From the Grass Roots: Remarks by Jackie Muehl, One of Our 10,000 Members

When Jackie speaks of "the least of these" and the "very young", does Jackie also include the unborn?

If not, why not?

If so, how does Jackie reconcile that rhetoric with AC's alignment with the Democratic party, which believes that aborting a child even as he/she is being born is OK with hGod?

Hi KSM:

I don't speak for Jackie, but as we've discussed before, the attacks on science-based sex education and family planning etc--over the past 5 years have led to the end to the dramatic decline in the number of abortions in the previous 8 years. Effective prevention, rather than locking up young women, is clearly more consistent with the call to support the least of thee than your approach. Your approach has just made things worse in every way as it relates to abortion and women's health in general.

I answered your question, perhaps you can answer mine: what about the poor, the group Jesus clearly called the Least of Thee?

FP

You haven't really answered my question - you've just raised a diversion.

How can anyone justify defending the abortion of healthy, viable infants who are in the process of being born? Yet this is exactly what all of the recent Democratic presidential primary candidates did.

I hope that you can see the evil in this, and that it is unrelated to whatever failings the "Religious Right" does or does not have in regards to helping the poor.

After all, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some Christians don't do what they ought to help the poor doesn't mean that other evils can be freely excused.

I am glad to see the number of abortions go down. Let's help unwed mothers, let's promote Christian virtues in our social organization and let's allow individual states to make murder illegal, again.

To answer your question regarding the poor, Christian have an obligation and a privilege to help. Personally I feel that education is critical to helping them. "Give a man a fish - you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish - you feed him for a lifetime." Often some of the most important education is in the area of Christian values - honesty, hard work, persistence, chastity prior to marriage, faithfullness after marriage, intelligent stewardship of God's resources, critical thinking, etc.

In our country the government is not allowed to present the Christian underpinnings of the above virtues. That makes it all that much more important for the church to do so.

Which country do you live in? Because everywhere I go I hear the "Christian underpinnings" of American values.

You view abortion as murder, I - and many other Christians - do not. That is a viable argument over doctrine and interpretation of Holy Scriptures. Yet that is the single issue to which you base all objections upon.

Murder, by the way, is illegal in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and every single US territory. So please can the rhetoric.

XT

And you are once again arguing against a straw man, ksm. Nobody here, and no recent Democratic presidential candidate, defends "the abortion of healthy, viable infants who are in the process of being born?" Most of us here advocate prevention over prohibition. Bill Clinton did, too, and the abortion rate declined in each of the last 7 years of his administration, by a over 20% during that time. That decline has ground to a halt under the administration of the purportedly anti-abortion George W. Bush. The difference between us and you, and between recent Democratic and recent Republican presidential candidates on this issue is that you and the Repubs like to thump your chests in outrage over abortion while gutting programs that give people the knowledge they need to avoid unwanted pregnancies; we prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Our approach works, yours does not.

FP: Thank you for the report on events in Madison. It was great to hear your comments and those of Jackie Muehl. I find her message inspiring, particularly since my stances on issues flow from my religious beliefs, and not from any connection to a political party.

KSM:
Abortion is clearly something that you want to discuss, since you use a general comment on 'the least of these' to launch into the topic.

Many will agree that reducing the number of abortions is a good thing. This discussion, however, concerns two very different ways of doing that. Apparently, you would be content to have abortion ruled illegal. That will not stop abortions, but will make them riskier to the health and wellbeing of the woman who seeks one.

I understand that you are against abortion, but here are some things that might surprise you. In the 1990's the abortion rate declined in the United States by 17.4 percent over the decade. Since Bush has been in office, the abortion rate has increased, not decreased. To those that study abortion rates, they offer evidence that 'the failings of helping the poor' that you allude to are directly related to abortions:

"1) Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason [Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)]. With record job losses under this presidency (the worst since Herbert Hoover), and a decrease in average real incomes, women have a harder time affording a child, and so do their male partners or husbands.

2) Others have lost their health coverage -- 5.2 million overall -- with women of childbearing age being over-represented. That means no hospital, no obstetrician, no pediatrician. Mothers think of such things when they decide whether to have an abortion."

The comments are not mine, but those of Glen Harold Stassen, PhD, a Christian ethicist at Fuller Theological Seminary. You can read the whole article here.

http://www.minutemanmedia.org/STASSEN%20KRANE%20102004.htm

I am glad that you are willing to help unwed mothers. But "help" is a nice word that lacks any meaningful definition. What insurance programs are in place, or that you are speaking out in favor of, that would provide health care to children? What day care options and education options are you advocating that would allow mothers to complete their education or work, knowing that their child is at least in a safe environment? What about affordable housing? What about funding for college for the child? Then there are the emotional issues that sometimes attach to children raised by a single parent. Many cannot see an escape from a life of poverty as a single parent, and accordingly, are faced with a difficult choice between raising a child in poverty or having an abortion. I know several people who have spoken of the difficulty involved in the choice, some who have continued the pregnancy and others who have aborted. Both acknowledge the decision is not easy, and for many people, that is the case.

