Unholy Euphemism: “Induce Fetal Demise”

A euphemism is a figure of speech that substitutes a cultured or less offensive term for an offensive one. Everybody uses this figure of speech. It is so common that we hardly think about it. Every time you say “I am going to the bathroom,” you are using a euphemism that substitutes the report of what you actually intend to do with the room that you intend to do it in. There’s nothing wrong with euphemisms per se as they enable us to suffuse our speech with a certain decorum and respect.

But euphemisms can be very destructive when they are used to cover up moral evil. The reprobate mind makes use of this figure of speech in order to make moral evil sound as if it is a moral good. Nowhere is this illicit use of euphemism more common in our own day than in descriptions of abortion.

In a story about the Supreme Court’s hearing of arguments on a partial-birth abortion case, the New York Times reports that Dr. Warren M. Hern is “the author of a widely consulted textbook on abortion and one of the leading providers of abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy.” Dr. Hern describes a lethal injection into the womb as designed to “induce fetal demise.”

Make no mistake, the phrase “induce fetal demise” is medical euphemism for “cause a baby to die.” In this case, the New York Times is picking up on medical terminology in order to cover up what is glaringly obvious to casual observer. Abortion procedures are aimed at killing unborn humans. This kind of cover-up is neither polite nor moral, but is the calculated effort to suppress the truth that is manifestly there.

One of the ways that the culture of death perpetuates itself is by getting the wider culture to adopt its euphemisms. Thus the suppression of God’s truth becomes evident even in the language we use. God help us not to give in to such unholy euphemisms. The fetus is a baby. It’s “demise” is it’s death, and we should not reduce the affront of this evil by a deceptive turn of the phrase.

41 Responses to Unholy Euphemism: “Induce Fetal Demise”

  1. Billy November 7, 2006 at 7:04 pm #

    Don’t forget the ever popular “alternative lifestyle”

  2. kevin November 7, 2006 at 9:01 pm #

    I don’t think i have ever heard of a more clear and concise way of stating how America in general is trying to make abortion sound so innocent.

  3. light November 7, 2006 at 11:49 pm #

    What about when we talk about death and say, “She passed away,” instead of saying she’s dead. Death itself is not something to be scared of, if a person has a clear conscience. It’s bad to lead people to think that death is terrifying when it’s just a natural process of life.

    For anyone who doesn’t want a baby to be aborted, you take the baby. You’ll probably get several before you say, enough. Then who wants the baby? It’s equally a sin to give birth to an unwanted or unloved child. A baby could and can die from lack of love.

    Why do people think they can judge others by the fact that they want an abortion? Please, explain it to me.

  4. Rose November 8, 2006 at 1:22 pm #

    light,
    A child conceived isn’t unloved or unwanted…that life has been given by God. And, God first loved that child.

    I compare it to those in our elderly population. Do we “abort” their existence because they appear unwanted or unloved and they’ll die from a lack of love? Although some liberal schools of thought may endorse that, it is no different than aborting a child.

    Just because a baby is sweetly residing in the womb of its mother doesn’t negate its human state.

  5. Paul November 8, 2006 at 4:09 pm #

    Light,

    I have to disagree with you on all but one point, and I can’t say I agree with you on how you state it:

    “For anyone who doesn’t want a baby to be aborted, you take the baby.”

    It’s stated crudely, but the point is true. If you’re going to be pro-life to the point of calling that THE Christian issue on the voting block today, then you’re flat out a hypocrite if you’re not adopting some of those unwanted children, or better yet, going to abortion clinics, and offering to adopt the children about to be aborted.

    Or, to put it a different way, quit being pro-birth, and start being truly pro-life.

  6. light November 9, 2006 at 9:54 am #

    Rose,

    I was talking about a mother who wants to have a baby aborted because she doesn’t want it, but she is forced to have it anyway. When she has it, how do you think she’ll feel towards it? Will she love it or always remember that she never wanted it, so she detests it? Children have feelings, they can feel when they’re not wanted, even babies can tell. I think that’s cruel. It must be a sort of prolonged torture to know that you were unwanted and unloved by your mother. As I said, some babies have died because they were unloved. It’s like, if a horse is lame because it’s been overexhausted and is in much pain, do you let it live or do shoot it? Is it humane to let someone suffer? If this unloved baby is born, what about the mother’s feelings and the baby’s feelings? Will the mother accept and want the child? How will the child deal with it? Both will be facing internal suffering and I don’t think that’s humane. The mother should have complete control over her body, if she doesn’t want the baby, she shouldn’t be forced to have it by the state. Does the state own her womb? If the state owns her womb, can it pay her not to abort it? That’s like saying, you can’t have your stomach pumped without the state’s permission, even though you desperately need it because you’ve consumed too much alcohol or something like that. If you’re in pain, do you want to get authorization to soothe your pain?

