Weird Time for Christians

funhusker said:
Then read my edit.  "Late term abortion" isn't a thing. 

Sorry if I came of as unreasonable.  I was in a hurry and didn't add my explanation...
Click to expand...
Ok your edit explains more and sets a different tone.   Again if the fetus is wtout heartbeat, etc as you note, then by all means - begin the grieving process which starts with the removing of the fetus. 

 
TGHusker said:
Ok your edit explains more and sets a different tone.   Again if the fetus is wtout heartbeat, etc as you note, then by all means - begin the grieving process which starts with the removing of the fetus. 
Click to expand...
It is a very complicated issue for sure.  It is not black/white or pro-life/pro-abortion.  Each situation is different and requires different approaches.  I'm far from being a supporter of abortion as a form of birth control, and I'm confident most Democrats would agree with me.  But the Democratic position of "choice" refers to recognition of complexity in these situations.  To allow families and medical practitioners the ability to confront these issues, Democrats are fully aware of the potential "ugliness" that can follow.  That is why they support programs and initiatives to educate young people and give them resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  

Like I pointed out, if you are for a woman "choosing" to end her pregnancy of a dead child, you  would likely support "late term abortion"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Instead of "eyerolling" can you please tell me what you think "late term abortion" means.

And if you claim it means a women wants to end the life of a healthy baby 2 weeks before the due date, please show evidence of this happening with a safe medical procedure....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
Instead of "eyerolling" can you please tell me what you think "late term abortion" means.

And if you claim it means a women wants to end the life of a healthy baby 2 weeks before the due date, please show evidence of this happening with a safe medical procedure....
Click to expand...
I just said out loud, "wtf with the eye roll" ... silly.

 
funhusker said:
Instead of "eyerolling" can you please tell me what you think "late term abortion" means.

And if you claim it means a women wants to end the life of a healthy baby 2 weeks before the due date, please show evidence of this happening with a safe medical procedure....
Click to expand...
who is doing the eye rolling? wasn't me :dunno

Late term - last 60 days -  or perhaps after viability 

 
TGHusker said:
who is doing the eye rolling? wasn't me :dunno

Late term - last 60 days -  or perhaps after viability 
Click to expand...
No worries, I never thought it was you.   

In those “abortions” in the last 60 days it is because the baby has died or going to.  I hate to use the word “never”, but these “abortions” are never because a mother just decided she no longer wants a baby.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the inconsistency of the pro-life argument I never understood. Let's just assume that it's synonymous with Christianity, as it mostly is.

Killing a baby is murder.

Dead souls either go to heaven or hell.

Dead souls that live long enough all fall short of the glory of God and are hellbound unless they accept Jesus as their lord and savior. The overwhelming majority of people who live don't take the narrow road and end up in hell for eternity.

Most all Christians believe in some age of accountability where children are not judged the same way and go to heaven regardless.

So.

Killing a baby guarantees it goes to heaven.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Or sounds like most Christians don't really believe the things they claim to.

 
Landlord said:
Here's the inconsistency of the pro-life argument I never understood. Let's just assume that it's synonymous with Christianity, as it mostly is.

Killing a baby is murder.

Dead souls either go to heaven or hell.

Dead souls that live long enough all fall short of the glory of God and are hellbound unless they accept Jesus as their lord and savior. The overwhelming majority of people who live don't take the narrow road and end up in hell for eternity.

Most all Christians believe in some age of accountability where children are not judged the same way and go to heaven regardless.

So.

Killing a baby guarantees it goes to heaven.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Or sounds like most Christians don't really believe the things they claim to.
Click to expand...
Odd diatribe since the abortion debate is about the one who chooses, which is not the baby.

 
Landlord said:
Here's the inconsistency of the pro-life argument I never understood. Let's just assume that it's synonymous with Christianity, as it mostly is.

Killing a baby is murder.

Dead souls either go to heaven or hell.

Dead souls that live long enough all fall short of the glory of God and are hellbound unless they accept Jesus as their lord and savior. The overwhelming majority of people who live don't take the narrow road and end up in hell for eternity.

Most all Christians believe in some age of accountability where children are not judged the same way and go to heaven regardless.

So.

Killing a baby guarantees it goes to heaven.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Or sounds like most Christians don't really believe the things they claim to.
Click to expand...
This really isn't worth responding to but I'll play along.   That is some crazy thinking there LL - what are you drinking/  :wasted With your reasoning  we should also be all for killing babies and children up to the age of accountability (actually some leftists claim that babies should be eligible for abortion even after birth.)

We have no inconsistencies - God has a purpose for each life.  Killing the baby in the womb is killing a person made in God's image, with a destiny in front of them.  Abortion takes away that right of choice to follow one's destiny, to live purposefully, and to live in a way that honors God.  Your equation leaves out the grace of God at all levels as well. We may find out in the end that God is more gracious than any of us think. 

So let's flip the argument.   When one devalues life in any form (pre-born, elderly, those with disabilities) one devalues all of life.  How can leftist say they are pro-needy when they abandon the 'neediest' in the womb and talk of ending the life of elderly who become a burden on society - another needy.   Then there are those leftist nations that look at automatic abortion for those with down's syndrome and other disabilities.  Talk about inconsistent.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both sides (  :(  ) have totally failed reality in the abortion debate.


