Given what we know about fetal development, how could a late term abortion be anything other than terminating a life? The fetus at 37 weeks after conception, by any reasonable definition, is just as alive as a baby at 37 seconds, or 37 weeks, after birth. You opposition to late term abortion, how you "feel" about it, may be because you know intuitively that it is absolutely the termination of a life and that causes you to be uncomfortable with it.cms186 said:its not terminating a life, no, but it is preventing one from being possible.bearassnekkid said:Contraception is ok because preventing fertilization isn't terminating a human life. And an egg isn't a human being.cms186 said:ok, so why is it ok to prevent an Egg from being fertilized then? each egg is a potential Human Life, is it not? what about the Morning After Pill? you can take that up to 5 days after unprotected Sex (or Contraception has failed) and before any Medical tests could possibly detect whether or not you are actually Pregnant.bearassnekkid said:I am fine with people preventing pregnancy. I am not ok with people killing the unborn human after pregnancy has occurred.cms186 said:i suppose it is redundant, i apologise.bearassnekkid said:If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?cms186 said:Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccuratebearassnekkid said:He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.fadskier said:There's no dilemmaWaco1947 said:
If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.
What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?
No, they are unborn humans, i dont agree with late term abortions, but i do think that Abortion is a choice a Woman should be able to make.
To take the argument you are trying to make further, you clearly dont agree with Abortion, correct? even if its within the first month or so of Gestation when the Fetus wouldnt be able to survive outside the womb and isnt even fully formed? Do you agree with people using Birth Control?
Viability is a weak argument and a moving target. If I'm going to err on when a human "starts" and when a soul exists, I'll err on the side that doesn't involve murdering it, rather than on the one that does. That means not drawing an arbitrary line, but rather going to the actual start.
Also, if you believe it's "a choice a woman should be able to make" . . . when does that choice stop? The moment it passes thru her vaginal canal? Does it still apply if she chooses after it's 3 weeks old? What about 3 weeks before the birth?
If you had read my previous post, ive already stated im opposed to Late Term Abortions.
Also, though I never gave an opinion about morning-after pills, your post indicates that you suffer from a common misconception about them. They don't terminate an already fertilized egg. They prevent ovulation. Read here if you're interested.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/about/pac-20394730
Lastly, why are you opposed to late term abortions? For what reason?
Fair enough, learn something new every day!
As for why im opposed to Late Term Abortions, thats just the way i feel, I dont consider Late Term Abortions to be Murder, i just dont agree with them.
Pro Life Premise?
21,773 Views |
267 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by RioRata
we are just going around in circles here, "Murder" is a legal term, if you dont agree with the Law, thats a different issue. Can Laws be wrong? of course they can, if they are wrong, they get changed, its happened plenty of times before and will happen again. But pointing to laws that have changed in the past and assuming that abortion laws will go the same way is assigning your own Bias to the issue.contrario said:And legal definitions change over time and differ from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.cms186 said:Its a clearly stated Legal definition, it is not mine, this is not complicatedcontrario said:Ok, so we are just going to have discussions and make policy based on feelings now. No support for those feelings are needed, the feelings are enough. Great. What if one's feelings are incongruent with another's, what do we do then? What if one's feelings are contradictory to science or reason, what do we do then?cms186 said:how many different ways do you want me to answer this question, if you arent happy with my answer, thats fine, but im not suddenly going to provide a different one just because you keep asking the same question using a different method.contrario said:
I can't make policy decisions based on feelings. Can you please provide a reason? Catholics have a reason they feel the way about when life begins, you may disagree with it, but it is more than just a "feeling". Personally, I feel we can call it human when it resembles a human, it has a heart beat and active brain function. This is more than just a "feeling", it is science. What changes from the last day of the first trimester to the first day of the 2nd trimester that is significant in your mind?
