Roe vs. Wade II

[gengwall]

I have NO problem admitting the grotesque reality of what abortion is: to end a human life before it can even begin living.

However, and this is the challenging part, I must respect the boundaries as they have been handed down by God. I know I know...VERY loaded statement.

Let me try to explain: God could have created us so both sexes could get pregnant and God could have created us to lay eggs, which would ultimately and infinitely complicate the abortion debate. For whatever reasons, God made pro-creation as we know it to be. Within that structure I am extremely humbled and limited by the fact I can NEVER know what it is like to be impregnated, carry, and deliver a baby into this world. In the same stretch, I am wholly unable to know what it is like to choose to end a life, and all that accompanies such a wrenching decision.

Because less than half of our population is strictly forbidden from walking in women's shoes (well, except for some Hoover people ) we must respect womens' inherent, and even God given, ability to decide what is done with her pregnancy.

While I would never support anti-abortion legislature I do oppose the practice of abortion, but my reasons and extrapolations do not trump the boundaries of bodily respect we should have for one another.

What a woman does w/ her body is STRICTLY between her and her God.

*jaw drops to ground* Outstanding!!!! We may not always share the same personal convictions but I have rarely heard such a reasonable and well articulated statement of ones convictions. You'll get no argument from me here.

 

[k]

*jaw drops to ground* Outstanding!!!! We may not always share the same personal convictions but I have rarely heard such a reasonable and well articulated statement of ones convictions. You'll get no argument from me here.

Praise God we are able to have such respectable convos.

 

[angela 2]

C'mon, that wasn't nice or necessary.

Sorry if I offended anyone. My post was meant tongue in cheek just as I'm sure the original one was.

 

[angela 2]

I have NO problem admitting the grotesque reality of what abortion is: to end a human life before it can even begin living.

However, and this is the challenging part, I must respect the boundaries as they have been handed down by God. I know I know...VERY loaded statement.

Let me try to explain: God could have created us so both sexes could get pregnant and God could have created us to lay eggs, which would ultimately and infinitely complicate the abortion debate. For whatever reasons, God made pro-creation as we know it to be. Within that structure I am extremely humbled and limited by the fact I can NEVER know what it is like to be impregnated, carry, and deliver a baby into this world. In the same stretch, I am wholly unable to know what it is like to choose to end a life, and all that accompanies such a wrenching decision.

Because less than half of our population is strictly forbidden from walking in women's shoes (well, except for some Hoover people ) we must respect womens' inherent, and even God given, ability to decide what is done with her pregnancy.

While I would never support anti-abortion legislature I do oppose the practice of abortion, but my reasons and extrapolations do not trump the boundaries of bodily respect we should have for one another.

What a woman does w/ her body is STRICTLY between her and her God.

I also oppose abortion under some circumstances; for example, the birth of a child would be 'inconvenient' or it's the 'wrong gender.'

I am a woman who chose to give birth to a child conceived out of wedlock in the days when that wasn't fashionable. My child was wanted and dearly loved. I felt it was 'the right thing to do.' and I still do in spite of some difficulties that have reverberated through my entire life because of that decision. I accepted them as the consequence of decisions I had made.

However, I too would never vote for anti abortion laws. Yes, that decision must be STRICTLY between a woman and God. I would never want to say that my decision should be another woman's decision.

 

[Woodsy]

To me, any and all definitions concerning a "person" or "human" are completely irrelevent because it is still inside the woman's body.

There is absolutely nothing in a man comparable to pregnancy and I have NO doubt if men could get pregnant as well the "abortion" debate would be non-existent.

So, by your reasoning here, abortion should be allowed through the ninth month of the pregnancy. The child is still "inside the woman's body" until moments before birth.
That's how Partial Birth Abortion is defended - so long as the baby's head is still inside the woman's body, it can be aborted.

If men were able to become pregnant, I am sure that many men would work to make abortion legal. But those same men are currently protesting on the pro-abortion side for women!

Men who fight for abortion today would fight for abortion if they were able to become pregnant; men who fight for the babies' lives today would fight for the babies' lives if they were able to become pregnant.

Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there.

