Interesting Essay on Abortion

tjguitarz

New Member
My old man sent this to me with the announcing of Obama's new policy. I thought it was post worthy.

Roe Is Only the Beginning

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.
- Camille Paglia


If given the choice, I always prefer to debate atheists, such as Camille Paglia, on the abortion issue. The arguments are simple, direct and uncomplicated by walls of denial.

An atheist's defense of abortion, as opposed to say, first degree murder for money, rests upon a single characteristic of the unborn child: location. In this view, we accept the reality of our murdering the "unwanted" child for our own convenience, simply because the child requires his mother's womb to continue living. In the atheist's mind, this matter of utter dependence confers the right to kill without provocation.

It seems to go unnoticed, even by atheists, that a great many others are also completely dependent upon other human beings to continue living, all infants and young children, severely handicapped persons, many infirm elderly, etc.

Thinking of individual persons as property is certainly not new, not by any means. Yet even modern atheists recoil at the notion of slavery, as a barbaric practice among less-enlightened people. However, as Alveda King, niece of MLK passionately explains, abortion is quite akin to slavery:

How can the "Dream" survive if we murder our children?

Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. In the hands of the mother is the fate of that child - whether that child lives or dies.

What else can one call abortion but another form of slavery?

As the slave was legally considered the property of the slave-owner, giving legal authority over the life or death of the slave, so does the Roe decision grant this right to the owner of the womb, in which an equal-in-all-manner, merely smaller, human being resides. The very Latin word, fetus, translates simply to "little person." Atheists, at least, are quick to admit this fact.

Just as African slaves were once considered not "real" people, and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protection, so the decision in Roe comes down against protection of the child in his mother's womb. Even Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, admitted that once "personhood" could be medically/scientifically established, the fetus would necessarily be given full protection by the 14th Amendment. Ultrasound technology accomplished this visual proof 2 decades ago; yet Roe still stands.

On the matter of abortion, we wish not to be confused with inconvenient facts.

In the end, atheists fall back on the woman's womb as sacrosanct property of the mother, not to be interfered with by the state. It's a hard argument to refute. Abolitionists faced the same resistance from slave owners, who regarded their plantations as private property, absolutely sacrosanct in the eyes of American jurisprudence. This argument, too, proved difficult to refute and required a Civil War to finally decide.

Nevertheless, I'll always prefer to argue abortion with atheists.

At the very, very least, neither the atheist nor I, is put into the scientifically indefensible position of claiming that abortion is not murdering another human being or that it is in any way a positive, much less altruistic act.

Honestly, the contortions a practicing Jew or Catholic or Protestant Christian will go to in defending the abstract "rightness" of abortion is mind-boggling.

So why, oh why, do we do it?

The answer really is quite simple. We continue, despite 40+ years of heavy Darwinian indoctrination, to be a Nation of religious people. Nearly 90% of us profess to be Christians. Orthodox and conservative Jews make up a small percentage of our population, but are often even more vocally dedicated to moral certitude being codified by law.

The matter of abortion puts Americans, philosophically speaking, between a huge rock and a very hard place. The fact that we remain a religious people in a Nation that has systematically murdered 49 million of its own offspring through abortion over 36 years, absolutely requires that we be in complete denial and continue to debate its merits in bastardized language.

Let's get real, shall we?

Isn't it high time we get real on abortion? Twisting our words on a matter does not change its character one whit.

And there's no longer any need to mince words on the matter.

Abortion is not in danger in these United States of America.

Its absolute legality is the law of the land in all 50 states. We have just elected a President sworn to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which will codify Roe, require payment by the state for abortions, and even strike down the conscience clauses that now protect medical personnel. Our new President is also certain to appoint Supreme Court justices highly supportive of abortion rights. No one is mounting an army to rush in and destroy abortion mills all over the Country. Abortion is set to reign in America, perhaps forever.

There is nothing that I, as an individual, can do to change this reality. I continue to pray for the awakening of moral conscience, continue to offer substantive help to women who want to choose life for their unborn children, and continue to vote for candidates sworn to uphold the most basic human right there is -- the right tolife, from the moment of conception as a unique human being. Unless I were willing to become a murderer myself, intent on bombing abortion mills and killing those inside them, I can do nothing else to stop it.

One thing I absolutely will not do, however, is surrender my common sense to the psycho-babble position of morally defending abortion. I insist that it be named precisely what it is -- murder of a helpless person for convenience.

There is absolutely no reason to continue the charade of defending our legal support for the "right to abort," as a humane and altruistic thing. If we are the enlightened, postmodern, post-Christian nation that liberals believe us to be, then there is positively no reason for verbal shenanigans aimed at reassuring our moral sensibilities. We are supposed to have outgrown them.

Abortion and Genocide

Abortion in America was once quite rare and a highly individual choice. No one in our government, our public square, our churches or our schools was advocating abortion to young people caught unaware by inconvenient pregnancies. Today, nearly 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in fully state-sanctioned, and some would say, "encouraged," abortion.

Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992, defines "genocide" as "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable." The jurist, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish scholar of international law, coined the legal concept of genocide in 1944 in response to the Holocaust taking place at the hands of Nazi "exterminators." He joined the Greek word,genos, meaning "race" or "tribe," with the Latin, cide, meaning "killer" or "act of killing." Thus, the word, "genocide," entered our international vocabulary.

According to Genocide Watch, The International Campaign to End Genocide, there are 8 stages to Genocide, of which classification, the Holocaust was the first acknowledged internationally.

Is abortion the new, unacknowledged genocide?

The 8 stages of genocide are:

1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into "us and them" In abortion, the "us" are all citizens we can see, those of us already born; the "them" are those still residing within a woman's womb, technically the "unborn." Specifically, abortion requires a further separation of those intended for extermination, the "wanted unborn" as opposed to the "unwanted unborn."

2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We call the unwanted, unborn child, the fetus, the blastocyst, the glob of tissue, or anything whatsoever except the unwanted, unborn child. Nearly all of us, quite naturally, call the wanted child the baby. Maternity clothing shops abound with t-shirts bearing the phrase, Baby on Board, and not Blastocyst Herein.

3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota, for instance, has run newspaper advertisements which read in part "BABIES ARE LOUD, SMELLY, AND EXPENSIVE. UNLESS YOU WANT ONE. 1-800-230-PLAN." The slogan for Planned Parenthood, the Nation's #1 provider of abortions to the tune of more than $100 million each year, is "Every child a wanted child," thus dehumanizing the group of children deemed "unwanted." Unwanted children are dehumanized for the express purpose of extermination.

4. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state. While abortion in the United States remains (at the moment) the "free choice" of individual women, it is largely state-supported, through taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and other groups promoting abortions and through pro-abortion educational models present in American public schools. American obstetricians routinely counsel expectant mothers to abort any baby found to possess any abnormality. To say that abortion is "organized" and "promoted by the state" is not a far stretch by any means.

5. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Polarization on abortion occurred quite early in Roe's life as our mainstream media adopted pro-abortion language, deeming abortion proponents as being, "pro-choice," as opposed to pro-life defenders being deemed as "anti-choice." This polarization in the media puts the onus of defense upon those dedicated to upholding the worth of the unborn child as opposed to the other way around. (Once sane people consciously admit that there is no biological difference between a child that is "wanted" as opposed to one that is "unwanted," this polarization becomes impossible. But at the moment, it reigns undaunted.)

6. PREPARATION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic, religious or other group identity. This stage began the day the Roe decision was announced, January 22, 1973. From that point onward, the baby in the womb of a mother who happens not to want it, was separated out due to group identity ("unwanted children"), and prepared for extermination.

7. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called "genocide." It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. If we ever once admit to ourselves as a society that the unborn (all of them, whether wanted or unwanted) are human beings, then abortion will be viewed as the American Holocaust and its defenders will be as few as Neo-Nazis. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust; 49 million Americans have been killed by abortion. No one in his right mind can conclude that abortion has not become "mass killing."

8. DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. As we remain in this final stage of genocide, "Denial," we can be absolutely certain that "further genocidal massacres" are in our foreseeable future as a Nation. Any study of Hitler's Holocaust quickly uncovers the fact that his first victims of eugenic exterminations were not the Jews. His first victims were the incurables, the handicapped and the insane.

Boomers are Next

I predict that the next American genocide will be the elderly, large swaths of the 79,000,000 Boomer generation. By sheer numbers, and in an economy that threatens long-term scarcity, these Boomers stand to be the next big losers in our increasingly utilitarian morality.

As any student of genocide can predict, once the innate and inviolable value of any group of human beings is rendered less than the value of others, then extermination (once all utility has been garnered from the group) is the natural inclination of human beings. And as long as we continue in the state of denial, then any group can become a target.

Roe, at 36 years old today, is only the beginning -- the mere sprout of the onion in the killing fields that America has become. Until we decide to change course, then every one of us is fodder for someone's genocide.

And no amount of rationalization or moral relativity or verbal contortionism can alter that immutable fact.

Roe's thriving at 36 threatens the very existence of our Republic. No Nation can survive a blatant disregard for God's simple, ancient dictum: Thou shalt not murder.

To paraphrase Immanuel Kant, "Murder is not abominable because God prohibits it; God prohibits it because it is abominable. Mass murder -- genocide -- is not only abominable; it is cultural suicide.

I disagree with her statements about the baby boomers, but everything else has a ring of truth.
 
I am aiming for the discussion to be about the article and the interesting points it makes, rather than on President Obama's policies.
 
I disagree with her statements about the baby boomers, but everything else has a ring of truth.

I'm curious to hear your reasoning. In the article, it states:

Any study of Hitler's Holocaust quickly uncovers the fact that his first victims of eugenic exterminations were not the Jews. His first victims were the incurables, the handicapped and the insane.

