Do you support abortion?

[anetazo]

Hosea chapter 13;6 . Abortion is major sin. Only God take life.
Ezekiel chapter 18 . Lord God says, All souls belong to Me.
These heathen women are absolutely destitute of the truth.
John chapter 3 . Everyone must be born one time in the flesh. To decide whether to follow satan or Jesus.
These heathen women are robbing infants decision to make in the flesh.
Unless the heathen convert to christianity and Repent. They are going to Sheol.
It's holding place for the spirtualty dead or wicked.
Those who engage in abortion, are interfering with God's plan.
Many people have turned their backs on God and are following satan.
They don't care about going to sheol. Mabey during the millennium they might get thier acts together.
Proverbs chapter 5:22 . The sins of the wicked destroy them. On judgement day. Those found unworthy will go into lake of fire with satan.
And I'm not judging anyone.

 

[Dan1988]

Just wondering what the percentages are for supporting or condemning abortion.

I myself feel it is the worst thing in human history since the Holocaust.

Do women who have had an abortion need grace (both from us and from our savior)? Of course! Reach out with compassion to these women. After all, we were there crucifying our messiah. If we were there we would not have done differently than the Pharisees, or political powers, or crowds even. We are guilty of the murder of Christ. As such, we should have compassion for women who know they did something wrong in having an abortion. There is forgiveness in Christ.

I'm leaving alone whether women or doctors involved in an abortion should be prosecuted. It may be at some future point in history but doesn't seem like a likely majority for some time (much like chattel slavery).

I probably will not vote in this poll.

The Bible says abortion is sacrificing children to Demons. So it boils down to idol worship, women used to sacrifice their children to the Pagan god Moloch. They used to place their children in the arms of the iron statue which were red hot and the children would be fried alive. They used to beat on drums to drown out the screaming of the frying children.

Today the sacrifice of children to Demons is being carried out in abortion clinics, but it's done for exactly the same reason. Many women would deny they are sacrificing their children to Demons, but the fact remains that anyone who murders their own child for the sake of having sex without any responsibility is tantamount to idol worship.

God describes women who murdered their children in the book of Revelation, as standing before Him on judgement day with blood soaked robes. He said He will cast them into the lake of fire.

 

[Joseph G]

Child conceived by rape praises Jesus:

 

[Simon_Templar]

Just wondering what the percentages are for supporting or condemning abortion.

I myself feel it is the worst thing in human history since the Holocaust.

Do women who have had an abortion need grace (both from us and from our savior)? Of course! Reach out with compassion to these women. After all, we were there crucifying our messiah. If we were there we would not have done differently than the Pharisees, or political powers, or crowds even. We are guilty of the murder of Christ. As such, we should have compassion for women who know they did something wrong in having an abortion. There is forgiveness in Christ.

I'm leaving alone whether women or doctors involved in an abortion should be prosecuted. It may be at some future point in history but doesn't seem like a likely majority for some time (much like chattel slavery).

I probably will not vote in this poll.

Abortion is infanticide (murder). There is no other possible rational view.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Sometimes safe delivery is not possible. That's the reality which needs to be accepted.

This is consequentialist ethic or "the end justifies the means". Which maybe you are fine with, but I am not. One of the most basic moral and spiritual principles is that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil. The idea that it is ok to do a evil act to avoid an undesirable outcome, like suffering or even death, is basically the end of any meaningful morality or ethics.

The fundamental question in this issue is... Is it morally acceptable to kill another person because they are unintentionally putting you in danger?

So, lets say there is a crane operator moving a heavy create, and he is going to accidentally crush me with the crate. He doesn't see me, and can't hear me. Would I be justified in shooting him to stop him from crushing me with the crate?

Or another one... Lets say I have a fatal condition, and I'm in a group of people waiting for the cure. When the cure is being distributed we find out that there isn't enough for everyone, and I'm at the end of the line, so I'm going to die because there isn't enough cure to go around. Would I be justified in killing the person ahead of me in line, because her existence is causing my death?

The principle of double effect (or side effects) can justify some cases, but it has to be rigorously worked out and one of the key principles is that the bad effect can't be a necessary aspect of the good outcome.

So in my first example, I could be justified in shooting AT the crane operator if I did not intend to kill him, but only intended to make him duck or make him stop. Even if I did kill him, I would not be guilty of murder because I had no intention of killing him. It can be demonstrated that I had no intention because his death was not essential to stopping the crane. All I had to do was alert him to my presence, or scare him out of the crane. His death, if it happened, would be an unfortunate side effect, and if he didn't die, I'd be happy because I didn't intend to kill him in the first place.