What do you call terminating a life one day after birth? Murder. So what is different than terminating a life one day before birth? Again, you said you never call an abortion murder, so I'm just trying to determine where we draw the line. Because as a society, we have to define these things for the good of society. Most people would he appalled if a one day old baby was terminated and it would he called a murder. Even though your feelings tell you late term abortions should not be permitted (for some obscure unknown reason), yet you don't call any abortions murder. So what happens in the hours and minutes before birth and the hours and minutes after birth that you can distinguish between the two situations and call one simply an abortion and the other one murder?
There was a time that the laws in the US were racist and did not treat African Americans as equal citizens; are you ok with the argument that the laws that were on the books at the time clearly "defined" what percentage of human African Americans were? Because I wouldn't be ok with that argument, and thankfully, thousands of Americans at the time were not ok with sticking to the legal definition of the time.
As citizens, it is our duty to make sure we have laws that provide justice for all in order to maintain a civilized society. So, regardless of the laws that are on the books and how the law defines it, do you think there is a difference between terminating a life one day after birth (murder by every reasonable person) and terminating a life one day before birth (not considered murder according to you)? If there is a difference, what is the difference?
I'm the English Guy
cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
R category. I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
I'm the English Guy
Frankly I admire cms for being so honest
I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
You are between the ages of my two daughters.Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
You still have a lot to learn.
Most people's view of life and death is religious in some way. And most people who oppose abortion (and gay civil rights and contraception) do so for religious reasons.
That's nice, but do you have any non-religious arguments for abortion rights?Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
I'm the English Guy
Bodily integrity and self-determination ARE non-religious arguments.Sam Lowry said:That's nice, but do you have any non-religious arguments for abortion rights?Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Compelling a woman to do something with her body she does not want to do and has the means not to do by law is the equivalent of commandeering her body. And for whose purposes, exactly?
Do you have any non-religious arguments for abortion rights?
Laws that require women to carry through with any pregnancy, regardless of origin (rape, incest) or risk to the mother effectively commandeer women's bodies and eliminate their self-determination.cms186 said:a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
This is an issue illuminated by the practices in the E.R.s of Catholic hospitals, where the first "treatment" a rape victim receives are questions about her menstrual cycle and a pregnancy test, to determine (1) if she was already pregnant, and (2) if not, whether an egg MIGHT have been fertilized as a result of the rape. If the medical personal think a pregnancy might result, the protocol is not to help the woman avoid bearing the child of her rapist; it's to deny treatment and wait to see if a pregnancy occurs. But they don't explicitly explain this to the patient. Who thinks SHE is the priority of treatment staff rather than the egg that might have been fertilized by the man who criminally assaulted her.
That seems extremely presumptuous to me--the hospital is effectively making that decision for every rape victim they treat--and they don't explain to the patient what they are doing or their rationale, because they realize most patients would go elsewhere to seek treatment. There have been lawsuits in some states where many hospitals are operated by the Catholic Church over this issue.
Your religious beliefs should dictate your choices. But they should not dictate the choices of others, particularly in a very personal realm. And they certainly should not be mandated by an E.R. staff operating under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.
If it negatively effects another body then absolutely not.cms186 said:a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
Bodily integrity and self-determination can just as easily be claimed on behalf of the fetus. Anything else?Jinx 2 said:Bodily integrity and self-determination ARE non-religious arguments.Sam Lowry said:That's nice, but do you have any non-religious arguments for abortion rights?Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Compelling a woman to do something with her body she does not want to do and has the means not to do by law is the equivalent of commandeering her body. And for whose purposes, exactly?
Do you have any non-religious arguments for abortion rights?
As for why the state can "commandeer" a woman's body, see Roe v. Wade.
As a potential patient, I too am shocked that Catholic ERs operate under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.Jinx 2 said:Laws that require women to carry through with any pregnancy, regardless of origin (rape, incest) or risk to the mother effectively commandeer women's bodies and eliminate their self-determination.cms186 said:a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
This is an issue illuminated by the practices in the E.R.s of Catholic hospitals, where the first "treatment" a rape victim receives are questions about her menstrual cycle and a pregnancy test, to determine (1) if she was already pregnant, and (2) if not, whether an egg MIGHT have been fertilized as a result of the rape. If the medical personal think a pregnancy might result, the protocol is not to help the woman avoid bearing the child of her rapist; it's to deny treatment and wait to see if a pregnancy occurs. But they don't explicitly explain this to the patient. Who thinks SHE is the priority of treatment staff rather than the egg that might have been fertilized by the man who criminally assaulted her.
