Topic: Abortion from the babies point of view ! WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT

[Marc1152]

I do acknowledge end-of-life issues are more complicated, and perhaps that would be better as its own thread. For the purposes of this thread, I would still like to discuss the abortion aspect.

I dont think a fertilized egg is a person in the exact same way as a mother of five. Your mileage may vary.

You keep saying this, but on what grounds? Was Christ fully Man on March 25 as He was on December 25, or was He not?

Both are a point of faith. It is a religious tenet that at the moment of conception a "Soul" enters. Prove it. Of course you cant. It's an article of faith.

I think it's a very hard sell to call a Zygote a "Baby" and then from there call a Woman a murderer and then from there say Abortion is the same thing as the European Holocaust. It sounds irrational.

Many people dont believe there is such a thing as a soul. Many others totally misunderstand what a soul is or it's nature and even fewer have a Catholic or Orthodox understanding.

People are smart enough to see that a recently divided cell is not the same type of Person as your Grandma. She can bake a fine apple pie. A zygote cant.

These sorts of extreme characterizations, outlandish comparisons and ghastly pictures is what is bothering me. You are asking people to adopt certain key elements of your argument based purely on your own personal religious faith. I suggest making the argument against Abortion on different terms and on more solid ground. Otherwise, you will continue to see abortions continue at a high rate.

[bogdan]

Both are a point of faith. It is a religious tenet that at the moment of conception a "Soul" enters. Prove it. Of course you cant. It's an article of faith.

You can say the same thing about the Resurrection, for goodness' sake. You can dismiss the Resurrection as an article of faith, but if that's all it is, then our faith is worthless. That is not a valid argument.

It either is, or it is not.

I think it's a very hard sell to call a Zygote a "Baby" and then from there call a Woman a murderer and then from there say Abortion is the same thing as the European Holocaust. It sounds irrational.

The bit about the mother is a red herring which I will address below, for I have said nothing about what the mother is or is not. So bear with me.

Whereas, full human dignity and personhood exists in a fetus (says the Church), and
Whereas, 53+ million human persons have been killed as a result of abortion, and
Whereas, a "holocaust" is (among other things) a legal killing of many people,

Therefore, the unrighteous slaughter of innocents can rightly be called a "holocaust."

Three points and a conclusion. That is not irrationality.

Now, to the red herring: The Church says she is a murderer (as per the canons). Now, we do not run her out of society or persecute her for it, because no woman gets an abortion because she is a bloodthirsty maniac. But let's not mince words and obfuscate the fact of the matter. The Church offers healing for her, but that does not change the reality of the situation. That is lacking discernment.

Many people dont believe there is such a thing as a soul. Many others totally misunderstand what a soul is or it's nature and even fewer have a Catholic or Orthodox understanding.

So? Truth and reality are not subject to popular referendum.

People are smart enough to see that a recently divided cell is not the same type of Person as your Grandma. She can bake a fine apple pie. A zygote cant.

Humanity is not defined by the person's value or contributions to society. It is defined by bearing the image of God, and an embryo bears the image of God because Christ once was an embryo.

These sorts of extreme characterizations, outlandish comparisons and ghastly pictures is what is bothering me. You are asking people to adopt certain key elements of your argument based purely on your own personal religious faith. I suggest making the argument against Abortion on different terms and on more solid ground. Otherwise, you will continue to see abortions continue at a high rate.

Then it's already lost. If people are free to define for themselves what humanity is, then why not kill an infant after birth? The Australian bioethicist Peter Singer says, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

So why not abort a 3-month-old infant when the parents find it too difficult to care for it?

Or a two-year-old? They are not really self-aware, not in the way adults are. Kill 'em if they're inconvenient.

There are already people who support those views. Not many, but at one time most people did not support sucking babies' brains out, either.

John Adams was right. Freedom is only suitable for a moral and religious people. When that goes out the window, people either need to be herded like cattle or they start killing each other. It is demonic and I am quite disturbed to see an Orthodox Christian arguing along the lines you are.

My question still stands:

Was Christ fully Man on March 25 as He was on December 25, or was He not?

All the rest is philosophy and personal opinion. But if the God-Man existed on March 25, then humanity is bestowed at conception and abortion at any stage is necessarily murder.

[Papist]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was. The same can be done with abortion, lest anyone forget.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

[Aindriú]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I do acknowledge end-of-life issues are more complicated, and perhaps that would be better as its own thread. For the purposes of this thread, I would still like to discuss the abortion aspect.

I dont think a fertilized egg is a person in the exact same way as a mother of five. Your mileage may vary.

You keep saying this, but on what grounds? Was Christ fully Man on March 25 as He was on December 25, or was He not?