In my second example, double effect would not apply because the death of the person in line before me is essential. If I tried various things and they didn't kill the person who was ahead of me, they would still get the cure and I would still die. Thus I have to intend their death to remove them from the line ahead of me, even if I find that distasteful and I don't like it.

 

[RileyG]

Abortion is infanticide (murder). There is no other possible rational view.

Amen!

 

[stevevw]

I heard the other day an interesting take on abortion. Even as recent as the 1990's abortion was seen as a rare necessity in special cases. But today its regarded as a right. Millions and millions of abostions happen as a matter of contraception. If someone was to object to this right they would be attacked. In some ways its celebrated as part of individual freedom and autonomy.

In some ways the modern belief about abortion is like the pagans who sacrificed babies on the alter to honor the gods. But in the case of modern abortion it is sacrificing unborn babies on the alter of the Woke gods, the sacredness of identity and autonomy above all else. So all have to bow to the gods of DEI paying homage and shaming those who disagree.

 

[Paidiske]

This is consequentialist ethic or "the end justifies the means".

Actually, it's more about the law of double effect.

 

[stevevw]

Not all women who become pregnant have been willing agents in that process.

Can you imagine a woman who lived, say 1400 years ago, and who was raped, then having to contemplate not just the horror of her rape experience but also having to face the possibility (30% +/-) of dying while in labor with that child?

I can't. And as a man, I'm not going to speak for women. All I'm going to do ethically is take into consideration our modern medical knowledge and ask how we can help women who are facing serious physical or psychological risks in relation to their current preganancies.

A mother has a serious car aciddent which is her fault. Her child is injured and as a result is deformed and has brain damage. The mother cannot handle the sight of her child because it reminds her of what she done and causes her to become suicidal. Is it ok for her to kill her child because it causes her to suffer.

The child is innocent. I don't think its ok to kill someone because it makes a person feel bad. There must be another way around it where both can live. Maybe adopt the baby out. Maybe the mother comes to love the child after time and realises that despite how the child came into the world it wasn't there fault that they should lose their life.

The issue of risk in child birth is a seperate issue. People knew the risk back then and still chose to have kids. I don't think because the child was the result of rape changes their rights to life. That logic opens up a can of worms ethically and the door to justifying all sorts of things as ok based on compromising the value of life.

PS sorry for the late reply as I only seen this because I happened to come back in to the thread and was having a read of some replies lol. Only 9 months late and completely forgot about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A mother has a serious car aciddent which is her fault. Her child is injured and as a result is deformed and has brain damage. The mother cannot handle the sight of her child because it reminds her of what she done and causes her to become suicidal. Is it ok for her to kill her child because it causes her to suffer.

... that's a very cheap attempt at an example of exception. It doesn't even qualify as an anecdote. Please, do us a favor, and when you have a real example to consider, present it rather than a hypothetical, 1 in a 100 million potentiality.............. Steve.

 

[stevevw]

... that's a very cheap attempt at an example of exception. It doesn't even qualify as an anecdote. Please, do us a favor, and when you have a real example to consider, present it rather than a hypothetical, 1 in a 100 million potentiality.............. Steve.

The example was only to highlight the logic. To show it doesn't follow that killing someone because of what they remind someone about or makes them feel is no justification.

If life begins at conception then it should be treated no different as though a child was killed because of what it represented rather than what it is, an innocent life with worth who has not caused anyone any grief or problems that it should be terminated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The example was only to highlight the logic. To show it doesn't follow that killing someone because of what they remind someone about or makes them feel is no justification.

... and I'm not sure why you decided to posit this as a response to something I wrote all the way back last August of 2023. I wasn't even talking about that context as far as I can remember or tell.

If life begins at conception then it should be treated no different as though a child was killed because of what it represented rather than what it is, an innocent life with worth who has not caused anyone any grief or problems that it should be terminated.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not Pro-Abortion and I detest anyone even dropping the slightest insinuation that I somehow "am" simply because I may think that a fairly small minority of cases (specifically such as in incest or rape) may permit a woman to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

What's more, I do not believe the slippery-slope argument has any teeth because it's not that difficult to analyze a situation or circumstance and see that is, as one specific situation, isn't like millions of others that are similar to each other in a much more common fashion.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Actually, it's more about the law of double effect.