That seems extremely presumptuous to me--the hospital is effectively making that decision for every rape victim they treat--and they don't explain to the patient what they are doing or their rationale, because they realize most patients would go elsewhere to seek treatment. There have been lawsuits in some states where many hospitals are operated by the Catholic Church over this issue.
Your religious beliefs should dictate your choices. But they should not dictate the choices of others, particularly in a very personal realm. And they certainly should not be mandated by an E.R. staff operating under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.
Wait...no, I'm not.
People don't generally have a choice about which E.R. they're taken to, especially if a criminal attack is involved.Jinx 2 said:I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.
The terms of service and what the facility will and won't do should be totally clear up front. A rape victim in an E.R. that follows the Ethical and Religious Directives should be informed that she can go elsewhere if they want treatment that might include a drug that will ensure her rape doesn't also involve carrying the child of the man who raped her for 9 months.
The Church or the hospital or the hospital personnel should not presume to make that decision for the rape victim. The fact that that they do this and feel no compunction to let the woman know exactly WHAT is being done (a pregnancy test and an evaluation of the possibility the rape might have resulted in a pregnancy) says a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude toward woman: That their lives are of secondary value, and that decisions regarding their health care and reproductive choices should be completely up to the Church, which operates under a male hierarchy.
P.S. If you're ever raped, the E.R. staff would not do a pregnancy test, since no eggs are waiting in the wings to possibly be preserved at the cost of the rape victim's prolonged victimization. So you aren't a potential patient for this particular protocol.Sam Lowry said:As a potential patient, I too am shocked that Catholic ERs operate under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.Jinx 2 said:Laws that require women to carry through with any pregnancy, regardless of origin (rape, incest) or risk to the mother effectively commandeer women's bodies and eliminate their self-determination.cms186 said:a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
This is an issue illuminated by the practices in the E.R.s of Catholic hospitals, where the first "treatment" a rape victim receives are questions about her menstrual cycle and a pregnancy test, to determine (1) if she was already pregnant, and (2) if not, whether an egg MIGHT have been fertilized as a result of the rape. If the medical personal think a pregnancy might result, the protocol is not to help the woman avoid bearing the child of her rapist; it's to deny treatment and wait to see if a pregnancy occurs. But they don't explicitly explain this to the patient. Who thinks SHE is the priority of treatment staff rather than the egg that might have been fertilized by the man who criminally assaulted her.
That seems extremely presumptuous to me--the hospital is effectively making that decision for every rape victim they treat--and they don't explain to the patient what they are doing or their rationale, because they realize most patients would go elsewhere to seek treatment. There have been lawsuits in some states where many hospitals are operated by the Catholic Church over this issue.
Your religious beliefs should dictate your choices. But they should not dictate the choices of others, particularly in a very personal realm. And they certainly should not be mandated by an E.R. staff operating under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.
Wait...no, I'm not.
The word you're looking for is "equal," not "secondary."Jinx 2 said:People don't generally have a choice about which E.R. they're taken to, especially if a criminal attack is involved.Jinx 2 said:I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.
The terms of service and what the facility will and won't do should be totally clear up front. A rape victims in an E.R. that follows the Ethical and Religious Directives should be informed that she can go elsewhere if they want treatment that might include a drug that will ensure her rape doesn't also involve carrying the child of the man who raped her for 9 months.
The Church or the hospital or the hospital personnel should not presume to make that decision for the rape victim. The fact that that they do this and feel no compunction to let the woman know exactly WHAT is being done (a pregnancy test and an evaluation of the possibility the rape might have resulted in a pregnancy) says a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude toward woman: That their lives are of secondary value, and that decisions regarding their health care and reproductive choices should be completely up to the Church, which operates under a male hierarchy.