People are smart enough to see that a recently divided cell is not the same type of Person as your Grandma. She can bake a fine apple pie. A zygote cant.

True enough. However, let's carry comparisons further shall we?

Autistic kids are not the same as normal kids. Kill them!

Kids with cystic fibrosis are not the same as normal kids. Do away with them!

Girls are are not the same as boys. Throw them off the cliffs!

Grandma who is senile is not the same as grandma who is not. Put her in the incinerator!

Gypsies, homosexuals and Jews are not the same as normal Germans. Gas them!

Intellectuals and rich folks are not the same as workers and farmers. Starve the, imprison them, work them to death!

You see, once you make it a matter of utility, it is just a matter of opinion. Either a person has the right to life from inception or he does not (that is his right will be at the whim of those who make the life and death decisions.)

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

Yet Papist's reference was to an indefinite group of--I assume--history teachers, which does make his use of "they" nebulous. I'd like him to identify these nameless teachers if he could.

[Aindriú]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

Yet Papist's reference was to an indefinite group of--I assume--history teachers, which does make his use of "they" nebulous. I'd like him to identify these nameless teachers if he could.

Well, then again, every single class that talked about Nazi Germany in any form mentioned the Holocaust, and included picture. Not to mention multiple tv programs and movies based on it.

So, I'm not really surprised by the statement, from my own experience.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

Yet Papist's reference was to an indefinite group of--I assume--history teachers, which does make his use of "they" nebulous. I'd like him to identify these nameless teachers if he could.

Well, then again, every single class that talked about Nazi Germany in any form mentioned the Holocaust, and included picture. Not to mention multiple tv programs and movies based on it.

So, I'm not really surprised by the statement, from my own experience.

Then there's still the question of why Papist thinks we should follow their lead.

[Marc1152]

Both are a point of faith. It is a religious tenet that at the moment of conception a "Soul" enters. Prove it. Of course you cant. It's an article of faith.

You can say the same thing about the Resurrection, for goodness' sake. You can dismiss the Resurrection as an article of faith, but if that's all it is, then our faith is worthless. That is not a valid argument.

It either is, or it is not.

I think it's a very hard sell to call a Zygote a "Baby" and then from there call a Woman a murderer and then from there say Abortion is the same thing as the European Holocaust. It sounds irrational.

The bit about the mother is a red herring which I will address below, for I have said nothing about what the mother is or is not. So bear with me.

Whereas, full human dignity and personhood exists in a fetus (says the Church), and
Whereas, 53+ million human persons have been killed as a result of abortion, and
Whereas, a "holocaust" is (among other things) a legal killing of many people,

Therefore, the unrighteous slaughter of innocents can rightly be called a "holocaust."

Three points and a conclusion. That is not irrationality.

Now, to the red herring: The Church says she is a murderer (as per the canons). Now, we do not run her out of society or persecute her for it, because no woman gets an abortion because she is a bloodthirsty maniac. But let's not mince words and obfuscate the fact of the matter. The Church offers healing for her, but that does not change the reality of the situation. That is lacking discernment.

Many people dont believe there is such a thing as a soul. Many others totally misunderstand what a soul is or it's nature and even fewer have a Catholic or Orthodox understanding.

So? Truth and reality are not subject to popular referendum.

People are smart enough to see that a recently divided cell is not the same type of Person as your Grandma. She can bake a fine apple pie. A zygote cant.

Humanity is not defined by the person's value or contributions to society. It is defined by bearing the image of God, and an embryo bears the image of God because Christ once was an embryo.

These sorts of extreme characterizations, outlandish comparisons and ghastly pictures is what is bothering me. You are asking people to adopt certain key elements of your argument based purely on your own personal religious faith. I suggest making the argument against Abortion on different terms and on more solid ground. Otherwise, you will continue to see abortions continue at a high rate.

Then it's already lost. If people are free to define for themselves what humanity is, then why not kill an infant after birth? The Australian bioethicist Peter Singer says, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

So why not abort a 3-month-old infant when the parents find it too difficult to care for it?

Or a two-year-old? They are not really self-aware, not in the way adults are. Kill 'em if they're inconvenient.

There are already people who support those views. Not many, but at one time most people did not support sucking babies' brains out, either.

John Adams was right. Freedom is only suitable for a moral and religious people. When that goes out the window, people either need to be herded like cattle or they start killing each other. It is demonic and I am quite disturbed to see an Orthodox Christian arguing along the lines you are.

My question still stands:

Was Christ fully Man on March 25 as He was on December 25, or was He not?

All the rest is philosophy and personal opinion. But if the God-Man existed on March 25, then humanity is bestowed at conception and abortion at any stage is necessarily murder.

