Thoughts from a Christian male... Posted: 05-08-08 23:51pm
Before anyone comes to the stereotype of
me being a bible-thumper who condemns
anyone who doesn't go to church every
sunday to hell or a male who is too
immature or naive to understand the
complexities of the mental process a woman
goes through when she decides to have an
abortion, please read my post(s), and
after you do, I'd greatly appreciate a
response.
I am currently 18 years old, and attend a
small, private, Christian high school in
the southeastern United States. With that
said, I am very open-minded, logical, and
love philosophy and debate. I hold
Christian views, but I only argue those
views if I can back them with objective
reasoning. I am eager to learn other
people's views, and why they think the way
they do. I also accept my views being
wrong. Now, I don't like being proved
wrong, but I'd rather be proven wrong than
hold an opinion that wasn't correct. I
also do not force my religious beliefs or
personal opinions onto another individual.
I think people who look at a person and
claim, "You'll burn in hell for having an
abortion!!! Rabble, rabble, rabble!!!" are
fools. You save people by witnessing to
them; not by threatening damnation.
Unfortunately, a few extremists make a bad
name for the entire group (ex. that
jujujelly-whatever character), so I hope
my opinion isn't belittled by anyone, as I
will not belittle anyone's opinion by
saying it's pure bias because she's had an
abortion.
Anyway, as I said, I'm a senior in high
school, and am currently doing a
literature review paper over the
Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate in my Biblical
Worldview class. Naturally, I can only
used facts and expert opinion in this
paper, so unfortunately I can't use my own
thoughts or anyone else's that doesn't
fall into the "expert" demographic. But, I
came across this forum while looking for
internet resources, and since I'm
interested in this debate, I decided to
post.
I'm not sure how many men you get in here
or how they react to your arguments, but I
assure you that I can hold my own maturely
and intellectually in a discussion. I've
never gotten a girl pregnant (I'm
abstinant, and am trying to save sex for
marriage...damn these teenage hormones!).
I'm no expert about abortion (If I was, I
could write my paper on my own accord ), and the only
teaching I get concerning it is from my
Bib. Worldview teacher, who is also my
church's pastor. Obviously, I don't hear
much Pro-Choice opinion, which is why I'm
here.
So, if anyone here can explain to me their
views and thinking on why they're
Pro-Choice and what they'd like to be
kept/made legal such as medical procedures
and rules and regulations, I'd be greatly
appreciative. Then I can attempt a
rebuttle, and so-on and so-forth. That way
a young man like myself can become better
educated, and maybe I can offer a few
things as well.
I'm pro-choice because the world isn't a
perfect place. Accidents happen; and women
should not be denied treatment if they
become pregnant. I am pro-choice for ALL
early-term abortions. I go off of fetal
viability - Around week 27 the fetus
becomes capable of life outside of the
womb and thus, at this point, I believe it
has a right to life and can no
longer be killed unless it is absolutely
the only way to save the mother's life.
|
Ewing
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2008 Posts: 5
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-09-08 00:52am
Thanks for posting cmyked!
Now, you say the world isn't a perfect
place; I understand that and agree. So you
believe that allowing abortions makes the
world more fair? Can you elaborate as to
why that should be a valid reason? Because
everytime I get the, "Yeah, well life
ain't fair!" excuse from an authority
figure, I think it's a poor reason.
Accidents do happen, but I have a
fundamental view of personal
accountability. If a woman is not in the
situation to have a child on her own
terms, then she should not have s-e-x. It
does not matter if she is in a steady
relationship or had a single night of
intercourse.
A pregnant woman should never be denied
needed medical treatment. If there's a
good chance that the woman would die
during child birth, etc. then I have to
say I would not be against abortion -
especially if it were my wife. I value
"established life" over "potential life."
But, if the pregnant woman is seeking
treatment for an abortion because she's
just starting college/work and doesn't
want a baby, then I don't believe that is
needed medical treatment; its wanted
treatment.
If the qualification for human life is
independency from something that is vital
in it's survival, then are people who are
on respirators considered less human than
someone who's breathing normally? What
about someone who takes insulin? Or
someone who's on dialysis? Is a child in
an incubator less viable than a child
outside the womb? Dependency, size, level
of development, and environment are
irrelevant when determining how much right
to life a human possesses.
Now, you say the world isn't a perfect
place; I understand that and agree. So you
believe that allowing abortions makes the
world more fair? Can you elaborate as to
why that should be a valid reason? Because
everytime I get the, "Yeah, well life
ain't fair!" excuse from an authority
figure, I think it's a poor reason.
