Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[gadgetlady 4]

I know a woman who has 3 sons and desperately wants a daughter but is done bearing children. She aborted her first child. I also know a man who has 4 daughters and desperately wants a son but his wife is done bearing children. His wife aborted their first child. He regularly tells me with much sorrow that, "I killed my boy." But the saddest situation of any is when a woman aborts and from the abortion becomes sterile (yes, it happens). In that case, she killed the only child she ever had.

[Alexandra 55]

Can you tell me why you would very likely not have an abortion again?

Because the circumstances in my life that led me to that decision the first time are no longer in place. I now have a stable home, a reliable and loving partner, and enough means to support another child if necessary. None of that was present the first time.

Having had children since my abortion, my pro-choice stance has only solidified. However much I mentally and emotionally embraced and welcomed these babies, the FACT was that at the very early stages the physical fact of the clump of cells the size of an eraser, a dime, whatever, was physically inside my body and as such, no one else's territory. Any decisions to be made about it were MY decisions to make (and I made some my doctor didn't agree with, too :girl_hug: ). I know the miracle of childbirth personally, and somehow I still manage to have absolutely no regrets about the pregnancy I voluntarily terminated at 8 weeks more than 20 years ago.

Both of my children are daughters, so I find it even more imperative that our reproductive autonomy be protected--for their sakes and their daughters' sakes. The very idea that they might find themselves in a situation where the government is telling them they MUST bear an unwanted baby is utterly abhorrent to me.

I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-WOMEN.

[GeezerSue 7]

As to the pain that the unborn baby feels, at eight weeks the neuro-anatomic structures are present. To feel pain, ahuman being needs a sensory nerve to feel the pain and then send the message about the pain to the thalmus, and also motor nerves to send a message back to the area where the pain is being inflicted. All of those necessary requirements are present at 8 weeks.

Furthermore, if you stick an 8-week unborn baby with a pin in the palm of his hand, he opens his mouth and pulls his hand away, just like a newborn would do (of course, because the newborn is breathing air instead of amniotic Fluid, the opening of the mouth in the newborn is accompanied by crying or screaming). All of this is also accompanied by an increase in the baby's heart rate, and all of it is consistent with what happens in born infants, toddlers, adolescents, pre-teens, tweens, teens, adults, and the elderly.

Gee, that's not what the SCIENTISTS say. Again:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/StateRequiredCME/PainManagement/tb/3099

[ReneBean 3]

I feel that Abortion should be an absolute last resort.

I know the science - and I know that their little brains don't mature until the end - but they are still alive if not immediately, then very shortly thereafter. Not cognizant of much - but a living being.

While I think it is ugly and awful, I would NEVER tell another woman that she had to have a baby she didn't want or couldn't care for. I think abortion needs to remain available forever. I think LATE abortions should be regulated - but in extreme cases, even they can be justified.

I just wish people would stop trying to save us. If I am damned, I will claim every sin at the gates of hell and take my punishment like a woman. Everyone else will have to do the same.

[GeezerSue 7]

Oh my goodness, don't even try to suggest that Jesus would agree with abortion! Jesus followed the Word of God (obviously!) and the Bible calls an unborn baby a LIFE. It even says that if someone causes injury to a pregnant women and causes her unborn baby to die, that that person is to be held accountable for that unborn baby's LIFE. If he causes the death of both the mother and her unborn baby, he is to be held accountable for BOTH the life of the mother and the LIFE of the unborn baby that was killed. At no time does the Bible say that that unborn baby had to be "viable" outside her body...or that the unborn baby has to be X number of weeks old...it makes NO distinction between a fetus or a "viable" baby...or even an embryo, for that matter! It simply calls the unborn baby a LIFE.

Uh...Pam? Just because you never considered something doesn't mean it is impossible. Think about it for a minute or two...last I heard, Christ was born and raised a Jew. In traditional Judaism, life begins when the child is born alive and takes its first breath. Just like the rest of the Jewish community in which he was raised, Christ probably thought nothing of the practice because IF HE HAD, it might be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the New Testament. We know he didn't like the money thing in the temple...or people casting stones at others, but there is not a word written about abortion...because it was just "women's business" and men mostly steered clear.

