Forced Birth

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I heard the statement from someone who was disgusted that maybe next year there will be states that will have forced births.

Forced births.

Do they not see what the women are giving birth to? BABIES.

What is the alternative to giving birth to a baby? Killing a baby.

I just can't understand how people don't see this obvious thing.
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think we have an issue of irresponsible persons wanting to be affirmed for being so.

Intercourse is an ADULT activity. It requires RESPONSIBILITY. There IS a choice - a critical and important choice - that happens. But it happens in the bedroom, at intercourse. I suspect that everyone capable of reproduction knows that intercourse could result in a BABY - a human life. I just don't 'buy' that one-third of adults don't know that.

SO, if you don't want a baby, you now have two choices:

1. Don't have intercourse. While St. Mary might challenge this, generally speaking, if there's no sex there's no baby.

2. Use effective birth control - RESPONSIBLY. While a human life could still result, it's very rare. So, if the couple CHOOSES to have sex, they should at least do so with some responsibility.

Seems to me, people want to act like rabbits ... and then punish the baby when their sex does what it does.



.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As slavery was the huge moral/political issue for some 200 years in the USA, abortion has become such in our time.

I'm solidly pro-life. It is my top issue in voting and it is a moral position about which I'm passionate. There ARE areas were I "give" a bit (in case of rape, if continuing clearly threatens the physical life of the mother) but I'm pretty solidly pro-life. I "inherited" this, I suspect, from my parents great respect for life that they instilled in me, their great emphasis on protecting the weak, and from my Catholic upbringing. My parents - one a diehard "bleeding heart" liberal, the other a ditto head conservative - both are strongly pro life (although obviously my mom votes contrary to her convictions on this point). As a teen, as a part of my schooling, I volunteered at a Birth Choice center (an amazing experience that had a profound impact on me) and I still contribute generously to some of these organizations.



My primary reasons are two:


1. Human rights. My sister (who has a Ph.D. in biology and does biological research as her vocation) has stressed to me that biologically, it is absurd to argue that the pre-born baby is not a human. She stresses that nothing happens to the DNA as the last bit of the toes exits the birth canal: in terms of species, what is AFTER the exit of the last toe is no different that what was before the crown of the baby's head began appearing outside that canal. While precise definitions of what is and is not "life" and is and is not "human" are not as precise as we'd all like, however we BIOLOGICALLY define such, birth has nothing to do with it. I believe that all humans are endowed with inalienable HUMAN rights simply as a function of they being HUMAN - and chief among these is life (the ONLY right that ultimately matters..... take that away and no other "right" matters at all, applies at all). Now, we can have discussions of self defense, just war, even capitol punishment (and I have related opinions there) but these are all extreme cases usually related to some guilt or physical threat presented by the one permitted to be murdered, and there seems to be consensus that HUMANS are being murdered in these cases. I think we purposely evade this by insisting that the unborn baby is not 100% a "PERSON" ( an argument taken hook, line and sinker from the pro-slavery position where Blacks were 2/3's a person) or when we people talk about the baby as a parasite or fully dependent - all that simply evades the issue that here is a HUMAN - the same species as we. IF we can deprive a whole class, an entire category of living HUMANS - regardless of their guilt or bad behavior or physical threat - deprive them without any due process - deprive them of the most important, most fundamental, most necessary of all HUMAN rights - life - then the most gross injustice has been made and all other innocent humans are threated and weakened.


2. Defending the Weak. The Bible says we are to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, we are to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we are to be caretakers of the weak. Men - in particular - have often identified themselves strongly with this defender and providing role..... women - in particular - have seen motherhood as one of providing and defending role. We can see some of this even among animals. I reject the premise that those with political power may THEREFORE, as a FUNCTION of that power, trample on the rights, the humanity, the life of those less powerful or less independent simply as a function of their superior power to do so. One does not have some "right" to choose to murder simply because one has the political power to do it with impunity, to get away with it because other powerful ones will allow it. Remember what the powerful did in the perservation 0f slavery, in their "pro choice" political point that gave NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER to the one impacted: the Black man/woman. We must not fall to the morality that whatever those with sufficient power do to others is "moral" simply because they have the power to do it - and get away with it. Power does not equal moral. Indeed, it is a sad consequence of sin that the weak, the less-powerful are often trampled on by the more-powerful - and thus NEED our protection, our voice, our intervention. I realize this point makes a few women very uncomfortable.... since nearly the beginning of time, THEY were often the victims of this.... THEY were the weak, the helpless, the powerless and thus the victims of horrible things. Fortunately, very very recently, they have gained some power as the powerful (that's us white, middle class, property owning MEN) granted such. But IMO, because of that history, they ABOVE ALL, should be the MOST pro-life, the MOST sensitive to standing up for those with less power against those with more, they should be the LEAST 'pro-choice' (the powerful choose.... the powerless suffer). And indeed, I think women ARE a bit less "pro-choice" than men (although it's pretty close). We need laws, etc. to protect the weak from the strong, to permit civilization (so that it's not the animal "survival of the fittest", the prevailing of the more powerful over the less so).