It does stand to reason that any group that is not marketed as a valuable member of society can become the next group for extermination. Whether it be a racial bias, gender bias, age bias, IQ bias.... the argument is logically sound and historically accurate.

Genocide doesn't stop because the original group is gone - it merely shifts focus onto the next group of socially undesirables. Review any group that commits genocide, and you'll see that's true. Germans v Jews. Sunni v Shi'ite, Any number of Native American tribes... it's all the same.

Basically genocide boils down to this: "If you're not what I deem valuable, you're worthless and need to be exterminated. You're a dredge to society." Never mind the fact that someone else thinks that you might be less than desirable.

But that's where we, as Christians, need to get our acts together. God loves each and every one of us. And not just us: the saved; but us: humans. Born and unborn; young and old; white, black, yellow, green, and orange. God loves us all.

Cain murdered Able because of his perception that Abel was standing between him and a good life. Is murdering helpless children for the sake of convenience really that different? And once you numb yourself to murdering children, what's to stop you from murdering the elderly?
 
I agree with Durruck. Once society has accepted that it is okay to kill of babies (or any subset group of the population) on the excuse of convenience then it becomes much easier to rationalize the extermination of any group, including boomers. Boomers will become a financial and time consuming drain on society as they take up welfare checks (pension in Canada) and peoples time and resources to take care off, the excuses may come fast and furious. While I hate to predict it and would hope that it not come to it, I certainly would not be suprised to see it come to pass.
 
I thought murdering the elderly was one of the supporting reasons for pushing assisted suicide already. I've also heard a couple things that aren't mentioned in that article but that are relative to it.

1. The collapse of social security with people living longer yet having fewer people to pay into it.

2. That the abortion demographic is disproportionate to race. It was something like 15% of the population is African American yet they account for 35% of all abortions (don't quote me on the numbers but you get the idea).
 
I don't buy it. Especially this part:
Today, nearly 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in fully state-sanctioned, and some would say, "encouraged," abortion.
She cites no sources and she doesn't even try to explain why some people get abortions other than just to kill babies.

I do believe that abortions should never be used as a form of birth control and there should be some limits to them. But some births are very complicated, some even resulting in the mother dieing. Should the be totally illegal and impossible to get? No.

This report's attitude reminds me of the interview with Sarah Palin when a reporter asked her "What if a girl had been raped by her father?" Palin said she would council them to have the baby. That is absurd.

Sorry. I completely disagree.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with abortion but that is really irrelevant. The question is this article successful. I would think it depends. If the article is targeted at people who already believe abortion is wrong then it probably is good at being a ra ra look how morally superior we are. If it is targeted at actually changing people who agree with abortion or are indifference then I find it fairly lacking. The article cites very little evidence of any sort and instead aims to force people to agree by linking abortion to two of the most abhorrent acts in history. My concern is not so much that I think abortion is good (I do not) but whether these types of messages are actually successful, which I dont think they are. Indeed using the principal of inoculation, where a emotional and heated yet weak arguments can actually harden people against the speakers position, I think that articles can actually do more bad than good.

I know people are going to respond by saying that the ends do not justify the means and that we should not compromise our beliefs for anyone. Fair enough but I think at some point people need to ask whether there methods are successful or not and whether there is another way to not compromise my belief but at the same time be more successful.

AS a final point I notice that the author uses a slippery slope argument. I am not a fan of this as a measure of what is right or wrong as i don't think it is a real ethical position and is far to reactive rather than proactive. While it can lead to good, if we allow this reasonably accepted thing it may lead to other sorts of horrible acts. However, the same position can also be used to withhold rights from disadvantaged people, reduce the opportunities to rationally debate a ethical dilemma, and be used as a tool to maintain the status quo without ever debating whether the status quo is acceptable or right.
There are several other ways in which we base or ethics:
1. Doing what is best for the most amount of people - Utilitarian.
2. Ensuring everybody gets an equal chance at good things in life - distributive.
3. Everybody is born with certain rights and everybody should have those rights supported regardless - individual rights movement (probably the most recent ethical position).

I think relatively good evidence based arguments can be made around these ideas without resulting to metaphor fulled, evidence devoid, and fear inducing arguments that lack any compasion for people who do not believe as they do.

As a final point I would note that this article uses fear and coercion to get people to believe as they do. i.e. if you dont agree with me you are supporting genocide and slavery and if you dont agree with me and do something about it you might be next on the chopping block - where evidence or rational logic really can not support such positions. I dont think these tactics are justified no matter how important the issue. Indeed it makes me mad because these articles actually make it harder for people who are actually trying to make a meaningful impact on issues that are extremely important such as gaining support for a ban on abortion.
 
Last edited:
Taking personal feelings and putting them aside, putting your position on the debate and putting it aside. I think it is interesting the line drawn between the arguement for abortion (that is a fetus does not meet the definition of life until it is born into the world and takes its first breath) and how many subset groups of the population are as dependant on others for their own survival.

