News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

We are conducting this poll as a test to see if statements made on this forum concerning abortion are correct.

Following is a sample of these statements:

[color:"magenta"]"I don’t think anyone would willingly accept life if they were born into abject poverty coupled with disease."[/color]

[color:"magenta"]"I wouldn’t want to be brought into this world by someone who wishes to abort me."[/color]

[color:"magenta"]"Perhaps because the mother in question is a rape victim, terminally ill (i.e., has HIV/AIDS), or lives in the squalor and decay of some 3rd world nation. You’re not doing the potential-infant any favors by bringing it into this world."[/color]

[color:"magenta"]"(An infant would not want to be allowed to be born into the world if their mother had)...become pregnant through incest or rape."[/color]

[color:"red"]If you answer "Yes" to this poll, please post a reply to this thread explaining why.[/color]

This is a rather silly question for a number of reasons.

It assumes that before I was born, I was the conscious thinking "self" I am now, capable of deciding the conditions in which I would prefer to be born. Whatever my form was before I wss born, if I "existed" at all, there's no way to know for sure.

However, if I had been capable of choosing, I'm sure I wouldn't have wanted to invite more pain into my life than that which I already had coming. No one yet has answered my question about the point at which the soul, if you believe in one, enters the body. If it is present from conception, then what a short and nasty little life for all those fetuses that fail naturally to develop. For the babies born into starving, malnourished families who only live a day or two and die in misery and pain. No theist has ever been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for why shuch lives should be brought so briefly into the world in such a way.

You also seem to assume that I should be eternally grateful for my life here on earth. I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't have chosen the parents I had. And they never asked me whether I wanted to be born, I had no choice in the matter. According to my own belief system at the moment, I existed in some way before I was born and will exist in some way after, even if it is just as being part of the chi of existence. Why should I be so very thankful about my time here on earth? The past 3 1/2 years have been agony. I'm probably learning a lot from it. But I can't say I'm always grateful for being here on this journey. Like most others, I wonder sometimes what the point of it is.

The two extremes of the abortion issue have been debating and no one seems to be addressing my own posts about it. Interesting. If I were cognizant enough to be aware that I'd had a mother who had aborted me, I'm sure I would do my best to understand the reasons. Presumably if I were keen enough to live, I'd try again with another mum.

Linda, if you had this much passion and anger towards abortion, and what the unborn are suffering, I'd have more understanding towards your post here.

According to the bible, (my beliefs) God knew us before we were even conceived. Already were were in His mind. At the moment of conception a soul is also conceived! The Virgin Mary - "Thou art with child". NOT "thou art with cell" or "foetus". And she had only just conceived then by saying "yes" to the Holy Spirit. It is indeed instantaneous. But this is also backed up by doctors. They too believe life starts at conception. once an egg is fertilised, there is life.

I think this post of Russ' is a good one. It demonstrates that if we were faced with going back in time and facing what many unborn babies are facing daily, we would not be so keen on pro-abortion. The unborn do not have a voice and do not even know what's coming for them until it begins.

Problem is Linda, I didn't know how to respond to your post when you mentioned soul....I hesitate because I don't know how to respond when people hate mention of religion or afterlife/souls etc. This is why I didn't respond to you. Take a look at how much PWCCA jumps up and down at any mention. I have done my best to keep off that topic.

I have a slightly different opinion from Pwcca. I don't think it's possible to keep religion, ethics, morality etc separate from one's daily life and discussions. They may not be mentioned but they will be there, influencing how you think, feel and respond. Like him, I would prefer not to be confronted with a lot of Bible quotes because they mean different things to me than they do to you. But I think the question of a soul is relevant to the idea of when life begins. Most religions, not just Christianity, do believe in a soul of some kind, and it is equated with personhood.

Of course, as you might imagine, I do disagree with you on the topic. I question why a god would breathe a soul into an embryo that miscarried, or a child who is born malnourished and dies within a few days. Seems a rather pointless, brutish and short taste of this journey of life.

