Woman's rights

[Magisterium]

Just a little message I posted in another area.. I thought I'd poke my head in and drop this little thread in for discussion. It's in resposnse to someone who was insisting that men have no say in the taking of an unborn child's life...




When you show me a woman who can conceive a child without a donation from a man, you'll have a woman who can choose to kill the child on her own. Until then, the man ALWAYS has a say.

If a woman can sue a man for child support because he made a baby with her, he can certainly have a say whether that child's life will be terminated. All this rhetorical nonsense about it being a "woman's rights" issue, is so logically transparent. If you're against abortion, you're considered anti-abortion, but if you're pro-abortion, that sounds too bad, we'll call it "pro-choice". It's a flagrant rhetorical dodge.

Why aren't these "pro-choicers" championing any other "women's rights" issues? The fact is, other real "woman's rights" issues aren't multi-billion dollar industries.

However, what's really disturbing is that so many otherwise intelligent people appear completely hoodwinked into believing that "pro-choice" actually means something other than "pro-abortion".

It's also interesting to see just how the rights of the unborn are now being blatantly suppressed. When the prosecuters in the Scott Peterson case decided to charge him in the death of his unborn child as well as his wife, people were watching closely and only the most radical pro-abortionists dared to speak out against recognizing the unborn as persons (note the legal definition of "person"). However, when there was no public backlash against these people, then the other groups come leaping out of the woodwork shouting against the unborn victims of violence act.

The truth is, in opposing the unborn victims of violence act, the pro-abortionists are finally shedding their rhetorical veil of "woman's rights". In so doing, they themselves demonstrate that they are opposed to the recognition and respect of the rights of the unborn. The unborn victims of violence have no relation to women's rights. In fact, it hurts women to oppose it. The hightened respect for a woman who is with child is intentionally diminished so that she can choose to kill the baby herself?! It's nonsense! The fact is, this was NEVER a "Women's Rights" issue at all and now it's coming to light.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Just a little message I posted in another area.. I thought I'd poke my head in and drop this little thread in for discussion. It's in resposnse to someone who was insisting that men have no say in the taking of an unborn child's life...

When you show me a woman who can conceive a child without a donation from a man, you'll have a woman who can choose to kill the child on her own. Until then, the man ALWAYS has a say.

show me a court of Law or a statute that denotes this balance

If a woman can sue a man for child support because he made a baby with her, he can certainly have a say whether that child's life will be terminated. All this rhetorical nonsense about it being a "woman's rights" issue, is so logically transparent. If you're against abortion, you're considered anti-abortion, but if you're pro-abortion, that sounds too bad, we'll call it "pro-choice". It's a flagrant rhetorical dodge.

Show me some real consistancy in Law and some solid proof on the qualifications of whom should judge how to handle my body


Why aren't these "pro-choicers" championing any other "women's rights" issues? The fact is, other real "woman's rights" issues aren't multi-billion dollar industries.

Show me more educated Christians in control of these situations, I guarantee you will see change....

However, what's really disturbing is that so many otherwise intelligent people appear completely hoodwinked into believing that "pro-choice" actually means something other than "pro-abortion".

Really, I suggest you check the laws out on Banning Abortion alltogether, show me less vagueness and loopholes in medical nessesity, show me legitimate qualified information on who's to say what is Medically nessasary.

It's also interesting to see just how the rights of the unborn are now being blatantly suppressed. When the prosecuters in the Scott Peterson case decided to charge him in the death of his unborn child as well as his wife, people were watching closely and only the most radical pro-abortionists dared to speak out against recognizing the unborn as persons (note the legal definition of "person"). However, when there was no public backlash against these people, then the other groups come leaping out of the woodwork shouting against the unborn victims of violence act.

I doubt very seriously it was just those left wing extremeists out there working towards Justice for Lacy and Connor.

The truth is, in opposing the unborn victims of violence act, the pro-abortionists are finally shedding their rhetorical veil of "woman's rights". In so doing, they themselves demonstrate that they are opposed to the recognition and respect of the rights of the unborn. The unborn victims of violence have no relation to women's rights. In fact, it hurts women to oppose it. The hightened respect for a woman who is with child is intentionally diminished so that she can choose to kill the baby herself?! It's nonsense! The fact is, this was NEVER a "Women's Rights" issue at all and now it's coming to light.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is very clear and concise by definition. It cannot be comparied legally to the pro-choice or Abortion Ban Laws that are in existance or being Lobbied at this point.

