Your view on abortion. Atheist welcome.

[dawny0826]

How would you feel if the anti-abortion lobby were able to convince the authorities that be, to classify the forming foetus as a living person, meaning that you could be charged with murder or manslaughter for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry, even though by nature, she may not have been able to carry her pregnancy to its full term.

My views at one point were quite harsh but have softened signifantly over the past year. Personally, I believe that life is sacred and begins at conception. I believe that life isn't ours to destroy and I have no respect for an individual who elects NOT to utilize contraception, willingly has sex and then aborts as a way of "dealing" with the situation. Abortion is legal in the state of VA for 1st and 2nd trimester abortions. Third trimester abortions are illegal unless the life of mother or baby are endangered.

Do you accuse a woman who had an abortion, of having killed her unborn child?

Well, yes. Regardless of the reasons, if one terminates their pregnancy, they're partially responsible for ending the life of the their unborn.

Or do you believe that a woman has the right of decision over her own body, and believe that she has the right to terminate the continued growth of the unwanted potential person=spirit who may develop in that body if it is allowed to form into a mature human body?

I believe that therapeutic abortions should always be legal. And I believe that parents should have the ability to decide whether they want to bring a child into the world with a severe disability. Prior to experiencing such loss in my own family, my attitude was harsher. I watched my sister struggle with such a decision. When she opted to terminate the pregnancy, she had my unconditional support. The pain that she endured was something that I hope never to experience in my lifetime. Who would I be to judge her or fight against her rights? She was carrying a broken, dying child in her womb that she loved and wanted. She did what she felt was best for her baby boy. I'm thankful that the laws here, provided her the opportunity to make such a decision.

I personally believe that elective (non-therapeutic) abortion is repulsive. Because the law protects individuals like my sister, rape victims and those who require a termination because the pregnancy isn't viable or poses a legitimate health risk...I'm content with Virginia's laws on abortion.

 

[3.14]

i'm against abortions as long as the men don't get equel rights in the survivel of the child,
if a men wants the baby and the woman doesn't men loses
if the men doesn't want the baby and the woman does the men loses(unless he just happens to acidentaly kill the fetus stairs then its assault)

and if the baby is born the father is by law obligated to take care of it(monetary or physical ) els its neglect

 

[crystalonyx]

I believe no life is sacred, but all life is important. The woman has the right to control her own body, not the church down the street, or a nanny state.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is it a holocaust in your stomach when the microbes that were on your food die from being digested?

What I mean to say is that by using the word "murder" as you do it cheapens and diminishes the term. I mean you really wouldn't compare someone stabbing someone you loved dearly to death to someone swatting a mosquito that had bitten them, would you?

Not without thinking about it.

Death is necessary for life. Whenever you eat, you're eating something that was killed. Probably bred for the sake of being food. (plant or animal)

I'm not so morbid about death as others. It's just a natural and necessary step in life.

Though to tell you the truth, I'm a bit of a hypocrite in this issue, because while I want to believe all senseless killing is bad, I would not do much more than raise an eyebrow to someone swatting a mosquito; if a human being is getting killed, my adrenaline gets raised a lot, and it's hard to keep a straight head.

 

[Riverwolf]

if a men wants the baby and the woman doesn't men loses
if the men doesn't want the baby and the woman does the men loses(unless he just happens to acidentaly kill the fetus stairs then its assault)

and if the baby is born the father is by law obligated to take care of it(monetary or physical ) els its neglect

I am all for abortion. I think the matter is strictly between a woman and her doctor, period.
I do not even grant rights to the father to have any say in the matter whatsoever.
In fact, I don't think that men should have any say on the matter at all... so, on that note, adios.

Hadn't thought of these. I think I'll adopt them. :angel2:

 

[Falvlun]

Murder and killing are synonymous. Both mean the same thing to me.

River, you really just can't make up the definitions to words. I mean, how would it work out if I was debating about whether 2+2=4, and I am stubbornly claiming it's 2+2=5, and then when someone challenges my position I just say, oh, well 4 and 5 are really just synonymous to me. It's not fair fighting. :no:

Do you accuse a woman who had an abortion, of having killed her unborn child? Or do you believe that a woman has the right of decision over her own body, and believe that she has the right to terminate the continued growth of the unwanted potential person=spirit who may develop in that body if it is allowed to form into a mature human body?