    I agree with you about a baby being precious and loved by God.

    Babies in the womb are still human, they have feelings. Why don’t you consider why the woman wants the abortion and what will be the baby’s future if he/she is born. Think about it, both the mother’s and baby’s interests should be considered. If by aborting it, you can save the baby from intense suffering(emotional, psychological, or physical) and also the mother, wouldn’t it be necessary?

    Light

  7. light November 9, 2006 at 10:15 am #

    Paul,

    I meant it to sound “crude.” It’s a choice that has to be made, it’s not a pleasant, desirable situation; nobody wants to face a decision about having an abortion or not; it’s a tough, important decision.

    What is so terrible about saying “she’s dead”? That’s the truth. By saying, “she passed away,” you’re trying to make the truth sound more poetic or easier to take. But in doing so, you take away some of death’s dignity. Death is an important part of life, flowers die only to bloom again the next year, people die and babies are born everyday, it’s a natural cycle like the ebbing of the tides or the rising and setting of the sun each day. Why be scared of death? Why be scared of something we don’t know? Since we don’t know, we don’t know if it’s something we should be scared of or not. I believe there’s a place we go to when we die, I won’t be scared. Human life is like footprints on the sand, they disappear after a time, there’s nothing terrible in the thought, it’s a rather sweet, peaceful thought.

    I don’t believe in judging people by only one action-having an abortion, in this case. It’s good to ask, what is their motive? Why is there this need to get an abortion? Is it responsible-I’m not talking about just the act itself, but also the reasons behind it, I believe every instance is different in some ways, big or small. I believe in judging a person’s character by multiple actions they do after having known them for years. If you can call someone immoral for just one thing they did, then do it if it pleases you. I think that’s too restrictive on any individual’s nature.

    Light

  8. Steve Hayes November 9, 2006 at 11:55 am #

    Light,

    Wow, I disagree with you on so many levels, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Your major goal in supporting abortion seems to be to avoid suffering. If that’s the case, let’s just abort the whole world! You make the assinine comparisson between puting down a lame horse and killing an unwanted baby. Both you and Paul make the mistake of transferring the responsibility of unwanted children from the parent to society. In other words, you guys are claiming that I’m a hypocrite because I’m not willing to readily accept other peoples irresponsible actions. If that’s the case, we’re all hypocrites because we’re not paying other people’s taxes or covering other people’s electric bills when they haven’t taken the responsibility to take care of their own business.

    Abortion is irresponsible. Period. Not only is it irresponsible, it’s wrong. Let’s take your horrible lame horse analogy. Let’s say that my horse is lame, but he can be nurtured and healed with some attention and care. The problem is that I don’t really care about the horse, and it’s too much trouble for me to nurse it back to health. Because of my lack of concern for the horse, I just decide to go ahead and kill it.

    Now, instead of owning up to my moral responsibility to give the horse the help it needs to live, I abducate my responsibility and cause its death. Add to that the fact that I now call other people hypocrites because they didn’t step in and take the horse from me when they knew I no longer wanted to care for it. Now, would it be good if someone stepped in and cared for the horse? Sure. Would it make them a hypocrite if they didn’t? Of course not. Why should I expect them to take care of my responsibility?

    I think your positions on this issue are very short sided, and extremely wrong. I have four kids, one of which is a special needs child. If my only concern was to alleviate struggle from my life and my child’s life, I’d have just aborted him and gone on my way. But, I have recognized my responsibility to my child, and – even more – I’ve recognized my responsibility to view my child as a gift from God, regardless of the kind of suffering and inconvenience he brings to my life.

    Thank God that Jesus didn’t avoid suffering at our expense. Suffering is a part of life, and it is, as CS Lewis wrote, “God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” God uses suffering, and I think He’s appalled at the links that we go to to avoid it.

    OK, I’m done.

  9. Steve Hayes November 9, 2006 at 12:06 pm #

    OK, I’m not done.

    Light, Again you have simplified these issues in your assessment that you won’t judge someone based on one single act. So, is it wrong for me to label someone a murderer if they only killed one person? Hey, it was only one act! How in the world could I judge that person and determine that they needed to be in jail for a very long time?

    What about someone who only raped someone one time? Is it fair to say that person is a rapist? Is it fair to determine that they need to be subject to the laws of our society? It was just one bad action. How can we judge it?

    Look, Light, I’m not trying to be judgemental here. I’m not a judgemental person. I love others, and I try to be as gracious and generous with others as I can. I don’t look down on you because you think differently than me, but I will challenge your views if I think they’re wrong. I’d never treat someone who had an abortion different than anybody else, but if the subject came up, I’d tell that person that I thought they were wrong.

