Is Abortion actually murder?

[sprtslvr1973]

     If it is why do we not treat it as such? If a woman and her "doctor" actually commit murder, with the state's permission if not actual blessing, why do we not take the law into our own hands? Moreover, if a person shoots and kills an abortionist in order to literally save the lives of children, we should reach out to him with some degree of empathy.
     I have often pondered in my head the right form and level of civil disobedience. If the abortion industry is in fact the  holocaust that it's been called, is it not justified to kill the murderer, not so much as means of punishment, but rather as a form of prevention? For illustration, to me shooting and killing Adolf Eichmann walking to his mail box may not be ethical, but to stop him from ordering a shipment of Jewish civilians to Auschwitz is entirely justified. There are options of course. Rather than killing someone, other forms of incapacitation may be considered. Examples include injuring an abortionists hands or eyes so that he or she has to give their practice. I have also pondered forms of non-violent methods such as vandalizing machinery.
     All the while I have abstained from any of these actions. I'd like to give a more noble reason, but the truth is I am too cowardly and selfish to face prison. Therefore, while I respect the person who has acted as a vigilante, I can not in good conscience recommend some one else take the risk that I can not.
     Or is it possible that many pro-Life advocates in fact see a fetus as a 'potential' person, rather than an actual person?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Or is it possible that many pro-Life advocates in fact see a fetus as a 'potential' person, rather than an actual person?

I would say that the fetus is an actual person feeling the pain of being killed. That being said, I'm also not going out and attacking soldiers for killing in what I consider to be an unjust conflict. I'm also not reducing my oil usage that fuels the guarding of the new pipeline in east Afghanistan. So I'm a big bundle of rationalizations and contradictions. Basically, I'm a human being.

[yeshuaisiam]

As a parent of 5 children and having lost 4 nieces or nephews to abortion, I can assure you it is murder.
We should treat it as such.   It is wicked, evil, and vile.


There is no excuse for this wretchedness being legal.

[kevlev]

A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction between its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible among us.

-Saint Basil the Great

[Shiny]

The reason why it's not treated as murder is because there are too many people who erroneously believe it to be not.

[Justin Kissel]

People seem to be answering the thread title, but not the OP...

[Kerdy]

If it is why do we not treat it as such?

Our society suffers from what I have tagged, the “Me Syndrome”.  What’s in it for me?  What do I get out of it?  How does this affect me?  It’s all about “me” and no one else.  Even parenting suffers from this affliction.  You see it in almost every aspect of modern life today, which is why I believe America is falling into shambles.  Homosexuals say they were born that way thinking this somehow justifies their life choices of sin.  Parents kill their living children because its inconvenient to have them any longer.  Pregnancy and motherhood suffer as well.  I have heard women actually, in defense of abortion, ask why they should destroy their bodies just to have a child ignoring their own actions caused their condition.  Lack of responsibility.  The world is a sick and evil place.  Since most of society suffers from the Me Syndrome, they see no problem with killing unborn children.  They have convinced themselves it is not only ok, but the child is not real.  Lately, some have even been so bold as to proclaim a born child is not a viable personality and can be killed up to two years old.  Evil controls the country and it is only getting stronger.  Those of us who see it for what it really is are the minority.  Abortion has absolutely become birth control.

If a woman and her "doctor" actually commit murder, with the state's permission if not actual blessing, why do we not take the law into our own hands?

Because this creates Anarchy, which easily spirals out of control.  At least now we still maintain some semblance of authority.

Moreover, if a person shoots and kills an abortionist in order to literally save the lives of children, we should reach out to him with some degree of empathy.

But then, we become the criminal and the scourge of society and culture.  Usually those who conduct this type of action are unstable anyway and dangerous to anyone.  Abortion is only a means for them to focus their aggression.  Until we are able to change laws, it is a losing battle to engage in this type of warfare.  At best, the person or persons will be called extremists or religious zealots.

I have often pondered in my head the right form and level of civil disobedience.

One of the things I believe the Roman Catholic Church as gotten right is this.  Their response to abortion is respectable.  A very dear friend of mine who is Catholic is very involved in prayer vigils at abortion clinics and state buildings, etc.  Peaceful, but they let their voices be heard in the silence of prayer.  No violence, no loudness, only peaceful non-resistance to show there is a better way.  My wife and I once convinced a young woman to not abort and instead give the child over for adoption simply by talking to her for a few hours.  If you feel very strongly and want to participate, I encourage to you ask your Catholic friends if you can join.

