Home - List All Discussions

How would you react if a female that you were really close to decided to get an abortion?

by: kayluvzchoice

What if your mom, daughter, sister, cousin, best friend, etc. decided to get an abortion for a reason other than saving her life? Do not tell me she will not ever get one because she is pro-life or something like that. I want to know your reaction if someone you really respected and cared about ever changed her opinion and got an abortion. Try to answer the question instead of calling me a moron or the question idiotic.
I mean after she got the abortion.

reply from: teddybearhamster

i would try to talk some sense into her and educate her as to what abortion really means.

reply from: Faramir

I would try to talk her out of it.
I would pray for her.
Once she did it, I would tell her that I thought she did the wrong thing and that I would continue to pray for her and her child.
And I would drop it after that, unless she brought it up and wanted to talk about it.
I wouldn't disown her.

reply from: sander

As soon as you give me a detailed description of what an aborted baby looks like, I'll give you a detailed answer.

reply from: teddybearhamster

my best friend did have an abortion. at the time i was pro choice. i have since done some soul searching about it and i have told her that i still love her and always will, but i can no longer lie to her or myself about what she did.

reply from: galen

before my rape, i had a friend who wanted an abortion and needed someone to go to the clinic with her.. they set you up with a 2 day deal.. 1st you go get a HCG test and then you are schedualed.
i went with her foerr the first day.. we got her test results and i got a book and showed her what her baby looked like. I told her i loved her but if she went through the abortion i could no longer be her friend. She had the abortion and we are no longer speaking... this was 18 years ago.
She sees me every now and again, she is lonely and single.. the guy who pressured her for the AB would not go to the clinic w/ her and did not mary her as promised. She has no children and she job hopps.. she refuses to get any type of help or counseling even though her family has tried to help her.
I can not look her in the eye knowing what she killed..she can not look me in the eye because of what she thinks I did to her...
The only positive thing that came out of this mess is that when my sister fell pregnant, she remembered the heartache this young woman went thru and carried her child to term. She has Never regretted that descision.

reply from: teddybearhamster

with my friend i do still love her to pieces but i understand what you mean. i'm having trouble looking at her the same way. i wish it weren't so but i can't help how i feel.

reply from: Faramir

I don't get why you couldn't be her friend.
She sure could have used a friend after the abortion.

reply from: galen

its one of the regretts in my life... but if she won't help herself then... well i'm not proud of it but i will not help her.. she wasn't poor or anything ahe just wanted the guy to marry her... and she killed her child for nothing in the long run.

reply from: Faramir

Oh.
Well, if you were in a similar situation with another friend, what would you do now? Let's assume you tried to talk her out of it, but she went ahead with it anyway.

reply from: cracrat

I don't know. Whatever I could say here might not be what I do were I to be faced with that situation. A friend of mine did think she might be pregnant and asked me to come along for moral support. I pointed out that the moral support she needed would be to keep the child, not kill it, which I would've been happy to provide. Fortunately she wasn't pregnant so didn't have to make the choice.
How I'd respond if my sister or a friend actually got one? Don't know, I'll tell you if I ever find out. If my girlfriend got one? I think there would be some serious re-evaluation of our relationship, after all that would be as much my child as hers (hopefully) and her running roughshod over my feelings in favour of her own would demonstrate a side of her I'd not like.
But like I said, I've not been in that situation so I can't give an honest answer.

reply from: nancyu

That is an honest answer.

reply from: yoda

The relationship would never be the same again. It would be like they had killed their born child.

reply from: xnavy

i told my son who is 17 years old that he ever got a girl pregnant and forced her to have an abortion and i somehow found out, i would
still love him but i would show him the door, because he can not live under my roof. this may sound hard but that is how i feel.. if the girl had
the baby i of course would help them out. i also told him i would rather he would abstain
from sex.

reply from: sander

See, Kay....people here answer YOUR questions, why not do the same and answer ours?
So, how about explaining to all of us what an aborted baby is suppose to look like?

reply from: joe

This question truly does expose the heart of the "pro-life" advocates and you two have failed. One is a "Christian", both are the enemy of the unborn. With the pro-life movement against the unborn, I fear that only the hand of God will protect them now.
When Jesus returns from the Heavens will you hide under a rock or smile for his embrace? Whether you believe or not it doesn't matter...He is returning and the blood that stained your hands will testify to your guilt. Let those that love the "least of these" stand guiltless before the world's Savior. The tears of the righteous will not quench the everlasting fire that awaits...
Dear Father have mercy on us.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I'd be fine with it, but I'm pro-choice. I've got one:
For women...
If your husband/live in boyfriend came home and told you that he had gotten another woman pregnant and that she was going to get an abortion unless he was willing to raise the baby, would you support him and help him or dump his ass? What if he left the choice up to you and said he'd let the other women get an abortion if you didn't help him out?
For men...
If your wife/live in girlfriend told you she was pregnant with another man's baby and that she couldn't raise it on her own, would you stay or break up with her? If you broke up with her how would you feel if she got an abortion?
It's different when there are emotions involved. There was a "pro-life" judge who lived next door to my boyfriend's parents and his ex-wife had told a story of how fifteen years before they were divorced she had an affair (if I remember right he was having one too) and got pregnant. Her husband, despite being "pro-life" gave her five hundred dollars and sent her to Planned Parenhood and told her to never speak of it again. Turned out he was sterile and she never got pregnant by him and they ended up getting divorced because she felt like he had pressured her into the abortion. You also hear about all these "pro-life" politicians who pay for their mistress to get an abortions so their wife won't know they were screwing around.

reply from: Faramir

The relationship would never be the same again. It would be like if they had killed their born child.
Would you photograph her and post the picture on your website?

reply from: yoda

It's quotes like those two that make me glad I'm able to use the iggy button.

reply from: jujujellybean

This question truly does expose the heart of the "pro-life" advocates and you two have failed. One is a "Christian", both are the enemy of the unborn. With the pro-life movement against the unborn, I fear that only the hand of God will protect them now.
why? Jesus wouldn't let them stone the adulteress and she became one of his big disciples after that. He didn't disown her and not look at her face. Not looking at sin doesn't make it go away, Joe, and to disown someone for an abortion would probably make them feel worse; acting like a Christian and giving them an example might change their hearts, but shunning them won't.
When Jesus returns from the Heavens will you hide under a rock or smile for his embrace?
Whether you believe or not it doesn't matter...He is returning and the blood that stained your hands will testify to your guilt. Let those that love the "least of these" stand guiltless before the world's Savior. The tears of the righteous will not quench the everlasting fire that awaits...
I don't see blood on either of their hands. They both stand firm by the statement abortion is wrong and just because they refuse to disown the girls does not make them pro choice.
Dear Father have mercy on us.
he does.....

reply from: joe

I never knew you were so sensitive concernedparent....I will try to care more about your "feelings" next time.

reply from: joe

It's quotes like those two that make me glad I'm able to use the iggy button.
EDIT:
Somebody quote the entire post...
There you go concernedparent.

reply from: joe

This question truly does expose the heart of the "pro-life" advocates and you two have failed. One is a "Christian", both are the enemy of the unborn. With the pro-life movement against the unborn, I fear that only the hand of God will protect them now.
why? Jesus wouldn't let them stone the adulteress and she became one of his big disciples after that. He didn't disown her and not look at her face. Not looking at sin doesn't make it go away, Joe, and to disown someone for an abortion would probably make them feel worse; acting like a Christian and giving them an example might change their hearts, but shunning them won't.
When Jesus returns from the Heavens will you hide under a rock or smile for his embrace?
Whether you believe or not it doesn't matter...He is returning and the blood that stained your hands will testify to your guilt. Let those that love the "least of these" stand guiltless before the world's Savior. The tears of the righteous will not quench the everlasting fire that awaits...
I don't see blood on either of their hands. They both stand firm by the statement abortion is wrong and just because they refuse to disown the girls does not make them pro choice.
Dear Father have mercy on us.
he does.....
If you and the other two "pro-life" advocates would treat a murderer that killed your family member or friend the same way...then I will at least respect your opinion. But if you support punishment for the killer that took away human life...then you should analyze what you are saying here.

reply from: Faramir

Joe,
You took my comment out of context. And it was not much different than the comments of those you chose not to condemn.
I would be extremely disappointed if a friend or family member aborted and would do all that I could to persuade them to do otherwise. But if it happend, it's over and done with, and I would still be there for them, because they would need friendhip even more in their postabortive state. That doesn't mean I would pat them on the back for what they did, however. It would be known that I didn't approve but we would move on from there.
What would YOU do?

reply from: joe

As a Christian it should be clear to you that the unborn are to be loved as if they are Jesus. That is the law given to us from the Messiah. If someone I know committed the killing of the unborn I would disassociate from that individual as if they killed our Christ. Only through genuine repentance can I ever speak to that individual again.
P.S. I would still support laws to imprison those that kill innocent human beings even if they are my family members...that is the only way to fully protect the innocent.

reply from: carolemarie

I would still love her and care for her. You don't stop loving people just because they do something you don't like

reply from: 4given

It is almost impossible to predict what kind of reaction one might have to that sort of thing. I have lived with the reality that my sister killed her first child. Pretty much she stayed far from us and the topic wasn't addressed when she would come around. It wasn't until recently (20 years since she aborted) that she found me. (I haven't spoken to her in over a year or seen her in 12.) I asked her if she was afraid of the abortion truth and if she was convicted by it.. She didn't give an honest answer. I have seen the twisted path she has taken since her abortion. Her choices are reckless, her company is in poor choice.. I want to believe there is hope and healing for her. I want her to desire it. She is so far removed from God and simplicity. She complicates every situation that comes about. So I don't know what in regard to her. I pray when led and encourage her. Now if my baby sister's aborted, or my sons allowed that to happen to their child.. That is entirely different I would imagine. It would destroy our relationship and create feelings beyond repair. God would have to help me with that scenario...

reply from: 4given

And did you watch the video?

reply from: sander

And did you watch the video?
Who, scardy cat Kay watch the video????
She's too busy making up idiotic threads to bother with actually finding out what it is she supports.

reply from: jujujellybean

Now you are telling me I am not pro life? Geez, that's news to me! How could you know something I don't???
And besides, I would forgive that person. It would be hard, but I would. and you didn't answer the verse I quoted.

reply from: 4given

Julie- you would forgive someone that savagely mutilated your loved one?
I think that is what I am responding to anyway.. Great for you. For me, I can't say forgiveness would come quite readily..

reply from: GratiaPlena

People have forgiven those who have killed their children. Christ forgave those who killed Him even before they did so. I think forgiving the woman would be a Christian thing to do.
In response to Kay, I would pray for her and try to persuade her not to abort. If she did anyway... I'm not really sure. I think I would try to forgive her, but I would also inform her that I strongly disagreed with what she did and could no longer be a close friend to her, but I would also tell her I would be there when she fully realized what she had done. But like I said, I don't know. I don't think we really can know unless we've been in that situation before.

