The Proudest Hour of the Prolife Movement.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
At most the LIFE of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy in 1% of the cases, and it is likely much less than that. The figures are skewed by the abortion lobby to show health reasons as a major cause, but essentially the abortion industry and doctors will concoct a medical reason for abortion, often for 'psychological' reasons which is utter nonsense, knowing what we know now of the grave psychological distress, depression and guilt suffered by the mother.. and the serious and life threatening physical health implications of an abortion. The option of removing the child by C section into premature infant care can see an infant survive at something 5 months now. This really reduces the necessity of abortion to almost zero.
If you'd read my original post, you would have seen i condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller as both antithetical and counterproductive to the pro life movement.
As for your recurrent comments that this is just 'my opinion'.. that is very exemplary of the condition of our society. We have lost all sense of right and wrong, of natural law, of an understandable moral universe. We now have a purely relativistic concept of 'opinions', each with no more value than any other, all competing in market place without transcendant moral parameters. It's chaotic. It shows everywhere, in abortions, in homosexual affirmation and celebration and many other things. We are sewing a Culture of Death, and we will reap what we sew
The entire ethical and moral foundation of our society has been turned on its head in the last 30 years. That is the substance of any culture. Without that nurturing soil it will whither of the vine. We are quickly entering a period of economic and social decline, which will have the most profound and distressing effect on all your lives.
Last edited:
I can't convince someone who clearly has decided that life starts at some arbitrary date, post uterus. I can only note that the civilizing and faith impulses of our society, in place at its origins, has been that life begins at conception, that it is a gift that stems directly from the divine, the parents provide the genetic inheritance, God provides the life.
If you want to replace this some modernist construct that reduces human life to an evolutionary accident, a mass of cells without a soul, a creature without a Creator.. well all i can say is that is a pretty impoverished sense of life. It is also a emblematic of a society that has lost all sense of its future.. and is wallowing in deep confusion and pessimism.
Last edited:
Aborting unwanted pregnancies has been with us for centuries.
I see now, though, that you've decided that abortion and homosexuality are part of the same decline in society, and that somehow this is something that has occurred in the past 30 years.
I see now, though, that you've decided that abortion and homosexuality are part of the same decline in society, and that somehow this is something that has occurred in the past 30 years.
Prove it. Put your research where your mouth is, or you'll just be another shmoe with an opinion in a world of 6 billion with opinions. Hardly worth taking seriously.
I read that. I also think your reason for condemning the action was screwy, which you would have noticed in my reply had you read it. Your stated reason for condemning his mirder was, "Producing sympathy for a something that deserves none. " Big deal. People will still be pro-life regardless of how much sympathy they have for Tiller's family and whatnot. As I said, "It does more than that, it paints an image of prolifers as being irrational and murderous."
Even that's just your opinion as you post nothing to substantiate it. As I said, there are 6 billion others around with opinions, too. Yours isn't special. Personally I don't give a crap about morals. I do not follow the religious dogma about what's right or wrong. I follow my principles and fight for them when I need to.
You sure like to exaggerate, don'tcha?
Again, mere opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever of any gods being more than bits of imagination. It is unrealistic.
Yes, that is so, it stems from the same amoral paradigm that has overtaken us. And their legitimization has all occurred in the last 40 years in the West. Any nation is defined by its laws, starting with it constitution, its treaties, it criminal laws and guarantees, its contracts and civil law..and we have now completely divorced those laws from the moral and religious code on which they were formed. You cannot do that without the severest of consequences.
Last edited:
You know what they say...
When one right wing whacko pulls the trigger, a million people pull the trigger. When a left wing whacko pulls the trigger he acts alone.
When one right wing whacko pulls the trigger, a million people pull the trigger. When a left wing whacko pulls the trigger he acts alone.
How about this religious code:
Remember "thou shalt not kill"? Apparently, it's actually "Thou shalt not kill unless this or that or something else".
I can only note that the civilizing and faith impulses of our society, in place at its origins, has been that life begins at conception, that it is a gift that stems directly from the divine, the parents provide the genetic inheritance, God provides the life.
That is a religious viewpoint, Coldstream, not a scientific viewpoint. According to some interpretations of the Bible, life begins at conception. Science doesn’t’ agree with that. Scientifically, we don’t know when the life begins.
That is a religious viewpoint, Coldstream, not a scientific viewpoint. According to some interpretations of the Bible, life begins at conception. Science doesn’t’ agree with that. Scientifically, we don’t know when the life begins.