You can say the same thing about the Resurrection, for goodness' sake. You can dismiss the Resurrection as an article of faith, but if that's all it is, then our faith is worthless. That is not a valid argument.

It either is, or it is not.

ummmmm..Correct.. Articles of faith are like each other. They require Faith.

Sooooooooooooo..therefore, you should be sensitive when basing your arguments on your own personal set of religious  beliefs. Try not to foist them upon others... It's bad form.

You can and should try to convert them to Christianity. Then you will have similar metaphysical beliefs, until then, try other arguments.



Whereas, full human dignity and personhood exists in a fetus (says the Church), and
Whereas, 53+ million human persons have been killed as a result of abortion, and
Whereas, a "holocaust" is (among other things) a legal killing of many people,

Therefore, the unrighteous slaughter of innocents can rightly be called a "holocaust."

I understand the internal logic. It's just a horrible argument because it is not presented as "A" Holocaust. It is posed in juxtaposition to the European Holocaust of World War Two, which is offensive to many and a real stretch. A zygote aborted with a morning after pill is not the same as whole families being rounded up sent to camps and gassed. Not to make light of Abortion but the paradigm you wish to jam it into is a bit delusional.  

More later.. I gotta run.

[elijahmaria]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

Yet Papist's reference was to an indefinite group of--I assume--history teachers, which does make his use of "they" nebulous. I'd like him to identify these nameless teachers if he could.

When I was in high school we were shown films of radiation burned Japanese civilians.  I saw those films in my classrooms in central PA,  and in an auditorium in a High School in New Jersey where thousands of young people had converged for the Model U.N....I don't remember the year.

So who dat say dat who dat...

[Maria]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

Yet Papist's reference was to an indefinite group of--I assume--history teachers, which does make his use of "they" nebulous. I'd like him to identify these nameless teachers if he could.

When I was in high school we were shown films of radiation burned Japanese civilians.  I saw those films in my classrooms in central PA,  and in an auditorium in a High School in New Jersey where thousands of young people had converged for the Model U.N....I don't remember the year.

So who dat say dat who dat...

Sounds like the twice a year mandatory diversity programs we had to attend or the mandated undergrad requirements to fulfil the diversity requirements. We watched the same civil rights movies showing Irish and Black children being compared to dogs, Holocaust scenes, and those depicting Japanese internment camps year after year.  Propaganda? Brainwashing? probably.

By the way, unborn babies do not have any rights, hence they were not included in the Diversity Programs, so while we were shown the piles of dead bodies of the Holocaust, we were never shown pictures of aborted babies.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

How is "they" nebulous? He qualified it with High School. I seriously doubt he's talking about the janitor.

Yet Papist's reference was to an indefinite group of--I assume--history teachers, which does make his use of "they" nebulous. I'd like him to identify these nameless teachers if he could.

When I was in high school we were shown films of radiation burned Japanese civilians.  I saw those films in my classrooms in central PA,  and in an auditorium in a High School in New Jersey where thousands of young people had converged for the Model U.N....I don't remember the year.

So who dat say dat who dat...

1. You're not Papist.
2. You're relating a totally unrelated story.

So who dat say dat who dat...

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

Does it really matter exactly who shows pictures of historical nature in history classes? Wouldn't the presumption be that "they" were the persons in charge of the class--that is a teacher or somebody empowered by the teacher? I think that Papist has made his point well and need not answer your questions.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

Does it really matter exactly who shows pictures of historical nature in history classes? Wouldn't the presumption be that "they" were the persons in charge of the class--that is a teacher or somebody empowered by the teacher? I think that Papist has made his point well and need not answer your questions.

He doesn't have to answer my questions if he doesn't want to, but I would appreciate it if he did.

[bogdan]

ummmmm..Correct.. Articles of faith are like each other. They require Faith.

Sooooooooooooo..therefore, you should be sensitive when basing your arguments on your own personal set of religious  beliefs. Try not to foist them upon others... It's bad form.

Christianity is the truth, not an opinion, and it should be foisted on people if they are going to insist on murdering other people.

You can and should try to convert them to Christianity. Then you will have similar metaphysical beliefs, until then, try other arguments.

I refuse to accept the premise that all belief systems are equally valid. Those belief systems that turn human beings into commodities are invalid and not worthy of debate.

understand the internal logic. It's just a horrible argument because it is not presented as "A" Holocaust. It is posed in juxtaposition to the European Holocaust of World War Two, which is offensive to many and a real stretch. A zygote aborted with a morning after pill is not the same as whole families being rounded up sent to camps and gassed. Not to make light of Abortion but the paradigm you wish to jam it into is a bit delusional.