In the early Catholic Church, as well, abortion was not just ignored...there were rules about how far into the pregnancy an abortion was permitted. There were different timelines for male or female fetuses...because the religious powers-that-be thought then (not unlike now) that they knew everything, they thought they knew how to determine the gender of the fetus.

Whether abortion was right or wrong was debated in the early church...allowed, not allowed, allowed again...for centuries. For a while, it was "a little bad," as the penance for oral sex was seven years and the penance for abortion was 120 days. That was about 700 years after Christ died.

In the 800's, Pope Steven said abortion is murder. But by the 1200's, the pope ruled that the monk who got his girlfriend an abortion wasn't guilty of anything because the fetus was not "animated." Then it moved to the "quickening" test. Then it was no abortions allowed. Then it was back to the quickening thing.

Here's some information on abortion and Judaism:

http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_abortion_religion.html

[skyeblu79 0]

Laurend specifically asked not to be attacked. I wanted to make sure she didn't feel attacked. That's why I said that.

Why don't you think it's right? I understand you're saying everyone should have the choice. But why don't you believe it's right?

Well I have said before that it's not a choice for me. I would/could never have an abortion b/c of reasons that are personal for me. I love kids and have always wanted kids.

Everyone has problems, issues and none of us are perfect. There's no telling who all has had abortions, it's not something most wear on their sleeves. I am a firm believer that I can't be casting stones @ people when I have my own sins. I sin ever day. I overeat which everyone can clearly see....

I am a Christian and I try to follow the Bible, but @ the same time I realize that everyone is not & that none of us are perfect. I can only be accountable for myself. No one will be judged for me or be held accountable for what I do. It would be hypocritical of me to sit in judgement of someone else.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gee, that's not what the SCIENTISTS say. Again:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/StateRequiredCME/PainManagement/tb/3099

You reference an article quoting ONE researcher? I could bombard you with research to the contrary. The researcher you cite bases his assertion on the claim that the cortex is needed for the baby to feel pain, but science has well established that even with complete removal of the cortex, the sensation of pain is not eliminated. So if removal of the cortex does not equal no pain, then why would the cortex need to be fully developed for pain to be felt?

[gadgetlady 4]

I'd like to comment about the judgment and damnation issue. I have tried to be sensitive on the issue of abortion because I know there are women on this board who have had abortions and regret it. I have personally worked with innumerable women who have suffered the after-effects of abortion. I have never said women who have abortions are damned to hell, I don't believe they are, and in fact I know many of them don't believe in hell.

On the issue of judging others, I would like to remind everyone here that judgment is a fine line. How many here believe what OJ did was wrong? Are you judging him if you believe that? Of course you are. Do I believe abortion takes another person's life? Yes, I do. Do I believe that women who have abortions have killed their children? Yes, I do. Do I run around shouting at them that they're murderers? No, I do not. In fact, I try to help them or, if I can't help them, find them help.

Now I'm sure a lot of you are going to judge ME for what I've said.

I am pro-women, too. I believe women have been sold a bill of goods, that they've been told they can't be productive members of society if they have children without having certain other things in their lives established. I see society judging young mothers, or women who have had a lot of children, or women in college who are pregnant. I see whole societies that so value male children that the women abort whenever they're pregnant with females. Not only am I pro-women, I am also pro-unborn-women.

[anonemouse 1]

A few of you have said that there are either no exceptions when it comes to abortion or that it should only be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

To the folks who say that it should be allowed only in rape and incest cases: Who decides what is rape or what is incest? Are all types of rape covered, or is it just in cases where there was a conviction? Should the women who claim they were raped have the same access to an abortion as the women who were raped and the rapist is in prison? Not all rapes are reported. What happens if a woman who didn't report her rape got pregnant and wanted an abortion. How would you validify her claim? What about the women who agreed to have sex and then said no, or the women who were unable to say no because they were too drunk? The same holds for incest cases. Do you allow abortions only when incest has been proven or also when it is claimed? You see, allowing only some exceptions can become a slippery slope. You wind up either forcing some rape victims to bear their rapists' children or aborting the children of women who say they were raped or victims of incest just to get access to an abortion. A law that does this would never hold up in court, because it forces an undue hardship on the victim to prove that they were raped or a victim of incest.

