The Other Guy
Spam King
Seeing as few teens listen to what they're told anyway, maybe we should tell them to have sex as much as they want. A little reverse psychology, hmm?
Seeing as few teens listen to what they're told anyway, maybe we should tell them to have sex as much as they want. A little reverse psychology, hmm?
OK - If folk who do not want children have no wish to abstain, find contraception too careless an option and are so concerned re. overpopulation and unwanted children, I have the ideal solution for them that would suit everyone, especially the non-religious.
Here it is - male sterilisation. Easy, effective, caring , unselfish and protective of women. No need for condoms or pills, everybody is happy, paticularly innocent babies who will not be conceived and then killed .
Get it? NO lives ruined.
the sex police is just a little too Muslim Fundamentalist to be used in the US.
I'm Pro-Choice for only this reason.
Pro-Life doesn't account for:
- Fetuses with SEVERE deformity and disability that will make life just CRUEL for the child.
- Very early stages of pregnancy (early first trimester) where the woman was raped and has no intention of raising this baby.
- Situations where the birth of the child may be life threatening for the mother.
Hi MM - please don't keep referring to it as a 'Church 'issue. That is irrelevant, come to it only as an issue for mankind. Don't see it as part of your opposition to any church or you retain the blindfold.
Abortion is the killing of babies, who have no choice in the matter. 18 years after an abortion, a woman can look around her table at her family and remember that another son or daughter should be sat there, an absent friend indeed. Every year the same - just as my wife does since we lost our sixth baby from miscarriage. Nobody but me recognises the little tear; even though we have five children and 11 grandchildren, she remembers and grieves silently. Very little to do with religious dogma, everything to do with truth and not being afraid to face it.
War pales into insignificence weighed against the devastation faced by continuing generations of our citizens.
Forget the anti-church agendas, forget denial of it as killing, no-one can claim the highground in any issue if they approve of abortion on principle.
Want CHOICE ? Fine, take the choice before conception. Easy. Other wise accept your lovely perfect new human as a blessing, with pride.
I think 13 is fairly representative of the kinds of reasons/opinions I hear from the Pro Abortion side so I would like to use 13's post to respond to the topic.
What I respect most, whether one's argument/opinion is pro-abortion or pro-life is "CONSISTENCY." Please excuse the use of logic below:
1. If you hold, as 13 does, that a fetus should be aborted if it has or becomes deformed or disabled in the womb - or it is morally OK to abort in this case, then you can't argue against the murder of a 9 year old who becomes brain damaged as a result of a bicycle accident. Your value in the first case extends to the second - if it doesn't then your argument is inconsistent and lacks logic (no use of emotive religion here, or Bible bashing, or moralising - just logic). In both cases a person's worth, value, importance, meaning, human-ness is measured by their mental ability or physcical form free of deformity. We could also now explore what is deformity? One mother might say its "down syndrome" another mother, like many Chinese, might say it's because the fetus is female and they want a male.
2. If we abort a fetus because the father raped the mother (and presumably wasn't the husband) then it follows that you are allowed to murder the 19 year old son of a convicted rapist - WHY you ask with astonishment? Because the child of a rapist does not deserve to live and is equally responsible for dad's crime.
3. Aborting a fetus because it's growth in the womb or birth is/will threatening the life of the mother. This one is very hard. To be consistent however, this case allows us to kill children and adults whose existence threatens their mother. Here you could argue self-defence. The Church holds that no one can deliberately take a life but that an action to save the mother but which secondarily causes the fetus' death is not necessarily immoral. The objective is to save life but the consequence of the objective might take a life. This is sometimes called the Principle of Double Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect The author of this principle was a Catholic scholar and saint, Thomas Aquinas, but it is not endorsed by the Church.
Either way, like I said, it's a bad situation and a hard decision and never anything to be taken lightly. But there ALWAYS is that scenario where it just needs to be an option.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.