Abortion

[McBell]

But most people believe in a right to life, not a "right to life once it's viable".

But most people are inconsistent with what does and does not have this mysterious "right to life".

It is an artificial argument you're making.

what is an "artificial argument"?

 

[columbus]

here is no recognized "consent to pregnancy" recognized by the court due to voluntary intercourse.

We could change that.
It's just a court opinion. Not long ago the court changed USA legal opinion about marriage equality.

It can be done.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

We could change that.
It's just a court opinion. Not long ago the court changed USA legal opinion about marriage equality.

It can be done.
Tom

It won't be though. It is incredibly rare for the Supreme Court to revisit a decision and reverse their position, especially in the case of RvW where a huge amount of American case law has been made on the provisions provided by that case. You would have to rewrite huge parts of the law since 1973. It isn't going to happen. People need to get the hell over it.

 

[columbus]

You would have to rewrite huge parts of the law since 1973.

In June the SCOTUS overwrote millennium of law.
I remain hopeful.
Tom

 

[Smart_Guy]

You're the one asserting that they feel a certain way. Prove it. Let us know when you can. Until then, it is an empty assertion and can be ignored.

You're not reading my posts well. Please read carefully and understand before using words like "assert".

 

[Cephus]

In June the SCOTUS overwrote millennium of law.
I remain hopeful.
Tom

Not U.S. law, which is all that matters. Remain hopeful all you want. You'll be waiting a long, long, long time.

 

[columbus]

Not U.S. law, which is all that matters. Remain hopeful all you want. You'll be waiting a long, long, long time.

Sure they did. They overturned US law concerning marriage equality.
I never thought I would see that in my lifetime. But I did.

Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

b

Abortion based on a whim? Umm no one aborts on a whim. It's a medical decision. Often made for various reasons. Illness, financial instability, being too young, not being ready etc. this is not a decision anyone, save maybe sociopaths and psychopaths, make flippantly. Or are you saying that couples have to refrain from sex? Which is quite an unhealthy approach. Why no one brings up the fact that couples having sex is actually healthier than them being totally abstinent is beyond me. I guess everyone conveniently forgets that we are sexual beings who actually benefit from sexual release and that total abstinence by a couple might work for a while but has the potential to increase stress and sexual frustration. Hurting others doesn't apply to a fetus. I'm sorry I don't place it's feelings, If it has any which is actually unlikely based on research just FYI, to be anywhere in the ballpark of important. I guess I'm just inhumane or whatever. But they don't matter. We can't live our lives overly concerned with every possibility of hurting someone. Your argument if applied can also be used to force people to donate organs or blood. Is that what you want? You have to prove that fetuses can feel in the first place. Making decisions based on a "well we don't know for certain but study might find out it's true one day" basically is just another way to shame women who abort, but without tangible honest to god evidence. That's cruel to the woman.
We have to go by evidence not potential for maybe evidence. You start throwing in that and soon you could have doctors refusing to cut out melanoma because "well we can't communicate with them but maybe one day we will discover that they have feelings."

 

[Smart_Guy]

Abortion based on a whim? Umm no one aborts on a whim. It's a medical decision. Often made for various reasons. Illness, financial instability, being too young, not being ready etc. this is not a decision anyone, save maybe sociopaths and psychopaths, make flippantly. Or are you saying that couples have to refrain from sex? Which is quite an unhealthy approach. Why no one brings up the fact that couples having sex is actually healthier than them being totally abstinent is beyond me. I guess everyone conveniently forgets that we are sexual beings who actually benefit from sexual release and that total abstinence by a couple might work for a while but has the potential to increase stress and sexual frustration. Hurting others doesn't apply to a fetus. I'm sorry I don't place it's feelings, If it has any which is actually unlikely based on research just FYI, to be anywhere in the ballpark of important. I guess I'm just inhumane or whatever. But they don't matter. We can't live our lives overly concerned with every possibility of hurting someone. Your argument if applied can also be used to force people to donate organs or blood. Is that what you want?

The above in red is what my point was all about in general. That's it

I just think it is wrong that lets say in the 4th month of pregnancy the mother decides to have an abortion just because she wants to; like saying "oh well, it's gonna be annoying, I'll have an abortion". But if instead that pregnancy suddenly starts a serious health issue, then I welcome abortion. As I said, I'm not against abortion. If any thing, I just care for both the mother and the baby, not just one of them, tho more for the mother.

Everything else (other than the red) is not really related to my point, regardless to whither I agree or disagree with it, so I think replying to it would just make things complicated and to have unnecessary discussions unrelated to my point.