“So what does it all really mean? It means that all abortions after the first trimester could be outlawed. No matter if the fetus has severe birth defects, including those incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). No matter if the mother would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or a hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy. (Legislators did not provide a health exception for the woman, arguing that it would provide too big a loophole.)"
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ma..._term_abortion/

Again also are the issues of medical vagueness – the guidelines for these abortions if they do take place are also inconsistent. And if we ban abortion again we arrive at the proposed procedure on who will determine medical need…is a bit scary. And what about plain old mistakes?? The doctor says your child will not live; so it becomes supposedly medically necessary you go for an abortion only to find he miscalculated. What about Laws to protect fathers in this instance.....he wants to give the child a chance even with possible birth defects, but the mother wants an abortion....

Leaving Loopholes gives the idea that it leaves room for further laws to be based on these laws already set into motion.

As Christians we definatly need to educate ourselves on what these laws really mean, what they are saying. We need to educate our own and get them into office. And pray. We cannot change mans heart only God can. Our role as Christians is to share the gospel...and vote to change laws in a Christ Like manner.

 

[Marissa]

When you show me a woman who can conceive a child without a donation from a man, you'll have a woman who can choose to kill the child on her own. Until then, the man ALWAYS has a say.

If a woman can sue a man for child support because he made a baby with her, he can certainly have a say whether that child's life will be terminated.

When you show me a man who can carry a child conceived in a womans womb (via transplant) then I will support men having a say. Until then no one but myself and my God has any right to supercede my authority over my body. I will not stand by quietly while any man tries to force his will on a woman when I can do something about it.

All this rhetorical nonsense about it being a "woman's rights" issue, is so logically transparent. If you're against abortion, you're considered anti-abortion, but if you're pro-abortion, that sounds too bad, we'll call it "pro-choice". It's a flagrant rhetorical dodge.

It's actually the pro-lifers who tend to use the term anti-abortion. There is no gain for pro-choicers to use anti-abortion. They tend to use anti-choice for pro-lifers.

However, what's really disturbing is that so many otherwise intelligent people appear completely hoodwinked into believing that "pro-choice" actually means something other than "pro-abortion".

Ever occured to you that maybe it's because it does?

I'm incredibly anti abortion. I'm also pro choice.

I support all non legal means to minimising abortion. I support sex education in schools. I support financial aid for parents. I support giving woman full knowledge of both the medical and psychological effects that others woman have suffered due to abortion when she enquires about acquiring an abortion. I support removing the saturation of sex in our culture today.

I just don't support tying a woman to a bed because of my moral, but not scientifically provable, beliefs.

Anti abortion. Pro choice.

The fact is, this was NEVER a "Women's Rights" issue at all and now it's coming to light.

I'm afraid I don't understand how your post has shown abortion is not a woman's rights issue. Nothing new has been bought to light.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

When you show me a man who can carry a child conceived in a womans womb (via transplant) then I will support men having a say. Until then no one but myself and my God has any right to supercede my authority over my body. I will not stand by quietly while any man tries to force his will on a woman when I can do something about it.

It is not just your body anymore at the point you become pregnant, it is two bodies. One of them is part of two people, the mother and the father. The father should by all means have a say in the decision. Rather I don't support the man's right to have a say at all, because I don't believe the woman has a right to murder an unborn child. Your statement that you will not stand by quietly is totally off base, you are standing by quietly while 1.6 million babies in the US alone are murdered each year and yet you are worried about a man saying something about. It seems to me that those are some messed up priorities. I am more concerned about the million plus innocent lives taken each year by the hands of doctors who are breaking their oath and by women who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

It's actually the pro-lifers who tend to use the term anti-abortion. There is no gain for pro-choicers to use anti-abortion. They tend to use anti-choice for pro-lifers.

It's not pro-choice, it's pro-murder.

Ever occured to you that maybe it's because it does?

Pro-choice means nothing less than supporting the legal murder of innocent children.

I'm incredibly anti abortion. I'm also pro choice.

That is contradictory and makes no sense at all. You either support the legal murder of innocent lives or you do not. You are trying to ride the fence with that statement and it makes no sense. 1.6 million a years and less than 7% total are medically necessary for any reason. That still leaves close to 1 million innocent lives taken each year. I am glad you can sleep at night supporting that.