So when you advocate 'help,' are you advocating for these positions that would assist single parents, or are you accepting of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us? With due respect, abortion has much to do with the failings of society (not just the Religious Right) to help the poor, or those who do not see any other way out of their circumstances.

TO KSM:

I have NEVER heard of a Democrat or anyone else "justify defending the abortion of healthy, viable infants who are in the process of being born." That is not what all of the recent Democratic presidential primary candidates did. I'm surprised the others in this forum let you get away with that canard.

I know your input is welcomed here to stimulate discussion, but I can't help suspecting that either the Bush administration or the so-called Christian right has assigned you to ride herd on the Christian Alliance Web site's forums. You sure do seem to have a great deal of time to monitor the sites and inject your two cents, usually extremely biased. Has that become your mission in life?

KSM -

I'm curious... Do you think making abortion illegal will reduce the number of abortions performed? If so, what do you base this on.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to focus on preventing pregancy in the first place, rather than creating an illegal network of (unsafe) abortion providers and/or filling up prisons with mothers that end the life of a fetus?

I too believe viable life probably begins at some point (a month or so) after conception, but the difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to impose my moral standards on all of society just because it is something I feel strongly about.

Pornography, hate speach, alcohol, tabacco and long list of other "sins" are also obviously harmful to society. How far should our government go in restricting liberties and the right to make personal decisions about our lives? In my opinion, these liberties are exactly what makes America a great nation, regardless of my personal feelings on the individual issues.

Providing *realistic* education to our citizens, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, tending to the sick and simply showing love for our fellow human being makes a lot more sense, and is much more in line with the teachings of Christ, than trying to impose the "laws of the pharasies" on every citizen.

The Christian right is wrong again-- the Republicans and the Christian right Chose the word "right" to make them seem right-- this is one time you could say two rights make a wrong... I would like some one from the religious right give me the book chapter and verse that says anything about abortion please don’t give me a verse where God was rising up a prophet with a surrogate mother like John the Baptist, or Jeremiah.

XT –

Abortion is not the only issue. It is merely one of the most clear cut ones. And because I believe that it is murder I am obligated to oppose it – otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

So these “unborn victims of violence” laws that penalize someone who kills an unborn child through violence against its mother during say, a robbery – are they wrong? Should they be repealed?

Randy –

No straw man here. Every one of the recent Democratic presidential contenders was against the ban on partial birth abortion. Check out http://nationalreview.com/comment/rosenberg200401230911.asp for the details on Kerry voted against it 5 times. Dean and Clark were not senators, but they made it clear where they stand. Edwards flip-flopped and can up against the ban. Lieberman voted against the ban 6 times. Kucinich denounced the ban from the House floor.

Partial birth abortion is where the mother of a child nearing full term, even a perfectly healthy one, is induced into labor. The child is turned to come out feet first. When the child is mostly out of the birth canal (and the head is still inside) the skull is punctured and the brains are sucked out.

This, according to the Dems, is the constitutionally guaranteed right of the mother.

I applaud the decline in the abortion rate during Clinton’s Presidency. I personally think that the economy had a lot to do with the decline and the near halt in the decline that followed under Bush.

I am not arguing that you don’t favor prevention – I too am “pro-choice” BEFORE CONCEPTION. But when prevention fails, is murder to be one of the options? And even if we aren’t sure that it is murder, I must ask “How sure are you that it is NOT murder?” If there is a serious doubt, shouldn’t we error on the side of caution?

The best way to avoid out of marriage pregnancy and STDs is abstinence – it certainly worked for me before I got married. It’s not easy, especially in today’s culture that makes it seem abnormal and impossible. It’s also biblical. This approach works.

Johnson –

The rational for making something illegal ought to be whether or not it is morally wrong. We could do away with all robberies by repealing all laws that define robbery. Wouldn’t that be great – a robbery crime rate of zero! But, as you know, that is not how we make our laws. Thank God!

Stassen’s study, which you cite, does not, as you say, support that the abortion rate went up during Bush’s administration. It says that the rate of decrease slowed down. And that study has come under serious criticism and has been modified and toned down significantly by the author. See http://www.sojo.org/index.cfm?action=sojomail.forums&mode=display&itemID=3615 and the related discussion.