 

[SomeRandom]

The above in red is what my point was all about in general. That's it

I just think it is wrong that lets say in the 4th month of pregnancy the mother decides to have an abortion just because she wants to; like saying "oh well, it's gonna be annoying, I'll have an abortion". But if instead that pregnancy suddenly starts a serious health issue, then I welcome abortion. As I said, I'm not against abortion. If any thing, I just care for both the mother and the baby, not just one of them, tho more for the mother.

Everything else (other than the red) is not really related to my point, regardless to whither I agree or disagree with it, so I think replying to it would just make things complicated and to have unnecessary discussions unrelated to my point.

But no one just wakes up one day and say, "gee I hate being pregnant I'm going to have an abortion." Women may become very hormonal and God help any many who can't find the weird food their pregnant significant other craves. But you speak like abortion is just obtained on a whim. This simply does not occur.Typically a woman will speak to her doctor (a medical professional) possibly her boyfriend/husband and maybe even her family or even might consult a religious leader. Again except maybe if someone is legitimately a sociopath and/or a psychopath no one just wanders in randomly to an abortion clinic and aborts. Especially given how that is often the place for those protesting ******** going out of their way to hurt women or shame anyone even trying to obtain even medically necessary abortions. (I hate those ********.) Aborting simply for convenience is simply not reality and you're trying to make it sound like that. Which is basically trying to paint women who have abortions as heartless ******** who just use it for contraception. Which is even decried by many of the pro choice crowd. Abortion is a medical decision that is never taken lightly. And if it is by a woman, then maybe it's a mercy. Because that indicates extreme narcissistic tendencies (or drug dependency) and they might not be the best person to raise a kid in the first place.

Please Note: I am not saying that you are trying to intentionally shame women. Just that the line of thought process can be used that way very easily. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to paint you to be a bad guy. You're not. I'm just responding to the thought process you brought up.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It is a symbiotic mass of tissues unable to sustain life on its own, or IOW, live without the need of the host.

It is a soul like you and me, in exactly the same process of physical development that you and I went through, and he or she has the same human dignity that we have.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

What are your views to women who are victims of rape or incest that wish to abort? They did not have a choice and were forced to conceive. Do you still want to torture them by forcing them to keep the baby, or would you allow abortion in this case?

A very, very difficult position for a woman to be in, there's no question about that and no fairness in it for her. But an aborted baby is an innocent victim also. Wouldn't it be a better choice to at least have the baby and put it up for adoption?

I heard a very intelligent and articulate woman speak about this in a radio interview several years ago. She herself was conceived as a result of rape, and her mother wanted an abortion, but decided against it before it took place. She kept the baby and raised her. I think it's a wonderful thing that this woman is alive today. I have enormous admiration for her mother, whose charity toward the unborn baby and love for her little girl would have been so especially pleasing to God under these circumstances.

 

[McBell]

It is a soul like you and me, in exactly the same process of physical development that you and I went through, and he or she has the same human dignity that we have.

Define "soul".

 

[McBell]

A very, very difficult position for a woman to be in, there's no question about that and no fairness in it for her. But an aborted baby is an innocent victim also. Wouldn't it be a better choice to at least have the baby and put it up for adoption?

I heard a very intelligent and articulate woman speak about this in a radio interview several years ago. She herself was conceived as a result of rape, and her mother wanted an abortion, but decided against it before it took place. She kept the baby and raised her. I think it's a wonderful thing that this woman is alive today. I have enormous admiration for her mother, whose charity toward the unborn baby and love for her little girl would have been so especially pleasing to God under these circumstances.

So, when does Original Sin kick in?

 

[Smart_Guy]

But no one just wakes up one day and say, "gee I hate being pregnant I'm going to have an abortion." Women may become very hormonal and God help any many who can't find the weird food their pregnant significant other craves. But you speak like abortion is just obtained on a whim. This simply does not occur.Typically a woman will speak to her doctor (a medical professional) possibly her boyfriend/husband and maybe even her family or even might consult a religious leader. Again except maybe if someone is legitimately a sociopath and/or a psychopath no one just wanders in randomly to an abortion clinic and aborts. Especially given how that is often the place for those protesting ******** going out of their way to hurt women or shame anyone even trying to obtain even medically necessary abortions. (I hate those ********.) Aborting simply for convenience is simply not reality and you're trying to make it sound like that. Which is basically trying to paint women who have abortions as heartless ******** who just use it for contraception. Which is even decried by many of the pro choice crowd. Abortion is a medical decision that is never taken lightly. And if it is by a woman, then maybe it's a mercy. Because that indicates extreme narcissistic tendencies (or drug dependency) and they might not be the best person to raise a kid in the first place.