Accidents do happen, but I have a
fundamental view of personal
accountability. If a woman is not in the
situation to have a child on her own
terms, then she should not have s-e-x. It
does not matter if she is in a steady
relationship or had a single night of
intercourse.
Great first post, btw.
As far as this post goes, I respect the
fact that you feel that for your life, you
will only be having sex the number of
times that equals the number of children
you wish to and can afford to have. For
myself, I don't believe too many marriages
could survive in a sexless state, but I
wish those people nothing but the best.
|
Ewing
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2008 Posts: 5
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-09-08 03:42am
Quote:
Great first post,
btw.
Thank ya kindly.
Quote:
As far as this
post goes, I respect the fact that you
feel that for your life, you will only be
having sex the number of times that equals
the number of children you wish to and can
afford to have. For myself, I don't
believe too many marriages could survive
in a sexless state, but I wish those
people nothing but the
best.
I never insinuated that I think sex should
be only used for procreation when married,
or that married couples should not have
romance. I only stated that I am saving
sex for marriage. In fact, we'll probably
do it more often since, well, we've never
done it before.
If we don't want a baby, we'll use
contraceptives. If the contraceptives
don't work, at least we'll be in the
position to take on the responsibility of
a baby - married couples are usually more
stable in their
relationships/careers/education than
non-married couples, or at least one would
think. Hence why abstinance makes sense
fundamentally, and sex for social
purposes, even between a steady
non-married couple, makes no sense.
Non-married couples do not need to have
sex, and individuals, not species, but
individuals do not have to have sex in
order to survive. Do people have the right
to? Yes, but if they choose to do so, I
think they should bear the
responsibilities that come with it,
including becoming pregnant despite not
wanting to.
If we don't want a baby, we'll use
contraceptives. If the contraceptives
don't work, at least we'll be in the
position to take on the responsibility of
a baby - married couples are usually more
stable in their
relationships/careers/education than
non-married couples, or at least one would
think. Hence why abstinance makes sense
fundamentally, and sex for social
purposes, even between a steady
non-married couple, makes no sense.
Non-married couples do not need to have
sex, and individuals, not species, but
individuals do not have to have sex in
order to survive. Do people have the right
to? Yes, but if they choose to do so, I
think they should bear the
responsibilities that come with it,
including becoming pregnant despite not
wanting to.
I think that is an excellent point of
view, and I wish you much happiness and
success in your married life.
But you need to understand that your view
cannot be imposed on anyone else. People
have as much right to have sex with whom,
when and how they want as you will to have
sex with your eventual wife. And your view
of what is an acceptable reaction to an
unwanted pregnancy holds only insofar as
that action applies to yourself -- not
even to your eventual wife.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 376 Location: ,
Thanks: 71
Thanked:43
Posted: 05-09-08 04:21am
I just wanted to chime in and say thank
you for a very thoughtful, polite and
respectful introduction post, Ewing. You
seem quite open minded and rational. I
look forward to discussing this issue with
you when I've had some rest.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-09-08 07:16am
Some people forget the many ways to have
sex. and it won't make a
baby! If indeed you don' t want one.. and
marriage survive.
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 442
Thanks: 73
Thanked:121
Posted: 05-09-08 08:14am
Ewing
wrote:
Quote:
Great first post,
btw.
Thank ya kindly.
Quote:
As far as this
post goes, I respect the fact that you
feel that for your life, you will only be
having sex the number of times that equals
the number of children you wish to and can
afford to have. For myself, I don't
believe too many marriages could survive
in a sexless state, but I wish those
people nothing but the
best.
I never insinuated that I think sex should
be only used for procreation when married,
or that married couples should not have
romance. I only stated that I am saving
sex for marriage. In fact, we'll probably
do it more often since, well, we've never
done it before.
If we don't want a baby, we'll use
contraceptives. If the contraceptives
don't work, at least we'll be in the
position to take on the responsibility of
a baby - married couples are usually more
stable in their
relationships/careers/education than
non-married couples, or at least one would
think. Hence why abstinance makes sense
fundamentally, and sex for social
purposes, even between a steady
non-married couple, makes no sense.
