Pro-Life

[faithmouse]

I'm going to crawl out on a theological limb here, but I think Christians should be of the opinion that killing children is wrong.

Hope that isn't too controversial.

 

[IzzyPop]

I'm going to crawl out on a theological limb here, but I think Christians should be of the opinion that killing children is wrong.

Hope that isn't too controversial.

I personally think that everyone, regardless of their theological position, should be of the opinion that killing children is wrong .

I am curious as to what this has to do with abortion, however.

 

[faithmouse]

I personally think that everyone, regardless of their theological position, should be of the opinion that killing children is wrong .

I am curious as to what this has to do with abortion, however.

Just....wow.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I'm going to crawl out on a theological limb here, but I think Christians should be of the opinion that killing children is wrong.

Hope that isn't too controversial.

And I'm of the opinion that Christians should be above dishonest strawman-arguments when discussing complex issues.

 

[faithmouse]

The original strawman...

To abort...or not to abort? A very complex issue.

 

[IzzyPop]

Just....wow.

<snip image>

That does nothing to answer my question. I will go ahead and assume that you are defining 'child' pretty loosely and including fetuses, blastocysts, and zygotes. Well, bully for you. Then I would recommend that you not get an abortion.

But can you tell me why other people should be held to your personal definition? Because that is what we are actually talking about when we talk about pro-life/pro-choice. We are talking about you (and by you, I mean the whole anti-choice crowd) making decisions for people they have never met. People they do not know the whys or whats of their lives.

Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Do you know the agonizing decision it is? Nobody that I have ever talked to has ever wanted an abortion. To the women involved, it was the lesser of two great evils.

But go ahead and make the choice that much more difficult for them. Do not support them in their time of need. Just lay more guilt upon them. That'll teach 'em.

 

[imind]

Anyone who believes that any contraception method is 100% is pretty darn stupid.

don't twist my words, i'm not speaking of 100% success rates.

condoms, for instance, fail around 10% of the time. is it then reasonable to reasonably expect pregnancy with such low failure rates?

 

[morningstar2651]

don't twist my words, i'm not speaking of 100% success rates.

condoms, for instance, fail around 10% of the time. is it then reasonable to reasonably expect pregnancy with such low failure rates?

Where did you get that statistic? It looks a bit...wrong.

Did you mean that 10% of women that use condoms as their primary method of birth control will have an unintended pregnancy...within a year.

That number would drop down to 2% (per year) if people used condoms correctly.

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0011.html

To fully understand research on condom effectiveness, one must understand the difference between method failure and user failure. Method failure refers to failure that results from a defect in the product. User failure refers to failure that results from incorrect or inconsistent use. In its fact sheet on condoms, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains that the term condom failure often imprecisely refers to the precentage of women who become pregnant over the course of a year in which they reported using condoms as their primary method of birth control-even if they did not use condoms every time they had intecourse. The CDC concluded that "clearly these statistics don't report condom failure but user failure."

 

[GeoMetro]

Do you think a woman should be stopped or fined if she has 2, 3, or 4 abortions?

imind?
KomissarSteve?
Izzypop?

 

[IzzyPop]

Do you think a woman should be stopped or fined if she has 2, 3, or 4 abortions?

That would fall under the heading of 'none of my business'.

Here is the deal. I personally find abortion the be terrible. Had I ever been unlucky enough for contraception to fail, I would have pushed to keep the child, or at the vary least, to carry it to term and put it up for adoption. But, ultimately, it is not my decision. I am not the person that would be carrying the fetus for 9 months.

I find it more terrible that other people who are not involved in the woman's life are trying to make decisions for her. End of story. By supporting the making of abortions illegal, people are infringing upon other's rights. They are insisting that the government interfere with people's options. And considering that most anti-choice people call themselves 'conservative', I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[cantata]

Being pregnant, and giving birth, are life-threatening activities. Giving birth is also extremely painful and stressful. The personhood or otherwise of the foetus is not the point at issue; what is at issue is a woman's right to choose not to suffer severe pain and risk of death. If someone were threatened by an adult human being with physical pain of the magnitude that women suffer when giving birth, I have no doubt that most sane people would support the woman's right to use force in self-defence - even if she knowingly put herself in a situation where she might be at risk of coming under such a threat.

As for whether or not abortions should be given if the couple didn't use contraception, half the time that probably happened in the first place because of nonsensical abstinence-only education instead of proper sex education. In any case, a baby - that is, a living, born, human person - is not to be treated as a punishment for someone's misdemeanour. That is extremely twisted. Having a baby is not about "accepting the consequences", and it's bizarre that people who are so obsessed with keeping clumps of cells alive couldn't care tuppence about babies when they're actually born. "Let that be a lesson to you, teenage mother!" What a fine example of human compassion.

 

[GeoMetro]

Sex is also a life-threatening activity.
They could get AIDS and die.

 

[cantata]

Sex is also a life-threatening activity.
They could get AIDS and die.

Sorry, what was your point, exactly? Perhaps you think that because people freely participate in sex, we shouldn't try to cure HIV? They should accept the consequences of their actions, after all.

 

[GeoMetro]

My point is, if they don't care about risking their life once, why would they care about doing it a 2nd time?

I want to help them to see, and not risk their life at all.

 

[cantata]

My point is, if they don't care about risking their life once, why would they care about doing it a 2nd time?

There's a difference between having protected, well-informed sex with someone whose sexual history you are aware of, and giving birth to a child. The latter is an activity fraught with danger and with an absolute certain chance of considerable pain and stress.

I want to help them to see, and not risk their life at all.

Gosh, you're right; heaven forbid anyone should ever have sex ever.

You can't compare the risk of having sex - especially protected, well-informed sex - with the risk of giving birth. Also, sex doesn't hurt, unless you want it to, or else you're not doing it right

 

[GeoMetro]

People should get tested for AIDS and other STD's,
before they have sex.

 

[cantata]

People should get tested for AIDS and other STD's,
before they have sex.

HIV, not AIDS.

Yes, I agree with you. I still don't see your point. People can make sex considerably less risky by finding out about their partner's sexual history, insisting on barrier methods of contraception, and so on. Giving birth, however, is always risky and always extremely painful. I can't imagine that you disagree about this.

 

[LJSGM]

IThat said, I don't think that I can force this view on others and need to leave them the ability to make their own choices. It's not my place to judge.

That's like saying, if my sister wants to murder my mother, then I'll leave them the ability to make their own choices. This thinking does not take into an account the victum's choices or right to live. We do not have a "choice" to do everything we want if you think about it.

I do not base my argument on religious beliefs. The government's job is to protect it's citizens and those that can not protect themselves (sometimes, even from their own parents/mother). We then have to define if that baby in the womb is in fact a living being/baby or not and if they have basic human rights.

It used to be the parents right to beat their children or kill them after they were born as well, but now we're not so arcaic, or are we?

 

[GeoMetro]

^

 

[cantata]

"Giving birth, however, is always risky and always painful."

I don't know about "always"

Well, I'm afraid it is.

But ask someone who has given birth, if it was worth it.

People tend to get attached to babies they give birth to. Again, what in the world is your point?