Religious views on abortion

[BilliardsBall]

Then your argument falls apart, since there is a tangible health cost attached to your suggestion of forcing C-sections on unwilling mothers, and the issue becomes moot.


I think that should be left to the woman affected by said pregnancy, not a bunch of old men whose investment in the issue stops and ends with their personal conception of abstract ethics. I am not carrying a child to term nor am I involved with a woman who does, so my opinion on the matter of should not be relevant.

My position solely concerns the principal question of whether a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, and I've come down firmly on the side of rejecting such a demand based on principles of personal liberty.

Whether a child should be carried to term or not is a decision to be made by the person whose body and child is on the line, and nobody else. in my opinion.


I do not believe that it is my responsibility to force pregnancies on women.

So asking again,

If a woman is nine months pregnant and the doctor says, "Now now, but we will induce next week, baby's almost here," and she's had enough, she should be allowed to abort?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about one later term abortion a decade. Is that "okay" for you or not? If not, why not?

That would be far too rare since there is a genuine need for them.

Can you be realistic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So asking again,

If a woman is nine months pregnant and the doctor says, "Now now, but we will induce next week, baby's almost here," and she's had enough, she should be allowed to abort?

This is what is called a strawman argument.

 

[Kooky]

So asking again,

If a woman is nine months pregnant and the doctor says, "Now now, but we will induce next week, baby's almost here," and she's had enough, she should be allowed to abort?

You seem to be keen on building a strawman of women solely seeking out abortions for their own amusement, and perhaps out of a willful drive to sin, rather than because they ran out of any other viable options.

Perhaps her life is in danger, and she'd rather not go through a dangerous pregnancy.
Perhaps she was pressured to endure her pregnancy by religious fundamentalists, and the doctor is the first person in her life to actually ask her opinion.
Perhaps a domestic abuser forced her into a pregnancy against her will, and she could only break free from their grasp while her pregnancy had advanced considerably.

Why shouldn't she be allowed to abort in these situations?
What's the sound, compelling argument to force women to endure pregnancies against their will?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You seem to be keen on building a strawman of women solely seeking out abortions for their own amusement, and perhaps out of a willful drive to sin, rather than because they ran out of any other viable options.

Perhaps her life is in danger, and she'd rather not go through a dangerous pregnancy.
Perhaps she was pressured to endure her pregnancy by religious fundamentalists, and the doctor is the first person in her life to actually ask her opinion.
Perhaps a domestic abuser forced her into a pregnancy against her will, and she could only break free from their grasp while her pregnancy had advanced considerably.

Why shouldn't she be allowed to abort in these situations?
What's the sound, compelling argument to force women to endure pregnancies against their will?

"Ran out of other viable options"? You mean like adoption?

 

[Kooky]

"Ran out of other viable options"? You mean like adoption?

People here have described the experience of adoption as traumatizing in and of itself, so it seems evident to me that at least for some women, it wouldn't be a viable option compared to abortion.

Was that the only point you wanted to address?

 

[BilliardsBall]

People here have described the experience of adoption as traumatizing in and of itself, so it seems evident to me that at least for some women, it wouldn't be a viable option compared to abortion.

Was that the only point you wanted to address?

I have children and would prefer them to be taken away by social services and placed in a home rather than being killed--that would be more traumatic for me and their mother.

I don't believe adoption is more traumatic than abortion, and I ask you (humbly, gently, not meanly) to see if you can get some who've had abortions to open up to you about their experience, perceptions and hindsight.

Thank you.

 

[Kooky]

I have children and would prefer them to be taken away by social services and placed in a home rather than being killed--that would be more traumatic for me and their mother.

I don't believe adoption is more traumatic than abortion, and I ask you (humbly, gently, not meanly) to see if you can get some who've had abortions to open up to you about their experience, perceptions and hindsight.

Thank you.

Did your government force these children on you against your own wishes, or did you choose to have them out of your own free will?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did your government force these children on you against your own wishes, or did you choose to have them out of your own free will?

Forgive me, but a moot question.

I've suggested that the trauma of abortion is worse by far than the trauma of adoption--certainly that's what I've learned from people I've interacted with.

Imposing libertarian ideas on the ancient concept of responsibility [in both gestation and parenting] is moot.

 

[Kooky]

Forgive me, but a moot question.

I've suggested that the trauma of abortion is worse by far than the trauma of adoption--certainly that's what I've learned from people I've interacted with.

You've suggested as such, but clearly can't actually back it up with evidence.

Instead, you are now trying to assert, without supporting evidence or argumentative reasoning, that the question of forced pregnancy is irrelevant to the question of abortion, when the former is the direct and causal consequence of forcibly preventing the latter against a woman's will.

This suggests to me either a lack of supporting argumentation in your position, or a lack of willingness to honestly look at the ethical stakes to the issue. But you're welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Imposing libertarian ideas on the ancient concept of responsibility [in both gestation and parenting] is moot.

How "ancient" do you believe the issue of abortion actually is? 50 years? 100? 150?

Fact is: There is nothing "ancient" about a modern post-industrial state forcing women to bring pregnancies to term against their will despite the theoretical availability of medical methods and technologies to prevent unwanted pregnancy or end it prematurely.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've suggested as such, but clearly can't actually back it up with evidence.

Instead, you are now trying to assert, without supporting evidence or argumentative reasoning, that the question of forced pregnancy is irrelevant to the question of abortion, when the former is the direct and causal consequence of forcibly preventing the latter against a woman's will.

