Abortion

[Marisa]

Sorry, are you saying you eat no plant or animal matter at all, only synthetic products?

Why would you assume that? Perhaps I meant your distinction was meaningless.

Sorry also if I missed your earlier post. A man's body is not required for a fetus to develop. A man's body is only required for two things: conception, without which there is no fetus, and child rearing, without which a man is a deadbeat, a baby daddy or a sperm donor and not a real father.

Is it the man's body which is required, or merely sperm? Are men who donate to sperm banks, knowing full well they will never be required to support any issue, deadbeats? Your world must be very small.

No, you cannot and should not own me.

Congratulations, you understand bodily autonomy.

However, if we were in the covenant of marriage we would each belong to the other.

Wrong. My husband does not own me any more than I own him. He is completely free to act on his own will, as am I.

And our society cannot have it both ways

We already do . . . sperm banks?

--if a father has to contribute support to his baby[/qutoe]
Just as soon as his organs are required for the development of the fetus, I'll jump on your train. Until then, I will come only so far as to agree that what happens in the case of an unintended pregnancy is absolutely a conversation 2 people should have before screwing each other.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Congratulations, you understand bodily autonomy.


Wrong. My husband does not own me any more than I own him. He is completely free to act on his own will, as am I.

See, I totally agree. I remember when my husband and I went to a Greek Orthodox wedding ceremony, and some of the vows made the two of us feel nauseous. It was when the vows to each other were to give up ourselves entirely to the other spouse. Meaning that the husband no longer owns his body, it's his wife's responsibility and right. And the wife no longer owns her body, it's her husband's responsibility and right.

Hubbie and I slowly turned our heads to each other and saw both of us had expressions of disgust at those vows ("Like, was he SERIOUS?").

Both of us agreed that were we to try to apply vows like those to our marriage, we would have no sense of where boundaries lie, and for us....that's a huge loss of respect and understanding ourselves and each other as two individuals joining together willingly of our own accord to create a home that is unique and ever-evolving.

I have never had any right - none, nada, zip, zero - to decide or "have a say" in my husbands vascetomy originally planned but decided against eventually. It's HIS body. Not mine. Should I desire some form of contraception, we have many options to prevent pregnancy. But for me to consider for one second that I should "have a say" in whether or not his body will be made infertile for our sex life...I'd feel like the lowest of the low as a human being and would be disregarding his ownership of his body.

So, when he changed his mind. The talk was actually very simple.

Him: "Babe, just letting you know I changed my mind."
Me: "With what?"
Him: "I don't want a vasectomy anymore."
Me: "Ahhh, gotcha. No worries. We can think of other options."

And that was that. No shaming. No intimidation. No questions. Nothing about my feelings at all. I respect his wishes for his body and for his life because he's a human being, a grown man, and most of all, he's my husband.

 

[leibowde84]

It is inherently evil for humans.


How many African children did you kill through starvation today?


So, where is the intellectual dishonesty inherent here? You know, you actually have to show it and not just claim it.

I think the point is that people have sex. It is unavoidable and has always been the case. In actuality, it is getting to be more of an issue. So, if you are against abortion, it would be reasonable to think that you would be in favor of things that prevent unwanted pregnancies. Since abstinence is a pipe-dream, ineffective because of it being completely unrealistic, contraception and/or condom use should be encourages by anyone who wants less abortions. In other words, the Church's stance is illogical/unrealistic/implausible. Implausible ideas can often make people feel all warm and fuzzy, but, in the end, they do more harm than good.

 

[JoStories]

There are examples in law, eg a person's living will declaration being overturned in a court and they are forced to remain living in a coma. But bodily autonomy may sound good, but is actually pulling people out of interdependence to pure independence, not always (not usually!) a good thing.

A one-year-old is dependent on its parents or guardians and will not survive without them. To abandon a one-year-old is to kill them.

Not to side track this thread but the same premise applies to elders that are infirm yet people abandon them every single day. And they think nothing of it. Where is the outrage with this?

 

[Mister Emu]

In other words, the Church's stance is illogical/unrealistic/implausible.

The Church isn't in the business of being practical where practicality conflicts with morality(hopefully).

Impractical does not equal dishonest.

 

[leibowde84]

The Church isn't in the business of being practical where practicality conflicts with morality(hopefully).

Impractical does not equal dishonest.

That's my issue with it.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's my issue with it.

And I don't think I could support a Church that caved in on what was intrinsically right for what was expedient.

 

[leibowde84]

And I don't think I could support a Church that caved in on what was intrinsically right for what was expedient.

Ive seen this straw man argument quite a bit. I never said "expediency". My issue is moral rules that are unrealistic or implausible in reality. What's the point? Remember, in theory communism is a good idea. In theory. But it doesn't work in reality.

 

[leibowde84]

And I don't think I could support a Church that caved in on what was intrinsically right for what was expedient.

I have trouble supporting a church that promotes rules that cannot help the issues we face in any meaningful way. I want solutions, not pipe-dreams.

 

[Mister Emu]

Ive seen this straw man argument quite a bit. I never said "expediency".

Practicality and expediency are synonyms.

What's the point?

The point is to ideally be a beacon on a hill in the darkness; even if we can't reach it, we can strive for it.

Remember, in theory communism is a good idea

Not to take this debate even more tangential, but I'd disagree...

 

[leibowde84]

Practicality and expediency are synonyms.


The point is to ideally be a beacon on a hill in the darkness; even if we can't reach it, we can strive for it.


Not to take this debate even more tangential, but I'd disagree...

Practical: of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. (what I meant)
Expedient: a means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral. (in no way even close to what I meant)

How are they synonymous?

 

[leibowde84]

Practicality and expediency are synonyms.