    In light of that, I think you’re wrong. Not trying to judge you here, but your arguments are faulty. I’d never ask someone who murders a person what their motive was in an effort to determine whether or not I support their actions. If they murdered somebody, they were wrong for doing so, regardless of their motives. It’s the same thing with abortion. I think the act of abortion is unjustifiable, just like I think the act of murder is unjustifiable. As a matter of fact, I think murder and abortion are synonymous.

  10. debbie wimmers November 9, 2006 at 1:17 pm #

    Paul,
    If you read matthew 5:
    21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, F18 and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause F19 shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

    27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, F20 ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ F21 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Even thinking of lust or hate is considered an act already committed.

  11. Steve Hayes November 9, 2006 at 1:34 pm #

    Debbie,

    Not sure how your post relates to the discussion. Please explain why you think this passage applies to the current topic.

  12. Debbie Wimmers November 9, 2006 at 1:59 pm #

    Paul seems to be saying that if you murder one person, you’re not a murderer of if you rape one person, you’re not a rapest. I’m saying that Jesus said if you think about, you’ve committed the sin in your heart. One time or a million times or a deceptive thought without repentence is an abomination.

  13. sb November 9, 2006 at 2:29 pm #

    Light,

    I appreciate your being so open about your beliefs on this topic. There is so much to say because we have very different world views, but just a couple of thoughts for consideration: A woman should have control over her own body (of course, we could talk more about this too). The problem is, a baby in the womb is a separate human and not the mother’s body- it’s a different body. Also, how one is conceived or brought into this world does not change the personhood of that individual. Circumstances and feelings don’t trump a person’s right to live. Whether or not the mother loves the child or not does not trump the child’s right to live. Many people in this world have had horrible upbringings & horrible parents who have abused and/or abandoned them. Some have gone on to have wonderful, productive adult lives. Should they have never lived because of suffering? Is it a tragedy for a baby to be unloved, abused, and/or abandoned? Absolutely. Can the Lord use the life of a suffering person for good & for glorious things for His name? Absolutely. Also, death is not to be feared for the one who believes in Jesus Christ. It is gain & a victory. If you are without Christ, you should fear death.

    “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” 1 Corinthians 15:2-4

  14. Barry November 9, 2006 at 3:48 pm #

    While we are all piling on Light here (rightly so), one also needs to say that death for the baby is surely not preferrable to life with suffering, even though that suffering includes knowing that your mom didn’t want you.

    Further, it’s hypocrisy to say that the state can’t make the decision for the mother, yet the mother and the state can make the decision for the child. As SB said (#13), that child is not to be likened to its mother’s kidney or some other organ. Taking out a kidney doesn’t extiguish Gods-given life. Abortion does.

    And to my homie Steve Hayes, thanks for #8.

  15. Paul November 9, 2006 at 5:03 pm #

    Debbie,

    uhhh, you make no sense. That’s not at all what I said, and it had nothing to do with the conversation. I will reiterate my (only) point that I made in this thread:

    Those who claim to be pro-life need to act like it by adopting these unwanted children that they want to save. If they only scream to end abortions, but never scream to ensure that those children lead happy lives, then they are flat out hypocrites.

    That has nothing to do with what you’re talking about Debbie.

  16. light November 9, 2006 at 5:47 pm #

    Wow, such a response! As much as I’d love to respond to you all right now, I’m a bit busy. I will return later after much thought. I still have things I want to ask and that I don’t agree with. Thanks.

    Light

  17. light November 9, 2006 at 5:50 pm #

    Or if you want, you can email me: azuredlite@excite.com

  18. Paul November 9, 2006 at 5:52 pm #

    Barry,

    It’s NOT right to be piling on Light, actually. It’s called a different point of view. Quit being divisive and try to hear the other person’s point of view above all of the rhetoric being spouted.

    I think we would all agree that abortion on demand is wrong. How to solve the problem is where the discussion starts. And telling people that it’s a grand idea to pile on someone with an opinion different than yours does nothing to actually understand where the other side is coming from.

    And no, the other side isn’t simply thinking, “gee, it’s awesome when I get to kill babies!”

  19. Steve Hayes November 9, 2006 at 5:53 pm #

    Paul,

    You’re right. Debbie’s thoughts on this make no sense. Unfortunately, I’m not sure yours do either.

    Again, your argument holds very little water. If there are millions of children aborted every year, then you’re asking everyone who has a problem with abortion to potentially adopt a bunch of children. The problem with this issue isn’t that those of us who take issue with abortion aren’t taking care of our responsibility, it’s that those who are getting pregnant with unwanted children aren’t taking care of their responsiblity.

    It’s like someone who smokes and gets cancer calling me a hypocrite because I’m not giving them my lung! The true hypocrites in this situation are those who support such blatant irresponsibility, and blame those of us who know better.

