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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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...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.
Thank you for saying that.I'm pro-life, because I believe in the sanctity if human life. I'm pro-choice, because I respect other people's freedoms.
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.
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.....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.
Usually, the state.....and who gets to decide who is 'fit?'
It never ceases to be about her, despite there being another life to consider. Birth is not just one life at stake.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.
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.Babies aren't kittens or puppies, to be drowned or euthanized because they are not 'wanted,' or are not 'adoptable.'
Then what's the rub, the fetus goes to heaven then if you claim it is innocent.. Indeed, this new human is the only real innocent in the whole deal.
Usually, the state.
It never ceases to be about her, despite there being another life to consider. Birth is not just one life at stake.
Then what's the rub, the fetus goes to heaven then if you claim it is innocent.
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.
Depending on your definition of "human being", sure.No. It's about two.
but it IS about two human beings, not just one.
Not JUST the mother's.
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?
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.
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.
Depending on your definition of "human being", sure.