reply from: jujujellybean

I'm not saying it would be easy, and that I would be close friends with that person; but I would try to do what I think Jesus would do: forgive.

reply from: 4given

I'm not saying it would be easy, and that I would be close friends with that person; but I would try to do what I think Jesus would do: forgive.
The original post you responded to:
"If you and the other two "pro-life" advocates would treat a murderer that killed your family member or friend the same way...then I will at least respect your opinion. But if you support punishment for the killer that took away human life...then you should analyze what you are saying here."
Close friends with someone that ripped the limbs off of your loved one? Do as Jesus would, but I, personally would find it quite difficult to...

reply from: Faramir

Now you are telling me I am not pro life? Geez, that's news to me! How could you know something I don't???
And besides, I would forgive that person. It would be hard, but I would. and you didn't answer the verse I quoted.
Welcome to the club.

reply from: galen

Oh.
Well, if you were in a similar situation with another friend, what would you do now? Let's assume you tried to talk her out of it, but she went ahead with it anyway.
----------------------------------
I hope that if i had another friend in that situation i could be more persuasive... i really don't know . I try not to hang around too many people that are of that persuasion... probably i would have to play it by ear. * shrug* I would definately have to have a talk w/ my priest.

reply from: joe

It's quotes like those two that make me glad I'm able to use the iggy button.
EDIT:
Somebody quote the entire post...
There you go concernedparent.
Is this better concernedparent????? I only want to learn your "intelligent" ways.

reply from: joe

This question truly does expose the heart of the "pro-life" advocates and you two have failed. One is a "Christian", both are the enemy of the unborn. With the pro-life movement against the unborn, I fear that only the hand of God will protect them now.
why? Jesus wouldn't let them stone the adulteress and she became one of his big disciples after that. He didn't disown her and not look at her face. Not looking at sin doesn't make it go away, Joe, and to disown someone for an abortion would probably make them feel worse; acting like a Christian and giving them an example might change their hearts, but shunning them won't.
When Jesus returns from the Heavens will you hide under a rock or smile for his embrace?
Whether you believe or not it doesn't matter...He is returning and the blood that stained your hands will testify to your guilt. Let those that love the "least of these" stand guiltless before the world's Savior. The tears of the righteous will not quench the everlasting fire that awaits...
I don't see blood on either of their hands. They both stand firm by the statement abortion is wrong and just because they refuse to disown the girls does not make them pro choice.
Dear Father have mercy on us.
he does.....
If you and the other two "pro-life" advocates would treat a murderer that killed your family member or friend the same way...then I will at least respect your opinion. But if you support punishment for the killer that took away human life...then you should analyze what you are saying here.
It was my nephew....Satisfied? It was a family member. Are you implying that unborn child was of less value than a born family member? If not, I don't see your point. I have shown that, while I did not condone the action, I was able to forgive...My sister was 13 at the time, you want me to throw rocks at her now? You see, there are often differing circumstances, but you self righteous hate mongers just run around flapping your gums and looking for someone to throw rocks at to make your petty little egos swell... If someone killed a member of my immediate family, I hope I would be a big enough man not to allow myself to be consumed by hatred for them, but even if I wasn't, it doesn't invalidate the point we have been struggling to get you to understand...You hypocrites refuse to condemn murders you approved of, and don't dare deny it. Paul Hill was a murderer, but you excuse that because you supported his motives....
It seems to me that you only view it as "wrong" to murder someone if you, personally, do not think they deserved to die, but you condone (even applaud) the killing of those you feel deserve to die.
My condolences.
I highlighted what I am looking for...if you are not sure about your emotions regarding this scenario why do you advocate forgiving and accepting those that kill innocent human life...as a Christian I am obligated to love my neighbor...which includes the unborn. I am being true to my convictions and my beliefs...I make no excuses, just trying to show true love to my neighbor that needs it most (their life depends on us).
Regarding Paul Hill its about perspective. If someone saved my life from an aggressor I would not call him a murderer.

reply from: joe

No need to apologize...

reply from: joe

We seem to have two different definitions of compassion and forgiveness.
Comparing Paul Hill (who defended innocent life) to a woman (who killed innocent life) does not work but I appreciate your effort.

reply from: yoda

Only the victims of violence have the power to "forgive" the perpetrators. And when the victims are too young, or too dead to forgive anyone, then the perps will never truly be forgiven in a secular way. And any forgiveness you or I give them will be meaningless to the true victims of abortion, the dead babies.

reply from: Faramir

Only the victims of violence have the power to "forgive" the perpetrators. And when the victims are too young, or too dead to forgive anyone, then the perps will never truly be forgiven in a secular way. And any forgiveness you or I give them will be meaningless to the true victims of abortion, the dead babies.
I have great hope that the souls of the dead babies go to Heaven.
If so, do you think they would be more inclined to forgive, or more inclined to condemn?
My guess is that they would want to forgive and that they would want their mothers to be helped and not condemned.

reply from: faithman

We seem to have two different definitions of compassion and forgiveness.
Comparing Paul Hill (who defended innocent life) to a woman (who killed innocent life) does not work but I appreciate your effort.
I guess you missed the part where Paul killed not only the abortionist, but his innocent companion, and almost killed his wife as well....You might argue that the escort and his wife were "aggressors" as well, but by that logic, you would have to condone killing every police officer in the state who does his/her sworn duty and upholds a law you disagree with...
Sorry, Joe, but whether you realize it or not, you're out of gas here.
But you never seem to run out of gas. A cork would help.

reply from: cracrat

There was a young boy, 16 or 17 y/o, stabbed to death in this country recently. His mother's statement to the press was that she felt great sorrow and pity for the mother of the boy who stabbed him, because whilst she had only good and happy memories of her child to help her in her time of grief, how had that other lady's view of her child changed?

reply from: Beprolifewithme

Notice how Kay NEVER replied...CP, I can't believe you bought a kid!! I mean that's good, and amazing!! It just sounds so funny.

reply from: Faramir

Well, I basically just bribed her to have the baby and give it to me, but it really kind of boiled down to having "purchased" the child, as if it were simply a commodity to be traded...It's actually kind of sad, and his mom has to live with it now. I'm sure it's not as bad as if she had to live with killing him, but in some ways, it may even be harder on her. I'm not so dense as to not understand that, nor hard hearted enough that I can't pity her....Too bad some others are too self righteous to feel that way. It would go a long way toward giving our cause a better image if they could.
Can you tell me something CP, since you hav been out there in the trenches?
Is what we see on this board the "face" of the prolife movement?
Because if it is, the so called "squishy middle" will never be sympathetic to it, and who could blame them?

reply from: Faramir

That sounds somewhat hopeful.
Of all the prolife activists I've met, and some of them very hard-core who have been hauled away to jail for blocking clinics, not one of them had the anger or anti-woman sentiment I've seen so prevalent here.

reply from: jujujellybean

hey Joe, since it doesn't seem to me you think we should forgive the women, what do you have to say about your sig? Don't you think those who stoop to killing are the least of the brethren? Broken and lost, with no one a lot of times? I would think Jesus would forgive.

reply from: jujujellybean

This question truly does expose the heart of the "pro-life" advocates and you two have failed. One is a "Christian", both are the enemy of the unborn. With the pro-life movement against the unborn, I fear that only the hand of God will protect them now.

why? Jesus wouldn't let them stone the adulteress and she became one of his big disciples after that. He didn't disown her and not look at her face. Not looking at sin doesn't make it go away, Joe, and to disown someone for an abortion would probably make them feel worse; acting like a Christian and giving them an example might change their hearts, but shunning them won't.
When Jesus returns from the Heavens will you hide under a rock or smile for his embrace?
Whether you believe or not it doesn't matter...He is returning and the blood that stained your hands will testify to your guilt. Let those that love the "least of these" stand guiltless before the world's Savior. The tears of the righteous will not quench the everlasting fire that awaits...
I don't see blood on either of their hands. They both stand firm by the statement abortion is wrong and just because they refuse to disown the girls does not make them pro choice.
Dear Father have mercy on us.
he does.....
From the mouths of babes....
lol we say that to my three year old sister....LOL thanks for the compliment, if in fact that is what it was....

reply from: kayluvzchoice

And did you watch the video?
Who, scardy cat Kay watch the video????
She's too busy making up idiotic threads to bother with actually finding out what it is she supports.
I don't make that many threads at all. So don't talk about me like I make numerous threads everyday.
What video are you even talking about?
Anyway, to answer another question you asked, I really don't care what a first or second trimester looks like because I know the fetus did not suffer. At all. I have seen pictures from health websites of "abortions" that just look like blobs and flakes, and I don't even trust those so don't assume it is because I am in "denial" or something. If you think I am going to sit here for hours and repute numerous pictures of "aborted babies" you are kidding yourself. Whether or not you believe those pictures are real or fake will not change and it will not affect me in anyway so I will not do it. Not because I can't, but because I don't want to and there really is no point anyway. You don't care. You will think those pics are real no matter what.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

And did you watch the video?
Who, scardy cat Kay watch the video????
She's too busy making up idiotic threads to bother with actually finding out what it is she supports.
I don't make that many threads at all. So don't talk about me like I make numerous threads everyday.
What video are you even talking about?
Anyway, to answer another question you asked, I really don't care what a first or second trimester looks like because I know the fetus did not suffer. At all. I have seen pictures from health websites of "abortions" that just look like blobs and flakes, and I don't even trust those so don't assume it is because I am in "denial" or something. If you think I am going to sit here for hours and repute numerous pictures of "aborted babies" you are kidding yourself. Whether or not you believe those pictures are real or fake will not change and it will not affect me in anyway so I will not do it. Not because I can't, but because I don't want to and there really is no point anyway. You don't care. You will think those pics are real no matter what.
A guy was shot through the spine at the base of the skull from behind, and died instantly. Did he suffer? He felt no pain, and died instantly, having never been aware that his time had come. Did he suffer any loss? He lost his life, right? Does the fact that he suffered no pain imply that he did not suffer? Was no harm done to him? Is depriving him of life only harmful if the experience is painful?
He didn't rely on another person's body to survive and he was aware of his existence so I don't think it is the same thing.

reply from: yoda

So when someone dies during surgery because of a doctors mistake, it's okay because they were under anesthesia and "didn't suffer"? Does that make it okie-dodie with you, kay?
We don't want to to "prove" anything, kay..... just tell us WHERE THE REAL ONES ARE............. OKAY?????

reply from: yoda

How does a state of "dependence" affect whether or not someone suffers when they are killed, kay?
HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, KAY???????????????

reply from: kayluvzchoice

So when someone dies during surgery because of a doctors mistake, it's okay because they were under anesthesia and "didn't suffer"? Does that make it okie-dodie with you, kay?
No, it doesn't. The fetus was not aware of its own existence. It had nothing taken away from it.
We don't want to to "prove" anything, kay..... just tell us WHERE THE REAL ONES ARE............. OKAY?????
I never said I knew what an abortion looked like. I did a few months ago, but now I question that

reply from: kayluvzchoice

How does a state of "dependence" affect whether or not someone suffers when they are killed, kay?
HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, KAY???????????????
I am not explaining it again.
Stop demeaning me. You are too old for that.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