She may use the slippery slope arguement but the reality is, the arguements and lines are being drawn and fought in our court systems today. Just recently in Saskatchewan Canada, Robert Latimer was sentenced to jail for murdering his daughter who had cerebral palsy. A 1999 poll around this incedent showed that 41% of Canadians support mercy killing. Is it really that big of a step from 41% of the population supporting something to it becoming law? I don't think the "slippery slope" arguement gets a fair rap simply because, that is just the way it goes. Robert used the compassionate arguement in that his daughter was suffering and that in her death, she would no longer suffer. Does that not immediatly, nevermind slippery slope arguement - immediately, devalue the life of a person who is handicapped?

Mercy killings of disabled children next? I say yes, that is what we will see next. I do not support it, I am against it. Disabled adults and the eldery will definatly be the next on the radar. What started it? A well intended society seperating itself from Gods council. That started a long time ago, long before the abortion debate. Abortion is really only one recent development of society saying to God we can do it on our own and don't need you.
 
I think the slippery slope argument is inappropriate because it circumvents real debate. One does not have to argue for the merits of their beliefs about various moral issues if one can create fear that support of one position will lead to disaster for all. Indeed in some ways it appeals to what is most base in us in that it aims to motivate us to action on the basis on what it might mean for us as we get older rather than motivating us by really thinking what is right and wrong.

What I am suggesting is that the issue of abortion should be fought of the basis of rational and logical arguments about the issue at hand. This may include producing evidence and rational argument about were abortion may lead to but the author of the essay which is the basis of this thread does not do that. They simply assume with little attempt at constructing a reasonable argument. What is the problem of using the slippery slope? Well it may be successful in motivating indifferent individuals in good causes but it can also be used with similar force to the determent of powerless individuals. This can range from the relatively serious (i.e. if you relax free trade requirements with Africa who knows where it might end up) to the down right frightening (e.g. if we allow x-group of people to live, produce children, etc who knows where it might end up).

In relation to disabled children I agree that this issue is relevant. I have a nephew who is now 11 and has down syndrome. Every doctor bar one demanded that my sister abort him due to her illness (type of cancer) except for one. This sort of thinking and testing for disability at a legally abortable age has lead to the increasing lack of down syndrome children in the wester world. I love my nephew and he is one of the lights of my life and I think a world without people like him would be a less loving and enjoyable place. Thus I want arguments against abortion to work and thus I am arguing here against the type of argument used not the message itself.

In closing I think that even if people win their argument against abortion using such methods (which I think is unlikely) I think they may find it has unexpected consequences. i.e. it makes followers of their argument more likely to fall for similar tactics in the future and maybe for a not for a similarly good cause. Likewise, Peracles (dont know how to spell his name but he was a ancient Greek politition) said you should never win a fight in a way that means your enemies may never become your friends. I worry that the tactics in the article above do more to distance others to the detriment of our efforts in other equally important areas. I suppose I am saying that using these tactics may win the battle (though I highly doubt it) but they make every subsequent battle all the more difficult. I think as Christians we should not only take a moral and ethical approach to the issues we argue about but also in the way we argue and that includes using tactics that are not only ethical but defensible and lead to closer relationships with people with opposing views where possible rather than more estranged relationships.
 
Last edited:
Is it not the point of a positional essay to ask you where you draw the line? Is it also not part of our individual positions? Part (but not the whole) of why I believe X is because if we continue down that path I believe Y and Z will happen which I find deplorable? Not to get into a debate over what an essay is but are there not a multitude of classifcations of an essay including "cause and effect" essays which can include slippery slope arguements?

(It is funny, I hated my english lit classes yet I remember so much more from them then I do any other class. Maybe it was my extreme disdain for them that simply caused so much of that to be burned into my skull.)
 
Is it not the point of a positional essay to ask you where you draw the line? Is it also not part of our individual positions? Part (but not the whole) of why I believe X is because if we continue down that path I believe Y and Z will happen which I find deplorable? Not to get into a debate over what an essay is but are there not a multitude of classifcations of an essay including "cause and effect" essays which can include slippery slope arguements?

(It is funny, I hated my english lit classes yet I remember so much more from them then I do any other class. Maybe it was my extreme disdain for them that simply caused so much of that to be burned into my skull.)

No Im sweet with that but that is not a slippery slope arguement. I am a psychologist so my whole profession is based on y = mx + b. In other words if x happens then, within a range of error I can predict this will lead to y. The difference between this (and I include your comments above here) is that this is based on logical and evidence based conclusions. To clarify I have a problem with people that suggest we can not allow x because y might happen as a way of circumventing debate, coercing people through fear, and/or in place of any real attempt at presenting and defending evidence and/or logical conclusions. This is the problem I have with the essay. It is kind of like me saying that if you choose to drink alcohol you will become a drunkard and abusive. This is the slippery slope argument. In this type of argument there is either no evidence of the propostion put forward or pieces of evidence are twisted to fit, there is no attempt to outline the process by which this might happen (and thus no attempt to explore other important issues or other possible solutions - i.e. don't get drunk, if you have an addictive personality maybe you should avoid). In essence this type of argument is at best lazy and at worst aims to stifle discussion of the real issue or to convince people out of fear.
 
