Posted on 10/28/2004 7:17:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
A nationwide scientific poll conducted by the polling firm Wirthlin Worldwide shows that a significant majority of Americans believe that abortion is "almost always bad" for women -- even when they know a woman who has had an abortion.
The poll of 1001 respondents, conducted for Americans United for Life, a public interest bioethics law firm, asked three questions:
1) Just generally, do you believe that abortion is almost always a good thing for a woman or almost always a bad thing for a woman?
Base -- 1001 respondents
Almost always a good thing -- 230 (or 23 percent)
Almost always a bad thing -- 609 (or 61 percent)
Don't know/refused -- 162 (or 16 percent)
2) Do you personally know someone who has had an abortion?
Base - 1001 respondents
Yes -- 640 (or 64 percent)
No -- 335 (or 33 percent)
Don't know/refused -- 27 (or 3 percent)
3) From your observation, was that generally a positive or negative experience?
Base - 640 respondents (those who responded "Yes" to question 2)
Positive experience -- 256 (or 40 percent)
Negative experience -- 352 (or 55 percent)
Don't know/refused -- 31 (or 5 percent)
"This poll shows that Americans are increasingly aware that legalized abortion harms women," said Dorinda Bordlee, Esq., senior legislative counsel for Americans United for Life.
"Over thirty years of abortion has wreaked havoc on women's physical and psychological heath, and has served to facilitate the sexual exploitation of women. This poll shows that Americans are facing the reality that the violence of abortion leads to disaster for women, our children, and our culture. Abortion has not turned out to be the great liberator we were told it would be."
If a new way of teaching students was to be introduced by the highest authority on education for example. This person sends a messenger to one school in N. Dakota to teach them this new way. A few years later, this person realizes that there were little benefits from his first messenger, so he sends another messenger to another school in N. Dakota, and so on. Every few years this super education authority keeps sending messengers to N. Dakota, and non to California, or New York where the majority of students are. Would that be an efficient way to reach the students?
I hope you can understand what I was trying to say, and attempt to answer me if you are able.
How would it be, if there was one teacher, and one lesson taught, that all of these students of this one teacher learned such radically different messages?
See, Hindi, Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam teach very, very different things. And people who try to say that they are all different ways to the same truth are actually asserting something which is contradictory to itself, because to assert that each way is true is to assert that the portions of each religion which differ from other religions is not true. And to say that is to say that every religion is false.
There is truth in other religions. But there are lies in other religions. And there are dangerous misunderstandings in other religions.
Did the great teacher send only one teachers' assistant? Absolutely not! But everyone who is sent by the great teacher recognizes the first teacher, and concurs with him, so that there shall be unity.
I do agree that all religions cannot be right.
It's unfortunate I'm in the minority when it comes to personally knowing anyone who has had an abortion.
Ahh, but China and India were isolated. Palestine was the crossroads of the ancient world, where Europe/the Mediterranean, Africa, and Asia meet. Jesus was born not in some country backwater, as most imagine Bethlehem to be, but rather at the meeting point of nearly all the world's cultures, brought together by Greco-Roman trade. He couldn't have had such an enriched environment to be born into again, at least until the heights of the British empire. (And yes, Jerusalem was the world's 3rd largest city.)
I hope and pray that God sends an angelic messenger to you personally.
You are what you speak, God have mercy.
In my opinion
this godless immoral brutal uncivilized selfish disgusting sinful oppressive ignorant practice must be vilified for what it is.
Their regret never ever leaves them, the ones who realize what they've done.
This is why I think the President should be hammering Kerry on the partial birth abortion issue in the midwest. I was happy to see Cheney mention it at his rally yesterday. He received thunderous cheers after saying it.
It is almost always bad. In retrospect, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Jen-Jis Khan, Bill and Hillary, and John Kerry would have been no loss to humanity. Let's add Carvile, Conason, and Begala to that. And the leadership of NOW.
For a direct (if partial) answer to your question, I would refer you to the above post about the geographic centrality of Palestine at the time of Christ.
However, I would challenge the basis of your question. The underlying assumption is that God's goal would necessarily be efficiency. The reality is that we do not always know why God acts as He does; He is rather more intelligent than we are. I also realize that this somewhat begs the question (countering an argument against the existence of God with an argument about the nature of the very God whose existence is in dispute), but there is enough convincing evidence available that God -does- exist, and exists in the Christian understanding, that I did not feel the need to attempt such proof here. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of this question, feel free to contact me.