So what does "suffering" have to do with it?
If suffering has nothing to do with why abortion is wrong, what are those pictures for?

reply from: nancyu

Well, we're not AT an abortion clinic. We are on a debate forum where the women here are (or should be) adults who can handle criticism. I have seen no "anti-woman" sentiment (except by CP) I have only seen anti murdering woman sentiment.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but you're still sure that all the prolife photos are "fake", right..... ???
That would be impossible, kay, since you haven't explained it the first time.
You mean my responding to your posts? Is that what you mean by "demeaning" you, kay?
Are you that sensitive?

reply from: joe

For someone claiming to be "intelligent" you have let me down. Your arguments are based on emotion which I do not adhere to. If you want to enlighten me you must use logical arguments without emotional biased.
Maybe your past experience in life caused you to fear man made laws...I don't know but it could very well be.
The bodyguard of this abortionist is also an aggressor defending the killings with force...it was justified to eliminate the threat. The wife was innocent...fortunately she was not killed. It is simple and clear.
Now your "silver bullet" argument is flawed. This was an act of self-defense not a civil uprising. If this was a civil war than killing police officers in that context would be justified to overthrow a government that defends the killing of innocent human beings. These two situations are completely different. Your emotional arguments appeal only to the weak and untruthful.
I would have supported the victims of the Holocaust in any way possible even if it broke the law.
Now answer me this concernedparent would you have told the Jews to die because it was the law? Would you argue against any action during the killings that might have saved their lives because it was the law? Be honest.

reply from: joe

What the pro-life movement is failing to understand is that this is not a personal sin with no victim. This is a Holocaust that eclipses all other events in our human history.
To accept this slaughter...(here is where our lovely forgive all sins "Christians" fail to understand a simple concept. If you accept and show love to the killer you by this action make this crime humane. You might not agree but we have 35 years and 50 million innocent dead to prove it a fact. If you disagree then you should advocate the release of all prisoners that feel bad....do you?)...is to be an accomplice to this great crime.
Between the guilty woman that murders and the innocent and helpless unborn child....there is no debate who the "least of these" is.

reply from: sander

And did you watch the video?
Who, scardy cat Kay watch the video????
She's too busy making up idiotic threads to bother with actually finding out what it is she supports.
I didn't say you made numerous threads everyday. I said the ones you make are ludicrous, idiotic, etc..
4Given has posted a link to a video of an abortion taking place. I'll look for it and post it so you can easily access it.
Spoken like the true cold hearted and one who refuses to be educated.
So, in the future, to keep from looking like a total hypocrite it will be best for you to stop telling others the pictures are fake or at least to be questioned.
Especially since you cannot provide any proof to back up your claims.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

So what does "suffering" have to do with it?
If suffering has nothing to do with why abortion is wrong, what are those pictures for?
I'm not the one who brought up "suffering," you are. You said the pictures were irrelevant because those aborted children never suffered. I am attempting to examine this assertion. Logically, if I can show that the fetus suffered, I have defeated your argument that the pictures are irrelevant. I have pointed out the fact that "suffering" is not restricted to physical pain, that being just one form of suffering, yet you offer no rebuttal....Why is that? Do you concede that the pictures are relevant? Are you reversing your position, or are you simply unable to logically defend it?

Well then I guess that proves I don't understand the pro-life view of abortion then doesn't it?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Ah, but you're still sure that all the prolife photos are "fake", right..... ???
Yes, have you not ever questioned any of your sources?
That would be impossible, kay, since you haven't explained it the first time.
I am quite sure I have.
You mean my responding to your posts? Is that what you mean by "demeaning" you, kay?
Are you that sensitive?
I don't mind if you respond to me, but every person you respond to that you disagree with , you demean.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

And did you watch the video?
Who, scardy cat Kay watch the video????
She's too busy making up idiotic threads to bother with actually finding out what it is she supports.
I didn't say you made numerous threads everyday. I said the ones you make are ludicrous, idiotic, etc..
4Given has posted a link to a video of an abortion taking place. I'll look for it and post it so you can easily access it.
Spoken like the true cold hearted and one who refuses to be educated.
So, in the future, to keep from looking like a total hypocrite it will be best for you to stop telling others the pictures are fake or at least to be questioned.
Especially since you cannot provide any proof to back up your claims.
Why do I look like a hypocrite?

reply from: sander

Shall I pull one of your tricks and say, I'm not going to tell you since you won't believe me and it doesn't matter what I say, you've all ready made up your mind, and.....?
No, guess I won't.
You're a hypocrite for suggesting to others the pics are fake and then when YOUR stance is questioned you fall back on the above ^
never providing someone with the "real" pics to back up your assertions.
You just don't get it both ways.

reply from: nancyu

Kay, an unborn child is a person. Now you know the truth.
If you are pro choice, you are advocating the murder of innocent human beings.

reply from: joe

It is not an empty claim. My IQ is well above average. Smart money says you can not make the same "claim."
Don't waste your money...

reply from: cracrat

No it isn't. There, I've just proved abortion is not murdering people.

reply from: joe

What the pro-life movement is failing to understand is that this is not a personal sin with no victim. This is a Holocaust that eclipses all other events in our human history.
To accept this slaughter...(here is where our lovely forgive all sins "Christians" fail to understand a simple concept. If you accept and show love to the killer you by this action make this crime humane. You might not agree but we have 35 years and 50 million innocent dead to prove it a fact. If you disagree then you should advocate the release of all prisoners that feel bad....do you?)...is to be an accomplice to this great crime.
Between the guilty woman that murders and the innocent and helpless unborn child....there is no debate who the "least of these" is.
I think "the least of these" is meant to emphasize the fact that it applies to all (which would include babies and mothers, even post-abortive women). Are you really implying that abortion has remained legal all these years because we haven't been nasty enough to the women who have aborted? Poor guy, you repeat the same arguments without ever even coming close to comprehending logical rebuttals. I believe it is pointless to keep trying to pour a gallon of water in a thimble, so I bid you good day...
I have not seen such a fragile ego.
Thats right concernedparent abortion remained legal all these years because we are nice and forgiving to these murderers. Whether your feeble mind can comprehend this I don't know but it is a huge factor.
There must be prison time for all criminals...no exceptions. If you preach forgiveness and love to these cold hearted murderers how can you turn around and imprison them? But to stop this slaughter there must be punishment to deter these cold hearted killers. It is just the way life works and a fact our movement (includes you) are failing to acknowledge. The price we pay for this oversight is innocent blood. This is beyond personal this is a fight for human dignity...open your eyes.
As a Christian I believe in repentance and that can happen during prison. I would gladly witness at that point.

reply from: carolemarie

What the pro-life movement is failing to understand is that this is not a personal sin with no victim. This is a Holocaust that eclipses all other events in our human history.
To accept this slaughter...(here is where our lovely forgive all sins "Christians" fail to understand a simple concept. If you accept and show love to the killer you by this action make this crime humane. You might not agree but we have 35 years and 50 million innocent dead to prove it a fact. If you disagree then you should advocate the release of all prisoners that feel bad....do you?)...is to be an accomplice to this great crime.
Between the guilty woman that murders and the innocent and helpless unborn child....there is no debate who the "least of these" is.
I think "the least of these" is meant to emphasize the fact that it applies to all (which would include babies and mothers, even post-abortive women). Are you really implying that abortion has remained legal all these years because we haven't been nasty enough to the women who have aborted? Poor guy, you repeat the same arguments without ever even coming close to comprehending logical rebuttals. I believe it is pointless to keep trying to pour a gallon of water in a thimble, so I bid you good day...
I have not seen such a fragile ego.
Thats right concernedparent abortion remained legal all these years because we are nice and forgiving to these murderers. Whether your feeble mind can comprehend this I don't know but it is a huge factor.
There must be prison time for all criminals...no exceptions. If you preach forgiveness and love to these cold hearted murderers how can you turn around and imprison them? But to stop this slaughter there must be punishment to deter these cold hearted killers. It is just the way life works and a fact our movement (includes you) are failing to acknowledge. The price we pay for this oversight is innocent blood. This is beyond personal this is a fight for human dignity...open your eyes.
As a Christian I believe in repentance and that can happen during prison. I would gladly witness at that point.
UMMMM abortion is legal so how can you punish people for a legal act?

reply from: cracrat

Rubbish. There are innumerable crimes for which prison is entirely inappropriate and therefore not used as a punishment.
To forgive someone is not to abdicate your responsibility to punish them. If someone has commited a crime, they should be punished. Forgiving them their transgression has no bearing on this whatsoever.
I was under the impression from other posts here that many of you believe removing access to abortion will stop most of these 'cold blooded killers'.
What utter crap. The risk of punishment doesn't seem to have deterred the 7.2 million Americans locked up, on probation or on parole at years end 2006. When do you suppose it's going to get radically more effective?
Would you really? You seem far more interested in hounding these people till the end of time than offering them a chance to atone for their sins.

reply from: joe

Let me follow your "logical" position.
Someone breaks into my house about to kill my child with a knife while his friend is "protecting" the assailant with a gun. His friend would be then considered innocent? His friend is also an aggressor willing to use force to stop me from stopping the killer. They are both aggressors their views don't matter.
Laws can be in error. Just because it is legal to kill an innocent human being does not allow you to claim innocence for both aggressors.
I believe in the inherent right to life. You believe in the man given right to life. This is what separates us.

reply from: joe

CM remember the Jews and the Slaves.

reply from: 4given

I don't believe it is up to us to forgive the women. It is between her and God. (This being said, it also goes deeper when someone is personally violated by that choice.. families, fathers etc. That is when forgiveness becomes an issue)
Generally post-abortive women (I only know a handful) separate themselves from God, so conviction takes longer- but the angry justifications build. Forgiveness comes through repentance.

reply from: joe

Then let them all go....killers, rapists, drug dealers...all of them.

reply from: sander

Then let them all go....killers, rapists, drug dealers...all of them.
Joe, bless your heart, you're trying to use logic with the illogcial mind.
It doesn't seem to ever occur to the likes of this *bleep* that what they advocate is anarchy.

reply from: joe

Finally a statement that gives me hope your fight is noble.
Your original point was irrelevant to begin with. Those that do not view abortion as "wrong" are flat out liars. If they for one second believed it was justified they should have no problem airing their "procedure" on all public venues and showing the world what it really is. They would not deny biological facts and then use Hitler type propaganda to dehumanize what is human life.

reply from: joe

Then let them all go....killers, rapists, drug dealers...all of them.
Joe, bless your heart, you're trying to use logic with the illogcial mind.
It doesn't seem to ever occur to the likes of this *bleep* that what they advocate is anarchy.
Thank you sander. I hope one day they consider what they advocate.