Non-married couples do not need to have
sex, and individuals, not species, but
individuals do not have to have sex in
order to survive. Do people have the right
to? Yes, but if they choose to do so, I
think they should bear the
responsibilities that come with it,
including becoming pregnant despite not
wanting to.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. Thanks
for clarifying. Here is the paragraph
that initially led to my erroneous
conclusion:
Ewing
wrote:
Accidents do happen, but I have a
fundamental view of personal
accountability. If a woman is not in the
situation to have a child on her own
terms, then she should not have s-e-x. It
does not matter if she is in a steady
relationship or had a single night of
intercourse.
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1252 Location: ,
Thanks: 43
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-09-08 08:48am
Ewing
wrote:
Hence why abstinance makes
sense fundamentally, and sex for social
purposes, even between a steady
non-married couple, makes no sense.
Non-married couples do not need to have
sex, and individuals, not species, but
individuals do not have to have sex in
order to survive. Do people have the right
to? Yes, but if they choose to do so, I
think they should bear the
responsibilities that come with it,
including becoming pregnant despite not
wanting to.
I think it is so cute being lectured about
how abstinence is acceptable for anyone
who doesn't want children by an 18 year
old celibate (virgin?) boy. And,
incidentally, one who can't even spell it
correctly.
|
NeutralUsername
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 124 Location: , United States
Thanks: 10
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-09-08 09:18am
cmyked
wrote:
I'm pro-choice because the
world isn't a perfect place. Accidents
happen; and women should not be denied
treatment if they become pregnant. I am
pro-choice for ALL early-term abortions. I
go off of fetal viability - Around week 27
the fetus becomes capable of life outside
of the womb and thus, at this point, I
believe it has a right to life and can no
longer be killed unless it is absolutely
the only way to save the mother's
life.
But, what happened to "My body, my
choice"?
The fetus is still in her body, isn't it?
It's still not legally a person, so why
does it have a right to life?
Just trying to see the other side!
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-09-08 16:36pm
I'm not going to remain celibate because I
don't want children. I don't care who I'm
with, how old I am, or how financially
ready I am. My body plain and simple
cannot handle getting pregnant, nor do I
want to even attempt and do so. I'm
pro-choice for almost any reason stated
above and my own. I don't believe any
woman should refrain from sex because she
doesn't want children at this time (or
ever). I don't believe a marriage will
survive without sex in it, tell me it
however much you like. I'd also like for
you to suggest to every living man that he
should go without sex as soon as his
girlfriend/wife/fling decides she has
enough/doesn't want children. I also
believe that people should be personally
responsible, and this goes for both sexes.
Use one or two (or more) forms of birth
control. Talk about what will happen in
case of an unplanned pregnancy. Protect
yourself and those you care about. And
above all, regardless of what some people
think, abortion is a responsible course of
action for someone who accidentally
becomes pregnant. It's certainly a heck of
lot more responsible than just ignoring
the growing fetus, or in my case, killing
both myself and the fetus.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-10-08 11:18am
Ewing
wrote:
Thanks for posting cmyked!
Now, you say the world isn't a perfect
place; I understand that and agree. So you
believe that allowing abortions makes the
world more fair? Can you elaborate as to
why that should be a valid reason? Because
everytime I get the, "Yeah, well life
ain't fair!" excuse from an authority
figure, I think it's a poor
reason.
I hate when people say "life ain't fair".
There is almost always a way to fix the
problem if you take action early enough.
Waiting, now that's the problem. I
remember a quote that goes something like
this: "A mistake doesn't become a problem
unless you refuse to fix it".
I don't think life isn't fair, thus I
don't believe abortions make it "more"
fair. Life is just life.
Quote:
Accidents do
happen, but I have a fundamental view of
personal accountability. If a woman is not
in the situation to have a child on her
own terms, then she should not have s-e-x.
It does not matter if she is in a steady
relationship or had a single night of
intercourse.
Having an abortion is being accountable.
Sex isn't a bad word on this forum! I
firmly believe that sex is NOT just for
procreation. Sex is also for enjoyment. Do
you believe men should also not have sex
unless they're willing to become fathers
and marry the woman if she becomes
pregnant? There would not be any option
for skipping out in that system to make it
truly fair for the woman and the man. If
she became pregnant and wanted to keep it,
he would HAVE to marry her and care for
that child. Otherwise, you are only
punishing the woman for having sex, and
saying it's OK for men to have sex and bad
for women to have sex. If you make sex
about procreation alone, then both genders
MUST be held responsible. It takes two to
tango.
Quote:
A pregnant woman
should never be denied needed medical
treatment.
An abortion is a medical procedure.
Quote:
If there's a
good chance that the woman would die
during child birth, etc. then I have to
say I would not be against abortion -
especially if it were my wife. I value
"established life" over "potential life."
