• 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!

Pro-choice vs Abortion

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
I've never had an abortion and, barring a miracle, don't expect to want or need one in the few years I have left in this world. Moreover, I haven't ever encouraged a woman to get one and can't imagine that I ever will. The way I see it, what any woman decides to do about what is happening inside her body is between her, her God (if she believes in one), and her Doctor.

If I ever feel moved to discourage a pregnant woman from undergoing an abortion, I'd only do so if I could pay for all of her needs during pregnancy and adopt the baby when born or see that it is lawfully adopted by fit adults.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
PRO:
I am pro-choice, not because I encourage women to have abortions, but because I reserve the right to not have abortions.

Legislation takes the right away.
I am pro-choice...but I hope women stop having abortions with frequency...because they don't know how lucky they are having the chance of becoming a mother...
While women like me who have a strong desire of motherhood don't have this privilege.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I've never had an abortion and, barring a miracle, don't expect to want or need one in the few years I have left in this world. Moreover, I haven't ever encouraged a woman to get one and can't imagine that I ever will. The way I see it, what any woman decides to do about what is happening inside her body is between her, her God (if she believes in one), and her Doctor.

If I ever feel moved to discourage a pregnant woman from undergoing an abortion, I'd only do so if I could pay for all of her needs during pregnancy and adopt the baby when born or see that it is lawfully adopted by fit adults.

....and who gets to decide who is 'fit?'

Oh, never mind. Babies aren't kittens or puppies, to be drowned or euthanized because they are not 'wanted,' or are not 'adoptable.' In my view, when the sex is consensual and in full knowledge that sex is how babies are made, a woman's choices need to be made BEFORE she gets pregnant. After that, it's not all about her anymore. There is another human being to consider. Yeah, yeah...men don't get pregnant. It's not 'fair.' or something. But that's how it is. Women are the ones who get pregnant. Pregnancy is about making human beings.

y'know, if one decides to advertise a room to rent in the newspaper, and goes to all the trouble of getting a renter....and then decides that having a renter in one's home is too much trouble, one is not allowed to shoot said renter and bury him in the back garden.

In fact, suppose that one advertises in the paper, and then puts all sorts of traps and lethal barriers in the way to keep inquirers away from the house. Suppose that somebody gets through all those traps and barriers, and voila,' takes up occupancy in that spare room. It's STILL considered illegal to shoot him.

Indeed, if the weather outside is arctic cold winter, or in the middle of a hurricane, one is not allowed to kick the renter out if doing so will guarantee his death. The reluctant landlord must wait until it is possible for the renter to leave without instantly dying.

Couples who have consensual sex ARE inviting that new human into existence, in the full knowledge that one just might answer the 'invitation.' Modern birth control methods are very good, and when multiple forms are used...properly...then the odds are exceptional that no pregnancy will result. It might, anyway, though...and it wouldn't have had the 'invitation' not been given. it is not the fault of this new human that his parents invited him/her. Indeed, this new human is the only real innocent in the whole deal.

But for some reason, it is that innocent who has to pay the death penalty price for his/her parent's irresponsibility, in many cases, and at the very least, unwillingness to accept the consequences of their own choices.

I'm compelled to insert a disclaimer here, because someone WILL come back with the 'what about rape, incest and threat to the mother's life?" thing. You haven't done this, Terry...it's a general disclaimer, and why I use 'consensual' so consistently here. My opinion is mine...and only applies to men and women who enter into consensual sex in the full knowledge that sex makes babies, and that there is a possibility, no matter how slight, that a pregnancy will result. It does not apply to women who are raped, incest victims, women who are not legally responsible for their actions (and sex with them IS 'rape") or in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or when the fetus is so badly damaged that s/he cannot live outside the womb even if carried to full term.

Of course, the vast majority of abortions are sought by women who did have consensual sex.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
....and who gets to decide who is 'fit?'

