Among Christians, White Mainline Protestants Least Believe Abortion

[oldzimm]

God knew our souls before we were conceived, when we were conceived we became flesh, a human with a soul. Abortion is murder, murder of a human beaning is a sin, no matter if that human is in or out of the womb. Conception is part of the aging process of a life's cycle. From the time of conception to the time of death, a person will be a living human beaning, nobody has the right to play God and disrupt that cycle of life. 

[nebula]

 

The justification that it is not a human life until some undefined "X" point is simply a method used to desensitize the fact that a human being is being murdered.  It is an attempt to sanitize the act and remove all emotion from it.  When someone cannot point to a specific moment when the baby actually becomes "human" then it is a bogus concept, and those in the medical community who support abortion right up to the point of delivery contradict themselves because the medical community says it is a "life" when it is viable outside the womb.  An infant being murdered as it is being delivered is viable, outside the womb, it is simply being murdered before it can get outside that womb.  

 

Advocates of abortion value the "liberty" of a woman to not be burdened with a child over the rights of the child being murdered.  Stop and think about that for a moment.  Because the movement telling you that a woman has this "right" to choose is, at the exact same time, telling you that the other person involved in the decision, i.e., the infant, has no rights.  The people who find no problem with abortion actually have no value for life at all.  You cannot value life and advocate murder, at the same time.  And anyone trying to justify abortion, or say there is nothing wrong with it should really study the subject, and how it became so wide-spread in this country.  Because it was instituted with one purpose in view, and that original purpose is still being carried out, and with more success than it's originator could have even hoped for.  But most people in this country are totally ignorant of where this country's abortion policy and Planned Parenthood came from.  

 

Give me the exact point in time in which it changes from being just a "fetus" with no rights, and is not human, and then changes to a human being with rights.

 

 

I had none of those intentions. It's not a cover up to promote anything whatsoever, it's how it honestly appears to me to be the case. Accusing people of having ill intentions is not helpful.

 

 

Actually, Cobalt brings in some pertinent points. I'm sorry you felt attacked with this, though. I actually don't believe Cobalt meant to point the finger at you. He, like me, has heard many arguments that abortion is about "a woman's reproductive rights" - although I never figured how ending the existence of what was reproduced can be called a "reproductive right" - sounds more like an "anti-reproduction right". And I fail to hear these "reproductive rights" advocates express concern over the rights of the child.

 

Yes, that does go back to the question of when does a "fetus" become a living human being. And I know that is the question you are seeking out. Sadly, you are an exception to the rule from my experience. Most people are content to consider it "non-life" until birth - else why would they argue for third trimester abortions?

 

But on the question of life, I remember touring Body Worlds at the science museum - that's an artistic displays of preserved human cadavers and parts to teach anatomy. They do some fascinating things with that. Anyway, there was a room devoted to pregnancy and developmental stages of the fetus. I was with some young females as we saw the progression of development from 1 week onward. I'll never forget the shock on their faces as they saw these 1-4 week old fetuses and saying, "Oh my G-d, it's a baby!"

 

 

As for the founding of Planned Parenthood, here are some quotes from the founder:

 

Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood In Her Own Words

 

 

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

 

 

Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew      www.dianedew.com

 

 

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

 

 

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

 

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

 

 

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

 

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

 

 

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:

"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

 

On the extermination of blacks:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

 

 

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

 

More quotes here

 

 

I hope that makes sense?

[Micheal Westin]

At the risk of provoking wrath and losing whatever popularity points I may or may not have, I will say that since I have converted over a year ago I have not understood the total opposition to abortion. When I came into the faith I did not see the vast majority of abortions (i.e. the earlier ones) as killing anyone at all, let alone murder. To be honest, I have yet to be persuaded it's murder (and therefore wrong). I am putting that out there not so much that I think anyone is obligated to convince me, but at least to express my honest consternation about this in the hopes maybe it will aid understanding the other side here.

I would contend that either you don't believe a heartbeat constitutes life, or if an old person nolonger can speak and make eye contact they neither are really a person anymore and might as well be put to death, the only difference is one had a longer history, and people had a chance to love them longer, its easier to kill people when you don't actually have to face them.

 

maybe if doctors removed the fetus and let the mother kill it herself reality would finally hit home, babies are alive!

[alphaparticle]

 

 

The justification that it is not a human life until some undefined "X" point is simply a method used to desensitize the fact that a human being is being murdered.  It is an attempt to sanitize the act and remove all emotion from it.  When someone cannot point to a specific moment when the baby actually becomes "human" then it is a bogus concept, and those in the medical community who support abortion right up to the point of delivery contradict themselves because the medical community says it is a "life" when it is viable outside the womb.  An infant being murdered as it is being delivered is viable, outside the womb, it is simply being murdered before it can get outside that womb.  