But, if the pregnant woman is seeking
treatment for an abortion because she's
just starting college/work and doesn't
want a baby, then I don't believe that is
needed medical treatment; its wanted
treatment.
I guess you don't like braces or plastic
surgery then, either? Those are "wanted"
treatment.
I think it is a far more responsible
decision to abort early on if you know you
cannot afford the child than to give birth
and hand it over or to raise it yourself
in poor conditions, giving it almost no
chance to progress in life. Poverty only
breed poverty; it is a proven fact.
Raising a child below the poverty line
leaves them with almost no chance to go to
college or become anything else other than
poor themselves. That's why with teen
parents the cycle often repeats itself for
generations.
Quote:
If the
qualification for human life is
independency from something that is vital
in it's survival, then are people who are
on respirators considered less human than
someone who's breathing normally?
I always get asked this question, and the
answer is that the fetus is dependent on
the mother's body. It's not
just that a viable fetus is "independent",
it is that he is independent from another
BODY. A person on a respirator is not
connected to another human being; I do not
breathe for him. A mother breathes, eats,
drinks, expels waste, does everything for
that fetus.
Quote:
What about
someone who takes insulin? Or someone
who's on dialysis? Is a child in an
incubator less viable than a child outside
the womb? Dependency, size, level of
development, and environment are
irrelevant when determining how much right
to life a human
possesses.
Again, none of those situations are
similar to pregnancy.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-10-08 11:24am
antibigot
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
I'm pro-choice because the
world isn't a perfect place. Accidents
happen; and women should not be denied
treatment if they become pregnant. I am
pro-choice for ALL early-term abortions. I
go off of fetal viability - Around week 27
the fetus becomes capable of life outside
of the womb and thus, at this point, I
believe it has a right to life and can no
longer be killed unless it is absolutely
the only way to save the mother's
life.
But, what happened to "My body, my
choice"?
The fetus is still in her body, isn't it?
It's still not legally a person, so why
does it have a right to life?
Just trying to see the other
side!
What about the fetus's body? I find the
phrase "my body, my choice" to be
infantile. Both the mother and the fetus
have a body, thus, they both have a
choice. During any moment in pregnancy,
the mother has the right to not have the
fetus inside of her. In early pregnancy,
this will result in the death of the
embryo/fetus even if it is removed alive.
It is safer to kill it in the process of
removal, so that's what is done. However,
once it reaches viability, its right to
life is undeniable. You can make no more
excuses. It is a human capable of
independent survival. The woman still has
the right to not have it inside of her,
but I feel that at this point, unless
there are extenuating circumstances, the
fetus should be removed alive.
Do not list exceptions such as "what about
fetal deformity, impending maternal death
etc". I put in "extenuating circumstances"
for a reason; and that reason is that I do
not want to hear the exceptions. I am well
aware of them and consider many of them to
be very good reasons to have to abort
instead of birth.
|
NeutralUsername
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 124 Location: , United States
Thanks: 10
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-10-08 18:23pm
cmyked
wrote:
antibigot
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
I'm pro-choice because the
world isn't a perfect place. Accidents
happen; and women should not be denied
treatment if they become pregnant. I am
pro-choice for ALL early-term abortions. I
go off of fetal viability - Around week 27
the fetus becomes capable of life outside
of the womb and thus, at this point, I
believe it has a right to life and can no
longer be killed unless it is absolutely
the only way to save the mother's
life.
But, what happened to "My body, my
choice"?
The fetus is still in her body, isn't it?
It's still not legally a person, so why
does it have a right to life?
Just trying to see the other
side!
What about the fetus's body? I find the
phrase "my body, my choice" to be
infantile. Both the mother and the fetus
have a body, thus, they both have a
choice. During any moment in pregnancy,
the mother has the right to not have the
fetus inside of her. In early pregnancy,
this will result in the death of the
embryo/fetus even if it is removed alive.
It is safer to kill it in the process of
removal, so that's what is done. However,
once it reaches viability, its right to
life is undeniable. You can make no more
excuses. It is a human capable of
independent survival. The woman still has
the right to not have it inside of her,
but I feel that at this point, unless
there are extenuating circumstances, the
fetus should be removed alive.
Do not list exceptions such as "what about
fetal deformity, impending maternal death
etc". I put in "extenuating circumstances"
for a reason; and that reason is that I do
not want to hear the exceptions. I am well
aware of them and consider many of them to
be very good reasons to have to abort
instead of
birth.
But, the fetus is STILL not legally a
person even at eight or nine months
gestation. Why can't it be killed late in
the pregnancy? What if she did want the
pregnancy, but her guy left her and she
becomes too poor and not capable of taking
care of the baby on her own? (This is just
one possible scenerio.) What if she
decides that she doesn't want to have to
give up the baby for adoption because it
would be too painful to? Hey, some people
think the fetus isn't human until it's
BORN. Some people don't care whether or
not it can survive outside the womb. To
them, it's a PART of the woman. It isn't a
person. It doesn't have rights. So, why
not abort an eight or nine month fetus?
We're not talking about someone ELSE who
harms the fetus against the woman's will.
We're talking about what SHE wants. Isn't
that what pro-choice is all about?
So, I guess what I'm trying to ask here is
if it's wrong to abort a viable fetus,
then what's the point of bringing up
personhood? A viable fetus is ALSO not a
person! According to pro-choicers, you're
not a person until your'e born.
As you can see, I'm still trying to
understand the pro-choice argument of
personhood.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-10-08 21:11pm
Your username is extremely inappropriate
and I've already reported your post. I
hope the moderators or admin take care of
you soon, as you do not seem like the type
of person who is going to make a positive
contribution to this forum.
|
Ewing
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2008 Posts: 5
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-10-08 21:15pm
Well, paper's done! Pulled an all nighter,
and thus, slept for 24 hours. Good
times...
[quote=oopoopoo]But you need to understand
that your view cannot be imposed on anyone
else. People have as much right to have
sex with whom, when and how they want as
you will to have sex with your eventual
wife. And your view of what is an
acceptable reaction to an unwanted
pregnancy holds only insofar as that
action applies to yourself -- not even to
your eventual wife.[/quote]
I'm not wishing to push my views onto
anyone, and would never do so - I stated
that in my initial post. I was just
pointing out the obvious. If one uses
something not for it's initual purpose,
you are abusing that thing. If one uses
sex not for reproduction, one is abusing
it. That goes for married couples to.
That is irrefutable, and though the
wording may not be accepted, it is
accurate. Abusing yourself is used to
refer to masturbation.
We still have the right to have sex
though, but only according to the law.
[quote=darkmoon]I just wanted to chime in
and say thank you for a very thoughtful,
polite and respectful introduction post,
Ewing. You seem quite open minded and
rational. I look forward to discussing
this issue with you when I've had some
rest.[/quote]
Thank you, darkmoon. I look forward to
talking too!
[quote=aochriss]Sorry about the
misunderstanding. Thanks for
clarifying.[/quote]
I think I misunderstood you as well.
When I am married, and my wife and I have
an unexpected and unprepared for
pregnancy, we will go through with it. If
I absolutely don't want a baby, I can have
a vasectomy. In fact, I'd rather go
through the uncomfortable procedure than
having my wife go through a procedure that
could have lasting emotional and physical
consequences.
[quote=oopoopoop]I think it is so cute
being lectured about how abstinence is
acceptable for anyone who doesn't want
children by an 18 year old celibate
(virgin?) boy. And, incidentally, one who
can't even spell it correctly.[/quote]
I'm not lecturing - I'm debating. If I
ramble, then I'm sorry. But if you can
only resort to mocking me and belittling
the arguments of a "boy" instead of
forming an intelligent rebuttle, then
don't participate. I'd rather you'd stay
and at least try to refute what I have to
say, as an argument with a naive youth
like myself should be easy to win for
someone like you, right?
And people think southern Christians are
ignorant?
[quote=Reptar]My body plain and simple
cannot handle getting pregnant, nor do I
want to even attempt and do so.[/quote]
I can't argue with part of your reasoning
yet because you come from a unique
perspective. Why can't your body handle
pregnancy, if you don't mind my asking?
[quote=cmyked]Having an abortion is being
accountable. Sex isn't a bad word on this
forum! I firmly believe that sex is NOT
just for procreation. Sex is also for
enjoyment. Do you believe men should also
not have sex unless they're willing to
become fathers and marry the woman if she
becomes pregnant? There would not be any
option for skipping out in that system to
make it truly fair for the woman and the
man. If she became pregnant and wanted to
keep it, he would HAVE to marry her and
care for that child. Otherwise, you are
only punishing the woman for having sex,
and saying it's OK for men to have sex and
bad for women to have sex. If you make sex
about procreation alone, then both genders
MUST be held responsible. It takes two to
tango.[/quote]
Having an abortion is being accountable
to...?