Last edited:
First off, I want to say that I will come back and fill in the scriptural references that I'll be using here and don't expect serious consideration of these ideas until this backup is given, but I can only be at the computer for short periods of time right now so I'll start here and edit in the support in stages.

***(Edit #3: Gotten a lot more done. Pretty much just have the books of Paul left to go through now.)***

My personal position is that no argument against abortion is going to be effective if it doesn't manage to 1) impute equal if not greater responsibility to the man who contributes to its occurrence instead of coming across as condemning just the woman, 2) not let idealism have a greater influence in our minds than scriptural reality, and 3) not lie and say a woman will be better off and more respected and cared for if she carries an illegitimate child to term instead of ending the pregnancy.

- Women were designed by God to be dependent emotionally and economically on men, either in the form of husband, family, or community. It is against God's design to assign to her a responsibility to naturally know how to protect and provide for herself. Labelling abortion solely as a willful act done for convenience is not right or helpful when just as many if not more times it is an act of unwillful desperation due to a lack of knowledge of God and His providence and mercy and care.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.

Deuteronomy 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

Ruth 3:1 Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Micah 2:9 The women of my people have ye cast out from their pleasant houses; from their children have ye taken away my glory forever.

John 12:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

- God does not impute guilt for sexual sin to a woman unless she has willfully sinned at a time when her husband, father, or community were doing their part to protect and support her, and if the church would start following suit it would have a much easier time reaching out to and gaining the trust of protector-less women so that they can learn about God and how He'll take care of them so they can break the cycle of sin they feel trapped in and perhaps never get to the point of having to consider abortion in the first place.

Hosea 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand will fall.

Genesis 19:6-8 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
-- then later --
Genesis 19:31-32 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father. (if you finish the chapter to conclusion you will note that while we all know this is a horrible thing and an action that will be condemned in other places as abominable and it did have bad consequences in that it was the origination of other peoples who conflicted with Israel, there is nothing here that shows any subsequent guilt or suffering brought onto the women for what they did during their own lifetime)

Genesis 22:20; 24 And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor; .... And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.
(even with men who were married some women were taken as wives but others were considered as inferior concubines, which seems like the equivalent of being a kept mistress which is something we would definitely consider as adultery in modern times. concubines were not in line with God's ideal for marriage, but children were still seen as legitimate, although in some cases contested against for inheritance rights, and the women were not said to be guilty of adultery, probably because she didn't have much choice in the matter)

Genesis 34:1-2 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. (a whole lot of unpleasantness follows in this chapter as a result of this, but nowhere is Dinah said to be guilty of adultery as you would think she should be. Shechem is said to be at fault in Gen 34:7 and 31 for his behavior, and beyond that it can also be said that it was not right that Dinah should have been out among the people of the land by herself without escort or protector when God had already given instruction that He didn't want this other people mingled with in the first place. it can also be noted that Jacob did not follow in his father's or grandfather's footsteps in trying to secure good spouses for any of his children, and some of his sons later end up doing things they shouldn't because of this as well)

Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, the Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it.... (Reuben alone bore the guilt for this as far as we know (Gen 49:4). Bilhah is not condemned even though it is not indicated she were in any way less in consent. although not specifically stated, it is probably reasonable to assume that if Leah was being denied equal treatment as a wife by Jacob, the two handmaids were probably even more so)

Genesis 38:11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house. [paraphrase of the rest of story] Judah withholds his son from Tamar so she can't fulfill bringing up children in her original husband's name. She hears of Judah going out into the fields one day and pretends to be a prostitute so he'll impregnate her. When she is found with child and accused of adultery she proves Judah the father. 38:26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

Deuteronomy 22:23-27 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: for he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

- Biblically speaking, abstinence education is a waste of time and resources. Even Paul didn't think abstinence was a realistic expectation of women under 60. Women's needs for men in their lives are too great even with the support of a good church, and all the moreso for those who do not yet have a trusting relationship with the Lord to lean on. Unless specifically enabled by God to do otherwise, a single woman will always seek a husband and without respect for and godly help in this regard she is at great risk of falling prey to lying men or covered-up sins to please a man, or turn to the feminist movement to try to eliminate her need for men.

Matthew 5:31-32 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:....

- Single mothers are usually treated worse by the church than women who have aborted, either directly by being looked down upon or not being able to escape being labelled by her past sin, or indirectly by conservative viciousness against public programs that assist women who don't have a husband properly taking care of them, and it's much easier for a woman who has aborted to one day be able to go into a church or talk to other Christians and get saved than a single mother, simply because it's easier for her to hide her guilt and sin from others long enough to hear about Jesus's love and forgiveness as opposed to feeling alienated, looked down upon, and attacked for having a consequence of sin that can't be hidden. So a woman who aborts is actually in a better position to eventually get saved than one who doesn't so long as attacks against single mothers continue to be sustained.

