Why Not Abort?...

[djhutch]

...because "now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully..." (http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=1%20Corinthians%2013:12&niv=yes) 1 Cor. 13:12

Link (http://audreycaroline.blogspot.com/)

Went to a concert on Saturday evening featuring a Christian group named Selah. The lead singer, Todd Smith, shared a testimony regarding their yet to be born daughter Audrey Caroline. Long story short, Audrey isn't expected to live more than 1-2 minutes after she's born. Todd's wife Angie has decided to document this entire trial in an online journal. It's a way to help her grieve, but has helped an untold number of people begin to take their first steps with God. I hope you find it as inspirational as I did.

[rhino]

DJHutch,
With all due respect, their story is about the hope that all parents share that have a sick child in a life or death battle. The hope that maybe their child will live. It's not about abortion.

[Corky]

We saw them last year in concert and have listened to their stuff for years. A great and inspirational group.

[eastside billee]

Tremendous group live!
They used to live here -- their home church is over on I-75 service drive just south of 10 mile rd.

Where did you see them?

[Corky]

When we saw them the chubby little keyboard guy hid in the back most of the show. Then he did a solo deal on "You Raise Me Up" that just blew away the room. They are all talented and he really shone.

[djhutch]

DJHutch,
With all due respect, their story is about the hope that all parents share that have a sick child in a life or death battle. The hope that maybe their child will live. It's not about abortion.

That may be true, but one of the arguments that many pro-abortion people have made for years is "What if the child is going to be born with this problem or that problem? Aborting the child would save you that heartache."

[sagnam]

Well this fits in the Bar & Grill nicely.

Generalizations are fun! (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia)

[eastside billee]

I think it fits fine since there is no religious category.

[MotownRandy]

DJ, I would disagree that this reason you mentioned is one of the reasons pro-choice people argue for abortion rights. Perhaps you've heard someone utter this statement in response to a specific case, but I wouldn't say that it is a widely accepted justification for abortion by anyone that is pro-choice. I think this is perhaps an example that shows the misunderstandings each side has about the other (it goes both ways).

I think there are many misconceptions of the opponents' positions on abortion (on both sides) because the foundation of these arguments are based upon completely different philosophical beliefs and origins, hence, the differences in names that you or I might use to label the opposite viewpoint (pro-choice, pro-life, anti-choice, pro-abortion and even some more extreme ones). I say this only because you used the label "pro-abortion" even though I feel this does not accurately describe my position. I would probably call you "anti-choice," but normally I would say "pro-life" simply out of respect for the other people. I think you should call people what they would like to be called so even though I disagree with the label "pro-life" (because I don't think thats really pro-life, its just a position that means there is zero tolerance for abortion), I'll still call you pro-life because that is what you would prefer to be labeled. While I probably will never change my position on this issue, its always good to try to better understand the other side, which I've tried to do partly because I've been exposed to it more in the past year as I've dated someone who comes from a completely different background than mine.

Anyway, that was too long of a rant. I guess I just felt like saying that because I don't post on here much anymore and because I've kind of "known" you for a while so that its a discussion worth having. I also think this could easily be a political thread, although that was clearly not DJ's intention; he was just sharing something that was important to him.

[sagnam]

I think it fits fine since there is no religious category.

Religion is clearly more Political than Bar and Grill.

Also, this thread is about abortion, not religion.

[Lousluggage]

That may be true, but one of the arguments that many pro-abortion people have made for years is "What if the child is going to be born with this problem or that problem? Aborting the child would save you that heartache."

I have heard also people label a couple that would make the choice to go through with the pregnancy selfish, because they said it was extra insurance costs that went into the system.

I hope that they can get through this, I can't even imagine the pain that this would cause.

[Ranger]

Also, this thread is about abortion, not religion.
Can you talk about abortion without bringing up religion?

[djhutch]

DJ, I would disagree that this reason you mentioned is one of the reasons pro-choice people argue for abortion rights. Perhaps you've heard someone utter this statement in response to a specific case, but I wouldn't say that it is a widely accepted justification for abortion by anyone that is pro-choice. I think this is perhaps an example that shows the misunderstandings each side has about the other (it goes both ways).