I support all non legal means to minimising abortion. I support sex education in schools. I support financial aid for parents. I support giving woman full knowledge of both the medical and psychological effects that others woman have suffered due to abortion when she enquires about acquiring an abortion. I support removing the saturation of sex in our culture today.

Why do you not support legislation to stop the wholesale murder of babies? There is no right to kill a child you don't want, none at all. Everything we can do should be done to stop this, falling short of course of actually committing crimes ourselves, we don't want to lower ourselves to the level of the monsters that are killing these children.

I just don't support tying a woman to a bed because of my moral, but not scientifically provable, beliefs.

Anti abortion. Pro choice.

Oxymoron

I'm afraid I don't understand how your post has shown abortion is not a woman's rights issue. Nothing new has been bought to light.

His post was dead on. The pro-baby-murder crown is starting to show their true colors finally in light of these laws to protect an unborn life and provide penalties for one being taken. It is not a woman's rights issue at all, it is a taking of innocent life issue and nothing less. No woman and no doctor have the right to decide to take a life. Our laws are wrong and I support any effort to change them and make it illegal to kill innocent children.

 

[mshupe1959]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Bulldog




Would you make an exception for when the mother would die if she went through with the birth?





Let's use some specific instances about when a mother would be in danger of losing her life..

placenta previa c-section live birth/healthy mom

eclampsia preterm c-section live birth/healthy mom

diabetes (or any other prior medical conditions)- women are told that they should not get pregnant in the first place. Most diabetics can have a baby anyway. The problem is with brittle diabetics. In these cases there is birth control. 98-99% efficient IF THEY READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AND USE THEM RIGHT!!!!!! can't expect it to work right if people don't use it right.
Most of the time with preexisting conditions-preterm birth/c-section = healthy mom/baby.
If a husband and a wife wants a family, medical science can usually assist. If they can't they will let the family know ahead of time.
My opinion on womens rights is, the decision to possibly have a child is made when the decision is made to have sex. The decision is made by both the man and the woman. Because people lack self control and insist of having sex outside of marraige is the reason there is so much single parent households and "broken"families. (oops, off topic). Abortion shoudl not be a form of birth control, and in the vast majority of the time that is what is is used for.
IMHO of course
(as he stands back and watches the sparks fly)

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Abortion is wrong in all cases and circumstances - i would go as far as to say abortion is wrong even if a woman is raped. God will use even the worst of situations to his glory.

Women should have ALL the rights that men have. Just because biblically women should submit to their husbands, doesnt mean that theyre in any way less equal. Jesus submitted to God, even though theyre equals - its just the way God wanted it.

God Bless, metal.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Abortion is wrong in all cases and circumstances - i would go as far as to say abortion is wrong even if a woman is raped. God will use even the worst of situations to his glory.

Women should have ALL the rights that men have. Just because biblically women should submit to their husbands, doesnt mean that theyre in any way less equal. Jesus submitted to God, even though theyre equals - its just the way God wanted it.

God Bless, metal.

Hotmetal, I am a product of rape, so you can imagine my thoughts on this.

I also agree abortion is wrong.

My best friend is allergic to the pregnancy hormone. Her body fights it like a flu bug. She is married, she found out at an early age when they tried to conceive, and lost the baby. It was a matter of the baby or both of their lives. She chose to keep her life. I would never want to force anyone to make that choice. Especially when there are other children already in thos care. She became pregnant again with various forms of Birth control until she finally found a doctor that would tie her tubes. You see the medical feild does not like tying tubes of those that are so young, even in medical nessisity. They did not finally allow her to do this until she was 32. I think they have the hopes that something can be done. (or use her as a guinea pig)

Now as far as it taking two to make a choice. That is correct. When we make the decision, married or unmarried to have sexual intercourse. We know the concequences and should be owning up to our responsibility. The men with their pocketbooks the woman with her body. On the same note, Laws to protect all rights involved with this situation are needed.

The laws that are in effect, or pending, or lobbied are simply insufficent to have me place a vote on anything. But if I were to make a choice right now between the lesser of the evils I would vote pro-choice. So I obstain, until the laws become clearer.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I'm incredibly anti abortion. I'm also pro choice.

So are almost all pro-choice people with the possible exception of radical population control advocates. Thank you for an excellent and most insightful post.