reply from: jujujellybean

What the pro-life movement is failing to understand is that this is not a personal sin with no victim. This is a Holocaust that eclipses all other events in our human history.
Um I understand that; that is the whole reason I am pro life.
To accept this slaughter...(here is where our lovely forgive all sins "Christians" fail to understand a simple concept. If you accept and show love to the killer you by this action make this crime humane. You might not agree but we have 35 years and 50 million innocent dead to prove it a fact. If you disagree then you should advocate the release of all prisoners that feel bad....do you?)...is to be an accomplice to this great crime.
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS SLAUGHTER! You would think since I've been here many months now you would know this; I am staunchly pro life and nothing else. I in no way condone the crime when I do not disown someone for having an abortion, or hate them for it. SOOO many people are misled into abortion, and don't know what they are getting into that they really don't know. It doesn't do any good to desert them or treat them like trash. Do you think that will save any babies? What would that accomplish, Joe?
Between the guilty woman that murders and the innocent and helpless unborn child....there is no debate who the "least of these" is.
I am not saying the least of them is not the child; but I am saying that these people who abort are so lost, most of the time, and when a 14 year old girl has an abortion and then gets pushed away by all, do you think she will repent or just hate them for it? What does that solve, may I ask again? No person is being saved by that.

reply from: yoda

To show the world how barbarically and horribly we treat our unborn, isn't that bad enough?

reply from: yoda

OH you poor baby!!
You're anticipating that I might demean you in the future, so you're going to chastise me IN ADVANCE.......... RIGHT????
WAY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, KAY..............

reply from: yoda

WHAT 14 year old girl has been pushed away on this forum? WHO is the 14 year old you are talking about?

reply from: cracrat

Then let them all go....killers, rapists, drug dealers...all of them.
Of course not. That would be stupid and make the world an immeasurably more dangerous place. But your suggestion was that the threat of punishment deters crime. I was pointing out that such a threat had made little or no apparent impact on 7m+ of your fellow countrymen and women, so why would the threat of punishment alone deter those who would seek an abortion?

reply from: cracrat

I do not advocate anything of the sort. I do advocate a justice system that delivers reparation to the aggrieved, justice for the victim and rehabilitation for the perpetrator. The justice system in this country, and so far as I can tell yours too, is based more on vengence to slake the blood thirst of vicious people like you than trying to prevent crimes taking place. To bring ever more people into the harsh and damaging realities of such a fundamentally flawed system is ultimately self-defeating since it solves few problems and generates plenty more. Eventually, if things continue as they are, the problems generated will overwhelm us and then where will we be?

reply from: nancyu

So those who deny legal person hood status, do so because our justice system is flawed?
Grant them person hood now. Then worry about fixing the justice system.
First things first.

reply from: english

That's not being "hard", if he made a girl have an abortion they would be murdering your grandchild!
In answer to the question, I have several friends (although not close friends) who've had abortions. I know one girl who had 4 by the time she wa 16, and another who had 2 in the space of 4 months.
I don't bother them about it, I mention that I'm pro life and think it's abhorrent and if they choose to argue with me then they don't know what they let themself in for, no one will "win" against me when I'm right.
The girls who had multiple abortions though, they genuinely don't care about anything and are not easily angered (they aren't evil girls, believe it or not, they're just thick as two short planks but actually quite amiable)
About someone who close to me had one, the only female close to me is my mum, who had a hysterectomy and is pro life. She used to take the mini pill or something which aborts embryos up to 5 days old but she was told it would stop her getting pregnant.
If she did have an abortion, I wouldn't speak to her again. She would have kiled my sibling

reply from: jujujellybean

WHAT 14 year old girl has been pushed away on this forum? WHO is the 14 year old you are talking about?
NO NO NO I wasn't talking about someone here; I was saying hypothetically. Sorry for the mix up. And I wasn't referring to the forum, but to a girl who gets pushed away by her whole family. Sorry.

reply from: joe

Your dedication to the unborn is clear...I do not question it. As Christians we are obligated to show love to the sinner that repents.
Repentance means that person was baptized by the Holy Spirit, turned away from that sin and stands against it. If the mother that killed her unborn joins the fight to protect the unborn in every sense of the word that is repentance...if she fights protection for the unborn that is not repentance.
The reason so many are confused because we are not consistent with our words. We say we love the post abortive women and forgive them but then turn around and call it murder. Of course the 14 year olds are confused...how can it be murder when we love those that kill...we would not treat them the same if they killed someone who is born. When the message becomes clear that is how we will save those still in danger.
It is not hate for the sinner but love for the unborn that would cause me to shun the unrepentant mother. If the mother would wash her hands with tears of repentance and carry the cross of protecting the unborn, I would then embrace her as Jesus has commanded. That is truly loving the "least of these".

reply from: nancyu

nevermind, misplaced post.

reply from: joe

I understand your point but the problem lies on our interpretation of the event. It was not "reason to believe" Dr. Briton would commit a lethal attack...It was a fact he was going to kill within hours of that event. The bodyguard of this assassin was there to assure that the murders would occur and would use force to kill Paul Hill...Paul Hill had no choice but to eliminate the threat. The fact remains, that day Paul Hill saved dozens of innocent lives and maybe caused many more to consider that the unborn are actually human by this event. Someone willing to die for a cause as Paul Hill did is a strong testimony to his beliefs.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, english. To me, your sentence here is self contradictory. Anyone who "doesn't care about anything" (except themselves, of course) is evil by definition, IMO.
I know what you mean. It's a hard thing to say, but I can understand where you're coming from.

reply from: yoda

Ah, okay..... my mistake. I guess I'm just a little sensitive because of all the infighting lately.
I agree with your hypothetical statement completely.

reply from: galen

huh... i thought this was cracrat.
welcome english.

reply from: yoda

Well, we've got a mouse and a rat now, all we need is a cat.

reply from: joe

I do not entertain such "relative" truth. Being a Christian I am subject to absolute truth.
The pro-choice arguments are full of rhetoric designed to dehumanize the unborn...I have not come across one that makes logical sense at all.
It boils down to two simple truths:
1. The Unborn are innocent human life.
2. Abortion is the deliberate killing of this innocent human life.
Emotions distort these obvious facts and complicate the issue. The pro-choice argument falls apart when biological facts are presented. It falls apart when justice is applied. This is how I can with absolute conviction and truth say that abortion is inherently evil and those that deny this are flat out liars.
BTW you are right about the death penalty.

reply from: yoda

When you couple those two things with the fact that a clear majority of our society will say that "the deliberate killing of innocent human life" is immoral and wrong, there is a logical disconnect in the fact that many of them will not say that abortion is immoral and wrong.
And a lot of people recognize that contradiction, but they are just too selfish and self centered to correct it. So I really don't think it's a matter of differing opinions, I think it's a matter of a lack of intellectual integrity and basic fairness in a sizable segment of our society.

reply from: joe

I do not entertain such "relative" truth. Being a Christian I am subject to absolute truth.
The pro-choice arguments are full of rhetoric designed to dehumanize the unborn...I have not come across one that makes logical sense at all.
It boils down to two simple truths:
1. The Unborn are innocent human life.
2. Abortion is the deliberate killing of this innocent human life.
Emotions distort these obvious facts and complicate the issue. The pro-choice argument falls apart when biological facts are presented. It falls apart when justice is applied. This is how I can with absolute conviction and truth say that abortion is inherently evil and those that deny this are flat out liars.
BTW you are right about the death penalty.
If it can't be proven, it's not "truth," it's "faith." Everybody hasn't been bitten by that bug. So who's right? The majority, whether we like it or not. There's simply no better way to decide such subjective issues. As fond as you are of the "I'm right because I'm right and I know it" argument, it simply won't fly. The other guy is equally convinced you are wrong. If you get to decide that your view has authority over theirs because you say so, there is nothing to prevent him from adopting the same stance regarding the opposite view. The "God's authority" argument doesn't work either, since you can not prove there even is a "God."
I'm glad we are in agreement regarding capital punishment. We are still only "right" from our own perspectives, based on individual values and interpretation of the facts. There is no universal "truth" regarding subjective determinations.
Are you kidding me????
FACT: 1. The Unborn are innocent human life.
FACT: 2. Abortion is the deliberate killing of this innocent human life.
These are facts. Maybe a biology class would be helpful concernedparent.

reply from: joe

FACT: 3. That abortion is therefore "wrong" or "unacceptable" is a matter of subjective determination, not a "FACT."
FALSE: It violates the inherent right to life therefore it is wrong.
How can I forget so easily you base "facts" on what the majority say not on what is self-evident. I honestly pity such a life with no foundation...to each their own.

reply from: joe

It is self-evident but you can go ask the United Nations since you need someone to tell you it exists.

reply from: GratiaPlena

The Constitution of the United States does.

reply from: churchmouse

If Christ can forgive sins and look me in the face and forgive me, i can also forgive those that have abortions.
I would try to talk her out of it by presenting three things. I would present what medical science has to say about life in the womb. Then I would review the gospel message and show her where God stands on life. I would sit down with Bible in hand and show her scriptures. Then I would share my testimony about the abortion I had and how it almost ruined my life some twenty years later.
But I wouldnt hate her or abandon her. However I wouldnt help her in any way get the abortion, by taking her to a clinic or pro-choice facility.
I also would pray that God opens her heart and mind to HIS WORD. We only can plant seeds we cant save.

reply from: joe

Are you an idiot? Seriously I have not seen such word twisting since Vexing and her pro-choice rhetoric. If you honestly do not know the answer to this..you need therapy. Actually you need to be locked up since anyone living can be in danger.
Hitler would be proud of you concernedparent.

reply from: joe

Only in the act of self-defense.

reply from: joe

BS. Who is losing their innocent life in this circumstance. In abortion their is a clear aggressor and a clear victim...do you understand that? Twist your way out of that and don't use false examples.

reply from: joe

There is only one view. It is a fact that the mother is the aggressor. In almost all abortions there is no risk for the mothers life but guaranteed death to the unborn human life. There is simply no way around it...no way to justify most of the abortions. They violate this inherent right to life...period, this concernedparent is a fact.

reply from: joe

The hold up? You seriously do not understand...do you? We care about the ones we know, we know the aggressors, we feel for them. The victim is unknown so we "care" about the emotions of the killer. We don't want to enforce laws that imprison mothers, sisters and daughters...but it does not change the truth of the matter. We either save the victims or we stand guilty before God.

reply from: QueenMay

i dunno if i could stay in contact with someone knowing they killed their baby

reply from: yoda

Particularly not if they had no remorse about it.
But there are some who are not only remorseful, they actually use their whole being to try to stop others from going down that same road. The lady who appears every month with Mark Crutcher in his Life Talk DVD is a good example. She takes every possible opportunity to speak out in defense of unborn babies, and I'd be proud to call her a friend.