This suggests to me either a lack of supporting argumentation in your position, or a lack of willingness to honestly look at the ethical stakes to the issue. But you're welcome to demonstrate otherwise.



How "ancient" do you believe the issue of abortion actually is? 50 years? 100? 150?

Fact is: There is nothing "ancient" about a modern post-industrial state forcing women to bring pregnancies to term against their will despite the theoretical availability of medical methods and technologies to prevent unwanted pregnancy or end it prematurely.

Although some of my evidence is anecdotal, I worked as an Assistant Director of a Crisis Pregnancy Center, and saw some magnificent, joyous adoptions, where the mother was cherished and continued a relationship with her child!

I don't mind giving statistics or hard evidence, but I do mind when people can't see simple, obvious truth. It is less traumatic to give a child to adoption than it is to kill a child. That you ask for evidence for same I find disturbing.

Again, I stress personal responsibility, which must be balanced with personal autonomy, or society collapses and children grow up to become skeptics at RF and other unsavory things, no offense!

 

[Kooky]

I don't mind giving statistics or hard evidence, but I do mind when people can't see simple, obvious truth.

Me too!

You may find enforced pregnancies the more lenient, more joyous policy - that's fair - but we still have to accept this very simple moral fact: If the state outlaws abortion, it forces pregnancies on women who do not want them - and you're either in favor of that, or you're not.

There is no way around that simple, obvious truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So asking again,

If a woman is nine months pregnant and the doctor says, "Now now, but we will induce next week, baby's almost here," and she's had enough, she should be allowed to abort?

She should be allowed to end the pregnancy.

At that stage, ending the pregnancy by inducing a live birth would be reasonable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is what is called a strawman argument.

Strawman or not, it shows that @BilliardsBall doesn't have the first clue about bodily autonomy.

... or consent more generally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman or not, it shows that @BilliardsBall doesn't have the first clue about bodily autonomy.

... or consent more generally.

Consent is greatly overrated. Ask Matt Gaetz about that. I

Seriously one romantic evening was spoiled when the girl I was with had a bit too much. It totally spoiled the mood. I know that some would have gone ahead and assumed consent, but I was more worried about her well being at that time. The answer was "yes" until then. But without active consent the answer is always "No". Eventually there was a happy ending, just not that night.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Strawman or not, it shows that @BilliardsBall doesn't have the first clue about bodily autonomy.

... or consent more generally.

Which is not a refutation. Let's do a formal debate at a college and see how far you get with "he doesn't know what he's talking about" WITHOUT providing FACTS.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is not a refutation. Let's do a formal debate at a college and see how far you get with "he doesn't know what he's talking about" WITHOUT providing FACTS.

Okay, sea lion.

Since you seem to have trouble reading the room:

I'm not debating you; I'm mocking you.

Your anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-acknowleding-basic-human-dignity, hypocritical position doesn't warrant the bare mininum of respect that I would need to debate it as a reasonable position.

Your position is evil. I would just as soon debate someone about the morality of the anti-choice movement as I would debate someone about mass rape, and largely for the same reasons.

I'm not looking to convince you of anything; I'm looking to marginalize you. And as far as I'm concerned, you can complain to the other anti-choicers in your youth group about how badly you think you've been treated as long as you and them are never again in the position to inflict harm on another pregnant person.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, sea lion.

Since you seem to have trouble reading the room:

I'm not debating you; I'm mocking you.

Your anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-acknowleding-basic-human-dignity, hypocritical position doesn't warrant the bare mininum of respect that I would need to debate it as a reasonable position.

Your position is evil. I would just as soon debate someone about the morality of the anti-choice movement as I would debate someone about mass rape, and largely for the same reasons.

I'm not looking to convince you of anything; I'm looking to marginalize you. And as far as I'm concerned, you can complain to the other anti-choicers in your youth group about how badly you think you've been treated as long as you and them are never again in the position to inflict harm on another pregnant person.

I think I better understand now, thank you.

It is evil to promote bringing beautiful babies in the world and to allow serial killers back into the general population, and righteous or "holy" to kill babies, even late into gestation, and let murderers roam free.

Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I better understand now, thank you.

It is evil to promote bringing beautiful babies in the world and to allow serial killers back into the general population, and righteous or "holy" to kill babies, even late into gestation, and let murderers roam free.

Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

No, it's evil to promote the idea that a person's body doesn't belong to them.

It's the ideology behind the Tuskegee Experiments. It's the ideology behind the forced abortions in China under the one child policy. It's the ideology behind the forced sterilization of people deemed "unfit" by the state. It's the ideology of a rapist.

And it's the ideology of the so-called "pro-life" movement.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it's evil to promote the idea that a person's body doesn't belong to them.

It's the ideology behind the Tuskegee Experiments. It's the ideology behind the forced abortions in China under the one child policy. It's the ideology behind the forced sterilization of people deemed "unfit" by the state. It's the ideology of a rapist.

And it's the ideology of the so-called "pro-life" movement.

Ideaology/schmideology: SCIENCE tells us a gestating mother doesn't have AUTONOMY, she has a being inside her she cares for. The foetus and mother are connected intimately. There are health benefits to the mother, there is a glow to the human father also, if his conscience isn't deadened.

The mother and foetus are a great application of the Trinity--interdependent, different roles.