I value human life as well, but my views are simply different from yours. Vegetarians use similar shock tactics and appeals to emotion when they try to persuade people to stop eating meat. You might even be asked if you'd be willing to be the one in the slaughterhouse, cutting out the hypocrisy by killing your own food and chopping it up, blood and guts and all. Sure it sounds disgusting to a lot of people, but we also know that our bodies were designed to need meat. It's a reality we have to come to terms with, though of course the ways the animals are raised and dispatched ought to be made as natural and painless as possible.

I said that I believe we're looking at a spectrum, and that a bundle of cells at the red end does not for me equate to a baby at the blue end.

To get back to the topic, Russ' question is pointless unless you address the issue of a soul. The way I'm feeling these days, I tend to think I might have had more fun elsewhere if I'd decided to give this particular trip of life a miss, though hopefully in the future I will see this as a rather pessimistic view.

I agree, I do not believe for an instant anybody can keep any kind of belief system out of this. They may THINK they can, but they cannot. You see it there in everybody's post, one way or the other. Robotic "logic" without preconceived belief doesn't exist.

Linda, it is not "just" a bunch of cells, if you read my posts, please take a look at what even basic biology has proven (even zoology). at fertilisation, life begins. Even they admit this....so what we must prove here is this.

Is that life, even at that instant of value? Or can we label it as we choose and even justify removing it based on the fact it has not yet developed enough into a form that we can recognise....

I place value on human life at its very beginning and at its very end. The most deformed of handicapped person is of value to me. I don't have the mindset "survival of the fittest".

I adore animals and hate cruelty. But animals are simply not the same as we are. You can try and tell yourself that, but they are not. if that were so you would have to accuse anybody of ever putting a dog on a leash. Of ever keeping any pet in a case (rodent) of going to a zoo and looking at animals behind cages. Having any meat in their diet. Animals, runmore by instincts as well. They feel pain, anger, joy too, but they cannot be compared with the human being who runs far above instincts. Which is why a human being can pre-meditate murder in the most coldest manner. Which we are seeing here how a human being is capable of even destroying their own young. Even animals, in their own instincts FIERCELY protect their young at all costs.

Human beings are capable of the highest qualities and lowest. Absolute evil, absolute good. Even contemplating their own destiny or beginnings. The fact that in man's mind is the ability to imagine, plan, meditate, contemplate, tells us that we are not mere "animals".

If one can so easily think of their own unborn as "rodents" or the beginning of human life "just a bunch of cells", then abortion becomes far easier.

Again the red end and the blue end are the big differences in growth. Growth does not equate less or more humanity. As I've said, the information is complete at the beginning. just as a newborn baby is no less human than a fully grown adult. But it's at the red end in comparison. HOwever, the information within is complete. The baby just needs time to grow.

Things do have to start from somewhere, but the information must be there in order for the unfolding to take place. Which is why the genetics from both parents in fertilisation is very much the beginning of a new individual life, who has its very own gender.

So I disagree with you that it's just a bunch of cells, but this is definitely the abortion view. It's like comparing that to some skin cells. Again basic biology knows better.

You question why God would breathe a soul into a life that may die early on? Because no matter how short or long we live on this earth, what comes next is actually the entire point. You behave as though He just breaths a soul into a body just for the sake of letting the body and soul die together. A soul is not mortal, the body is.

God does not interfere, but He intervenes when He wishes. How you wish to perceive that is up to you. You can think Him cruel and ignore all the good by concentrating on everything bad (that's easy to do), or you can see that evil doing is the reason for so much misery (greed included). Wide-spread sin is the reason for wide-spread misery. And the innocent often suffer with the guilty (many times moreso). So did Christ. But He gave us the remedy and no matter how bad things get, there is the hope of the ressurrection.

I think that's a pretty good trade off. I do not believe at death it's all over.

My pastor made a notable statement this past Sunday... he said... we all suffer as victims of other peoples' sin.

I guess the problem comes in when people don't recognize their actions as wrong or sinful, don't recognize the consequences those actions have on the people around them, and then want to know why God makes people suffer.

There is a baby at our church also that the parents' doctor wanted to abort, they said she'd never live (I don't know the exact reason). She's a beautiful healthy well behaved 3 year old now.