To those of you who say there should be no exceptions at all: You become a rapist yourself. I would imagine that if you asked a woman that was brutally raped how she would feel if she had to bear her rapist's child and feel it moving inside her, she would probably say that she would feel like she was being raped all over again. I know I would. You would turn women into nothing more than brood mares. If a husband wanted children but his wife didn't, all he would have to do is rape her or sabotage their birth control. She would have no other option than to have his child. Saying, "Well, she should have been sterilized if she didn't want children," doesn't cut it. There are very few reputable doctors out there that willingly sterilize a young woman who has never had children. Taking this stance makes you complicit in rape and incest, IMO. Whether or not you believe you are preventing murder, you would be forcing a woman to bear a child, literally transforming her into a brood mare. Do you really think Christ would approve?

[Jachut 487]

And who is it that decides that rape and incest are bad enough circumstances to justify abortion but that falling unexpectedly pregnant when you are in no situation to support a baby or becoming aware that your baby has congenital defects are not?

You cant specify some conditions are bad enough and not others. The child of a rapist is still a child with a right to live if you view it that way, as much so as the child of a middle class white woman who simply doesnt want anymore babies and has fallen unexpectedly pregnant.

To "force" a woman to breed is to "force" a woman to breed, regardless of the circumstances of the conception. You cant have it both ways. Either an 8 week old foetus is a baby or it isnt, it doesnt matter if it came into being due to rape or incest. And either a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body or she doesnt. This is an unwinnable argument, because both sides are fraught with moral dilemma.

[~Pam~ 0]

Uh...Pam? Just because you never considered something doesn't mean it is impossible. Think about it for a minute or two...last I heard, Christ was born and raised a Jew. In traditional Judaism, life begins when the child is born alive and takes its first breath. Just like the rest of the Jewish community in which he was raised, Christ probably thought nothing of the practice because IF HE HAD, it might be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the New Testament. We know he didn't like the money thing in the temple...or people casting stones at others, but there is not a word written about abortion...because it was just "women's business" and men mostly steered clear.

In the early Catholic Church, as well, abortion was not just ignored...there were rules about how far into the pregnancy an abortion was permitted. There were different timelines for male or female fetuses...because the religious powers-that-be thought then (not unlike now) that they knew everything, they thought they knew how to determine the gender of the fetus.

Whether abortion was right or wrong was debated in the early church...allowed, not allowed, allowed again...for centuries. For a while, it was "a little bad," as the penance for oral sex was seven years and the penance for abortion was 120 days. That was about 700 years after Christ died.

In the 800's, Pope Steven said abortion is murder. But by the 1200's, the pope ruled that the monk who got his girlfriend an abortion wasn't guilty of anything because the fetus was not "animated." Then it moved to the "quickening" test. Then it was no abortions allowed. Then it was back to the quickening thing.

Sue, that article is not accurate. If you truly want to know what Jesus thinks about abortion, why don’t we go back to the writings of the early Christian church in the First Century (rather than writings several hundred years later)? And for that matter, why don’t we also go back and read the writings of early JEWISH writers as well?

Since Jesus was indeed raised a Jew, we will start with the writings of the famous early-century historian Flavius Josephus (since anyone who has an interest in early religious theology would definitely recognize his name). For those of you who aren’t familiar with Josephus, he was a very well-known and highly respected early-century JEWISH historian. This is what he wrote about abortion,“The (Jewish) law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.” I don’t think that could be any clearer!

Now for the writings of the very early-Christian church (also dating back to the First Century). In the Didache, it states “Thou shalt not slay thy child by abortion, nor kill that which is begotten". And in the Epistle of Barnabas (an Apostle of Christ), it states “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born."