reply from: joe

There is only one view. It is a fact that the mother is the aggressor. In almost all abortions there is no risk for the mothers life but guaranteed death to the unborn human life. There is simply no way around it...no way to justify most of the abortions. They violate this inherent right to life...period, this concernedparent is a fact.
If the mother is the "clear aggressor" you spoke of, how do you condone the Hill murders? Did you not state that Dr. Briton and his bodyguard were "aggressors?" Gee, it really doesn't seem so "clear" as you implied...You seem to have expanded your definition of "aggressor" to include anyone who's death you feel might advance your cause...Care to elaborate?
So now you claim there can only be "one" aggressor. Do you seriously stand behind this word twisting. There can be one, there can be ten. The paid assassins are also aggressors.

reply from: yoda

For sure. Then there's the mother, the father, the grandparents, the siblings, the boyfriend, the boss, the landlord, etc.
Yeah, there could be a bunch of them. But one things for sure.... the BABY is NOT an aggressor.....

reply from: joe

You skipped this one, Joe. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, right? I mean, with everything being so "clear" to you, surely you can answer my simple questions...
Ignored because it is irrelevant and a pathetic attempt to hide your illogical position.

reply from: yoda

A "pathetic" dodge is right.

reply from: joe

You skipped this one, Joe. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, right? I mean, with everything being so "clear" to you, surely you can answer my simple questions...
Ignored because it is irrelevant and a pathetic attempt to hide your illogical position.
No, you're obviously struggling to avoid this whipping you're getting here...
LOL.

reply from: joe

Joe is getting...
What I am getting is free entertainment debating someone who cannot defend their "convictions". You are delusional...I mean you represent Secular Humanism at its finest.

reply from: joe

Who here is violating the inherent right to life of the innocent human being. Someone driving a taxi cab or the doctor that rips apart the unborn human being?
BTW you are dodging the reason this debate began...you are claiming the unborn have no inherent right to life. Did you change your mind?

reply from: joe

Is a driver for the criminal that killed a human being in a bank robbery a "aggressor"? You are obviously trying hard to twist what is a simple concept. Do you understand the difference between aggressor and a accomplice? You will twist any concept to "win", won't you concernedparent?

reply from: joe

Care to elaborate?
I have been doing so for several pages now, Joe. Pay attention...
You interpret this as stating that the unborn have no inherent right to life? Gee, Joe, you're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are...You may not even be as smart as I think you are.
How can it be inherent and at the same time subjective?

reply from: joe

Are you really that confused? I guess that is the product of "relative truth "aka" Secular Humanism".
Apply these questions unto yourself, who would you be justified to kill to protect your inherent right to life concernedparent. Would you kill your assassin and his bodyguard and his driver and his gun dealer and his doctor and his mom??? You know the answer.

reply from: joe

I already answered your question....
Only in the act of self-defense.
When one human being must die...the innocent must be protected. The aggressor forfeited his right to life by threatening the right to life of the innocent. It is not subjective, it is the action of the aggressor that violates this inherent right to life.

reply from: joe

What does an abortionist do concernedparent? He killed before and he was going to kill again. He alone forfeited his right to life.

reply from: joe

Dishonest answer...so you see no need to kill the assassin who is about to take your life because he is not the source. This is getting old.

reply from: joe

What does an abortionist do concernedparent? He killed before and he was going to kill again. He alone forfeited his right to life.
But, a right that can be lost is not "inherent," is it? Are you attempting to argue that it was by his own choice that he is killed? No matter, either way, he loses his right to life, therefore it was never "inherent."
Poor confused concernedparent....human rights can be unjustly violated...even those that are inherent.

reply from: joe

This is the fundamental difference in this debate. You fail to acknowledge the fact that innocent human life was going to be destroyed.

reply from: churchmouse

If she gave the tea and knew it caused abortions then she morally would also be accountable. Abortionists know what they are doing. They are getting paid to do a service. They are paid killers. The mother is responsible as well.
Are you a Christian? Have you sinned? Do you believe in forgiveness? If Jesus forgave us for our sins, then how can you not forgive and love others? Unforgiveness drives a wedge between you and God.
I do the same thing, use my abortion to witness the Word, help women that are suffering from past abortions and trying to educate women about fetal development. The act of abortion might be legal, but it is not acceptable conversation at the dinner table. Not many women talk about past abortions. Because of that there are millions upon millions of woman that are internally suffering. We will never know how many. Silent No More is another great group I work with. We want women to know that they are NOT ALONE.
I am not sure why there is an argument over who is the worst aggressor. Who is doing the majority of the killing? If there were no abortionists......there would be more babies and more women would have chosen life. (And don't even throw the back alley abortion excuse up it wont fly.) How about our court system? How about the Justices on the SC that were the ones that ruled in favor of legalizing abortion? Had they voted it down.......millions of babies would be living today. Because of their aggression against the life in the womb.....they eliminated generations of offspring. How about the pro-choice side that hide under rocks pretending they care.
The fact is babies are being slaughtered and people are sitting back and doing nothing, in the name of freedom and privacy.
If the taxi cab driver knew he was driving her to the abortion......why shouldn't he in a way be aiding her? If I were a taxi-cab driver and I knew someone in my cab was going to an abortion, I would ask them to get out.

reply from: AshMarie88

If a friend or family member came to me now and asked me to help her to the clinic or anything like that, I wouldn't do it, but rather I would talk to her and try and help her decide the opposite and show her it's not the best choice. If she went anyway, I'd pray and pray and pray.
And my feelings on this have become much stronger after seeing my cousin give birth 5 days ago. I'll just say that if my best friend or anyone else close to me decided they wanted to abort, altho I would reassure them I love them to death, I would tell them I could not support them in doing this. I wouldn't support them choosing to abort and wouldn't even drive them if they had no ride. I couldn't, and wouldn't. Ever.
I'd be there if they wanted to talk, but wouldn't be there in their choosing.
That's just me.
My other 2 cents.

reply from: carolemarie

i understand completly what you are saying. I also understand going with them, and keep on praying and talking them out of there!
It is a terrible spot to be in.

reply from: sander

You would actually escort someone to a death mill to have their baby killed????
Is there no line you would draw in supporting an abortion?
You're puzzling, CM.
If you think it's a terrible spot for the mother to be in, you should think how terrible it is for the baby! Now, that's a terrible spot!

reply from: carolemarie

You would actually escort someone to a death mill to have their baby killed????
Is there no line you would draw in supporting an abortion?
You're puzzling, CM.
If you think it's a terrible spot for the mother to be in, you should think how terrible it is for the baby! Now, that's a terrible spot!
People change their mind at the clinic. So I would keep trying to reach her while she was waiting. Why give up?And I was referring to the friend being in a terrible spot. Read the post before you assume that I am supporting abortion.

reply from: sander

It isn't a matter of giving up. It's a matter of the appearance of support. Do you think God can't answer your prayer without you driving her there?
At some point you have to leave the aborter to her own devices and let her stand alone in such a dreadful and unGodly act.
The real question, is "why make it easier"? And another to consider is; why be an enabler?
It would give your stand balance if you ever once considered the baby. Really, it would. God cares for both, but in the end He's not blind to who the real victim is.

reply from: sander

You didn't exactly make that clear. But, nevertheless, I stand corrected.

reply from: carolemarie

First of all, this is about the baby. It will die if she goes through with it.
You still have time to talk her out of it at the clinic. If you love her why would you not keep trying? Her babies life depends on it.
The real question to consider is why you would give up? I have seen lots and lots of women change their minds there, and I have seen their friends help them choose life.

reply from: sander

I wouldn't give up. But, I would not be an enabler and drive her there. It's just as plausable that her having to look elsewhere for a driver will give her more time to think and more time for me to talk her down.
Your conscience directs you to drive, mine doesn't.

reply from: carolemarie

I wouldn't give up. But, I would not be an enabler and drive her there. It's just as plausable that her having to look elsewhere for a driver will give her more time to think and more time for me to talk her down.
Your conscience directs you to drive, mine doesn't.
Then why jump all over me?

reply from: sander

I didn't jump, I questioned your stance.
These things happen on open message boards, just FYI.

reply from: yoda

Ashley said she wouldn't drive her there, and I thought carole was agreeing with her about that, too. At any rate, I sure wouldn't drive anyone to an abortion clinic to kill their baby. As far as going along with them, that depends on what you intend to do, and whether your friend will allow you to speak against abortion. I sure wouldn't just sit and hold someone's hand while they wait for the baby butcher, because that would implicate me in the abortion as well.

reply from: joe

FACT: 3. That abortion is therefore "wrong" or "unacceptable" is a matter of subjective determination, not a "FACT."
FALSE: It violates the inherent right to life therefore it is wrong.
Definition of Inherent: existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn.
There is nothing subjective about abortion..concernedparent. This self-evident fact that human life has an inherent right to life does not change because you label it a "misnomer". This is the problem with your Secular Humanistic view of the world...you will twist definitions and distort facts so you can justify your beliefs. There is no justifying the evil of abortion, there is no defense of those that choose to kill a innocent human being....even if it is legal. There is no debate...there is no "other side" ....it is a simple fact...it kills a innocent life.
Bottom line concernedparent this is not a subjective matter...Abortion violates the inherent right to life of a innocent human being. This is what started the debate this is where it ends.

reply from: sander

Ashley said she wouldn't drive her there, and I thought carole was agreeing with her about that, too. At any rate, I sure wouldn't drive anyone to an abortion clinic to kill their baby. As far as going along with them, that depends on what you intend to do, and whether your friend will allow you to speak against abortion. I sure wouldn't just sit and hold someone's hand while they wait for the baby butcher, because that would implicate me in the abortion as well.
No, Carol said this: "I also understand going with them".
She was saying that she thought the "friend" was in a terrible spot, to which I mis-understood.
I agree, Yoda....I would not be an enabler for the reason you stated: implicated in the abortion. That's what I meant by saying not giving the appearance of support.
You just said it better.

reply from: joe

Self Defense is a just violation of this right. Abortion is a unjust violation of this right.
It is still inherent.

reply from: nancyu

Ashley said she wouldn't drive her there, and I thought carole was agreeing with her about that, too. At any rate, I sure wouldn't drive anyone to an abortion clinic to kill their baby. As far as going along with them, that depends on what you intend to do, and whether your friend will allow you to speak against abortion. I sure wouldn't just sit and hold someone's hand while they wait for the baby butcher, because that would implicate me in the abortion as well.
I would offer to drive her, then drive in the opposite direction, like to a crises pregnancy center.

reply from: sander

Ah, the sneaky approach! I like it!