Oh, never mind. Babies aren't kittens or puppies, to be drowned or euthanized because they are not 'wanted,' or are not 'adoptable.' In my view, when the sex is consensual and in full knowledge that sex is how babies are made, a woman's choices need to be made BEFORE she gets pregnant. After that, it's not all about her anymore. There is another human being to consider. Yeah, yeah...men don't get pregnant. It's not 'fair.' or something. But that's how it is. Women are the ones who get pregnant. Pregnancy is about making human beings.

y'know, if one decides to advertise a room to rent in the newspaper, and goes to all the trouble of getting a renter....and then decides that having a renter in one's home is too much trouble, one is not allowed to shoot said renter and bury him in the back garden.

In fact, suppose that one advertises in the paper, and then puts all sorts of traps and lethal barriers in the way to keep inquirers away from the house. Suppose that somebody gets through all those traps and barriers, and voila,' takes up occupancy in that spare room. It's STILL considered illegal to shoot him.

Indeed, if the weather outside is arctic cold winter, or in the middle of a hurricane, one is not allowed to kick the renter out if doing so will guarantee his death. The reluctant landlord must wait until it is possible for the renter to leave without instantly dying.

Couples who have consensual sex ARE inviting that new human into existence, in the full knowledge that one just might answer the 'invitation.' Modern birth control methods are very good, and when multiple forms are used...properly...then the odds are exceptional that no pregnancy will result. It might, anyway, though...and it wouldn't have had the 'invitation' not been given. it is not the fault of this new human that his parents invited him/her. Indeed, this new human is the only real innocent in the whole deal.

But for some reason, it is that innocent who has to pay the death penalty price for his/her parent's irresponsibility, in many cases, and at the very least, unwillingness to accept the consequences of their own choices.

I'm compelled to insert a disclaimer here, because someone WILL come back with the 'what about rape, incest and threat to the mother's life?" thing. You haven't done this, Terry...it's a general disclaimer, and why I use 'consensual' so consistently here. My opinion is mine...and only applies to men and women who enter into consensual sex in the full knowledge that sex makes babies, and that there is a possibility, no matter how slight, that a pregnancy will result. It does not apply to women who are raped, incest victims, women who are not legally responsible for their actions (and sex with them IS 'rape") or in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or when the fetus is so badly damaged that s/he cannot live outside the womb even if carried to full term.

Of course, the vast majority of abortions are sought by women who did have consensual sex.
This whole analogy falls flat when you don't believe consent to have sex is consent to forced childbirth should you become pregnant. Consent is neither transferable nor transient, consent to kissing is not consent to sex no matter how often one leads to another. Consent to blood testing is not consent to blood donation no matter how similar the processes of are.

In any case, it also doesn't take into consideration that actual medical and sexual consent is not like renter agreements. You can revoke medical consent at *any time.* Up to and including when it will result in death of someone else. Because rights of body autonomy superced any rights to bodily use every time.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
....and who gets to decide who is 'fit?'
Usually, the state.

In my view, when the sex is consensual and in full knowledge that sex is how babies are made, a woman's choices need to be made BEFORE she gets pregnant. After that, it's not all about her anymore. There is another human being to consider.
It never ceases to be about her, despite there being another life to consider. Birth is not just one life at stake.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Babies aren't kittens or puppies, to be drowned or euthanized because they are not 'wanted,' or are not 'adoptable.'
Incidentally I would criminalize drowning unwanted puppies and kittens over first and second trimester abortion as I'm not a human exceptionalist and the puppies and kittens will markedly suffer more for the experience.

Heck I would push for compulsive vegetarianism before compulsive birth as the inclusion of meat is *mostly* self indulgent and causes unnecessary suffering. But I wouldn't both because there's sometimes socioeconomic reasons or health reasons why carnivory happens and a rigid compulsory system would punish those cases because they wouldn't be judged effectively. Thus I believe it's a personal choice.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think pro choice would be the preferred way to go as opposed to infanticide.

Personally I think the line should be drawn at the point when the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain. Past that the mother imo would no longer 'own' the child as being an integral part of her body.

