If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[Cearbhall]

Ok, let me ask you this: If it were legal, would you be in favor of killing a baby after birth if the mother decided that raising a child was going to be too much of a burden for her to take on?

No. A baby is not dependent upon any particular person. As long as someone is willing to provide for the baby (be it a relative or the state), there is no justification for killing him or her. She can hand the baby to the nurse and never see her child again if she so chooses. With that option available, it's out of her hands.

It could be reasoned by a nonChristian that the child is simply a product of her own body, and is also a possession of the woman, so killing it after birth is no worse than killing it before birth.

I'd love to see someone try to reason that. Might be entertaining.

Would you have a problem with this if it were given the ok by government?

Yes. My reasons for being pro-choice do not allow for infanticide.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. A baby is not dependent upon any particular person. As long as someone is willing to provide for the baby (be it a relative or the state), there is no justification for killing him or her. She can hand the baby to the nurse and never see her child again if she so chooses. With that option available, it's out of her hands.

So does a woman have to be so selfish that she can't wait 9 months to do this?

I'd love to see someone try to reason that. Might be entertaining.

So you don't think a baby is a product of the woman's body? That's not so difficult to see.

Yes. My reasons for being pro-choice do not allow for infanticide.

So it's just the matter of being pregnant for 9 months then? What's 9 months compared to an entire lifetime the baby will not be able to experience because "mother" thought more of her own inconvenience rather than the life of her child?

 

[Cearbhall]

So does a woman have to be so selfish that she can't wait 9 months to do this?

I wouldn't call it selfish.

I see that you're male. I would recommend asking some of the women in your life about the health risks and complications involved in pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention the psychological and financial ramifications. I'd also like you to think about whether you would say all of these things if you had to worry about being forcibly impregnated and then dealing with pregnancy/childbirth while trying to reclaim your sanity following the attack.

 

[Aldebaran]

I wouldn't call it selfish.

I see that you're male. I would recommend asking some of the women in your life about the health risks and complications involved in pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention the psychological and financial ramifications. I'd also like you to think about whether you would say all of these things if you had to worry about being forcibly impregnated and then dealing with pregnancy/childbirth while trying to reclaim your sanity following the attack.

Do you have any children of your own?

 

[Cearbhall]

Do you have any children of your own?

No, but 60% of women who obtain abortions in the US do. I'm pretty sure we can trust that they know exactly what they're doing, and that they're doing it in part for the sake of their children.

 

[Strathos]

And I wouldn't say that a single-celled organism is capable of "grabbing" anything.

You would be wrong about that

 

[patricius79]

So does a woman have to be so selfish that she can't wait 9 months to do this?



So you don't think a baby is a product of the woman's body? That's not so difficult to see.



So it's just the matter of being pregnant for 9 months then? What's 9 months compared to an entire lifetime the baby will not be able to experience because "mother" thought more of her own inconvenience rather than the life of her child?

We can't judge anyone who has an abortion. I don't even feel angry at women who do. But I agree that it is clearly wrong, and is so destructive to women also.

 

[pat34lee]

I'd also like to point out that abortion has been recorded for thousands of years and has been legal before in various cultures. It's not new, so I wouldn't say that it's a sign of much at all.

At times, both child and adult sacrifice were legal and part of the culture. That doesn't mean it was ever right.

 

[pat34lee]

No, but 60% of women who obtain abortions in the US do. I'm pretty sure we can trust that they know exactly what they're doing, and that they're doing it in part for the sake of their children.

No. Pretty much always it comes down to selfishness or fear. Can you see a woman explaining to her son, "Johnny, you had a sister, but I decided we needed {whatever excuse here} more, so I had her killed."

 

[Hetta]

Do you have any children of your own?

I do. And there is a considerable risk. I went through several dangerous moments in my pregnancies. Of course, that will never happen to you, so you choose to know nothing of it.

 

[Cearbhall]

You would be wrong about that

I stand corrected.

At times, both child and adult sacrifice were legal and part of the culture. That doesn't mean it was ever right.

If you'll read on, you'll see the clarification that I never tried to use this argument. I was responding to a specific moral decadence claim made by another user by pointing out that abortion has a long history.

That being said, I don't believe in objective morality.

I do. And there is a considerable risk. I went through several dangerous moments in my pregnancies. Of course, that will never happen to you, so you choose to know nothing of it.

Exactly. Thank you. I can't understand the rhetoric of "It's just a 9-month pregnancy!" Clearly certain people need to do some reading.

 

[Cearbhall]

.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, I'd have to disagree, especially in situations of congenital malformations. I do believe that it should be left up to the pregnant woman, though.

Just prior to reading your post I saw on the TV an appeal for a childrens hospital; on it they showed children born without arms, legs, blind, etc. They talked to us....asked for support. Are they any less deserving of life because they have "congenital malformations"? Are they not people who should be afforded the right to live out their lives to the best of their abilities? Who is anyone of us to determine otherwise? Would we not be setting ourselves up as God to make that decision? How about those with Down's Syndrome? The ones I have known have been the most loving, trusting, and honest people I have met; sort of like Jesus expects us to be. I do know that I have never heard anyone with "congenital malformations" state that they wished they had never been born.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The unborn has every right to be in its mothers womb since that is its natural habitat for approximately nine months.

