What do you think?

[Trashionista]

Cool. Then lets apply that thinking across the board for murderers, pedophiles, rapist, etc.

Common mores and ethics.
Those exist.

 

[Trashionista]

Sick is the killing of children. It is amazing how you can't see it is not about choice or you body. It is about the kids not you.

And they're in my body.
Its my uterus.
The fact that there is a fetus inside me effects me directly.
Its not just about the fetus. The mother has to fall in the picture somewhere too.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

And they're in my body.
Its my uterus.
The fact that there is a fetus inside me effects me directly.
Its not just about the fetus. The mother has to fall in the picture somewhere too.

She does. She's the one that took the picture, she is half responsible for that fetus being where it is, too bad not all are responsible enough to admit it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

lincolngreen, I think you may have missed the point. basically EnemyParty is saying that requiring a woman to let someone use her uterus because without it they would die isn't really that different from requiring you to give someone else your kidney because without it you would die. by that logic, if you say a fetus shouldn't be aborted on it's mother's whim then you should also argue that a person in need of a kidney shouldn't die on your 'whim' by you deciding not to donate a kidney.

Exactly

 

[jad123]

that isn't the comparison at all... the comparison is about how you think its fine to tell others what to do with their bodies, but you start shifting goal posts when it comes to your own.

Or do you deny that someone who is dying might be saved by your kidney?

I am not telling anyone what to do with their body. Trying to save the life an unborn child that is NOT the womans body. We are not talking about a kidney here we are talking about a baby. If a woman does not want to donate her kidney I really do not care, but she is murdering a child by having an abortion. So keep spinning this anyway you want, justifying your sinful beliefs.

 

[jad123]

lincolngreen, I think you may have missed the point. basically EnemyParty is saying that requiring a woman to let someone use her uterus because without it they would die isn't really that different from requiring you to give someone else your kidney because without it they would die. by that logic, if you say a fetus shouldn't be aborted on it's mother's whim then you should also argue that a person in need of a kidney shouldn't die on your 'whim' by you deciding not to donate a kidney.

Ahhhh, so the baby would die without using the mothers uterus....

And a baby born living under my roof, eating food that I provide, wearing clothes that I provide, would die without me. Simple as that. A new born baby is UNABLE to survive without the mother and or father or any other adult for that matter.

And the stupid kidney example is getting ridiculous and tries to shift focus away from the murder of a child. The mother has been entrusted by God with that child not with someone else's kidney.

 

[SilentNoMore]

Really? so why do humans get sexually aroused when there is no possibility of conception, even without contraception? (cyclic, infertile or post menopausal reasons, for example)

There is a big difference in intentionally placing a barrier so that procreation is impossible, and there being a natural reason for procreation to be impossible . An infertile couple did not choose to be infertile.

 

[Calliso]

There is a big difference in intentionally placing a barrier so that procreation is impossible, and there being a natural reason for procreation to be impossible . An infertile couple did not choose to be infertile.

Yes but why then do fertile couples get sexually aroused even during the non fertile periods if sex is mainly for procreation?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I am not telling anyone what to do with their body. Trying to save the life an unborn child that is NOT the womans body. We are not talking about a kidney here we are talking about a baby. If a woman does not want to donate her kidney I really do not care, but she is murdering a child by having an abortion. So keep spinning this anyway you want, justifying your sinful beliefs.

YOU are murdering someone right now by not offering a kidney for donation is just as valid a statement as "a woman murders a child by not offering her uteris for gestation"

EXACT same argument.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

YOU are murdering someone right now by not offering a kidney for donation is just as valid a statement as "a woman murders a child by not offering her uteris for gestation"

EXACT same argument.

um no. First off, he has absolutely no involvement in why the person now needs a kidney, so its not directly his problem. With abortion, the woman is halfly responsible for that baby growing inside of her, because she put it there.

There's a natural checkpoint that sometimes stops a child from coming to be, and that is done involuntarily by the body. the only method a woman has to voluntarily completely prevent it is to avoid sexual intercourse until she's ready to deal with the outcome.