 

Advocates of abortion value the "liberty" of a woman to not be burdened with a child over the rights of the child being murdered.  Stop and think about that for a moment.  Because the movement telling you that a woman has this "right" to choose is, at the exact same time, telling you that the other person involved in the decision, i.e., the infant, has no rights.  The people who find no problem with abortion actually have no value for life at all.  You cannot value life and advocate murder, at the same time.  And anyone trying to justify abortion, or say there is nothing wrong with it should really study the subject, and how it became so wide-spread in this country.  Because it was instituted with one purpose in view, and that original purpose is still being carried out, and with more success than it's originator could have even hoped for.  But most people in this country are totally ignorant of where this country's abortion policy and Planned Parenthood came from.  

 

Give me the exact point in time in which it changes from being just a "fetus" with no rights, and is not human, and then changes to a human being with rights.

 

 

I had none of those intentions. It's not a cover up to promote anything whatsoever, it's how it honestly appears to me to be the case. Accusing people of having ill intentions is not helpful.

 

 

Actually, Cobalt brings in some pertinent points. I'm sorry you felt attacked with this, though. I actually don't believe Cobalt meant to point the finger at you. He, like me, has heard many arguments that abortion is about "a woman's reproductive rights" - although I never figured how ending the existence of what was reproduced can be called a "reproductive right" - sounds more like an "anti-reproduction right". And I fail to hear these "reproductive rights" advocates express concern over the rights of the child.

 

Yes, that does go back to the question of when does a "fetus" become a living human being. And I know that is the question you are seeking out. Sadly, you are an exception to the rule from my experience. Most people are content to consider it "non-life" until birth - else why would they argue for third trimester abortions?

 

But on the question of life, I remember touring Body Worlds at the science museum - that's an artistic displays of preserved human cadavers and parts to teach anatomy. They do some fascinating things with that. Anyway, there was a room devoted to pregnancy and developmental stages of the fetus. I was with some young females as we saw the progression of development from 1 week onward. I'll never forget the shock on their faces as they saw these 1-4 week old fetuses and saying, "Oh my G-d, it's a baby!"

 

 

As for the founding of Planned Parenthood, here are some quotes from the founder:

 

Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood In Her Own Words

 

 

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

 

 

Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew      www.dianedew.com

 

 

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

 

 

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

 

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

 

 

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

 

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

 

 

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:

"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

 

On the extermination of blacks:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

 

 

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

 

More quotes here

 

 

I hope that makes sense?

 

 

 

I don't personally get anything from debating with cobalt is all and particularly with such a sensitive topic I'm inclined to avoid overt conflict. I'm not out to 'win the debate' or convert people to my side here so I'd really much rather have a discussion about this topic if possible.

 

Well, I don't see what Sanger thought is relevant. I'm aware of her eugenic ideas. I don't see what that has to do with Planned Parenthood today, or what Planned Parenthood per se has to do with the topic at all.

 

I think morphology is relevant but, ... not directly as it doesn't answer the fundamental question for me.

 

I've narrowed this down in my mind. Either it becomes clear to me that this is condemned in scripture, which there is no straightforward way to do this, or I have to rely on philosophical moral reasoning. According to the latter it's extremely hard to see why it would be wrong to kill, say, a blastocyst. The wrongness of killing seems to lie in the ability of beings to have experiences, and that seems to require a certain amount of neurological completely and functioning. Hence, abortion seems allowed to me, based on that reasoning, until some time in the second trimester.

 

But, I am open to the notion that rather than consciousness being the morally relevant issue involved in defining what can be murdered and what can't be, perhaps something like ensoulment is. On the face of it it seems to me that would be concurrent with the aforementioned ability to host experiences, otherwise, what is a soul and what does it do? However, I am willing to remain confused on that topic and still change my mind if it seems to me like there is a clear answer from scripture in terms of, for instance, referring to unborn fetuses in various stages of development as if they have experiences etc.  That is what I am currently thinking about based on what Butero shared in particular.

[alphaparticle]

 

At the risk of provoking wrath and losing whatever popularity points I may or may not have, I will say that since I have converted over a year ago I have not understood the total opposition to abortion. When I came into the faith I did not see the vast majority of abortions (i.e. the earlier ones) as killing anyone at all, let alone murder. To be honest, I have yet to be persuaded it's murder (and therefore wrong). I am putting that out there not so much that I think anyone is obligated to convince me, but at least to express my honest consternation about this in the hopes maybe it will aid understanding the other side here.

