Okay, so you think women have a right to infanticide...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
Why? It is the law. And the bottom line is that if the woman does not want a child, it is HER choice and none of yours.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I said and quite clearly I might add, that I don't agree with the choice but as long as it's legal, it is still the right of the woman.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I'm making no distinction. One simply does not have the right to conscript another to further their own life. It's very simple.Exactly. Well, according to science, that is.
The debate begins if the presumption of the gestating fetus is considered alive, which life carries more consideration and attention? The pregnant female? Or the fetus?
I've often said that it's very easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating it isn't considered to have complete ownership over the entirety of her own body in the first place.
What makes me SMDH is when pregnancy is described as an "inconvenience." It's a major health concern for the woman, and anything BUT an inconvenience.
So, moralizing it and offering causes and conditions for the pregnancy to happen in the first place....which typically comes up as the woman's sexual history or choices or circumstances including rape....become the ammunition against the pregnant female and to consider the argument as determining that she is WRONG if the pregnancy is unwanted, and therefore she must make it RIGHT to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the major health concers that occur to her and her body for the assumed 9 month pregnancy. Because she is WRONG, then she must be PUNISHED somehow if her pregnancy...a health condition....was unplanned or unwanted.
Please forgive me if I am reading this wrong, but are you saying that a woman who is raped or whatever should be forced to have the fetus?Exactly. Well, according to science, that is.
The debate begins if the presumption of the gestating fetus is considered alive, which life carries more consideration and attention? The pregnant female? Or the fetus?
I've often said that it's very easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating it isn't considered to have complete ownership over the entirety of her own body in the first place.
What makes me SMDH is when pregnancy is described as an "inconvenience." It's a major health concern for the woman, and anything BUT an inconvenience.
So, moralizing it and offering causes and conditions for the pregnancy to happen in the first place....which typically comes up as the woman's sexual history or choices or circumstances including rape....become the ammunition against the pregnant female and to consider the argument as determining that she is WRONG if the pregnancy is unwanted, and therefore she must make it RIGHT to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the major health concers that occur to her and her body for the assumed 9 month pregnancy. Because she is WRONG, then she must be PUNISHED somehow if her pregnancy...a health condition....was unplanned or unwanted.
JRMcC
Active Member
If my neighbor doesn't want her 2 month old baby anymore, should she have the right to dispose of it?
Do you support it being banned?
(Note: Technically, although there is a general ban, partial-birth abortion is still "legal" through a loophole as long as the doctor kills the baby by injecting their heart with poison before they suck their brains out and collapse their skull.)
Marisa
Well-Known Member
This i
This the problem with this conversation. People get their emotions out front and center and shoot other opinions in the face with them. Infanticide only applies after birth. But great job continuing to make assumptions designed to make others look like immoral heathens because they have the unmitigated gall to have their own opinion.
I don't care about your legal jargon. Killing an 8 or 9 month old infant in the womb or killing them outside of it is still killing an infant. If you come out looking like an "immoral heathen", that's not my problem.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
The good news is that late term abortion is already legislated and thus a settled matter.
I addressed that above.
You ask an inane question. The child is breathing and therefore, if she does not want it, she can take it to a hospital, firehouse or the police and hand it over. And please, try to not ask ridiculous questions.
To some degree, yes I do. Otoh, if the fetus has things like ancephaly or Tay Sachs or something devastating, I am torn about that. But for the most part, yes I do.
Thank you. It was an unmitigatedly off topic inane question. And while I answers it, I should not have.
Okay. I just wanted clarity.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
There's no guarantee of anything. If there are two viable lives, the mother and unborn child, as long as we aren't trading one life for the other I don't think probability of survival should be a factor. They both deserve a chance to live.
Not if we're talking about elective abortion, which I thought we were.
JRMcC
Active Member
It's not ridiculous. How self aware is an 2 month old? Do they fear death? What do they have to lose?
How about an 89 year old shot and instantly killed? He didn't suffer physically, he didn't see it coming. How much harm has been done to this man? It's not like he's some place wishing he weren't dead, unless you believe in hell.
This is the problem with morality, it's not set in stone. I think we should respect life for the sake of respecting life. What does breathing have to do with that? The baby doesn't become alive the minute it leaves the womb, that's a nonsensical idea.
No worries frank. I just believe it should remain in th hands of the woman, at least early term abortions.
It's the law, whether you like that or not. A fetus is not a viable child until it takes a breath. A living breathing human cannot be murdered and if you don't see the difference, I don't have the time or inclination to try to educate you. Good day.
JRMcC
Active Member
This is something that goes well beyond this subject (maybe I should start a thread), but why do you think it's wrong to kill a grown woman? How is it different from killing a dog? A person in a coma? A tree? A fetus? A fish? What makes life valuable? In your opinion please.