No, it's worse. At least the Jews had a sporting chance, and at least "only" six million of them were killed. Meanwhile abortionism has murdered nine times that many people, and utterly vulnerable ones at that.

I'm looking at statistics and factual numbers, just like the people who make value judgments on human lives. That's offensive when we compare it to the horrific Jewish Holocaust, but it's dandy when we are deciding whether an Image-bearing unborn child is worthy of life?

How far we have come in only 70 years! I can't wait to see what's cooking for 2080! (Geriatricide will likely be in place by then, so I probably won't even live that long.)

[bogdan]

You see, once you make it a matter of utility, it is just a matter of opinion. Either a person has the right to life from inception or he does not (that is his right will be at the whim of those who make the life and death decisions.)

Exactly.

Which is why people must not have the freedom to make these kinds of decisions. If they are not restrained by their own morality, they should be restrained by the morality of those who have valid moral systems. Which is the ultimate point of law and government in the first place.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

You see, once you make it a matter of utility, it is just a matter of opinion. Either a person has the right to life from inception or he does not (that is his right will be at the whim of those who make the life and death decisions.)

Exactly.

Which is why people must not have the freedom to make these kinds of decisions. If they are not restrained by their own morality, they should be restrained by the morality of those who have valid moral systems. Which is the ultimate point of law and government in the first place.

Indeed! I am reminded of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "You cannot legislate morality, but you can regulate behavior. The law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless."

Selam

[JR]

Babies are being saved

http://www.40daysforlife.com/

Why don't the Orthodox join us?

[vamrat]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

Does it really matter exactly who shows pictures of historical nature in history classes? Wouldn't the presumption be that "they" were the persons in charge of the class--that is a teacher or somebody empowered by the teacher? I think that Papist has made his point well and need not answer your questions.

He doesn't have to answer my questions if he doesn't want to, but I would appreciate it if he did.

They - 3rd Person Plural Pronoun.  Often used in English to refer to a group of people who are not significant enough to be referred to using a proper noun or even a common noun for that matter.  I know I am not papist, or even a papist for that matter, but it really is an easy answer and most of us could probably answer it, so i did.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Babies are being saved

http://www.40daysforlife.com/

Why don't the Orthodox join us?

I and many other Orthodox will gladly join our Catholic brethren in this endeavor. bless!


Selam

[JR]

Babies are being saved

http://www.40daysforlife.com/

Why don't the Orthodox join us?

I and many other Orthodox will gladly join our Catholic brethren in this endeavor. bless!


Selam

God bless you Selam !

[Wyatt]

Babies are being saved

http://www.40daysforlife.com/

Why don't the Orthodox join us?

Ah...so this was an elaborate way to troll the Eastern Orthodox. Good one! 

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

Does it really matter exactly who shows pictures of historical nature in history classes? Wouldn't the presumption be that "they" were the persons in charge of the class--that is a teacher or somebody empowered by the teacher? I think that Papist has made his point well and need not answer your questions.

He doesn't have to answer my questions if he doesn't want to, but I would appreciate it if he did.

They - 3rd Person Plural Pronoun.  Often used in English to refer to a group of people who are not significant enough to be referred to using a proper noun or even a common noun for that matter.  I know I am not papist, or even a papist for that matter, but it really is an easy answer and most of us could probably answer it, so i did.

And yet, you're following after everyone else who has tried to answer this question by answering only the first half of it. What about the second half, the whole point of my question? Why should we follow their precedent?

[Aindriú]

I don't believe that was written by a developing fetus, sorry.

I mean there are some Medieval accounts of the lives of Saints that push the limits of credulity (think St. Rumwold of Buckingham), but this I cannot believe.

Do you think photos of dead babies and purple prose are going to get Christians to feel sufficiently bad enough about abortion for you?

What is your point?

What would you like nearly everyone here who believes abortion is the ending of a human life to walk away from this stuff with?

Other than a distaste for your rhetoric and self-agranndizement?

In high school history classes they show pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in order to demonstrate how horrible it truly was.

Who's this nebulous "they", and why should we follow their precedent?

Does it really matter exactly who shows pictures of historical nature in history classes? Wouldn't the presumption be that "they" were the persons in charge of the class--that is a teacher or somebody empowered by the teacher? I think that Papist has made his point well and need not answer your questions.

He doesn't have to answer my questions if he doesn't want to, but I would appreciate it if he did.

They - 3rd Person Plural Pronoun.  Often used in English to refer to a group of people who are not significant enough to be referred to using a proper noun or even a common noun for that matter.  I know I am not papist, or even a papist for that matter, but it really is an easy answer and most of us could probably answer it, so i did.

