Women's rights are responsible for the right to abort.

[thomas_t]

and you didn't want to follow or obey God and wait until marriage to have sex? In which case, virtually no babies would ever have to die,

what a myth: those who were married (including common-law and separated) accounted for over one-quarter of all abortions performed in 1994.

 

[SPF]

Well, common-law refers to people who have not actually been married but who have been co-habitating together for a number of years. And separated is well, separated, so I would imagine that the majority of those abortions did not have the spouse as biological father.

I think the story that thomas_t's stats tell us is that probably 5 out of every 6 abortions that occurred in 1994 would not have happened if people didn't have sex outside of marriage?

 

[Marumorose]

Abortion became legal in 1973 and the second wave of feminism (Where women got all of their "rights") happened between the early 60's through the late 70's.

Now wait a second, if abortion became legal right around the middle of the second wave of feminism, isn't feminism essentially to blame for abortion becoming legalized in the first place?

I know many feminists in here would disagree with me or women who think men like me are sexist and misogynistic pigs but actually think about it for a second. What's the defense of "Pro choicers" over the years? They say that a woman should have the right to kill her own baby and basically be able to play God. Why? Why should you have the right to murder your own child just because you couldn't keep your legs closed until marriage? (which is a large chunk of abortions) and you didn't want to follow or obey God and wait until marriage to have sex? In which case, virtually no babies would ever have to die, you would NEVER contract an STD if you and your husband remained loyal to each other and were virgins when you got married, and all of these premarital problems would just go away. But, I know. Those raging teenage hormones are just a pain right? Plus all the peer pressure into having sex...etc. I admit it, I didn't wait until I was married either. I was a man who had needs and wanted to bring a baby into the world. But, the thing is my wife and I mostly just fooled around. Neither of us lost our virginity per se until a few months after we were married.

But anyway premarital sex, I'm not just talking about the mother either, the father still is 50% responsible for this "unwanted" baby to be born. The father is just as responsible for "not closing his legs" as the mother is. Yet regardless of this, because of abortion and a "woman's right to choose" the father has no right or say in whether or not he doesn't want his child to be murdered or not. Yup, equal rights my buttocks. A Father's right to want to save his own child's life who by the laws of nature is half his, is completely thrown out the window and is non existent. Don't believe me? Here's a video example of such a case that went viral last year in a NY Abortion clinic:

[video]

Scroll to 1:02 for the video. The REALLY sad part is despite the fathers desperate attempts to save the life of his child, his child was murdered anyway.

I know many Christians in here would agree that THAT (and abortion in general) is wrong and abortion never should have been legalized. But, it was women's rights that started the whole damn problem. Then the problem became even worse, it started as "Let's kill an embryo who wouldn't feel a thing to let's kill a FULL TERM AND LIVING AND BREATHING BABY!"

This New York state law that passed last year got me SO sick to my stomach. It's bad enough that pro abortionists were able to use the defense "The baby isn't a baby yet and wouldn't know what hit it" to the now defense to "Who gives a crap if it's a living and breathing baby? I still don't want it."

How... sick and twisted can these pro abortion feminists be? Don't get me started on how they've lost God (I've posted my views on that before and besides this thread is specifically about abortion and the womens "rights" that brought this evil law into the world) but you'd have to be pretty sick in the head to want to murder your child who is fully grown!!!

I mean, I'm sorry but that's seriously just the most screwed up thing I have EVER heard in my life even before I became a Christian. Next thing you know it'll be legal to kill your husband because you don't want him around anymore. Only it'll be done like he's on death row and people just give him a lethal injection to make it "legal" and "painless" and he'll never feel or know a thing. Because, he never loved you, right? Or what about a womans right to "abort" her 1-6 month old child because she doesn't want him or want him around anymore? Again, lethal injection to make it not "objectionable or immoral". Because lets face it if you shoot your baby with a shotgun that's immoral right? What's the difference between shooting your child with a shotgun and aborting him when he's a full term baby? If you shot him with a shotgun odds are he wouldn't feel a thing either. Especially if you... okay this topic is getting graphic enough... I think I've made my point.

I mean, the way the world is going and the way women's rights are going, it honestly wouldn't surprise me...