- Lastly, and maybe the most difficult to swallow but I think still scriptural nonetheless, it is not good to press the attack against abortion from the point of view of being crusader advocates for innocent children being brutally victimized by murderous parents. For one thing this causes us to fall way short of caring equally about the parents as we do the child, and secondly it's not in accordance with what the Bible has to say about unborn children. It is true that the Bible says we are known and fashioned by God in the womb from the time of conception, but it is also given that inherent sin is not imputed to a child until the time of its birth, and people in the Bible who were close to God actually felt the fate of a child who dies before birth is preferable to one who lives because it gets to go immediately to God without having to experience the pain this world brings. Now that is not to say that I deny abortion is wrong or a form of murder, and I certainly don't mean to suggest that it would actually be good to kill a child before birth so it can be saved in an automatic manner, but I do think that to be scripturally faithful we need to put aside our humanistic response to save all the children even at the expense of the parents and trust in God's word that He's taking care of the children so that we can keep about the business of reaching out to those who are here now and in danger of hell to help bring them to the Lord so that they can be healed and free of their bondage to sin so they can live in peace and productivity and hopefully never have to face such feelings of fear, loneliness, and desperation that leads to such terrible positions to be in ever again.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil....

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Job 15:14 What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 3:11-19 Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees receive me, or the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate palaces for themselves; or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants who never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; the hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.

Jeremiah 20:14-18 Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed. Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying, A man child is born unto thee, making him very glad. And let that man be as the cities which the Lord overthrew, and repented not: and let him hear the cry in the morning, and the shouting at noontide; Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me. Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed with shame?

As said above, I don't expect any of this to be taken seriously until I can get all the scriptural references cited, and I will work on getting those looked up and edited in, probably a few at a time here and there as my current health permits, but I will make it a priority to get that done asap.

~ Taigris
 
Last edited:
I cant speak of the scriptures until see them and read them in context and I can't say I agree with everything written (I think the place of women is more culturally set than set by God and think there is biblical evidence to support this but that is an inevitable consequence of having a feminist theologian as a parent :eek: ) but you definitely bring up a lot of good points. I particularly like your opening comments about the responsibility we all share in improving this situation.

My personal position is that no argument against abortion is going to be effective if it doesn't manage to 1) impute equal if not greater responsibility to the man who contributes to its occurrence instead of coming across as condemning just the woman, 2) not let idealism have a greater influence in our minds than scriptural reality, and 3) not lie and say a woman will be better off and more respected and cared for if she carries an illegitimate child to term instead of ending the pregnancy

Random Musings: I also note that abortion is not a new phenomena per say as cultures have for thousands of years abandoned babies that were either the 'wrong type' or 'not normal' to die. I wonder if there is any insight into how this was approached by early Christians and whether anything can be learned how the issue has been approached over the years.
 
Last edited:
This report's attitude reminds me of the interview with Sarah Palin when a reporter asked her "What if a girl had been raped by her father?" Palin said she would council them to have the baby. That is absurd.

Sorry. I completely disagree.

I don't understand :/? Would you kill the child then if it had already been born? The simplest way to put my stance against abortion is that the only difference between killing an unborn child and a born one you can't separate one from the mother. Just because you can't do that it is no justification for murder. Abortion is like being in the desert alone with a born child, it's wholly dependent on you to get out alive but you leave it there because it's easier for you to live if you don't have it. I would not kill a baby so I may live much less kill one for convenience. It's a shame that a few women are raped taking away their choice but saying it's ok to commit another sin to cancel the first is not a solution. Look at it this way if you had been physical injured in an assault and the doctors could not heal you for 9 months without murdering another person for their organs you'd just have to put up with it.

I realize it's hard for some people to relate unborn children to born ones but the Bible clearly thinks of them as so. Furthermore the real crux of the matter that politicians will never cover is what makes a human being a human being. If you equate it to any physical aspect alone you open yourself up to one person being better than another based on that aspect. "I am smarter, stronger, prettier, etc. so I should be valued more" sound familiar because it's the same argument the Nazi's and many others have used through history. The real quality that should define a human is the fact they are all endowed with a soul/spirit having been made in the image of God. This quality by it's nature cannot be measured (because if you could measure it you could tamper with it) thus one must assume you have it from the earliest possible point. Because humans are defined spiritually it will never be addressed by politicians and we will always have problems.
 
I cant speak of the scriptures until see them and read them in context and I can't say I agree with everything written (I think the place of women is more culturally set than set by God and think there is biblical evidence to support this but that is an inevitable consequence of having a feminist theologian as a parent :eek: ) but you definitely bring up a lot of good points. I particularly like your opening comments about the responsibility we all share in improving this situation.

