Abortion

[McBell]

We cannot in any arena support one person's autonomy by taking the life of another person. That takes away and repudiates the right to life.

Except for the fact that you are doing just that when you put the fetus over the mother....
Seems you have not thought this through very well.

Right to life?
Says who?

 

[Cephus]

First, your post is insulting to Christians and all theists, if not to me personally. This is ReligiousForums.com and I do not take lightly your spurious, unsupported, unsubstantiated statement that when I communicate with God He is my imagination.

I'm sorry reality hurts.

Second, we have facts in the scriptures. Many facts, which are trustworthy. Other facts, scientific facts, empirical facts and logical facts, are to employed by the Christian as well in making sound decisions.

Then produce them, along with objective evidence to support them. Make them major claims from the Bible. I'll wait.

I'm not asking for an apology but please show more respect to others in your statements.

Respect is earned. When those beliefs earn respect, they shall receive it. Believing absurd things is not respectable.

 

[SomeRandom]

I like your sharp, inquisitive insights and your strong mind, however, I cannot legitimately educate a young person on the dangers of drinking alcohol, encouraging them as strongly as I know how to wait some years until they are ready, while handing them a fake ID and a bottle of Scotch. "C'mon, really, really try not to have sex yet but here's a box of condoms in case you are too weak to succeed" is a mixed, unwholesome message.

Teens don't need condoms to have sex. But fact is, it is FAR more desirable for them to use them if they are having sex. But giving out condoms is again, a fail safe. It's not saying "go out and use them." It's saying, have some responsibility and take safety precautions. Giving young teenage apprentices a hardhat on a work site isn't going to encourage them to run under falling bricks just for fun.
A fake ID however is against the law to begin with. Well, it is where I live. I assume your laws are the same if it has to be a fake one.
Condoms do not have a legal age restriction. I mean I sell them at my work all the time and many very young kids do buy them. And there is no indication from the code of conduct of my workplace or my machine that any of it is illegal. Though oddly I'm not allowed to sell non alcoholic beer to kids. Weird.

However, you should probably teach children at a young age how to have a healthy relationship with alcohol instead of making them curious of it by labeling it "taboo." You should lead by example, explain frankly the consequences and show them that it's not the end of the world if they either say no to drinking or how to drink safely and moderately. Otherwise they'll learn "how to drink" from their friends doing kegstands. So which is the more desirable approach?

Just expecting teenagers to be perfect angels just because you forbade them from something is idealistic and ultimately an unrealistic expectation.

How are those things the same and who is handing out boxes of condoms?

Nobody ever handed me a box or a single condom in any sex ed class I was ever in. The school nurse would give them out begrudgingly, but you'd have to go seek her out and sit down and talk with her first. She wasn't roaming the halls handing them out to children.

Really? We all got a box each. At least during the first High School talk (we had like 4 during the years and a few in Primary School.) But we were always encouraged to discuss any and all concerns with either the school nurse, the school chaplain or a relevant medical professional. And we could go buy them at the local supermarket at any time, really.

But I'd rather have kids with a condom in their pocket than a pregnant 14 year old or a young lady who is rendered infertile due to the clap before she reaches her 20s.

I'm all for encouraging kids to wait and all. In fact I'd prefer kids wait until they had some sense of job security in case of unexpected pregnancy. But.......priorities people, priorities!

 

[JoStories]

The fact is the child is all genetically he or she ever will be at conception. The fact is that viability is a scientific fact or state of being, but using viability to decide whether or not to terminate is a subjective choice.

The fact is that the fetus is to have rights if we are to with a straight face support personal rights and persons. We cannot in any arena support one person's autonomy by taking the life of another person. That takes away and repudiates the right to life.

Yes, viability is a fact and it is also a fact that no fetus is viable before at least 6 to 7 months and that is pushing it. The fact that you say a fetus is to have the same rights as a living breathing person is just your opinion. You would remove the rights of a woman to have control of her body and be forced to be a human incubator for 10 months. In that case, You are the one with NO rights whatsoever. Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal. Simply put and no disrespect intended, get over it. Its law.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd like to ask again, what is your definition of conception?

Sperm and egg meet, a zygote is formed. God gives the new child a soul.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How are those things the same and who is handing out boxes of condoms?

Nobody ever handed me a box or a single condom in any sex ed class I was ever in. The school nurse would give them out begrudgingly, but you'd have to go seek her out and sit down and talk with her first. She wasn't roaming the halls handing them out to children.

1) Should we take your anecdote as indicative of all sex ed programs in all places at all times?

2) If you feel my analogy was not an apt analogy, why did you respond with your anecdote? Clearly, you feel it WAS an apt analogy. Thanks for recognizing the hypocrisy of telling someone to have sex while handing out condoms "begrudgingly".

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's a false analogy.

Alcohol is required to get drunk, but condoms are not required to have sex.