I strongly believe that you cannot believe in the bible and the constitution at the same time. I believe as a Christian, your law and rights must come from the bible. I believe that we do not need the constitution because the bible is our constitution.
What the constitution does is to either point out the rights that God gave us already for example "we have the right to be free", OR lead us to hell for example "the right to have an abortion"
My point is, let us follow the bible and not the constitution. The truth is if we all followed the two commandments that Jesus Christ gave us (Love God and love your neighbour), then we would not need these rights because we would not hurt each other and kill innocent babies
May God Bless you

 

[thomas_t]

I think the story that thomas_t's stats tell us is that probably 5 out of every 6 abortions that occurred in 1994 would not have happened if people didn't have sex outside of marriage?

no.
It says one quarter of abortions took place within wedlock...

common-law refers to people who have not actually been married but who have been co-habitating together for a number of years.

It's my Bible interpretation (Genesis 24:67) that these common-law co-habitations are also wedlocks in God's eyes.
Moreover, even if a couple is separated, they are still married... and you need separation in case of violence, I think.

But the whole point of the entire thread is moot, I think.
Statitics show* that abortion numbers are lowest in countries where the status of women are highest, it seems. So let's embrace feminism!


* Abortion rates fell as countries made it legal and OK'd birth control

 

[SPF]

no.
It says one quarter of abortions took place within wedlock...

Correct, the data said that 3/4 abortions were performed on single women. However, the data noted that it included common-law marriages as well as married couples that were separated.

If you're separated, you're most likely not having sex. So what the data doesn't tell us is what percentage the 1 out of 4 abortions performed by technically married couples were performed on separated couples where the spouse was not the father, nor does it tell us how many of them were performed on women in common-law marriages, which Biblically speaking might or might not fit the criteria of marriage.

So I don't find it much of a stretch to say that it was more likely that in 1994, 5/6 abortions were performed on either non-married women, or women separated from their spouses.

And that's quite a large number!

For the record though, I completely disagree with the logic behind the OP.

Though I would of course plug that the 98.5% of all abortions, which are performed for convenience reasons are immoral and we as Christians should not support.

 

[thomas_t]

For the record though, I completely disagree with the logic behind the OP.

nice.
And - for the record - I'm also against abortions, of course.
This is also where I disagree with most feminists.

Personally, I favor decriminalized abortions - as opposed to legal ones. In this case, counselling is still possible. If you outlaw abortion, counselling makes no sense any more. Conservative Christians should know this.
I think, outlawing abortion leads to abortion tourism... and to unsafe backstreet abortions.

 

[Archivist]

Those who say that the legalization of abortion was due to feminism ignore the fact that abortion was legal until quickening at Common Law.

 

[SPF]

Those who say that the legalization of abortion was due to feminism ignore the fact that abortion was legal until quickening at Common Law.

Indeed. Thankfully science has advanced far enough that we know without a doubt that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and not at the quickening.

 

[Archivist]

Indeed. Thankfully science has advanced far enough that we know without a doubt that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and not at the quickening.

Perhaps—but we don’t have scientific evidence as to when a human being comes into existence. In any event I won’t argue the point because it is off topic in this thread. The thread is about feminization leading to abortion. My point was that abortion was legal long before the rise of women’s rights.

 

[Tiang]

Most people in the Anglophone world today have made the mistake of conflating feminism with infanticide (a.k.a. abortion).

This is a misguided fiction. Abortion was a non-issue in feminism all the way until the early 1970s, when the male owners of Cosmo magazine decided that they didn't like maternity leave.

This is a gem of an article on how they managed to slip it into the culture.

So no, abortion doesn't have the slightest thing to do with 'the patriarchy'. A society that takes issue with the killing of unborn children is not necessarily the same thing as a society that favours keeping men in positions of disproportionate power. Where reproductive rights are concerned, the issue for feminism all the way up to the early 1970s was male bosses ('patriarchs') discriminating against female employees on the grounds of maternity leave and their sexual unavailability in the workplace. Patriarchy had a lot to gain from advocating abortion (which it did).

The feminists who won the right for women to vote, who campaigned for equal pay and treatment in the workplace, never thought for a second that killing children was okay.

 

[SkyWriting]

Abortion became legal in 1973 and the second wave of feminism (Where women got all of their "rights") happened between the early 60's through the late 70's.

Now wait a second, if abortion became legal right around the middle of the second wave of feminism, isn't feminism essentially to blame for abortion becoming legalized in the first place?