    What you’re saying sound real good on the surface. “If you don’t like abortion, quit whining and adopt a baby!” Unfortunately, you can’t adopt enough babies to make up for the massive death tolls attributed to abortion. If it was as easy as adopting a few kids, I don’t think any of us would see that as too much of a sacrifice to end the blight of abortion. But that’s not the real problem and you know it. I’m surprised you’d propose that kind of a band-aid solution for this hemorhaging situation.

  20. Paul November 9, 2006 at 6:32 pm #

    Steve,

    of course I don’t think that “a band-aid solution for this hemorhaging situation” is the ONLY solution.

    However, it is a step in the right direction, along with realistic sex ed that teaches kids everything that they might need to know. Again, someone needs to tell me why abortion rates and teenage pregnancies are higher in red states than in blue states, and why they’re higher in America than in Western Europe.

    Everyone wants to run away from education as a potential cure, but they never, ever even try to debate that point made above. And I’m sorry, but it’s true. And it’s about time that people quit being scared and stupid about such things and stand up to the fact that what America is doing right now clearly isn’t working.

    But not adopting, or going off to china to adopt a kid isn’t helping matters any. But if everyone who was able was able to convince a mother to be to let them adopt their child, how many might that save per year?

    Face it, no matter what you do, you’re not going to eliminate abortion altogether. So as I’ve said time and time again, you need to figure out how to shrink that number as much as possible.

    So, Steve, since you are so passionate about this subject, what are YOU going to do (not vote or send money away, those don’t DO anything) about it?

  21. Steve Hayes November 9, 2006 at 6:47 pm #

    Paul,

    I’ve already stated what I’ve done, and am currently doing about it. I have 4 children, and I feel absolutely no responsibility to adopt a child because somebody else was too stupid or selfish to take care of their responsibilities. By the way, Paul, exactly how many unwanted children have you adopted? Do you even realize the kind of red tape and money that are involved in adopting a child? And why bag on someone who is adopting an equally unwanted child from China? Is there something about an American baby that makes it better than a Chinese baby?

    Your solutions are equally inept, Paul. They sound noble, but they aren’t really solutions at all. We already have sex education in schools, even in the south, and it’s not stopping the bleeding. Kids already have access to condoms, but it’s not helping.

    So, I guess we have a real problem on our hands. One that won’t be solved by either of our solutions. My picketing and money and voting won’t do any good, and your adopting and sex ed and griping at all those issue voters isn’t doing any good. So, what do we do?

    I think we do all of it! We fight in the courts and with our votes, and with our money, and with our education, and with our adoption, and we quit seeing each other’s options as mutually exclusive and start seeing them as necessary to make a dent in the problem. But we don’t call each other hypocrites because we’re not adopting babies. That’s so simplistic it’s not even funny. And, we stop saying that you’re a hypocrite if you don’t picket an abortion clinic. That, too, is simplistic. We do it all, and we need to start doing it together.

  22. light November 9, 2006 at 10:49 pm #

    Steve,

    You said: “Your major goal in supporting abortion seems to be to avoid suffering. If that’s the case, let’s just abort the whole world!”

    No, my main reason(I have no goal right now), is that such a grave decision should be the mother’s and the father’s, not the state. Sure, if you can control it, try to minimize suffering wherever possible, but I do understand that suffering is a part of life. Someone mentioned that they live with a “special person” so do I. I understand how difficult it is, I can’t stand the thought of this person dying. As much as it pains me, I would never want this person to get lost.

    You said:

    “You make the assinine comparisson between puting down a lame horse and killing an unwanted baby. Both you and Paul make the mistake of transferring the responsibility of unwanted children from the parent to society.”

    It was an analogy, perhaps you can think of a better one? But all analogies, can be disproved, they aren’t solid but they only serve as examples. I thought that by making it seem that I’m blaming society, that I’d prove my point that it’s ridiculous to put the pressure on society to do something about it. However, society is not entirely innocent, society does play a role in marketing promiscuity and such and does little to promote individuals to act responsibly. Environment is a major factor in people’s lives.

    “If they murdered somebody, they were wrong for doing so, regardless of their motives. It’s the same thing with abortion.”

    So if someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, you don’t defend yourself and possibly kill him to save your own life? Is that murder? You intentionally killed him to save yourself? Should someone be sentenced to life for self defense? So self defense in unjustifiable? So the person shouldn’t try to defend himself/herself because either way, they’ll be wronged-either dead or sentenced to life in prison?

    (First response)

    Light

  23. light November 9, 2006 at 11:07 pm #

    Sb,

    Hello.

    You said:

    “A woman should have control over her own body (of course, we could talk more about this too). The problem is, a baby in the womb is a separate human and not the mother’s body- it’s a different body. Also, how one is conceived or brought into this world does not change the personhood of that individual. Circumstances and feelings don’t trump a person’s right to live. Whether or not the mother loves the child or not does not trump the child’s right to live.”