First off, I don't think anybody truly wants abortion to be a tool for contraception.
I would think even the most die-hard pro-abortion activist would hope it can eventually only be used as a tool when other methods have failed. This involves raising the awareness, use, and acceptance of other forms of contraceptives.

Secondly, I would much prefer the child be aborted then born into a home unfit for raising a child (or perhaps, more children). A mother seeking an abortion has had the strength of humility to see that she is unable or unwilling to raise this child.

Thirdly, I think the world is horribly over-populated, and the sad truth is is that we don't need so many dang babies.

Here is the compromise I have come up with through many debates:
Abortions should be legal and available up to the third month of pregnancy. By the fourth month, baby has a heartbeat, can feel, and has minimal consciousness of its surroundings. If I remember correctly, premies as young as 5 months have been able to survive outside of the womb. I think these characteristics mark the fetus as clearly having human life, and accordingly should be afforded some protection under the law.

Three months also gives the woman time to a) find out she is pregnant and b) make a choice.

The law would be bendable in the case of harm to the health of the mother, and/or extreme suffering of the fetus (by this, I mean something like a defect that would only allow it to live a few painful days after birth, etc; certainly not things like Down's Syndrome, etc).

 

[danny vee]

I think that if you have created life through sex, then yes, abortion is killing it. Just because the baby is in the womb, doesn't mean its not a baby, and not a living being. We really are all nine months older than what we generally say we are. If you've made life, then don't kill it.

 

[McBell]

I think that if you have created life through sex, then yes, abortion is killing it.

Sex does not "create" life.
Both the sperm and egg are alive when they meet.
If either is dead, fertilization cannot occur.

Just because the baby is in the womb, doesn't mean its not a baby, and not a living being.

This makes no sense as written.
The fetus is not a baby until after it is born.

We really are all nine months older than what we generally say we are.

Really?
Why not take the age back to when the lucky sperm was made?


The reason ones age starts at birth (at least in most cases) is because birth is a known thing.
Conception, on the other hand, is not so easy to pinpoint.

 

[S-word]

River, you really just can't make up the definitions to words. I mean, how would it work out if I was debating about whether 2+2=4, and I am stubbornly claiming it's 2+2=5, and then when someone challenges my position I just say, oh, well 4 and 5 are really just synonymous to me. It's not fair fighting. :no:

First off, I don't think anybody truly wants abortion to be a tool for contraception.
I would think even the most die-hard pro-abortion activist would hope it can eventually only be used as a tool when other methods have failed. This involves raising the awareness, use, and acceptance of other forms of contraceptives.

Secondly, I would much prefer the child be aborted then born into a home unfit for raising a child (or perhaps, more children). A mother seeking an abortion has had the strength of humility to see that she is unable or unwilling to raise this child.

Thirdly, I think the world is horribly over-populated, and the sad truth is is that we don't need so many dang babies.

Here is the compromise I have come up with through many debates:
Abortions should be legal and available up to the third month of pregnancy. By the fourth month, baby has a heartbeat, can feel, and has minimal consciousness of its surroundings. If I remember correctly, premies as young as 5 months have been able to survive outside of the womb. I think these characteristics mark the fetus as clearly having human life, and accordingly should be afforded some protection under the law.

Three months also gives the woman time to a) find out she is pregnant and b) make a choice.

The law would be bendable in the case of harm to the health of the mother, and/or extreme suffering of the fetus (by this, I mean something like a defect that would only allow it to live a few painful days after birth, etc; certainly not things like Down's Syndrome, etc).

My sentiment exactly friend Falvlun. If a member of my family chooses to abort an otherwise healthy and normal, yet unwanted growth, that will be clasified as human when it takes it's first breath and begins to absorb, through the senses of that created animal body, the knowledge that will begin the growth of the 'I Am,' which is a potential child of God, I would do everything in my power to convince them to allow the process to continue, even to adopting the potential child ourselves. But, if it is her choice to go ahead with the abortion, she would have my unqualified support and woe betide anyone who would dare to call her (To my face) a murderess.

As to the rights of the man, I would ask, how many potential children has he washed out of his bed linen, and did he go to sleep hoping for the wet dream simply because he meets a better class of woman there, (The woman of his dreams)?

