Monument to the unborn sparks controversy

[dnb239]

I have lost eight children to miscarriages, and I too like the idea of someone giving affirmation to their lives. Like you said, for whatever reason, some people do not want to think about the truth, and anything that makes them think about it is a nuisance. The truth is that when a child is conceived they are real, not just potentially real. They are living and growing. I have seen my children’s heartbeats on ultrasounds, watched them grow, and then held them in my hand after they died. When someone says that abortion should be legal, I hear “Your child’s life had no meaning, they were no more than your imagination. Your tears and grief were for nothing”

See, that’s the whole thing. They do not see the fetus as human. They see it as excess bodily material that will become human. You are right, they don’t care - because to them it wasn’t human - just excess tissue, like a tumor.

I’ve had growths removed from me and I was glad to have them removed. People that convince themselves to have an abortion must also convince themselves that the fetus is not yet human.

If they aren’t convincing themselves of that, how do they live with themselves?

To you and I, it was and is human from conception. That’s why my question in the first post. If life doesn’t begin then, When does it?

That’s why I never could understand some of the “other” issues that go hand-in-hand with abortion.

For example; if man kills a pregnant woman and the baby dies also, he faces two murder charges. Another, is that a man has no choice in the abortion decision because it is not in his body. If a man empregnates a woman she can have it aborted without any comment, let alone permission from the father.

So, in the first example the man cannot kill the embyo, but in the second example the woman can - yet in both cases, a parent has had a child killed at the hands of another person.

How can that ever make sense to anyone?

They only things I garner from this is that people cannot think very clearly and that women have more legal rights than men - when it comes to creating and ending life.

 

[sedonaman]

…
For example; if man kills a pregnant woman and the baby dies also, he faces two murder charges. Another, is that a man has no choice in the abortion decision because it is not in his body. If a man empregnates a woman she can have it aborted without any comment, let alone permission from the father.

So, in the first example the man cannot kill the embyo, but in the second example the woman can - yet in both cases, a parent has had a child killed at the hands of another person.

How can that ever make sense to anyone?

Here’s another example: Suppose a pregnant woman decides to keep her baby; it then is a human being. If she subsequently decides to abort, suddenly it is no longer human. If she changes her mind again and wants to give birth, suddenly it is a human being again. The only explanation that makes all this flip-flopping possible is that a baby is the property of the mother, and hers alone. [This extends even beyond birth. See child custody laws.] If this slippery slope is not reversed, eventually her child will be her property until he reaches emancipation.

They only things I garner from this is that people cannot think very clearly and that women have more legal rights than men -]- when it comes to creating and ending life/-].

---

For liberals, there is no finish line.

 

[Nelka]

If the monument works as intended, and fewer children die as fetuses, embryos or zygotes, would that not make Satan happy, because he has a much better chance of luring a born person to hell? And all those unborn children, the Church hopes, go to heaven.

You would murder your child to save their soul?

 

[Hokomai]

It might be a lot of things, but bad communication is not one of them. It is good communication because it’s obviously effective at getting its message across, otherwise there would be no reaction.

A lot of folks are offended by the woman’s letter. In fact, your posts offend me. So there you have it: why is her offense entertained but theirs and mine are not even considered? Are some more equal than others?

---

“Anyone who is aware of the high degree of selectivity of Leftist indignation, and of how they remain utterly impassive in the face of any injustice that doesn’t serve to further their agenda, keeps their complaints in perspective.” – Author Unknown

Reaction does not equal good communication. Otherwise you would have to rank 9-11 as great communication. The difference between my communications here (which I am sorry offend you) and this memorial is that people in this forum know that people like me have been invited to take part, and choose to read what we say. There is even a setting somewhere which will avoid you ever having to see another of my posts. Passers-by seeing the memorial have no such choice. The church has the right to erect it, but that does not mean it will be effective at winning either hearts or minds.

 

[dnb239]

Here’s another example: Suppose a pregnant woman decides to keep her baby; it then is a human being. If she subsequently decides to abort, suddenly it is no longer human. If she changes her mind again and wants to give birth, suddenly it is a human being again. The only explanation that makes all this flip-flopping possible is that a baby is the property of the mother, and hers alone. [This extends even beyond birth. See child custody laws.] If this slippery slope is not reversed, eventually her child will be her property until he reaches emancipation.

---

For liberals, there is no finish line.

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

When the decision has been made in a any country to allow abortion, that decision has never been based upon anything other than placating half of the potential voters. Specifically those that have become convinced that abortion is a women’s issue.

I like the monument. If I didn’t live on a deed restricted area - I’d like to put one up in my front yard too.

Then again, I never did shy away from controversy.

 

[Hokomai]

You would murder your child to save their soul?

No, I would not murder my own child. I was asking about the logic of your position that Satan encourages abortions. As there is a net loss of souls to him, this seems unlikely. Still interested in your response.

 

[10gr8kids]

No, I would not murder my own child. I was asking about the logic of your position that Satan encourages abortions. As there is a net loss of souls to him, this seems unlikely. Still interested in your response.

I think Satan’s happy with all the souls he’s winning by convincing people to accept abortion and do nothing to save innocent lives.

Also, I believe for any soul to go to heaven, they need to accept God. They still have freewill IMO. I wouldn’t think there is any guarantee all go to heaven. I pray for my children’s souls who have died.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The “monument” is very melodramatic but I don’t see the problem with it being there

 

[SpeakInSilence]

The “monument” is very melodramatic but I don’t see the problem with it being there

One could argue that the WW2 monument was melodramatic, or the Vietnam memorial monument.