As for it not being mentioned in the New Testament, well neither is RAPE! Surely you don’t believe Jesus would condone the raping of a woman just because it’s not specifically mentioned in the New Testament! Do you see what I’m getting at?

So, again I say with much confidence, Jesus would NOT advocate the killing of an unborn child.

[GeezerSue 7]

Pam... man-woman relationships in the middle east 2000 years ago were quite foreign to what we, in the US, understand today. Some of what we call rape, certainly was NOT considered rape in that time and in that place. I don't know how old you are, but I remember when the "does a man have the right to have sex with his wife when she doesn't feel like it" stuff first went to court in this country. So, it's only been a few years since that was NOT considered rape. "domestic violence" is also a relatively new term. Until quite recently, and even today in some parts of the world, a man OWNED his wife and could take liberties with any other woman, unless she belonged to some other man. So, while we may WANT TO BELIEVE that our version of right and wrong is an eternal truth, it's all pretty new.

Women were property. They were given in marriage (sometimes traded) to whomever their father decided should have them. Then they had to have sex with the man chosen for them. Was that rape? To me it is. But we would have been laughed out of town--probably stoned and raped first--if we had suggested that 2000 years ago in the Middle East. In fact, if we had suggested that to my grandfather, who was paid some kind of dowry to marry my grandmother, back around 1912. She didn't love him or know him or have any choice in the matter at all. Her family transferred ownership from themselves to my grandfather. Was she raped? She probably thought so. So, did Jesus approve of "rape?" He certainly didn't do much in the equal rights arena...so we don't know. But we know that it didn't bother him enough to speak about it "on the record."

I'm just suggesting that you might be assuming 21st Century western values were held by people who were NOT a part of our culture.

I SAID that the early church called abortion wrong...and then okay...and then wrong and then okay. If I wanted to know what Christ said, however, I'd look to the Bible...and he said nothing. In fact the ONLY reference to induced abortion that I know of in the entire Bible is in Num 5: 11-27, wherein we are told that a woman suspected of adultery must drink a potion that will cause her belly to swell and bring about "the curse" and that if she wasn't unfaithful to her husband, no permanent harm will ensue...but if she was unfaithful, she will be rendered infertile.

Deal is, this passage outlines a forced theraputic abortion to make sure she isn't carrying some other man's child. God's orders, or so they say.

Please note, I did not say that Jesus was pro-abortion. I don't know of anyone, who is pro-abortion. I'm just saying that of all the things he spoke of and was quoted about...abortion (and rape) aren't mentioned. Othr things appear to have been far more worthy of discussion.

[GeezerSue 7]

... I have personally worked with innumerable women who have suffered the after-effects of abortion.

....

Are you credentialed in some counseling profession? And do you also "work with" the women who endured unwanted pregnancies?

[~Pam~ 0]

Pam... man-woman relationships in the middle east 2000 years ago were quite foreign to what we, in the US, understand today. Some of what we call rape, certainly was NOT considered rape in that time and in that place. I don't know how old you are, but I remember when the "does a man have the right to have sex with his wife when she doesn't feel like it" stuff first went to court in this country. So, it's only been a few years since that was NOT considered rape. "domestic violence" is also a relatively new term. Until quite recently, and even today in some parts of the world, a man OWNED his wife and could take liberties with any other woman, unless she belonged to some other man. So, while we may WANT TO BELIEVE that our version of right and wrong is an eternal truth, it's all pretty new.

Women were property. They were given in marriage (sometimes traded) to whomever their father decided should have them. Then they had to have sex with the man chosen for them. Was that rape? To me it is. But we would have been laughed out of town--probably stoned and raped first--if we had suggested that 2000 years ago in the Middle East. In fact, if we had suggested that to my grandfather, who was paid some kind of dowry to marry my grandmother, back around 1912. She didn't love him or know him or have any choice in the matter at all. Her family transferred ownership from themselves to my grandfather. Was she raped? She probably thought so. So, did Jesus approve of "rape?" He certainly didn't do much in the equal rights arena...so we don't know. But we know that it didn't bother him enough to speak about it "on the record."

