Abortion is never the answer:

[BAFRIEND]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90uxWW-5MMo

 

[Archivist]

Abortion is never the answer.

So a woman who requires an abortion in order to save her life should not be permitted to have one?

So a woman who has been raped should be punished a second time by being forced to give birth to her attacker's child?

"Never" covers a great many instances. There are always exceptions.

 

[solarwave]

<Staff Edit>

God can't go around stopped every bad thing that happens, its part of life, and it would make for a world where you couldn't predict anything because God might stand in your way.

So a woman who has been raped should be punished a second time by being forced to give birth to her attacker's child?

"Never" covers a great many instances. There are always exceptions.

Apparently a woman is more likely to be depresssed if she does have an abortion than if she doesn't.

 

[Archivist]

Apparently a woman is more likely to be depresssed if she does have an abortion than if she doesn't.

First, what is your source?

Second, even if this is true in some cases (and you ahve offered no proof that it is), it certainly isn't true in every case.

Third, my post dealt with a woman who was a victim of rape. Shouldn't it be her acll?

 

[solarwave]

First, what is your source?

Second, even if this is true in some cases (and you ahve offered no proof that it is), it certainly isn't true in every case.

Third, my post dealt with a woman who was a victim of rape. Shouldn't it be her acll?

I can't remember the source, but it seemed reliable at the time, it did give a percentage.

Shouldn't it be the case the one being killed should have the choice or rather God? Is it right to kill one dearly loved by God... thats up to you to decide.

I suppose destorying whatever causes you pain at the moment is the best solutions to all problems.

 

[Archivist]

I can't remember the source, but it seemed reliable at the time, it did give a percentage.

Shouldn't it be the case the one being killed should have the choice or rather God? Is it right to kill one dearly loved by God... thats up to you to decide.

I suppose destorying whatever causes you pain at the moment is the best solutions to all problems.

Until you can provide unbiased facts to support your contention, I will assume that you ahve no such facts.

I have never claimed that it is up to me to decide whether an abortion should occur. That decision rests entirely with the pregnant woman. In the case of a rape victim, don't you think that it is her decison? Why should she be punished twice, first by being raped and then again by being forced to carry the seed of her attacker.

 

[exxxys]

God can't go around stopped every bad thing that happens, its part of life, and it would make for a world where you couldn't predict anything because God might stand in your way.

Of course he can. He's God, isn't he? I thought your God can do everything!

Apparently a woman is more likely to be depresssed if she does have an abortion than if she doesn't.

Most women feel relieved, not depressed.

 

[Caduceus]

God can't go around stopped every bad thing that happens, its part of life, and it would make for a world where you couldn't predict anything because God might stand in your way.

So an omnipotent deity is 'off the cards' in your definition of a Supreme Being? As it happens no one can predict anything in this life. As for God standing in your way - this sounds as if you perceive life as a conflict between the individual and the Supreme Being. [However, that is beside the point]

Apparently a woman is more likely to be depresssed if she does have an abortion than if she doesn't.

By coincidence (or perchance I 'predicted' it )!!!! I listened to Case Notes (BBC Radio 4) yesterday about abortion and it was suggested that it was possible 1:5 women did suffer emotional and/or psychological trauma – hence calling into question the claim that women enter into abortion lightly. However, an interviewee who had an abortion some 30 years ago had no regrets whatsoever. So regret/guilt does seem to be a personal response and not a foregone conclusion.

 

[solarwave]

Until you can provide unbiased facts to support your contention, I will assume that you ahve no such facts.

I have never claimed that it is up to me to decide whether an abortion should occur. That decision rests entirely with the pregnant woman. In the case of a rape victim, don't you think that it is her decison? Why should she be punished twice, first by being raped and then again by being forced to carry the seed of her attacker.

Fair enough.

I think that doing what is right comes over what one wants. I understand that they my be in a lot of pain, but they also dont have the right to take a life. Why cant we all just kill anyone who is giving us pain? The baby is a person and victim in its own right.

Of course he can. He's God, isn't he? I thought your God can do everything!

Most women feel relieved, not depressed.

I mean God can, but it would be pointless too.

How do u know?