And yet, you're following after everyone else who has tried to answer this question by answering only the first half of it. What about the second half, the whole point of my question? Why should we follow their precedent?

Because it's been working?

What's the majority public opinion of these events?

[primuspilus]

I find this topic reminding me of a Family Guy episode when Chris and his boss are talking about a movie and his boss says, "That movie was awesome! Please agree with me that the movie was awesome! Hug me!"

Posting to have everyone say you're right does little for discussion.

So the next posting should be, "Jesus is Lord, Right?!?!?!?!?"

PP

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

If any ostensible anti-abortion Orthodox Christians disagree with the various and diverse methods, actions, and tactics of those who are actually engaged in efforts to disclose the horrific realities of abortion and are actively trying to deter abortion-minded women from that irrevocable, soul-scarring, and murderous act, then please provide us with suggestions and solutions that you feel are more effective. But I personally find it distasteful, judgmental, self-righteous - and quite frankly ignorant - to condemn and ridicule the actions and words of those who actually care enough to make an effort to place their small thumbs in the dike of this wholesale slaughter of the innocents that is euphemistically called "abortion".


I rarely quote politicians; but this is one of my favorite quotes, and I find it very apropos to this thread:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."         -Teddy Roosevelt-


Selam

[PeterTheAleut]

If any ostensible anti-abortion Orthodox Christians disagree with the various and diverse methods, actions, and tactics of those who are actually engaged in efforts to disclose the horrific realities of abortion and are actively trying to deter abortion-minded women from that irrevocable, soul-scarring, and murderous act, then please provide us with suggestions and solutions that you feel are more effective.

Do you assume that those who criticize your methods on this forum automatically mark themselves as not involved in the work of trying to dissuade others from having abortions? Are we automatically your enemies if we don't support you without reservation nor participate in pro-life activities to the extent that you do?

But I personally find it distasteful, judgmental, self-righteous - and quite frankly ignorant - to condemn and ridicule the actions and words of those who actually care enough to make an effort to place their small thumbs in the dike of this wholesale slaughter of the innocents that is euphemistically called "abortion".

There's a time and a place even on this forum for your crusade, Gebre. My only concern is that there are certain places on this forum where your and JR's tactic of posting photos of aborted babies is not appropriate. Other than that, though I do admit that I find such photos distasteful wherever I see them and will say so, outspoken critic that I am, I will not oppose your efforts to post them, if you post them in a place where they aren't inappropriate. In the end, I find your vision and goals admirable, and I support your desire to achieve them; I just think a gentler, more peaceful, less in-your-face approach is the better way to achieve your goals.

I rarely quote politicians; but this is one of my favorite quotes, and I find it very apropos to this thread:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."         -Teddy Roosevelt-


Selam

Who was it that said you'll draw more flies with honey than with vinegar?

[orthonorm]

Except that I'll bet you will get draw more flies with vinegar than honey.

SRSLY.

And for an astute observation you can make to folks, Miller High Life draws fruit flies like nothing else.

Decades of observation prove it. I could have hundreds of empty beer and liquor bottles in my apartment and in the MHL bottles lived hundreds of fruit flies, the others not so much.

I made this point at lunch one day and got the eye roll from one of my frenemies only to get a txt later that night while she was bowling in her tournament:

omg! ur right! everyone is drinking beer and only one pitcher of high life is out and it has a swarm of fruit flies above it and none of the others do.

Even fruit flies ain't that fond of honey. Sorta why honey is like a staple of life. One of the few foods that will not go bad in any reasonable amount of time and also few non mammals are going to compete with you to eat. The ones that will are benign: ants.

Back to the High Life. There is a "pizza" place up the street I used to frequent. I would take folks there and order a fruit plate. Let it sit for 15 minutes. Nothing--maybe a fly or two.

Order a pitcher of MHL: within minutes a few flies and within 15 a swarm, with few caring about the "fruit".

[PeterTheAleut]

Except that I'll bet you will get draw more flies with vinegar than honey.

SRSLY.

And for an astute observation you can make to folks, Miller High Life draws fruit flies like nothing else.

Decades of observation prove it. I could have hundreds of empty beer and liquor bottles in my apartment and in the MHL bottles lived hundreds of fruit flies, the others not so much.

I made this point at lunch one day and got the eye roll from one of my frenemies only to get a txt later that night while she was bowling in her tournament:

omg! ur right! everyone is drinking beer and only one pitcher of high life is out and it has a swarm of fruit flies above it and none of the others do.

Even fruit flies ain't that fond of honey. Sorta why honey is like a staple of life. One of the few foods that will not go bad in any reasonable amount of time and also few non mammals are going to compete with you to eat. The ones that will are benign: ants.