I tended to be apathetic about the issue prior to being asked to be part of a group accompany a woman to a Planned Parenthood clinic when the clinic was being protested by anti-abortion demonstrators. The woman with the appointment in the clinic was going for a depo-provera shot, but, the demonstrators shouted at her as if she was obtaining an abortion. Surrounded by us, they were unable to bully her as they would have had she attempted to come alone. As the group had agreed before arriving, silence was the response to the cruel comments of the demonstrators, which, when there was no response to their harranguing on the abortion issue, shifted to epithets about the supposed promiscuity and/or sexual orientation of members of the group, or the race of some of us. After that, I am firmly commited to the pro-choice position despite being personally opposed to abortion.

 

[Flynmonkie]

but, the demonstrators shouted at her as if she was obtaining an abortion. Surrounded by us, they were unable to bully her as they would have had she attempted to come alone. As the group had agreed before arriving, silence was the response to the cruel comments of the demonstrators, which, when there was no response to their harranguing on the abortion issue, shifted to epithets about the supposed promiscuity and/or sexual orientation of members of the group, or the race of some of us. After that, I am firmly commited to the pro-choice position despite being personally opposed to abortion.

We all know that this is the way of man, not the way of Christ.

Some people seem to get it into their heads God wants us to FORCE faith and salvation on people. They are incredibly lost.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

The woman with the appointment in the clinic was going for a depo-provera shot, but, the demonstrators shouted at her as if she was obtaining an abortion.

Of course- Depo-provera does not suppress ovulation and indeed is an abortafacient-- if a woman conceives a child, the unborn baby is unable to implant in the endometrium and is therefore chemically aborted....

 

[Flynmonkie]

Of course- Depo-provera does not suppress ovulation and indeed is an abortafacient-- if a woman conceives a child, the unborn baby is unable to implant in the endometrium and is therefore chemically aborted....

 

[TwinCrier]

Of course- Depo-provera does not suppress ovulation and indeed is an abortafacient-- if a woman conceives a child, the unborn baby is unable to implant in the endometrium and is therefore chemically aborted....

Actually, it does supress ovulation as well as being an abortafacient if it fails to supress ovulation. In any case I feel that birth control is a sin even if no life is loss. In an ideal world, couples would be open to being blessed with children.

 

[Flynmonkie]

In any case I feel that birth control is a sin even if no life is loss. In an ideal world, couples would be open to being blessed with children.

 

[puriteen18]

In any case I feel that birth control is a sin even if no life is loss. In an ideal world, couples would be open to being blessed with children.

Can't tell you how glad I am to meet another Protestant that I agree with on that subject.



Anyway, if I might add some thoughts without being attacked by modernists:

Ok, the whole idea of it's my body I can do what I want with it... WRONG!

We don't own our bodies; God does. We should leave it up to Him.
(Although, I must say that the child a woman carries is an individual, not just some other organ.)

NO life is an accident; all is a creation of God. No matter how many times you may 'commit the act' no child will be produced except God wills and creats one.
Therefore, even in rape abortion is not right. Rape is a terrible thing, but that doesn't give us the power to do what we would with human life. The giving and taking of life belong to the Lord alone. It is practical blasphemy to think that one can just end life.

In the case of if the woman is also in danger, I can only go with my own convictions and say that I still believe an abortion would be wrong. In such a case, trust God to have His will through, and remember that He alone is the giver and taker of life.

If we call ourselves Christians we must trust in God; otherwise in what will we trust?

Even with that said, I could never judge someone who had been in the latter two incidents, seeing that I was never put in that situation. However, I hope that I might stand by my convictions.

 

[Flynmonkie]

If we call ourselves Christians we must trust in God; otherwise in what will we trust?

Even with that said, I could never judge someone who had been in the latter two incidents, seeing that I was never put in that situation. However, I hope that I might stand by my convictions.

I think this is the most important thing.

We all know abortion is wrong. But there are situations medically for both Birth control and for unfortunatly abortion. I think you are right and I struggle with this every day. My last pregnancy was very hard on my body and I lost one of twins and, I bled internally. I physically am incapable of having another. So I chose to tie my tubes, as per reccomended by my physician and second and third opinion. To this day I question if I did the right thing, the decision was made as that I have an obligation to and existing family. I had to make a choice. Was it the right one? I don't know. But I think of it often because I like you wondered if this was truly relying on God. This is truly a terrible feeling to have and I would be very careful in helping someone carry guilt.

We are simply talking about an issue that is personal, between them and God. We cannot force people to believe or have faith in God. Christ never forced anything on anyone.

What we can do is try to pass very descriptive logical laws that prevent the misuse. I am not so sure this can be done.