    Well then, what about if the mother is a 16 year-old girl with no income, no decent home, no man to help her, and she is just barely surviving? How is she supposed to raise the baby? Who would want her baby? People could get babies from overseas and they still are.

    Sure, people from poor backgrounds have risen to become good, respected citizens, but do all? Those are the lucky ones, but there are many out there who turn to delinquent activities, prison time, etc. Those lucky ones are lucky because someone or something inspired them to become great, it wasn’t of their own will. That’s why role models and parents are important.

    For nine months, the baby is connected to the mother by the placenta and umbilical cord, the mother nurtures the child. There is a strong bond established since the baby is conceived. I believe it’s hard for a mother to decide to have an abortion, it’s like she’s killing off a part of herself, but sometimes a mother doesn’t know what to do, she’s alone and then who’s going to help her raise the baby, when she can barely make ends meet for herself?

    Light

  24. light November 9, 2006 at 11:13 pm #

    Barry,

    “While we are all piling on Light here (rightly so), one also needs to say that death for the baby is surely not preferrable to life with suffering, even though that suffering includes knowing that your mom didn’t want you.”

    Piling eh…how charming. I anticipated someone might make some kind of comment like that…now if no one had said anything like that…I would’ve been surprised. Are you a moral judge or something?

    Light

  25. light November 9, 2006 at 11:24 pm #

    Paul,

    Thanks. I understand why he thought that, he just has one-track mind that thinks that people’s thoughts that don’t agree with his are wrong.

    I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think abortion should be “on demand.” I just strongly believe that the choice should be up to the baby’s parents. If they’re minors, their parents or guardians should make the decision for them.

    What if the pregnancy had complications and the only way to save the mother is by aborting the baby? Or do you force the baby out and let the mother die?

    Light

  26. sb November 10, 2006 at 12:16 am #

    Light,

    Thanks for your response. The scenarios you described are tragic and they grieve me. That is why our time, money, and other resources should go toward supporting ministries to assist women in these situations. Our church sponsors a pregnancy center that provides support and resources to numerous women just like the one in your scenario. Many of these women have had their babies and are learning how to make a living, provide for their families, and learn to parent their children. They learn how to make better choices for themselves and their families. I, for one, would love to see a church-sponsored day care that is free or mostly free for single, working mothers in need.

    God says in Genesis 1:26-27, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Every human being has dignity simply because he/she is created in the image of God. That is why Genesis 9:6 says that to take an innocent person’s life means that you forfeit your own life. Being created in the image of God is that precious. Moreover, there is a special place in God’s heart for the fatherless and the widow, and He promises to be their protector and vindicator (Psalm 10:14; 68:5-6). That is why God requires in James 1:27 that we must, “look after orphans and widows in their distress.” So, the distress of the downcast doesn’t diminish our responsibility to them, it only increases it. Likewise, the desperate circumstances into which babies are born does not lessen our calling to defend them, it increases it.

    What all of this means is that the life situation of the pregnant person does not nullify God’s word. If it’s a 16-year old who has no money and desperate circumstances, that doesn’t make the baby in her belly any less a creation in the image of God. All of the women who regret and carry guilt over previous abortions do so because their conscience tells them something that contradicts the prevailing culture. There is a sense that they know it’s wrong in spite of the fact that they’re minds have been conditioned to think it’s not.

    But the gospel of Jesus Christ offers forgiveness, hope, and healing for all of us who are sinners including those who have chosen abortion.

    “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation” (Romans 5:8-11).

    Blessings,
    sb

  27. sb November 10, 2006 at 12:48 am #

    Light,

    In your comment in #25: You said: ” I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think abortion should be “on demand”. I just strongly believe that the choice should be up to the baby’s parents.”

    If this is truly your position, then when would the parents’ right to kill their child end? What if the child is newly born and the parents decide they don’t want it? What if the child is 2 years old and the parents decide they can’t afford caring for a child? I am assuming that you would say that killing a born child is wrong. Why is it ok to kill the baby before birth and not after? Do you see that the only difference in these situations is location? In the womb versus out of the womb. In each situation still a person.

    Also, I’m interested to know why you don’t support abortion “on demand”. If you are pro-choice, what is it that keeps you from supporting this idea? I’d like to know your thoughts on this.

    Thanks,
    sb

  28. Steve Hayes November 10, 2006 at 1:18 am #

    Light,

    You said, “So if someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, you don’t defend yourself and possibly kill him to save your own life? Is that murder? You intentionally killed him to save yourself? Should someone be sentenced to life for self defense? So self defense in unjustifiable? So the person shouldn’t try to defend himself/herself because either way, they’ll be wronged-either dead or sentenced to life in prison?”