People don't decide to have sex simply because they have condoms though. "I don't really want to lose my virginity, but I've got these condoms and it would be a shame to waste them."

In the modern era, we can't keep children nice and innocent because they all have the internet. best to give them good advice rather than learning from pornography and peer pressure.

Handing out alcohol can encourage someone to consume alcohol. A parent, peer or teacher handing out condoms can be an encouragement, condoning behavior.

But I agree with you, let's give them good advice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Teens don't need condoms to have sex. But fact is, it is FAR more desirable for them to use them if they are having sex. But giving out condoms is again, a fail safe. It's not saying "go out and use them." It's saying, have some responsibility and take safety precautions. Giving young teenage apprentices a hardhat on a work site isn't going to encourage them to run under falling bricks just for fun.
A fake ID however is against the law to begin with. Well, it is where I live. I assume your laws are the same if it has to be a fake one.
Condoms do not have a legal age restriction. I mean I sell them at my work all the time and many very young kids do buy them. And there is no indication from the code of conduct of my workplace or my machine that any of it is illegal. Though oddly I'm not allowed to sell non alcoholic beer to kids. Weird.

However, you should probably teach children at a young age how to have a healthy relationship with alcohol instead of making them curious of it by labeling it "taboo." You should lead by example, explain frankly the consequences and show them that it's not the end of the world if they either say no to drinking or how to drink safely and moderately. Otherwise they'll learn "how to drink" from their friends doing kegstands. So which is the more desirable approach?

Just expecting teenagers to be perfect angels just because you forbade them from something is idealistic and ultimately an unrealistic expectation.



Really? We all got a box each. At least during the first High School talk (we had like 4 during the years and a few in Primary School.) But we were always encouraged to discuss any and all concerns with either the school nurse, the school chaplain or a relevant medical professional. And we could go buy them at the local supermarket at any time, really.

But I'd rather have kids with a condom in their pocket than a pregnant 14 year old or a young lady who is rendered infertile due to the clap before she reaches her 20s.

I'm all for encouraging kids to wait and all. In fact I'd prefer kids wait until they had some sense of job security in case of unexpected pregnancy. But.......priorities people, priorities!

Look at your conclusion carefully, because I have:

"...I'm all for encouraging kids to wait and all. In fact I'd prefer kids wait until they had some sense of job security... but priorities!"

Your conclusion is the definition of a mixed message. We are killing our kids, and via abortion, the kids' kids, too. Let's stop this insanity now, in our time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Teens don't need condoms to have sex. But fact is, it is FAR more desirable for them to use them if they are having sex. But giving out condoms is again, a fail safe. It's not saying "go out and use them." It's saying, have some responsibility and take safety precautions. Giving young teenage apprentices a hardhat on a work site isn't going to encourage them to run under falling bricks just for fun.
A fake ID however is against the law to begin with. Well, it is where I live. I assume your laws are the same if it has to be a fake one.
Condoms do not have a legal age restriction. I mean I sell them at my work all the time and many very young kids do buy them. And there is no indication from the code of conduct of my workplace or my machine that any of it is illegal. Though oddly I'm not allowed to sell non alcoholic beer to kids. Weird.

However, you should probably teach children at a young age how to have a healthy relationship with alcohol instead of making them curious of it by labeling it "taboo." You should lead by example, explain frankly the consequences and show them that it's not the end of the world if they either say no to drinking or how to drink safely and moderately. Otherwise they'll learn "how to drink" from their friends doing kegstands. So which is the more desirable approach?

Just expecting teenagers to be perfect angels just because you forbade them from something is idealistic and ultimately an unrealistic expectation.

Totally agree. We are on the very same page.

Really? We all got a box each. At least during the first High School talk (we had like 4 during the years and a few in Primary School.) But we were always encouraged to discuss any and all concerns with either the school nurse, the school chaplain or a relevant medical professional. And we could go buy them at the local supermarket at any time, really.

But I'd rather have kids with a condom in their pocket than a pregnant 14 year old or a young lady who is rendered infertile due to the clap before she reaches her 20s.

I'm all for encouraging kids to wait and all. In fact I'd prefer kids wait until they had some sense of job security in case of unexpected pregnancy. But.......priorities people, priorities!

Hmm, a whole box? I got gypped then!

I agree with all this too. I don't understand how people can take this as encouraging kids to have sex.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, viability is a fact and it is also a fact that no fetus is viable before at least 6 to 7 months and that is pushing it. The fact that you say a fetus is to have the same rights as a living breathing person is just your opinion. You would remove the rights of a woman to have control of her body and be forced to be a human incubator for 10 months. In that case, You are the one with NO rights whatsoever. Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal. Simply put and no disrespect intended, get over it. Its law.

And no disrespect here in any way. But no society will succeed--ultimately succeed--giving some inalienable rights in life by taking away others' inalienable rights to live.