Regarding how to help unwed mothers – there’s no doubt that they have a difficult time. One of the surest routes to poverty is to be a single mother. I’ve worked with them in the past to find housing, jobs and child care. For a while I ran a jobs/housing/childcare database where they could look for what they needed. Sometimes they were able to join forces and help each other out. It’s tough, and there is definitely more that Christians and churches should be doing to help.

Regarding the tax cut – Did you send yours back into the government? I keep asking people who didn’t like the tax cut what they did with the money – and every one of them seems to have had something more important to do with it than give it back to Uncle Sam. Perhaps you gave yours to an unwed mother’s shelter. If so, good for you. I’m glad that you had that opportunity to spend your money in a way that promotes Christian ministry and the Gospel.

Grimone –

See above.

As I said on another forum, I wish cruising forums were my full time job. Alas, I have to work for a living. Any “riding herd” is strictly on my own dime.

Splinter

Regarding the impact of making abortions illegal - see above.

Yes, preventing pregnancy makes a lot of sense. And just think were we could be as a society if almost every child were born into a two-parent home, and STDs such as AIDs, herpes, etc were a thing of the past? How much money would be freed up for schools, parks, etc? Abstinence before marriage and monogamy after marriage would move us a long ways toward this ideal.

Regarding the “imposing of one’s moral standards on others” – Try this (hypothetical) on for size:

I happen to feel strongly that rape is wrong. So do you. But the difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to impose my moral standards on all of society just because it is something I feel strongly about.

Substitute “abortion” for “rape” and I have just fed your argument back to you. Do you like it?

“But”, you may reply, “rape is a crime with a victim.” But you have said that you believe that life starts around a month after conception. So, if a human life is taken by abortion is there not a victim involved here as well?

The rape victim has a voice and a vote, while the abortion victim does not.

About half of the people who go into an abortion operating room don’t come out alive.

There are lots of social ills that need to be addressed. Surely the ones linked to murder should top the list of those needing immediate attention.

I agree that Christ would be pleased to see more ministry to unwed mothers and single parents, as well as to the poor, sick and vulnerable.

But I have yet to read a verse where Jesus tells His followers to lobby the Roman government to do those things. Jesus DID, however, tell the church to do those things.

When our government gives a cup of cold water to someone who is thirsty, it is not allowed to say “This is done in Jesus’ name”. I, however, can say that, and I do say that. And people come to Jesus through such ministries and have their lives transformed.

I guess you could call me pro-choice and pro-life. I'm pro-choice because you HAD and HAVE the choice to have sex with someone knowing full well it could lead to pregnancy. There is where your choice is made folks. Once made, you do not murder the innocent because now you don't like the choice you made.

There are different stages of a human life. Being born is just one of them, not the start of life...

1) Conception: God has created life

2) Trimesters: Various stages of growth not unlike points 4,5,6,7,8 and 9

3) Born: The baby now can sustain it's life in the physical world

4) Terrible Twos

5) Puberty

6) Teenage years

7) Adult hood

8) The "Golden Years"

9) Old Age

10) Death

We label stages of life but for some reason discount the growth of the human being from Conception to Birth as some kind of period where .... it's not human?

It's just another area of growth that a human goes through. We're always human, from Conception to Death, we're never something else.
There are two main questions that are asked and what does the Bible say about these. From what I understand…

1) Is the unborn child ('fetus') a human being?

2) If so, is it ever acceptable to kill the unborn?

I submit the following…

"...and Rebekah his [Issac's] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her..." (Genesis 25:21-22)

Note that the unborn twins, Jacob and Esau, are referred to as "children" (the Hebrew word used, BANIM, plural of BEN), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has amore specific meaning "sons".

The New Testament uses the usual Greek word for baby, BREPHOS, to refer to the unborn John the Baptist, who "Leaped in her [Elizabeth's] womb" because of the presence of the unborn Christ (Luke 1:41-44)

Unborn babies are always HUMAN right from fertilization, As we see the Bible indicates and because all the DNA coding needed to build each individual's physical features is there in the fertilized egg. It's done, all that is needed is time for the child to grow. It is absolutely false that the developing human goes through any "fish or retile stage", despite some blatantly fraudulent evolutionary claims. The Bible teaches that the unborn baby is a human child (see also Psalm 139:13-16, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb...", Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;....")

To the second question:
Genesis 1:26-29 and 2:7-23 make it clear that man was created distinct from the animals, "made in God's image." In Genesis 3 we read how this image was corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve. Not long after we see Cain commit the first murder, which is a destruction of that image. A grevious affront to God. Right through Scripture, murder - the intentional killing of innocent humans - is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder", Matthew 19:17-19, "... Jesus replied, 'Do not murder...'", Romans 13:9, "... Do not murder ...").