The directives are relevant to all patients in different ways.Jinx 2 said:P.S. If you're ever raped, the E.R. staff would not do a pregnancy test, since no eggs are waiting in the wings to possibly be preserved at the cost of the rape victim's prolonged victimization. So you aren't a potential patient for this particular protocol.Sam Lowry said:As a potential patient, I too am shocked that Catholic ERs operate under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.Jinx 2 said:Laws that require women to carry through with any pregnancy, regardless of origin (rape, incest) or risk to the mother effectively commandeer women's bodies and eliminate their self-determination.cms186 said:a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?Doc Holliday said:It doesn't have anything to do with God.Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy.
Whatever your believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Stop murdering babies. Period.
A baby in the womb is not equivalent to a tumor. IT IS NOT the woman's body.
This is an issue illuminated by the practices in the E.R.s of Catholic hospitals, where the first "treatment" a rape victim receives are questions about her menstrual cycle and a pregnancy test, to determine (1) if she was already pregnant, and (2) if not, whether an egg MIGHT have been fertilized as a result of the rape. If the medical personal think a pregnancy might result, the protocol is not to help the woman avoid bearing the child of her rapist; it's to deny treatment and wait to see if a pregnancy occurs. But they don't explicitly explain this to the patient. Who thinks SHE is the priority of treatment staff rather than the egg that might have been fertilized by the man who criminally assaulted her.
That seems extremely presumptuous to me--the hospital is effectively making that decision for every rape victim they treat--and they don't explain to the patient what they are doing or their rationale, because they realize most patients would go elsewhere to seek treatment. There have been lawsuits in some states where many hospitals are operated by the Catholic Church over this issue.
Your religious beliefs should dictate your choices. But they should not dictate the choices of others, particularly in a very personal realm. And they certainly should not be mandated by an E.R. staff operating under the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.
Wait...no, I'm not.
Can women become biships? The pope? Even be ordained as priests? http://theconversation.com/pope-francis-wont-support-women-in-the-priesthood-but-heres-what-he-could-do-91555Sam Lowry said:The word you're looking for is "equal," not "secondary."Jinx 2 said:People don't generally have a choice about which E.R. they're taken to, especially if a criminal attack is involved.Jinx 2 said:I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.
The terms of service and what the facility will and won't do should be totally clear up front. A rape victims in an E.R. that follows the Ethical and Religious Directives should be informed that she can go elsewhere if they want treatment that might include a drug that will ensure her rape doesn't also involve carrying the child of the man who raped her for 9 months.
The Church or the hospital or the hospital personnel should not presume to make that decision for the rape victim. The fact that that they do this and feel no compunction to let the woman know exactly WHAT is being done (a pregnancy test and an evaluation of the possibility the rape might have resulted in a pregnancy) says a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude toward woman: That their lives are of secondary value, and that decisions regarding their health care and reproductive choices should be completely up to the Church, which operates under a male hierarchy.
When THAT happens, women will have equal standing in the Catholic Church.
Right now, their lives are secondary. They aren't supposed to use contraception, which means their choice is staying single and celibate or marriage and uncontrolled childbearing.
Their leadership in the church is limited to orders of nuns. Which must submit to bishops and the Pope.
Their role is submissive, supportive and reproductive.
That is not equal.
