Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[burrow_owl]

Why do we not spend as much time talking about a man's responsibility to prevent pregnancy, and therefore abortion, as well as his responsibility to born children.

Alternately, why aren't we talking about the lack of a state support network which discourages people from having kids? One thing that seems to lower the abortion rate is having an extensive state support system which makes having and rearing kids a more tenable option (I've heard Belgium's experience mentioned with respect to this point). I'd bet that in the majority or a sizeable minority of cases, a woman gets an abortion because she doesn't feel like she can afford a kid.

 

[Khrissy78]

First, it is erroneously changing the topic from telling someone the truth to "pushing" someone. The implication that i push people is simply invalid.

Like I said, I was speaking of myself not you..I already told you that I did not intend to implicate you. I already apologized to you if I misunderstood anything you said or if I made you feel like I was directing the word "pushing" at you. What else do you need me to do?

Second, one would have to assume that you don't "push" people because you judge it to be wrong. It is also pretty obvious that this is in contrast to what you mistakenly believe my position is (pushing people). By judging yourself right for not pushing you implicitly judge me wrong for pushing.

Again, despite what you are so driven to believe, I did not "implicitly judge" you wrong. And if you feel that I did I apologized..

You asked:

You say that if a woman who had an abortion came to you you would not try to lead her to repentance? That's a terrible thing to do to a person.

And I said:

Not if she chooses not to Believe in Him..
How is that terrible? I am not one to push my beliefs on someone else.

Where is the YOU? You have your beliefs and I have mine, Why do you insist that everything I say is wrong or judgemental even after I apologize and tell you that is not how I meant it? It seems to me that you are "pushing" yes "pushing" me to see that I am wrong. Why because I dont agree with you?

My problem is in the apparent hypocrisy..

Now I'm a hippocrate?

As i posted earlier, i am not judging the person but the act. And for a while there i thought you agreed with that.

Now I have lead you to believe that the women should be judged?


Dont you understand that not everyone agrees with you? Despite what you believe I do respect your opinion/beliefs. Just because I answered you back in way that you think is wrong does not mean that is what I intended. Because I posted what I believed you have already accused me of treating people "terrible", being a hippocrate, not knowing what love is and thinking of myself as non-judgemental (as if I think I am better). Yet I have not said one hurtful word to you or about you. I have posted my point on this board so there is no reason for me to return to see what other problem you find with me next.

It is really pointless to go back and forth since you obviously will not see that my intentions were not bad ones.

God Bless

 

[feral]

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

I believe that once you're started, you're a life. Perhaps not independently viable, but then again neither are some adults, who require pacemakers or assisted breathing apparatus or blood transfusions in order to keep going. If we can kill the unborn, then I suppose we ought to be able to kill people on life support, and our grandparents who are require medical intervention to live, since they are not viable either, and are also probably inconvenient.

But!!!! geting abortion just because I am an irresponsible person who spent a wonderful night with someone...and get pregnant...and say...Oh, I just dont want to have this kid...don´t worry, be happy. There is one choice called ABORTION. As easy as it seems. That is for me a killer, because there are a lot of anticonceptive methods that could be used to avoid pregnancy and just because I dont want to use anyone of them makes me an irresponsible individual that will bring, later the nice adjective of KILLER. But, at the end of the time...God will put that decision into account.

The way I see it, a woman's right to choose means choosing whether or not she is ready for sex, whether or not she is prepared for the consequences, whether or not to give in to lust or peer pressure. With the exception of rape, women make a choice when they engage in sex. They know the risks and possible consequences, and if they choose to take that gamble, they should take responsibility and deal with the results. Not scream "unfair" and kill someone else to avoid the problem or inconvenience.

That is my view. I apply it to my life and live by it, and when friends ask me for advice that's basically what I tell them. However, just because it makes sense to me and seems logical to me doesn't mean everyone else thinks it's the best plan for them. So, on the issue, although I am absolutely hard-headedly anti-abortion, I am also pro choice. As much as I might want to slap some sense into other people or force them to live by my rules and values and mores, that's simply not the society in which we live.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)
Which is greater?

