Two Questions for Freepers...Please Respond!!!

Thanks so much for citing and posting the scripture references. I am not very good at that and didn't have time to run for the concordance. I'm glad you came through.

We know that, deep down in the fiber of our being. If abortionists do not know that, I pity them for their ignorance. I condemn only anyone who knows it and still chooses abortion for convenience.

There are some sad circumstances in the world. I wouldn't want an 11 year old to have to carry her brother's incest baby if the doctors said she's too small and weak physically to survive labor. One of my instructors has a sister who was pregnant with a wanted baby, but they found out that the baby had severe malformations, no brain, and moreover it had metabolic dysfunctions that were threatening her health and may well have killed her. The child was not viable--it didn't even have a complete brainstem--and would not have survived labor let alone birth. They were sincere and devout Baptists, but it was a question of inducing delivery in the fourth month and saving the mother or letting the mother die, so of course they induced. I don't like to judge people in these sorts of cases; they have their agency, and they can pray their way through it like I do with my problems. But MOST ABORTIONS are abortions of convenience, acts of murder most foul, and if people had to see that these are babies, not wads of anonymous tissue, they'd have to face the reality of what they're endorsing. How can a doctor rip the little head off of a fetus and not know he's killing someone? That's the part I really cannot understand.

First of all it, the one has nothing to do with the other. The liberals figure if they can brand you as a hypocrite then they make your position appear invalid. Even if you are proven to be a hypocite, it doesn't invalidate a truthful argument. This is simplistic, but let's say I'm a known hypocrite on a wide variety of subjects. That doesn't invalidate my statement "2+2=4". But that's beside the point because the death penalty has nothing to do with abortion. If it invalidates your argument if you're for one and against the other, then it also invalidates theirs if they are anti death penalty but pro abortion. But don't even go down that road with them.

The Pro Life position is very very simple and logical.
1) It is wrong to take an innocent human life.
2) Abortion takes an innocent human life.

Everything else follows from that. If they ask when life begins- answer is at conception. It's plain and simple and there are no gray areas that many pro abortion people have about when life begins. Don't fall for the attempt to ridicule this by calling an embryo a microscopic clump of cells that has no resemblance to a human. Newborn babies bear little resemblance to the adults they will become, nor can they reason, protect themselves or live without a protector. The instant an embryo is fertilized it has unique DNA. All the instructions for what that person will become are written at that moment. None of these things happen before conception and everything that happens afterwards can be described as further development of the process started at conception. If DNA evidence can be used to convict someone of a crime, it sure as heck can be used to point out that an individual life is in the womb.

A lot of 'em want to point out that most fertilized eggs never implant in the womb. I've been trying a new slant on this argument. If possible, beforehand ask them about "Green" issues. Do they agree with letting wildfires burn in national parks because it is Mother Nature's way? Do they think we should let wildlife live out their lives the way Nature intended? Do they generally believe that the "Natural Way" is best (organic food vs gene altered etc) or otherwise believe it's best to let Nature run its course? Then it follows that we should allow Mother Nature run its course with pregnancy.

The best argument though, is the partial birth abortion. Hard core pro abortionists believe it's ok to terminate right up to the moment that the umbilical cord is cut. That's hard to believe but here's a thread from Democratic Underground that discusses that issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=list_threads&om=1&forum=DCForumID33
(see post # 21 in particular)

This is where most pro choicers start to waffle in their beliefs. Most don't agree with that. Many still believe a third trimester abortion is ok. But many more do not. Attack that angle of viability. You can usually get them to agree that when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb then abortion is no longer right. Raise the hypothetical situation concerning when medical science pushes the borders of viability ever closer to the conception date. Push that angle. What happens when it is routine to keep a fetus alive after only 12 weeks gestation? 8 weeks? 4? As viability gets pushed back, the window for abortion becomes ever smaller.

You can also pursue this line of argument. Back in the 60s and early 70s, it could still be argued that many young people (for whatever reason) didn't understand the basic facts of reproduction and contraception. Young men might have disdained condoms and a young girl that would seek the pill might get a reputation as a slut. But thanks to our liberal brethren, times have changed. Sex education is common in school and contraception use is pushed in the various media. Can anybody truthfully say nowadays that they didn't know that having unprotected sex would lead to pregnancy? Thanks to the liberal agenda, today's youth know beforehand what the consequences are. At some point there has to be a line drawn. Maybe you can still argue that a 14 year old girl isn't emotionally equipped to understand the consequences but a 32 yr old woman? I'm sorry. She knew and she just didn't care and as long as there are people telling her that it's ok to kill her baby, it's just a parasite anyway yadda yadda yadda she doesn't feel like it's a big deal to have an abortion.

I'm sorry for the long reply. The Abortion discussion was one of the main reasons I joined Free Republic. I'm absolutely ruthless about it in a face to face. The last thing I'd like to point out is: they like to label us fanatics, looneys, cranks etc. But once a person weighs the evidence and comes to the conclusion that murder is being committed, they have a moral obligation to try to stop it- much the same as stopping the Holocaust should have been reason enough for us to join the fight against the Nazis (according to the liberals). I used to be pro choice. Many long years of thinking about this issue have changed my mind.

Two articles I've posted in the past:

"Bork on Life"

and

"Capital Punishment is Life Affirming." (humbly authored by your's truly.)

"Capital Punishment is Life Affirming." (humbly authored by your's truly.)

lucid, directly to point, well written. cudos.

To place my piece in context, I wrote it when W's record regarding capital punishment was being raised as an issue by the presstitutes during the 2000 campaign.

The aborted have committed no crime. They are completely innocent.

The traditional moral justification for the death penalty is not vengeance or retribution, but public safety. Murderers are executed to prevent them from murdering again. Paradoxically, murderers are executed to save lives.

The most important function of the State is to defend the lives of its citizens, hence the need for the military and police. The death penalty is pretty much the furthest extension of this principal.

Do the unborn get legal representation, and rights to appeal?

Opposition to abortion and the requiring the death penalty are both necessary for the same reason: the sanctity of life.

Babies may not be killed for being imperfect or inonvenient because they are alive as humans, and their life is precious and theirs to keep as long as God says.

Murderers must be executed for wrongfully taking human life, which was precious and not the murderer's for the taking; and for the taking of which the only just penalty is the life of the murderer.

Not hard.

Dan

He says that I can't believe in both

He's right. Killing someone in battle or in order to prevent a crime is one thing, but killing a person who is helpless and harmless (such as a prisoner) should be opposed by Christians, particularly if the condemned is NOT a Christian.

Aside from the ethical problems of killing an obviously-guilty prisoner, the execution of people like McVeigh make it easier to execute the next guy, who killed 2 people, and the next guy, who we're pretty sure is guilty.

It always amazes me that people who don't trust the gov't to educate their kids or pick up their trash have no problem believing the gov't will not mistakenly execute an innocent person.