If the abortion industry is in fact the  holocaust that it's been called, is it not justified to kill the murderer, not so much as means of punishment, but rather as a form of prevention?

I see your reasoning, but again, this results in chaos, which does no good for anyone.  Until the state has its mind changed, all efforts would be wasted.

Examples include injuring an abortionists hands or eyes so that he or she has to give their practice. I have also pondered forms of non-violent methods such as vandalizing machinery.

What you must understand is if we all went around beating the dog snot out of people we disagreed with, we would have no time left for anything else and everyone would be engaged in fighting and hurting one another.  Violence is rarely the right response and only as a last resort when all lesser means have failed.  Vandalizing machinery still gets people hurt.  If your goal is to end abortion, you must win the hearts of others and convince their minds it is wrong.  Being a vigilante would not accomplish this goal.  They would only think you were a nutjob and dismiss anything you had to say.

All the while I have abstained from any of these actions. I'd like to give a more noble reason, but the truth is I am too cowardly and selfish to face prison.

Sounds like a good reason to me.  

Or is it possible that many pro-Life advocates in fact see a fetus as a 'potential' person, rather than an actual person?

This is the multi-billion dollar question.  When does life actually begin?  Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers.  Until we know for certain, I say be cautious and start at conception, to make sure we do not kill anyone.

Since we are talking about this, I was convinced by the abovementioned Catholic friend the abortion pill is also wrong.  Took some time, but he won me over.  I mention this because this is how you will change a person’s mind.  

[choy]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

     If it is why do we not treat it as such? If a woman and her "doctor" actually commit murder, with the state's permission if not actual blessing, why do we not take the law into our own hands? Moreover, if a person shoots and kills an abortionist in order to literally save the lives of children, we should reach out to him with some degree of empathy.
     I have often pondered in my head the right form and level of civil disobedience. If the abortion industry is in fact the  holocaust that it's been called, is it not justified to kill the murderer, not so much as means of punishment, but rather as a form of prevention? For illustration, to me shooting and killing Adolf Eichmann walking to his mail box may not be ethical, but to stop him from ordering a shipment of Jewish civilians to Auschwitz is entirely justified. There are options of course. Rather than killing someone, other forms of incapacitation may be considered. Examples include injuring an abortionists hands or eyes so that he or she has to give their practice. I have also pondered forms of non-violent methods such as vandalizing machinery.
     All the while I have abstained from any of these actions. I'd like to give a more noble reason, but the truth is I am too cowardly and selfish to face prison. Therefore, while I respect the person who has acted as a vigilante, I can not in good conscience recommend some one else take the risk that I can not.
     Or is it possible that many pro-Life advocates in fact see a fetus as a 'potential' person, rather than an actual person?

These are excellent yet difficult questions. I wrestled with them for many years, and ultimately this issue led me to become a pacifist. If violence is ever justifiable in order to save the innocent, then most surely it is justifiable to save the unborn from the brutality of abortion. However, I am convinced that violent solutions are never Christian solutions. Somehow we must try to fight, defend, and rescue our neighbors without killing our neighbors. Both the unborn child and the abortionist are our neighbors, and both need deliverance and salvation. I wish more Christians had the honesty and courage to ask and wrestle with the questions you have asked here.

"Lord have mercy."


Selam

[Basil 320]

Look at ultrasound videos, and you decide, if that baby (promoted as a fetus by abortionists) is taken out of the mother's womb, and laid down, what would you see happening?  

Why do you think supporters of abortion do not want the mother to be shown what is in her womb?  

So, is abortion murder just because what is removed from the womb is not necessarily seen?

[JamesRottnek]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

[Cognomen]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

Not sure I'm quite following, other than the part about not all killing is necessarily murder. 

I don't think soldiers and policemen (who take lives in legitimate circumstances; soldiers and policemen are not immune from committing murder) , or people who accidentally kill other humans can readily be compared with abortion doctors.  Aren't they doing pretty different things, the first two being somewhat sanctioned by the Church, and the latter being an unintentional killing?

[choy]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

Abortion is a deliberate act on an innocent life.  Abortion is not an accident.  The term is miscarriage for accidents.  Abortion is certainly not something policemen and soldiers do.  They kill as part of their duty to protect.  Who are we protecting when we abort?  The personal, selfish interests of the mother?  When policemen and soldiers kill, it is for the benefit of society, and not just one or two people.