In my view, neither is greater in value. The two lives are of equal value. Which is why I strongly do advocate choice for women in the form of learning to say no, of finding more effective birth control methods and teaching people how to use them, of ending media portrayal of casual, uncommitted, inconsequential sex. I don't think it's logical to allow people to choose a course of action and then permit them to kill other people just because they don't like the consequences. For instance, I live in a neighborhood with lots of night life. Sometimes, on school nights there is music and conversation from the street that keeps me awake. I knew that would happen when I rented the place. Is it okay for me to murder the party-goers then, because they are inconvenient and make me unhappy? Or do I have to live with my choice or choose a third option like moving away? In my view, one person's comfort is not more important then another human beings life - whether you're talking about the discomfort of nine months of pregnancy or the discomfort of putting up with obnoxious clubbers.

 

[Nycky]

I believe that once you're started, you're a life. Perhaps not independently viable, but then again neither are some adults, who require pacemakers or assisted breathing apparatus or blood transfusions in order to keep going. If we can kill the unborn, then I suppose we ought to be able to kill people on life support, and our grandparents who are require medical intervention to live, since they are not viable either, and are also probably inconvenient.

Cancer is life. Should we leave it to flourish because it meets some arbitrary criteria that defines life? Cows, fish, chickens are life. SHould we mandate vegitarianism for all people?

The way I see it, a woman's right to choose means choosing whether or not she is ready for sex, whether or not she is prepared for the consequences, whether or not to give in to lust or peer pressure. With the exception of rape, women make a choice when they engage in sex. They know the risks and possible consequences, and if they choose to take that gamble, they should take responsibility and deal with the results. Not scream "unfair" and kill someone else to avoid the problem or inconvenience.

You oversimplify the issue, and with it, women's lives and experience. I agree that we need to advocate for more responsible behavior on the part of both women and MEN. I agree that drug companies should spend more time on better birth control and less on Viagra. At the saame time, an accident or poor planning should not ruin a woman's life.

... So, on the issue, although I am absolutely hard-headedly anti-abortion, I am also pro choice. As much as I might want to slap some sense into other people or force them to live by my rules and values and mores, that's simply not the society in which we live.

I know several people who shared you opinion until they were the ones touched by an unwanted pregnancy.

For instance, I live in a neighborhood with lots of night life. Sometimes, on school nights there is music and conversation from the street that keeps me awake. I knew that would happen when I rented the place. Is it okay for me to murder the party-goers then, because they are inconvenient and make me unhappy? Or do I have to live with my choice or choose a third option like moving away? In my view, one person's comfort is not more important then another human beings life - whether you're talking about the discomfort of nine months of pregnancy or the discomfort of putting up with obnoxious clubbers.

Again, this trivializes matter beyond the sublime to the riduiculous. (Though some would say that abortion is equitable to moving out and taking the third option.) Loud music and obnoxious neighbors simply cannot in any way come close to the medical risks, financial cost and emotional burdens of a pregnancy, particularly an unwanted one. Very few women make the decision on "comfort" but on the real impact of a pregnancy and then a child on their lives.

Nyc

 

[Prince Lucianus]

I agree with Nycky.

In my view, a fetus is a very low lifeform.
We have the power to kill cows, foxes, whatever and we have no problems with it. But we scream blue murder when we remove a fetus with the mental capacity of a butterfly.
I have no problems with this what so ever and this debate is not getting anybody to the other side. So, the end results remains choice.

Lucy

 

[homewardbound]

I agree with Nycky.

In my view, a fetus is a very low lifeform.
We have the power to kill cows, foxes, whatever and we have no problems with it. But we scream blue murder when we remove a fetus with the mental capacity of a butterfly.
I have no problems with this what so ever and this debate is not getting anybody to the other side. So, the end results remains choice.

Lucy

I will respect your right to your opinion, but I find your statements appalling and insensitive.

 

[aimejl]

I will respect your right to your opinion, but I find your statements appalling and insensitive.

I totally agree with you homewardbound.

 

[Iosias]

[url]http://www.christiananswers.net/life/home.html[/url]

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Great, finally a link to an unbiased website which will show me........



