my lifes work is not political, its spiritual. and to proclaim the gospel and speak up for the unborn
But it is the already born who really need you!
What can you do - of practical value - for suffering, breathing young humans, who need your help? Can you make improving their lives your life's work? [Or are words ('speaking up') all you care to spare just now?]
I think the insertion of images of any surgical waste would elicit unpleasant emotions.
USR: just for clearification, so we can stop talking about me , i will state my postion as clear as i can so we can move on. i view the defination of abortion as follows: the willfull killing of a fetus/baby in the womb. i do not see letting the baby die to save the mom as abortion. if the moms life is in danger and the baby has to be removed and the doctors removing the baby are not purposely killing the baby than its not abortion. the mom is not aborting or stopping the preg,. so under that i do not agree with any abortion. if you take the scernio to still be an abortion, than under your terms it would be an abortion. i think the will of the mom and doctors plays a huge roll and if it is abortion. that is as clear as i can say it.
Congratulations on this long overdue clarity of your answer, explaining your viewpoint and 'reasoning'!
Although it dismays you to be bound to a word that you have subjectively villified, the fact is that what you describe as an acceptable instance where the fetus is removed (dies) so that the mother continues to live, is called a medically necessary abortion. In this case, the fetus itself is the ailment that threatens the life of the woman; removal (abortion) of the fetus is the solution... not incidental to the solution.
nelson mandela has passed on.
he was a symbol of hope and peace to many.
has his life and achievements meant anything personal to members of jwn?.
Thank you, rebel8 (and sammielee24) for the additional information, and keyword search tips.
USR - despite your choice of semantics, the embryro or fetus dies in the choice to preserve the life of the woman, by primacy.
Since you are already stipulated that the above is an 'acceptable' (if regrettable) scenario for ending fetal development, you factually rank the value of one life (the woman) over a developing life (the fetus).
- So, by what criteria do you dare to rank the relative value of lives?
- If your mandate to value the woman's life over that of the fetus is situational [strong potential for death of the woman if pregnancy is continued], you already agree that their value is relative... to the observer's idea of importance.
- Then, why should you (or others like you) be the ones to establish that measuring line for each woman?
and how many felt that they wanted to kill a baby?
Isn't that on every woman's bucket list?
nelson mandela has passed on.
he was a symbol of hope and peace to many.
has his life and achievements meant anything personal to members of jwn?.
rebel8: A man who did good and evil.
I have never before heard "evil" associated with Nelson Mandela's works. Can you please elaborate? [This is not a challenge, but a desire for information/viewpoint.]
it was a meeting night last night.
i didn't go nor did i stay on jwn instead.
nugget gave me her time.
Sam, I hope that you can soon allow yourself to feel loosed from the obligation and routine of meeting attendance, even while you plunder () JWN for the up-to-date knowledge you need, to fortify your son against his regular doses of inculcation.
As for me, although I was a true believer (and how!) during the greater part of my tenure as a JW, I felt nothing but relief and an untethering of wings when I ceased meeting attendance... so constricted I felt by the smallness and provincialness of those proceedings.
The only time that nostalgia ambushed me was during particularly fine summer mornings - when I was out and about at 06:00 - 08:00 - and the thought came to me unbidden: "What a perfect morning for a district convention!" Yes, I keenly anticipated the DCs (mornings, at least), for the change of routine, the new faces, the new literature releases (until they became a boring and outgrown re-hash) - but chiefly because (as a born-in), during the entirety of my life before leaving, they were the only marker of change between school seasons. You see, my family never, but never, went on a summer (vacation)! The only relief from the mundanity of routine was the DC. The remainder of the summer invaribly soaked up the relief brought by that break (not counting the fatigue and drowsiness of afternoon sessions) by long days spent "vacation pioneering" then, "temporary pioneering" and, later, "auxillary pioneering"... until I became a regular pioneer.
That intrusion (the association of fine summer mornings with DC arrival) eventually ceased, after several otherwise unburdened years.
I hope your are able to rescue your son from such a future. Your example, and shared participation in the pleasures of life and childhood, will be a great buffer for his spirit.
USR: even if the bible spelled everything out, to the letter. most here would reject it anyway.
Actually, it through reading the Bible that I concluded - as a young JW (circa 10/11 years of age) - that abortion was not identified as a sin, by Jehovah.
I realized that the God of the Bible (OT) did not consider life in general, or all human life in particular, to be "sacred," untouchable, or worth preserving at all costs.
This god:
- boasted of promoting the killing of the unborn children of his (/Israel's) enemies: the inconvenient, incalcitrant, in-the-way peoples (effectively, abortion - against the mothers' will).
- ordered and organized massacres and ethnic cleansing.
- ordered and enforced the death penalty for defined 'criminal' acts. [Which penalty could sometimes be satisfied with a monetary payment to named individuals.]
- demanded the slaughter of countless animals and birds.
In Jehovah's eyes, the value of a human life is always relative, sometimes negotiable - dependent upon the situation, the group membership of a person, the time period, even a whim.
The principle of the relative value of human life is recognized in all societies, even today. Every society/nation has established standards or laws according to which a human life may lawfully be taken or willfully allowed to come to a premature end; and those standards have little or nothing to do with age or innocence.
If you are interested to follow this line of thinking, I will continue - if you so indicate. Else, I will stop here, realizing that my meaning and intent may again be misconstrued (as with my earlier comment on this thread).