Thanks, I am trying to get the scriptures up as fast as I can, but there's a lot of them from several different places and I tend to remember verses by words rather than numbers so they take time for me to look up and I want to be sure to get them right.

I can say though that I don't think I have anything to post about the place of women, just the inherent nature of them based on scripture and many personal stories I've seen from Christian women's sites over the years. Based on Proverbs 30:15-16 which states the barren womb as being one of four things that can never be satisfied, I find it hard to accept the argument that the majority of women are capable of willfully and casually giving up the fruit of their womb without some greater evil at work making them feel forced to do so.

Personally I would like to see it illegalized, because I do think it is the same as murdering a child after it is already born and God has said there will be an accounting for all human blood shed by either man or beast, but I also want to see it done for the sake of affected women, not just in defiance of them, because honestly I think most of it happens because of coercion by family or relationship partner or government programs or the threat of being faced with homelessness or economic incapability rather than by a true free will choice.

While there are exceptions (Proverbs makes some good examples of truly bad women), I do believe that most women will naturally fight tooth and nail and accept nearly any kind of sacrifice or indignity for the sake of their children, born or unborn, but many are oppressed so badly by dominating people or situations that without knowledge or understanding that they have a loving God to stand with them they just don't have the strength to do so, and attacking them exclusively won't help and may make things worse.

~ Taigris
 
Last edited:
Person "A", the father, rapes daughter "B". Palin said she would council daughter "B" to have the child and not abort it.

I understood the she was raped by her father I just didn't understand your objection to having the child. Yes I realize having the child may induce more trauma to the mother but having to live with murdering a child later on may do the same. I also realize the child may have health problems but then there are other unborn children with health problems as well so how it got the health problems is irrelevant. I don't know I just feel like we are missing each others points of view :/ . Saying it's ok to kill the child because it's inbred is like saying there are people so far gone who can't be saved by truly accepting Jesus Christ. So you know I like you fine Odale, I've just seen some Christians with your views and I still don't get them :( .

As a final point I would note that this article uses fear and coercion to get people to believe as they do. i.e. if you don't agree with me you are supporting genocide and slavery and if you don't agree with me and do something about it you might be next on the chopping block - where evidence or rational logic really can not support such positions. I don't think these tactics are justified no matter how important the issue. Indeed it makes me mad because these articles actually make it harder for people who are actually trying to make a meaningful impact on issues that are extremely important such as gaining support for a ban on abortion.

It's not using fear if it's the truth -_-. It's like renaming the "Jewish Holocaust" the "Jewish loss of life during the war" because the first term sounded too harsh. It sounds bad because it acquired the connotations from the act. If that term starts to sound bad are you going to keep changing it until it loses the bad association completely? You aren't going to get the point across that it is bad then so what's the point? Why not just affirm to people that abortion is just a bad habit like biting your nails? :p In a murder case do you change the term to life dis-continuance and be more and more vague until the idea is lost completely? For me calling abortion murder to shock people has nothing to do with it, I call it that because that's what it is. People don't want to listen to anything they may be doing wrong no matter how you phrase it but they have to hear it or they can't change. Yes many shirk away (even before you even say I'm pro-lif... and they are trying to get away) but this is not however what a Christian should do. As Christians we should be trying to do better, to seek out our faults (at least I try too) and hold each other accountable in fellowship. Yes we should use some tact but we can't dilute the truth either or people aren't going to get the idea a horrible act is horrible. Also while I'd much prefer a true belief how many things are not done purely because it is seen as socially unacceptable (I guess you are against all those shocking, fear inducing, ads against smoking).


No I'm sweet with that but that is not a slippery slope argument. I am a psychologist so my whole profession is based on y = mx + b. In other words if x happens then, within a range of error I can predict this will lead to y. The difference between this (and I include your comments above here) is that this is based on logical and evidence based conclusions. To clarify I have a problem with people that suggest we can not allow x because y might happen as a way of circumventing debate, coercing people through fear, and/or in place of any real attempt at presenting and defending evidence and/or logical conclusions. This is the problem I have with the essay. It is kind of like me saying that if you choose to drink alcohol you will become a drunkard and abusive. This is the slippery slope argument. In this type of argument there is either no evidence of the proposition put forward or pieces of evidence are twisted to fit, there is no attempt to outline the process by which this might happen (and thus no attempt to explore other important issues or other possible solutions - i.e. don't get drunk, if you have an addictive personality maybe you should avoid). In essence this type of argument is at best lazy and at worst aims to stifle discussion of the real issue or to convince people out of fear.

The problem with this argument is abortion is already being used as a sin, drinking by itself is not (the only possible non-sinful use of abortion is if both the mother and child will die without it). Sin begets more sin so you have to go deeper because it will never for fill you or solve problems without creating more. In the case of drinking alcohol it is not a sin it's being drunk that is a sin. Yes defining the exact line when you've had enough is tricky and varies with people's physical constitution but it does exist. I do admit better ties to the patterns of behavior could have been made in the article but then that's a very long subject. It is a misguided, humanistic belief that we have somehow evolved beyond the sinful patterns of the past yet it is very prevalent today. There is nothing new under the sun.

