Whoa! That's a quite a load of firewood you brought. And all for free. Ain't you nice! Don't know where I'm gonna put it, but I'll try to find a place.
....and who gets to decide who is 'fit?'
I do. Gotta problem with that? Take it up with the Boss.
This thread's topic is "Pro-choice" vs. Abortion", not my pro-life proposal.
Realized that you said something irrelevant, eh? Don't worry about it. It's forgotten.
Babies aren't kittens or puppies, to be drowned or euthanized because they are not 'wanted,' or are not 'adoptable.'
So, you make no distinction between fetuses, babies in the womb, and babies outside of the womb. Why didn't you just say so? Fine, I can handle that. In fact, I agree.
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.
You're giving me some women's reasons for abortion and a mini-sex education lecture??? Get a grip.
- 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.
- IIn 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.
- IIndeed, 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.
Sorry, speaking for myself, your "renter"/"trespassing squatter" analogy just doesn't work for me, regardless whether you don't want them shot/evicted or not.
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.
??? I had to go back to my post and check. Dang! You're right! I didn't write it the way you think I should have. I forgot to check with you first. Naughty me. Apparently, your opinion is yours and my opinion should also be yours to edit. LOL!
Of course, the vast majority of abortions are sought by women who did have consensual sex.
Yeah, and ....???
Well, now that I've sorted out the kindling, let's see what's left.
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.
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.
(a) Hmmm, ... No offense, but I'm going to edit your first three sentences.
- In my view, when the sex is consensual and in full knowledge that sex is how babies are made, a woman's choices ought to be made BEFORE she gets pregnant. After that, it's not just about the parents anymore. There is the possible future human being to consider.
Okay, ... that's better. And I agree. Barring immaculate conceptions, if a mutually consenting male and female are going to do something that could yield one or more babies, they
ought to plan ahead for the possibility that babies may result.
Maybe there ought to be a law that requires both parties to a sex act to sign a contract, before proceeding, which says that both parties consent to what they intend to do and, after due consideration of all risks and possible outcomes, they accept full responsibility for their actions and any resulting babies, promising to provide for their babies' needs as well as their own until the babies reach adulthood.
(b) You wrote:
- "Couples who have consensual sex ARE inviting that new human into existence, in the full knowledge that one just might answer the 'invitation.'"
Gee, ... you mean a woman may actually get pregnant if she and a male "do the dirty."?? Who knew?? So, doing it really is tantamount to a formal and conscious decision to invite another human to join the family whether that invitation is accepted or not. Guess parental training must have been totally absent or seriously deficient in my home and the homes of a heckuva lot people. Odd, don'cha think? Billions and billions and billions of dollars spent on "anti-smoking" and "anti-drug" campaigns and I can't remember the last time I saw a "'doin' the dirty' can cause pregnancy" ad on T.V.
Actually, that's not totally true. In the Sampson house in late 1960/1961, my father (a Missouri Synod Lutheran preacher) took the four oldest kids (Mike, 12; me, 12; Jim, 11; and Cathy, 10) into the living room and gave us our first formal sex education class, with a very small book that had pictures. So we Sampsons learned our "birds and bees" right on time, I figure. I still remember the look of awe in my sister's face when she said: "I thought sleeping in the same bed caused babies." BTW, when did public outcry against sex education classes in U.S. public schools end in the U.S.? I can't remember.
- "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."
Your openess to birth control suggests to me (a) that you're probably NOT a conservative Roman Catholic nor a conservative non-Catholic Christian, and (b) you're probably what I call a "quasi-Christian", i.e. not a "True, Approved, Certified Christian", nor a "Pseudo-Christian". Neat!
- "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."
Although I'm not particularly fond of your "invitation" metaphor, I agree with your point.
- "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."
Ahhh, ... finally, the reason underlying your complaint. Gotta say, you made me wade through a lot of muddy water to get to it, but when you spit it out, I do see why Pro-abortion is your "hot-button". Although I suspect this won't abate your passion, not even slightly, 'twixt you 'n me, I am sympathetic to your cause. I'm just not going to kill anyone to obtain your goal or defend it. And I am not going demand or hope for a law that locks people up for it. Why not, you may ask? Because... at this time, the way I see it is this: "...sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for [us], but [we] must master it.” (Gen.4:7)
I've got more to say on the matter, but will save it for a later post here, or elsewhere. For now, you and I have irreconcilable differences, but not as many as you think.[/QUOTE]