[Russell]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

Abortion is a deliberate act on an innocent life.  Abortion is not an accident.  The term is miscarriage for accidents.  Abortion is certainly not something policemen and soldiers do.  They kill as part of their duty to protect.  Who are we protecting when we abort?  The personal, selfish interests of the mother?  When policemen and soldiers kill, it is for the benefit of society, and not just one or two people.

Is it still murder when both the baby and the mother are going to die, and the only way to save the mother is an abortion?

[Cognomen]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

Abortion is a deliberate act on an innocent life.  Abortion is not an accident.  The term is miscarriage for accidents.  Abortion is certainly not something policemen and soldiers do.  They kill as part of their duty to protect.  Who are we protecting when we abort?  The personal, selfish interests of the mother?  When policemen and soldiers kill, it is for the benefit of society, and not just one or two people.

Is it still murder when both the baby and the mother are going to die, and the only way to save the mother is an abortion?

According to the logic of trying to prevent death, it seems not.  I'm not saying it's good or preferred, just that it wouldn't be murder according to the other examples.

[choy]

Is it still murder when both the baby and the mother are going to die, and the only way to save the mother is an abortion?

Yes.  Because doctors have attested that there is no such scenario.

[choy]

According to the logic of trying to prevent death, it seems not.  I'm not saying it's good or preferred, just that it wouldn't be murder according to the other examples.

I have yet to come across a concrete example where aborting the baby is the only way to save the mother.  It is always hypothetical, and some doctors have already come out and said that no such scenario exists.

An ectopic pregnancy is a different thing.  The fetus is implanted in the Fallopian tube where it has zero chance of survival.  It is dying if not already dead.

[Cognomen]

Ok, I guess I was just responding to the hypothetical then.

[choy]

Ok, I guess I was just responding to the hypothetical then.

I don't want to claim to be an authority on the matter, but that is what I have learned so far.   As I said, I am staunchly pro-life.  I like reading up on things like this.  And so far there has been no concrete evidence of abortion as an only option to save the mother.

[Kerdy]

Since we are talking about this, I was convinced by the abovementioned Catholic friend the abortion pill is also wrong.  Took some time, but he won me over.  I mention this because this is how you will change a person’s mind.  

I mean birth control pill.  I always knew the day after pill was wrong.

[Cognomen]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

[Jharek Carnelian]

I am a staunch Pro-Lifer.  Definitely abortion is murder.  Any Christian cannot claim otherwise.  The opening chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke is a testament to life in the womb.  St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and while within the womb he recognized the presence of Christ also in the womb.  Within the Theotokos was not a clump of cells who became Jesus at the Nativity.  He was God incarnate from the Annunciation.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

These are not apt comparisons. I cannot understand why you introduce them. The third example in particular is bothersome as such an event could be a murder if you crash a car into someone due to neglect or driving under the influence of drugs or drinks, yet it might also be purely accidental. Killing does not equal murder and that is a strawman, Orthodoxy (like my own Church) recognises there are legitimate circumstances in which one may defend their life or the nation. Abortion is something rather different.

[JamesR]

The way I see it is that a person is a person the moment that sperm fertilizes that egg. Period. Whether or not that person was born yet or not is irrelevant to me; I just like to see it as different stages of life. I think that a fetus is a person but just in a different stage of his life than the rest of us. To me, saying that a fetus is not a person because it has not been born yet is no different than saying that an elderly person is not a person because they are old or that an African and/or Latino is not a person because they have a darker skin color.

Does killing equal murder?  Are soldiers murderers?  Are policemen murderers?  Have you murdered someone when they die because you crashed your car into them?

Some abuse their power and wrongfully kill people, so yes. But, however, provided that they use their authority justly and only kill someone when they have to, I would not say that they are murderes. While it is indeed true that it would be even better if they did not have to kill anyone at all, I think that given our fallen state of the world, God is merciful to them and understands that sometimes they have to kill for the greater good of society. As for the last scenerio though, that depends on many things. If your car malfunctioned and you could not control it from impacting on another's car, then no, you are not guilty of anything. However, if you were under the influence of alcohol/drugs or were driving foolishly, then yes, I would say that you are guilty. But guilty in a different way. You would only be guilty of being stupid and careless--but of course, the murder was an accident. However, if you were intentionally trying to murder them, then I would say that you are purely guilty of intended murder.