People who fail to understand the sanctity of life will always think the act of honoring things they don’t understand as melodramatic.

 

[SpeakInSilence]

No, I would not murder my own child. I was asking about the logic of your position that Satan encourages abortions. As there is a net loss of souls to him, this seems unlikely. Still interested in your response.

The goal of a Christian is not to gain Heaven, but to share a strong bond and relationship with God the Father, Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit that binds us.

Thus the act of abortion severs the bond which is created here on Earth.

 

[sedonaman]

Reaction does not equal good communication. …

That’s correct. Whether it is good reaction or bad reaction, the point is that reaction is the result of good communication while not the communication itself.

Passers-by seeing the memorial have no such choice.

This argument is as old as the hills. It was used unsuccessfully to try to stop offensive language on TV and in the movies. Conservatives have been reminded ad nauseum that seeing/hearing ideas we don’t like is the price we pay for a free society. So now it’s time for the shoe to be on the other foot. Why don’t you just 'fess up and admit it sends a message you’d rather not face? And that message is if your mother had opted for an abortion, you wouldn’t be here to advocate that it happen to others. If that’s not a fallacy, it should be.

The church has the right to erect it, but that does not mean it will be effective at winning either hearts or minds.

Maybe not, but then again maybe it will; even if it changes only one heart/mind, it will be worth it. It certainly is more effective than no message at all. The Great Pyramid was not built in one day out of one immense block of granite; it was made out of many smaller blocks, one at a time over years.

 

[Nelka]

No, I would not murder my own child. I was asking about the logic of your position that Satan encourages abortions. As there is a net loss of souls to him, this seems unlikely. Still interested in your response.

You think Satan cares about a net loss of Souls?



How do you know that some of the aborted babies would not turn out to be people that would call others to the church?

And what about dragging the people down that commit these atrocities?

Satan would encourage me to be good all day if he could get me to do one bad thing at the end of the day.

Satan wants to hurt God and this is one way to really hurt Him.

 

[Hokomai]

You think Satan cares about a net loss of Souls?



How do you know that some of the aborted babies would not turn out to be people that would call others to the church?

And what about dragging the people down that commit these atrocities?

Satan would encourage me to be good all day if he could get me to do one bad thing at the end of the day.

Satan wants to hurt God and this is one way to really hurt Him.

I’m pleased to have given you some enjoyment.

If all aborted babies do not go to hell, and if some people do go to hell as a result of sins committed after birth, aborting babies must over time reduce the number of people in hell. If this monument as you claim makes Satan happy, he must be happy about fewer people going to hell. My logic assumes that the aborters of babies would continue to abort some babies even if the monument has its desired effect of reducing the number of abortions. These people would therefore go to hell in no greater numbers. Come to think about it, contraception would also reduce the number of people in hell because there would be a lower total population of potential sinners. Does Satan approve or not of contraception?

 

[Tenofovir]

“Aside from the obvious esthetics, I find the content of this monument to be very inappropriate,” MacKenzie wrote in her letter, which was made public through a recent council meeting.
“Each person is entitled to their personal opinion on the controversial subject of abortion, but the general public should not have the opinion of a particular group on view whenever they travel through their community.”

cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/08/22/nl-unborn-children-monument-822.html

MacKenzie is stating a personal opinion too. Not sure why her way should triumph.

 

[Tenofovir]

I can see why this would upset people with an emotional attitude to an emotional issue, but the church is obviously within its rights to allow it to be built. I wonder about the death-centred message with the ‘tombstone’ theme though. If the message is pro-life, it makes sense for the imagery to be also. but I am impressed that they included mention of miscarriages (the vast majority of unborn ‘children’ who die).

100% of all people die eventually. It’s not about that but about purposefully killing people. Obviously right now people are dying of starvation in Africa but that’s no justification for killing a few more by dumping radioactive waste in Africa in exchange for a few bucks to some dictators. In the same way because sometimes miscarriages occur, more often if a mother is unbooked and abuses alcohol/cigarettes/drugs, it means we can PURPOSEFULLY kill people in utero. There is a ghost of this fallacious argument in here somewhere.

It’s also not to say that because everyone dies one day, one should not take better care of one’s health if one wants to live longer. I hear this argument from conservatives too and I don’t like it as much as I dislike the pro-abort argument that some kids die anyway in utero or very early in embryogenesis.

 

[Nelka]

I’m pleased to have given you some enjoyment.

If all aborted babies do not go to hell, and if some people do go to hell as a result of sins committed after birth, aborting babies must over time reduce the number of people in hell. If this monument as you claim makes Satan happy, he must be happy about fewer people going to hell. My logic assumes that the aborters of babies would continue to abort some babies even if the monument has its desired effect of reducing the number of abortions. These people would therefore go to hell in no greater numbers. Come to think about it, contraception would also reduce the number of people in hell because there would be a lower total population of potential sinners. Does Satan approve or not of contraception?

Aborted babies do not go to Hell but the sin tears at Jesus Christ’s Heart.

When did I claim that the monument makes Satan happy?

Satan wants to drag souls to Hell and away from God.

How can contraception reduce the amount of people in Hell since those who are in Hell will stay there for eternity. You can only add to the number.

 

[Hokomai]

Aborted babies do not go to Hell but the sin tears at Jesus Christ’s Heart.

When did I claim that the monument makes Satan happy?

Satan wants to drag souls to Hell and away from God.

How can contraception reduce the amount of people in Hell since those who are in Hell will stay there for eternity. You can only add to the number.

Whoops. My bad. I mean’t unhappy.