That's why we are having the discussion. Someone has to raise the question. Someone had to say, "maybe African Americans are just as much human as you and me." And it turns out they were right. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you are only going to point to feelings and the laws that are on the books as justification for ending a human life, then you are just as bad as those that allowed slavery to continue because of how they "felt" about African americans and because we already had laws on the books regarding the topic.cms186 said:we are just going around in circles here, "Murder" is a legal term, if you dont agree with the Law, thats a different issue. Can Laws be wrong? of course they can, if they are wrong, they get changed, its happened plenty of times before and will happen again. But pointing to laws that have changed in the past and assuming that abortion laws will go the same way is assigning your own Bias to the issue.contrario said:And legal definitions change over time and differ from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.cms186 said:Its a clearly stated Legal definition, it is not mine, this is not complicatedcontrario said:Ok, so we are just going to have discussions and make policy based on feelings now. No support for those feelings are needed, the feelings are enough. Great. What if one's feelings are incongruent with another's, what do we do then? What if one's feelings are contradictory to science or reason, what do we do then?cms186 said:how many different ways do you want me to answer this question, if you arent happy with my answer, thats fine, but im not suddenly going to provide a different one just because you keep asking the same question using a different method.contrario said:
I can't make policy decisions based on feelings. Can you please provide a reason? Catholics have a reason they feel the way about when life begins, you may disagree with it, but it is more than just a "feeling". Personally, I feel we can call it human when it resembles a human, it has a heart beat and active brain function. This is more than just a "feeling", it is science. What changes from the last day of the first trimester to the first day of the 2nd trimester that is significant in your mind?
What do you call terminating a life one day after birth? Murder. So what is different than terminating a life one day before birth? Again, you said you never call an abortion murder, so I'm just trying to determine where we draw the line. Because as a society, we have to define these things for the good of society. Most people would he appalled if a one day old baby was terminated and it would he called a murder. Even though your feelings tell you late term abortions should not be permitted (for some obscure unknown reason), yet you don't call any abortions murder. So what happens in the hours and minutes before birth and the hours and minutes after birth that you can distinguish between the two situations and call one simply an abortion and the other one murder?
There was a time that the laws in the US were racist and did not treat African Americans as equal citizens; are you ok with the argument that the laws that were on the books at the time clearly "defined" what percentage of human African Americans were? Because I wouldn't be ok with that argument, and thankfully, thousands of Americans at the time were not ok with sticking to the legal definition of the time.
As citizens, it is our duty to make sure we have laws that provide justice for all in order to maintain a civilized society. So, regardless of the laws that are on the books and how the law defines it, do you think there is a difference between terminating a life one day after birth (murder by every reasonable person) and terminating a life one day before birth (not considered murder according to you)? If there is a difference, what is the difference?
So in the spirit of having a discussion and with an open mind (at least I have an open mind on the topic), what changes, in your mind, in the hours before birth and after birth that lead you to believe terminating one of those lives is murder (bad), and terminating the other is an abortion (at a minimum, acceptable)?
Men aren't supposed to use contraception, either. And they can't be bishops if they're married. You seem to be confusing the value of a human life with the value of certain career opportunities.Jinx 2 said:Can women become biships? The pope?Sam Lowry said:The word you're looking for is "equal," not "secondary."Jinx 2 said:People don't generally have a choice about which E.R. they're taken to, especially if a criminal attack is involved.Jinx 2 said:I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.
The terms of service and what the facility will and won't do should be totally clear up front. A rape victims in an E.R. that follows the Ethical and Religious Directives should be informed that she can go elsewhere if they want treatment that might include a drug that will ensure her rape doesn't also involve carrying the child of the man who raped her for 9 months.
The Church or the hospital or the hospital personnel should not presume to make that decision for the rape victim. The fact that that they do this and feel no compunction to let the woman know exactly WHAT is being done (a pregnancy test and an evaluation of the possibility the rape might have resulted in a pregnancy) says a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude toward woman: That their lives are of secondary value, and that decisions regarding their health care and reproductive choices should be completely up to the Church, which operates under a male hierarchy.
When THAT happens, women will have equal standing in the Catholic Church.
Right now, their lives are secondary. They aren't supposed to use contraception, which means their choice is staying single and celibate or marriage and uncontrolled childbearing.
Their leadership in the church is limited to orders of nuns. Which must submit to bishops and the Pope.
Their role is submissive, supportive and reproductive.
That is not equal.
Which is a classic pro-choice fallacy, now that I think of it.
And you seem to be confusing "career opportunities" with important religious leadership roles--those with interpretation and decision-making power--that are supposed to be a calling rather than a job.Sam Lowry said:Men aren't supposed to use contraception, either. And they can't be bishops if they're married. You seem to be confusing the value of a human life with the value of certain career opportunities.Jinx 2 said:Can women become biships? The pope?Sam Lowry said:The word you're looking for is "equal," not "secondary."Jinx 2 said:People don't generally have a choice about which E.R. they're taken to, especially if a criminal attack is involved.Jinx 2 said:I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.