Now, I realize...... there are enormous human, personal issues here. I realize discovering one is now the mother of a baby can be unplanned, unwelcomed - and a genuine crisis. And while most sex is consensual (and thus all know a baby can result), it's not always. And I realize that motherhood (before and after birth) has ENORMOUS implications - physically, socially, emotionally; indeed in every way possible - and that can be very difficult. Parenthood (mother and father) are perhaps the biggest and most difficult roles humans ever have. I don't gloss over that. I realize, too, that pregnancy and giving birth can be physically dangerous and are enormous physical efforts (and that - technically, that baby is a "parasite" - a LOT of parents will say that parasite continues for at least 20 years! Maybe a lot longer, lol, not to minimize the reality here). I'm not at all unmoved by those realities. And as I mentioned, I'm at least open to discussions when the baby is a real threat to the physical life of the other and perhaps also in cases of rape and incest. But, the simple reality is: sex tends to eventually result in a baby - and all (over the age of 8 at least - know that), all that is part of the responsibility to which we must rise. AND (most importantly), it means that we - as family and as society - need to "be there" for mothers (and fathers) struggling. IMO, we have far, far too much sense of abandoning parents. We need to "be there" as family, friends, community - emotionally, medically and physically (this is what motivated me so strongly in my years working with abortion alternative centers).

While I do not believe governments' role is religious or even primarily moralistic, it IS in part about protecting the weak, the defenseless, the voiceless (especially those who can't vote - meaning looking for human rather than civil or political rights). Just as I strongly rebuke all those years when the government of the USA lacked the guts, the civility to end slavery, so - for identical reasons - I rebuke the USA government today for lacking the guts and civility to end abortion-on-demand. This is the # 1 voting issue for me; I cannot and will not vote for any who is not clearly pro-life when they are in positions to impact that. And while I think it may take 200 years again (but hopefully not bloody war!), someday we will look upon this ugliness in the same way as we now look back upon slavery (or racism or sexism).





.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I heard the statement from someone who was disgusted that maybe next year there will be states that will have forced births.

Forced births.

Do they not see what the women are giving birth to? BABIES.

What is the alternative to giving birth to a baby? Killing a baby.

I just can't understand how people don't see this obvious thing.
I have the feeling that they DO see it, but since killing your child because he or she is inconvenient does not go over well in public debate, the refuge is to use some contrived term that disguises the facts and also sounds almost...high minded.

We already have a bunch of them. "the 'right' [sic] of a woman to control her own body," for example.

Or, "pro choice." Ordinary murderers, rapists, and pickpockets cannot get away with saying that they were just exercising their right to choose what to do, but abortion proponents can.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Or, "pro choice." Ordinary murders, rapists, and pickpockets cannot get away with saying that they were just exercising their right to choose what to do, but abortion proponents can.


Exactly!

"Pro-choice" (a term invented by the pro-slavery people in the slavery debate in the US) is simply a way to evade the issue (knowing it's an issue they can't win). Having lost the "African's aren't human" argument, they re framed the whole discussion as "This is a very difficult and very private matter - owning slaves.... and each person needs to be respected and empowered to make the choice for themselves."

"Pro-choice" is also a contradiction. Because the one most impacted by the choice is entirely, wholly, completely stripped if ANY choice. Do the pro-choice folks think the baby should be given a choice in this matter? Obviously not! No more than the slave owner wanted to give the slave the choice. It's actually a POWER statement: The one with the POLITICAL POWER gets the choice - even over the one with less. They don't mean "pro-choice" they mean "no choice to the less powerful."

And as Abion well points out, this view means that the rapist should have a choice.... the child molester should have a choice.... people should have a choice if they want to own a bomb.... beat their wife.... get the Covid shot (lol).

Now, as I noted above, I'm GENERALLY for people having some "right" over their own body (to a limit). If one wants to get a tatoo, I'm okay with that (well, adults anyway). But killing one's baby has nothing to do with one's own body (they aren't choosing suicide) anymore than the rapist's choice has to do with his own body.

... and have you noted, this crowd chooses to not finish the sentence. They say "I believe a woman has the right to choose." CHOOSE WHAT? They never say. Why? Because that's an argument they can't win...... few think killing an innocent, defenseless child is something to support. Choosing - that's a good thing. Killing innocent children - not so much.