Lucy

 

[Fuzzy]

what are you talking about? billions and billions of mothers had children. you have to be seriously joking if the mother's birth giving health concern is the reason why you think abortion should be legalized.

Hi, surfing through and saw this....

I have a friend who has bipolar disorder and wants kids. She's active sexually, married,
but takes preventative steps (condoms, birth control pills, etc.). The drugs
she's on to stabilize her bipolar are pretty serious, and according to her require
a several month "purging" period to get them out of her system. These drugs
would NEED to be out of her system for a successful pregnancy, since they
can inhibit or prevent development in the fetus. Between the 'detox' process,
the pregnancy, and breastfeeding, that's at least a YEAR, possibly YEARS
that she'd be off medication that keeps her mentally stable, to prevent the
drugs from adversely affecting the child. On the other hand, if she stays
on the drug, and the condoms/pill fail, and she conceives, there's no way
for the drugs to be gone before the fetus develops. The drugs could
potentially prevent the development of limbs, internal organs, parts of the
nervous system, or the fetus could spontaneously abort/miscarry on its
own. There is a chance, a small one, the child would be fine, but she cannot
in good conscience risk that.

To boil it down, if she stays on the drugs, the child will quite probably have
a poor quality of life compared to the parents and other children. If she
gets off the drugs, her quality of life goes down, potentially to the detriment
of the child.

I think it's vital that the right to choose be available. If someone wants to
abort, they'll abort, whether the "law" says they can or not. No one is
mandating abortions, they're just advocating the right for individuals to choose, and get it done in the most professional ways possible.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Hi, surfing through and saw this....


I think it's vital that the right to choose be available. If someone wants to
abort, they'll abort, whether the "law" says they can or not. No one is
mandating abortions, they're just advocating the right for individuals to choose, and get it done in the most professional ways possible.

Greetings Fuzzy; The main body of your post presents a difficult moral problem. If the woman were in my congregations I would probably counsel adoption to allow them to have a family, while allowing her to stay on her medicine. And yes, if contraception fails there is a risk that the child will have disabilities, but you know what? I've met many disabled people over the years, and everyone of them that I've met cherish their lives, and are valuable to themselves - and to the Lord. I've never met a profoundly disabled person who wishes her mother had had an abortion.

As to your final point, do you seriously propose that we legalise any activity that people will do despit its legality? Rapeists still rape despite our laws, there is still murder, theft and fraud in the world, so must we dispense with these laws as well?

It all comes down to this - if a fetus is nothing more than a bundle of cells then abortion is perfectly proper. If, as most Christians believe, it is a human being - then the mother has decided to kill her child when she "chooses" abortion.

 

[pthalomarie]

Greetings Fuzzy; The main body of your post presents a difficult moral problem. If the woman were in my congregations I would probably counsel adoption to allow them to have a family, while allowing her to stay on her medicine.

The problem is, your solution could never be applied on a nationwide scale. The market demand for adoption is just plain too small; even now, the number of kids waiting to be adopted exceeds the annual number who get adopted. So clearly, if you want to offer viable solutions other than abortion, you'll have to look to new possibilities.

 

[Fuzzy]

I've never met a profoundly disabled person who wishes her mother had had an abortion.

In the interest of a counterpoint, I respectfully suggest you look on the
search engine of your choice for "wrongful life" or "wrongful birth" suits.
There are examples of persons, or their families, who feel not existing
would have been better than what they lived, or are living, through.
"Right to Die" cases are somewhat related to this, in the interest of
"quality of life." I am truly happy, however, that you know disabled
people who are happy. I'm happy they're happy.

As to your final point, do you seriously propose that we legalise any activity that people will do despit its legality? Rapeists still rape despite our laws, there is still murder, theft and fraud in the world, so must we dispense with these laws as well?

No, I do not. Rape, by definition, is someone acting without the consent
of the other. Murder is the forcible ending of another's life. Theft implies
consent was not given for the property to change hands. That fetus,
whether or not ensoulment has occurred, cannot provide ANY input
one way or another and is completely dependent on the parent for
its existence. What I AM advocating is that if a pregnant woman,
weighing her decisions and reaching the conclusion that abortion is the
best option, should be able to get professional medical assistance with
it, rather than using a drug/herb cocktail, or a self inflicted injury,
or finding someone willing to do it in the proverbial back alley.

