A Clear Moral Choice

That is interesting. Jesus prepare a place for us, and YOU, but you can't see that truth.

When God says he will protect us from a the evil one, it can mean on this earth, or our spiritual health, not our physical safety or health.

Your fantasy is that God does not exist.

It is the atheist mindthink that is irrational.

I thank God my kids know this truth, not negative, spiteful, sarcastic, skepticism that I have seen increasing from the mouths of atheists.

counterww: "To equate the barbaric practices of abortion described by Globalone with the bringing up of children to believe in God illustrates how mixed up people can be."

I'm not equating it. I was responding directly to the comment: "it is completely disturbing to me how anyone can allow such practices to exist"

Bizzare, irrational practices exist throughout society. It's about perspective. Just because someone finds some of them disturbing does not mean that everyone does. If you were raised in a catholic or pentacostal church it is unlikely that you find those rituals and customs strange, yet to many they are quite outlandish.

"You spout the stock atheist mind think to the tee."
I am indeed an atheist so the fact that I sound like one doesn't really bother me...

"Also , your perception of religion is not representative of what people do believe regarding God"
Really? Funny, I heard it all many times in various churches... (see below)

Globalone

"I know of no Christian denomination that promises that Jesus will protect them from everything or that a "heavenly mansion" awaits them if they do or say all the right things"

Sorry, I don't know a lot about what various denominations believe... My source is this:
"But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one."

"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. "

Gladerunner:

To equate the barbaric practices of abortion described by Globalone with the bringing up of children to believe in God illustrates how mixed up people can be.

Your sense of right and wrong is skewed and screwed up big time.

Also , your perception of religion is not representative of what people do believe regarding God. Perhaps getting out of your little world and talking to those people will give you a better (and more representative) idea of what they do believe). You spout the stock atheist mind think to the tee.

Glade,

Not sure I understand the brainwashing reference. Perhaps you don't give young adults enough credit to make their own decisions. I know plenty of Christian families where siblings are divided on their faith in Christ.

Also, I know of no Christian denomination that promises that Jesus "will protect them from everything" or that a "heavenly mansion" awaits them if they do or say all the right things.

Ashley said to Chuck: "Being pro-choice means I will defend to the death your right to do whatever it is you want with the unborn you're carrying." Personally, I rather doubt that Chuck is carrying an unborn unless he is rather an unusual person. :)

But the problem with your choice argument is that presumably you will not defend a man's choice to beat his wife, or even a mother's choice to neglect her children and spend all her time watching TV. There are some choices you presumably will not defend.

So you have to argue that THIS choice, to kill a foetus is one of the good choices to be defended and not one of the bad choices like wife beating or child neglect. But I don't see how you are going to do that.

You know that you do not have the choice to leave a dog in a hot car on a sunny day and have it suffer from heat and die. Is a foetus really less than a dog?

globalone:"Without any regard to religious views, it is completely disturbing to me how anyone can allow such practices to exist"
I could, and do think the same about the perfectly legal institutional brainwashing of children. Teaching them fantasies as fact from birth till they are on their own, dragging them to archaic religious rituals week after week, telling them Jesus will protect them from everything, and that if they are good and think good thoughts then Santa, er.. Jesus will give them a heavenly mansion for eternity... And if they are bad that satan will rip them apart and torture them with flames for eternity.. why would anyone do this to their kids?
Your beliefs and morals are yours, not everyones'. You are correct about one thing though, it would be best if we could make abortions go away by instilling a greater sense of responsibility into our children as they grow up.

Ashley,

You'll have to excuse Chuck. For whatever reason, people like him are bothered by the following:

* Suction Aspiration Abortion - "The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded."

* Dilation and Curettage (D&C) Abortion - "This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded."

* Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) Abortion - This method is used up to 18 weeks' gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them."

* Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection) Abortion - "Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)"

* Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion - "This form of abortion uses chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. which cause the uterus to contract intensely, pushing out the developing baby. The contractions are more violent than normal, natural contractions, so the unborn baby is frequently killed by them -- some have even been decapitated. Many, however, have also been born alive."

* Partial-Birth Abortion - "Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed."