 

[Riverwolf]

River, you really just can't make up the definitions to words. I mean, how would it work out if I was debating about whether 2+2=4, and I am stubbornly claiming it's 2+2=5, and then when someone challenges my position I just say, oh, well 4 and 5 are really just synonymous to me. It's not fair fighting. :no:

Except spoken languages and mathematics are completely different, in that making up new words and definitions is how languages evolve.

Otherwise we'd still be speaking Old English.

 

[S-word]

Except spoken languages and mathematics are completely different, in that making up new words and definitions is how languages evolve.

Otherwise we'd still be speaking Old English.

You're correct mate, language does evolve and new definitions to old words have to be rewritting into our dictionarys. but you must be reading from a dictionary that you have written yourself, for murder is the unlawfull killing of of one human being by another, a shark does not murder a man, 'Kill him and eat him,' Yea, but not murder him, nor does a soldier in combat murder the enemy. Of course I could use the word murder in another context such as, you my friend are murdering the English language by trying to define, killing something that is not legally defined as a human being, as murder.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're correct mate, language does evolve and new definitions to old words have to be rewritting into our dictionarys. but you must be reading from a dictionary that you have written yourself, for murder is the unlawfull killing of of one human being by another, a shark does not murder a man, 'Kill him and eat him,' Yea, but not murder him, nor does a soldier in combat murder the enemy. Of course I could use the word murder in another context such as, you my friend are murdering the English language by trying to define, killing something that is not legally defined as a human being, as murder.

Why can't I write my own dictionary?

BTW IMO a soldier is murdering his enemy when he shoots the combatant. (I'm anti-war)

I'm aware of the subtle differences between "killing" and "murder", but as far as I'm concerned those differences are only implications of the words. Such as "murder" implies killing needlessly, like a person just randomly killing the next person who passes him on the street, or a person killing someone because they made him mad. I'm aware of that.

I only go by how things are legally defined if the law and I cross paths. Otherwise I either use my own definition, or whatever the word originally meant, because the actual definitions or usages of words can be lost over time.

 

[leahrachelle]

Cool.

How many do you plan on adopting?

You can't use this forever

 

[leahrachelle]

I am breaking my own rule posting this but I am pro life. Even if I didn't follow Jesus I would still be pro life.

Agree.
When I was Christian I was pro-life. I am still just as strongly against it. I don't need religion to tell me right from wrong.

 

[leahrachelle]

Well, yes. Regardless of the reasons, if one terminates their pregnancy, they're partially responsible for ending the life of the their unborn.

Partially?? In what way do you feel that they are not responsible.

I believe that therapeutic abortions should always be legal. And I believe that parents should have the ability to decide whether they want to bring a child into the world with a severe disability. Prior to experiencing such loss in my own family, my attitude was harsher. I watched my sister struggle with such a decision. When she opted to terminate the pregnancy, she had my unconditional support. The pain that she endured was something that I hope never to experience in my lifetime. Who would I be to judge her or fight against her rights? She was carrying a broken, dying child in her womb that she loved and wanted. She did what she felt was best for her baby boy. I'm thankful that the laws here, provided her the opportunity to make such a decision.

I personally believe that elective (non-therapeutic) abortion is repulsive. Because the law protects individuals like my sister, rape victims and those who require a termination because the pregnancy isn't viable or poses a legitimate health risk...I'm content with Virginia's laws on abortion.

What if it was just allowed in those cases? Wouldn't it be better. You don't have to support 98% of abortions for the 2% that you agree with. How about just agree with those 2%?

 

[dawny0826]

Partially?? In what way do you feel that they are not responsible.

Do the indivdiuals who perform the abortions not share responsbility?

What if it was just allowed in those cases? Wouldn't it be better. You don't have to support 98% of abortions for the 2% that you agree with. How about just agree with those 2%?

Provide me an opportunity to vote for change, I will.

 

[leahrachelle]

Do the indivdiuals who perform the abortions not share responsbility?

Provide me an opportunity to vote for change, I will.

Oh okay, I understand.

 

[dawny0826]

Oh okay, I understand.

I'm pro-life and I would be if I wasn't religious.

 

[leahrachelle]

I'm pro-life and I would be if I wasn't religious.

I feel the same way, because I used to be Christian.

 

[logician]

Better to have an abortion, than bring a child into a home where its not wanted, or worse, into poverty and hunger. Let the woman's own beliefs decide, not someone else's.