Since abortion kills an innocent human being, it is nothing less than murder. Now what about the hard questions...

What if the woman was raped?

What if the child is deformed?

What if the woman can't afford to keep the child?

These questions are irrelevant according to the Bible. We also see in Ezekiel 18:20 that executing a child for the crime of his/her father is prohibited. Meaning that even in the tragic cases of incest and rape there is no justification for killing the innocent child that has been conceived.

One last note, just because we think one way is better than another, abstinence vs education vs abortion doesn't mean we forget nor ignore what the Bible says when it's tough to swallow.

I see, in a lot of these forums, a misuse of the teaching of Christ of loving your neighbor as yourself. A lot of people use that teaching to mean if the person is sinning, we should love them and allow them to continue in sin and in some cases help them to continue sinning.

The baby is an innocent and a human no matter where they are in their growth.

XT –

Abortion is not the only issue. It is merely one of the most clear cut ones. And because I believe that it is murder I am obligated to oppose it – otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

So these “unborn victims of violence” laws that penalize someone who kills an unborn child through violence against its mother during say, a robbery – are they wrong? Should they be repealed?

Randy –

No straw man here. Every one of the recent Democratic presidential contenders was against the ban on partial birth abortion. Check out http://nationalreview.com/comment/rosenberg200401230911.asp for the details on Kerry voted against it 5 times. Dean and Clark were not senators, but they made it clear where they stand. Edwards flip-flopped and can up against the ban. Lieberman voted against the ban 6 times. Kucinich denounced the ban from the House floor.

Partial birth abortion is where the mother of a child nearing full term, even a perfectly healthy one, is induced into labor. The child is turned to come out feet first. When the child is mostly out of the birth canal (and the head is still inside) the skull is punctured and the brains are sucked out.

This, according to the Dems, is the constitutionally guaranteed right of the mother.

I applaud the decline in the abortion rate during Clinton’s Presidency. I personally think that the economy had a lot to do with the decline and the near halt in the decline that followed under Bush.

I am not arguing that you don’t favor prevention – I too am “pro-choice” BEFORE CONCEPTION. But when prevention fails, is murder to be one of the options? And even if we aren’t sure that it is murder, I must ask “How sure are you that it is NOT murder?” If there is a serious doubt, shouldn’t we error on the side of caution?

The best way to avoid out of marriage pregnancy and STDs is abstinence – it certainly worked for me before I got married. It’s not easy, especially in today’s culture that makes it seem abnormal and impossible. It’s also biblical. This approach works.

Johnson –

The rational for making something illegal ought to be whether or not it is morally wrong. We could do away with all robberies by repealing all laws that define robbery. Wouldn’t that be great – a robbery crime rate of zero! But, as you know, that is not how we make our laws. Thank God!

Stassen’s study, which you cite, does not, as you say, support that the abortion rate went up during Bush’s administration. It says that the rate of decrease slowed down. And that study has come under serious criticism and has been modified and toned down significantly by the author. See http://www.sojo.org/index.cfm?action=sojomail.forums&mode=display&itemID=3615 and the related discussion.

Regarding how to help unwed mothers – there’s no doubt that they have a difficult time. One of the surest routes to poverty is to be a single mother. I’ve worked with them in the past to find housing, jobs and child care. For a while I ran a jobs/housing/childcare database where they could look for what they needed. Sometimes they were able to join forces and help each other out. It’s tough, and there is definitely more that Christians and churches should be doing to help.

Regarding the tax cut – Did you send yours back into the government? I keep asking people who didn’t like the tax cut what they did with the money – and every one of them seems to have had something more important to do with it than give it back to Uncle Sam. Perhaps you gave yours to an unwed mother’s shelter. If so, good for you. I’m glad that you had that opportunity to spend your money in a way that promotes Christian ministry and the Gospel.

Grimone –

See above.

As I said on another forum, I wish cruising forums were my full time job. Alas, I have to work for a living. Any “riding herd” is strictly on my own dime.

Splinter

Regarding the impact of making abortions illegal - see above.

Yes, preventing pregnancy makes a lot of sense. And just think were we could be as a society if almost every child were born into a two-parent home, and STDs such as AIDs, herpes, etc were a thing of the past? How much money would be freed up for schools, parks, etc? Abstinence before marriage and monogamy after marriage would move us a long ways toward this ideal.

Regarding the “imposing of one’s moral standards on others” – Try this (hypothetical) on for size:

I happen to feel strongly that rape is wrong. So do you. “But the difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to impose my moral standards on all of society just because it is something I feel strongly about.”

Substitute “abortion” for “rape” and I have just fed your argument back to you. Do you like it?

“But”, you may reply, “rape is a crime with a victim.” But you have said that you believe that life starts around a month after conception. So, if a human life is taken by abortion is there not a victim involved here as well?