TreeGirl, prolifers justify banning abortion in the case of incest by saying that two wrongs don’t make a right, that one crime (incest) does not justify another (murder).
It all makes sense if one believes that life begins at conception. I don’t, that is a religious viewpoint (and not even al the religious people agree with that).
It all makes sense if one believes that life begins at conception. I don’t, that is a religious viewpoint (and not even al the religious people agree with that).
Yup...that is what makes it such a tough issue.
I happen to know two women that got one and it was basically unwanted pregnancies. One with a boyfriend and they were both 19...the other was pregnant with a married man's child. What of their morals?
Mine is not to judge...just a sad sad issue. I would not want to be in the shoes of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. Again...it is too sad for everyone.
I happen to know two women that got one and it was basically unwanted pregnancies. One with a boyfriend and they were both 19...the other was pregnant with a married man's child. What of their morals?
Mine is not to judge...just a sad sad issue. I would not want to be in the shoes of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. Again...it is too sad for everyone.
In faith it is important to read the entire message. This statement is counterbalanced with Christ's admonition that 'those who are without sin should cast the first stone'.
I'm unaware of any scientific principle that states life begins at birth. In fact just the opposite, any real scientist KNOWS that life, the organic development of the adult individual begins at conception and continues in an uniterruped fashion before and after birth, which is an external condition that only affects the environment in which that occurs.
I am aware, though, there is a political lobby, and judicial rulings that arbitrarily define a 'person' as only existing from birth. Knowing though the character of politicians and judges in our society, this neither necessarily makes it right nor moral. These institutions are adept also at using their own blatantly skewed interpretations of science for their own political ambitions.
Last edited:
Most pro lifers are well aware of the ethical implications of restricting some abortions, while leaving others outside the law, but most would be willing to do so. The exceptions that they have developed of leaving a fetus unprotected, by society as whole, which does have a stake in the issue .. are well known.
1. Life, not 'health' of the mother which has been distended to mean anything.
2. Non-viability of the fetus, NOT 'quality' of life issues like Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida. This is a case where the pregnancy is completely futile and the child will not survive to term, or will die soon thereafter
3. Rape or incest, within at most the first trimestre.
Every one in the pro life movement is well aware of the charges of hypocrisy this might elicit, especially in the case of protecting one life over another in cases of a viable and healthy infant. Some would not even go that far, but most would, since in might be the most that is achievable. But it still condemns the act, it simply states there are extreme cases, where a decision will be left to the conscience of the mother. Those condition actually existed in case law, prior the removal of all legal protections of the fetus in the early 70s.
I know personally of a story where the mother brought to term an infant whose brainstem had not developed and would survive only hours after birth. She had to fight the hospital to actually deliver the child so she and her family could say goodbye, have it baptized, hold it for a while and say a prayer for him. It has been an enduring source of comfort to her and her family in an admittedly tragic situation.
You have to note the very limited number of cases this involves. Much less than 1% of the some 50 million abortions that have occurred in North America over the last 35 years. We have spawned a generation where the majority of its confreres are dead before they reach their 1st birthday.
Last edited:
Those who deny that life begins at conception and insist that it starts at birth, the next step will be that life begins when a child can read. Or when a child is old enough to leave parental home. Or whenever!
Prior to those events, the lifr of that life is subject only to the convenience of the "mother". So, abort, butcher and kill away!
Prior to those events, the lifr of that life is subject only to the convenience of the "mother". So, abort, butcher and kill away!
People say incredibly stupid things when they have the benefit of anonymity. One has to look no further than you for proof of that.
As for you ridiculous OP, I know a number of strong pro-life activists. They don't see this as a victory. In fact, I refrained from posting on this thread until I spoke with one. To quote him, "Only somebody incredibly stupid or with a sick and twisted mind would see this as a victory for the pro-life movement". Congrats SJP. Even people that don't know you think you're a twit.
We already kill and butcher those we don't agree with (war) so is it any surprise that abortion is an accepted means of birth control. Abortion is an issue out of context. Why is it that our society condones killing and murder in some cases and gets all bent out of shape in others? Because we are hypocritical. Our brains are so compartmentalized that one cell doesn't know what the others are thinking and doing.
Politicians love the abortion issue. It is so emotionally charged that people don't pay attention to what the politicians are doing (or not doing). When an issue has an emotional charge all logic flies out the window. That is why some think it is OK to murder a doctor. People, for the most part, are ruled by their emotions, so they are illogical much of the time.
I thought you were going to stop the personal attacks. It just makes you look like a twit.