Roe vs. Wade

What's Your View On Abortion?

  • Pro-Life

    Votes: 11 37.9%

  • Pro-Choice

    Votes: 18 62.1%
  • Total voters
    29
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?
 
The Other Guy said:
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?
Click to expand...


Thats the problem with Abstinence, its totally unenforceable. Are we going to get create a sex-police to stop every horny teenager with raging hormones from having sex? Or are we just going to pretend they won't because we tell them not to? I wouldn't hold my breath on the latter.
 
Del Boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Just because you don't want kids now doesn't mean you won't in the future. That would ruin the guy's life. Contraception is good enough; if you don't like abortions no one's forcing you to get one, but you also have no right to disallow others from getting them. With condoms, birth control pills, and morning after pills, there are already enough options to prevent a pregnancy. Yet I still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose. I know if I had something in me that was going to change my body and mind over 9 months, cause a good amount of suffering, and then require endless attention and money, I would never, EVER, let someone else make that decision for me. Adoption is not a good option - they still have to go through labor and all the other pains associated with pregnancy, which is no fun from what I hear.
 
Major - it is reversible you know, these days. But I guess it would be too inconvenient to consider. So kill a few of your own babies until you decide that it's time to indulge yourself. ( I don't mean you, major - I am talking generally) Don't make a pretty picture does it. I agree with all you say re. contraception, having experienced all the associated difficulties.

But where our ways part are on the question of choice. There are two people in that body, simply because the mum saw fit to have one put there, accidently or not. After that, why should one of them have to die. I am particularly concerned regarding the more advanced the pregnancy becomes. I don't want to go into it here, but I understand that the baby can hurt horrendously, and it is the last thing it is expecting from its mum and dad.
That should be the safest sanctuary the baby will ever find - that's the point. It's the greatest betrayal, I feel , of those who should receive the greatest support.

I am not stoning those who have made decisions contrary to my views but I wish to defend these babies as much as I possibly can. If I can help save one life it will have been worth the arguing. To my un-dying shame, I have to admit that I was not always as welcoming as I sound now, through hard tough times. I thank God for my wife.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
i believe in life.

Del Boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in abortion. As a mother of 4, I also don't believe (obviously) in contraceptives, but for a whole different reason. I am a christian, so yes, I do bring in the matter of religion, but I'm not talking of religion. I'm glad this subject popped (sp?) up. I never had a miscarriage, and I don't think I would ever handle getting rid of...killing...doing away with...ect...an unborn child who had no choice to begin with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since pregnancy is becoming more prevalent in 12 to 16 year olds, so is STD. The old double shot of penicillin won't get rid of a lot of newer forms of STD. If a kid is too uninformed about how one gets pregnant, then how they contract genital herpes, AIDS, and several variations of incurable diseases are really over their heads. Abortion on demand seems like a sure cure for an accident to kids this age and gives them confidence that a trip to an abortionist will solve all their problems. Uhuh! besides possible permanent damage to reproductive organs, a young girl's psyche can be just as damaged as their body. These statistics aren't tracked by the advocates of public sanctioned murder of the unborn.
 
You could make the same argument for the possibilites of the girl being too small and underdevelloped to handle a baby. What's a premature birth with possible death of the baby going to do the girls psyche?
 
I liken it to shooting someone who is on fire.
It sucks, but I wouldn't charge a guy who shot a guy who was completely engulfed in flames with murder.
I don't really know about the whole bicycle accident thing but lets say the child ended up being a human vegetable with barely a feint brainwave signal and pretty much no chance of being brought to life. Basically the heart beats, the lungs breathe, but the lights are off permanently. Do I think the parents have the right to pull the plug? I'd say only the parents have the right to make that decision. What if that family also has another child, and cannot afford to keep the kid who will never wake up barely alive and make ends meet as well? You know how much it costs just to wait in line and have the doc tell you nothing's wrong with you. 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.

And for 2. I think if the mother has chosen to raise the child to the age of 19, I think the mother has chosen to keep the baby. Like I said, it's not an automatic kill. It's her choice. If she's decided she'd keep and raise the baby regardless of rape, then she's made that decision.

If the situation is life threatening to the mother, again, it's their decision. You cannot tell someone that they HAVE to risk their life (unless your ass is in the military... go take a look private!). If the mother chooses to risk her life that's her call.
As for the scenario where a born child or adolescent is life threatening to the mother. I wouldn't say you'd have to kill them but you could jail them. But there just doesn't seem to be that sort of alternative for unborn babies.

Like I said, it's not an easy decision and I'd be very careful before I make something illegal because they could have some serious consequences we never could have thought of.

Wouldn't the world be a safer place if assassination was still legal?
Wouldn't the dollar be doing a bit better if it wasn't so hard to be a tourist in the USA?
Couldn't marijuana be less of a problem if it was in fact legal?
Just some things to consider.

Believe me... the thought of abortion makes my stomach turn as well. And it's not exactly like I'm entirely detached from this subject either. My wife's delivering our first baby next month.

Padre said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
the_13th_redneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. There always has to be a gray between the black and white, in my opinion, but I think we should cut down that gray area by quite a bit.



Kids that are 15-16 should start learning from their mistakes. We (as a society) can't keep making them out to be the victim, they made their choices with eyes open and if they are screwing around they should be protecting themselves or suffer the consequences. Sex Ed has already been taught by that age.

We shouldn't be making excuses for them, after all, they in most cases, are not the victims. Their babies that they kill are. And then they go out and do it again. I had a "friend" in H.S. who had three abortions in two years. Senior year of H.S. she decided she'd keep the latest one. That is screwed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top