 

[k]

Sorry if I offended anyone. My post was meant tongue in cheek just as I'm sure the original one was.

No hassles. Sometimes these misunderstandings happen so I apologize as well.

 

[k]

So, by your reasoning here, abortion should be allowed through the ninth month of the pregnancy. The child is still "inside the woman's body" until moments before birth.
That's how Partial Birth Abortion is defended - so long as the baby's head is still inside the woman's body, it can be aborted.

If men were able to become pregnant, I am sure that many men would work to make abortion legal. But those same men are currently protesting on the pro-abortion side for women!

Men who fight for abortion today would fight for abortion if they were able to become pregnant; men who fight for the babies' lives today would fight for the babies' lives if they were able to become pregnant.

Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there.

The reason why abortion would be a non-issue if men could get pregnant is because of the power structure. There is no great pornography debate because those in power, the men, enjoy it.

 

[JustOneWay]

Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there.

And they couldn't continue that same lifestyle, by using condoms? It is much cheaper to buy condomes than pay for abortions.

Those type of men have been around for ages, and I would like to see if you can provide any statistics that abortions have contributed to a rise (not a physical rise of course) in men "sleeping around"

 

[Woodsy]

The reason why abortion would be a non-issue if men could get pregnant is because of the power structure. There is no great pornography debate because those in power, the men, enjoy it.

I have to disagree. There is a massive national debate on pornography happening.
But whenever anyone tries to restrict it in any way, the ACLU has a hissy-fit over the pornographer's First Amendment rights.

 

[k]

I have to disagree. There is a massive national debate on pornography happening.
But whenever anyone tries to restrict it in any way, the ACLU has a hissy-fit over the pornographer's First Amendment rights.

People like MacKinnon and Langton creating discourse is not exactly a "massive" debate.

 

[Woodsy]

And they couldn't continue that same lifestyle, by using condoms? It is much cheaper to buy condomes than pay for abortions.

I have had condoms tear. (and yes, I was using them properly)

Those type of men have been around for ages, and I would like to see if you can provide any statistics that abortions have contributed to a rise (not a physical rise of course) in men "sleeping around"

Are you seriously going to argue that sexual activity and promiscuity are not up tremendously since Roe v. Wade was decided? Seriously?

 

[k]

Are you seriously going to argue that sexual activity and promiscuity are not up tremendously since Roe v. Wade was decided? Seriously?

The only way to successfully argue it has is to show a fundamental change in human sexuality from 1973 to present.

 

[JustOneWay]

I have had condoms tear. (and yes, I was using them properly)

so you stopped using condoms and used abortion as your preferred method of contraception?

Are you seriously going to argue that sexual activity and promiscuity are not up tremendously since Roe v. Wade was decided? Seriously?

No, I asked you to provide some statistics, or a study or two that supports your claim that abortion has enabled men to not necessarily care about women or worry about being held accountable, and prove your claim that promiscuity has increased primarily due to abortion.

If you provide worthy data I will have no reason to argue. If you cant, you can, of course just add a disclaimer that this is your opinion and that will be good enough for me.

 

[Woodsy]

so you stopped using condoms and used abortion as your preferred method of contraception?

Wow, I really have to spell things out for some of you folks.
No, I didn't. But I had some scares and would have aborted the children if it came to that.
Meaning that people are willing to take more risks than when pregnancy was a greater possibility and folks weren't allowed to down to the abortion mill to get their wombs scraped clean of the "products of conception."

No, I asked you to provide some statistics, or a study or two that supports your claim that abortion has enabled men to not necessarily care about women or worry about being held accountable, and prove your claim that promiscuity has increased primarily due to abortion.

If you provide worthy data I will have no reason to argue. If you cant, you can, of course just add a disclaimer that this is your opinion and that will be good enough for me.

I have never argued that abortion on demand is the sole cause of anything except the 1.4 million it kills in the U.S. every year.
Abortion on demand is both a result of and a cause of the narcissistic culture in which we live today. And which has gone from being a childish, irresponsible, and self-centered culture in the past to the Culture of Death we see today. The devaluing of human life in the West today began tentatively with Roe v. Wade, under the auspices of a party lifestyle which had no consequences.