- Josiah



.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think the key issue is responsibility for the consequences of decisions. As has been said above, it's unlikely that very many people who are physically capable of becoming a parent don't know how reproduction works. So if you consent to sex you consent to a process that might make a baby, even if you sincerely hope no babies are actually made as a result of any specific horizontal activity.

In this day and age it's seen as frightfully unfair that dad gets to walk away and mum gets stuck with the results but it's not as if any part of that is a secret either. That's how biology works, whatever the ultra-woke brigade would like to say about gender identity. The mother (the one with the womb) carries the results until birth. If anything that should give women pause before jumping into bed with someone, but apparently it's all so frightfully unfair that it has to be corrected.

Yes, there are exceptions. Someone who never consented to the sex clearly didn't consent to the possibility of pregnancy either - this would cover issues relating to rape, abuse of a woman who is physically mature but mentally incapable of understanding what sex is about and the like. There are also situations where continuing with the pregnancy would have a high probability of killing the mother - these tend to be particularly thorny because they are so often situations where the baby is very much wanted. The thing is that exceptions are just that - they aren't the norm.

It's pretty pathetic of men to sow their wild oats and then try to evade responsibiity for the results but the biological reality is that a man who has a one-night stand may not even know he's going to be a father and, assuming both parties consented to the one-night stand, the woman consented to a situation where the man could (and probably would) just walk out of her life and the consequences of their dalliance. If she didn't even know who he was she set herself up for a difficult situation, but then expects to be able to just hit the reset button without consequence

It seems to me the biggest beneficiary of the abortion industry is men who have an easier job of enticing women into bed based on the option to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I heard the statement from someone who was disgusted that maybe next year there will be states that will have forced births.

Forced births.

Do they not see what the women are giving birth to? BABIES.

What is the alternative to giving birth to a baby? Killing a baby.

I just can't understand how people don't see this obvious thin
But before birth they aren't babies. Trying to treat them as such is going to cause all kinds of problems. Something like half of pregnancies don't produce a living baby. Sometimes it's a visible miscarriage. Sometimes it happens early enough that it's not visible. If we treat all of those as full humans, we need a coroner to investigate every one of them. They simply aren't babies and propagandistic of language can't make them such.

It's also a theological problem. We are made in the image of God. What is that image? Since God has no body, it can't be our bodies. It's things like intelligence and love. Those can't exist until there's a working prefrontal cortex, which is about the beginning of the third trimester. Animals have hearts. But they are no in the image of God in the same sense that we are.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's also a theological problem. We are made in the image of God. What is that image? Since God has no body, it can't be our bodies. It's things like intelligence and love. Those can't exist until there's a working prefrontal cortex, which is about the beginning of the third trimester. Animals have hearts. But they are no in the image of God in the same sense that we are.


HEDRICK,


A few comments, if I may ....


1.
"Image of God" means a reflection.... it has nothing to do with appearance. Traditionally, it has been understood as meaning Adam and Eve were holy as is God... they "reflected" that quality (Gen. 1:27 with 1:31). OBVIOUSLY, they didn't "look" like God because God doesn't "look" like anything, God is not a physical being, a creation, a creature. God CAN appear in any form He chooses (such as a burning bush) but this is His choosing to make something visible, it's not how He "looks."

2. Traditionally, it is said that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God (See Genesis 1:27 and 31) Now see Genesis 5:3; were their children in the "image of God" or image of another?

3. Now, some speak of a secondary sense of this (usually called "similitude" rather than "image"), how we are SIMILAR in ways or have some relationship to God. See James 3:9. Some Fathers speak of our awareness of God Himself, the "emptiness" we sense without Him for example, (See Colossians 3:10 BUT ALSO 1 Cor. 2:14). Some Catholics and Orthodox still speak of this "similitude" with God (what you may be referring to) but this is really a different idea. Those who accept the Fall and accept "original sin" do not hold that WE are CONCEIVED in the Image of God (indeed, we hold that is restored ONLY by the blood of Christ and the mercy/forgiveness of God).



To the issue.....

The Hebrew word in the Commandment means to intentionally kill a human being.... From other verses, traditionally this has been understood as a defenseless, innocent human (since there seems to be biblical exemptions for self-defense and "just war" admittedly big and difficult issues). But this seems to have nothing to do with "image of God" or "souls" ..... the word refers to a species. It applied to non-Hebrews, it referred to the evil, it referred to women and children.... nothing about "to one with an IQ over X" or "to one who is able to love." I just know of nothing in the Bible or Tradition about it being okay to murder one with an IQ under a certain level or who hasn't illustrated an ability to love.

Again "image" has traditionally been seen as "holy." The characteristic that Adam and Eve "reflected" or shared with God. They were not eternal, omnipotient, omniiscient, or omnipresent ... they were without sin. But abortion isn't just about the murder of holy people... the Commandment is not "thou shalt not murder sinless people" it's Thou shall not murder (and that word applies to people, that species).