The terms of service and what the facility will and won't do should be totally clear up front. A rape victims in an E.R. that follows the Ethical and Religious Directives should be informed that she can go elsewhere if they want treatment that might include a drug that will ensure her rape doesn't also involve carrying the child of the man who raped her for 9 months.
The Church or the hospital or the hospital personnel should not presume to make that decision for the rape victim. The fact that that they do this and feel no compunction to let the woman know exactly WHAT is being done (a pregnancy test and an evaluation of the possibility the rape might have resulted in a pregnancy) says a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude toward woman: That their lives are of secondary value, and that decisions regarding their health care and reproductive choices should be completely up to the Church, which operates under a male hierarchy.
When THAT happens, women will have equal standing in the Catholic Church.
Right now, their lives are secondary. They aren't supposed to use contraception, which means their choice is staying single and celibate or marriage and uncontrolled childbearing.
Their leadership in the church is limited to orders of nuns. Which must submit to bishops and the Pope.
Their role is submissive, supportive and reproductive.
That is not equal.
Which is a classic pro-choice fallacy, now that I think of it.
As for "married bishops," you have pulled your old trick of misrepresenting what I said. Which was that, in the Catholic Church, women aren't eligible for ordination and priesthood and can't become bishops or a pope. They are thus reduced to subordinate roles regardless of whether they choose religious life.
That's a good argument for separation of church/religion and state.
Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.
Okay, let me try again. I know women aren't eligible for ordination and priesthood and can't become bishops or a pope. And what I said was that if they're married, neither can men. I have no idea how that "misrepresents" anything.Jinx 2 said:And you seem to be confusing "career opportunities" with important religious leadership roles--those with interpretation and decision-making power--that are supposed to be a calling rather than a job.Sam Lowry said:Men aren't supposed to use contraception, either. And they can't be bishops if they're married. You seem to be confusing the value of a human life with the value of certain career opportunities.Jinx 2 said:Can women become biships? The pope?Sam Lowry said:The word you're looking for is "equal," not "secondary."Jinx 2 said:People don't generally have a choice about which E.R. they're taken to, especially if a criminal attack is involved.Jinx 2 said:I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.
The terms of service and what the facility will and won't do should be totally clear up front. A rape victims in an E.R. that follows the Ethical and Religious Directives should be informed that she can go elsewhere if they want treatment that might include a drug that will ensure her rape doesn't also involve carrying the child of the man who raped her for 9 months.
The Church or the hospital or the hospital personnel should not presume to make that decision for the rape victim. The fact that that they do this and feel no compunction to let the woman know exactly WHAT is being done (a pregnancy test and an evaluation of the possibility the rape might have resulted in a pregnancy) says a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude toward woman: That their lives are of secondary value, and that decisions regarding their health care and reproductive choices should be completely up to the Church, which operates under a male hierarchy.
When THAT happens, women will have equal standing in the Catholic Church.
Right now, their lives are secondary. They aren't supposed to use contraception, which means their choice is staying single and celibate or marriage and uncontrolled childbearing.
Their leadership in the church is limited to orders of nuns. Which must submit to bishops and the Pope.
Their role is submissive, supportive and reproductive.
That is not equal.
Which is a classic pro-choice fallacy, now that I think of it.
As for "married bishops," you have pulled your old trick of misrepresenting what I said. Which was that, in the Catholic Church, women aren't eligible for ordination and priesthood and can't become bishops or a pope. They are thus reduced to subordinate roles regardless of whether they choose religious life.
That's a good argument for separation of church/religion and state.
So if Catholic hospitals started administering rape kits, would you still say that the Church gives secondary value to the lives of women?
cms186 said:
a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?
A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.
Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?
The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.
Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them.
That is not what I said.D. C. Bear said:Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.
Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.
I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.
You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.
That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.
What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.
That is ALL I am saying.
I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.
I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.
As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.
Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?Coke Bear said:cms186 said:
a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?
A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.
Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?
The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.
Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them
Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?
Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?
Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?
I'm the English Guy
Obfuscate and bloviate all you want, but that is exactly what you said. Way back on Baylorfans I asked you and you said you supported a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (kill her unborn offspring) at any point. If you don't support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 41 weeks you have changed your position.Jinx 2 said:That is not what I said.D. C. Bear said:Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.
Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.
I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.
You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.
That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.
What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.
That is ALL I am saying.
I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.
I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.
As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.
Ive already said that im opposed to Late Term Abortions, so to me, they arent acceptablecontrario said:That's why we are having the discussion. Someone has to raise the question. Someone had to say, "maybe African Americans are just as much human as you and me." And it turns out they were right. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you are only going to point to feelings and the laws that are on the books as justification for ending a human life, then you are just as bad as those that allowed slavery to continue because of how they "felt" about African americans and because we already had laws on the books regarding the topic.cms186 said:we are just going around in circles here, "Murder" is a legal term, if you dont agree with the Law, thats a different issue. Can Laws be wrong? of course they can, if they are wrong, they get changed, its happened plenty of times before and will happen again. But pointing to laws that have changed in the past and assuming that abortion laws will go the same way is assigning your own Bias to the issue.contrario said:And legal definitions change over time and differ from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.cms186 said:Its a clearly stated Legal definition, it is not mine, this is not complicatedcontrario said:Ok, so we are just going to have discussions and make policy based on feelings now. No support for those feelings are needed, the feelings are enough. Great. What if one's feelings are incongruent with another's, what do we do then? What if one's feelings are contradictory to science or reason, what do we do then?cms186 said:how many different ways do you want me to answer this question, if you arent happy with my answer, thats fine, but im not suddenly going to provide a different one just because you keep asking the same question using a different method.contrario said:
I can't make policy decisions based on feelings. Can you please provide a reason? Catholics have a reason they feel the way about when life begins, you may disagree with it, but it is more than just a "feeling". Personally, I feel we can call it human when it resembles a human, it has a heart beat and active brain function. This is more than just a "feeling", it is science. What changes from the last day of the first trimester to the first day of the 2nd trimester that is significant in your mind?
What do you call terminating a life one day after birth? Murder. So what is different than terminating a life one day before birth? Again, you said you never call an abortion murder, so I'm just trying to determine where we draw the line. Because as a society, we have to define these things for the good of society. Most people would he appalled if a one day old baby was terminated and it would he called a murder. Even though your feelings tell you late term abortions should not be permitted (for some obscure unknown reason), yet you don't call any abortions murder. So what happens in the hours and minutes before birth and the hours and minutes after birth that you can distinguish between the two situations and call one simply an abortion and the other one murder?
There was a time that the laws in the US were racist and did not treat African Americans as equal citizens; are you ok with the argument that the laws that were on the books at the time clearly "defined" what percentage of human African Americans were? Because I wouldn't be ok with that argument, and thankfully, thousands of Americans at the time were not ok with sticking to the legal definition of the time.
As citizens, it is our duty to make sure we have laws that provide justice for all in order to maintain a civilized society. So, regardless of the laws that are on the books and how the law defines it, do you think there is a difference between terminating a life one day after birth (murder by every reasonable person) and terminating a life one day before birth (not considered murder according to you)? If there is a difference, what is the difference?
So in the spirit of having a discussion and with an open mind (at least I have an open mind on the topic), what changes, in your mind, in the hours before birth and after birth that lead you to believe terminating one of those lives is murder (bad), and terminating the other is an abortion (at a minimum, acceptable)?
I'm the English Guy
Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.cms186 said:Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?Coke Bear said:cms186 said:
a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?
A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.
Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?
The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.
Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them
Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?
Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?
Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?
Jinx 2 said:
Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.
Jinx 2 said:
What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.
Which is it again? Until viability, or as long as it's medically safe?
