting for laws? What issues should and shouldn’t we push? I admit, I don’t have the answers, but I’m certainly praying for wisdom!
Aaaaa!!! This is just such a hard topic for me to stay away from. 🙂 But instead of attempting to reason with reactionary pro-choice emotionalism and media brainwashing (especially when the questions and topics presented have already been adequately addressed by far more intelligent and eloquent people than I since pretty much this whole mess started years ago, and I have no desire to regurgitate answers to questions long settled but unacknowledged), I shall respond to the intelligent and interesting question above:
Mrs. B: I have a question for YOU: Is manslaughter different than murder? And if so, should they be treated differently?
There are a couple of ideas about this verse, including the idea that the “and no further injury occurs” clause refers to the life of the child. So if the child is born prematurely and lives, he is to pay a fine. If the child is born prematurely and dies, that is different.
My Jewish friend assures me that’s a valid interpretation, but points out that it is more open to personal interpretation than other clearer commands, as it could also be interpreted as having a miscarriage which moots the above point. There are varying degrees of law and such, but that’s an entirely different topic.
Anyways, here’s my thought on the matter. Number one, it shows that God clearly considers the baby to be separate from the mother. Number two, it shows that God considers the baby to be alive. And number three, it shows that the nature of the offense was not intentional toward the baby, or even the mother, and recompense IS demanded, but not at the same level for murder, because it was a byproduct of violence toward another person, not an intentional act toward the child.
In other words, breaking into someone’s house and shooting them and their children up is different than accidentally running someone over in your car when they jumped in front of you in the road and you had no chance to stop in time.
Just a few verses earlier it addresses this…deliberate murder is liable for stoning, accidents permitted by God the slayer can be appointed a place of refuge.
The continuation of the particular verse you mentioned does make a clearer case for the idea that the father/mother must be compensated if their child lives and no further injury occurs: “But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.”
This idea is also further supported by this entire passage. Murder and loss of life is irredeemable, and punishments are capital. But when there is injury (see 21:18-19) and not death, compensation is required instead.
And then furthermore, whenever we read the Bible, we must keep in mind the principles and whole of the Bible. You cannot simply twist one verse to make it mean whatever you want it to mean, and many verses do not stand alone very well all by themselves. So in this case, rather than just looking at the verse itself, we must remember that “context is king” and we must remember where ever else the Bible talks about such matters. We’ve already covered what that whole regulation said and the context of the verses surrounding it, so now we also need to look at a few things…namely, how does God view the unborn, murder, harm to children, children in general?
I encourage you to do this legwork, but suffice it to say, it is clear from multiple scriptures that God considers murder in any form to be a no-no, unborn children to be His special work, alive, and able to commune with Him, that children are a blessing and a heritage and to be seen as such and not as burdens no matter the circumstances, and that those who cause harm to children are to face terrible judgement, if not in this life, then in the next (you know, the whole “better to have a stone tied around his neck and cast into the ocean than harm one of these little ones” idea).
So, between the verse itself, the context of the verse, the context of the chapter its in, the principles and commandments of God in general and specific to murder, children, and the unborn, plus a more holistic view of scripture, I would say that this particular verse supports the pro-life cause perhaps more than any single other verse. 🙂 Hope that helps!
Well,
I would have to disgree with those interpretations. I think the scripture clearly shows that the child was miscarried. This is in ancient days here and pretty much any baby born before term or a couple weeks before term would not live. This scenario could have happened at 20 weeks preggo in which case there is NO way a child would survive. And if a the child was born early and was absolutely fine why would the antagonist have to pay a fine…it makes no sense…unless the child died…which they are fined for…and then punished to the extent the mother was also harmed. THAT makes logical sense.
But regardless I do believe that God would not condone abortion….but that doesn’t mean its our place to be a modern day enforcers. As Teresa pointed…pre-marital sex, adultery, etc are also against God’s commandments…why aren’t you lobbying to have those made illegal and punishable with prison time?
Tiffany: My point was, regardless of if the child lived or was miscarried, it was not murdered because it was not targeted directly. Manslaughter and murder are different things, and treated differently in scripture and in many societies including our own. So whether you interpret the scripture as a miscarriage and then compensation unless the mother dies, or as if the child lives (which is and was possible, even then, and perhaps the clause then would apply in cases where the child could not live) there is to be compensation unless the child dies, the point is, this verse is not speaking to the value of the life of the child but rather the intention of the harm.
Pre-marital sex, adultery, all that stuff, have actually *been* illegal at one time or another, and various forms of “kink” still are in some places–sodomy for example. But, we are talking about protecting people from themselves versus protecting other people. No matter how hard we try, we cannot fully–nor perhaps should we–protect people from themselves with laws. That is why I am not in favor of legislating “morality” or telling people through the state or federal government how they MUST live their lives.
But we can, and should, protect the BASIC rights that EVERYONE has, and therefore protect people from sinning against each other. It is a sin to steal, a sin to murder, a sin to lie, and a sin to cheat. And this morality is reflected in our laws–rightly so. Yes, we do have some laws in place to protect us from ourselves–like the seat belt law, for example. That is acceptable, as are the laws protecting me from being murdered, at least without justice.
You are confusing the issues if you think abortion is only a moral or philosophical ideology. We can argue back and forth whether there should be laws dictating if I should send my kids to school and what I can do with my trees, and those are moral and philosophical ideologies. But abortion is not simply a moral choice between good and better, or right and wrong, or black and white. It involves the premeditated and specific ending of a life. That is not acceptable anywhere else in society, so why are the unborn protected?
Making abortion illegal is not on par with telling women they can’t vote or that it’s wrong to have gastric bypass surgery or boob jobs or what you should think and how you should act. Abortion is on par with already established legalities that are neglecting the tiniest members of our society simply because they have no way to defend themselves–but us. Abortion is on par with “do not steal” and “do not murder”, not on par with “do not water your lawn more than twice a week” or “you can have a tattoo if you want”.
Confusing the issue of life with the issue of choice is one of the enemy’s greatest victories. Life isn’t a choice, life is a blessing, and is to be cherished and protected. Choice involves other things–like abstinence or birth control. To quote one of my favorite pro-life bumper stickers, “it’s a child, not a choice”.
Its funny that the same politicians that are pro-life are also pro-guns.
Food for thought….
So is it okay to kill in war (babies inlcuded) and kill adults in the gas chamber…since life is life?