 

[burrow_owl]

Meaning that people are willing to take more risks than when pregnancy was a greater possibility and folks weren't allowed to down to the abortion mill to get their wombs scraped clean of the "products of conception."

Evidence? (per your thesis, the total # of, say, unmarried pregnancies should've increased post-Roe)

 

[Woodsy]

Evidence? (per your thesis, the total # of, say, unmarried pregnancies should've increased post-Roe)

So you're arguing that they haven't?

 

[momalle1]

So you're arguing that they haven't?

Do you have some stats that say they have? So far you keep talking about it like it's common knowledge.

 

[Prawnik]

As a matter of biology, before a certain point of development, the zygote/embryo/fetus is fully dependent on the mother’s body. Much like your finger will die if amputated, the unborn at this stage of development will die as well. This is why it can be viewed as a potential human. The definition of when the unborn become fully human is difficult to pin down. It is basically a matter of opinion. Genetic uniqueness is one argument, but identical twins are genetically identical but still individuals. At the earliest stages, an embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells. No heart, no brain, no organs at all. These cells will further divide and become a human body. This is the definition of potentiality. You may hold to your opinion that such potentiality is a person, and should be legally treated as such, but it is still a matter of potential.

Your finger is genetically a part of your body, however, an unborn child is genetically distinctfrom its mother. In fact, many deaths in childbirth occurred because of of blood-type incompatibility between mother and child.

The genetic makeup of identical twins is irrelevant, as neither is the clone of their mother, and the question at issue is whether an unborn child can somehow be considered to be a part of its mother. Genetically and immunologically, it is not.

The unborn child is dependent on its mother, until a certain point. However, even a child that has been safely carried to term is dependent, just not directly hooked up. A person on life support may in fact be connected to another person, via blood transfusions and the like. Yet, noone calls such a person a "potential human".

Of course, the terms "potential human" and "potential life" were invented as a tacky post-hoc rationalization. At least Peter Singer admits that he is in favor of infanticide and calls it such.

The life support argument is a non sequitur. If life support required the commission of one’s bodily functions, then it would be valid.

I cannot respond to this, as I have no idea what you mean.

 

[JustOneWay]

Wow, I really have to spell things out for some of you folks.

Your response " I have had condoms tear. (and yes, I was using them properly)" gave just enough information for me to assume that you could not trust condoms because you have had some tear. You don't have to spell things out, just present your thoughts clearer and we can avoid this type of confusion.

I have never argued that abortion on demand is the sole cause of anything except the 1.4 million it kills in the U.S. every year.

No, you stated " Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there."
You imply that abortions have caused men to care less for women, to have as much sex as they can, and throw responsibility out the window. I simply asked for some data to back your statement, or just say it is your opinion.

Abortion on demand is both a result of and a cause of the narcissistic culture in which we live today. And which has gone from being a childish, irresponsible, and self-centered culture in the past to the Culture of Death we see today.

Can you think of any other reasons, besides just abortion, that has contributed to this country's narcissistic culture?

The devaluing of human life in the West today began tentatively with Roe v. Wade, under the auspices of a party lifestyle which had no consequences.

lets not talk about slavery devaluing any human life.

 

[angela 2]

So, by your reasoning here, abortion should be allowed through the ninth month of the pregnancy. The child is still "inside the woman's body" until moments before birth.
That's how Partial Birth Abortion is defended - so long as the baby's head is still inside the woman's body, it can be aborted.

If men were able to become pregnant, I am sure that many men would work to make abortion legal. But those same men are currently protesting on the pro-abortion side for women!

Men who fight for abortion today would fight for abortion if they were able to become pregnant; men who fight for the babies' lives today would fight for the babies' lives if they were able to become pregnant.

Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there.

I trusted the people here with a part of my life that many people do not know in order to show you that I am not rabidly in favor of abortion.

Your responds is belligerent. That post and others demonstrate difficulty in thinking logically. Or was that just simple mud-slinging? You should be ashamed of your lack of sensitivity as perhaps should other men on this thread who failed to respond to someone who has had personal experience of the dilemna that this thread is all about.