A very old 1988 Guttmacher survey of abortions taking place after 16 weeks — still the most detailed study on the subject — listed these reasons for why an abortion was happening late in the gestational cycle:

71% — Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% — Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% — Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% — Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% — Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% — Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% — Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% — Woman didn’t know timing is important

5% — Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion

2% — A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% — Other


The data don’t end up cleanly supporting one side or the other. Fetal illness is listed infrequently as a reason, indicating that maybe these heart-wrenching stories are not typical. And saving the life or health of the mother wasn’t mentioned at all. Points for the pro-life side.
But these data undercut some pro-life arguments, too. Some abortions happen because of problems that pro-life policies exacerbate. Pro-life groups work diligently to make it harder for women to get abortions, yet these studies show that the difficulty in making arrangements is one of the reasons that abortions happen later. (More on that in my piece, “Safe, Legal and Early.”
Click to expand...
 

The Inconvenient Truths (For Both Sides) About Late Term Abortions

 
commando said:
good lord...what sort of crap are you reading that makes you think anyone (left or right)  believes THAT?  
Click to expand...


Good oh leftist well know Princeton Prof Peter Singer  (and there are others of his ilk that believe the same - he is one of the more outspoken and has a bigger platform). This is one of the paths where atheistic, leftist thinking leads.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-princeton-bioethics-professor-faces-c/

Mr. Singer, who teaches bioethics at the private Ivy League university, has for years promoted public policy that would legalize the killing of severely disabled infants, the petition states.

On his faculty page, Mr. Singer argues: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

“Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies,” Mr. Singer continued. “My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”

More recently, in an April interview with WND’s Aaron Klein, Mr. Singer said bluntly: “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
Click to expand...


And it gets even worse with this article which is a discussion of a NYT interview of Singer

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/now-peter-singer-argues-that-it-might-be-okay-to-rape-disabled-people

You'd have to read the whole article to get the full story but here is the last paragraphs. And remember, Singer is not a 'one off'.  He is a highly respected  ethics prof/thinker (respected by the crazy, leftists in academia and media)

Consider carefully what is being said here. Here, Singer and McMahan (  Oxford professor Jeff McMahan )are assuming D.J. is severely impaired. But, they say, that means he is too intellectually inhibited to understand the notion of consent. And because he doesn’t understand consent, he can’t withhold it. And because he didn’t fight back, it’s reasonable to assume he was having a good time, making it unclear why it would be harmful to perform a non-consensual sex act on him.

Again, let’s be clear on what they are saying: if someone is intellectually disabled enough, then it might be okay to rape them, so long as they don’t resist, since a lack of physical struggle justifies an assumption that someone is enjoying being raped. (Singer is also offering a variation on his own prior arguments in favor of bestiality, which work because Singer believes disabled people and animals are the same for purposes of ethical analysis.) Note that his reasoning would also justify sexually molesting infants, who are likewise incapable of understanding the notion of consent.

The New York Times therefore just published a philosophical defense of raping disabled people, and Peter Singer has—somehow—reached a new low on disability issues. (Actually, to be precise, an argument that it’s not clear what the harm is in raping disabled people, along with the implication that non-consensual sex acts against physically and mentally incapacitated people aren’t actually rape anyway if the victims do not know what consent is.)

Singer’s casual rationalization of sexual abuse actually offers a useful illustration of why nobody should subscribe to utilitarian philosophy to begin with. Utilitarians are meticulous and Spock-like in their deductions from premises, but their impeccable logic inevitably leads toward utterly horrifying or bizarre conclusions that totally conflict with people’s most basic shared moral values. Utilitarian reasoning can lead you to believe that there’s no such thing as “good” and “bad,” only “better” and “worse” (which means that genocide isn’t inherently bad, and in fact could be fine if it’s the least-worst available option in a certain set of circumstances). It can lead you to believe that it’s less morally justifiable for a couple to remain childless than it it is to murder an elderly homeless person in their sleep (because failing to create a potential happy long life is worse than taking someone’s unhappy short remaining life). It can, as Freddie deBoer has pointed out, lead you to believe that in the Jim Crow South, you should frame an innocent black man for a crime, knowing he will be lynched, if doing so would calm the resentments of the white community and thereby avoid having them perpetrate a wave of far more brutal violence. It can also lead you to be an apologist for sweatshops and factory collapses. Due to the nature of their premises, utilitarians constantly end up endorsing the moral necessity of an endless number of inhumane acts. It’s a terrible philosophy that leads to brutal and perverse conclusions, and at its worst, it turns you into Peter Singer.

I suppose that, at this point, nobody can be surprised at Singer, though it really was somewhat unfortunate that he chose to follow up an argument for granting disabled people their agency with an argument for why sexually abusing them doesn’t cause harm. But he’s made it clear over his career that he doesn’t care about the consequences of dehumanizing people. Perhaps more shocking is the fact that the New York Times either didn’t notice what was being argued, or felt that the argument made a legitimate contribution to debates about consent and disability. Either way, the continued presence of Peter Singer in national dialogue about disability shows just how far we have to go before people like D.J. will actually be granted their full humanity, by prosecutors and philosophers alike.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top