- This topic has 1 reply, 4 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Wouldn’t it be funny if ole Gabriel had said “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold you will conceive a fertilized egg. It will be a zygote, and then an embryo. Finally you will bear what you can call a son, and you shall name him Jesus.”
Here is another one to think about: If the baby is not a person inside the womb, why don’t we have fetus showers?
[quote:20eiikoa]Here is another one to think about: If the baby is not a person inside the womb, why don’t we have fetus showers?[/quote:20eiikoa]
hmmm….I’m not quite sure I get this one. Could you please explain this a little more?
Sure,…My past post was meant to go along the lines of using the same terminology of those who support abortions. Those who support it often see the baby, not as a real person, but as a fetus. And today, more of society is using this same term for an unborn baby. So by the previous post, I meant that sooner or later, society may start calling Baby Showers “Fetus Showers.”
There is also some other meaning to this. More often than not, an unborn child is only called a baby if he or she is wanted. If not wanted, calling the baby a “fetus” must make the baby “easier on the conscience” for those involved to abort. This is why we cannot let ourselves become adapted to this pro-abortion terminology. If we do, we have already fulfilled a part of their agenda.
Sorry, I just totally misread it
” title=”Smile” />I must not have been thinking too hard or not wanting to when I read it the first time. Now that I read it again it makes much more sense.
You know, on that same note, how is it that when an unborn child is killed in a crime it is referred to as just that – an unborn child (whether son or daughter), but for abortions or legal definitions supporting abortion it is generally referred to as a fetus or embryo.
Why is it only in crime that we put a human likeness to an unborn child and recognize it as such, but not when the mother does not want her baby?
See, the pro-life movement is not about taking away “women’s rights” but is about protecting the rights of [i:3lyd8iua][b:3lyd8iua]all[/b:3lyd8iua][/i:3lyd8iua].
More on protecting women’s rights: Those who are not pro-life may call it “women’s rights”, but quite frequently a woman who has had an abortion experiences strong emotional pain after aborting her baby. I have heard it said that the doctors who perform abortions often leave out this part about the resulting emotional distress, making abortion seem like the “easy way” out of pregnancy. Thus, how is it really “protecting women’s rights” if doctors do not fully inform the woman of [u:pf0dd54l]all[/u:pf0dd54l] consequences and possible risks, [u:pf0dd54l]including the emotional risks[/u:pf0dd54l], before she makes her choice to kill? It kinda sounds like leading a lamb to the slaughter house to me.
Well, that’s true, but there are women out there who do not feel any emotional pain after having an abortion.
The argument is that by making women have to wait to get an abortion or to not allow them to have an abortion is to deny a woman her autonomy. People who hold this position view that those who want to take away this “reproductive right” are treating women like they are stupid and cannot make their own choices about their bodies. What I think this argument lacks, however, is the consideration of another’s body – the unborn child.
The pro-life side is concerned with the unborn child whereas the pro-abortion side is concerned about the woman and her “rights.” It’s almost like comparing apples to oranges – not quite, but close.
The pro-choice agenda is not concerned with the fact that it is killing anything. Killing is not an issue for them. It is whose rights are of greater importance than another’s and for them it is the mother’s rights. Therefore, since the mother’s rights are greater, the mother can make the decision to kill the baby.
Pro-life people, on the other hand, basically say that the rights of both mother and child are more or less equal because all life is sacred.
The other part of this issue is that pro-abortion people generally believe that a person in the fetus stage is not an actual human being until it is viable outside the womb – meaning that it is not a person until it is capable of living outside of the mother by itself. This is about 7 or so months into the pregnancy I believe (anyone correct me if I am wrong please). Therefore, by having an abortion, they are nor killing a human being.
Why would the unborn baby not be just that: a baby? After all, even an unborn elephant is protected under law. Are not human beings put at a higher value than that of an elephant?
Humans are classified scientifically as animals, but we don’t always rise above that name when it comes to our decisons and behavior.
Certainly I agree with the Catholic pro-life side of these posts. But I can remember a time in the 1970’s (ancient times!). I was influenced by both the culture of the time and the liberal college I attended. Although I would never even consider an abortion, I did know a few people who actually had them. I sure wish I could have influenced them different.
I think the pro-life movement has had success demonstrating that a fetus IS a child. But I am sure now, as back then many just don’t view life as we do. I do not have solutions for that, but I believe we must not condemn but be compassionate sometimes and let the Holy Spirit do the enlightening. I think that being servants to our fellow human beings following the example that Christ set before us will continue bring light to the poor misguided souls.(the pro-choice/abortionists that is)
I like the series of pro-life billboards on the highways. They don’t condemn, but they use pictures of babies and quotes that remind all of us how a child is a gift from God by saying things like “Daddy says I have Grandma’s eyes,” or “Did you know I could smile and suck my thumb before I was born?”
I have heard that these billboards have moved many people, even some driving on their way to the abortion clinic.
Is that assisting a mother in killing her child, while zealously fighting every attempt by anyone to inform her of the reality of what [i:3mstg135]truly[/i:3mstg135] exists within her womb, is an act of compassion.
[quote:rk3den7f]I like the series of pro-life billboards on the highways. They don’t condemn, but they use pictures of babies and quotes that remind all of us how a child is a gift from God by saying things like “Daddy says I have Grandma’s eyes,” or “Did you know I could smile and suck my thumb before I was born?”[/quote:rk3den7f]
Well, I’m not so sure about their motivation being that they are a gift from God so much as that they are human beings.
Part of the abortion argument in defining if they are human or not is its viability outside the womb. Somehow, pro-abortion people argue that it is a human if it can live outside of the womb itself, but otherwise it is just an embryo or something.
Now, tell me how it is that it changes from an embryo to a human after some certain amount of weeks? Does Tinkerbell come and spray some fairy dust?! Let’s be serious here!
See, an embryo is just another stage of development of a human being. It’s not some other creature that just morphs into a human. It has the DNA and everything of a human being from the beginning. It is programmed to develop as a human being and nothing else. You can’t deny this.
[quote:rk3den7f]Is that assisting a mother in killing her child, while zealously fighting every attempt by anyone to inform her of the reality of what truly exists within her womb, is an act of compassion?[/quote:rk3den7f]
Exactly. How much less compassionate could one be? Oh, wait….sorry, it’s not about compassion or what’s really going on, but it’s about the [i:rk3den7f]woman’s [b:rk3den7f]rights[/b:rk3den7f][/i:rk3den7f]. :rolleyes:
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Very Happy” />
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.