About half of the people who go into an abortion operating room don’t come out alive.

There are lots of social ills that need to be addressed. Surely the ones linked to murder should top the list of those needing immediate attention.

I agree that Christ would be pleased to see more ministry to unwed mothers and single parents, as well as to the poor, sick and vulnerable.

But I have yet to read a verse where Jesus tells His followers to lobby the Roman government to do those things. Jesus DID, however, tell the church to do those things.

When our government gives a cup of cold water to someone who is thirsty, it is not allowed to say “This is done in Jesus’ name”. I, however, can say that, and I do say that. And people come to Jesus through such ministries and have their lives transformed.

Well, I brought this up in another thread, but I want to repeat it here since the subject of abortion has come up. Question: If the Religious Right care so much for babies, why didn't they take up the cause of Sun Hudson, a five month old baby that a Houston hospital let die by shutting off its life-support, despite the fact that the baby's mother pleaded for his life? They got really worked up over the Terri Schiavo case (which was also deemed "hopeless" by doctors, and where the woman had even made her desire about not being kept on life-support made known prior to her coma), and I want to know why there was no outcry from the Right about Sun Hudson? This law in Texas, which was signed into law by then Governor Bush, allows hospitals to decide when "enough is enough". In other words, when a patient either doesn't have the insurance or when the insurance company refuses to pay any longer, the hospital can save money by declaring the patient "hopeless", and in the case of Sun Hudson, even when the family pleads for the life of their loved one, the Texas courts can side with the hospital and "shut her down". Please tell me why the Religious Right is not shouting about this, and why they didn't help Sun Hudson's mother ( a poor black woman, who didn't have the money to fight the hospitals in a lengthy court battle) to save her child's life?

The issue is one of hypocricy. Can you on the one hand say you are so concerned with the unborn and human life, and on the other justify the death penalty (most conservatives in fact DO support the death penalty) and the torture of military prisoners? Can you on the one hand claim to believe this is a "Christian" nation, and yet on the other show little or no concern for the poor and the sick, supporting an ideology that clearly has NO interest in either reigning in the banks, mortgage, and insurance companies (whose interest rates and penalties put a tremendous burden on tens of millions of Americans), or in fighting for guaranteed Healthcare for ALL Americans? Can you claim to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and yet preach a version of Christianity that is highly exclusive, intolerant, and embraces Old Testament Law, which Jesus HIMSELF went against and preached against repeatedly (not only did Jesus make it clear that stoning people to death, ritual washing of hands, not healing on the sabbath, not picking grain on the sabbath, etc. was all a bunch of CRAP that had little or nothing to do with God, Jesus also said we must go "beyond the righteousness of the Pharisees" who he said "understand the Letter of the Law, but have no concept of the Spirit of the Law", but also said that "You had the Law and The Prophets until John (the Baptist), BUT SINCE THEN you have the Good News of the Kingdom of God, and people are earger for it")?

What the Christian Alliance for Progress and Progressive/Liberal Christians in general seek is to confront this kind of hypocricy, and to try to get American Christianity back onto a path which is truer to the ACTUAL teachings of The Master. For too long have the (Far Right) Premillianists, Fundamentalists, and Dominionist Christians sought to justify greed, apathy for the poor, war-mongering, and prejudice by using the precious name of Jesus Christ. They don't like the idea that someone might try and put a stop to it, and that's understanable....especially considering who the real "Founder" of their movement is (and I'll give you a hint-- he plays checkers with Hitler every other Sunday).

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

I just couldn't pass up a chance to make a comment on this thread. I know a gentleman who considers himself pro-life, and wouldn't dream of voting for a Democrat. To him, it's a sin for a woman who has been raped to have an abortion, but it's perfectly OK for him, while on an oxygen feed, to smoke himself to death!

Peace,
reignbeau

Damien:

Hmm... It seems that anyone who knows a little about Scripture always comes to the conclusion where they say, "if your against abortion but for the death penalty your hypocritical". The big difference between the two is that a baby does not have the means to defend itself nor is it responsible for itself. An adult is different. An adult has the capabilities of making choices and does make choices that result in the Godly support of the death penalty. In no way is it hypocritical to stand up the for the rights of an innocent but turn around and make an adult responsible for their choices. It's one of the main reason why we have the insanity plea in court. If the person is incapable of making the right choices then we find alternatives other than punishment.

Question: How do you reconcile God saying that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will not be saved? That is assuredly a "death penalty" to those who will not submit to Christs authority. This is because adults can make good or bad choices.

So, in conclusion, you can be against abortion and for the death penalty.