[jmbejdl]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

[Cognomen]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Fair enough; my mistake.  Keep up the good work then.  The zero-sum arguments seem to be doing wonders!

[orthonorm]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

Yes, often it actually does act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteran wall.


Selam

[jmbejdl]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

Yes, often it actually does act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteran wall.


Selam

Indeed. As it often works by preventing implantation (it can also work by preventing ovulation which would be contraceptive but you can't guarantee which way it will work in any given instance) and implantation occurs days after conception, the only way you can argue that the pill is not an abortifacient is to define life as beginning at implantation rather than conception. I reiterate what I said before - the pill should not be an acceptable 'contraceptive' method for Orthodox Christians.

James

[Kerdy]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

Yes, often it actually does act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteran wall.


Selam

Indeed.  I'm a "show me" sort of person and my friend presented the evidence, so I change my view to fit the facts.

[orthonorm]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

Yes, often it actually does act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteran wall.


Selam

Indeed.  I'm a "show me" sort of person and my friend presented the evidence, so I change my view to fit the facts.

This will be rich. I was just going to link to where Gebre and others have been shut down in the past on this forum when asked for "evidence".

So please show me peer-reviewed studies showing that women on oral birth control have a higher rate passing fertilized eggs than women are not on oral contraception.

Don't give me testimonies from physicians or drug warning labels or theoretical discussions of how it could possibly be the case.

Studies with sufficient data that have been reproduced and verified.

Thanks.

[Ortho_cat]

the guy who killed george tiller took it into his own hands...shot him in his own church.

[Kerdy]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

Yes, often it actually does act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteran wall.


Selam

Indeed.  I'm a "show me" sort of person and my friend presented the evidence, so I change my view to fit the facts.

This will be rich. I was just going to link to where Gebre and others have been shut down in the past on this forum when asked for "evidence".

So please show me peer-reviewed studies showing that women on oral birth control have a higher rate passing fertilized eggs than women are not on oral contraception.

Don't give me testimonies from physicians or drug warning labels or theoretical discussions of how it could possibly be the case.

Studies with sufficient data that have been reproduced and verified.

Thanks.

My friend showed me.  The birth control pill makes the womb inhospitable to the fertilized egg, it does not prevent fertilization.

[orthonorm]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

Correct.



Selam

Nope.

Yes, often it actually does act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteran wall.


Selam

Indeed.  I'm a "show me" sort of person and my friend presented the evidence, so I change my view to fit the facts.

This will be rich. I was just going to link to where Gebre and others have been shut down in the past on this forum when asked for "evidence".

So please show me peer-reviewed studies showing that women on oral birth control have a higher rate passing fertilized eggs than women are not on oral contraception.

Don't give me testimonies from physicians or drug warning labels or theoretical discussions of how it could possibly be the case.

Studies with sufficient data that have been reproduced and verified.

Thanks.

My friend showed me. 

Showed you what?

Please provide the only thing approaching evidence for your claims which is what I described above.

Again, I don't care what a physician says, a drug company offers in disclaimer, the PDR suggests, theories might explain about how certain mechanisms in which the pills acts might correlate with decreased degree of fertilized egg implantation.

Baring the above clear empirical and repeatable evidence, you have nothing that amounts to more than conjecture. And that is not evidence.

 

[Kerdy]

Showed you what?

Please provide the only thing approaching evidence for your claims which is what I described above.

Again, I don't care what a physician says, a drug company offers in disclaimer, the PDR suggests, theories might explain about how certain mechanisms in which the pills acts might correlate with decreased degree of fertilized egg implantation.

Baring the above clear empirical and repeatable evidence, you have nothing that amounts to more than conjecture. And that is not evidence.

 

You certainly are defensive.  There is no reason to be.  I said he showed me and convinced me, which was not easy, but I was open to the possibility and realized he was right.  He had the information as he is very active in the anti-abortion movement.  Mine was a personal inquiry.  If you have some reason to disbelieve what I have said, by all means believe what you want, but if you think I am going to “forum battle” with you, you are mistaken.  I do not have the relevant information you request, I never did and you seem unwilling to digest it appropriately anyway.  If you are, I suggest you get in touch with those who do have the information you are looking for, but from your list of unapproved sources, I have serious doubts you will ever find anything convincing.

[orthonorm]

Showed you what?

Please provide the only thing approaching evidence for your claims which is what I described above.

