• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A More Compassionate Response to Abortion

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
I take it with a grain of salt. I didn't write it, those that interpreted didn't write it, they give what it is thought to be said.


For example...
Deuteronomy 23:1
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

If thats the case I'm hell bound because my stones were wounded several times growing up lol
Click to expand...
I think that it is okay if you got better. And I do not take it literally either. But the people that claim to take it literally have to do so when they try to argue when life begins.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Fool said:
there is no child. that which doesn't breath isn't living; except on some sort of life support. jesus said the flesh counts for nothing and the pro-lifers are claiming a body is more important than the spiritual welfare of the mother.



people are taken off of life support everyday and it isn't considered murder.


pretending like something is alive, is just that. Pretending. If it can't breathe, it can't live.


remove the fetus and watch what happens; unless the fetus reaches a certain level of development, it doesn't have the lungs to breath.
Click to expand...
If Mary aborted Jesus you wouldn’t be able to make such a ridiculous argument!
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
viole said:
It is, frankly ridiculous, to call a blastocyst a child. I think it is obvious that human beings are subject to different moral predicates, depending on the development state they find themselves in. that is also the case for grown ups.

ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
Yea, maybe a fetus becomes a tennis racquet? Who knows?
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Mark Charles Compton said:
You seem to understand the problem. It's in the title of the thread. Compassion... or the lack thereof, if you ask me. And I'm guilty as the next of being a part of the problem, all I accomplish is wagging my jaw (or wiggling my fingers) with little to no action committed. :oops:
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is that there are far too many people in society who think they have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. They claim that the reason is because they hold all life to be sacred, but in reality they couldn't care less about the child once it is born.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
74x12 said:
Are you saying it's okay to abort a "fetus" up until the moment of birth?
Click to expand...
You are an adult (I presume), conscious, able to feel pain and able to clearly express your desire to live.

Despite this, if you need organs, tissue, or even just a pint of blood from your mother or you'll certainly die, she has the absolute right to refuse.

Why do you think a fetus a moment before birth should have greater rights than you or a baby a moment after birth?

What is it about being born that you think strips people of their rights?
 
Mark Charles Compton

Mark Charles Compton

Pineal Peruser
We Never Know said:
I take it with a grain of salt. I didn't write it, those that interpreted it didn't write it, they give what it is thought to be said.


For example...
Deuteronomy 23:1
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

If thats the case I'm hell bound because my stones were wounded several times growing up lol
Click to expand...
I thought this was talking about the slaves that were mutilated and turned into eunuchs. *If my info is accurate this was often done to slaves of higher prestige that were entrusted (lots of trust, eh?) with guarding the sacred harems.

I'm not sure if it was an 'earned' or position one 'opted' into... if anyone could clarify this possibility or unlikelihood... :shrug:
 
Mark Charles Compton

Mark Charles Compton

Pineal Peruser
9-10ths_Penguin said:
So you don't even support allowing abortion in cases of rape?
Click to expand...
In a perfect world: "Absolutely not."
In this world: "Oof, that's touchy, and I would assume it to be a case-by-case situation requiring empathy and an open mind at the back end... But, that's after we build an infrastructure of federal social support programs that are ethic-based and candid in its democratically determined operations." (or hard reboot the current social system networks and restructure them from the ground up)

Edit: Be aware I'm biased in opinion and perception to my corner of the world, USA.
 
Mark Charles Compton

Mark Charles Compton

Pineal Peruser
QuestioningMind said:
The problem as I see it is that there are far too many people in society who think they have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. They claim that the reason is because they hold all life to be sacred, but in reality they couldn't care less about the child once it is born.
Click to expand...
Right, it certainly appears to be feigned devotion and posturing aimed to present a facade that is awfully familiar to the 'holier-than-thou' modus operandi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top