Or are you advocating a woman who wants an abortion should engage in something that will potentially kill her in addition to ending the pregnancy?

It all comes down to this - if a fetus is nothing more than a bundle of cells then abortion is perfectly proper. If, as most Christians believe, it is a human being - then the mother has decided to kill her child when she "chooses" abortion.

And that point is a matter of faith, and without a direct revelation from
Divinity, we can't KNOW, we can just believe. And I'd rather a person have
the option available to them, and they have to weigh the option against their
morality, than not have the option.

 

[Fuzzy]

The problem is, your solution could never be applied on a nationwide scale. The market demand for adoption is just plain too small; even now, the number of kids waiting to be adopted exceeds the annual number who get adopted. So clearly, if you want to offer viable solutions other than abortion, you'll have to look to new possibilities.

I think you may have flipflopped what he was advocating. He's suggesting my friend stay on her meds and adopt, not put her child up for adoption.

What's an aquarium drinker?

 

[Seeking...]

I've met many disabled people over the years, and everyone of them that I've met cherish their lives, and are valuable to themselves - and to the Lord. I've never met a profoundly disabled person who wishes her mother had had an abortion.

Well I have although it is rather besides the point.
Due to some genetic abnormalities my mother was told before I enterred puberty that it would be important for me and my husband to go in for genetic testing prior to planning to start a family. I am a carrier of diseases that I wouldn't pass on to my worst enemy much less a child. Supposing that I conceived unexpectedly with my husband and we had already been told that our child would have a better than 50% chance of inheriting various diseases/conditions that would seriously inhibit the child from enjoying a full and satisfying life - do you think it would be enough for me to tell myself, "Well, they will have to deal with the pain and difficulties - but they'd probably come to accept it!"?
I was considered legally blind as I child - so I rode the "special" bus to school for years with children much more disabled than me. I was in special ed and was involved with groups that work with handicaped children in afterschool programs. Sometimes we volunteered with more severly affected children to get a sense of how lucky we still were. I attended local special olympics type tournaments. In addition to that my mother worked (which means we lived) at a couple of board and care homes when I was a child. As a result I have experienced a range of physical, mental and emotional disabilities - often paired with chronic medical conditions -more than most people come across outside of a medical setting. Many of these people are happy, have supportive family and friends and a strong support system. Quite a few do not. I woud not bring a child in this world that would carry I burden I couldn't, such as a painful and often terminal disease. I also wouldn't have a child who would be ultimately helpless - especially if their life span could surpass my own and they'd be left to the mercy of whoever I could get to care for them. It is immoral IMO to bring about a situation where suffering is likely - and where it is not you who will be suffering.

 

[Rev. Smith]

In the interest of a counterpoint, I respectfully suggest you look on thesearch engine of your choice for "wrongful life" or "wrongful birth" suits.

I am familar with the phenoninum, I am also aware that most state supreme courts have rejected the concept. Further, the majority of these suits are brought by the parents, not the disabled child.

That fetus,whether or not ensoulment has occurred, cannot provide ANY input one way or another and is completely dependent on the parent for
its existence. What I AM advocating is that if a pregnant woman,
weighing her decisions and reaching the conclusion that abortion is the
best option

You are correct that the fetus can not provide input into the decsion to terminate its life, but is that really a standard we want to employ? If it is human, it's mere inability to provide insight into its interests ought not constitute authority for the mother to kill it. A baby can't provide any input either for many, many months after its birth, should we then authorise infantacide as well, a kind of post partum abortion right to choose for mother as well?

Or are you advocating a woman who wants an abortion should engage in something that will potentially kill her in addition to ending the pregnancy?

No, I'm advocating that she not terminate the pregnancy - and again point out that because some women would circumvent the hypothetical ban is not an argument against it, anymore than the fact that other laws are broken is an argument against those laws.