Back to the High Life. There is a "pizza" place up the street I used to frequent. I would take folks there and order a fruit plate. Let it sit for 15 minutes. Nothing--maybe a fly or two.

Order a pitcher of MHL: within minutes a few flies and within 15 a swarm, with few caring about the "fruit".

Just shows you that even fruit flies like to have a good time.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

If any ostensible anti-abortion Orthodox Christians disagree with the various and diverse methods, actions, and tactics of those who are actually engaged in efforts to disclose the horrific realities of abortion and are actively trying to deter abortion-minded women from that irrevocable, soul-scarring, and murderous act, then please provide us with suggestions and solutions that you feel are more effective.

Do you assume that those who criticize your methods on this forum automatically mark themselves as not involved in the work of trying to dissuade others from having abortions? Are we automatically your enemies if we don't support you without reservation nor participate in pro-life activities to the extent that you do?

With respect, don't assume what I assume Peter. If you have some suggestions to offer, then please do so. I can promise you that I am open to any strategies, tactics, and solutions that don't involve violence. You say that you prefer a less aggressive, less "in your face" approach. So do I. But different situations call for different approaches. I personally think that the more suggestions and strategies that are offered, the better hope we have of actually reducing and hopefully ending abortion.

Perhaps - and I mean this sincerely - you could provide some exmples of how you would personally go about dissuading women from killing their unborn babies. I imagine that you have some good ideas.

If all of us that are truly opposed to abortion would encourage each other and work together, then I think great things could happen.


"Lord have mercy."


Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Except that I'll bet you will get draw more flies with vinegar than honey.

SRSLY.

And for an astute observation you can make to folks, Miller High Life draws fruit flies like nothing else.

Decades of observation prove it. I could have hundreds of empty beer and liquor bottles in my apartment and in the MHL bottles lived hundreds of fruit flies, the others not so much.

I made this point at lunch one day and got the eye roll from one of my frenemies only to get a txt later that night while she was bowling in her tournament:

omg! ur right! everyone is drinking beer and only one pitcher of high life is out and it has a swarm of fruit flies above it and none of the others do.

Even fruit flies ain't that fond of honey. Sorta why honey is like a staple of life. One of the few foods that will not go bad in any reasonable amount of time and also few non mammals are going to compete with you to eat. The ones that will are benign: ants.

Back to the High Life. There is a "pizza" place up the street I used to frequent. I would take folks there and order a fruit plate. Let it sit for 15 minutes. Nothing--maybe a fly or two.

Order a pitcher of MHL: within minutes a few flies and within 15 a swarm, with few caring about the "fruit".

Gonna PM you with something that is blowing my mind right now!


Selam

[orthonorm]

Except that I'll bet you will get draw more flies with vinegar than honey.

SRSLY.

And for an astute observation you can make to folks, Miller High Life draws fruit flies like nothing else.

Decades of observation prove it. I could have hundreds of empty beer and liquor bottles in my apartment and in the MHL bottles lived hundreds of fruit flies, the others not so much.

I made this point at lunch one day and got the eye roll from one of my frenemies only to get a txt later that night while she was bowling in her tournament:

omg! ur right! everyone is drinking beer and only one pitcher of high life is out and it has a swarm of fruit flies above it and none of the others do.

Even fruit flies ain't that fond of honey. Sorta why honey is like a staple of life. One of the few foods that will not go bad in any reasonable amount of time and also few non mammals are going to compete with you to eat. The ones that will are benign: ants.

Back to the High Life. There is a "pizza" place up the street I used to frequent. I would take folks there and order a fruit plate. Let it sit for 15 minutes. Nothing--maybe a fly or two.

Order a pitcher of MHL: within minutes a few flies and within 15 a swarm, with few caring about the "fruit".

Gonna PM you with something that is blowing my mind right now!


Selam

Go easy. My mind has been through enough.

[Aindriú]

Here is why I accept the 'visual shock method' (c).

There was a time when I was ambivalent to abortion, among other things that I was accepting (in this regard). It wasn't until I started to understand that a baby, no matter how small, including a "fetus", when killed was identical to killing a grown individual. If I was to reject murder in all forms, (which as my opinions changed, so did my opinion to support the rejection of murder) then I would have to reject the killing of a adult/child/fetus/zygote.

That being said, some people will refuse to acknowledge a child within the womb, no matter the stage, to be a person (in the fullest sense). When this is the case, the burden of evidence is to convince the denier of this opinion. To do so, pictures of aborted babies, requiring the acknowledgement of the formed parts. Once this has been accomplished, then it is a game of walking the formation back and/or discussing when this formed baby is no longer a baby (and why). That initial acceptance is critical, of which, is merely arguing concepts without regard to reality.