So what can we call an abortion that occurs after viability?Jinx 2 said:That is not what I said.D. C. Bear said:Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.
Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.
I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.
You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.
That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.
What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.
That is ALL I am saying.
I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.
I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.
As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.
The difference between smoking, drugs and other evils is that you are harming yourself. Most people are for personal freedoms. However, personal freedoms are always limited once you start interfering with other people's freedoms. That's why we have drunk driving laws - if you want to get sht faced at home, more power to you, but if you put the freedoms of other at risk by getting sht faced, you will be punished. That's why we have smoking bans in airplanes, many restaurants and in many cities - if you want to destroy your lungs at home, more power to you, but if you put the freedoms of others at risk (health freedoms in this case), then your freedoms will be limited.
In the case of an unborn baby, the mom has every right to her health. If the mom wants to prevent a pregnancy (contraception for you Waco47), she has every right to do so. If she wants to terminate the pregnancy before viability, or some other medically and scientifically supported time period, I'm ok with that. If a mother's health is in danger because of the pregnancy, of course the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy in the interest of preserving her life. And if it is determined that the baby will have significant medical issues, then as hard as that decision is, I support the mother in making that decision, even if I could never make that decision myself. Those are all tough decisions to make, and I fully support a mother in making that decision in those circumstances, even if I personally couldn't make that decision myself. However, there comes a point when the unborn baby becomes human and abortion should not be permitted (except for very specific medical reasons of course). And at this point, whenever it is, the mother is no longer making personal freedom choices, but rather, they are making a decision that is impacting the freedoms of another (the unborn baby). I understand it is a complicated issue because the unborn baby is a part of the mother's life for a short period of time in no other way that can be compared, but the unborn baby, although dependent on the mom, still has rights at some point. The problem I have with the issue is that some fail to recognize this. Some think a baby, in theory, one minute before birth has no rights, but one minute after birth has full rights (very theoretical and only used as an example for discussion purposes). To me, that is illogical. And we have to draw the line somewhere.
well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?Doc Holliday said:Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.cms186 said:Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?Coke Bear said:cms186 said:
a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?
A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.
Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?
The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.
Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them
Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?
Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?
Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?
I'm the English Guy
I think women should be in control of their own bodies at all times. Including when they're making the decision to have sex.D. C. Bear said:Obfuscate and bloviate all you want, but that is exactly what you said. Way back on Baylorfans I asked you and you said you supported a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (kill her unborn offspring) at any point. If you don't support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 41 weeks you have changed your position.Jinx 2 said:That is not what I said.D. C. Bear said:Jinx 2 said:I'm on his side.cms186 said:I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that wayCoke Bear said:cms186 said:
This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.
cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.
Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.
You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.
Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.
I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TL
I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.
I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.
Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.
Period.
Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)
Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.
Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.
As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.
Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.
I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.
Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.
Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.
I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.
You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.
That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.
What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.
That is ALL I am saying.
I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.
I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.
As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.
But lots of women end up pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant. Once the fetus can survive outside the women, a woman cannot realistically expect to "abort" that viable fetus.
After a certain point, it's either a miscarriage or a birth. The NYTimes had a good piece by a doctor about women who were drug users, continued to use drugs, and sought care at a pregnancy crisis center until it was too late for an abortion. There is a point where it's too late--and the word for that procedure is "induction" and it's used if the fetus is dead or has such a severe defect it won't survive the birth.
In particularly, the "abortion" of a 41-week-old fetus is called birth. I know. My oldest daughter was induced at 41 weeks because the OB was afraid that if he didn't go ahead and induce, I'd have to have a C-section. Saying I want to "kill" full-term babies at birth is just insulting, and it's also hyperbole. I don't want to "kill" anyone. What I want to do is make sure women retain control of an extremely important aspect of their lives--pregnancy--and that THEY decide what to do when they become pregnant without government intervention. There are some places the long arm of the government should never reach.
Your anger and disgust at me for supporting a woman's right to choose is getting in the way of your usual careful argument.
We disagree on this issue. I find a lot more men have very definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women. Especially women who have given birth at least once.