...with compassion and understanding. Even though I'm pro-life (and I really don't care for that phrase because I believe we are all ''for'' life here, it's just an unfortunate word choice that has been handed down to us by politics) ...women who have undergone an abortion haven't done so as a light hearted decision. I have friends who've had abortions, and it was a painful decision. When in doubt? Choose kindness and compassion.
-
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!
How Should Women Who've Had Abortions be Treated?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I would say sterilize them, too, but since poverty is the primary issue there (even single parents with one or two kids or people living by themselves can't really afford to make ends meet, when impoverished), then sterilization isn't necessarily the answer, but wealth redistribution. However, the idea that women should be brood mares, whether religious or secular in nature, does need to be stamped out.
As for the irresponsible females who keep getting knocked up and having abortions, sterilizing them is just common sense and why should they object to it. They don't want kids and they're obviously not fit to have them, so there you go.
cambridge79
Active Member
Even if I agree with the wealth redistribution i was speaking more in general about all those people that aren't ready to be parents and yet they do it for all sort of reasons, like drug addicts or immature people and so on. And yet I wouldn't call for sterilization for them.
As you said people can change. Why sterilize a 16 years old that keeps getting pregnant when she may eventually will want to become a mother In her 30? Is that all the faith you have in the ability of people to change and mature?
Sterilization is something permanent.
She can adopt. A good argument could be made for antinatalism, anyway.
Thank you for the explanation... I perfectly understood every single word your just said... honest!
cambridge79
Active Member
Who are you exactly to say she has to recur to adoption while you have the right to have your biological baby?
(This even not considering that a woman that has been sterilized for that reason would probably not fit the tight criteria necessary to be eligible for adoption )
I'm sterilizing myself and have decided never to have biological children.
I prioritize the needs of helpless children who have no choice in the matter over selfish adults. To put it bluntly: I couldn't give less of a **** over the selfish desires of some unfit ***** who wants a child, as if children are a commodity, and who probably would end up ruining their lives. Children are not objects or toys and we need to stop treating them in such a way. Perhaps we should stop treating parenthood like it's an automatic right, since that viewpoint has obviously proven a failure.
cambridge79
Active Member
Yes but yours is a personal choice and by definition you dont impose a personal choice on others is something you do cause you think it fits your particular needs.
Also, aborted fetuses are not childrens and we shouldn't confuse the two.
Also a child awaiting to be adopted is the result of someone who didn't abort in first place and that wasn't ready to be a parent ( well excluding those whose parents died ), so it's a bit strange to say abortion is bad and selfish and should be avoided and at the same time point tho the fact that there are so many childrens waiting to be adopted.
On the general concept that we re becoming too many on this planet I may agree but I think its a much broader argument to discuss.
We do all the time. It's called law. Lol.
Don't play semantic games with me.
What I'm saying is that irresponsible sluts who treat abortion as a retroactive condom probably aren't the best candidates for parenthood. (Duh.) Children who need homes should be placed in the care of adults who have proven themselves to be up to the task of being good guardians of a child. It's unfortunate that adoption is even a thing, but the root of that is sexual irresponsibility, by and large. People need to take their reproductive faculties very seriously. If they know they're not fit parenthood, at least at that time, they need to be mature and do what it takes to ensure that the pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place.
I didn't say anything about overpopulation. I'm more concerned with the problem of suffering, as a Gnostic.
I myself am very much opposed to the idea, but I can't really say that I understand the situation. In any case, I don't condemn nobody out of something that I don't understand. In the words of Mr. Jefferson from South Park, “Naaah, that's ignoraaaaant.”
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Yep
To be fair to you, this is the internet, it gets really tough to spot sarcasm sometimes.
Yep
To be fair to you, this is the internet, it gets really tough to spot sarcasm sometimes.
Phew! Good to know
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
They should be treated exactly as women who have never had abortions, or women who have never been pregnant. the way you treat women shouldn't be dependent on if they have or have not had an abortion.
cambridge79
Active Member
.
Semantics? You really think a bunch of cells with not even a nervous system is the same thing as a toddler?
It's like saying it's semantics to say there's a difference between a seed and a oak tree. A drop of sperm is not the same thing as a one week fetus that is not the same thing as a one month fetus that is not the same thing as a six or nine month fetus that is not the same thing as a toddler. No semantic here at all.
The fact that you consider them irresponsible sluts is very telling of the true way you consider those people recurring to abortion.
Also I keep finding your position confusing. They recure to abortion cause they don't want to become parents and you say for that reason they shouldn't become parents.....well that's exactly what happens because of the abortion, they dont become parent. So what s the matter?
Same as before. I dont think anyone would abort only to ask the very next day to adopt a child. So again you re considering a problem that doesn't exist. Also if you re concerned about the suffering of childrens waiting to be adopted, by definition those who recur to abortion won't produce babies that than won't need to be adopted.
Maybe they did and it failed. Condoms for example are considered like 95% safe, so if you have sex with a girl 100 times ( a thing that is normal already in the first months of any relation ) there are at least 5 times you re risking to become pregnant.
Also considering we're in a religious forum there are many bigots that consider sex scary and sinful and won't provide proper sexual education to their sons and daughters so they won't be adequately prepared when its time and it's not even their fault. In the u.s. the higher rates of young single mothers is in fact, you don't say, in the bible belt, where parent dont provide sexual education because they expect their sons to practice abstinence and guess what they dont because they want to have sex as it's their right .