BTW before WWII America was very reluctant to get into the war. The main thing that shifted public option was the belief we were next not the idea of protecting others. Stories like Germans arming civilian planes in South America shifted opinion towards the war with Pearl Harbor making it certain. Then there things like 9/11. Repeatedly though history we don't want to get involved in the middle east and it comes back to bite us, then we get involved, but it's not our problem when other people are at stake. My point is a simple one, people are selfish and do not want to give up something they want until it directly threatens them but because sin is an ever growing corruption it always will. The parallels in basic motivation and outcomes are there so I understand the article.

Mercy killings of disabled children next? I say yes, that is what we will see next.

They already do this in a European country (Oi I am too tired to look it up now but I named it and a source in one of my old posts search them if you really want to know) . The just of it was if a born child was deemed by doctors to lead a life full of physical pain they could legally murder it. It's rarely used so far from my understanding but it is there.

I'd like to post more but I'm going to have to stop (I apologize as I already haven't read all the posts here and may have missed some important points :/ ). Every time I get involved in one of these threads it takes forever (as in 12 hours of putting together one post once, I kid not I timed it) and I am already exhausted and with a full schedule (...ok and I am guilty, I want to play L4D too because Rev Rog just bought it for me :p ).
 
Last edited:
Another consideration for the structure of the argument (and not that it's a slippery slope) is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Read up on it. There are countless websites dedicated to reviewing and giving you the information about it...and even which politicians support it.

We've become so complacent about abortion that the US government is trying to stomp all over our rights and force us to participate in them. Your tax dollars will support forcing health care workers to perform abortions.

Currently, doctors and nurses can refuse to take part in any form of abortion - even pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for the "morning after pill." Under FOCA, that would change and even those that don't believe in abortion are forced to participate. Whose rights are being violated then?

During the American Civil War, it is estimated that around 700,000 Americans died. In Iraq, 4236 Americans died. In Afghanistan, 642 Americans have died. In WWII 418,500 Americans died. In the 9/11 Attacks, 2,974 Americans died. Korean War - 428,000. Vietnam War - 58,159. In 160 years of war and terrorism, 1.61 million people have died. Let's call it 2,000,000 total to include ALL the wars I didn't list. 12,500 per year, on the average.

Since 1963, over 49,000,000 Americans have died to abortion. That's only 45 years - nearly 1,100,000 Americans per year.

Now let's add Canadians. And British. And Russian. And Chinese.

It may be a slippery slope argument, but it's still a fact. When a country becomes so complacent with murdering unborn (yet still alive) children for convenience, it starts making rules to force doctors to do it. And look at the numbers alone. War has been waged on those that depend on us for life.

Gods_Peon said:
She may use the slippery slope arguement but the reality is, the arguements and lines are being drawn and fought in our court systems today. Just recently in Saskatchewan Canada, Robert Latimer was sentenced to jail for murdering his daughter who had cerebral palsy. A 1999 poll around this incedent showed that 41% of Canadians support mercy killing. Is it really that big of a step from 41% of the population supporting something to it becoming law? I don't think the "slippery slope" arguement gets a fair rap simply because, that is just the way it goes. Robert used the compassionate arguement in that his daughter was suffering and that in her death, she would no longer suffer. Does that not immediatly, nevermind slippery slope arguement - immediately, devalue the life of a person who is handicapped?

I agree with GP. "Slippery slope" or not, it's already happening and supported by a large number of a given population. When you become so complacent with a sin, you find new ways to endulge it. Addictions work the same way. When marijuana isn't enough anymore, you move on to something harder. Pornography, alcohol, compulsive lying, cheating, stealing - they all start out as small "innocent" acts.. but the longer we do them, the more brazen we become. 20 years ago, Euthanasia (assisted suicide of the elderly) was abhored. But Jack Kevorkian made it so commonplace that it's socially acceptable now. In many states, attempting suicide is something that can actually get you arrested and placed into protective medical custody. Unless you're doing it because you're old? How does that make sense?

So the question stands: Who will we decide it's okay to murder next?

PPar said:
As a final point I would note that this article uses fear and coercion to get people to believe as they do. i.e. if you dont agree with me you are supporting genocide and slavery

I disagree. The author clearly states the defining terms of genocide, and shows how abortion meets the criteria. Relating it to the Nazi slaughter of 12,000,000 just puts it into terms we can understand. So few people are educated about Darfur or Tibet that making that correlation would waste the potential impact. When you're trying to make a point, don't you usually use the device that will deliver the most devastating impact that you can find? If not, you might as well use the Salem Witch Trials, Waco, or Columbine for evidence of genocide. How about the fact that the US executed 83 prisoners in 2000?

Genocide and Slavery are two pretty big crimes against humanity. Equating elective abortions for convenience to them really isn't such a big stretch.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top