By coincidence (or perchance I 'predicted' it )!!!! I listened to Case Notes (BBC Radio 4) yesterday about abortion and it was suggested that it was possible 1:5 women did suffer emotional and/or psychological trauma – hence calling into question the claim that women enter into abortion lightly. However, an interviewee who had an abortion some 30 years ago had no regrets whatsoever. So regret/guilt does seem to be a personal response and not a foregone conclusion.

Fair enough, but maybe it just goes to show that it is not necessarily the killing the baby which helps, but the fame of mind from that.

 

[exxxys]

I mean God can, but it would be pointless too.

Why? I thought he loves his people? If he loved them so much, why does he let human children die naturally?

How do u know?

Studies? I'm sure you would feel relieved too, if you got a rapist's child out of your body. How do you know they're all depressed?

 

[Annolennar]

Of course he can. He's God, isn't he? I thought your God can do everything!

Free will is the proverbial rock that God made that He can't lift. Its not a question of capability, its simply a matter of Him being eternal. If, at any point, He chose to give us free will, then it is not in His nature to take it away.

Why? I thought he loves his people? If he loved them so much, why does he let human children die naturally?

Because He is victorious over death!

"Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou thinkst thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow
And soonest our best men with thee do go
Rest of their bones and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppies or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke. Why swellst thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die!"
-Holy Sonnet X, by John Donne


The act of death is nothing more than a function of physical life, and is nothing to be feared by itself anyway. The state of death, which would be fearful, has no power, because through Christ we have eternal life.

I'm a fan of the (not-theologically-sound) phrase "only the righteous die young." Those who die from natural causes are not killed as a consequence of flaw in human free will, thus there is no wrong in their death.

Studies? I'm sure you would feel relieved too, if you got a rapist's child out of your body. How do you know they're all depressed?

The fact that a wrong was commited (the rape) does not justify a wrong in turn (the murder). The intent to relieve one's self from emotional pain justifies neither the means of killing nor the ends of a dead child. Though the intent, by itself, may be admirable, the means and ends are horrific.

 

[sidnee]

Why? I thought he loves his people? If he loved them so much, why does he let human children die naturally?



Studies? I'm sure you would feel relieved too, if you got a rapist's child out of your body. How do you know they're all depressed?

You do realize that 99% of abortions are not a product of rape. Right?

 

[Archivist]

You do realize that 99% of abortions are not a product of rape. Right?

Abortion in the case of rape or incest is rare, but the OP said that abortion is never justified. I believe that it is certainly justified in cases of rape and incest and when the mother's life or health is at risk.

 

[solarwave]

The fact that a wrong was commited (the rape) does not justify a wrong in turn (the murder). The intent to relieve one's self from emotional pain justifies neither the means of killing nor the ends of a dead child. Though the intent, by itself, may be admirable, the means and ends are horrific.

Yes, someone not against what im saying.

Studies? I'm sure you would feel relieved too, if you got a rapist's child out of your body. How do you know they're all depressed?

Maybe, but feeling relieved isn't the most important thing there is. Even then im quite sure the fact I murdered an innocent child would over come that momentary relief, for me personally. If a husband has a wife and finds she commits adultery, it might give him relief and take away some of the pain to blow the other guys head off, but it doesn't make it right.

I don't know, its just something I read.

 

[sidnee]

Abortion in the case of rape or incest is rare, but the OP said that abortion is never justified. I believe that it is certainly justified in cases of rape and incest and when the mother's life or health is at risk.

And, I agree. I believe a woman should have a choice if her life is at stake. I know what my choice would be, but I think everyone deserves their choice in the case of rape, incest, and when the mothers life is at risk.

 

[solarwave]

And, I agree. I believe a woman should have a choice if her life is at stake. I know what my choice would be, but I think everyone deserves their choice in the case of rape, incest, and when the mothers life is at risk.

I think if the mothers life is at risk then im not quite sure, otherwise I say life.

 

[exxxys]

Maybe, but feeling relieved isn't the most important thing there is. Even then im quite sure the fact I murdered an innocent child would over come that momentary relief, for me personally. If a husband has a wife and finds she commits adultery, it might give him relief and take away some of the pain to blow the other guys head off, but it doesn't make it right.