Last edited:
You're confused. You said "fetus", but you seem to be referring to a zygote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
Reread my original post in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...ortions-be-treated.182385/page-3#post-4548024
That they shouldn't get pregnant in the first place.
Except that they are producing what could be called babies that they then kill.
I wasn't aware that having sex 100 times in the beginning of a relationship was the norm. But if you use new condoms correctly and generally keep semen away from the vagina, you're not going to get pregnant.
Maybe it shouldn't be their right to brainwash their children and leave them in a state of dangerous ignorance. Also, the individual has the responsibility to educate themselves before partaking in actions such as sex. So the blame falls on the society at large, the parents and the dumb teens humping away.
cambridge79
Active Member
i admit my fault here, that's what happens from time to time when you use a foreign language, thank you for pointing me to this.
i think we know and they know. The fact that those who recur to abortion do that is precisely because they don't wanted to get prergnant in first place.
But you have this idea of people recurring to abortion because "they don't care and it's easier that way" while in fact that may be the case of less than a 1% of the people, the majority of people do that because they've been raised with no sexual education at all, many because they can't even afford child control ( if you have to pick between a pack of condoms and a meal you go for a meal, many people are young people with no incomes and at the peak of their sexual desire wich is a dangerous combination ) many others used birth control methods that failed. This leaving outside those who are raped, or have medical conditions.
A person that simply say "i will have sex with no precautions at all and when i get pregnant it's not a problem cause i can abort" like the way you're depicting them it's not a fair representation of the average woman and may represent 1% of the cases.
I think you are a person with no full respect for women and who simply don't care enough about the issue, maybe because you're a male and you don't see it as your problem at all. Easier to simply point the finger and dismiss than trying to understand it in its full spectrum.
yes and when i masturbate i commit genocide because potentially each one of those sperms could be a baby and i deny them the chance to live.
They are not killing babies.
expecially when you're young ( no job subtracting time to your life ) if you have the chance and a stable relation you have sex on average everyday. In the first six months of a relation ( half a year, 180 days ) it's fair to think you will pretty easily hit that goal.
condoms can brake,
penetration always involve the risk of some fluid leaks.
Best method would be the pill but it's still a pharmaceutical with a high impact on your hormonal balance.
I want to be clear that i totally agree on the fact that sex is something that should be approached with responsability, not only for unwanted pregnancies but also for the risk of STD.
i think sexual education is a fundamental thing, sex is one of the strongest instinct we have. In the natural words there are three forces that drives all living things:
- survival instinct
- hunger
- sex
because living things are basically programmed to survive and reproduce. Pretende sex doesn't exist or can be dismissed or should be banned or made a taboo is simply the perfect recipe for disaster.
More sexual education would lead to less abortions for sure, so everybody wins.
Last edited:
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone
That would be me!
But I've no desire to stone anyone just for having an abortion.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
The issue is convoluted for me. I feel as though humans should not wish to abort their young. Ideally there would be an intrinsic understanding that the next generation of life is one of the most precious things available in the world. Most other animals (the few exceptions are usually only exceptions under extreme circumstances - and the fact that Chimpanzees attack and kill young of opposing "tribes" during raids is only really another strike against higher intelligence like ours anyway) seem to possess this understanding.
However, to see the figures on crime dropping drastically leading up to, and then culminating in the grandest drop at around the 18 year mark post Row vs. Wade and abortion becoming legal is tell-tale, in my opinion, to the actual benefits of abortion to society. However - this benefit is really no more than an incredibly sad statement about the level of responsibility we can commonly expect in the care of the children who will inherit the Earth from the current generation(s) at any given moment. Put simply - if crime drops when unwanted babies are, instead, aborted, it points more to our having the bigger problem of "unwanted babies" in our society than anything else - and that points to irresponsibility even greater than whatever may have lead to the abortion in the first place (rape cases aside, of course).
To answer the actual, posed questions, no, there should be no prosecution, obviously. But in an ideal world, abortion wouldn't exist due to a combination of human understanding and employment of compassion and responsibility.
However, to see the figures on crime dropping drastically leading up to, and then culminating in the grandest drop at around the 18 year mark post Row vs. Wade and abortion becoming legal is tell-tale, in my opinion, to the actual benefits of abortion to society. However - this benefit is really no more than an incredibly sad statement about the level of responsibility we can commonly expect in the care of the children who will inherit the Earth from the current generation(s) at any given moment. Put simply - if crime drops when unwanted babies are, instead, aborted, it points more to our having the bigger problem of "unwanted babies" in our society than anything else - and that points to irresponsibility even greater than whatever may have lead to the abortion in the first place (rape cases aside, of course).
To answer the actual, posed questions, no, there should be no prosecution, obviously. But in an ideal world, abortion wouldn't exist due to a combination of human understanding and employment of compassion and responsibility.
Nurion
Member
Well said. I would agree that in an ideal situation, noone would want to abort. But this is not a likely outcome, since there are always unforeseen circumstances.
To me, the life of the person that is already here is more important than the potential life that is to come, if left to grow to maturity. I'd rather help a person that is here now, than protect the rights of an individual that has no consciousness yet.
That does not mean that abortion should be taken lightly and used on a regular basis. It should still be a decision that is not taken lightly. But seeing as things are, it never is. And many women who do have an abortion will still face feelings of guilt, occassionally even depression. I would always try to support a person like that, no matter whether I think that the decision was right.
I'd rather have one healthy individual than destroying the lifes of the parents as well as making a child grow up in unfavourable or even conditions. It just does not seem fair towards these human beings to deny them the choice in this matter.