I think there are many misconceptions of the opponents' positions on abortion (on both sides) because the foundation of these arguments are based upon completely different philosophical beliefs and origins, hence, the differences in names that you or I might use to label the opposite viewpoint (pro-choice, pro-life, anti-choice, pro-abortion and even some more extreme ones). I say this only because you used the label "pro-abortion" even though I feel this does not accurately describe my position. I would probably call you "anti-choice," but normally I would say "pro-life" simply out of respect for the other people. I think you should call people what they would like to be called so even though I disagree with the label "pro-life" (because I don't think thats really pro-life, its just a position that means there is zero tolerance for abortion), I'll still call you pro-life because that is what you would prefer to be labeled. While I probably will never change my position on this issue, its always good to try to better understand the other side, which I've tried to do partly because I've been exposed to it more in the past year as I've dated someone who comes from a completely different background than mine.

Anyway, that was too long of a rant. I guess I just felt like saying that because I don't post on here much anymore and because I've kind of "known" you for a while so that its a discussion worth having. I also think this could easily be a political thread, although that was clearly not DJ's intention; he was just sharing something that was important to him.

I can appreciate that, but since I was not directing my comment at 1 person in particular I would have had no way of knowing which to use. I understand there are some who say they are "pro-choice" & don't like to be labeled as "pro-abortion." It was not my intention to offend you. My point in posting the story was mostly to draw attention to how short-sighted abortion is. Sometimes we don't know why we're going thru a given situation, but we can still be used by God to bless others. Life isn't all about me & what I want.

[sagnam]

Can you talk about abortion without bringing up religion?

I can.

[Blue Square Thing]

I can.

I agree. Entirely possible - especially if you're not someone who goes along with the dogma of a standard religion in the first place.

[Canon Fodder]

I agree. Entirely possible - especially if you're not someone who goes along with the dogma of a standard religion in the first place.

Right on.

Actually, I think the subject is best debated by people without a religious bias. (That's not to say people with a religious affiliation don't have an opinion, but that religion takes a great deal of logic out of the argument.)

One could get all hot-and-bothered by this subject, or take a step back and realized how it's likely to be resolved.

My theory is that as science continues to progress, the "official" moment life begins will probably become closer and closer to conception. (At one time, children weren't "alive" until after they were out of the womb. Now the threshold is like twenty-one weeks or something like that.) The point is that babies have been granted rights before they're even born. Last time I checked, the U.S. government doesn't have a habit of taking rights away from citizens once they're granted. (Unless we're at war with people of your non-white ethnic background.) If that holds true, and science keeps progressing, unborn fetuses will eventually be protected from conception or close to it. (This could happen in five years, or fifty, or five-hundred. The point is that it's likely to happen.)

No religion. No personal feelings or beliefs. A completely analytical discussion. Even if there is a flaw in my reasoning, there's nothing offensive there. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the preceeding points will open up a Pandorian box of ethical questions, but the legal ones are likely to only move in one direction - toward more rights for the fetus.

(Yup, this should definitely be in the political discussion area.)

[Blue Square Thing]

My theory is that as science continues to progress, the "official" moment life begins will probably become closer and closer to conception. (At one time, children weren't "alive" until after they were out of the womb. Now the threshold is like twenty-one weeks or something like that.) The point is that babies have been granted rights before they're even born. Last time I checked, the U.S. government doesn't have a habit of taking rights away from citizens once they're granted. (Unless we're at war with people of your non-white ethnic background.) If that holds true, and science keeps progressing, unborn fetuses will eventually be protected from conception or close to it. (This could happen in five years, or fifty, or five-hundred. The point is that it's likely to happen.)

That's logical - although there will have to be a squaring of "rights" at some point between those of the mother and those of the fetus I suppose. That could be tricky to resolve.

But certainly there's every reason to expect that as medical science improves that a fetus will become more reliably viable at an earlier stage in it's gestation so, logically, the laws regarding the term at which abortion is made difficult (I can see there being some exceptions) will shrink somewhat.

[belcherboy]

...because "now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully..." (http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=1%20Corinthians%2013:12&niv=yes) 1 Cor. 13:12

Link (http://audreycaroline.blogspot.com/)

Went to a concert on Saturday evening featuring a Christian group named Selah. The lead singer, Todd Smith, shared a testimony regarding their yet to be born daughter Audrey Caroline. Long story short, Audrey isn't expected to live more than 1-2 minutes after she's born. Todd's wife Angie has decided to document this entire trial in an online journal. It's a way to help her grieve, but has helped an untold number of people begin to take their first steps with God. I hope you find it as inspirational as I did.

We were just talking about Todd in my staff meeting today. His brother is our music minister at the church I work at. I actually dated Nicole (we only went out once....I'm not so sure I'd call it a date as her parents were really trying to hook me up with her and she didn't seem too interested). Todd used to take me flying when he was logging his hours to get his pilots license. He is a cool guy.