reply from: ProInformed

I have 5 sisters, they each have had at least one abortion, my mother had two abortions, one of my former sisters-in law had 4 abortions.
You're assumption that pro-lifers would believe differently if they knew somebody personally who'd had an abortion is naive IMHO.
BTW, 3 of my sisters, and my mother, are now pro-life AND they would not have had an abortion if they had been told the truth in the pre-abortion counseling instead of being lied to.
One of my sisters who is still pro-abortion had all sorts of tests done during her last pregnancy trying to find any imperfeciton with my niece. She had already had two abortions, one because she was having sex before marriage, before she was really grown-up enough for the adult priveledge and responsibility of sex, then another abortion after she was married because she had some slight spotting after some prenatal testing and interpreted that to mean her baby was surely deformed and that she must be miscarrying... It was really difficult for my mother, myself, and my sisters who are no longer pro-abortion to listen to her go on and on about all the quality control testing she was having done before finally allowing her baby girl to be born. She was still talking about having an abortion at the beginning of the third trimester and didn't refer to her baby as a baby, just as 'the pregnancy', until she was born.
Both of my sisters who are still pro-abortion, and the sister-in-law who had 4 abortions, had considerable problems bonding with their children and still basically talk as if they are 'parasites' and 'imposed' on their lives. They are cold and dictatorial with their children and seem afraid to allow themselves to express love for their children. They like to emphasize what a burden and hassle parenting is as a way to justify the abortions they had. It's obvious they are afraid to relax and enjoy their born children, yet they deny that their abortions had any affect on them emotionally... Not only did they kill some of their babies by abortion, their devotion to justifying those abortions has negatively affected their parenting of their born babies. Sad.

reply from: sander

Very sad, ProInformed.
The abortion industry has alot to answer for. Are you sisters and sister in law being proactive in their breast health? I hope so.
Women were not designed to kill their off spring, it goes against the very nature of womanhood and the natural instinct to be protective.
It doesn't surpise me women deal with so many after issues and living in denial is just a coping mechanisim.

reply from: ProInformed

"She sees me every now and again, she is lonely and single.. the guy who pressured her for the AB would not go to the clinic w/ her and did not mary her as promised."
That is so sad galen, and typical.
I think I read that a high percentage of relationships break up within a year after the abortion. Females sometimes have sex in an attempt to get love from a guy and then have an abortion because they are afraid the guy will dump them for a non-pregnant female if they don't abort. The abortion industry 'counselors' know that females who abort to try to keep a guy will most likely be dumped anyway but they don't warn them that killing their baby to try to keep a guy will be in vain because ALL they care about is abortion profits. Sometimes a 'pro-choice' male will pretend to care about her until he's sure she's gotten the abortion before he dumps her for some other gal... sometimes a 'pro-choice' male will dump her as soon as he finds out she's pregnant.

reply from: 4given

That is sad! I appreciate the information. I don't understand many of posters here.. and certainly not how they disrespect created life.. I know post and pro aborts... Seems like that is the one issue they prefer was not ever discussed. That is a lot of dead family.. .. Between my spouse and self- we have close to 10 known missing members...

reply from: joe

It is not separable. The right can be violated. Sometimes it is justified.
Defense of the innocent human life (when the inherent right to life in unjustly violated) is justified.

reply from: joe

Was it justified to defend the lives of the Jews from the gas chamber operators...would it have been justified to stop the operator by any means necessary to save the innocent human lives of the victims?
Is that subjective too, concernedparent? According to your statements it was not justified to defend the inherent right to life of the innocent human beings since the threat was not immediate and the right can be denied.
Your argument supports the Jewish Holocaust...you concernedparent deny the Jewish Holocaust by your very own subjective principals.
Do we have the right to defend the inherent right to life of innocent human lives from assured destruction? The answer is YES. This is not a subjective matter.

reply from: yoda

I agree, Joe. There is absolutely no moral difference in self-defense and the defense of the innocent. The only question is how, when, and where.

reply from: joe

I agree, Joe. There is absolutely no moral difference in self-defense and the defense of the innocent. The only question is how, when, and where.
That is a good question.

reply from: joe

Concernedparent...I will read and analyze your response later. It is definitely interesting to see a "relative truth" response to absolute morality and look forward to dissecting it.

reply from: joe

Where did you pull "inalienable" right from, my position is that the right is inherent.
Do you read the newspaper, maybe watch the news...everyday human rights are violated. Point being rights can be violated and are done so on a daily basis. I withdraw using the terms forfeited and denied and replace them with the term violate...which again is plausible. The right is still existent.
Your slander on my position that anyone that enables an abortion to occur is disappointing yet again. Is this a desperate attempt to distort facts to "win". Those individuals that present physical aggression against the innocent human life is the subject here...the assassin and his bodyguard. Political aggression is dealt with in the political arena...debates, democracy and in rare cases civil war.
You claim you value all life...so do I. But your argument protecting the assassin clearly proves you value the life of the physical aggressor versus the victim. I value the victim versus the aggressor. I agree taking life is a gravely serious issue only reserved for the defense of innocent life and only if the collateral damage is acceptable...this is why rescuing Paul Hill would not be justified as a rebel act unless it was in the context of civil war. Too many innocent lifes would have been lost.
Your description of "inherent value" is false unless that "inherent value" also includes the inherent right to life.
Yet once again I rebuke your slander that I claim that enablers should be violated of their inherent right to life. Again I restate that the assassin is the issue here.

reply from: joe

Interesting but it is I that wishes you are right...being a subjective issue would make dealing with it a whole lot easier. But then again I claim to also be a "realist" and therefore cannot ignore the facts of the matter.
Concernedparent your loose interpretation of morality is one of the reasons abortion is legal....the decision legalizing abortion is based on your "relative truth".
Absolute truth does exist: What do you think would happen if abortion was actually shown to the world? What do you think would happen if a 3d/4d ultrasound was forced unto mothers before and during the abortion (if this being medically possible)? Why do you think the pro-choice advocates fight this with everything they have? The majority would understand abortion is absolutely evil (violating the inherent right to life).
I am sorry to disagree but absolute morality does exist.

reply from: joe

Generally speaking, yes, but in my view, the specific details of the incident must be known, and my response might differ based on circumstances. If they could be defended without taking the lives of others, then lethal force would not be justifiable in my view. If the defense of one would cause the death of many others, it would not be justifiable in my view to kill in their defense. If my "defense" would have no effect on the outcome, I do not see how I could justify killing...You see, there is no "absolute" factually correct response I could give you that would be truly objective. People will differ in their views of what level of defense would be justifiable in a given circumstance, based on their personal values and understanding of the circumstances. You wish to imply that I, a person of Jewish descent, must choose between two options, either committing to defense being unconditionally justifiable, or be condemned as having no regard for the potential victims. In so doing, you create a false dilemma wherein there is no room for logical analysis, attempting to imply that I have only two choices, to accept your position as valid, or or abandon the principles of humane behavior I truly hold dear. It's kind of like asking me which I would choose as president, Obama or Clinton, and insisting I must choose one or the other or be accused of being dishonest and evasive so that regardless of my response (or lack thereof) you can accuse me of holding a position I do not hold.
Now how to you figure we disagree? Of course force should be used in a continuum consistent with the threat present. Of course collateral damage exceeding the saved life should be considered.
Defense having no effect on the outcome now that should be clarified:
1. We honestly do not now the effect Paul Hill had on the movement...I lean it was favorable, you lean otherwise...this is subjective with the information present.
2. There was multiple lives saved that day...this is not subjective.

reply from: joe

That's an outright lie, and as a descendant of Jewish people, I find such a dishonest accusation to be highly offensive.
I have shown to the best of my ability why it is a subjective determination in regard to specific circumstances rather than in general as you wish to state the question, and it is obvious that even the issue of who is "innocent" is not always black and white. This is nicely illustrated by your own ever growing list of "aggressors" regarding the abortion issue, which has recently been expanded to include anyone who does not support "personhood" for the unborn, even if they oppose abortion!
Really? I am quite certain your ancestors would not be please by you advocating that their life had no inherent right to life. That their life or death was a subjective matter...I am quite certain they would find you highly offensive...concernedparent.
Innocence is not always black and white that I agree with. But in the Abortion Holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust....black and white is a understatement.

reply from: nancyu

Hey, Nancyu, an unborn child is a person!
I hope you will keep this in your sig. Maybe your readers will begin to see the light.
The part at the end sort of takes away from the message, though. I don't suppose I could ask you to remove this part: "I'm just sick of you asking..."
If you will, I'll do you a favor, and stop asking you:
Is an unborn child a person?

reply from: faithman

That's an outright lie, and as a descendant of Jewish people, I find such a dishonest accusation to be highly offensive.
I have shown to the best of my ability why it is a subjective determination in regard to specific circumstances rather than in general as you wish to state the question, and it is obvious that even the issue of who is "innocent" is not always black and white. This is nicely illustrated by your own ever growing list of "aggressors" regarding the abortion issue, which has recently been expanded to include anyone who does not support "personhood" for the unborn, even if they oppose abortion!
Really? I am quite certain your ancestors would not be please by you advocating that their life had no inherent right to life. That their life or death was a subjective matter...I am quite certain they would find you highly offensive...concernedparent.
Innocence is not always black and white that I agree with. But in the Abortion Holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust....black and white is a understatement.
This is what stupid little monkey boyz don't understand. Their world view is only subject to their own arrogant narcissist opinion. There is no absolutes with secular humanist primordial pond scum. The U.S. based upon the absolute truth that our rights come from a creator [something the humanist denies with their false science of evolution]. It is also a fact that the absolute end of abortion on demand will come when the womb child is considered a person. Every word out of a punk monkey boy is the product of masterbating their own ego. It is the result of being a jail house wife.

reply from: Skippy

Didn't one of the doctors that was killed get shot while at home in his kitchen making soup?
That kind of lets the air out of the whole "defense of others" argument. To use that justification, the danger has to be imminent. I hardly think any fetuses were in imminent danger when an old man wandered around his kitchen tending to his soup.

reply from: galen

on this topic... i agree with skippy et al... there is no justification for taking a life.
Either by the abortionist or of the abortionist. 2 wrongs won't make a right... all these murders ever did was put the pro-life movement in line with terrorists... kinda like what the abortionists are.

reply from: joe

4000 innocent lives lost per day...
Who are the terrorists?

reply from: joe

Innocence and guilt, like right and wrong, are moral constructs, Joe. In conceding that innocence is not black and white, you render your argument that morality is absolute impotent....
I will overlook the fact that you presume to speak for a people you obviously know nothing about since you seem to be upset to the point of stuttering even in type.
I am very tired now, so I bid you good night.
I will "pretend" it is your fatigue not your lack of comprehension that caused you to misunderstand.
Hopefully in your sleep you had dreams about "relative truth", the only place in does exist.

reply from: joe

That's an outright lie, and as a descendant of Jewish people, I find such a dishonest accusation to be highly offensive.
I have shown to the best of my ability why it is a subjective determination in regard to specific circumstances rather than in general as you wish to state the question, and it is obvious that even the issue of who is "innocent" is not always black and white. This is nicely illustrated by your own ever growing list of "aggressors" regarding the abortion issue, which has recently been expanded to include anyone who does not support "personhood" for the unborn, even if they oppose abortion!
Really? I am quite certain your ancestors would not be please by you advocating that their life had no inherent right to life. That their life or death was a subjective matter...I am quite certain they would find you highly offensive...concernedparent.
Innocence is not always black and white that I agree with. But in the Abortion Holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust....black and white is a understatement.
This is what stupid little monkey boyz don't understand. Their world view is only subject to their own arrogant narcissist opinion. There is no absolutes with secular humanist primordial pond scum. The U.S. based upon the absolute truth that our rights come from a creator [something the humanist denies with their false science of evolution]. It is also a fact that the absolute end of abortion on demand will come when the womb child is considered a person. Every word out of a punk monkey boy is the product of masterbating their own ego. It is the result of being a jail house wife.
Obviously "monkey boy" didn't evolve enough to understand what he advocates is the total disregard for humanity by defending his Secular Humanist religion.