[Aindriú]

I do acknowledge end-of-life issues are more complicated, and perhaps that would be better as its own thread. For the purposes of this thread, I would still like to discuss the abortion aspect.

I dont think a fertilized egg is a person in the exact same way as a mother of five. Your mileage may vary.

You keep saying this, but on what grounds? Was Christ fully Man on March 25 as He was on December 25, or was He not?

Both are a point of faith. It is a religious tenet that at the moment of conception a "Soul" enters. Prove it. Of course you cant. It's an article of faith.

I think it's a very hard sell to call a Zygote a "Baby" and then from there call a Woman a murderer and then from there say Abortion is the same thing as the European Holocaust. It sounds irrational.

Many people dont believe there is such a thing as a soul. Many others totally misunderstand what a soul is or it's nature and even fewer have a Catholic or Orthodox understanding.

People are smart enough to see that a recently divided cell is not the same type of Person as your Grandma. She can bake a fine apple pie. A zygote cant.

These sorts of extreme characterizations, outlandish comparisons and ghastly pictures is what is bothering me. You are asking people to adopt certain key elements of your argument based purely on your own personal religious faith. I suggest making the argument against Abortion on different terms and on more solid ground. Otherwise, you will continue to see abortions continue at a high rate.

Do you agree with Orthodoxy that human beings are both "body and soul" creatures? That is, that we are not souls trapped in a body, but the separation of soul from body to be unnatural. If you do, then a soul is present at the very moment a human life is created. When is that creation? I would defend, at the first independent and genetically complete (and unique) cell is made, i.e. at conception.

[PeterTheAleut]

If any ostensible anti-abortion Orthodox Christians disagree with the various and diverse methods, actions, and tactics of those who are actually engaged in efforts to disclose the horrific realities of abortion and are actively trying to deter abortion-minded women from that irrevocable, soul-scarring, and murderous act, then please provide us with suggestions and solutions that you feel are more effective.

Do you assume that those who criticize your methods on this forum automatically mark themselves as not involved in the work of trying to dissuade others from having abortions? Are we automatically your enemies if we don't support you without reservation nor participate in pro-life activities to the extent that you do?

With respect, don't assume what I assume Peter.

That's why I started by asking you a question. I'm not assuming anything. I want to know what you're thinking.

If you have some suggestions to offer, then please do so. I can promise you that I am open to any strategies, tactics, and solutions that don't involve violence. You say that you prefer a less aggressive, less "in your face" approach. So do I. But different situations call for different approaches.

Yes they do. The Religious Topics board permits certain types of posts that are not appropriate for either the Orthodoxy Family Forum or the Other Topics board.

I personally think that the more suggestions and strategies that are offered, the better hope we have of actually reducing and hopefully ending abortion.

Perhaps - and I mean this sincerely - you could provide some exmples of how you would personally go about dissuading women from killing their unborn babies. I imagine that you have some good ideas.

If all of us that are truly opposed to abortion would encourage each other and work together, then I think great things could happen.

Sometimes, Gebre, the best alternatives are boundaries. Some actions are legal, and some are illegal. It's OK to picket an abortion clinic, but it's not OK to kill an abortion doctor, for instance. Some actions are appropriate for a particular time and place, and some are not. I'm not sure I can offer any more positive alternatives than you already know and use, since you're closer to the front lines of the war against abortion than I am. All I'm really qualified to offer is that there are certain places where a more militaristic, in-your-face approach is good, and there are places where it's not appropriate. You really have to be sensitive to the culture of a place to know for certain, and I can't teach that discernment to you.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Here is why I accept the 'visual shock method' (c).

There was a time when I was ambivalent to abortion, among other things that I was accepting (in this regard). It wasn't until I started to understand that a baby, no matter how small, including a "fetus", when killed was identical to killing a grown individual. If I was to reject murder in all forms, (which as my opinions changed, so did my opinion to support the rejection of murder) then I would have to reject the killing of a adult/child/fetus/zygote.

That being said, some people will refuse to acknowledge a child within the womb, no matter the stage, to be a person (in the fullest sense). When this is the case, the burden of evidence is to convince the denier of this opinion. To do so, pictures of aborted babies, requiring the acknowledgement of the formed parts. Once this has been accomplished, then it is a game of walking the formation back and/or discussing when this formed baby is no longer a baby (and why). That initial acceptance is critical, of which, is merely arguing concepts without regard to reality.

Exactly!