Yes, my position on abortion is a moral one, I believe that killing children - in or out of the womb is murder. We, as a society, take many moral stands and turn them into laws, from controlling the sale of intoxicants and drugs, to prostitution laws to gambling restrictions; our society regulates of forbids conduct on a regular basis for no other reason then the belief that the conduct controlled or proscribed is immorral. At this moment in time the legal consensus in this country favors abortion rights, and the death penalty - we are a culture that embraces death, some of us think that is wrong and work for a day when no murder is done, by individuals, against the quick or the unborn and by the state against the prisoner.

 

[Fuzzy]

Further, the majority of these suits are brought by the parents, not the disabled child.

Becuase the child either A) is not of legal majority or B) is incapable of
communicating these wishes to the court in a legally recognized way.
Suits wherein the parents are suing, and the child can offer independent
opinions, are malpractice.

You are correct that the fetus can not provide input into the decsion to terminate its life, but is that really a standard we want to employ?

A) Employ a standard with a cutoff point that everyone can agree on

B) Get a society-wide consensus on when a person becomes a person and as
such is protected by law. Ensoulment? Prove a soul exists. Conception?
What makes that cell with 23 chromosome pairs different from, say, a cancer tumor? Birth? That's the point now at which CPS can get involved, although
there have been a few cases wherein mothers were charged with child
endangerment when doing somehting adverse while pregnant.

C) Leave the option to abort as is, and help people form an complete opinion
and decide for themselves.

again point out that because some women would circumvent the hypothetical ban is not an argument against it, anymore than the fact that other laws are broken is an argument against those laws.

I think this is a point that you and I will be opposed on.

At this moment in time the legal consensus in this country favors abortion rights, and the death penalty - we are a culture that embraces death, some of us think that is wrong and work for a day when no murder is done, by individuals, against the quick or the unborn and by the state against the prisoner.

I respect your path. I don't agree with it, but I respect it.

 

[holyorders]

Lemme just say this... How would any of you people have the right to judge in any way about whether or not a unborn baby has a soul? Most people and God know so. And the most important question to all the atheists out there- If your Mom made the "choice" your ungrateful (to God) souls would not have been able to live at all. How is life less important or less valuable at conception because it takes a long period of 9 months to grow a developed baby?

Most people just are "pro-choice" just so they won't be like the "pushy" and/or "domineering" Catholic and other true Christian belief system. The "pro-choice" viewpoint just a bunch of stubborn people who are willing to kill babies just to look and act rebellious and tough. And the rest are people who just follow the ignorant lead.

I hope and pray for God to show everyone the truth.

God Bless,
holyorders

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Lemme just say this... How would any of you people have the right to judge in any way about whether or not a unborn baby has a soul? Most people and God know so.

So, I may not judge, but Christians (1/6 of the world population) may judge!

And the most important question to all the atheists out there- If your Mom made the "choice" your ungrateful (to God) souls would not have been able to live at all. How is life less important or less valuable at conception because it takes a long period of 9 months to grow a developed baby?

If my mom would have, then I wouldn't have known about it. In Christian teaching I assume the soul goes straight to heaven.
Do you think that killing a fetus is more evil than, let's say a full grown giraffe? If so, why?
I still think that any serious anti-abortionist should also be a veganist.

Most people just are "pro-choice" just so they won't be like the "pushy" and/or "domineering" Catholic and other true Christian belief system. The "pro-choice" viewpoint just a bunch of stubborn people who are willing to kill babies just to look and act rebellious and tough. And the rest are people who just follow the ignorant lead.

I just thought the precise opposite
Personally I think people who have had to deal with an abortion have had a much bigger understanding of this subject than Christians who just follow the lead which was written in the bible.

I hope and pray for God to show everyone the truth.

God Bless,
holyorders

Those prayers continually seem to be failing.....

Lucy

 

[Fuzzy]

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/roevwade2003/012003-diffviews.htm

Representatives of different religions expounding on abortion.

Quick and simple summary, for those that can't go to the link:

Hindus - Potential of harm versus karma, with the tangential point that
the aborted life is one in a series of incarnations

Judaism - Very serious thing taken case by case, but the choice should be
available

Buddhists - case by case, and dependent on motivation

Islam - Against it except in cases of medical danger to mother