Rich -- How in God's good name do you infer from the scripture verse you cited that it supports the death penalty? The scripture verse you cited clearly refers to spiritual choices and consequences; it has nothing whatsoever to do with temporal choices and consequences. I would also point out that the consequence is self-condemnation; God is not the executioner, we are.

There is a case to be made from scripture for the death penalty. I don't agree with it, but it's there. Unfortunately, the verse you've cited is not part of the case that can be made. I think it's time for Christians to stand up and say that distortion of scripture, to the point of lying about it -- which is, frankly, what you've done -- is sinful. You are twisting the Word of God to suit your own agenda.

Sollicitudo:

Agreed, I'm not making the case with the Scripture I quoted about the death penalty. Sorry for the mislead.

Are the laws concerning unborn victims of violence wrong? Yes. They are. At least, according to the Bible and five thousand years of Jewish history.

For the record, the partial-birth abortion ban that you are so worked up about and use as evidence of allowing abortion on demand was voted against for the same reason it was ruled unConstitutional - it did not adequately provide for a woman to save her own life even in those rare occassions when that was the immediate choice. Why wasn't such amendment ever attached? Because it was voted down by the pro-life crowd. Check the voting records and the Federal Register on that.

Your substitution of "rape" and "abortion" is faulty. If you can't tell the difference between a living, breathing woman and a fetus, then you are simply being willfully blind. Go get a few pictures and compare them closely. I'm sure you'll find a few differences, even without going to medical school.

Your quaint rhetoric about "half of the people who go into abortion rooms don't come out alive" is a wonderful PR slogan. It's just totally wrong.

You cannot make someone a victim who has not been born yet. To be a bit graphic, if I kick you in the testicles, I haven't injured your pre-ejaculated sperm. What is it about ejaculation and random bumping of cells that separates that? Honestly, a fertilized egg is no more or less alive or viable than the sperm cells your body (well, mine anyway) is creating all the time.

XT

KSM

You have not answered my questions. What programs are in place to reduce the individual and societal costs that would lessen the hardship of a) carrying a fetus to term, and b) raising a child as a single parent? What programs are you advocating today that put your preaching into practice? Are you advocating an increase in birth control? How do you plan on paying for it? Good for you for running (for a while) "a jobs/housing/childcare database" but it takes far more than simply offering information to make a meaningful difference. If the information was provided in an environment that mirrors your comments here, I would not expect many people to find the information comforting. I doubt few would endure your preaching to get whatever information that may be of use.

Your comments remind me of a sunday school teacher of mine years ago. A homeless woman came to our church and was sitting on the sidewalk with her belongings, asking for donations and food. Worshipers had to walk past as they went into the sanctuary or to sunday school across a public street. The deacons called the police to remove her from the public sidewalk. My southern baptist teacher actually said 'that woman does not need food or shelter, she needs God.' It was our 'job to minister to her, to get her to understand that.' You are quick to reframe the issues, moving the discussion away from a concrete example of putting a belief into practice to your own opinions, yet you offer little in the way of practical help in ministry to others. There is a term in latin that describes your argument: ipse dixit- because I said so. (I certainly would like to see some support for your comment that "About half of the people who go into an abortion operating room don’t come out alive.")

I understand that Stassen's study has been clarified, but the fundamental premises remain unchanged. Your criticism of the study, whether here or in the comments at Sojourners, do not make the findings any less valid. Again, just because you offer criticism does not mean that the issue has been proven unsound. The fact is that economics play a critical factor in abortion rates, and cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us does little to help those who could use social program funding the most.

And with a subtle twist, you again reframe the issue of taxes, portraying it as a 'benefit' that I can put that money to use. Your attempt to reframe the issue is nothing more than a dodge. I am not advocating tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of funding for the needy. Did you condemn the tax cuts for the wealthy, or did you praise them as evidence of the ability to put your own hard earned money to work as you see fit? Its all in the frame. (And while what I did with the money is irrelevant, I did send it to a family I sponsor in Africa. I only wish that I could send the amount of my taxes that are used to fund our weapons manufacturing.)

So will making abortions illegal change anything? You seem to concede that it won't, but argue that we should do it because of your moral beliefs. At the same time, however, you argue that you are not trying to impose your views on others.

The bigger point is that abortion is one issue that you 'jumped all over' in a discussion on 'the least of these.' If you read Sojourners, then you should already be aware that 'moral values' is far broader than the two or three issues that the religious right defines it as. You may see your stances on the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq as unrelated to moral value of 'the right to life,' but a great many others see that as hypocrisy.

RJ -

Not much time to comment right now, but you asked for an explanation of my statement "About half of the people who go into an abortion operating room don’t come out alive."

Simple - a mother and an unborn child go into the abortion operating room alive, and only the (ex)mother comes out alive.