Please Note: I am not saying that you are trying to intentionally shame women. Just that the line of thought process can be used that way very easily. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to paint you to be a bad guy. You're not. I'm just responding to the thought process you brought up.

Ma'am, there is nothing such as "but no one would...". We can't take anything in this life for granted or as an absolute rule. People are not perfect and I'm giving an extreme example so what I meant can be understood which is I think is wrong to have an absolute choice to have an abortion like in that example. My statement saying that I'm not against abortion should be enough to understand my stance. We can't just say that an abortion simply for convenience does not exists.

I want to know: do you believe the growing being in the womb is alive or not? This is what my original point that I do not know how things got complicated to come this far.

 

[SomeRandom]

Ma'am, there is nothing such as "but no one would...". We can't take anything in this life for granted or as an absolute rule. People are not perfect and I'm giving an extreme example so what I meant can be understood which is I think is wrong to have an absolute choice to have an abortion like in that example. My statement saying that I'm not against abortion should be enough to understand my stance. We can't just say that an abortion simply for convenience does not exists.

I want to know: do you believe the growing being in the womb is alive or not? This is what my original point that I do not know how things got complicated to come this far.

Your example is too extreme to properly apply to the entire thing. We can if we use statistics and see how one would get an abortion in the first place. I didn't say it never can occur I said that the only people who would abort for convenience probably shouldn't have kids anyway. So meh.

My feelings are irrelevant. I'm not getting an abortion right now. This is a debate for or against the right of abortion. Not whether or not I consider life or souls to be imbued in fetuses.
But for the record. Sure I do. But I'm not going to use that as justification for stopping another woman (or God forbid a child) from getting an abortion.

 

[JoStories]

It is a soul like you and me, in exactly the same process of physical development that you and I went through, and he or she has the same human dignity that we have.

And that is your belief. In my belief, the soul enters when the child takes a breath. Neither of us can prove this one way or the other so we are at an impasse.

 

[JoStories]

A very, very difficult position for a woman to be in, there's no question about that and no fairness in it for her. But an aborted baby is an innocent victim also. Wouldn't it be a better choice to at least have the baby and put it up for adoption?

I heard a very intelligent and articulate woman speak about this in a radio interview several years ago. She herself was conceived as a result of rape, and her mother wanted an abortion, but decided against it before it took place. She kept the baby and raised her. I think it's a wonderful thing that this woman is alive today. I have enormous admiration for her mother, whose charity toward the unborn baby and love for her little girl would have been so especially pleasing to God under these circumstances.

That is one example. I would not have been able to manage carrying my grandfather's fetus which I got from rape for 10 months to give that fetus up for adoption. That was MY choice. And today, it remains the choice of the woman, whether by rape or simply sexual congress, to have an abortion or to carry the fetus to term. It may be a better choice for some but it is NOT a panacea for all women to be forced to carry a daily reminder of rape. If you think you would like to do that, go right ahead. For me, I have NO regrets over what I did.

 

[JoStories]

The above in red is what my point was all about in general. That's it

I just think it is wrong that lets say in the 4th month of pregnancy the mother decides to have an abortion just because she wants to; like saying "oh well, it's gonna be annoying, I'll have an abortion". But if instead that pregnancy suddenly starts a serious health issue, then I welcome abortion. As I said, I'm not against abortion. If any thing, I just care for both the mother and the baby, not just one of them, tho more for the mother.

Everything else (other than the red) is not really related to my point, regardless to whither I agree or disagree with it, so I think replying to it would just make things complicated and to have unnecessary discussions unrelated to my point.

But even if the woman in the 4th month states she wants an abortion, how is that your business. No disrespect Smart Guy but it really is up to the woman. I have seen too many children damaged beyond repair by women who did not abort and then the child became a sociopath. It is better to not abort and then have a child who is a budding Jeffry Dauhmer or is it better that she does have that abortion? Personally, having seen the child who is a sociopath, I think it would be better to have aborted.

 

[JoStories]

Ma'am, there is nothing such as "but no one would...". We can't take anything in this life for granted or as an absolute rule. People are not perfect and I'm giving an extreme example so what I meant can be understood which is I think is wrong to have an absolute choice to have an abortion like in that example. My statement saying that I'm not against abortion should be enough to understand my stance. We can't just say that an abortion simply for convenience does not exists.

I want to know: do you believe the growing being in the womb is alive or not? This is what my original point that I do not know how things got complicated to come this far.

My opinion...yes, that being is alive however, it is NOT a human being. It is a symbiotic creature entirely dependent on the woman for life. Without the host, it would die.