I assumed, or generalized, my apologies.

I did also speak about Double Effect in my post, and it can work in some cases, but it is pretty limited.

 

[Simon_Templar]

... and I'm not sure why you decided to posit this as a response to something I wrote all the way back last August of 2023. I wasn't even talking about that context as far as I can remember or tell.


Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not Pro-Abortion and I detest anyone even dropping the slightest insinuation that I somehow "am" simply because I may think that a fairly small minority of cases (specifically such as in incest or rape) may permit a woman to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

What's more, I do not believe the slippery-slope argument has any teeth because it's not that difficult to analyze a situation or circumstance and see that is, as one specific situation, isn't like millions of others that are similar to each other in a much more common fashion.

Ok, in your mind, why do rape and incest justify an abortion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, in your mind, why do rape and incest justify an abortion?

... I can't believe I actually have to talk to people who would ask me such a question.

Seriously? You're not trolling me, are you? ..... oh, on second thought, don't worry about answering. I see. You're Catholic. No wonder you've asked that question.

 

[Simon_Templar]

... I can't believe I actually have to talk to people who would ask me such a question.

Seriously? You're not trolling me, are you? ..... oh, on second thought, don't worry about answering. I see. You're Catholic. No wonder you've asked that question.

Do you have anything meaningful to say, or just insults and personal attacks?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you have anything meaningful to say, or just insults and personal attacks?

I've had 15 years of meaningful things to say here on CF. And what I said wasn't meant to be an insult or a personal attack, so please don't construe it as such. I just think that there are some questions that are eye-rollers for obvious philosophical reasons.

Thank you.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I've had 15 years of meaningful things to say here on CF. And what I said wasn't meant to be an insult or a personal attack, so please don't construe it as such. I just think that there are some questions that are eye-rollers for obvious philosophical reasons.

Thank you.

My apologies for not reading your 15 years of posts before asking about that one.

If there are people who believe that cases of rape and incest justify abortion, why is it an eye roller to ask why they think that?

IF you point out a belief that people hold, and someone asks "why?" and your response is "how could you be so dumb as to ask that question?" that's not meaningful, and yes it is a personal attack. It can't be construed honestly any other way. Before you say "I didn't say you were dumb for asking that question" I'm pretty sure that most people would consider calling a question an "eye roller" is tantamount to saying its a dumb question.

Further...

Seriously? You're not trolling me, are you? ..... oh, on second thought, don't worry about answering. I see. You're Catholic. No wonder you've asked that question.

To be honest, the fact that you can seriously claim this wasn't a personal attack has me doubting your honesty. This is about as blatant as it gets. This is saying that the question asked is so stupid that only a troll would ask it, but then the fact that I'm Catholic explains it meaning that Catholic views are so absurd that they explain asking something so dumb that only a troll would seriously pose it.

Maybe what you think are "obvious philosophical reasons" are not obvious to everyone. Maybe they are even wrong. But if you refuse to discuss them, you will never have to defend them, and you can go on believing they are obvious, which is convenient and avoids a lot of discomfort.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My apologies for not reading your 15 years of posts before asking about that one.

If there are people who believe that cases of rape and incest justify abortion, why is it an eye roller to ask why they think that?

IF you point out a belief that people hold, and someone asks "why?" and your response is "how could you be so dumb as to ask that question?" that's not meaningful, and yes it is a personal attack. It can't be construed honestly any other way. Before you say "I didn't say you were dumb for asking that question" I'm pretty sure that most people would consider calling a question an "eye roller" is tantamount to saying its a dumb question.

Further...


To be honest, the fact that you can seriously claim this wasn't a personal attack has me doubting your honesty. This is about as blatant as it gets. This is saying that the question asked is so stupid that only a troll would ask it, but then the fact that I'm Catholic explains it meaning that Catholic views are so absurd that they explain asking something so dumb that only a troll would seriously pose it.

Maybe what you think are "obvious philosophical reasons" are not obvious to everyone. Maybe they are even wrong. But if you refuse to discuss them, you will never have to defend them, and you can go on believing they are obvious, which is convenient and avoids a lot of discomfort.

Well, I'm sorry that my viewpoint fails to meet your approval.

 

[Adam56]

I believe abortion is immoral in all cases except to save the mother’s life. However rape and genetic defects are outlier situations that should be legal.