XT -

Judging from your comments, you see nothing wrong with partial birth abortion. Am I correct?

KSM

Its all in the frame. You define a fertilized egg, a zygote, as "people" or a person. But it does not stop there, you then refer to the woman as a "mother." A mother is a female parent, and a parent is "one that begets or brings forth offspring." Neither applies. Just because you choose to define life in a certain way does not make it so.

I have a huge problem with partial-birth abortions.

I believe a fetus is not fully ensouled until after its birth. However, that does not mean that it is totally meaningless until then. In fact, Jewish law (from where I draw the basis of my beliefs) has always held that progressively greater consideration be given to the potential life of a fetus as the pregnancy continues. Certainly, when the fetus is in the birth canal, it is worth almost as much as the life of the mother.

Almost. But not quite.

I have no problem with a partial-birth ban so long as it does not put a woman in a situation where she cannot save her own life. There is simply no way to construe such a law as being in keeping with either Christian nor American values.

And, if Republicans would actually offer such a bill, it would find widespread support. So far, they haven't done so.

Does God waste souls?

The important question for me is to determine when does human life begin? So let's look at spontaneous natural abortions.

The U.S. National Library of Medicine says:
"It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."

Clearly, this tells me that a seperate human life has not begun at conception. God does not waste souls.

We need to use science fact, not faith-based science-fiction, to establish when human life begins. After that point in time, abortion should only be legal if a continued pregnancy will risk the life of the mother or a sibling. But that would be up to the mother, her pastor, and her doctor to decide.

Thom:

Wow, let's take your argument further. Why does God allow children to die then? Isn't that a waste of a soul? When a tornado blows through a town and kills 100 people, isn't that a waste of souls? You give no facts to your argument. You seem to indicate that just because an ESTIMATED number of fertilized eggs (humans) MAY be aborted you come to .... what conclusion? That life was not present? This study you quote is only an estimate, there's no conclusive data to say they are right or wrong.

We have scientific fact that life has begun, it just needs time to grow. When an egg has been "fertilized", it has all it's DNA, it just needs time to grow. It's human.

Rich,

There is no legitimate way you can claim that fertilized eggs do not get expelled from millions of women's bodies every year. Pregnancy is all about timing, as anyone who has tried to plan one can tell you.

Your blood cell has all its DNA, too. Is that life? Should we prevent people from taking blood because it will kill your blood cells?

If you can't tell the difference between a zygote (an undifferentiated mass of eight to twenty four cells) and a baby, then you are simply being willfully blind.

XT

XT:

You indicate that I cannot tell the difference between a baby and a baby at conception (zygote). This argument falls into two categories, either there is a decisive moment when an "it" becomes human (or a person) or there is a gradual ascent to "humanness". I submit snippets from an article that says it better than I can. Full article at the end where all of the scientific facts are presented as footnotes.
---------------------------------
Pregnancy begins at conception, the time at which the male sperm and the female ovum unite. What results is called a zygote, a one-celled biological entity, a stage in human development through which each of us has passed (just as we have passed through infancy, childhood, and adolescence).

It is a misnomer to refer to this entity as a "fertilized ovum." For both ovum and sperm, which are genetically each a part of its owner (mother and father, respectively), cease to exist at the moment of conception. There is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction. (There is cell reproduction and twinning, a form of asexual reproduction, which can occur after conception.

First, the human conceptus -- that which results from conception and begins as a zygote -- is the sexual product of human parents. Hence, insofar as having human causes, the conceptus is human.

Second, not only is the conceptus human insofar as being caused by humans, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new -- although tiny -- individual.

It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human.

Although sharing the same nature with all human beings, the unborn individual, like each one of us, is unlike any that has been conceived before and unlike any that will ever be conceived again.

The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism (as with the rest of us) is oxygen, food, and water, since this organism -- like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent -- needs only to develop in accordance with her already-designed nature that is present at conception.

There is hence no doubt that the development of a unique individual human life begins at conception. It is vital that you -- the reader -- understand that...

You did not come from a zygote.

You once were a zygote.

You did not come from an embryo.

You once were an embryo.

You did not come from a fetus.

You once were a fetus.

You did not come from an adolescent.

You once were an adolescent.

Consequently, each one of us has experienced these various developmental stages of life. None of these stages, however, imparted to us our humanity.

At about three weeks, a primitive heart muscle begins to pulsate. Other organs begin to develop during the first month, such as a liver, primitive kidneys, a digestive tract, and a simple umbilical cord. This developing body has a head and a developing face with primitive ears, mouth, and eyes, despite the fact that it is no larger than half the size of a pea.