reply from: joe

(Concernedparent runs to his room crying.)

reply from: sander

Galen and Joe are both right, imo.
The real terrorists are the abortionists.
Though I don't agree with what Paul Hill did, I would not paint a word picture like Skippy: an old man wandered around his kitchen tending to his soup.
That's like describing Hitler puttering around in his garden....both of which may be true, but neither describes what black hearts these men had. Nor does it address after the soup; kill babies or after the puttering; kill Jews.

reply from: joe

The correlation between the Abortion Holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust is uncanny.

reply from: sander

The correlation between the Abortion Holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust is uncanny.
And what goes on behind closed doors at the abortion mills would make Hitler and his croanies blush and cheer.

reply from: yoda

How does that make it right for women (and men) to electively kill healthy unborn babies?
Any comments ON topic?

reply from: Skippy

So in your opinion, no fetuses have to be in imminent danger of being killed to justify shooting a doctor?
The law really does not support the "defense of others" justification for acts someone might commit hours or days later. That's why none of the doctor-shooting whackos were ever allowed to present it as a defense.
It's just more christian hypocrisy, though. None of the shooters or bombers had any way of knowing that the day they committed murder was not the day those doctors were going to come over to "your side." If they goofed, their god is going to be a wee bit dismayed with them.

reply from: joe

How does that make it right for women (and men) to electively kill healthy unborn babies?
Any comments ON topic?

reply from: joe

The "law" also allows the slaughter of innocent human lives.
the "law" allowed the ownership of slaves.
The "law" allowed the slaughter of the Jews.
Give me a break.

reply from: cracrat

Except that it didn't really. What do you think the Nuremburg trials were about?

reply from: sander

Why would you ask that? Didn't you read the whole post?
Exactly why are you addressing this to me?
And your point in addressing this to me, is????
Did you get all this out of me believing that the real terrorists were abortionist?
If so, wow.
But, if you'd like to address the soup and puttering, let's talk.

reply from: joe

Except that it didn't really. What do you think the Nuremburg trials were about?
In other countries abortion is illegal...so is abortion "not really" legal?

reply from: cracrat

There are no international treaties or laws governing abortion which trump the whims of national governments. There were/are such laws applicable to the Holocaust hence it was illegal.

reply from: joe

I am not certain, cracrat. Here is what I read before:
"Myth #3: The Holocaust was illegal.
Fact: The Holocaust did not violate either German national law or international law. The British invented the concentration camp during the Boer War, the Germans simply adopted it. German courts carefully stripped victims of all legal rights prior to the Final Solution. By 1941, when the death camp system began operation, the Jews had no rights. The Reich could legally treat them as it wished. Everyone recognized this. Indeed, a major Allied argument against conducting the Nuremburg trials was precisely the fact that these trials attempted to enforce non-existent law."

reply from: joe

I am not certain, cracrat. Here is what I read before:
"Myth #3: The Holocaust was illegal.
Fact: The Holocaust did not violate either German national law or international law. The British invented the concentration camp during the Boer War, the Germans simply adopted it. German courts carefully stripped victims of all legal rights prior to the Final Solution. By 1941, when the death camp system began operation, the Jews had no rights. The Reich could legally treat them as it wished. Everyone recognized this. Indeed, a major Allied argument against conducting the Nuremburg trials was precisely the fact that these trials attempted to enforce non-existent law."
Source, please...
Cracrat is stating as fact, that there were international laws applicable to the Jewish Holocaust at that time. The burden of proof is on him/her.

reply from: joe

This needs clarification. Maybe it was retroactive? Is that even legal?

reply from: joe

This needs clarification. Maybe it was retroactive? Is that even legal?
At any rate, there is no denying that the Holocaust was treated as a "crime." I am not unfamiliar with the issue, and I know that there were "international laws" that might address such a thing, but I also know there was no agreement that would have made them universally valid. The question would seem to be, "can we hold another nation accountable to a rule, law, or principle they never agreed to accept?" I suppose the short answer would be, "if we defeat them in war, we can do whatever we like." By that same logic, if Germany had won, the Holocaust might be assumed to have been acceptable. We truly live in a scary world....
It is a scary world by a simple fact that abortion is legal. Who is next?

reply from: joe

This needs clarification. Maybe it was retroactive? Is that even legal?
At any rate, there is no denying that the Holocaust was treated as a "crime." I am not unfamiliar with the issue, and I know that there were "international laws" that might address such a thing, but I also know there was no agreement that would have made them universally valid. The question would seem to be, "can we hold another nation accountable to a rule, law, or principle they never agreed to accept?" I suppose the short answer would be, "if we defeat them in war, we can do whatever we like." By that same logic, if Germany had won, the Holocaust might be assumed to have been acceptable. We truly live in a scary world....
It is a scary world by a simple fact that abortion is legal. Edit: Who is the next legalized victim?
Edit made for concernedparent and his ego.

reply from: churchmouse

This is about the baby and it will die if she goes through with it. And you are right that we should keep trying because up until the doctor actually does the abortion she could changed her mind. But if you drive her to the clinic.......do you also follow her into the clinic? Do you also follow her into the room and stay with her until the procedure start? At some point she has to be left on her own. I think sander has a point in that a conscience comes into play in a persons decisions. Driving her might enable her.
Example......Going to a strip bar would be a sin for a Christian. If you knew some guy, a friend was going to go to one, would you also following him into the bar to stop him?
At some point God has to handle the situation. We plant the seed, then He takes over. Then we are not responsible. But I follow ya and know what you mean.
Joe you really put it out there when you stated this,
Well said, my friend, well said. There is no sitting on the bench. There is no middle ground like pro-choicers claim. Prochoicers think their position is some sort of compromise. To the child that is slaughtered it isn't. The pro-choice position is on the side of the pro-aborts....they do not believe the unborn in the womb deserves protection and they look away while the killing continues, in the name of choice, in the name of privacy. Abortion is what it is whether the woman just chooses abortion for some lame reason, or whether she was raped, or whether it involves her health. Abortion is a procedure where the goal of the doctor is not to save, but to kill. Abortion is premeditated murder upon an innocent human being. There is no other way to look at it.
Planned Parenthood never told me anything about fetal development either before my abortion. I do not blame them 100% but they lied when I got mine, and they still lie to woman today.

At some point this will all catch up with them. It did with me. You can only hide so long. You changed your mind and hopefully they will too. You just stand up for the unborn and do it in a kind, nonjudgmental way and they will hopefully see the consequence of their actions later. You are NOT responsible for their soul.
So if your spouse was in the process of being murdered and you were witness to this, you would not be justified to protect her? Many humanists would say it wouldn't matter.....to a person that believed in God the answer would be yes, one does have the right.
B]Joe your right on again when you said this,
I do not think the woman that would drive a woman to an abortion clinic should be killed. Although she would be indirectly involved in the act, she is not the person that is actually doing the killing. The abortionist would be the person that should logically in this debate be killed. By his hand, he does the killing.
His life does have inherent value......but I'm not sure this value should continue during the act of murder. I think he sorta gives that up. Here is where worldviews come into play. You are a humanist and the truth is subjective to you. It isn't for me. I believe in absolutes, and abortion is killing and wrong, in every circumstance, with the exception of self-defense. Can the unborn defend themselves? No. Someone has to protect their lives. Why should the abortionist be allowed to kill? This is no different than a thug killing a person on the street execution style. The value of his life ends as he attempts to take anothers life IMO.
Was it our business to stop Hitler from gassing more innocent lives? Was the Norths wrong to try stop slavery in the South? Should the KKK be left alone to lynch blacks? Should police and law enforcement be stopped from protecting us?
You are implying that we should all just sit back and do nothing towards injustices that might be going on in our country and around the world. Where would America and the world be today if we followed your plan of action?
As Americans we have to follow the laws. Abortion is legal. We can not walk into an abortion clinic and legally kill the people slaughtering the unborn. We can however picket and make it unbearable for those involved. We can help educate the public as far as fetal development so that woman do have access to the truth.
As for Paul Hill......I do not in any way condone his actions. We have laws in this country and they should be followed. Now if abortion was illegal and Paul caught the abortionist in the action.......then maybe.
Yes you are a humanist and for humanists there is no set right or wrong. So if you live by this rule Concerned......then you have to step back and let even humanists live according to their own morals.
You think realities can change. Example: An accident happens at a busy intersection and there are many witnesses that saw it happen. The police are trying to figure out what really happened and there are many different versions of the truth. But that does not change the fact that it happened one particular way. There is a truth to that situation even if there are twenty versions of it. If you were the driver that was hit and you know that you did no wrong, yet people say that it was your fault, the truth does not change for you. There is a right and a wrong. There are absolutes, even if you do not choose to believe them. The humanist trys to find the gray.
You said everyones life has inherent value. You say two different things. So if your child was being attacked and you defended them and happen to kill the attacker......you would be wrong. Right?
So you killing the attacker of your child, is subjective truth? It might be to a humanist but not to someone with a God belief. Do you think if you asked the Jews that were gassed whether......their deaths were debatable, they would say yes?
Any one that does not defend the personhood of the unborn is pro-abortion. No sitting the fence, no gray areas here. But our laws say abortion is moral and we have to work within the laws of our country. The truth will never change however the law wants to interpret it. Slavery was always wrong, abortion is killing a living human being, those are absolutes.
However right we all think Paul Hills motives were......his actions spoke otherwise and IMO were wrong. If everyone went around the country carrying out their own justice and punishment systems, we would live in utter chaos. We have laws, they should be followed. We should however work to change those laws. And we should stand up to the plate and getting into the faces of all that think the unborn has no personhood. We need to call them, label them what they really are, even if they don't like it. We should make their lives miserable.
I came from another board where a few of the pro-choicers hated when I would label them, pro-choice/abortion. The label shows a certain position and they don't want to be known as anything unfavorable. But they are what they are and I refused to stop calling them pro-abortion. Too bad, if they don't like it maybe they should re-examine their position. WE NEED TO BE IN THEIR FACES, WITH FACTS, WITH PICTURES, WITH OUR VOICES.

reply from: yoda

"International law" does not legally apply to any nation that has not agreed to abide by them.

reply from: joe

"International law" does not legally apply to any nation that has not agreed to abide by them.
Thank you for the clarification. Then it is a fact that the Jewish Holocaust did not violate national or international laws exactly like the Abortion Holocaust.