I don't know, its just something I read.

It's not a child. A child is someone from the ages of 0-10, not a cluster of cells.

 

[exxxys]

The fact that a wrong was commited (the rape) does not justify a wrong in turn (the murder). The intent to relieve one's self from emotional pain justifies neither the means of killing nor the ends of a dead child. Though the intent, by itself, may be admirable, the means and ends are horrific.

Yes it does. It's not a pretty world, if your God can't swoop down and solve our problems, then it's obviously up to us to fix things for ourselves. Gotta look out for number one, I know it sounds cruel, but in this day and age, you have to do what you have to do to get by.

 

[Eleveness]

Yes it does. It's not a pretty world, if your God can't swoop down and solve our problems, then it's obviously up to us to fix things for ourselves. Gotta look out for number one, I know it sounds cruel, but in this day and age, you have to do what you have to do to get by.

Ahh, and it is here that we see an important part of the defense of abortion rights.

There are many ways in which a pregnancy is harmful to the body of the pregnant woman. Fatigue, varicose veins, diabetes, depression, a permanent change in the shape of her body, even the possibility of death during childbirth--all of these potential calamities await a woman during pregnancy. And yet, those who defend the pro-life position have the nerve to inflict these conditions on a pregnant woman.

We most certainly do not have the right to inflict the above conditions on a pregnant woman if she chooses not to have them. A pregnant woman's body is her own property, and no one--not even the fetus itself--has the right to seize any part of the pregnant woman's body against her will.

Do you people not see how silly it is to assert that we have the right to kill a woman (she may die during childbirth) so that the fetus inside her can live? Doesn't the woman have rights? And aren't we violating her rights by seizing control of her uterus without her consent?

 

[Annolennar]

Yes it does. It's not a pretty world, if your God can't swoop down and solve our problems, then it's obviously up to us to fix things for ourselves. Gotta look out for number one, I know it sounds cruel, but in this day and age, you have to do what you have to do to get by.

And this demonstrates a fundamental divide between standards of morality. Not only is "looking out for number one" not a legitimate moral defense of anything, at least by any theories of moral philosophy that I'm aware of, but an abortion (excluding cases where the very life of the mother is in danger) is never something that one has to do to get by.

Ahh, and it is here that we see an important part of the defense of abortion rights.

There are many ways in which a pregnancy is harmful to the body of the pregnant woman. Fatigue, varicose veins, diabetes, depression, a permanent change in the shape of her body, even the possibility of death during childbirth--all of these potential calamities await a woman during pregnancy. And yet, those who defend the pro-life position have the nerve to inflict these conditions on a pregnant woman.

We most certainly do not have the right to inflict the above conditions on a pregnant woman if she chooses not to have them. A pregnant woman's body is her own property, and no one--not even the fetus itself--has the right to seize any part of the pregnant woman's body against her will.

Do you people not see how silly it is to assert that we have the right to kill a woman (she may die during childbirth) so that the fetus inside her can live? Doesn't the woman have rights? And aren't we violating her rights by seizing control of her uterus without her consent?

But what a double standard this presents! We are to protect the comfort of one person, and potentially the life (and it is a small potential indeed), by definitively and absolutely taking the comfort and life from another?

That doesn't make any sense. A counter argument using the same logic would be that we can justify taking scholarship money from a college student who comes an impoverished minority background and give it to someone who comes from a rich white family. Granted, the latter might need it: it is possible that he is estranged from his family and has no way of getting through college, but in the vast majority of cases, its serves only to save him a buck that he already has to spare and as a source of emotional reinforcement. On the other hand, the impoverished minority student definately needs it.

I think a fundamental difference between most pro-life and pro-choice points of view is the question of whose rights they are trying to defend. The pro-choice person is arguing from the rights of the mother, which the pro-life person usually recognizes, but the rights of the mother do not override the even more fundamental rights of the defenseless unborn (indeed, the right that all have as a consequence of their humanity), which is the right to life.

I find it more disturbing that those who are pro-choice have the nerve to inflict death on someone than I do that those who are pro-life have the nerve to inflict discomfort on someone.