Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

[JJ50]

It isn't applicable there are no circumstances in which you can force someone to save anothers life. Even Christ was not forced into saving the world.
He chose to do it..

What?[/QUOTE] The problem when you start off from your own personal take on a topic is that it can become very tunnel vision. Where you ask a question which is designed to force
an answer you want rather than a persons personal views. If you want pro-life to be about abortion then say so. When it comes to abortion a baby is already alive in the womb and it does not need
saving by another. The woman has a choice to keep or kill the baby within her. My reply would be this. :- In an age where unwanted pregnancy is not an issue why get pregnant to kill it? People should be made to pay for their abortions if there is no assault or underage pregnancy. Women having unwanted pregnancy is not acceptable. They should be made to pay if they want an abortion as contraception is available.


Ethical questions surrounding abortion show that it is no longer any reason for any unwanted pregnancy outside rape and abusive partners. Also children underage sex. I see the point in abortion for those but not for people who have the means to avoid pregnancy - getting pregnant. Make them pay full cost of abortion then it might make them stop getting pregnant the right way.Do we have the right to tell others what to do with their body? NO but we have the right to make them pay for what they have done if they ignore the proper way to avoid it.[/QUOTE]

The morning after pill is freely available here in the UK, even for under 16s.

 

[charlie sc]

It isn't applicable there are no circumstances in which you can force someone to save anothers life. Even Christ was not forced into saving the world.
He chose to do it..

Good, you're pro-choice. I'm glad you're displaying some rationality.

The problem when you start off from your own personal take on a topic is that it can become very tunnel vision. Where you ask a question which is designed to force
an answer you want rather than a persons personal views.

It's only irrational if it's no and then yes to the questions. This is definitely not tunnel vision.

When it comes to abortion a baby is already alive in the womb and it does not need
saving by another. The woman has a choice to keep or kill the baby within her.

It does. If we could keep a fetus alive without the mother, we would. However, this is not the case. Since the mother is in control of her body, removing the baby is not killing for a number of reasons. The mother is keeping the fetus alive and by removing it, it dies. Fetuses outside the womb bellow 22 weeks don't survive. One could argue that the mother kills the fetus, or likely kills it, if they use a method of abortion that destroys the fetus if it has a good possibility of survival outside the womb. However, this argument is self defeating, because (1st) it promotes pro-choice and emphasises abortions that keep the fetus alive (2nd) by doing abortions that have intentions to save the fetus removes the possibility of killing even if the fetus dies. Though this this argument has some contention, because just by removing to fetus prematurely is already damaging enough to the fetus, even when done by professionals. And now, apparently, you want women to pay for it. Eh, not given this much thought, huh?

In an age where unwanted pregnancy is not an issue why get pregnant to kill it? People should be made to pay for their abortions if there is no assault or underage pregnancy. Women having unwanted pregnancy is not acceptable. They should be made to pay if they want an abortion as contraception is available.

Made to pay, huh? How? You understand that the abortion process is not exactly a pleasant one and I have no idea how you'd differentiate between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted pregnancy that happened even when precautions were taken or that you even care.

Also children underage sex. I see the point in abortion for those but not for people who have the means to avoid pregnancy - getting pregnant.

Yeah, and contraceptives aren't perfect and sometimes things just go wrong.

Make them pay full cost of abortion then it might make them stop getting pregnant the right way.

lol

.Do we have the right to tell others what to do with their body? NO

You pass the rationality test. So, that's something. *clap*

 

[BSM1]

It isn't applicable there are no circumstances in which you can force someone to save anothers life. Even Christ was not forced into saving the world.
He chose to do it..

What?[/QUOTE] The problem when you start off from your own personal take on a topic is that it can become very tunnel vision. Where you ask a question which is designed to force
an answer you want rather than a persons personal views. If you want pro-life to be about abortion then say so. When it comes to abortion a baby is already alive in the womb and it does not need
saving by another. The woman has a choice to keep or kill the baby within her. My reply would be this. :- In an age where unwanted pregnancy is not an issue why get pregnant to kill it? People should be made to pay for their abortions if there is no assault or underage pregnancy. Women having unwanted pregnancy is not acceptable. They should be made to pay if they want an abortion as contraception is available.


