jaybird18c

The baby inside her is not one of her reproductive organs. It's a baby. The fact that it relies on her for survival is beside that point. It relies on her or someone else for survival after it's born also. This is not a governmental control issue like whether or not we should even have an EPA. This is a life issue. A human life issue.

Kallend...is it a baby in the womb or not. I know you could cite me the technical terms of development (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc before it's born and is called an neonate) but that's not what I mean. Be serious Kallend... Do you know when it becomes a human child? Does anyone? Just because the baby is dependent on the mother for survival prior to delivery is no justification for murder...if it is really a baby (which I see as absurd to think otherwise...especially if you've ever looked at an ultrasound). I think your rationalization is one of convenience rather than reality....just like the vast majority of reasons women get abortions. Question: If you were a physician, would you/could you perform abortions? I'm speaking of elective abortions without life of the mother issues. If so, then I guess that establishes your position on the value of life. If not, why not?

What, in your opinion, is a baby guilty of deserving of being killed in comparison with a prisoner guilty of a capital crime?

So would it be ok for someone to go ahead and kill you off since we're so overpopulated or does that only refer to everyone else or at least those who can't speak up for or defend themselves? The lack of value you seem to place on human life is disturbing.

So, you would support an abortion up to the point the baby pops out? No...I think Kallend says until it has a social security number.

He did that. Along with their parents. My Granddad fought to liberate some of those camps. So you're a supporter of Hitler when he killed Jewish babies? How about their parents?

So, it's not a baby until when? Until it's born and is issued a SSN? Really? Seriously Kallend, it's not a baby?

"It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________?" (Excluding the preservation of the life of the mother scenarios mentioned before.)

A very ignorant response.

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church assisted many of the Nazi war criminals involved in the Holocaust to escape (mostly to South America) after WWII, and that the Pope (Puis XII) was almst certainly aware of it. Nice Christians. You do know that you're talking to a protestant...right? Are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians? Depends on if you're talking about the individual or the organized religion. Anyone who has placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and isn't relying on their own works, Catholic or not, is saved. If you're referring to them, I say yes. If you're referring, however, to strict followers of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which is very much faith + works based (e.g. the doctrine of the Pope), then I would say no. They aren't Christian...they're Catholic....and they'll tell you that if you ask them.

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church assisted many of the Nazi war criminals involved in the Holocaust to escape (mostly to South America) after WWII, and that the Pope (Puis XII) was almst certainly aware of it. Nice Christians. The Roman Catholic Church has been and is wrong on many counts. The Pope and the Papacy But that's got nothing really to do with the right or wrong with regard to abortion.

"180" This is a documentary put together by Ray Comfort and his ministry Way of the Master. It describes in graphic detail the atrocities of the WWII Holocaust and ties that in with what is happening in the US with regard to abortion. I watched it last night. I thought it was very effective. It did have a flaw, however. It was done from the perspective of the public and not the Physician. It does not take into account the limited scenarios where a procedure might be necessary and unavoidable to save the life of the mother. Other than that, I think he got his point across.

Wow. You are the radical liberal aren't you.

AND in way too many cases... it has been shown that members of the police and the prosecution... have done just that LIED so they could make thier case closure stats look good. In the case of the man that Georgia and its citizens just murdered, there was no evidence, most of the eyewitneses recanted and stated for the record that the POLICE had coerced their statements at the time of the original trial. PLUS.. the real murderer of the police officer has gotten away with it... and as one of the "eye witnesses" is laughing at the State of Georgia and all the cops in the case that murdered an innocent man. Now how do you know all this? Really? Did you study the trial or something? Do you have the same outrage over the white supremacist who dragged a guy to his death who just got put to death in Texas? Maybe you could stage a protest in defense of his rights. How about the rights of that poor guy who got dragged to death?

WRONG.. on quite a few points ... but you go on believing anything you want.... it's far easier that way for you What I mean is that there seems to be such disdain for religion and the idea of moral absolutes from atheists yet, when there is an appeal to justice or injustice, God's standard is kept on standby.

So you’re saying that our system is set up to put “innocent adult citizens” do death?”

Your original question: With regard to abortion: My wife is an OB/GYN Physician. She has, at times, had to take measures which would kill the baby in order to save the life of the mother. Those circumstances are few and extreme. She has never nor would ever do anything to harm a baby in the womb unless there was a situation where either one or both were going to die otherwise. That's not to say she has or ever would perform an abortion in the sense that we're talking about. I'm talking about inducing labor with an underdeveloped fetus or performing a c-section under the same circumstances when the baby will not survive in order to save the mother. Bottom line, sometimes it is necessary so I support it under very limited circumstances but certainly not for any other reason besides the risk of death to the mother. Is that killing, “just?” No, not really. The baby did no wrong nor could it. However, sometimes we have no choice but between two bad ones in that scenario. What makes this very different from any other “choice of convenience” is that there are many alternatives. With regard to your “state sponsored murder” comment: I am assuming from your previous comment that you agree with including “justice” in the definition (“unjust killing”). If that’s the case, then the definition does not describe what took place with putting a convicted murderer to death. The crime committed was so cruel and abhorred that the only way justice could be realized is by a most extreme method and outcome (even though “exact justice” would be much worse (e.g. eye for an eye)…we don’t do this because we are humane with a sense of mercy). We live in an imperfect world and our systems of government are also imperfect. We have to do the best with what we have (I think it’s the best in the world, by the way, despite its flaws). You could make the argument that there are alternatives (e.g. life imprisonment). I agree and would be alright with that. However, I’m also okay with the death penalty and see it as justified.

That's beside the point....I think. I thought we were discussing the issue with regard to right & wrong, not the statistical result of it. Define murder.

You keep changing words...is it killing, murder, or just dying?

Our legal system was also created with a sense of justice.

Just answering with a similar leading question that you began with. Your question was kind of like the one I used to hear as a kid when your "friends" would ask you, "Does your mother know you're gay?"

So you're in support of murdering innocent children as long as it's the mother who chooses to do it? Added: And in support of sparing the lives of convicted murderers. --->>>180

Do you support abortion and, if so, to what degree?

That is a great point. Bleeding heart liberalism tends to break down when the rubber meets the road or "when it becomes personal."

It seems very odd to me that an angry, hostile, militant, anti-religious, atheist would feel the need to invoke scripture in an attempt to make their point (used incorrectly/mistranslated...but still...)