Let me clarify what I mean by keeping religion out of a debate. Naturally our personal views on life - which includes our religious beleifs or lack thereof - are going to influence which SIDE of an argument we take.

Having said that, remarks like "Well the bible says to do this," or "(my) God says to do that" will fall on deaf ears against anyone not of the same religion as you. If you're trying to express how you feel about something and why, use your religion, by all means. But if you want to prove something, you're really just wasting your time as - like I've said before - you're only addressing people who already agree with you. There's no need to quote bible scripture or discuss one's gods to prove a mathematical equation, for example.

So I guess the real question is, what are you discussing exactly? Are you simply trying to say how you feel on the matter and why - or are you trying to back an argument with irrefutible evidence? If it's the latter then, yeah, better stick to things non-religious in your debate.

Of course your religious views will influence your debate. But using them as evidence for an argument is pointless unless you're trying to convert people. In which case I'd suggest starting a new thread and a new topic.

In answer to the thread itself, how many people would willingly enter this world if they were infected with full blown AIDS? Someone had said earlier that exceptions are a mere 1%. Firstly, 1% of the entire world is a whole heck of a lot of people. Secondly, laws are always made to allow exceptions. This is why a person with no prior criminal record may receive a lesser sentence for the same crime as someone else, for example.

Well I don't know Pwcca, your requirement for leaving God or religious beliefs out of a debate fell on pretty deaf ears here so what does that tell you?

Just like most of the rules that you try to set for others to follow. I guess those rules work for you but they don't do squat for my life.

Requiring a person to leave religious beliefs out of their discussions is pretty much the same thing as requiring they include them, you know.

Maybe you should start trying to accept the fact that not everyone thinks lives or feels exactly like you do... makes life a lot easier all around. I guess that statement could even include the unborn. You know... this is a strange conversation I think... a hundred years ago black people were spoken of the same way RAZD speaks of the unborn here. Men have ocassionally put women in the same category as well. Perhaps this is more about respecting others, even if we personally feel they don't deserve our respect, on a general basis more than it is anything else. In certain muslim societies for instance, today, it''s ok to kill women for various reasons too. why don't we discuss why that is acceptable, why women should not have a say in those types of decisions?? Same thing really. This discussion is more about one person wanting something, or not wanting something as the case may be, than it is about abortion. Everyone knows abortion is intrisically wrong. Even in China they know it's wrong. But they convince themselves it's ok by one reason or another... thing is... no one has a valid opinion simply because they weren't aborted. It's just a matter of luck they're alive in a society like China has today. Luck is hardly a reason to value anyone's opinion. Considering the squalor most Chinese are born into shouldn't you question why it that even allowed to begin with?

If a mother or father cat killed all thier kittens you would say bad things about them. It's different for humans I guess... but I haven't been able to figure out why yet. Though controlling the number of workers and slaves has often been mentioned.

You know, Margaret Sanger... she founded Planned Parenthood... she was very racist. The whole family, very rascist to this day..abortion was a way to control blacks in a big way for her.. other types of people. don't tell me it's not true I know the family personally...very outspoken about their athiesm as well, religion was never left out of their debates...... I knew her grandson quite well in college and spent quite a bit of time with his family as a result. Though I could only bear so much.

Judging if something is intrinsically wrong is not difficult... it's the type of thing that horrifies every 5 year old you know.

I voted yes. In my unsaved days I expressed that I thought it would be better not to be born than to be in the situation I was in. To my surprise, scripture verifies this. Looks like it doesn't actually use the term "better", so I can't indicate chapter & verse.

The question is semantically difficult. If it were present tense "Would you prefer that you had been...", then I'd have to say no. My life has been interesting and entertaining, and I'm thankful for many of my opportunities and experiences. As it speaks about past preference, my answer is yes.

I would also greatly prefer that my woman had not been aborted. The Lord helped her survive, but she still has difficulties and pains to deal with. I can't help admiring the strength of people who have to live with pain indefinitely. As it is, I'm very thankful that the attempt on her life failed.