You ask for "respect" and proceed to condone the actions listed above. Without any regard to religious views, it is completely disturbing to me how anyone can allow such practices to exist. To allow such things to occur simply because one refuses to accept responsibility for one's own actions is unthinkable. Perhaps we wouldn't need a law if more people weren't so selfish as to kill an unborn child instead of accepting the responsibility that comes with having sexual intercourse in the first place.

Rev. Colson wrote, "Roe v. Wade was bad law, made at a time when we did not have the scientific information we have now that life begins at conception."

Can someone please explain to me what "new scientific information" the Reverend is referring to?

Who knows when the soul enters the fetus? At that time, the human being's earth life begins. Before that, and who knows when that is (the "quickening"), there are only clusters of cells with the potential to become human.

Life does not begin at conception. A genetically distinct, individual living human being, however, does.

The verbal contortions "clump of differentiated cells" (ignring that these cells comprise a genetically distinct living human being and "pro-choice" (avoiding that this conflict surrounds one particular choice, that of ending human life) suggest the moral repulsion with actions that cannot be defended if we are honest with ourselves about the real issues.

"what about murder of civilians caused by pre-emptive war or murder by capital punishment?"

The hypocrisy of those who defend the lives of people who have been tried and convicted of crimes in trials where legal safeguards have been observed, or are caught in dangerous battlegrounds created by relentless enemies of the US, yet unblinkingly insist that the deliberate destruction of unborn human beings is of no concern to anyone but one of the parents is staggering.

If you want to argue that the law should reflect our morality, then I think it already generally does. If you think it should reflect one side only of a very complex issue, then the law will not work (look at the war on drugs).

If we really want to reduce the number of abortions significantly, we need to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. The fastest way to reduce unwanted pregnancy would be to put in place mandatory sentencing for any man who impregnates a girl or woman to whom he is not married. If the sentence amounted to a choice of either castration or life in prison, we men would think a lot more before contributing to a pregnancy.

I am always amazed at the ex-fetuses that made it out of the womb and enjoy life but want to deny that right to selected fetuses .

It is hypocrisy at the level of "I got mine, screw the others that are on the other side"

"And overturning Roe v. Wade would not reduce abortions one iota. Abortion laws don't work; they just make women turn to unsafe, illegal abortions. If you really care about reducing abortion, you should be working towards reducing unwanted pregnancy, and the evidence shows that the best way to do that is to provide comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception."

By this line of thinking, the best way to increase use of contraception would be to make it illegal, not increase access.

Can we please move beyond the argument that making something against the law will not reduce the number of instances of its occurrence? The laws of a nation reflect the moral character of that country. Why legislate against slavery, spousal abuse, murder, etc... Because they are morally unacceptable. I don't want to live in a culture where they are acceptable and neither do you.
Suppose you were backing up in your driveway and caught a glimpse of something behind you. Automatically you would put the brakes on and make sure that you were not about to run over the neighbor's child. Why? Because in matters of life and death it is always wise to err on the side of life. In the same way, if there is ANY chance that a fetus could indeed possess life then I would much rather err on the side of life than find myself a murderer. This should be true if you are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other common religious system.
Let's enlighten our thinking, move beyond our self-serving motives and pursue a culture of life in ALL areas.

"not know in 1973 that a zygote is a cell, and that cells are alive?"

Really, what is the definition a state of being "alive"?

What nonsense. Saying that science tells you human life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder is a completel arbitrary religious definition, completely contradictory to any notion of what the human experience is about, never mind begins.

We don't have funerals for clumps of undifferentiated cells: for women *trying* to get pregnant, quite often conception occurs without implantation. (though some 'pro-lifers' seem to think this might be a good way to spend an afternoon at the fertility clinic freezer.)

It's the radical, controlling, Religious Right who have this belief, though, that's part of why they oppose *contraception,* or even education about it... because of their religious belief that humans are 'created' at conception (and they define conception, generally, as 'The sex act that later leads to conception,) of course they think that it's OK to try and restrict access to these devices on the grounds that it's pre-emptively 'Thwarting our God's will' to *prevent*any random pregnancy that might occur.

Of course it's all about controlling sex, and controlling women, cause if they really wanted to try and stop abortions from happening, they'd not be trying to re-criminalize it and push it into some very dangerous shadows.

It's not about babies, it's about 'punishing sinners.' Who cares if it makes things worse and results in more abortions and worse... it's 'righteous.'

Oh really, Chuck
"...every human life, at every stage of life,..'

what about murder of civilians caused by pre-emptive war or murder by capital punishment?