In terms of the particular discussion at hand, my arguments against abortion are largely of the secular/scientific variety. I am capable of arguing the point from my understanding of Scripture and Christian theology, but arguments from science and general philosophy are more than sufficient, and are capable of reaching a wider audience.
As I see it, the question of abortion boils down to one question: what, exactly, is it that a pregnant woman carries in her womb? If anyone can convince me that she carries a "lump of tissue", a "potential life", or anything -other- than an unborn human child, then my response will be to completely change my position on abortion and endorse the practice under any conditions.
The problem is, I am thoroughly convinced that a pregnant woman carries an unborn human child in her womb, and that our laws ought to protect that life just as if it were a three-year-old child. At the moment a sperm and egg meet, a genetically unique entity is formed. It is genetically distinct from both the father and mother, and its DNA will remain unchanged its whole life. This is the only "critical point" in the development of a baby where a reasonable case can be made that before the event, it is not a human life, and after the event, it is. Other attempts to recognize a "critical point" all fail.
Birth is simply a change of location; nothing happens to the baby that justifies a change of status. Viability changes as our science advances; there was a time when a baby born 6 weeks premature had little or no chance at life, but now survival of such a premature baby is commonplace. Does this mean that such a baby was not a human being worthy of protection 70 years ago, but is now? The fundamental nature of such a baby has not changed; only our technology has changed.
Anyway I don't want to write a book here, but my basic argument against abortion is this:
An unborn baby is a human being with the same fundamental rights as any other human being, including the right to life. As such, our laws ought to protect that baby just they do after birth. Intentionally killing that baby is murder, just as surely as smothering it with a pillow after birth is murder.
That was SO well put!
It breaks my heart that I know two people (very well) that have had abortions. Christians who chose what seemed like the easy way out of a bad situation at the time. They didn't want to face the music so they made their offspring face murder.
I have never been able to get a pro-babykiller to explain to me what they see as the difference between killing it 3 months before birth and 3 months after birth. They have mentioned dependence - but that is garbage. Welfare recipients are dependent... uuhhhmmm what gives? If I had stopped feeding my kids without providing them an exit from my care - they would have died too - I just do not understand this ridiculous choice thing. Having sex is a choice. I will defend with everything in me, a man or a womans right to choose the latter. But allowing someone to kill someone else afterward - just no.
I agree, abortion need to be vilified. However it should be legal.
AS far as god's existence, I am sure that most people agree that God exists. As far as as sending ALL his messengers to a small unpopulated area in the Middle East, that appears to be inefficient way of doing things, and I expect an eloquent answer from you at your convenience.
Back to the abortion issue; you stated The problem is, I am thoroughly convinced that a pregnant woman carries an unborn human child in her womb, and that our laws ought to protect that life just as if it were a three-year-old child.I disagree on that premise. First an unborn child is not equal to a three years old child. The unborn child is not viable unless connected to the mother's umbilical cord for nourishment. The dilema of a young girl killing her unborn child is a big tauma, and most abortions would never take place if the women are given good advices to give their child to adoptions. However, to give you some resemblance of such dilemma, say you have a family pet like a dog or a cat, and it fell sick, and the vet says it would cost ten thousand dollars (which for this argument you don't have) to fix that ailment. Most people will chose that the vet would put their pet to "sleep", or KILL it! That choice is a very sad choice, and will haunt you for years, but you must make it.
Another example of how decisions can be very difficult is if you and a fellow hikers in the desert would run out of water, and your partner is unable to go on, and you can either stay with your partner and die, or leave your partner and run as fast as you can to rescue yourself first, and perhaps get your partner some help. These are all =very unpleasant life and death decisions that we all hope to never come across.
To this end, I am waiting for your answer to my messengers question. If any one would to clear that, it got to be you.
No, China and Indai were much bigger than Palestine even then. But they were more culturally isolated. It's not all about simply being in the largest audience.
Of course, Tim Rice (and Andfrew Lloyd Weber) though similar things:
"If you'd've come today you could have reached a whole nation,
Israel in 4BC had no mass communication.
Don't ya get me wrong, I only wanna know."
-- Jesus Christ Superstar
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.