    I say this: No, the scenario you describe is not considered murder. It is considered self defense, and would not be punishable by the same standards as murder. Good try, but you missed the point. The point I was making is that some people make choices that rightfully have harsh consequences. If you murder somebody, even once, you are considered a murderer. If you rape someone, even once, you are considered a rapist. If you sexually abuse a child, even once, you are considered a pediphile.

    What you’re trying to say sounds really good on the surface. “I don’t judge people for one act they commit.” But your conclusion doesn’t hold up in the face of reality. The fact is that people are judged for actions that are particularly heinous, and they should be!! In other words, we shouldn’t feel at all guilty when we recognize a person who commits murder as a murderer. That’s not being judgemental, it’s just being realistic. That’s not saying that person can’t be forgiven, but it would be foolish to think that life would ever be the same for a person who has made this kind of a choice.

    Now, on to your analogy of the lame horse. I find this analogy particularly troubling because I have children of my own. I have some friends who don’t have kids, but they always talk about their pets as though they are their “children.” It’s insulting to me because I think my kids are much more than animals. I can’t leave my kids in a cage for hours at a time. I can’t put baby food in a bowl on the floor and expect my baby to eat. I have to care for and nurture my baby’s every move. I have to feed them, change them, dress them, cover them with a blanket, etc. They are so dependant upon me, that if I weren’t around, they would die. So, to compare a child to a farm animal is a hollow comparison.

    I don’t think you meant it that way, but I’m a bit sensitive to that because of the experiences I’ve had with my own kids. An unwanted child is not even close to a lame horse, and it should definitely not be “put down” because of the situation it’s in.

    I’d love to know what your experiences are with children. Do you have kids? Have you ever seen the miracle of childbirth? I’m not asking this to make you feel bad, but I do think it can make a difference in this particular issue. How anyone could experience this for themselves and still feel that abortion is any more justifiable than murder is beyond me.

    Light, you seem very compassionate and I appreciate that. I don’t think you’re a bad person just because we don’t agree. I think abortion is wrong in the vast majority of cases (you mentioned some possible exceptions), and I think it’s so wrong that it can’t be justified. You think abortion is justifiable based on social and environmental circumstances. I’ll just say this: I think abortion is murder, and there are only a couple of reasonable excuses to kill somebody. Inconvenience, suffering, lack of desire and incompitence aren’t good enough reasons to kill.

    Thanks for your thoughts, Light. I’m not going to post anymore on this because I don’t think it will do any good. I appreciate your sincerity and your compassion. I pray that God will be your guide (and mine) in issues like these.

  29. debbie November 10, 2006 at 1:17 pm #

    I’m sorry Paul, I meant Steve in #9

    {Light, Again you have simplified these issues in your assessment that you won’t judge someone based on one single act. So, is it wrong for me to label someone a murderer if they only killed one person? Hey, it was only one act! How in the world could I judge that person and determine that they needed to be in jail for a very long time?

    What about someone who only raped someone one time? Is it fair to say that person is a rapist? Is it fair to determine that they need to be subject to the laws of our society? It was just one bad action. How can we judge it?}

    The point I’m trying to make is wether you commit an act once or 20 times or if it’s premeditated. You’re right that we shouldn’t judge people by what they do. We should, in tough love, say what you did was wrong. The reason why I say that is because it is hard for you to say and because you love them enough to speak the truth.

  30. Steve Hayes November 10, 2006 at 5:02 pm #

    Debbie,

    You’ve missed the point of my post. My questions about rape and murder were meant to demonstrate my point that it only takes one murder to make someone a murderer, and it only takes one rape to make someone a rapist. I was basically trying to show the fallacy in Light’s assessment that you can’t make a judgement about someone based on one act. You actually can make a judgement about someone based on the one act of murder, the one act of rape, the one act of child abuse, etc. If you fail to make that judgement, you put yourself and others at risk. I hope that clears things up.

  31. Debbie November 10, 2006 at 5:30 pm #

    Thank you Steve. By judgement, I’m saying not to condemn a person. That is up to God and the officials that God put in place for that Judgement. I believe Matthew 7 and Romans 2 says Don’t judge or you will be judged.

  32. light November 11, 2006 at 4:21 pm #

    Sb,

    “In your comment in #25: You said: ” I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think abortion should be “on demand”. I just strongly believe that the choice should be up to the baby’s parents.”

    If this is truly your position, then when would the parents’ right to kill their child end? ”

    A parents’ right never ends. Even after they made the decision, the consequences of that decision will be them for always, any decision can have a positive or negative effect on the future and if it was wrong, it’ll weigh heavily on their conscience.

    “What if the child is newly born and the parents decide they don’t want it? What if the child is 2 years old and the parents decide they can’t afford caring for a child? I am assuming that you would say that killing a born child is wrong. Why is it ok to kill the baby before birth and not after? Do you see that the only difference in these situations is location? In the womb versus out of the womb.”