 

[SomeRandom]

Look at your conclusion carefully, because I have:

"...I'm all for encouraging kids to wait and all. In fact I'd prefer kids wait until they had some sense of job security... but priorities!"

Your conclusion is the definition of a mixed message. We are killing our kids, and via abortion, the kids' kids, too. Let's stop this insanity now, in our time.

Yes that's why I advocate teaching safe sex. Using condoms equals less chance of unwanted pregnancy. Less chance of unwanted pregnancies equals less abortions. How is that a mixed message. I'm saying it's not ideal but being realistic. Teens are horny that's basic Biology. If they decide to have sex even after being encouraged not to, I'd prefer it if they use condoms and other safety measures. Safe sex among teenagers is no one's idea of perfect but it's really the lesser of two evils in the long run.

 

[SomeRandom]

Totally agree. We are on the very same page.



Hmm, a whole box? I got gypped then!

I agree with all this too. I don't understand how people can take this as encouraging kids to have sex.

Haha one kid got flavoured condoms because someone accidentally bought that one. Though it did lead into an off topic conversation about lubricants, oddly enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sperm and egg meet, a zygote is formed. God gives the new child a soul.

So when the zygote fails to implant in the uterine wall and instead washes out with the menstrual fluid, does that mean the new child/new soul has been murdered? Doesn't that mean when a woman is menstruating she might be expelling a child/soul? Or if the zygote implants itself into the fallopian tubes, basically ensuring it's death - does that zygote have a soul? Why would god set it up in such a way that the new soul enters the body before implantation?

 

[SkepticThinker]

1) Should we take your anecdote as indicative of all sex ed programs in all places at all times?

2) If you feel my analogy was not an apt analogy, why did you respond with your anecdote? Clearly, you feel it WAS an apt analogy. Thanks for recognizing the hypocrisy of telling someone to have sex while handing out condoms "begrudgingly".

1) I don't recall saying it should be.

2) What? Nobody told me to have sex and handed out condoms. Condoms were available (but not super easy to find) should one of us have contemplated having sex. Obviously it's better for anyone who doesn't want an STD or a child to practice safe sex rather than to not practice safe sex.

I shared my anecdote to share my experience with sex ed. I don't feel your comparison between natural human functions and making fake IDs and consuming alcoholic beverages is an apt one, no. The vast, vast majority of human beings are going to have sexual intercourse at some point in life, because it is a biological function of all life. Teaching teenagers about sex ed is a preparation for life, not a preparation for teen sex.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look at your conclusion carefully, because I have:

"...I'm all for encouraging kids to wait and all. In fact I'd prefer kids wait until they had some sense of job security... but priorities!"

Your conclusion is the definition of a mixed message. We are killing our kids, and via abortion, the kids' kids, too. Let's stop this insanity now, in our time.

Since you are so strongly against abortion, how is it that you don't support sexual education that encourages the practice of safe sex?? You don't support things that decrease the abortion rate? How does that work?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And no disrespect here in any way. But no society will succeed--ultimately succeed--giving some inalienable rights in life by taking away others' inalienable rights to live.

So why do you want to take away a woman's inalienable right to live?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Haha one kid got flavoured condoms because someone accidentally bought that one. Though it did lead into an off topic conversation about lubricants, oddly enough.

 

[JoStories]

And no disrespect here in any way. But no society will succeed--ultimately succeed--giving some inalienable rights in life by taking away others' inalienable rights to live.

The fetus has no rights until it is born and able to breathe. You can believe that it is not so and that the fetus is a human at whatever stage you like but the law does not support you in that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So when the zygote fails to implant in the uterine wall and instead washes out with the menstrual fluid, does that mean the new child/new soul has been murdered? Doesn't that mean when a woman is menstruating she might be expelling a child/soul? Or if the zygote implants itself into the fallopian tubes, basically ensuring it's death - does that zygote have a soul? Why would god set it up in such a way that the new soul enters the body before implantation?

We can allow God and natural law or we can contravene God and natural law by the (stubborn, rebellious) exercise of free will. For example, I could choose to become a skeptic/atheist. That choice may not be a pure choice or the right choice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) I don't recall saying it should be.

2) What? Nobody told me to have sex and handed out condoms. Condoms were available (but not super easy to find) should one of us have contemplated having sex. Obviously it's better for anyone who doesn't want an STD or a child to practice safe sex rather than to not practice safe sex.

I shared my anecdote to share my experience with sex ed. I don't feel your comparison between natural human functions and making fake IDs and consuming alcoholic beverages is an apt one, no. The vast, vast majority of human beings are going to have sexual intercourse at some point in life, because it is a biological function of all life. Teaching teenagers about sex ed is a preparation for life, not a preparation for teen sex.

I never said teaching teens is preparation for teen sex. I said teaching teens abstinence and also not abstinence is teaching teens a mixed message.