Toward the end of the first month (between 26 and 28 days) the arms and legs begin to appear as tiny buds. A whole embryo is formed by the end of the first month.

From the eighteenth day after conception, substantial development of the brain and nervous system occurs

Despite its small size, the unborn child now looks distinctly human (although it is human from conception). At this point it is highly likely that the mother does not even know she is pregnant. Brain waves can be detected in the unborn at about forty to forty-three days after conception

During the second month, the eyes, ears, nose, toes, and fingers make their appearance; the skeleton develops; the heart beats; and the blood -- with its own type -- flows. The unborn at this time has reflexes and her lips become sensitive to touch. By the eighth week her own unique fingerprints start to form, along with the lines in her hands.

A vast majority of abortions are performed during this time, despite the scientific facts which clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.

In an important article, Professor John T. Noonan argues that it is reasonable to infer that toward the end of the second month of pregnancy the unborn has the ability to feel pain. [5] It is crucial to remember that the end of the second month (7 to 8 1/2 weeks) is in the first trimester, a time at which a great majority of abortions are performed and at which the Supreme Court said a state may not prohibit abortions performed by a licensed practitioner.

From the facts of brain and nerve development, the pained expressions on the faces of aborted fetuses, the known ability to experience other sensations at this time, and the current methods by which abortions are performed, Noonan concludes from his research that as soon as a pain mechanism is present in the fetus -- possibly as early as day 56 -- the methods used will cause pain.

The pain is more substantial and lasts longer the later the abortion is. It is most severe and lasts the longest when the method is saline poisoning.

Movement is what characterizes the third month of pregnancy. Although she weighs only one ounce and is comparable in size to a goose egg, the unborn begins to swallow, squint, and swim, grasp with her hands, and move her tongue. She also sucks her thumb. Her organs undergo further development. The salivary glands, taste buds, and stomach digestive glands develop -- as evidenced by her swallowing and utilization of the amniotic fluid. She also begins to urinate. Depending on the unborn's sex, primitive sperm or eggs form. Parental resemblance may already be seen in the unborn's facial expressions.

Growth is characteristic of the fourth month. The weight of the unborn increases six times -- to about one-half her birth weight. Her height is between eight and ten inches long [20.32 and 25.4 centimeters] and she can hear her mother's voice.

In the fifth month of pregnancy the unborn becomes viable. That is, she now has the ability, under our current technological knowledge, to live outside her mother's womb. Some babies have survived as early as twenty weeks.

The fifth month is also the time at which the mother begins to feel the unborn's movements, although mothers have been known to feel stirrings earlier.

During the fifth month, the unborn's hair, skin, and nails develop. She can dream (rapid eye movement [REM] sleep) and cry (if air is present).

It is, however, perfectly legal under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to kill this unborn human being by abortion for any reason her mother so chooses.

In the remaining four months of pregnancy the unborn continues to develop. The child's chances of survival outside the womb increase as she draws closer to her expected birthday. During this time she responds to sounds, her mother's voice, pain, and the taste of substances placed in the amniotic fluid. Some studies have shown that the child can actually learn before it is born

http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html
------------------------------

Pregnancy begins at the moment of conception? Complete and utter hogwash!

Thank you, Rich, for providing yet stronger evidence for my statement that a zygote is not a fetus is not a baby.

I've never once claimed that a pregnancy does not involve the progressive development of a baby. Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot.

To continue the line of reasoning in your little excerpt:

You did not come from a sperm cell.

You once were a sperm cell.

If someone had kicked your daddy in the testicles and killed that sperm cell, by your reasoning, they would be guilty of murder.

Obviously, that is nonsense.

XT

XT:

No, that's not what I said and the article quoted here specifically says that is not the case. Until the sperm and egg unite, there isn't a human and never was. Once they unite they, the sperm and the egg, no longer exist as they were but have now become a unique entity, a human.

By the way, I agree with your "nonsense" conclusion because that is not what I said.

Rich

A fertized egg becomes a zygote. It is only when you remove the element of time from the equation (egg + sperm) that you can say "equals human." If I have $100 today and deposit that amount into an interest bearing account, which, over time, will make my nest egg grow to $100,000, can I tell everyone that I have $100,000 in my account today?

Rich,
You should thank God your mom did not think the way you do. I mean what does it matter what a human is called when being formed. Bottom line a human is produced, I just don't understand how you can comparing life, to the amount of interest you can earn in a bank account. Can you futher explain.

Concerned for your soul

mdywqwce http://kapkhltr.com iipxhljw waxqhgpg [URL=http://mvteqowe.com]blifcyii[/URL] fvlgxxut

[URL=http://oqjspidl.com]otusqvrv[/URL] ofajyrrl http://cugdgdgn.com hnohlken pieswnie ahexupae