I read the pro-life forum but I don't
reply there (being that i'm pro-choice)
but I noticed that someone brought a topic
from pro-choice forum to here so i'm going
to do the same with a pro-life topic that
kind of made me think about how people
really don't seem to understand women who
have abortions - it's not all about the
z/e/f
Quote:
i have heard a
new common excuse for the homicide of
innocent children. They don't want to
be baby factories. Who the heck asked
them to lay down and have sex? That
baby didn't ask to be put there. Then
they say, "i used protection, accidents
happen." god does not give us accidents.
And as for protection, the only way to
prevent pregnancy is to not have sex.
Sex = pregnancy.
of course no-one 'forced' us to lay down
and have sex (unless raped) but this
doesn't mean that we should automatically
accept any pregnancy that may result. Sex
is not purely for procreation - if so then
why is there actually only a small period
within the cycle where conception can
actually occur?
If people are using contraception then
it's a clear indication that they don't
want to be pregnant, that they don't want
to have a child. Just because the world
hasn't yet invented a contraception that
is 100% doesn't mean that people shouldn't
be able to have sex for enjoyment - 98% is
pretty reliable and, if you're unlucky
enough to be caught within that 2% then
why should people not have the option to
decide whether or not it continues?
The "baby" may well have asked not to be
there - neither did the woman so why is it
you believe that a non sentient being
should take preference to the woman who
would have to go through the pregnancy and
birth?
Quote:
it kills me when
they say, "if abortion wasn't legal, women
would find hack doctors to do it." I have
an opinion on this, harsh, but an opinion.
If they are going to kill an innocent
child, they have got what is coming to
them. Maybe it will rid the world of
people that are unwilling to take
responsibility for their actions.
"inoccent" is actually redundant in your
sentence but we'll ignore your emotive
slight on language for the time being.
It's actually refreshing to hear such an
honest view - you have no sympathy or
concern for the woman and it's only the
fetus where your concern lies.
"taking responsibilty" may well be done by
abortion - just because you don't believe
it to be so doesn't make you right. I am
responisble for my actions, I am fully
aware of that and I take responsibilty so
equating those who abort to being
unwilling to take responsibility is
false.
Quote:
abortion is now
used as a form of birth control. Women
start having unprotected sex a week after
an abortion and end up preg again. How
did that happen? Then they just go on
down to the clinic to get rid of their
"problem". May .God have mercy on
their souls.
lol and you know this how exactly? Women
don't rush into sex (some may, they're in
the minority) because it's dangerous to
have sex within two weeks following a
termination. Are you also implying that
women who abort are dumb? Seems like it,
obviously I know nothing about human
biology or how you get pregnant, how did
it happen??? (sarcasm, does that need
pointing out too?)
also, by saying "they just pop down to the
clinic" you really are showing how little
you know about abortion, have you any idea
how agonizing a decision it is? Have you
any idea how much thought and soul
searching goes into deciding to terminate?
Obviously not. I bet you could tell me
the procedure, tell me all about the fetus
- that doesn't mean you understand
abortion. You can list reasons but you
clearly don't understand.
As for god having mercy on our souls...
This is a serious question.
The only mention of the fetus dying in the
bible is in the old testement so why is
the christian position on abortion
different? (as opposed to jewish
position, for example).
Ex 21:22-23 - the death of the fetus is
not a serious crime, only if the woman
dies too warrants the most serious
punishments (fine for the first, death for
the second).
The fetus is recognised as not being a
person.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-26-06 12:25pm
This is a wonderful post! I too took a
topic from the pro-life forum and brought
it here; I also took one and brought it to
the pro-choice topic. This is what we
should be doing if we want to discuss
these things, not going onto each other's
boards!!
Thumbs up, I agree with everything. And
the bible excerpt is excellent.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1048 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:93
Posted: 02-26-06 12:38pm
I'm interested in what people will have to
say about this. I have noticed one
christian is about on the boards, i'm
wondering about the bible exerpt...