    Then they can put the kid up for adoption or if they don’t care, they can just leave it in a basket somewhere for someone to pick up, if they’re that callous or irresponsible. I don’t think it’s ok to kill a child when it’s outside the womb, because once a child is born, it’s a real, breathing human who has the privilege and the right to live just by its presence in the world.

    “Also, I’m interested to know why you don’t support abortion “on demand”. If you are pro-choice, what is it that keeps you from supporting this idea? I’d like to know your thoughts on this.”

    I don’t support it because “on demand” that’s like saying that you can choose to abort whenever you want for whatever reason, just like choosing to buy one product over another. People should use their reason and intelligence to make a good decision and make sure that their reasoning is sound, makes sense, and is not impulsive. It’s not a decision to be taken lightly. Most decisions are life are important and shouldn’t be rushed into. “On demand” I think of getting movies “on demand” you just call and you’ll get to see the movies you want, whether you like them or not or are happy with your choices is another story.

    Light

  33. light November 11, 2006 at 4:43 pm #

    Steve,

    Thanks for voicing your honest opinions, I really appreciate it. I feel that now I have a better idea of why there is much debate about abortion.

    My sister is a “special” person. If I knew I would have a “special” child, I wouldn’t abort. I’ve seen posts on a forum where people said they would, I wouldn’t have the heart to. I wouldn’t get an abortion but I know that others might and I believe that everyone is entitled to some civil liberties, the freedom to choose, freedom of religion, and freedom to petition. No one can tell me what is right, if I feel I’m doing the right thing. Just like selling drugs,
    it’s bad but for some that’s all they can do to earn some money, you can try to forbid it, but it won’t stop, so the only thing to do is acknowledge it as legal and then you can regulate it in the open.

    If a woman has an abortion once and then never had one again, I wouldn’t hold it against her, I’d say she learned that she can’t destroy a life. But it should still be an option, for those who were raped or sexually assaulted or who are incapable of giving birth (mental capacity) or if it’s too dangerous for them to give birth because they could possibly die.

    Best wishes,

    Light

  34. Debbie November 14, 2006 at 2:41 pm #

    Parents should teach their children about sex and the dangers of doing it before marriage. Schools are teaching sex-ed to tell kids that it is okay to do anything you want. Marriage is unnecessary. Why do you think they push condoms instead of abstinance. With abortion and birth control, teens have no morals at all. Moms dress inappropiately and the daughters follow them and their peers. Guys are wearing their pants halfway down their butt like they think it’s cool. There is too much influence for our children to be caught up in this immoral society. I hear children and teenagers curse a blue streak in public like it’s their native tongue. Several years ago 17 teenagers died of an overdose of herion because their parents gave them money and credit cards and left them alone. Parents are not taking responsibility for their childrens’ lives. Only 4% of the teens know what absolute truth is and 85% leave church when they leave home.

  35. Paul November 14, 2006 at 5:02 pm #

    Debbie,

    You’re right on a few counts:

    1) Parents should teach their kids about sex, and the dangers of engaging in sexual activities before marriage.

    2) Moms who dress and act inappropriately teach their daughters to do likewise.

    3) When parents don’t do their job as parents, the results are never good. Good kids raised in bad homes are good kids in spite of their parents, not because of them.

    Everything else you said is tainted with misinformation. Such as…

    1) abortion and birth control = teens with no morals. Nope, not the case at all. Teens with no morals have existed for all time, even before the advent of birth control or legalized abortion. Again, it all comes down to parents doing their jobs AS PARENTS.

    2) I wonder what school you went to. At my school, abstinence was taught as the best solution, but if you were going to, here’s how to use this stuff so that you don’t end up a teenage mom with no support system. And, guess what? I only remember one pregnancy in my class of 500.

    3) According to your numbers, there will be less than 100,000 Christians in America in 30-40 years. I highly doubt your numbers. However, given Christianity’s falling away from hands on faith, can you blame people for falling away from the church? Too many people talk the talk and don’t walk the walk. And when people see that, they don’t want to have anything to do with it much of the time. And in such instances, we need to be thankful that there are movements like the emerging church that put a lot of emphasis on actions, not (empty) words.

  36. Debbie November 14, 2006 at 5:27 pm #

    I have been out of school for 20 years and I really doubt that abstinence is being taught in all public schools. I wonder how many people who claim to be christian are geniune. I wish pastors would teach on modesty more. I heard a message by Jack Graham on couragous parenting and modesty. He’s got a new book about this sermon series.

  37. light November 14, 2006 at 11:06 pm #

    Debbie,

    Where did you get those numbers? How recent are they?