reply from: cracrat

The various Geneva conventions would surely apply to the Jews in lands the Germans had conquered though I'm not so sure about the 'home Jews', I'm really not a legal authority. Germany had certainly ratified those treaties/agreements or whatever they are defined as so was obliged to obey them.

reply from: joe

The various Geneva conventions would surely apply to the Jews in lands the Germans had conquered though I'm not so sure about the 'home Jews', I'm really not a legal authority. Germany had certainly ratified those treaties/agreements or whatever they are defined as so was obliged to obey them.
This is your proof? All I see is a desperate attempt to change history because the correlation between the Jewish Holocaust and the Abortion Holocaust is so great.
And not being a "legal authority" you should have kept yourself "quiet" instead of making such a bold statement and backing it up with gibberish.

reply from: joe

"International law" does not legally apply to any nation that has not agreed to abide by them.
Thank you for the clarification. Then it is a fact that the Jewish Holocaust did not violate national or international laws exactly like the Abortion Holocaust.
Wouldn't this imply that we had no right to hang Nazi's after the war? I'm not saying we were wrong, but the issue seems to be much more complex than some are willing to admit...
I have read articles that make a case of that being true. Either way it is well known that the killing of the Jews was legal. Point being just because it is "law" does not make it legitimate and does not bind "Christians" who adhere to Gods law.

reply from: joe

You claim to be well versed in the Christian scripture, so I would like your viewpoint on defense of others from a Christian viewpoint,
If we are obligated as Christians to love the "least of these" and love our neighbor as ourself, how can we justify not defending them? Where does it in the Christian scripture prohibit us from defending the innocent? If we do not save our neighbors from death then all the other commandments are futile. Feeding the poor is irrelevant when we let them die. If we let them die why follow the irrelevant commandments? There seems to be a major contradiction. Now I understand trying to "win" the hearts of the people but the fact remains that innocent life is slaughtered on a daily basis.
Can a Christian defend innocent life?

reply from: joe

You claim to be well versed in the Christian scripture, so I would like your viewpoint on defense of others from a Christian viewpoint,
If we are obligated as Christians to love the "least of these" and love our neighbor as ourself, how can we justify not defending them? Where does it in the Christian scripture prohibit us from defending the innocent? If we do not save our neighbors from death then all the other commandments are futile. Feeding the poor is irrelevant when we let them die. If we let them die why follow the irrelevant commandments? There seems to be a major contradiction. Now I understand trying to "win" the hearts of the people but the fact remains that innocent life is slaughtered on a daily basis.
Can a Christian defend innocent life?
Joe, I understand that you identify yourself as a Christian, and believe that anti-abortion violence is justifiable, but we have done this to death already, and there's really nothing more to be said. I'm actually getting pretty tired of responding over and over to the same tired arguments posed by unreasonable hard heads with no understanding of logic or reason, minds completely closed to the possibility that they might not be seeing things clearly. Your fellow bigots have convinced you that to consider any position other than the righteousness of your willingness to condone and support murder proves you insincere about your pro-life stance, and you are obviously unwilling to go against them and be subjected to the contempt they hold for those who, like myself, cling to some semblance of reason.
So, keep trolling and baiting if you must, but understand that I am by no means obligated to continue to waste time going in circles with you...
I will not debate you on this specific question just asking for your viewpoint and leave it at that. Why are you afraid to answer this?

reply from: joe

You have finally spoken truth. You are done and defeated. A honest question you couldn't answer...clearly a man with no foundation.

reply from: nancyu

Very sad. I'm sorry you have to go through this within your own family. It's much easier to debate with pro aborts whose faces you can't see.
As far as I know there have been no abortions in my family, but I did have a lengthy argument with one of my sisters over the subject of "choice" several years back. I flooded her with information, so I don't know if I changed her mind, but she is definitely "informed." We haven't had discussions about it lately. I think she has changed her mind (I hope) since becoming a grandmother to some beautiful baby boys.

reply from: cracrat

How am I trying to change history? The Geneva Conventions lay down the rules by which warring nations must abide (the fact that we have rules for wars is amongst the greatest absurdities of the world but that's another topic).
There is precious little correlation between the Holocaust and abortion, even the numbers are way out. Attempts by people such as yourself to draw correlations are clearly designed to engender feelings of revulsion. If you feel that you must invoke memories or knowledge of genocide to make people see what is so wrong with abortion you should spend some time working on the confidence with which you hold your views.

reply from: joe

It was legal, study some history before "talking", I am not looking for your opinion. You are right, the Jewish Holocaust does not compare to the number of innocent killed by abortion.
For you to deny the correlation only proves your ignorance of the current situation.

reply from: joe

I am sorry to disappoint you "wise" teacher of Secular Humanism. I am sure you can find other students that can be brainwashed.

reply from: churchmouse

For the record concernedparent........You deny being a humanist, but what you say is humanistic. So ....
Do you believe in God? If you don't do you consider yourself an agnostic or an atheist?
They are opposites. I gave you a secular humanistic website, that backed up the definition I gave you.
I told you, I believe in absolutes, the absolutes in scripture. Yes it is wrong to steal.
I said, I wouldnt not drive her there.
No, post where I said this. I said it is always wrong to steal, even if what you are stealing is food for your starving children. I look to scriptures for answers.
God gives life and God takes it away. I believe however scriptures say there are reasons to take life. I believe the scriptures are pro-capital punishment and self defense.
What I meant by "lost" is.........we have the right to defend ourselves against an aggressor.......and so does the unborn child, because we that stand on pro-life, believe they are people just like we are. We can defend ourselves, the unborn cant. Someone has to stand up for the unborn child. They are helpless, defenseless. If you were standing next to an abortionist, and he was getting ready to do a PBA on a woman that was 8 months pregnant what would you do? Abortion is legal, so by law you could not nothing. But if abortion was illegal, what would you do? I would do what I had to do to save the unborn.
I believe God would think it morally justifyable for someone to stop someone from performing an abortion. I believe scripture backs this up.
I am sick and tired of you skating around the humanist issue. You are the one that obviously cant see yourself as what you really are. I gave two sites that explain what a humanist is and you fit the bill. I know exactly what a humanist is.
I never said that, you are misrepresenting what I said. Bearing false witness, isnt that how you always put it. Please post where I said, slavery is ok. Because I do not believe slavery is moral.
Wrong based on what? Oppose it why? One cant be pro-life and pro-choice.
If abortion was illegal, then IMO Hill would have been justified, had he done it while the abortion was happening. I believe in Gods absolutes that are spelled out in the Bible. You deny god and absolutes. You are a relativist, a humanist. I am a Christian and have a lot more in common with Joe. We might all dissagree on a few things......but my worldview is opposite of yours.
You are right. Its the same thing with abortion. Just because something is legal does not make it moral.
I agree with everything you have posted here Joe.
That is not true at all. We have an obligation to tell believers that they are in sin. We have a right to judge believers because they understand the word. Unbeleivers we cant judge because they dont understand.
They live by the worlds rules. Their hearts are not open to what God says. A hardened heart cant understand. No one should be forced. No one. Christ wants people to come to HIm out of love.

reply from: joe

This is from a Secular Humanism website:
"There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others."
Secular Humanism principals are in agreement with Margaret Sanger. Secular Humanism principals are not in agreement with Christian teachings. Christianity based on scripture can never accept Margaret Sanger unlike Secular Humanism. Christianity is based on absolute morality unlike Secular Humanism which is based on subjective morality.
Sorry concernedparent but the label of Secular Humanist will not work for followers of Christ. Your attempt to confuse by using the label humanist and relativist, when the term Secular Humanism was used and/or implied is therefore ignored.
Maybe its time to get your own head out of your own a ss.

reply from: cracrat

This is from a Secular Humanism website:
"There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others."
Secular Humanism principals are in agreement with Margaret Sanger. Secular Humanism principals are not in agreement with Christian teachings. Christianity based on scripture can never accept Margaret Sanger unlike Secular Humanism. Christianity is based on absolute morality unlike Secular Humanism which is based on subjective morality.
Sorry concernedparent but the label of Secular Humanist will not work for followers of Christ. Your attempt to confuse by using the label humanist and relativist, when the term Secular Humanism was used and/or implied is therefore ignored.
Maybe its time to get your own head out of your own a ss.
Do you dislike all humanists or just the secular ones? If just the secular ones, is it just the lack of God that riles you or something else?

reply from: joe

Yodavater is a good example. He does not follow Christ yet he understands the law and the prophets better than many Christians. The "lack of God" does not bother me, it is the lack of absolute morality. Subjective morality is in direct conflict with many honorable religions.

reply from: churchmouse

Joe outstanding post. But he doesn't get it and probably never will. You could even give him websites from the humanistic camp and he wouldnt believe it.
Good points.
It's not that we dislike humanists. But call it what it is. Humanism is nothing or anything remotely close to Christianity. Secular humanists do not hold to a God belief. They dont believein absolutes. Well one absolute....that people who are religious, that have a relationship with God are nutcases.
Bolonga. Only that answer could come from a secular humanist.
A baby is born and the doctor takes a gun and kills it for no reason. Is this acceptable in any circumstance?
A person is crossing the road, you speed up and run them over. Is this right in any circumstance?
I want to own slaves so I buy a few and force them to do whatever I want.
A woman is sitting in a bar looking pretty hot and a few guys decide to rape her after she leaves. When would this ever be acceptable to do. The truth.......rape is always wrong.
Your mad at your landlord because he wont fix anything in your apartment. You fix the brakes on his car and because of it he is injured in a car accident. When would this ever be right in any circumstance.
Give us circumstances where any of these would be right.
But Joe there is no exact truth for him, so even his statement("There is no one answer that is absolutely true in every circumstance") can't be true.

reply from: galen

bump for faramir... i belive CP's story is in the first part of this thread....

reply from: Faramir

Is this the one, galen?
You said he "talked" her out of it.
Then the saying is true. "Money talks."
But's it's very cool the child was saved regardless of the unconventional means.

reply from: galen

yep this is one of them... i know he's gone into more detail... possibly he could be talked into going through the story again...

reply from: yoda

I have read articles that make a case of that being true. Either way it is well known that the killing of the Jews was legal. Point being just because it is "law" does not make it legitimate and does not bind "Christians" who adhere to Gods law.
War crimes tribunals are the classic example of the triumph of power over legality. The side that wins the war has the power to try and execute enemy survivors, and they do not seem to worry about mere legality.
And you are right about the "point". Those who obsess over legalities always trip themselves up in the end. Laws can be self-contradictory, illogical, immoral, and/or unenforceable. To place them on the same or a higher plane than one's morality or religion is the height of foolishness, IMO.

reply from: yoda

It was legal, study some history before "talking", I am not looking for your opinion. .
The Geneva Convention is another good example of power over legality. No nation that failed to sign that treaty was legally bound by it, and there were several who did not. The exercise of using it to prosecute leaders of those nations after they had lost a war was simply another exercise of raw military power. Had they won the war, who would've put them on trial?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics