When is abortion wrong?

  • Thread starter Delirious
  • 551 comments
  • 13,215 views

When is abortion wrong?

  • It is wrong no matter how old the child is

    Votes: 20 32.3%
  • It is wrong after the 1st trimester

    Votes: 4 6.5%
  • It is wrong after the 2nd trimester

    Votes: 12 19.4%
  • It does not matter how old the child is

    Votes: 20 32.3%
  • I don't have an opinion on the matter

    Votes: 6 9.7%

  • Total voters
    62
In the first quote I was being sarcastic.

Uh, how is it that a fertilzed egg is potential for human life and life begins at conception contradictory. I understand that if you yanked out the embryo at conception it would die. Or that miscarriages are embryos that didn't make it. So, it's life, that has a potential for become fully independent human. That doesn't change that I believe life starts at conception.
 
Not every fertilized egg actualy embeds into the uterine wall . This " life " as you describe it is flushed out with the menstrual flow . But all this quibble and quelling about when life begins still has not addressed the problem of forcing a person to bring a child to term . Do they become chattel when they get pregnant and lose all rights over their own body or do they remain free individuals ? What right do have to enslave someone and turn them into breeding stock ?
 
ledhed
But all this quibble and quelling about when life begins still has not addressed the problem of forcing a person to bring a child to term . Do they become chattel when they get pregnant and lose all rights over their own body or do they remain free individuals ? What right do have to enslave someone and turn them into breeding stock ?

I've explained my position on this more times then I care to mention.
 
All I have seen is you posting that if you dont want babies dont have sex. ( to paraphrase )
To me thats a very unrealistic posistion and implies that if you have sex you are giving up your rights over your own body . What about the millions upon millions who take all precautions not to concieve and still become pregnant ? By your posistion its tough titty they lose and are FORCED to bring an unwanted child into the world . What do you do with those that refuse to be pregnant and find some means to abort the child ?
not everyone believes as you do that life is formed at conception. Are you willing to force by law your religion on them ? Your belief is not a medical one but is based on your religion .
What do you do with the people who believe that a human life happens at birth and not before ? Or those that believe a human life happens when a fetus is viable outside the womb ?
 
ledhed
All I have seen is you posting that if you dont want babies dont have sex. ( to paraphrase )
To me thats a very unrealistic posistion and implies that if you have sex you are giving up your rights over your own body . What about the millions upon millions who take all precautions not to concieve and still become pregnant ?

It doesn't mean you give up your rights. It means you take responsibility for your actions. Man, I'm starting to feel like a broken record here.
 
Sure you take responsibilty for your actions and go out and remove an unwanted item from your body. unless of course you are willing to deny that option to a person and use force to insure that they will bring an unwanted baby to term . Then what ? Do you take the unwanted baby from them or leave it with them and force them to care for it . Do we go out and open new prisons for all the new unresponsible people who say " screw you I dont want it " ? Or do we go back to the good old days when the rich went to a clinic or a private and discrete Doctor and the poor went to the vet or a hag with a hanger ?
You do realise that the people who believe a human is created at birth ARE taking responsibility by using abortion as last resort for birth control do you not ?
 
It doesn't mean you give up your rights. It means you take responsibility for your actions. Man, I'm starting to feel like a broken record here.

Forcing someone to take "responsibility" (as you put it) for their actions is removing their rights.

If I force someone to be "responsible" and pay their debts to me. That means that I am revoking their right to their money/property. If I force someone to be responsible by making them take care for their child, that means I am revoking their right to do otherwise. If I force a criminal to be held responsible for the crime he commits, I do so by removing his right to freedom (or even his very life).

Force means the removal of rights. By forcing people to be "responsible" for having sex (not that you've established that having a child is more responsible than having an abortion), you are removing their rights to thier own body - making them carry a fetus to term. It's a horrible thought that someone's life can begin by force (since life begins at birth).
 
So, a mortgage company is taking away your rights by foclosing on your house? or the bank is taking away your rights when repoing your car for non payment? Nope, you went into that situation KNOWING what the consequences are for non payment.

Same with sex. EVERYONE knows that you can get pregnant from sex, so you're accepting that responsibility by engaging in sex.
 
And your accepting that responsibility by having an abortion. As well as taking a birth control pill . You do know that the pill works by preventing the fertilized eggs you consider " life " from becoming embeded in the uterine wall . unless you would like to make that illegal too. By your logic you would be forcing the guy into not taking out a loan to pay his debt or getting a remortgage.
 
Well, I can see that it's not possible for you to see what I'm saying. So I guess we'll agree to disagree.
 
Swift
So, a mortgage company is taking away your rights by foclosing on your house? or the bank is taking away your rights when repoing your car for non payment? Nope, you went into that situation KNOWING what the consequences are for non payment.

Same with sex. EVERYONE knows that you can get pregnant from sex, so you're accepting that responsibility by engaging in sex.

Well I'm glad you're life's that simple (I guess the attraction of fundamentalism is just that - simplicity). My life on the other hand isn't, and since the subject is sensitive to many and practically a taboo in the U.S., and you rarely hear about it, I will make an exception and give you my recent and very personal experience with this subject (which has not changed my stance).

I've recently met the girl of my dreams, my soulmate, etc. When I met her, she was with another guy, but they had an open relationship. Initially, when I started talking (or rather chatting) with her, I was just curious. She is 7 years older than me, and I had up to that point never talked to someone who was in an open relationship before. We discovered pretty soon that we were kindred spirits to an almost worrying degree, an expeirence I hadn't come near to in 10 years. After two-three weeks of chatting, we just had to meet, and we hit it off in an amazing and earth-shattering way, physically, mentally, everything. I truly enjoyed spending time with her and didn't mind that she was already with someone else, grateful as I was for the time I could spend with her.

The relationship she was in up to that point had lasted 15 years, which wasn't going anywhere (they had convinced each other they didn't want kids, up to the point where he had sterilised himself), but it wasn't outright bad either - they were good friends. I myself had a few failing relationships behind me before that, where I've sacrificed a lot of myself to make the relationship work, which didn't work out. When we spent time together, we were both amazed with how giving we both were, which resulted in both of us being more at the receiving end a lot more than we were used to. When discussing kids, she clearly indicated that the idea scared her and she didn't want them, but I equally clearly indicated that I loved the idea of kids and also expressed that I couldn't think of anyone better than her to have them with, in love as I was with her genes. ;) I was actually the first guy she met who wanted kids, live together and so on, outside of her current relationship, and she was greatly moved by this. It made her question a lot of things, one of them her position on children.

On the second weekend, the condom broke. She suggested a morning after pill, and I found myself resisting the idea - I loved her so much, she seemed so much the perfect match, and the chance that two people get pregnant at this point in life seemed so small to me (I had actually been trying with another girl once before), that this one time I wanted to find out if where we seemed to match on all other areas, we matched here also. But I accepted her wish - considering the circumstances it made a lot of sense of course - and the morning after pill was taken. I also took an HIV test, especially since there was a third person involved here. Both she and he, by the way, are blood donors, and very careful.

We had another weekend together (every other weekend - her boyfriend also dated other women), and each weekend we rapidly drew closer. Then, a week or so after that, she discovered she was pregnant.

This opened our eyes to a lot of things. We took six days and a weekend together to seriously consider whether we should keep the child. I talked to everyone close to me, and as I had already planned to introduce her to my father we discussed this with him also. We fantasized endlessly about what it would be like, and what practical issues we needed to overcome. In the end, there were two great objections. I wouldn't be able to sell my house and change jobs quickly enough to be with her (cancelling her job wasn't an option, I'm still more flexible in that area), and when she discussed having a child with her boyfriend, he freaked out and couldn't bear it, said he would leave and never see her again if she went on with it. So keeping the child had two large objections. I couldn't be with her to support her, and she would destroy her relationship with the up to that point most important person in her life.

After a very tough decision, she decided to have the abortion. I still wanted to keep the child, but I respected her decision and did understand it was probably the best thing to do. It would have been far too much at once - after all, she didn't want children up to that point and the idea alone freaked her out; and I greatly respected also the bond she had with her boyfriend - fifteen years is not something you want to throw away just like that. The number of hurdles to be taken was huge - for her: break up, move out, overcome her fear of having children, etc.; for me: move to another place 200km away, change jobs, etc. And and each of them were big things that would have been better off if we'd do them one by one and take the time needed to overcome these steps emotionally. We also really only knew each other a few months, and up to that point had spent about 7 days together in total. In short, it was too much too soon.

At the same time though, we learnt a valuable lesson from this. She discovered that she might want children after all, and we both discovered that we were really good together. We went on a two-week holiday to my mother's place, and not one single hour we could get enough of each other. After the holiday we agreed to keep seeing each other like this for another half year, and then make some big decisions. She was slowly changing her mind on children, and started seeing everything, including her own youth, in a new light.

When she came home from the holiday, her boyfriend started questioning her. He felt that the way things were going, their relationship would die slowly, and he didn't want that to happen, and so he forced her to make a choice. Although I knew she wasnt really ready for that choice, but still a bit to my amazement, she told him that in that case, she would choose me. And so less than half a year after our first contact, I helpt her move to her own place, and I became the first man in her life. If all goes to plan, I will move in with her at some point later this year, and eventually (probably within a year) we will be starting to build a family under a lot better circumstances.

In short, neither the choice to have an abortion, nor the choice to have children, is one that should be taken lightly. The choice to have an abortion almost never is - both emotionally and physically, I have yet to meet any woman who has taken this decision lightly, and I have talked with several (I'm the kind of guy people like to talk to, I guess).

Whenever someone like you, Swift, is against abortion on grounds like you've given, this is just one of the many stories in my head that make me object to the naive simplicity underlying statements such as 'cells that have the potential to become a person are life and should be protected at the cost of everything else - except perhaps when someone was raped'. Such statements, to me, reveal an incredible underappreciation of what life, protecting, and suffering is on so many levels, it dazzles me.

Something that has the potential to become life is not life. But the people involved are very much so. They greatly and by a large margin come before whatever has the option to become life. I would go so far as to say that when two people decide to have an abortion, they often do so because they value, understand and respect life more than you do.

The sacrifices two people, but especially a woman, make when having a child, should be voluntarily at all times, and not just the result of an accident. Even if the result is from less care than we have taken (I even know someone who got pregant despite taking the pill and using a condom at the same time), human beings are partly governed by hormones and the flesh is sometimes stronger than the mind. But the decision to have children should be governed more by the mind than by the flesh. The success of mankind is, in part, a result of learning to control its environment, and that includes if and when to have children. Contrast, for that matter, Africa and the West.

In short, Swift, you do, indeed, sound like a broken record. You pretend to value life, but to be able to value life you have to understand what it is first. And I maintain you don't.
 
Swift
Well, I can see that it's not possible for you to see what I'm saying. So I guess we'll agree to disagree.

You're doing this an awful lot these days.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that it's not possible for them to see what you're saying (presumably because they're too "ignorant" or not "enlightened"). It primarily means they CAN see what you're saying and think you're wrong.
 
Arwin, that's a very heartfelt story. Thank you for sharing.

There are a few points that I strongly contend with though. First, dating someone that's with someone else. If you like being the second man, ok. But that simply wouldn't be me. Second, premarital sex. If you wouldn't have had sex in the first place, the condom wouldn't have broken and you wouldn't have been faced with a very serious decision.

See, when you go from that point of view. It IS very simple. I understand that once there, the complexity of the situation expands exponentially. But you can't get there if you don't have sex.

You say I don't value life? To me, one soul is worth more then the world. That aborted child had a soul. But it's body was taken before it had a chance to be born.

Here's the thing I don't get. Your girl KNEW she didn't want children. Flat out knew it. But she was still engaging in sexual activity that can produce children. Now, how is that smart? She sounds like an intelligent person, but that's just dumb behavior. When you play with fire, you'll eventually get burned. Unless you excercise some will power and close the fireplace doors and leave the fire alone. I understand that the flesh can be strong, but it's NEVER stronger then the mind unless you allow it to be. If you succumb to the lust of the flesh, so be it(not that I haven't before and I wish I hadn't), but don't say that the flesh is stronger because that's simply not the case.

Famine: You're right. Might as well stay in and fight. It's more fun. :sly:
 
Swift - you base your argument on your strong Christian beliefs - Do you not think for one minute that the people you are arguing against might not be as 'Christian' as you?

For you the answer to the question can be found amongst the pages of the Bible - for others they base their opinions on their own moral beliefs, whether religiously orientated or otherwise. Just because their opinions don't comply with the idealisum of your religion doesn't mean they are wrong.
 
TheCracker
Swift - you base your argument on your strong Christian beliefs - Do you not think for one minute that the people you are arguing against might not be as 'Christian' as you?

For you the answer to the question can be found amongst the pages of the Bible - for others they base their opinions on their own moral beliefs, whether religiously orientated or otherwise. Just because their opinions don't comply with the idealisum of your religion doesn't mean they are wrong.

And other's are basing their argument on scientific explainations or just personal experiences. So?

Yes, it does mean they're wrong. If it doesn't, then there is zero point to even discussing it.

Ok, so people aren't as "christian" as me. So what? I'm not saying they're stupid or anything like that. Famine for instance, is far from being stupid. I just thing he's really wrong when it comes to this subject.
 
Swift
Arwin, that's a very heartfelt story. Thank you for sharing.

There are a few points that I strongly contend with though. First, dating someone that's with someone else. If you like being the second man, ok. But that simply wouldn't be me.

This is what we call the either-or economy versus the and-and economy. The end result, however, is that I've found my 'soul-mate', the love of my life. If I hadn't, I might very well not have. Moot point. If it hadn't worked out that way, I'd still have had some of the best weekends and one of the best holidays of my life. Being the second man very likely wouldn't have worked forever, but it sure beat being no man at all.

Second, premarital sex. If you wouldn't have had sex in the first place, the condom wouldn't have broken and you wouldn't have been faced with a very serious decision.

Yes, no sex would certainly be the answer. Unfortunately, someone or something has designed us so that we want to have sex, and quite a lot too. Although I also have to question the relation between premarital sex and the resilience of condoms. Are you also saying that if you're married, and you can't afford another child, you should simply no longer have sex?

See, when you go from that point of view. It IS very simple. I understand that once there, the complexity of the situation expands exponentially. But you can't get there if you don't have sex.

But sex is worth it.

You say I don't value life? To me, one soul is worth more then the world. That aborted child had a soul. But it's body was taken before it had a chance to be born.

Basically I'm saying you have absurd notions about what the value of life is, causing you to misrepresent the value of life. If I would never meet the woman of my life, I should die a virgin, according to you. In a chimp colony, sex is a successful social activity, with an important function. It works the same way with people. You base your objection against abortion on the basis that you think that as soon as an egg and a sperm collide, the resulting cell is infused with a soul. Do you also believe in the 22 grams theory? Because that might be a problem.

Here's the thing I don't get. Your girl KNEW she didn't want children. Flat out knew it. But she was still engaging in sexual activity that can produce children. Now, how is that smart?

If each and every time you have sex results in a baby, that would be a problem. But it doesn't work that way. My girl has been engaging in sexual activities for 20 years without ever getting pregnant. For me, that has been 11 years.

She sounds like an intelligent person, but that's just dumb behavior. When you play with fire, you'll eventually get burned. Unless you excercise some will power and close the fireplace doors and leave the fire alone.

She felt that way for a while. But when you think about it, it is silly. Having non-procreational sex is healthy. Not having sex is unhealthy. Just look at Catholic priests who try to be celebate and end up abusing children. There is not a bit of irony in that last sentence. This is the way it works. Completely denying your natural urges corrupts the mind eventually.

I understand that the flesh can be strong, but it's NEVER stronger then the mind unless you allow it to be. If you succumb to the lust of the flesh, so be it(not that I haven't before and I wish I hadn't), but don't say that the flesh is stronger because that's simply not the case.

It usually is though. Only when you're really happy, the mind can be stronger, but unforunately you aren't always happy, and then the flesh will soon overpower the body. Few people have a mind strong enough to withstand that.

More importantly, there is rarely a need for this. You can happily and healthily engage in sex without having children as a result. Periodical cessation helped this development, condoms helped this development, the pill helped this development, the morning after pill, the abortion pill and abortion all contribute to this additional control. Evolution/intelligent design (pick your preference) has made people to love having sex, make them feel good, make them feel stronger, more happy, and especially also better capable of functioning in society (becoming less aggressive and more cooperative), etc.

The benefits of sex are well-documented. But do you like to read? Or do you prefer to limit yourself and your understanding of life to just one slightly out-of-date book? Do you need some history lessons? About the 60.000 prostitutes, perhaps, in Victorian London?
 
Arwin
This is what we call the either-or economy versus the and-and economy. The end result, however, is that I've found my 'soul-mate', the love of my life. If I hadn't, I might very well not have. Moot point. If it hadn't worked out that way, I'd still have had some of the best weekends and one of the best holidays of my life. Being the second man very likely wouldn't have worked forever, but it sure beat being no man at all.

Ok, I can see that. Wouldn't be me, but I guess something is better then nothing.

Yes, no sex would certainly be the answer. Unfortunately, someone or something has designed us so that we want to have sex, and quite a lot too. Although I also have to question the relation between premarital sex and the resilience of condoms. Are you also saying that if you're married, and you can't afford another child, you should simply no longer have sex?

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that children can be and sometimes are the result of sexual relations. So if you're married and you don't want any more children, but you want to have sex, go ahead. Just be prepared for what you might not want or expect. Personally, when I'm married, I plan to have sex often. Regardless of how many children I have.

But sex is worth it.

If each and every time you have sex results in a baby, that would be a problem. But it doesn't work that way. My girl has been engaging in sexual activities for 20 years without ever getting pregnant. For me, that has been 11 years.

I really like these two statements. You say sex is worth it and that you dont' have a child "everytime" that you have sex. But, you did have to go through the stress and diffuculty of a decision that quite frankly could've been totally avoided.

Basically I'm saying you have absurd notions about what the value of life is, causing you to misrepresent the value of life. If I would never meet the woman of my life, I should die a virgin, according to you. In a chimp colony, sex is a successful social activity, with an important function. It works the same way with people. You base your objection against abortion on the basis that you think that as soon as an egg and a sperm collide, the resulting cell is infused with a soul. Do you also believe in the 22 grams theory? Because that might be a problem.

Well, I have met my soul mate. We're currently engaged to be married. I haven't had sex with her. I've been seeing her for 2.5 years now. By almost everyone's standards I'm nutz for not having sex yet. So you see, I'm not just saying it, I'm living it as well.



She felt that way for a while. But when you think about it, it is silly. Having non-procreational sex is healthy. Not having sex is unhealthy. Just look at Catholic priests who try to be celebate and end up abusing children. There is not a bit of irony in that last sentence. This is the way it works. Completely denying your natural urges corrupts the mind eventually.
So you're saying that if you don't give into your urges that you will become a child molester?

It usually is though. Only when you're really happy, the mind can be stronger, but unforunately you aren't always happy, and then the flesh will soon overpower the body. Few people have a mind strong enough to withstand that.

More importantly, there is rarely a need for this. You can happily and healthily engage in sex without having children as a result. Periodical cessation helped this development, condoms helped this development, the pill helped this development, the morning after pill, the abortion pill and abortion all contribute to this additional control. Evolution/intelligent design (pick your preference) has made people to love having sex, make them feel good, make them feel stronger, more happy, and especially also better capable of functioning in society (becoming less aggressive and more cooperative), etc.

Ok, so obviously I can't function well in society because I'm not currently having sex. Hmm...ok.

The benefits of sex are well-documented. But do you like to read? Or do you prefer to limit yourself and your understanding of life to just one slightly out-of-date book? Do you need some history lessons? About the 60.000 prostitutes, perhaps, in Victorian London?

Did I ever say that sex was bad? Nope, I've just said sex with the notion of "I'm not going to get this girl/myself pregnant" is bad.

BTW, if you want to argue the validity of the bible, do it in the proper threads.
 
You say I don't value life? To me, one soul is worth more then the world. That aborted child had a soul. But it's body was taken before it had a chance to be born.

That's your belief, but it isn't mine. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you can use that to govern my actions.

You're always talking about how people should take responsibility for their actions. I see it as very responsible to have an abortion when the parents are not certain that they want the child... and since I don't believe in a soul, I don't believe that abortion is killing.

So how do you cope with that Swift? How do you cope with the fact that you're trying to impose your beliefs on others?
 
danoff
That's your belief, but it isn't mine. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you can use that to govern my actions.

You're always talking about how people should take responsibility for their actions. I see it as very responsible to have an abortion when the parents are not certain that they want the child... and since I don't believe in a soul, I don't believe that abortion is killing.

So how do you cope with that Swift? How do you cope with the fact that you're trying to impose your beliefs on others?

From my point of view, your trying to oppose your beliefs on me. So, now what?

Well, then from what you're saying. Abortions should be free. Given so that people can get out of the responsibilty of children that comes from irresponsible sex. Because if a woman gets pregnant and can't afford the baby, she should be able to go to a hospital and say, "I don't want this baby" and they should do it for free.
 
Swift
Ok, I can see that. Wouldn't be me, but I guess something is better then nothing.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that children can be and sometimes are the result of sexual relations. So if you're married and you don't want any more children, but you want to have sex, go ahead. Just be prepared for what you might not want or expect. Personally, when I'm married, I plan to have sex often. Regardless of how many children I have.

Well, at the same time, if it turns out you don't match sexually (it happens - for all you know, since you haven't had sex yet, one or both of you might even be unwittingly gay and therefore not enjoy it at all), that's too bad. But I can see that in the context of having or not having children, that is not a problem. I cannot also repress a sense that I'm talking with someone who lacks somewhat in life experience.

Basically, though, what you are saying is that you plan to have sex often, and don't mind if that results in say 10 children. Right? Though when your wife is pregnant half the time, and you have a couple of kids running around, I suspect you won't get tired of sex very soon, but you'll also not be able to fulfill that ambition of having sex often.

All in all though, you've been lucky to find your soul-mate early in life. It is lucky to find one at all. Not so long ago, our culture didn't require love. Your marriage was arranged, and that was it. If you happen to fall in love after that, you were generally in trouble, though a lot less so if you were a man. In Victorian times, things went so far as that women who had sex before marriage were cast out of society with as their only option left to become prostitutes, sometimes with babies on the side. Men could either make prostitutes and most of the time get away with that, or visit prostitutes. Those were the days, eh?

I really like these two statements. You say sex is worth it and that you dont' have a child "everytime" that you have sex. But, you did have to go through the stress and diffuculty of a decision that quite frankly could've been totally avoided.

Ah, but the countless times I've had sex were definitely worth that stress. Much good has come of that decision, and we have the added benefit of knowing that we are both fertile and compatible, something which we as said are planning to cash in on later.

Well, I have met my soul mate. We're currently engaged to be married. I haven't had sex with her. I've been seeing her for 2.5 years now. By almost everyone's standards I'm nutz for not having sex yet. So you see, I'm not just saying it, I'm living it as well.

Which is fine by me. But that is your choice, not mine. It can work out, it may not. After you have had sex with each other and know what its like, it may change things more than you think. Or it may not. The point is, without the authority of a book that you think should be discussed in another thread, you have no authority whatsoever to claim that this is the better way to live life.

So you're saying that if you don't give into your urges that you will become a child molester?

Quite obviously not everyone. But at the same time, shockingly many. Is there a direct link? Or did these people have these urges already and chose to live their lives as celibates in order to try to repress those urges? Who will know? But if they did the latter, they could have better conditioned themselves to be attracted to adult, non-shaving women.

Ok, so obviously I can't function well in society because I'm not currently having sex. Hmm...ok.

Well, obviously! :D See how socially isolated you are becoming in this opinions forum. ;)

Did I ever say that sex was bad? Nope, I've just said sex with the notion of "I'm not going to get this girl/myself pregnant" is bad.

BTW, if you want to argue the validity of the bible, do it in the proper threads.

But your only argument against having sex for any other reason than procreation is based on your notion of a Soul, which, btw, the Bible doesn't specify being infused directly after conception. The closest thing the Bible says is that a Soul can be known before conception (I'd have to look up again where, if you're interested and don't alreadyknow), but that does not necessarily mean it is already present.

Regardless of that, if you keep from using the concept of a Soul as your sole munition for arguing that life begins at conception and should be protected and considered equal to a fully aware and developed person, then you cannot expect of me to question the Bible in this thread. If you will continue to defend your position with other grounds, I will also not need to discuss the relevance of the Bible to this subject.
 
Swift
Because if a woman gets pregnant and can't afford the baby, she should be able to go to a hospital and say, "I don't want this baby" and they should do it for free.

And they are free. At least over here. And yet we have some of the lowest rates of abortion in the world. That's what proper sex-ed achieves. Do I understand correctly, by the way, that you've never had sex?
 
Arwin
Well, obviously! :D See how socially isolated you are becoming in this opinions forum. ;)

And somehow I'm a super moderator on GTP. Amazing conicidence huh? :sly:

I'll reply to the rest in a bit, lunch time! :)

Arwin
And they are free. At least over here. And yet we have some of the lowest rates of abortion in the world. That's what proper sex-ed achieves. Do I understand correctly, by the way, that you've never had sex?

Sadly no. I had sex about 9 years ago. Before I was a christian. Though I wish I was still a virgin.
 
From my point of view, your trying to oppose your beliefs on me. So, now what?

Well, then from what you're saying. Abortions should be free. Given so that people can get out of the responsibilty of children that comes from irresponsible sex. Because if a woman gets pregnant and can't afford the baby, she should be able to go to a hospital and say, "I don't want this baby" and they should do it for free.From my point of view, your trying to oppose your beliefs on me. So, now what?

Well, then from what you're saying. Abortions should be free. Given so that people can get out of the responsibilty of children that comes from irresponsible sex. Because if a woman gets pregnant and can't afford the baby, she should be able to go to a hospital and say, "I don't want this baby" and they should do it for free.

Woah there! I certainly don't think it should be "free" (free meaning paid for by taxpayers). Especially since it would be paid for by YOUR tax dollars, and you clearly don't want your tax dollars paying for that.

I'm saying that you don't get to impose a law on others based on your religion, and they don't get to use your money to pay for something you don't want to support.
 
I'd like to kill this thread once and for all. So here goes...


How to render the abortion/abstinence issue moot: Ass-sex.
 
danoff
Woah there! I certainly don't think it should be "free" (free meaning paid for by taxpayers). Especially since it would be paid for by YOUR tax dollars, and you clearly don't want your tax dollars paying for that.

I'm saying that you don't get to impose a law on others based on your religion, and they don't get to use your money to pay for something you don't want to support.

I felt abortion was wrong BEFORE I was a christian.

But your only argument against having sex for any other reason than procreation is based on your notion of a Soul, which, btw, the Bible doesn't specify being infused directly after conception. The closest thing the Bible says is that a Soul can be known before conception (I'd have to look up again where, if you're interested and don't alreadyknow), but that does not necessarily mean it is already present.

If you're going to try to talk about the bible to me, that's great and I welcome it. But please don't misquote it.


Jer 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

In other words, God knows us in the womb of our mother even before the foundation of the world. Yeah, I know. You're all going to say fundie garbage. That's fine, just don't misquote it.
 
How can you tell if a person is your " soul mate " If you have never had sex with them ?
I asked my wife to clarify her stance on abortion and she said that if she was healthy enough to deliver a baby she would and then put it up for adoption if we were unable some how to give it a good life. She would only consider abortion if being pegnant was a severe risk to her health...and this is after two teen agers...what an amazing women ! ( I'd like to abort my son at times retroactively :) ) .
 
ledhed
How can you tell if a person is your " soul mate " If you have never had sex with them ?
I asked my wife to clarify her stance on abortion and she said that if she was healthy enough to deliver a baby she would and then put it up for adoption if we were unable some how to give it a good life. She would only consider abortion if being pegnant was a severe risk to her health...and this is after two teen agers...what an amazing women ! ( I'd like to abort my son at times retroactively :) ) .

Well, what does sex have to do with the soul? There will come a time when sex simply isn't that important. What do you do then?

I see where you're coming from, but I don't need to have sex with my fiancee to know that she's the one God has picked for me.
 
I felt abortion was wrong BEFORE I was a christian.

Listen to your argument. You felt it was wrong. Should you be advocating laws and the removal of freedoms based on a feeling? You certainly shouldn't be saying things like:

That aborted child had a soul. But it's body was taken before it had a chance to be born.

to justify law in a country that stands for freedom of religion.
 
danoff
Listen to your argument. You felt it was wrong. Should you be advocating laws and the removal of freedoms based on a feeling? You certainly shouldn't be saying things like:



to justify law in a country that stands for freedom of religion.

This country stands for freedom period. But for crying out loud, freedom has a cost! and that cost is responsibility for one's actions. If people would take more responsibility for themselves, then abortion would be almost unheard of.
 
Back