Abortion just adds another checkpoint in there, but unfortunately its one that is often decided on wordly and temporal things like 'money issues' , 'responsibility', and 'inconvenience'.

 

[ClausJohn]

the only method a woman has to voluntarily completely prevent it is to avoid sexual intercourse until she's ready to deal with the outcome.

So what about rape? Is it okay to abort a pregnancy if the conception happened without the woman's consent?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

um no. First off, he has absolutely no involvement in why the person now needs a kidney, so its not directly his problem. With abortion, the woman is halfly responsible for that baby growing inside of her, because she put it there.

There's a natural checkpoint that sometimes stops a child from coming to be, and that is done involuntarily by the body. the only method a woman has to voluntarily completely prevent it is to avoid sexual intercourse until she's ready to deal with the outcome.

Abortion just adds another checkpoint in there, but unfortunately its one that is often decided on wordly and temporal things like 'money issues' , 'responsibility', and 'inconvenience'.

your point is only valid if the woman consents to being pregnant in the first place.

women who get pregnant without consenting to the foetus using their uteris, that different.

However, lest this suffer any more "topic drift"... my point is that it is up to the woman to choose, because its her body, no one else's.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So what about rape? Is it okay to abort a pregnancy if the conception happened without the woman's consent?

depends.

If you SINCERELY believe in the rghts and welfare of the little baby foetus, and sincerely believe it needs to be treated as a living breathing human, then the method of conception doesn't matter, and rape babies are exactly the same as babies concieved in love.

If, on the other hand, you think that pregnancy and parenthood should be used as punishment for having sex, and as a tool to scare people into chastity, it is likely you will only want to stop abortions among people who conceived during a consensual sex act. Such people invariably say that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

It is then interesting to find out the exact stance of the major "right to life" groups. If they would allow abortion in cases of rape, that is a de facto admission that it isn't abortion they really want to restrict, but rather the sexual freedom of other people.

 

[jad123]

YOU are murdering someone right now by not offering a kidney for donation is just as valid a statement as "a woman murders a child by not offering her uteris for gestation"

EXACT same argument.

Not in my case, I have donated my kidney.

 

[jad123]

depends.

If you SINCERELY believe in the rghts and welfare of the little baby foetus, and sincerely believe it needs to be treated as a living breathing human, then the method of conception doesn't matter, and rape babies are exactly the same as babies concieved in love.

If, on the other hand, you think that pregnancy and parenthood should be used as punishment for having sex, and as a tool to scare people into chastity, it is likely you will only want to stop abortions among people who conceived during a consensual sex act. Such people invariably say that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

It is then interesting to find out the exact stance of the major "right to life" groups. If they would allow abortion in cases of rape, that is a de facto admission that it isn't abortion they really want to restrict, but rather the sexual freedom of other people.

Abortion is wrong in all cases.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

So what about rape? Is it okay to abort a pregnancy if the conception happened without the woman's consent?

I was not including rape, but since you asked. I'm still divided on the issue, because the woman did not choose to become impregnated. However, the child that is the product of such a horrible act, is innocent. And gospel singer Ethel Waters comes to mind everytime I think of the subject. So, to my own morals I'm undecided, but to God's standard a life is a life, and its still wrong to abort.

 

[Calliso]

Not in my case, I have donated my kidney.

good for you

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Abortion is wrong in all cases.

says you. If you believe that, don't have one.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I was not including rape, but since you asked. I'm still divided on the issue, because the woman did not choose to become impregnated. However, the child that is the product of such a horrible act, is innocent. And gospel singer Ethel Waters comes to mind everytime I think of the subject. So, to my own morals I'm undecided, but to God's standard a life is a life, and its still wrong to abort.

I don't think all life is equal.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I don't think all life is equal.

I don't either, but I do think all human life is of equal value. Only God can make the kind of decision as to whether one is greater than another, or that one must die so that the other may advance in her career.