Encourage one another and build one another up. Pray without ceasing. Test everything. Keep what is good. Avoid all evil. -1 Thess 5:11,17,21,22
Thursday, July 3, 2025
An uncomfortable question
If he is not a "baby" while he is in your womb, then why do you paste ultrasound images into his baby-book? Why are "your circumstances" the condition that determines whether he is a baby or just a "lump of tissue"?
Some years ago I got into a conversation with a local professor's wife regarding abortion. She announced, with pride, that she had three abortions before being ready to start a family and it was the right thing to do. I agreed and said "you're probably right because now those children are in heaven whereas if you had raised them they would have ended up in Hell. With you". After a bit of profanity she stomped away. ---ken
Why is killing a pregnant woman a double murder but abortion is ok? Even the law has a double standard. Why has that never been to any court that I know of let alone the supreme court?
From what I'm seeing, abortion is seen as an exception - so the mother determines to terminate the life, but others cannot make that decision for her (by murdering her).
There are courts that have heard these types of arguments and upheld the distinction. But you're correct, it hasn't gone to the supreme court.
Thanks, Gary. I didn't look it up so I didn't know it had actually been to some courts. Still a double standard that logically shouldn't stand. Also, what about the father of the child? Why does he have no say? I feel like we as a nation are like Israel sacrificing our children to moloch, except that it's much worse because we do it for convenience. Brother, judgement day is coming! I highly suggest giving to your local pro life clinic. I do that and they save lots of babies just by showing mom the ultrasound of their baby. Mom can no longer think of it as just a clump of cells.
I don't see it as a double-standard per se. Same way I don't see killing in self defense being legal but murder being illegal - there's context and exceptions that are taken into account.
It is unfortunate that the father of the child doesn't get a say. I know that I would be very upset if I was the father and the mother decided to terminate.
I'm pro abortion, so I don't plan to give to the local anti-abortion clinics. But I sympathize with them. If you believe the unborn should be recognized as life that the government must legally protect, I don't blame you. I think these disagreements will ultimately have to be worked out through legislation at the state level.
@Gary I appreciate your points, even if I don't agree with all of them. I wish we could all be civil and polite like this instead of screaming at each other.
Colloquially, the word "baby" has many uses, and isn't solely used to identify an infant. Your adult child can be your 'baby'. So it's possible that it can be a "lump of tissue" and a "baby" at the same time.
There are those that are pro-abortion that attempt to correct those that refer to their unborn child as a 'baby'. It's weird. We should definitely push back against that.
The UK government has just recently passed legislation that permits a mother to abort up to full term. I think that a lot of us find that a frightening development.
I don't have any details or attributions for the following, but it seems entirely plausible.
A pollster went to several college campuses and prefaced his questions with the following information: "Leading researchers in Developmental Psychology believe that young humans don't have any sense of self or sentience before the age of four. Given that, do you think it is immoral to terminate the life of a terminally-ill, young-human if they are younger than four years of age?"
The majority of the students who were asked this question, as posed, thought it was morally neutral to euthanize children up to the age of four.
To try to reason with the unreasonable is itself unreasonable. Emotion is at the heart of their depravity. It is extremely difficult to supplant your emotions in place of theirs. The biblical answer is to leave them and shake the dust from your shoes.
Why? Because female. Women do what's good for themselves first, and what's good for women in general second. They then manufacture a rationalization. And men? Men just go along with what women want. Life's a lot easier that way.
Some years ago I got into a conversation with a local professor's wife regarding abortion. She announced, with pride, that she had three abortions before being ready to start a family and it was the right thing to do. I agreed and said "you're probably right because now those children are in heaven whereas if you had raised them they would have ended up in Hell. With you". After a bit of profanity she stomped away. ---ken
ReplyDeleteIf not a person, then it is property. Bought, sold or disposed of at will.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.
Kinda sounds like chattel slavery?
Does to me,
A little East of Paris
Why is killing a pregnant woman a double murder but abortion is ok? Even the law has a double standard. Why has that never been to any court that I know of let alone the supreme court?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I'm seeing, abortion is seen as an exception - so the mother determines to terminate the life, but others cannot make that decision for her (by murdering her).
DeleteThere are courts that have heard these types of arguments and upheld the distinction. But you're correct, it hasn't gone to the supreme court.
The Supreme Court would duck the question by saying, 'Only the aborted baby has standing so......'
DeleteThanks, Gary. I didn't look it up so I didn't know it had actually been to some courts. Still a double standard that logically shouldn't stand. Also, what about the father of the child? Why does he have no say? I feel like we as a nation are like Israel sacrificing our children to moloch, except that it's much worse because we do it for convenience. Brother, judgement day is coming! I highly suggest giving to your local pro life clinic. I do that and they save lots of babies just by showing mom the ultrasound of their baby. Mom can no longer think of it as just a clump of cells.
Delete@dragonslayer
DeleteI don't see it as a double-standard per se. Same way I don't see killing in self defense being legal but murder being illegal - there's context and exceptions that are taken into account.
It is unfortunate that the father of the child doesn't get a say. I know that I would be very upset if I was the father and the mother decided to terminate.
I'm pro abortion, so I don't plan to give to the local anti-abortion clinics. But I sympathize with them. If you believe the unborn should be recognized as life that the government must legally protect, I don't blame you. I think these disagreements will ultimately have to be worked out through legislation at the state level.
Cheers.
@Gary
DeleteI appreciate your points, even if I don't agree with all of them. I wish we could all be civil and polite like this instead of screaming at each other.
I agree with your sentiment.
ReplyDeleteColloquially, the word "baby" has many uses, and isn't solely used to identify an infant. Your adult child can be your 'baby'. So it's possible that it can be a "lump of tissue" and a "baby" at the same time.
There are those that are pro-abortion that attempt to correct those that refer to their unborn child as a 'baby'. It's weird. We should definitely push back against that.
Pretty simple to Marxist eyes.
ReplyDeleteWho- Whom.
The UK government has just recently passed legislation that permits a mother to abort up to full term. I think that a lot of us find that a frightening development.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any details or attributions for the following, but it seems entirely plausible.
DeleteA pollster went to several college campuses and prefaced his questions with the following information: "Leading researchers in Developmental Psychology believe that young humans don't have any sense of self or sentience before the age of four. Given that, do you think it is immoral to terminate the life of a terminally-ill, young-human if they are younger than four years of age?"
The majority of the students who were asked this question, as posed, thought it was morally neutral to euthanize children up to the age of four.
This is all pointed at 'assisted suicide' and MAID... Grrrr...
ReplyDeleteIt is all population control. Pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteTo try to reason with the unreasonable is itself unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteEmotion is at the heart of their depravity. It is extremely difficult to supplant your emotions in place of theirs. The biblical answer is to leave them and shake the dust from your shoes.
And pray for them. And to love your enemies.
DeleteAbortion from the perspective of a demon......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UHgW87RqQ
As a Father, this scene made me sick to contemplate.
Why? Because female. Women do what's good for themselves first, and what's good for women in general second. They then manufacture a rationalization. And men? Men just go along with what women want. Life's a lot easier that way.
ReplyDelete