I spelled it originally with hyphens
because, when I originally posted, it
stated that I had used foul language. It
was the only word I used that could have
been considered bad, so I changed it, and
it allowed me to post. I don't know why,
'cause I've used it since then...
Sex is used for procreation. Sex is used
for enjoyment. Both can yeild the same
result: offspring. So which method is
probably what it's supposed
to be for? You can use sex for enjoyment,
but if you're not in the position to have
children, then it is irresponsible to have
sex knowing that there is a legitimate
chance that the woman will get pregnant.
The same goes for men. Having an abortion
to make up the irresponsible act that
caused the pregnancy does not make
abortion responsible.
I believe men should only have sex if
they're willing to have children, and
should not have sex if they don't want a
child.
You said there is no system to force men
to father the baby if a woman decides to
keep it. But, there is also no system that
forces the woman to keep the baby if the
father wants it. It is the woman's sole
right to choose whether she wants to birth
the baby or not, so the wanting father is
out of luck even if he would brunt the 18
years of responsibility after the woman's
9 months of responsibility. She does to
him what an unwilling father does to a
willing wife, except in the willing man's
case, he has no option to leave or stay.
It takes two to tango, but the woman leads
the entire way. The system can be unfair
for both men and women, so claiming
unfairness as a reason for abortion to be
legal is flawed.
Also, if abortion is to cancel out the
event of a man walking out on a pregnant
woman, does that mean a woman having an
abortion is analogous to a man walking out
on a pregnant woman?
[quote=cmyked]An abortion is a medical
procedure.[/quote]
But it is not always a needed medical
procedure. I said a woman should never be
denied a needed medical procedure. If she
needs an abortion to save her life, then
she should have the option to have one.
[quote=cmyked]I guess you don't like
braces or plastic surgery then, either?
Those are "wanted" treatment.
I think it is a far more responsible
decision to abort early on if you know you
cannot afford the child than to give birth
and hand it over or to raise it yourself
in poor conditions, giving it almost no
chance to progress in life. Poverty only
breed poverty; it is a proven fact.
Raising a child below the poverty line
leaves them with almost no chance to go to
college or become anything else other than
poor themselves. That's why with teen
parents the cycle often repeats itself for
generations.[/quote]
Don't equate straightening teeth or noses
to an abortion. They don't even belong in
the same grouping, as men can have plastic
surgery but can't have abortions. A
13-year-old boy can have braces too.
If you can cite a source that says poverty
breeds poverty, then please do.
You said almost no chance at college or
prosperity, but there is a chance and
probably a better one than you give credit
for. You cannot possibly gauge a person's
life before they are born. If the
requirement for birth should be having
parents who are middle-class or above,
then the world's population should decline
immensely. Do you know how many women in
country's other than the United States,
Great Britain, etc. have children, despite
being in far worse living conditions than
any American?
Abortion does not end poverty, and
abortion is not the more humane option -
If a child is living in property, you
don't kill it rather than allowing it to
be raised in poor conditions. The women
who have abortions are still living in
poverty the day after.
That is a very narrow minded argument.
[quote=cmyked]I always get asked this
question, and the answer is that the fetus
is dependent on the mother's body. It's
not just that a viable fetus is
"independent", it is that he is
independent from another BODY. A person on
a respirator is not connected to another
human being; I do not breathe for him. A
mother breathes, eats, drinks, expels
waste, does everything for that
fetus.[/quote]
The mother's body and a respirator, etc.
are performing the same functions. I hope
machines never become self-aware, or else
they should be given the option of
disconnecting from the human using it to
survive.
Environment is does not give means to
impose will, either. If the baby is inside
the woman's body, then technically, it's
his body too as they are both sharing it.
And if anyone can show me how to place
names inside of quotes, I'd appreciate it.
It seems I'm not doing it correctly...
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-10-08 21:31pm
Sex is not a bad word, murder is.
Its silly. If you could maybe edit your
post? You need quotation marks ("") around
people's names for the quoting to work.
It's too hard to read.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-10-08 21:39pm
I have an iron deficiency, low B12, and
I'm hypoglycemic. I'm not even legally
allowed to give blood, much less give 90%
of my nutrients to a fetus. I literally
feel like crap everyday.
), and the only
teaching I get concerning it is from my
Bib. Worldview teacher, who is also my
church's pastor. Obviously, I don't hear
much Pro-Choice opinion, which is why I'm
here.
