-
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!
Pro-choice vs Abortion
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
indeed. This is why there is 100% zero need for any abortion laws of any kind.
There are already protective laws for the safety of the mother.
And there are also plenty of laws to protect the just-born from nefarious activities.
No need for a single abortion law or regulation of any sort.
Good!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Indeed-- that is why there are laws on the books that prohibit people from killing their kids.
Wait..... that's not true in some states, is it? If some parents believe in certain religious ideas?
They are not punished for refusing to vaccinate their kids-- who sometimes die.
Although that depends on the state....
Hmmmmm.....
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
I did give a citation.
But having multiple abortions also leads to high risk pregnancies in terms of miscarriages but also including putting the mother at risk
Why do you think Planned Parenthood is unbiased? They make most their money on abortions and offer a relative scarcity of adoption choices. The choice is to abort apparently.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Laws for the just born in England are for babies who weigh above a threshold.... that seems arbitrary
As far as the just born in the US, if its a result of an abortion the doctor is in a conflict of interest as he may be hit with a lawsuit for improper birth
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
You are, of course, correct.
In a perfect world, the men would be responsible for their own actions. The rape victim who was wearing a short skirt and was rather drunk was still raped and it is STILL the fault of the rapist only. She should be as safe in a short dress and drunk as she would be in chain mail and surrounded by Navy Seals.
Women should not have to bear the cost/responsibility by themselves. I have certainly taught my sons that they are responsible for their own actions.
However....
Sheer practicality says that you don't tie dead fish to your ankles and go swimming with sharks. Even though a woman SHOULD be safe wandering around alleys drunk, disheveled and alone...she won't be. Even though men SHOULD be equally responsible for birth control and the results when birth control fails, they simply don't bear the burden of the results themselves. At least, not until now and paternity tests, and even then men tend to be jerks.
This isn't about moral judgment or some statement of 'men are equally responsible, so I'm only going to take care of half of birth control because the other half is HIS job' sort of thing. It's about....the woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't, so out of pure cussed self defense, the woman should figure that she's 100% responsible. Not because that's 'fair,' because it isn't fair.
JMO.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
\
THIS sort of thing is why I put all those boring and annoying disclaimers in my posts on this topic, about the difference between two adults having consensual sex, and rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life.
Because arguments like this strawman keep cropping up.
We Never Know
No Slack
That's amazing that you feel that way. The current abortions that happen aren't about religion, most happen due to failure of responsibility. It's not about god.
A girl that sleeps with the whole football team unprotected vs a girl that sleeps with one guy using protection, Do they have the same rights or is one more liable than the other?
Where do we draw a line from too young and too stupid?
Last edited:
That would be even one more reason that abortion legislation is undesirable. If it were so.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
No. We have laws against murder and abortion is murder.
We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If that was true abortion would already be illegal in all 50 states.
Tell me, is abortion illegal in all 50 states?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Based on what?
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I take that to be a show of disagreement
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
How about just for your own community, why externalize that belief.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Are you advocating that we should have different legal terms, or laws, for different people based on their personal beliefs?
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Well, that's kind of an interesting question in a way isn't it. If there were a very simple and broad set of laws and rights at the base of society, something like a religion is naturally a sub-heading springing off of that broad base of law. The religion increases the resolution of law to analyze particulate human action, and under the religion is a sub-group of people. Looks like a system that should have natural boundaries. It is a specific religion, with a specific subset of people we are talking about. Why should the subset of people in religion number A tell the subset of people in philosophy L what to do, beyond what ties to them together in the broad base of common law? If enough people disagree, why should you think that it is appropriate to incorporate your moral idea into the common law? Clearly, too many people disagree so it is inappropriate. That is how america is supposed to work, you should understand that.
Last edited:
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I tried to be concise, but it's basically what I said. I, personally, believe abortion is morally wrong (although I also think there are occasions when it is understandable, if not justifiable). However, I acknowledge that my personal beliefs are not, in and of themselves, justification to compel anyone to do anything they don't agree with. Believe me, I've been working this debate through from multiple directions for years, and I come to the conclusion that there is no objective reason to restrict anyones access to abortion. Ultimately, every argument against abortion can be reduced to either an appeal to authority or an appeal to emotion, and, as such, no one should be compelled to abide by them against their own beliefs.
I have similar views about quite a few things. There are very, very few "objective" moral arguments. I try to put my personal, subjective views aside from anything that doesn't directly cause harm to non-consenting parties. For me it comes down to enlightened self interest. I have a number of opinions, some quite strong, on what is and isn't moral. However, I recognise that if I go about trying to impose my subjective opinion on others regardless of their opinion, I lose any right to complain when someone else seeks to impose his subjective opinion on me despite my disagreeing.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I have none of those rights, which doesn't prevent me from doing what I want to do. The fact there is no natural right to freedom doesn't entail I must submit. Don't worry, I know what I am talking about. How much are you willing to bet ?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
No it's not. Murder is quite clearly defined, and abortion falls outside those definitions on several points. I get that you really, really want to use the emotive trump card word to lend weight to your subjective, opinion based beliefs, but it's simply incorrect.