It seems to be set at the third trimester or 27 weeks into pregnancy when the fetus is thought to be capable of experiencing pain.

Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Then what's the rub, the fetus goes to heaven then if you claim it is innocent.

I believe that anybody below the 'age of accountability' (which my faith system puts at about 8) goes to heaven.

Which means, according to your logic, that it is completely acceptable to go shoot all the kids at a day care center. They are all going to heaven, right?

Except of course that the guy who does that is probably going to get shot himself, if he isn't convicted of mass murder. We do consider people who murder children to be particularly nasty.

But, again....according to your logic, it should be perfectly OK, right? The victims are all going to heaven.

Your logic is as lousy as the person who claims that since foeti have to face so many OTHER dangers, and since a large percentage of pregnancies end in natural miscarriages, then 'what's the rub?" Abortion is just one more danger, right?

No matter what your view is on abortion, that logic is insane.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Personally I think the line should be drawn at the point when the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain. Past that the mother imo would no longer 'own' the child as being an integral part of her body.

It seems to be set at the third trimester or 27 weeks into pregnancy when the fetus is thought to be capable of experiencing pain.

I've heard that the women usually won't do that unless a serious health issue arises for her, in which case I think the choice would still belong to the women. But if everything is going well, I think by the point it starts looking quite human it would be unsettling for her to get rid of it, though I don't know if I'd give someone years in prison for that. My guess is that it the experience would probably traumatize the women and that's punishment enough
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
believe that anybody below the 'age of accountability' (which my faith system puts at about 8) goes to heaven.

Which means, according to your logic, that it is completely acceptable to go shoot all the kids at a day care center. They are all going to heaven, right?

no according to your logic. If you can't get that straight, you're probably not fit for a debate forum. It's your religion, not mine bud. What the hell are you making some sick analogy like that for.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
This whole analogy falls flat when you don't believe consent to have sex is consent to forced childbirth should you become pregnant.

Begging the question.

Consent is neither transferable nor transient, consent to kissing is not consent to sex no matter how often one leads to another.

Irrelevant...at the very least, a strawman.

Consent to blood testing is not consent to blood donation no matter how similar the processes of are.

Non sequitur.

In any case, it also doesn't take into consideration that actual medical and sexual consent is not like renter agreements. You can revoke medical consent at *any time.* Up to and including when it will result in death of someone else. Because rights of body autonomy superced any rights to bodily use every time.

The act of consensual sex is not a medical procedure with modern rules. No matter how many reasons one has for engaging in sex, the fact is....sex is all about procreation. It's FUN, because those who enjoy it are more likely to engage in it...and thus more likely to reproduce. Everything that human sex involves is directly involved in the procreation of the species. Every. Single. Thing, from the fun to the relationship, to keeping the couple 'together,' to..??? I personally can't think of anything about sex that is not first and foremost aimed at the production and raising of children, even...and perhaps not so accidentally, those acts of sex which do not themselves result in pregnancy, but are about the adults engaging in them.

...and we are not talking about changing one's mind regarding a kidney transplant. We are talking about deliberately engaging in the one act that is required for the creation of a new human being. As soon as that happens, that new human life MUST be considered, in the same way that any other human life should be considered; if it's not legal to kill your neighbor 'just because,' then it shouldn't be legal to kill this new human being that you deliberately invited into being.

As there are instances in which it is not only legal, but desirable, to kill your neighbor (as when s/he tries to kill you first, for instance) then there are cases in which abortion is also a tragic requirement.

I believe that reading that 'disclaimer' would have been useful.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
no according to your logic. If you can't get that straight, you're probably not fit for a debate forum. It's your religion, not mine bud.

Excuse me?

I'm not the one who brought up the 'they are going to heaven so it should be OK to kill them" argument. You did.

I simply showed you how that particular argument fails.

....and since it IS 'my religion' (at least, the 'innocents go to heaven' bit) I think I know a bit more about it than you might.
 
Last edited:
Top