I would contend that either you don't believe a heartbeat constitutes life, or if an old person nolonger can speak and make eye contact they neither are really a person anymore and might as well be put to death, the only difference is one had a longer history, and people had a chance to love them longer, its easier to kill people when you don't actually have to face them.

 

maybe if doctors removed the fetus and let the mother kill it herself reality would finally hit home, babies are alive!

 

 

I think this is mostly answered in my response to nebula above.

[nebula]

Well, I don't see what Sanger thought is relevant. I'm aware of her eugenic ideas. I don't see what that has to do with Planned Parenthood today, or what Planned Parenthood per se has to do with the topic at all.

Planned Parenthood and abortion tend to go hand-in-hand, that's all. But nonetheless, I understand what you are saying with regards to the question you are seeking.

 

I think morphology is relevant but, ... not directly as it doesn't answer the fundamental question for me.

 

I've narrowed this down in my mind. Either it becomes clear to me that this is condemned in scripture, which there is no straightforward way to do this, or I have to rely on philosophical moral reasoning. According to the latter it's extremely hard to see why it would be wrong to kill, say, a blastocyst. The wrongness of killing seems to lie in the ability of beings to have experiences, and that seems to require a certain amount of neurological completely and functioning. Hence, abortion seems allowed to me, based on that reasoning, until some time in the second trimester.

 

But, I am open to the notion that rather than consciousness being the morally relevant issue involved in defining what can be murdered and what can't be, perhaps something like ensoulment is. On the face of it it seems to me that would be concurrent with the aforementioned ability to host experiences, otherwise, what is a soul and what does it do? However, I am willing to remain confused on that topic and still change my mind if it seems to me like there is a clear answer from scripture in terms of, for instance, referring to unborn fetuses in various stages of development as if they have experiences etc.  That is what I am currently thinking about based on what Butero shared in particular.

Some time ago, a poster made a case for when life begins based on what the Scripture says about life being in the blood. I can't recall the details he went through and where he put the claim for when a fetus becomes a living soul, but it had to do with "breath" (oxygen) and blood in the system.

 

 

As for the blastocyst and everything else, I fall to the side of "better safe than sorry". I would hate to have conceived, taken medication to eliminate pregnancy, and then discover the soul of the baby waiting for me in Heaven. I would feel horrified.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

The justification that it is not a human life until some undefined "X" point is simply a method used to desensitize the fact that a human being is being murdered.  It is an attempt to sanitize the act and remove all emotion from it.  When someone cannot point to a specific moment when the baby actually becomes "human" then it is a bogus concept, and those in the medical community who support abortion right up to the point of delivery contradict themselves because the medical community says it is a "life" when it is viable outside the womb.  An infant being murdered as it is being delivered is viable, outside the womb, it is simply being murdered before it can get outside that womb.  

 

Advocates of abortion value the "liberty" of a woman to not be burdened with a child over the rights of the child being murdered.  Stop and think about that for a moment.  Because the movement telling you that a woman has this "right" to choose is, at the exact same time, telling you that the other person involved in the decision, i.e., the infant, has no rights.  The people who find no problem with abortion actually have no value for life at all.  You cannot value life and advocate murder, at the same time.  And anyone trying to justify abortion, or say there is nothing wrong with it should really study the subject, and how it became so wide-spread in this country.  Because it was instituted with one purpose in view, and that original purpose is still being carried out, and with more success than it's originator could have even hoped for.  But most people in this country are totally ignorant of where this country's abortion policy and Planned Parenthood came from.  

 

Give me the exact point in time in which it changes from being just a "fetus" with no rights, and is not human, and then changes to a human being with rights.

 

 

I had none of those intentions. It's not a cover up to promote anything whatsoever, it's how it honestly appears to me to be the case. Accusing people of having ill intentions is not helpful.

 

 

Actually, Cobalt brings in some pertinent points. I'm sorry you felt attacked with this, though. I actually don't believe Cobalt meant to point the finger at you. He, like me, has heard many arguments that abortion is about "a woman's reproductive rights" - although I never figured how ending the existence of what was reproduced can be called a "reproductive right" - sounds more like an "anti-reproduction right". And I fail to hear these "reproductive rights" advocates express concern over the rights of the child.

 

Yes, that does go back to the question of when does a "fetus" become a living human being. And I know that is the question you are seeking out. Sadly, you are an exception to the rule from my experience. Most people are content to consider it "non-life" until birth - else why would they argue for third trimester abortions?

