- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
When a woman is forced to do it against her will it is coercion.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When a woman is forced to do it against her will it is coercion.Carrying an innocent human life is not coercion. There's the answer.
Instead of preferring to have the life developing in their wombs slashed to pieces, stabbed to death or poisoned, why don't these ladies simply stop getting pregnant in the firs place by availing themselves of contraceptive pills, diaphragms or perhaps tube ligation?
Carrying an innocent human life is not coercion. There's the answer.
No matter how many times I read these posts I cannot believe how many simply will not look at honest facts. How can you not see that a terminated pregnancy terminates the birth of a child?
So many terms, definitions, and justifications. Why? Everyone here in this discussion knows that a pregnant woman gives birth to a child.
The pregnancy is terminated to keep that child from being born.
That is the actual reason.
The reason a woman aborts her pregnancy is because she does not want that child.
There is no way around it. The entire reasoning for abortion is to not have a child.
You are quite literally making the decision that the child's life is not worth living, or inconvenient, or unplanned. It is completely selfish. 'This child doesn't get to live because....'
I really don't care for the semantics. Pregnancy + birth = child.
Pregnancy terminated = no child, and that is the goal here.
To terminate the birth of the child, is to kill the child itself.
Because without a birth that child ceases to exist. So if the child ceases to exist I no longer have to worry about that child and can go on living my life unburdened.
Unless it is for a medical reason, the entire intent is to keep from having to care for, raise, or bare a child.
No one gets an abortion because they now have a fetus.
They get an abortion because they do not want a child. They know that getting an abortion will end that child, that is the goal. By getting rid of the nuisance, they can continue their lives without that child's burden.
Why can't you see that an abortion is to keep that life from being?
How do you rationalize that? Why do you even try?
Steve - what is the MORAL difference between killing a near-full term fetus and intentionally killing a baby born 2 months premature and on life support?
Does one deserve slavery?We have two victims. Does one deserve death ?
Steve - what is the MORAL difference between killing a near-full term fetus and intentionally killing a baby born 2 months premature and on life support?
You don't have to be religious to know right from wrong...
You have taken three different views on this thread from pro life to pro choice to a middle ground.
Or are you conducting unsolicited facilitation of the thread?
Did you read my easlier post in which I wrote the following: "Actually no, and if you are saying this you obviously do not understand the pro-choice position. No one is saying that a fetus that results from rape should be killed. What our side us saying us that the choice should rest with the rape victim. She should not be forced to carry a fetus that resulted from a rape to term against her will."Well, very interesting. We are told ad infinitum that it is a woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body and here is a pro abortionist advocating that the woman should have an abortion. What about a woman's right to NOT have an abortion if she doesn't want to?
if you care to look at post 517, you will see five photos of babies that came out of a womb.
Are you for real? The photos show babies that were aborted so they were babies before they were aborted and they are babies after they were aborted. Someone wasn't standing over the abortion waving a magic wand that turned them into babies once they had been aborted. A minute before they were aborted they were same as the minute after they were aborted. If you don;t understand this you need to quietly resign your defence of abortion and start to learn what actually happens.
Well said. If a rape victim chooses to carry the fretus to term and give birth that is fine. No one here is saying is that a rape victim who becomes pregnant should be forced to have an abortion. Nor should she be forced to carry a fetus that is a product of a rarpe to term against her will. That is the difference between the anti-abortion side and the pro-choice side in such cases. Many on the anti-abortions wside would force a rape victim to carry the fetus to term. Our side wants to alloow her to make that decision for herself.Forcing someone to carry <insert your favorite euphism> is coersion. There's the answer.
How typical. Not one mention of the all-important 'other party' that creates a pregnancy.
Predictable, I suppose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?