    You said:

    “Several years ago 17 teenagers died of an overdose of herion because their parents gave them money and credit cards and left them alone. Parents are not taking responsibility for their childrens’ lives. Only 4% of the teens know what absolute truth is and 85% leave church when they leave home.”

    Drug abuse among teenagers is terrible and it just keeps increasing. But I doubt it’s necessary to tell a child “absolute truth.” Parents just need to tell their kids over and over, that drugs are bad and that they’re harming their own bodies and they’re killing themselves. The human body is like a temple, it’s sacred so we should respect it by not mistreating it. And parents should teach them how to love by loving them and if they love themselves, they’ll be less likely to hurt themselves like that.

    On a separate note, It seems to me that you’re calling school or school sex ed. evil. So if you have teens in school, pull them out of school(unless they’re homeschooled). Even if teens are not with the mainstream youth, they can still be exposed to “immoral” content-movies, video games, friends(kids need friends, you can’t tell them they have to stay away from friends), even from people in public places. Kids hear stuff and pick them up like a sponge absorbing water, what are you going to do about it? Force them into a life of total seclusion, live up in the mountains in a monastery like a monk? There’d be little chance that their impressionable minds could become corrupted too soon. Minds can’t stay innocent for long. The more I learn about the world, the less naive I become and I feel that that childlike innocence and ignorance, is disappearing. Parents have to be there to tell them right from wrong and explain things to them. Don’t think they’re too young to know about some things, if you don’t tell them soon enough or you forbid them from being exposed to stuff, they’ll go after it anyway. Kids have minds of their own. I know when I was little, I was curious about everything. I was fortunate to have my mother there to teach me things and raise me like a good Christian(I haven’t been to church in about 10 years, but I believe it’s the thoughts that count. I’ve been to many Christian schools and I can still feel the effects, it stayed with me all these years.). At a very young age, the parents should be there for the kids, more than just going to games or concerts, but really spending time with them and talking with them to understand what goes through their heads and try to answer their questions.

    Light

  38. Debbie November 15, 2006 at 2:07 pm #

    I was refering to a small city north of Dallas called Plano. This was in a 4 week period by the same dealer. The drugs were tainted with tar. I’m taking about a mass majority of students that wanted to get high and things went wrong. That same year, one of the Dallas Cowboys had the same overdose.

  39. light November 15, 2006 at 5:12 pm #

    Debbie,

    This “mass majority of students” is in the Dallas area?

    “I have been out of school for 20 years and I really doubt that abstinence is being taught in all public schools. I wonder how many people who claim to be christian are geniune. I wish pastors would teach on modesty more.”

    Why can’t parents teach abstinence? Why should it be the school’s job? So if it fails, parents can blame the school? Are you saying the only genuine christians are moral people? If you are, I say that’s very narrow-minded. Socrates and Aristotle talk about ethics and morals and neither one of them was Christian. Confuscius also talks about piety and morality among other good qualities, and he wasn’t a Christian either. On the flip side, Ted Bundy was raised in a Christian family and look how he turned out, during that time I was little and I lived in a suburb of Seattle. Some criminals are Christian, they believe in God, they go to church, they pray some even have good families. People should not be judged solely by their religion, it’s also psychological. How people are is also because of their experiences. If pastors preached more on modesty, if people don’t listen or don’t understand, he can preach all he wants but it won’t change them. Society is spiraling downward and it has been maybe since the 70’s or maybe earlier. How do you raise something from a whirlpool? I wish it weren’t true, but I’m learning to understand it.

    Light

  40. Debbie November 16, 2006 at 2:03 pm #

    I can’t describe to you what happened in the 50’s but I know in the 60’s prayer was taken out of schools, drugs became too popular, more people started having sex without marriage in more numbers (Woodstock) parents stopped teaching thier kids moral values. Now their kids are grown up having kids and morality has gone downhill at a rapid rate. I understand if you say all this has happened before then because the madia has glorified any immoralaty. I rememeber when Comedian George Carlin came out with the seven words you can’t say on tv, now it’s dwendled to about 2 or 3. Tv hs become the babysitter for our children and even some adults. Preachers are getting away from condemning such acts and we call it tolerance. I love everybody but I hate the sin they have caused to go so rampent in this country. Christians have allowed the world to drift into the home and the church, then we feel it is not our responsibility to vote. Now that liberal people control the country, we sit back and whine. If people would have done thier duty to the country, we may not have had the Columbine disaster and other dreadful acts on our children.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. » Harvesting Body Parts from Aborted Babies - December 12, 2006

    […] Anyone who cannot see how close we are to a “baby industry” that grows the unborn for the purposes of medical research is burying their heads in the sand. The dissembling rhetoric that masks the offense of killing an unborn human is already in place (note the reference to “fetus” in the AP story, not a “baby”). And now, by showing that taking a life might be able to save another, the moral arguments against using weak humans for spare parts are being eroded as well. […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes