Why Abortion Is Worst Than War And Capital Punishment

[Didymus]

I been thinkin...


It seems as though pro-lifers get criticized for being pro-death penalty and many also for being pro-war. Although a large portion may hold these views as well as being pro-life, especially the more Republican ones, we here on Phatmass know this definitely is not the case for all in the Culture of Life movement. For example, I don't think that capital punishment should ever be used in a country so advanced as the US, and yet I can be criticized by pro-aborts as they say "You pro-lifers claim to be all about life, but you support the death penalty!" Another example goes out to those who do not support the war. There are quite a few who are strong in the pro-life movement who do not support the war, and it is unfair to group all pro-lifers as individuals who do support it.

Not only is it a grave generalization and stereotyping of the Culture of Life, but topics such as War and Capital Punishment, in my own opinion, should not even be brought up when discussing the pro-life stance. I believe the issues of abortion and embryonic stem cell research are far more crucial topics than debating over war and capital punishment, and this is why:

Whether or not to utilize war and whether or not to have the death penalty available are what I like to call non-divided issues. There are of course two (at least) sides to the issue, but neither side views these options as a good thing. Even the greatest Generals in our nations history have admitted they hate war and that they themselves wish it didn't have to be. And with capital punishment as well, neither side views it as [i]good[/i], but one side views it as [i]necessary[/i]. Of course there might be a few crazys who actually want it, but those always turn out to be the demented individuals we don't want running the country anyways.

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research however, are what I call divided issues, because it is [i]here[/i] we see facets in our sick culture actually telling us it's okay to kill a child. They of course end up getting power because of the mass of folks who believe that abortion is a necessary evil, [i]but[/i] the leading edge preaches insistently that the fetus is not a human person and that we can do whatever we want because it's our bodies and it's not wrong to have an abortion. The same with stem-cell research. The bulk of those who support stem-cell research don't view the killing of the embryo as a 'necessary evil' because they don't see it as evil at all, since they don't believe that they are dealing with a human life.

This is why I believe we need to move our enemies to be sticking to the facts with regards to the pro-life issues, and not side track with issues such as capital punishment and whether or not certain wars are just, because pro-lifers are not unified on these, nor do they have to be, as long as they all view both of those issues as wrong in and of themselves. I don't care if I form a life chain downtown standing in between a pro-capital punishment individual and a pacifist, as long as we agree that the immorality and unethical practices of the culture of death must be stopped.

[jeffpugh]

So, I think this is a good thought process going on. But I gotta ask first, what do pro-choicers believe about the life in the womb, to put it broadly? What are the counters to such absurdity? I think that is a great place to dialogue first.

[jeffpugh]

So I've been talking with a friend about the reasons for abortion. I wanna know the cold hard facts to why a fetus should not be aborted despite "the fetus dwells in the woman's body" (some people even wrongly make the fetus seem like some sort of tumor opposed to a separate body) and basically that "the rights of the fetus should not overshadow the rights of the woman". And from my experience, some pro-choicers back up to the unreal scenario where "a woman is raped" and that they have to carry the traumatic memory of "the child of the abusive father". Okay. I say bring on the arguments here. (Btw, did I just hijack this thread?)

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1288815' date='Jun 5 2007, 09:51 PM']So I've been talking with a friend about the reasons for abortion. I wanna know the cold hard facts to why a fetus should not be aborted despite "the fetus dwells in the woman's body" (some people even wrongly make the fetus seem like some sort of tumor opposed to a separate body) and basically that "the rights of the fetus should not overshadow the rights of the woman". And from my experience, some pro-choicers back up to the unreal scenario where "a woman is raped" and that they have to carry the traumatic memory of "the child of the abusive father". Okay. I say bring on the arguments here. (Btw, did I just hijack this thread?)[/quote]

Can't give any reasons for abortion. Did you know my baby's heartbeat started 2 weeks ago? I'm only 7 weeks pregnant. It's so amazing! Sorry, I'm just happy to be pregnant (even with the nausea; can't live without the ginger biscuits right now) and keep sharing random things I learn. Um, so yeah, I think I just hijacked your hijack.

[jeffpugh]

That is awesome. It's good to hear some positive feedback about children. What a blessing

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1288824' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:14 PM']That is awesome. It's good to hear some positive feedback about children. What a blessing [/quote]

Thanks. Okay, time for bed. Or rather, to watch Star Trek Voyager.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1288815' date='Jun 5 2007, 04:51 PM']So I've been talking with a friend about the reasons for abortion. I wanna know the cold hard facts to why a fetus should not be aborted despite "the fetus dwells in the woman's body" (some people even wrongly make the fetus seem like some sort of tumor opposed to a separate body) and basically that "the rights of the fetus should not overshadow the rights of the woman". And from my experience, some pro-choicers back up to the unreal scenario where "a woman is raped" and that they have to carry the traumatic memory of "the child of the abusive father". Okay. I say bring on the arguments here. (Btw, did I just hijack this thread?)[/quote]

yeah, and i don't get why so many talk about the rights of the fetus not overshadowing the rights of the mother without first talking about the inherent and drastic difference between the right to reproduce as one pleases and the right to live and be born and have a life period.

and I've watched videos on youtube where they bring up the rape scenario, but when one really looks at it, rape abortion comprises a really small amount (i can't recall the stats) of abortions overall. Not to mention that there must be a significantly less chance of conceiving from rape due to the violent act it is. They like to bring up the whole sympathy side of it, which I do have for the victims, but that doesn't explain the many many abortions that take place year after year, and also the fact that rape or not, an unborn child is a child.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1288828' date='Jun 5 2007, 05:25 PM']Thanks. Okay, time for bed. Or rather, to watch Star Trek Voyager.[/quote]

i guess it is pretty late over there, lol.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1288830' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:25 PM']yeah, and i don't get why so many talk about the rights of the fetus not overshadowing the rights of the mother without first talking about the inherent and drastic difference between the right to reproduce as one pleases and the right to live and be born and have a life period.

and I've watched videos on youtube where they bring up the rape scenario, but when one really looks at it, rape abortion comprises a really small amount (i can't recall the stats) of abortions overall. Not to mention that there must be a significantly less chance of conceiving from rape due to the violent act it is. They like to bring up the whole sympathy side of it, which I do have for the victims, but that doesn't explain the many many abortions that take place year after year, and also the fact that rape or not, an unborn child is a child.[/quote]

Exactly. Don't really have anything to add - you said it very well.

[quote name='Didymus' post='1288832' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:26 PM']i guess it is pretty late over there, lol.[/quote]
It was only 10.30, but that's pretty late right now.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Being a father of a daughter, and someone that is pro-life 100% [even on the issue of Capital Punishment], I'd once talked with a Pro-Choice Christian [Protestant] and asked him about his pro-choice stance... here's what he used in the Bible to justify it.

In the Old Testament it says that if you kill someone, you're put to death but it says in Exodus 21:22-25 [and please forgive the NIV translation, I normally would quote from my New Jerusalem Version, Catholic Bible but I'm feeling lazy]:

[quote] 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a]but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise[/quote]

Notice that it says if a full human's life is taken, it's an eye for an eye, but if a child dies through miscarriage, it isn't an eye for an eye. Pro-Choice interpret this verse to mean that a child that isn't born yet's life to be worthless [in the eyes of God obviously, thou they wouldn't use that phrase].

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289352' date='Jun 6 2007, 06:39 AM']Being a father of a daughter, and someone that is pro-life 100% [even on the issue of Capital Punishment], I'd once talked with a Pro-Choice Christian [Protestant] and asked him about his pro-choice stance... here's what he used in the Bible to justify it.

In the Old Testament it says that if you kill someone, you're put to death but it says in Exodus 21:22-25 [and please forgive the NIV translation, I normally would quote from my New Jerusalem Version, Catholic Bible but I'm feeling lazy]:
Notice that it says if a full human's life is taken, it's an eye for an eye, but if a child dies through miscarriage, it isn't an eye for an eye. Pro-Choice interpret this verse to mean that a child that isn't born yet's life to be worthless [in the eyes of God obviously, thou they wouldn't use that phrase].

Reza[/quote]

Actually I've heard protestants used this same verse against abortion! "But if there is serious injury" applies to the child! If the man who hits a married woman cause to be miscarry then that is "serious injury." I will try to find the book I was reading and give quote for quote, so if you wish respond to the Pro-Choice Christian. If you can, or wish...

[catholicinsd]

There are very few "pro-life" people. You can be anti-whatever, but in order to be "pro-life" you must support all life.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion"][b]Does Exodus 21 Sanction Abortion?[/b][[/url]
April 6, 2004
by Wayne Jackson

It is sometimes claimed that Exodus 21:22-23 provides evidence that a “fetus” is not entitled to the same level of legal protection that an adult person is. The implication is supposed to be, therefore, that a fetus does not possess the qualitative “personhood” that adults do. Examine this question with us.