Or are these, as the Archbishop of New York conveniently says, "complicated matters"?

What would your Jesus say?

"Roe v. Wade was bad law, made at a time when we did not have the scientific information we have now that life begins at conception."

That's absolute bull. There is no scientific consensus that life begins at conception. Scientifically, even sperm and eggs are alive. The idea that life (meaning human life of course) begins at conception is a religious idea, nothing more.

And overturning Roe v. Wade would not reduce abortions one iota. Abortion laws don't work; they just make women turn to unsafe, illegal abortions. If you really care about reducing abortion, you should be working towards reducing unwanted pregnancy, and the evidence shows that the best way to do that is to provide comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception.

Roe is a judicial decision reflecting the implicit principle of our foundation as a nation that we can only achieve liberty by limiting the reach of the state.

It is perhaps flawed if viewed as a political act, but it is not bad law. It is good law because it makes explicit what was before only implicit.

(If you're concerned about phrases like "the emanation of a penumbra", consider the basis of religious doctorines such as the Immaculate Conception or the Calvinist conception of the Elect, discovered centuries after Jesus preached.)

Basing a decision on the Constitution and its implicit principles is maintaining the rule of law and the framework we, the people, adopted at the founding of our nation. The Constitution was intended to put limits on the power of our elected representatives.

Life doesn't begin at conception; the gametes are already alive. And conception, while we're at it, is defined not as the moment of fertilization but of implantation.

Obviously Coulson wants to address the question of "When does a biological individual acquire the civil rights of personhood?" Despite the rights to life (and liberty!) in the Declaration, this is not universal as Coulson argues. We do put people to death legally, we do kill combatants and bystanders in war. It is not a scientific question, it is a political question. It should be answered in accordance with religious precepts and morality, but it doesn't reduce to these.

What are these great breakthroughs in "scientific information" that Mr. Colson is referring to? Did we not know in 1973 that a zygote is a cell, and that cells are alive? Has there been peer-reviewed documentation of zygote/soul mergers? Have scientists witnessed cells dividing for Jesus?

I'm pretty sure nothing is new on these fronts, so what is supposed to have changed?

I am not anonymous, either.

I don't think this thing is working; we are all now assigned "anonymous" no matter how we have signed in.

WAPO-

I am not Anonymous. I am DMZ1 and signed in as such

Chuck:

The Declaration of Independence has nothing whatever to do with the law of the United States. It was exclusively addressed to independence from England, it was not produced by democratically elected representatives not was it ratified by anyone. It is utterly and completely irrelevant to current U.S. law.

The Articles of Confederation also have nothing to do with current law. They succeeded the DoI but preceded the Constitution. The Constitution of the United Staes as amended is the sole set of principles under which the people consent to be governed.

AND, no one asked you to risk your life for the DoI. That's just a lie. All members of the military are required to swear that they will defend the Constirtution, but are asked nothing with regard to the DoI.

You should learn before you pontificate.

Hello Ashley,

The religious sort knows when an embryo is life and/or a human.

The scientific sort knows when an embryo is life and/or a human.

In the end, being pro choice or pro life does not accurately reflect the terms.

Pro choice is still making a decision, a choice on life and death, whether for yours or another.

Pro life is still a stance on life that ignore the life of the living and the yet to be born if alive.

Mr. Colson,

You do need readers registeration reminder by WaPo On Faith in your blog/thread. But it will come. And no, I have no intention of registering even if I am barred forever from posting in On Faith threads. So there.

It is like registering to vote but never voting. Or not registering to vote but still raising a rcukus and making a state, federal and global issue on everything and anything.

Regards
J

You know what disgusts me most, Chuck? Your absolute certainty that you (and yours) alone know the truth about everything.
Being pro-choice means I will defend to the death your right to do whatever it is you want with the unborn you're carrying. That's what choice is all about. But you and yours are not able to get off your high horses long enough to offer the same kind of respect for me and mine. You deny that I am able to make a choice by telling me what I must do.
You deal in absolutes, in black and white. To me that's the sign of a person unable to conceive or handle the complexities and nuances that exist in everything we do. I deal in shades of gray, in questions and wonderings, in inquiries and suppositions, because those like me understand rigidity is a sure path to disaster. Those who cannot bend, will surely break.