And that being said, I don't believe that visual shock is always or only the best method to use. During my years as a sidewalk counsellor, I never used the signs of aborted babies. My approach was to do whatever I could to invite women to come over and talk to me, or at least take the literature I had for them. I felt that the graphic signs would only drive them away from me. However, other Pro-Lifers would use the signs. Sometimes I really hated it, because I felt that those signs made my job harder. But, I can also tell you that I have had many women tell me that they chose not to abort their babies because they saw those signs and it made a profound impact on them. So that's why I have learned not to judge and condemn the methods of others, even when they may be completely at odds with my own approach. God can use any of us; and as someome once told me, "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick." The only thing I unequivocally reject is violence.


Selam

[orthonorm]

Why isn't OK to kill an abortion doctor? Seriously.

Guy walking up to kill a kid standing next to me. I know he is going to do it. I can stop it by stopping his life.

Or the better analogy, the next door makes his living killing fives year olds no one wants anymore and bribes the authorities to do nothing about it.

And I kill him.

Is that OK?

My Priest I doubt is going to condemn me. I would have to repent. But how bad is such an act really, if you all truly believe the way you do?

I know Gebre ain't killing no one, so this ain't directed at him. He would let the guy kill his kids. But I'm talking to the rest of your who would protect your children and probably your neighbors' children, etc.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Sometimes, Gebre, the best alternatives are boundaries. Some actions are legal, and some are illegal. It's OK to picket an abortion clinic, but it's not OK to kill an abortion doctor, for instance. Some actions are appropriate for a particular time and place, and some are not. I'm not sure I can offer any more positive alternatives than you already know and use, since you're closer to the front lines of the war against abortion than I am. All I'm really qualified to offer is that there are certain places where a more militaristic, in-your-face approach is good, and there are places where it's not appropriate. You really have to be sensitive to the culture of a place to know for certain, and I can't teach that discernment to you.

I agree with you Peter. That's why I posted the Teddy Roosevelt quote before. In the midst of the battle, things are not so easy to discern. Of course, as you well know, I always condemn violence as an appropriate method for accomplishing righteousness. I have come to greatly admire anyone who is trying to nonviolently bring attention to the plight of the unborn, and who is pointing out the damage that abortion does to all who are involved in it. I know the persecution they face, and I hate to see them ridiculed and judged by their fellow Christian brethren.


Selam

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Babies are being saved

http://www.40daysforlife.com/

Why don't the Orthodox join us?

Some of us joined you and Fundamental Protestants in signing the Manhattan Declaration. We participate in rallies, including the national one. It is one of those issues that join us in a common cause.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I know Gebre ain't killing no one, so this ain't directed at him. He would let the guy kill his kids. But I'm talking to the rest of your who would protect your children and probably your neighbors' children, etc.

I know you're just trying to provoke me brother. But I want you to know that I find such an unfounded accusation beyond the pale of decency. I can assure that while I am indeed a pacifist, I would advise you in the strongest possible terms not to lay a finger on my children.


Selam

[Asteriktos]

I saw this picture thought it fit well in some recent threads...

[Asteriktos]

So that's why I have learned not to judge and condemn the methods of others, even when they may be completely at odds with my own approach.

Give me a break. That's all you've been doing the last week, judging and condeming others because their approach differs from yours. The last post like this (out of the 6,194 you've made) talks about sites pulling your obscene picture, and making the psychoanalytically judgmental comment about it just being too much truth for them to handle. Whatever.

[Aindriú]

I know Gebre ain't killing no one, so this ain't directed at him. He would let the guy kill his kids. But I'm talking to the rest of your who would protect your children and probably your neighbors' children, etc.

I know you're just trying to provoke me brother. But I want you to know that I find such an unfounded accusation beyond the pale of decency. I can assure that while I am indeed a pacifist, I would advise you in the strongest possible terms not to lay a finger on my children.


Selam

I actually lol'd at that. But seriously, he would probably say some mean things.

[Aindriú]

Why isn't OK to kill an abortion doctor? Seriously.

Guy walking up to kill a kid standing next to me. I know he is going to do it. I can stop it by stopping his life.

Or the better analogy, the next door makes his living killing fives year olds no one wants anymore and bribes the authorities to do nothing about it.

And I kill him.

Is that OK?

My Priest I doubt is going to condemn me. I would have to repent. But how bad is such an act really, if you all truly believe the way you do?

I know Gebre ain't killing no one, so this ain't directed at him. He would let the guy kill his kids. But I'm talking to the rest of your who would protect your children and probably your neighbors' children, etc.

Would you go out and track down an ax murderer in another town? I wouldn't. I would expect the police to track him down. If the police weren't doing it, then I would raise cain.

In a society where public opinion isn't on your side, there are better options to stopping abortion, i.e. making it illegal.