 

But on the question of life, I remember touring Body Worlds at the science museum - that's an artistic displays of preserved human cadavers and parts to teach anatomy. They do some fascinating things with that. Anyway, there was a room devoted to pregnancy and developmental stages of the fetus. I was with some young females as we saw the progression of development from 1 week onward. I'll never forget the shock on their faces as they saw these 1-4 week old fetuses and saying, "Oh my G-d, it's a baby!"

 

 

As for the founding of Planned Parenthood, here are some quotes from the founder:

 

Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood In Her Own Words

 

 

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

 

 

Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew      www.dianedew.com

 

 

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

 

 

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

 

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

 

 

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

 

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

 

 

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:

"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

 

On the extermination of blacks:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

 

 

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

 

More quotes here

 

 

I hope that makes sense?

 

 

 

I don't personally get anything from debating with cobalt is all and particularly with such a sensitive topic I'm inclined to avoid overt conflict. I'm not out to 'win the debate' or convert people to my side here so I'd really much rather have a discussion about this topic if possible.

 

Well, I don't see what Sanger thought is relevant. I'm aware of her eugenic ideas. I don't see what that has to do with Planned Parenthood today, or what Planned Parenthood per se has to do with the topic at all.

 

I think morphology is relevant but, ... not directly as it doesn't answer the fundamental question for me.

 

I've narrowed this down in my mind. Either it becomes clear to me that this is condemned in scripture, which there is no straightforward way to do this, or I have to rely on philosophical moral reasoning. According to the latter it's extremely hard to see why it would be wrong to kill, say, a blastocyst. The wrongness of killing seems to lie in the ability of beings to have experiences, and that seems to require a certain amount of neurological completely and functioning. Hence, abortion seems allowed to me, based on that reasoning, until some time in the second trimester.

 

But, I am open to the notion that rather than consciousness being the morally relevant issue involved in defining what can be murdered and what can't be, perhaps something like ensoulment is. On the face of it it seems to me that would be concurrent with the aforementioned ability to host experiences, otherwise, what is a soul and what does it do? However, I am willing to remain confused on that topic and still change my mind if it seems to me like there is a clear answer from scripture in terms of, for instance, referring to unborn fetuses in various stages of development as if they have experiences etc.  That is what I am currently thinking about based on what Butero shared in particular.

 

Something you said here intrigued me.  You were mentioning someone able to have experiences as a means of determining whether or not it is ok to kill them?  I believe unborn children do have experiences, though they may not be obvious to us?  You will see them sucking their thumb during the first trimester.  In the movie I mentioned, "Silent Scream," you see the unborn baby trying to move away from the abortionists instruments, and seeming to experience fear?  I believe they do have experiences.  I believe they have feelings.  I don't really believe this is the only way to determine if someone is worthy of protections, but if that is the method you use to make that judgment, I would say they meet those requirements. 

 

Of course, from a purely Biblical perspective, I know God considers them human.  Look at it like this.  God tells Elizabeth she is going to have a child, and call him John.  In God's mind, John already exists.  After John is conceived, he is still John in the eyes of God, not an embryo or a fetus.  Had Elizabeth had the option of abortion, and gone to an abortionist to exercise her choice, she would have been killing her baby boy John.  That would have been the case at 1 week or 6 months.  He was always John.  The same thing applies to all unborn babies.  They are always human beings, but at various stages of development.  A newborn baby is far from fully developed.  They must grow up and become a man or a woman, but they are no less human than you or me. 

[oldzimm]

Something you said here intrigued me.  You were mentioning someone able to have experiences as a means of determining whether or not it is ok to kill them?  I believe unborn children do have experiences, though they may not be obvious to us?  You will see them sucking their thumb during the first trimester.  In the movie I mentioned, "Silent Scream," you see the unborn baby trying to move away from the abortionists instruments, and seeming to experience fear?  I believe they do have experiences.  I believe they have feelings.  I don't really believe this is the only way to determine if someone is worthy of protections, but if that is the method you use to make that judgment, I would say they meet those requirements. 

r.

 

 

Of course, from a purely Biblical perspective, I know God considers them human.  Look at it like this.  God tells Elizabeth she is going to have a child, and call him John.  In God's mind, John already exists.  After John is conceived, he is still John in the eyes of God, not an embryo or a fetus.  Had Elizabeth had the option of abortion, and gone to an abortionist to exercise her choice, she would have been killing her baby boy John.  That would have been the case at 1 week or 6 months.  He was always John.  The same thing applies to all unborn babies.  They are always human beings, but at various stages of development.  A newborn baby is far from fully developed.  They must grow up and become a man or a woman, but they are no less human than you or me. 

 

Excellent post Butero.