Ethical questions surrounding abortion show that it is no longer any reason for any unwanted pregnancy outside rape and abusive partners. Also children underage sex. I see the point in abortion for those but not for people who have the means to avoid pregnancy - getting pregnant. Make them pay full cost of abortion then it might make them stop getting pregnant the right way.Do we have the right to tell others what to do with their body? NO but we have the right to make them pay for what they have done if they ignore the proper way to avoid it.[/QUOTE]

Sooo...how much should we charge the one that impregnated her in the first place? Oh, I forgot, the woman should have known better. Right?

 

[1213]

Do you think abortion is murder?

I think it is murder when people kill other people without just reason.

 

[1213]

It should abort itself first as it is the evil one in chief.

Why you think God is evil, because He doesn’t give eternal life for unrighteous evil people?

 

[JJ50]

Why you think God is evil, because He doesn’t give eternal life for unrighteous evil people?

The god character supposedly will allow the so called 'saved' into heaven even if they have been bad on earth, yet good unbelievers are destined for hell. If any of that garbage is true, god is a psycho.

 

[BSM1]

I think it is murder when people kill other people without just reason.

Then maybe you should google the definition of murder.

You think a fourteen year old rape victim aborting the forced fetus she carries is murder?

 

[1213]

...
You think a fourteen year old rape victim aborting the forced fetus she carries is murder?

If it would be murder to kill the child when he is for example 5 years old, then logically it is murder if the baby is for example 5 months old.

 

[1213]

The god character supposedly will allow the so called 'saved' into heaven even if they have been bad on earth, yet good unbelievers are destined for hell. If any of that garbage is true, god is a psycho.

Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. If believer, or unbeliever is not righteous, he doesn’t get eternal life.


These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46


For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

And righteousness means for example this:


He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

 

[BSM1]

If it would be murder to kill the child when he is for example 5 years old, then logically it is murder if the baby is for example 5 months old.

Obviously this is not what we're talking about.

 

[Unguru]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

Side note: this is about abortion Pro-life vs pro-choice *edited

People should not be banging each other if they're not mature enough to face the consequences of "accidentally" getting pregnant. If they can't deal with that, then they shouldn't be having sex. Doesn't take an Einstein to work that out.
Best you can do, is go against nature further and make stronger birth control pills or stronger condoms etc.
Just don't have sex, touch each other sure, but don't bang. Easy. Simple. Solved. No abortions needed and everyone is happy.

 

[Trailblazer]

No woman should ever be forced to continue with a pregnancy if she doesn't wish to do so.

She should have thought of that before she had sex.

So now a life has to be taken just because she would be inconvenienced by continuing with the pregnancy and giving birth to a child she could give to another woman who cannot have children.
Sounds like a case of selfishness to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

People should not be banging each other if they're not mature enough to face the consequences of "accidentally" getting pregnant. If they can't deal with that, then they shouldn't be having sex. Doesn't take an Einstein to work that out.

That is absolutely correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it would be murder to kill the child when he is for example 5 years old, then logically it is murder if the baby is for example 5 months old.

Or 5 hours old, since life begins at the moment of conception.

 

[BSM1]

She should have thought of that before she had sex.

So now a life has to be taken just because she would be inconvenienced by continuing with the pregnancy and giving birth to a child she could give to another woman who cannot have children.
Sounds like a case of selfishness to me.

You do know how that works, right? It takes two. What do we do with the other participant?

 

[BSM1]

Or 5 hours old, since life begins at the moment of conception.

Says who?

 

[Trailblazer]

You do know how that works, right? It takes two. What do we do with the other participant?

It takes two: She should have thought of that before she chose to have sex.

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

 

[Trailblazer]

Says who?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

 

[BSM1]

It takes two: She should have thought of that before she chose to have sex.

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

Soooo...we're back to punishing women?

 

[Trailblazer]

Soooo...we're back to punishing women?

Punishing women? Carrying an unwanted child to term is an inconvenience at best.
Women have children every single day. It is really no big deal.

Moreover, there are women all over the place who cannot have children who would want that child more than anything in the world. That child could be loved and have a life. Instead, children are slaughtered by the millions just for convenience.