I gave my view to the question in post #4




.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
But before birth they aren't babies. Trying to treat them as such is going to cause all kinds of problems. Something like half of pregnancies don't produce a living baby. Sometimes it's a visible miscarriage. Sometimes it happens early enough that it's not visible. If we treat all of those as full humans, we need a coroner to investigate every one of them. They simply aren't babies and propagandistic of language can't make them such.

It's also a theological problem. We are made in the image of God. What is that image? Since God has no body, it can't be our bodies. It's things like intelligence and love. Those can't exist until there's a working prefrontal cortex, which is about the beginning of the third trimester. Animals have hearts. But they are no in the image of God in the same sense that we are.

Ah, the old strategic plan of de-humanizing the baby to make it seem like it's not as bad as it is.

John the Baptist leaped for joy while in his mother's womb when Mary, who was carrying Jesus came near.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
But before birth they aren't babies. Trying to treat them as such is going to cause all kinds of problems. Something like half of pregnancies don't produce a living baby. Sometimes it's a visible miscarriage. Sometimes it happens early enough that it's not visible. If we treat all of those as full humans, we need a coroner to investigate every one of them. They simply aren't babies and propagandistic of language can't make them such.

We don't need a coroner to investigate each and every miscarriage any more than we need a coroner to investigate each and every death currently.

There are questions to be raised about the point at which the thing in the womb becomes a human. As you say a number of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus and are flushed away by the woman's body as little more than biological waste, with nobody any the wiser. Does that count as a human or a bunch of cells? Likewise a miscarriage in the very early stages before the woman even knows she is pregnant is unlikely to even register as a miscarriage. On the other end of the scale it's silly to argue that there is any meaningful biological difference between a baby whose head is about to move through its mother's cervix and a baby who has just left the birth canal. Somewhere between the two the "bunch of cells" makes a transition from "not baby" to "baby".

Things get muddied because, biologically speaking, the zygote is genetically human.

Terms like "propagandistic of language" aren't necessarily helpful because presenting the unborn as little more than a clump of cells with no significance at all could be described using similar terms.

It's also a theological problem. We are made in the image of God. What is that image? Since God has no body, it can't be our bodies. It's things like intelligence and love. Those can't exist until there's a working prefrontal cortex, which is about the beginning of the third trimester. Animals have hearts. But they are no in the image of God in the same sense that we are.

On what do you base your assertion that "the image of God" means things like intelligence and love?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Emphasis mine...even God says that it's a baby in the womb!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Emphasis mine...even God says that it's a baby in the womb!


Yes, clearly GOD considers the unborn to be human....

But my question to those who doubt this is simple: At what point does the DNA of the unborn CHANGE to human? Say from cockroach or bunny rabbit or rattlesnake? Is there any scientific evidence that at the moment the last cell of the toe exits the birth canal, the DNA of the born CHANGES from some other specie to homo sapiens?



.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Emphasis mine...even God says that it's a baby in the womb!
Greek and English don't always make distinctions the same way. Louw and Nida say of the word "a very small child, even one still unborn—‘baby, infant, fetus."

incidentally, at that point Elizabeth is in her sixth month. I would consider abortion unethical except for rare medical situations.
 
Last edited:

Lucian Hodoboc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,343
Location
Eastern Europe
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Theist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I heard the statement from someone who was disgusted that maybe next year there will be states that will have forced births.

Forced births.

Do they not see what the women are giving birth to? BABIES.

What is the alternative to giving birth to a baby? Killing a baby.

I just can't understand how people don't see this obvious thing.
Unless God asks the souls, in advance, whether they want to be incarnated into bodies, all human births (with the exception of Jesus') are forced births.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Greek and English don't always make distinctions the same way. Louw and Nida say of the word "a very small child, even one still unborn—‘baby, infant, fetus."

incidentally, at that point Elizabeth is in her sixth month. I would consider abortion unethical except for rare medical situations.

And yet, the life that was in the womb showed a reaction to the Savior who was in His mother's womb.

Good thing Mary wasn't around in present day where it's become a big fight for women to choose to kill their babies because in her particular situation, it was devastating for her, an unwed mother and a virgin to be pregnant. In today's world, Satan would surely tempt Mary repeatedly to abort that child and tell her it was just a clump of cells and that it was better for her to not be inconvenienced by the pregnancy. He'd lie to her using the mouths of others to tell her she would be better off not being forced to have the baby. Right? Isn't that how today's thinking works, that the mother is better off killing the child?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Abortion is child sacrifice. It's sacrificing a child to avoid inconvenience or hardship. In the Old Testament there were people who sacrificed their children to false gods and today people "choose" to sacrifice their children for "self", turning self into a god of their own making and importance.
 
Top Bottom