The point is to ideally be a beacon on a hill in the darkness; even if we can't reach it, we can strive for it.


Not to take this debate even more tangential, but I'd disagree...

You might want to pick up a dictionary before making erroneous linguistic claims such as this. Not too difficult to see the monumental difference between "expedience" and "practicality".

 

[Mister Emu]

Expediency Synonyms, Expediency Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

 

[leibowde84]

Expediency Synonyms, Expediency Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

They are sometimes used as synonyms, but they cannot be said to be such in this context. Expediency implies the ignoring of morality in the interest of convenience. Practicality does not. And, I in no way suggested or claimed that rules should be changed for convenience sake. That is what I thought you were implying. If not, I sincerely apologize, and suggest that "practicality" is a much better term in this context than one like "expediency" which has negative connotations.

 

[Mister Emu]

Expediency implies the ignoring of morality in the interest of convenience.

I think we had a miscommunication.

I meant, though I don't hold the idea in high regard, so I would have carried some negative connotation, surrender morality for "what works best".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why would you assume that? Perhaps I meant your distinction was meaningless.


Is it the man's body which is required, or merely sperm? Are men who donate to sperm banks, knowing full well they will never be required to support any issue, deadbeats? Your world must be very small.


Congratulations, you understand bodily autonomy.


Wrong. My husband does not own me any more than I own him. He is completely free to act on his own will, as am I.


We already do . . . sperm banks?

A person who takes sperm from a bank is pre-qualified based on income and other factors, to see if they are able to support a child. But here, as elsewhere, we are drawn into semantic debate, for no good reason if I may say so. You have just equated bodily autonomy with slavery (do you own me?) and yet very few parents, female or male, equate conception, bearing children or child rearing with slavery. You have also equated the covenant of marriage... with no covenant. Is your spouse able to act on his own will? Sure. I believe in free will. Is everything I could do via my free will marriage affirming? Life affirming? Not at all.

If I understand your definition of bodily autonomy as slavery, it is an incorrect interpretation of the miracle of childbirth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's my issue with it.

I'm unsure that is your issue with the church. You identify on this forum as a "big Jesus fan" but in the hundreds of posts of yours I've read so far, you take the contrary position with everything I've known as godly, spiritual, conservative, biblical, etc. What is your stance on abortion and how do you identify that stance with the stance of Jesus, please?

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

See, I totally agree. I remember when my husband and I went to a Greek Orthodox wedding ceremony, and some of the vows made the two of us feel nauseous. It was when the vows to each other were to give up ourselves entirely to the other spouse. Meaning that the husband no longer owns his body, it's his wife's responsibility and right. And the wife no longer owns her body, it's her husband's responsibility and right.

Hubbie and I slowly turned our heads to each other and saw both of us had expressions of disgust at those vows ("Like, was he SERIOUS?").

Both of us agreed that were we to try to apply vows like those to our marriage, we would have no sense of where boundaries lie, and for us....that's a huge loss of respect and understanding ourselves and each other as two individuals joining together willingly of our own accord to create a home that is unique and ever-evolving.

I have never had any right - none, nada, zip, zero - to decide or "have a say" in my husbands vascetomy originally planned but decided against eventually. It's HIS body. Not mine. Should I desire some form of contraception, we have many options to prevent pregnancy. But for me to consider for one second that I should "have a say" in whether or not his body will be made infertile for our sex life...I'd feel like the lowest of the low as a human being and would be disregarding his ownership of his body.

So, when he changed his mind. The talk was actually very simple.

Him: "Babe, just letting you know I changed my mind."
Me: "With what?"
Him: "I don't want a vasectomy anymore."
Me: "Ahhh, gotcha. No worries. We can think of other options."

And that was that. No shaming. No intimidation. No questions. Nothing about my feelings at all. I respect his wishes for his body and for his life because he's a human being, a grown man, and most of all, he's my husband.

If you're taking the vows that far, you have a logical contradiction. Obviously, one has to look out for not only one's interest but the interests of one's spouse, and the Bible, if not the Greek Orthodox church, presents that view. Unfortunately, for some husbands as well as some boyfriends, "it's your body so I won't try to stop your abortion decision" is a passive cop out.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If you're taking the vows that far, you have a logical contradiction. Obviously, one has to look out for not only one's interest but the interests of one's spouse, and the Bible, if not the Greek Orthodox church, presents that view. Unfortunately, for some husbands as well as some boyfriends, "it's your body so I won't try to stop your abortion decision" is a passive cop out.

No, it's respect for me as a human being. Which is why our marriage works, BB...I have respect for him and he has respect for me. To suggest he would passively cop out of trying to "have a say" in my reproductive health is insulting to him and our marriage.

Thank goodness we weren't married with those kinds of vows. I know my husband sees me as an equal, and vice versa, and we actually respect each other while giving a damn about each other. It's our marriage and our lives and we've been happy and strong as a couple because of it for many many years.

I would be miserable if I thought my husband had any ownership of my body or had a say about it in any capacity. So, thanks but no thanks. Not for us.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it's respect for me as a human being. Which is why our marriage works, BB...I have respect for him and he has respect for me. To suggest he would passively cop out of trying to "have a say" in my reproductive health is insulting to him and our marriage.

Thank goodness we weren't married with those kinds of vows. I know my husband sees me as an equal, and vice versa, and we actually respect each other while giving a damn about each other. It's our marriage and our lives and we've been happy and strong as a couple because of it for many many years.

I would be miserable if I thought my husband had any ownership of my body or had a say about it in any capacity. So, thanks but no thanks. Not for us.

I don't follow your logic here. You and your husband are equals, except that you don't each get a vote on certain decisions. Is that correct?