“Some Bible teachers say that Exodus 21:22-23 implies that the life of a fetus is not in the same qualitative category as that of its pregnant mother. Would you comment on this?”

This is a common rationalization of those who seek some biblical justification for the practice of abortion. It is a theory without merit. The passage in the book of Exodus reads as follows.


“And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her
fruit [children] come out, and yet no harm follows; the one who hit her shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose upon him; and he shall pay a fine as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .”

The argument runs something like this. If two men are fighting, and the
struggle injures a pregnant woman (who perhaps intervenes in an attempt to stop the dispute), so that she miscarries, a monetary fine may be imposed to compensate for the death of the fetus. This infraction, however, was not viewed as a capital case. It is then contended that the implication must be that the fetus was not a human being with rights comparable to an adult person.

This theory was presented a while back by Jewish “rabbi” Shira Stern, daughter of violinist Isaac Stern, as representative of the modern Jewish view (cited by Don Feder, “Abortion, Judaism, and Jews,” National Review, July 8, 1991, p. 50). The position is false, for it is based upon a misunderstanding of what the text actually says.

We must observe, though, that some translations have given credence to
this erroneous viewpoint by rendering the word “depart” as miscarriage. The Revised Standard Version reads: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage . . .” (cf. NASB). The liberal
commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1952), as well as other commentaries, also accommodate this view.

[b]However, there is absolutely no evidence that a dead fetus is under consideration in this passage. The fact is, the Hebrew language has a term (shachol) that denotes an abortion, or miscarriage (see 2 Kgs. 2:21; Hos. 9:14), yet that word is not employed in this context. This passage deals with a premature birth, not an aborted fetus.

The Hebrew word rendered “depart” is yasa, basically meaning “to go (come) out.” Though the word has a wide variety of uses in the Old Testament, it is frequently employed of an ordinary birth. God told Jeremiah, ” . . .before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you . . .” (Jer. 1:5). In Exodus 21:22 the verb is used “of untimely birth” (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423), or of “premature birth” (cf. NIV; NKJV).

Noted Hebrew scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. has observed that it is a “gross error,” either by translation or by means of commentary, to argue that a miscarriage is suggested in this passage (Toward Old Testament Ethics, Zondervan, 1983, p. 170).
[/b]
In an excellent article which discusses this passage at length, Jack W. Cottrell, a professor of theology at the Cincinnati Bible Seminary, declared: “There is absolutely no linguistic justification for translating verse 22 to refer to a miscarriage” (Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, p. 8).

A second factor to be given consideration in this text is the use of the
word “fruit.” The term derives from the Hebrew yeled, which is a “child.” In this instance the word is plural, “children,” which likely is calculated to cover multiple births, or perhaps both sexes. In Genesis 21:8, Moses wrote regarding Isaac: “And the child grew, and was weaned . . .” Is there any question but that Isaac was an actual person at this time? Dr. Kaiser thus notes: “The use of the term ‘child’ makes it clear that a human being is in view here” (op. cit).

What, then, is the passage teaching? Simply this. If two fighting men injure a pregnant woman, causing her to give premature birth, yet no harm
follows – to either mother or child – a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness. However, if any harm followed, to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out commensurate with degree of damage. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.

We must, therefore, protest the use of Exodus 21:22-23 as a “proof-text”
for the support of abortion. Alan Cole observed: “It has sometimes been claimed by those in favor of abortion that the unborn child is not really considered as an individual here: but that is not the point of this passage . . .The destruction of the unborn child was regarded by the Hebrews as an instance of the most barbarous cruelty, calling down God’s judgment (2 Kings 15:16)” (“Exodus,” Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Inter-Varsity, 1985, p. 169).

Again, as professor John Hannah observed: ” . . .the unborn fetus is viewed in this passage as just as much a human being as its mother; the abortion of a fetus was considered murder” (“Exodus,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Victor, 1985, p. 141).

Of the wicked Menahem, who became king of Israel, an inspired Old
Testament writer states that he “ripped up” women that were with child (2 Kgs. 15:16), an act which God abhorred (cf. Am. 1:13). Today, abortion clinics are performing the same savage deeds. Surely a time of reckoning will come.

Edited June 6, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1289514' date='Jun 6 2007, 01:30 PM']There are very few "pro-life" people. You can be anti-whatever, but in order to be "pro-life" you must support all life.[/quote]


Putting to death a serial rapist baby killer is Pro-Life. All the way no if ands or buts.

[XIX]

KofC, you do realize that your position contradicts the Cathchism, right?

[quote]Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/quote]
--CCC paragraph 2267