I'm just suggesting that you might be assuming 21st Century western values were held by people who were NOT a part of our culture.

I SAID that the early church called abortion wrong...and then okay...and then wrong and then okay. If I wanted to know what Christ said, however, I'd look to the Bible...and he said nothing. In fact the ONLY reference to induced abortion that I know of in the entire Bible is in Num 5: 11-27, wherein we are told that a woman suspected of adultery must drink a potion that will cause her belly to swell and bring about "the curse" and that if she wasn't unfaithful to her husband, no permanent harm will ensue...but if she was unfaithful, she will be rendered infertile.

Deal is, this passage outlines a forced theraputic abortion to make sure she isn't carrying some other man's child. God's orders, or so they say.

Please note, I did not say that Jesus was pro-abortion. I don't know of anyone, who is pro-abortion. I'm just saying that of all the things he spoke of and was quoted about...abortion (and rape) aren't mentioned. Othr things appear to have been far more worthy of discussion.

Oh I do completely agree that the definitions of rape have changed from ancient to modern times...absolutely they have. But even so, the Old Testament does speak against rape. For example, in Deuteronomy 22:25-28, it says “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her”. My point is, just because Jesus didn’t confirm certain Old Testament Scriptures in the New Testament, doesn’t mean that he didn’t fully and completely agree with them. They are the Word of God after all.

As for the early churches opinions on abortion, and for any other major doctrine or moral issue for that matter, I believe that the “purest” writings are those that were written as close to Jesus’ time on earth as possible. In truth, I don’t care if a Catholic Pope declared that abortion was fine several hundred years…or in the case of the Pope you are referring to, over 1,200 years…after Jesus taught here on earth. I care what Jesus’ Apostles said though, as they were actually taught by Jesus Himself. I also care what the disciples that studied under the Apostles taught too…and even the ones that studied under those men. In other words, the teachings of the early Christian church. All of those teachings say abortion is a sin.

Let’s review some of these writings:

The Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"): "Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." (2:2) It also says that "The Way of Death is filled with people who are...murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures." (5:1-2)

Letter of Barnabas (Apostle of Jesus): “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born."

The Apocalypse of Peter (Apostle of Jesus): "I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who...procured abortions."

Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius: "We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person, would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it.... But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it."

Tertullian (Apology 9:6): For us [Christians] we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed."

Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2): "Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings."

Tertullian: “…we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth.”

St. Hippolytus ("Refutation of all Heresies" 9:7): "Reputed believes began to resort to drugs for producing Sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time."

(I have a ton of excerpts from the Third Century too, if anyone is interested…but they are all along the exact same lines as above).

But you know what, it's not actually these teachings that have made me pro-life. In fact, I was pro-life before I read them. I just really feel it in my heart that it's wrong to kill an unborn child.

If this issue was truly about JUST a woman's own body, then I wouldn't care what she did. But in the case of an abortion, we are not just talking about the woman's body, we are talking about an innocent little baby's body too. I don't expect you ever to agree with me, and that's fine, but I will continue to speak out against abortion in case it changes just one girl's mind one day and she gives her baby a chance at life that the little one might not have otherwise had.

[Alexandra 55]

I believe women have been sold a bill of goods, that they've been told they can't be productive members of society if they have children without having certain other things in their lives established. I see society judging young mothers, or women who have had a lot of children, or women in college who are pregnant. I see whole societies that so value male children that the women abort whenever they're pregnant with females. Not only am I pro-women, I am also pro-unborn-women.

Gadgetlady, we can agree on these points, absolutely. Let's all work together to remedy these situations, and so decrease the incidence of abortions. Let's increase education and access to reliable birth control, and change the parental/societal attitudes that send scared teenagers to the windowsill with their newborns.

But NONE of these problems will be addressed or changed in the slightest by outlawing or limiting access to abortion. All that would happen is a mad rush to black-market providers and an increase in injuries to women seeking abortions.

Pro-life laws are ANTI-woman in the most fundamental way possible.