Again, I don't care what a physician says, a drug company offers in disclaimer, the PDR suggests, theories might explain about how certain mechanisms in which the pills acts might correlate with decreased degree of fertilized egg implantation.

Baring the above clear empirical and repeatable evidence, you have nothing that amounts to more than conjecture. And that is not evidence.

 

You certainly are defensive.  There is no reason to be.  I said he showed me and convinced me, which was not easy, but I was open to the possibility and realized he was right.  He had the information as he is very active in the anti-abortion movement.  Mine was a personal inquiry.  If you have some reason to disbelieve what I have said, by all means believe what you want, but if you think I am going to “forum battle” with you, you are mistaken.  I do not have the relevant information you request, I never did and you seem unwilling to digest it appropriately anyway.  If you are, I suggest you get in touch with those who do have the information you are looking for, but from your list of unapproved sources, I have serious doubts you will ever find anything convincing.

I am not defensive, I am arguing a point.

You and the piety police come through here and make unsubstantiated and possibly hurtful claims. Do you know who might be taking oral contraception right now and be reading what your are writing and are worried they are effectively engaged in abortion?

I am not.

I am not having sex.

No need for me to be defensive. However, outside of the patently false claims made in such a blase manner by you all above, you make them without considering the affect they might have on others.

Not only are you wrong and incapable of defending your decision, you are being reckless.

So let's be clear:

You have no evidence other than the secret info you have and the fact you claim I would be unwilling to "digest" it.

There are others reading here.

If you are so sure it is abortion and thus murder (which you don't believe either), then it would seem it would be the least you could do stop further murders from occurring.

[ZealousZeal]

Seems misguided to me.  Seems if you wanted to stop "murders" you would support methods that reduce the likelihood of "murder" occurring.

Presuming that you were replying to the comment about the pill above yours, I'm afraid that you are the one who appears to be misguided on this. The pill shouldn't be an acceptable 'contraceptive' for Orthodox or anyone who consider themselves 'pro-life' (I hate that term) because it doesn't actually work by preventing conception at all - it's an abortifacient.

James

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

[yeshuaisiam]

From the OP, he was also talking about doing harm to an abortion doctor....

"I tell you do not resist an evil person"....  From the scriptures.

Now, it is talking about YOU resisting an evil person, and not saving another person from being murdered.
Also, we have the "better to tie a millstone" scripture/words of God.

I honestly am pegged and don't know how to respond to your question.  But if I ever shook the hand of an abortion doctor, I would probably break it, which would be my own issue.

[Cognomen]

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

Please don't bring nuance or scientificy words/distinctions into this discussion.

So taking an oral contraceptive isn't the same thing as terminating a 5 month pregnancy (baby)?

Not sure it's completely on point (and I haven't been able to drag up the articles I wanted), but there have been some interesting studies on the recent public opinion shift on abortion.  From what I read, the increase in opposition has been largely credited to campaigns focusing on the more obviously nasty elements of the practice, e.g. late-term, partial-birth. 

In other words, most people don't really believe that a recently fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby you can see swimming around in an ultrasound.

So as a follow up question to the OP, what are folks supposed to do?  With the danger of sounding utilitarian, it seems that people should try to fight the practice through persuasive arguments, rather than sticking to rigid positions which are likely to be dismissed.  Maybe I'm wrong; I'm new to this debate.

[akimori makoto]

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

Please don't bring nuance or scientificy words/distinctions into this discussion.

So taking an oral contraceptive isn't the same thing as terminating a 5 month pregnancy (baby)?

Not sure it's completely on point (and I haven't been able to drag up the articles I wanted), but there have been some interesting studies on the recent public opinion shift on abortion.  From what I read, the increase in opposition has been largely credited to campaigns focusing on the more obviously nasty elements of the practice, e.g. late-term, partial-birth. 

In other words, most people don't really believe that a recently fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby you can see swimming around in an ultrasound.

So as a follow up question to the OP, what are folks supposed to do?  With the danger of sounding utilitarian, it seems that people should try to fight the practice through persuasive arguments, rather than sticking to rigid positions which are likely to be dismissed.  Maybe I'm wrong; I'm new to this debate.

I always begin any discussion on abortion by trying to have the interlocutor agree that late-term abortion is entirely horrific and clearly repugnant -- then I argue backwards from there to try to say there is no clear point at which you can say the child is not a child but simply a mass of cells. Is this kinda what you have in mind?