I know many feminists in here would disagree with me or women who think men like me are sexist and misogynistic pigs but actually think about it for a second. What's the defense of "Pro choicers" over the years? They say that a woman should have the right to kill her own baby and basically be able to play God. Why? Why should you have the right to murder your own child just because you couldn't keep your legs closed until marriage? (which is a large chunk of abortions) and you didn't want to follow or obey God and wait until marriage to have sex? In which case, virtually no babies would ever have to die, you would NEVER contract an STD if you and your husband remained loyal to each other and were virgins when you got married, and all of these premarital problems would just go away. But, I know. Those raging teenage hormones are just a pain right? Plus all the peer pressure into having sex...etc. I admit it, I didn't wait until I was married either. I was a man who had needs and wanted to bring a baby into the world. But, the thing is my wife and I mostly just fooled around. Neither of us lost our virginity per se until a few months after we were married.

But anyway premarital sex, I'm not just talking about the mother either, the father still is 50% responsible for this "unwanted" baby to be born. The father is just as responsible for "not closing his legs" as the mother is. Yet regardless of this, because of abortion and a "woman's right to choose" the father has no right or say in whether or not he doesn't want his child to be murdered or not. Yup, equal rights my buttocks. A Father's right to want to save his own child's life who by the laws of nature is half his, is completely thrown out the window and is non existent. Don't believe me? Here's a video example of such a case that went viral last year in a NY Abortion clinic:

[video]

Scroll to 1:02 for the video. The REALLY sad part is despite the fathers desperate attempts to save the life of his child, his child was murdered anyway.

I know many Christians in here would agree that THAT (and abortion in general) is wrong and abortion never should have been legalized. But, it was women's rights that started the whole damn problem. Then the problem became even worse, it started as "Let's kill an embryo who wouldn't feel a thing to let's kill a FULL TERM AND LIVING AND BREATHING BABY!"

This New York state law that passed last year got me SO sick to my stomach. It's bad enough that pro abortionists were able to use the defense "The baby isn't a baby yet and wouldn't know what hit it" to the now defense to "Who gives a crap if it's a living and breathing baby? I still don't want it."

How... sick and twisted can these pro abortion feminists be? Don't get me started on how they've lost God (I've posted my views on that before and besides this thread is specifically about abortion and the womens "rights" that brought this evil law into the world) but you'd have to be pretty sick in the head to want to murder your child who is fully grown!!!

I mean, I'm sorry but that's seriously just the most screwed up thing I have EVER heard in my life even before I became a Christian. Next thing you know it'll be legal to kill your husband because you don't want him around anymore. Only it'll be done like he's on death row and people just give him a lethal injection to make it "legal" and "painless" and he'll never feel or know a thing. Because, he never loved you, right? Or what about a womans right to "abort" her 1-6 month old child because she doesn't want him or want him around anymore? Again, lethal injection to make it not "objectionable or immoral". Because lets face it if you shoot your baby with a shotgun that's immoral right? What's the difference between shooting your child with a shotgun and aborting him when he's a full term baby? If you shot him with a shotgun odds are he wouldn't feel a thing either. Especially if you... okay this topic is getting graphic enough... I think I've made my point.

I mean, the way the world is going and the way women's rights are going, it honestly wouldn't surprise me...

You're in luck. As soon as artificial wombs are perfected, every woman who gets pregnant will either carry to term, or give the fetus to a Pro-Life advocate, male or female, who will carry it to term themselves and experience the joy of saving and raising a baby to adulthood.

 

[IceJad]

You're in luck. As soon as artificial wombs are perfected, every woman who gets pregnant will either carry to term, or give the fetus to a Pro-Life advocate, male or female, who will carry it to term themselves and experience the joy of saving and raising a baby to adulthood.

Yup. I hope pro-life people who choose to safe a life start lobbying to get tax payers to funds the artificial wombs as medical needs like how pro-choice asked the same for abortions. Fair!

 

[Tiang]

You're in luck. As soon as artificial wombs are perfected, every woman who gets pregnant will either carry to term, or give the fetus to a Pro-Life advocate, male or female, who will carry it to term themselves and experience the joy of saving and raising a baby to adulthood.

I fail to see your point. You're saying that it's okay to kill a child because it 'isn't fair'? Fairness and killing do not belong on the same level of discussion.

Men and women have different roles in reproduction and childrearing. Because of the lack of a clear gendered division of labour today, it can look like the burden of reproduction falls too heavily on the woman's side. We can look for ways to make up for that burden.

What's much better, would be both partners agreeing not to have sex unless they accept the small possibility that a life may result, that they should protect and cherish.