That doesn't anything.
It's not about the unborn. It's about the mother and HER rights.

And to follow your logic, since "another person has no default right to another person's body" then the mother has no right to do harm to her unborn's body. Right?

The mother doesn't do any harm to the unborn's body. She has it removed from her body. That it can't survive outside of it is an unfortunate side effect.

Just like it is an unfortunate side effect that you would die without my kidney. That doesn't mean that I can be forced to give it to you.

You consistently speak about the "rights" of the fetus. What about the rights of the mother? They aren't important?

What about my rights when you need my kidney?

 

[Cush]

We can't judge anyone who has an abortion. I don't even feel angry at women who do. But I agree that it is clearly wrong, and is so destructive to women also.

That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard- Proverbs 6:16-19. There's no more innocent than the unborn baby. I feel angry at woman who do and people that condone such actions that appeal to victimization. I would think that anyone with a conscience would feel angry at the taking of innocent lives.

"But I agree that it is clearly wrong, and is so destructive to women also."

It is clearly wrong, and by your argument I shouldn't feel compassion or injustice because someone walks up to you for no reason and punches you so hard in the face that they take your life. What are you going to claim that we can't judge anyone?

Are you going to appeal to others to take responsibility for you or demonstrate compassion for your life? If your own mother won't even do that, why should we?

1 Corinthians 6:3 - People can't even judge clear actions such as these (murder) and you're going to judge angels?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wasn't judging you. I was looking at the stance you have taken and how it results in the taking of an innocent life based on the idea that the woman's body is seen as a "life support machine" that doesn't want to be. 9 months of pregnancy not wanted, so an entire life is snuffed out. That is a very selfish decision to make.

That is very short sighted.
9 months pregnancy can ruin a potential carreer in a multi-tude of ways. Missing college/university years and (especially in the US) in case of dependency of scholar ships or monster loans being forced to drop out and being left with monster debt....
Then there is the social stigma (again, especially in the US) of having children out of wedlock etc. Reputations, carreers etc are easily ruined.
Then there is the stress it takes from the body. Most people don't have the resources, funds or genes to recover from this in a matter of weeks or months like the celebrities on instagram.
Then there's the psychological impact as well.

To say that "it's only 9 months and then everything returns to normal" is seriously out of touch with reality.

But it gets worse... if this is a good enough reason to "force" someone to finish a pregnancy, then surely it is also good enough reason to "force" people to donate bone marrow, kidneys, blood, ... what-have-you. The impact of those things is, in a lot of cass, even a lot smaller then something like a pregnancy.

If you are going to make this argument, you need to be consistent.
If forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy is okay, then one should also be able to harnass organs or other body parts against a person's will.

Are you aware that you aren't even allowed to harnass organs from dead people if they didn't authorize it while they were alive?? Well, in most countries anyway.

It's quite a contrast when you see a woman nursing and loving her baby, feeding him and keeping him safe from harm, and raising him into childhood and adulthood. What a contrast to a woman who goes the other route and has someone forcefully remove him from her womb and suck his brain out and then donate the dead baby in parts for medical experiments!

"fetus" is not the same thing as "baby". Stop using these words as if they are synonyms.

Emotional pleas will also not get you anywhere.
The way I see it, you'll need an argument that strips the mother from her rights in order to be able to force her to play host to another being.
And you'ld have to do it in such a way that the exact same argument can NOT be used to force someone to hand over his kidneys to save another.

I haven't heared such an argument.

All I ever hear are emotional please and religious statements.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The difference is that a terminated pregnancy is a terminated life, period.

And deciding against donating a kidney is a terminated life as well, period.

The baby never even got a chance.

The same goes for the one with kidney failure.

A mother has a responsibility to the life inside her

Why?

and should see that child as something precious rather than a burden to get rid of.

That is merely your (religious) opinion.
If the woman was raped by her father and got pregnant, then that "child" won't be seen as something precious. It won't even be seen as a mere "burden". It will rather be seen as an unfair, unwanted and hated nightmare.

But like I said before, if the latter is what women see their children as, then it's an indication of why we need Christ.

Your religious beliefs are irrelevant in a secular society.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are there any other "choices" you're in favor of that show complete disregard for human life?

There's regard for the mother's life and for her unalienable rights of bodily autonomy.
Pro-"lifers" don't seem to be caring about that at all.

Complacency about such things is why human life is becoming less valuable, even to other humans.

Strawmanning our position is not going to win the argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The legality of it is an indication that our government sees life as less valuable. The fact that certain women would actually do such a thing out of selfishness is an indication of how people are becoming more callous as individuals.

So I take it that you are all FOR harnassing bone marrow, blood, kidneys against a person's will in order to save the life of others?

Or is it suddenly not "selfish" to not donate your body parts to save the life of others?
Does a person who doesn't want to donate his kidney see life as "less valuable"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok, let me ask you this: If it were legal, would you be in favor of killing a baby after birth if the mother decided that raising a child was going to be too much of a burden for her to take on?

This demonstrates that you haven't understood the argument AT ALL.
And, to me, it also demonstrate that you aren't interested in the argument either. Since it's been explained quite clearly...

The argument is about body autonomy.
This argument does not apply to a baby that is actually already born and not dependend anymore on having a HOST.