[orthonorm]

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

Please don't bring nuance or scientificy words/distinctions into this discussion.

So taking an oral contraceptive isn't the same thing as terminating a 5 month pregnancy (baby)?

Not sure it's completely on point (and I haven't been able to drag up the articles I wanted), but there have been some interesting studies on the recent public opinion shift on abortion.  From what I read, the increase in opposition has been largely credited to campaigns focusing on the more obviously nasty elements of the practice, e.g. late-term, partial-birth.  

In other words, most people don't really believe that a recently fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby you can see swimming around in an ultrasound.

So as a follow up question to the OP, what are folks supposed to do?  With the danger of sounding utilitarian, it seems that people should try to fight the practice through persuasive arguments, rather than sticking to rigid positions which are likely to be dismissed.  Maybe I'm wrong; I'm new to this debate.

I always begin any discussion on abortion by trying to have the interlocutor agree that late-term abortion is entirely horrific and clearly repugnant -- then I argue backwards from there to try to say there is no clear point at which you can say the child is not a child but simply a mass of cells. Is this kinda what you have in mind?

Sorry, but I would have stymied you quite quickly with that line of reasoning.

Perhaps more on this later. I like Cognomen's angle he is going. It is surprising under which conditions within the Western world the fewest abortions (thus acts of pre-natal murder according to the people here equating the two while not truly believing it) occur.  

Really no can worms gets opened in the way Cognomen is suggesting as along as people don't get caught up in the idolatry of ideals, which is usually is exactly what happens when people discuss the lives of others and never what happens when it comes to their own lives, in fact quite the opposite, they live as nearly absolute hypocrites.

[akimori makoto]

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

Please don't bring nuance or scientificy words/distinctions into this discussion.

So taking an oral contraceptive isn't the same thing as terminating a 5 month pregnancy (baby)?

Not sure it's completely on point (and I haven't been able to drag up the articles I wanted), but there have been some interesting studies on the recent public opinion shift on abortion.  From what I read, the increase in opposition has been largely credited to campaigns focusing on the more obviously nasty elements of the practice, e.g. late-term, partial-birth. 

In other words, most people don't really believe that a recently fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby you can see swimming around in an ultrasound.

So as a follow up question to the OP, what are folks supposed to do?  With the danger of sounding utilitarian, it seems that people should try to fight the practice through persuasive arguments, rather than sticking to rigid positions which are likely to be dismissed.  Maybe I'm wrong; I'm new to this debate.

I always begin any discussion on abortion by trying to have the interlocutor agree that late-term abortion is entirely horrific and clearly repugnant -- then I argue backwards from there to try to say there is no clear point at which you can say the child is not a child but simply a mass of cells. Is this kinda what you have in mind?

Sorry, but I would have stymied you quite quickly with that line of reasoning.

Perhaps more on this later. I like Cognomen's angle he is going. It is surprising under which conditions within the Western world the fewest abortions (thus acts of pre-natal murder according to the people here equating the two while not truly believing it) occur. 

Really no can worms gets opened in the way Cognomen is suggesting as along as people don't get caught up in the idolatry of ideals, which is usually is exactly what happens when people discuss the lives of others and never what happens when it comes to their own lives, in fact quite the opposite, they live as nearly absolute hypocrites.

[redacted]

[ZealousZeal]

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

Please don't bring nuance or scientificy words/distinctions into this discussion.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters with nuance, but the statement "The pill is an abortifacient" is so vague as to be meaningless (no offense intended). So, I responded.

Also, the nature of the abortion topic makes nuance and science inevitable, IMO.

[Cognomen]

What pill are we talking about here? Progestogen-only pills? Combined oral contraceptive pills? And even then, what dosage? A pill's mechanism of action depends on exactly what kind of pill we are talking about. Some do indeed make the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg, others suppress gonadotropins (GnRH and thereby FSH and LH) thereby suppressing ovulation.

Please don't bring nuance or scientificy words/distinctions into this discussion.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters with nuance, but the statement "The pill is an abortifacient" is so vague as to be meaningless (no offense intended). So, I responded.

Also, the nature of the abortion topic makes nuance and science inevitable, IMO.

I failed to clarify that I was kidding, and that I very much welcomed your comments to the discussion.

[Kerdy]

I feel it important, prior to discussing what is or is not wrong, a clear explanation of exactly when life begins should be established.  Without that, all views are subjective and nothing more than opinion. 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Is Abortion actually murder?