Hopefully this (the whoe post) will be
addressed soon!
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1048 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:93
Posted: 02-26-06 12:54pm
I did consider putting the last bit in a
separate post because I thought it might
mean the rest of the post is ignored.
Anyone?? You can ignore the last bit if
you want!
|
lsipes
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Jan 2006 Posts: 325
Posted: 02-26-06 14:53pm
Maybe i'm reading the verse a different
way than you, but i'll quote my bible
here, again..
"if men struggle with each other and
strike a woman with child so that she
gives birth prematurely, yet there is no
injury, he shall surely be fined as the
woman's husband may demand of him, and he
shall pay as the judges decide. But if
there is any further unjury, then you
shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot".
I'm taking that as saying that if the baby
is born alive, though premature, and the
mother is fine, then the guy pays a fine
and all is gravy. But if the child or
mother suffer any injury, then he has to
die. I don't really understand how it
supports your stance.
As for the rest of you post, I totally
agree!!!
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1048 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:93
Posted: 02-26-06 15:12pm
The interpretation i've always found
(especially when relating to jewish
culture) is that by her 'fruit' departing
it's assumed to have died and, thus, only
a fine is the punishment - the 'harm'
following being the death of the woman
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 02-26-06 19:09pm
Moo, that is a great post, I posted one
about morality and it was gone, in
response to theirs. The main thing is is
that I have a difficult time with is that
they are more for the fetus, I do not know
if this makes since or not but their are
times that the fetus must go or be aborted
for the mother to live on, I do not think
that I could handle living later on if I
knew that my mother had to die so that I
could be given life and I realize that the
man above died to give us life and blah,
blah, blah but a mother and a fetus is a
different picture in my book. Moo, we
are glad to have you here. You are truly
appreciated! Of course along with the
others, you are appreciated too!
|
jimmyjackers
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 270
Posted: 02-26-06 19:20pm
Ex 21:22-23
and if men strive together, and hurt a
woman with child, so that her fruit
depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall
be surely fined, according as the woman's
husband shall lay upon him; and he shall
pay as the judges determine.
This is clearly condemning the death of
her foetus.
The only reason it plays the issue down is
because the phase is assuming the loss was
due to an accident.
|
jimmyjackers
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 270
Posted: 02-26-06 20:06pm
bahahahahahaha123
wrote:
jimmyjackers
wrote:
the only reason it plays the
issue down is because the phase is
assuming the loss was due to an
accident.
you would think your god would be more
clear on abortion, instead of leaving it
up to idiots like you to assume
things.
there is nothing to assume, it is quite
clear.
The death of the foetus is condemned.
|
jimmyjackers
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 270
Posted: 02-26-06 20:41pm
bahahahahahaha123
wrote:
jimmyjackers
wrote:
the death of the foetus is
condemned.
maybe you should read your bible more
clearly. Your god doesn't have a
problem ripping fetus' from the womb to
kill when it
suits.
elucidate
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1048 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:93
Posted: 02-27-06 03:01am
jimmyjackers
wrote:
this is clearly condemning the death of
her foetus.
The only reason it plays the issue down is
because the phase is assuming the loss was
due to an
accident.
the reason it's 'played down' is because
the fetus is not the equal of the woman.
It's a lesser 'crime' than killing a
person.
|
jimmyjackers
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 270
Posted: 02-27-06 04:50am
moo
wrote:
jimmyjackers
wrote:
this is clearly condemning the death of
her foetus.
The only reason it plays the issue down is
because the phase is assuming the loss was
due to an
accident.
the reason it's 'played down' is because
the fetus is not the equal of the woman.
It's a lesser 'crime' than killing a
person.
the only reason it plays the issue down is
because the phase is assuming the loss was
due to an accident.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1048 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:93
Posted: 02-27-06 06:40am
jimmyjackers
wrote:
the only reason it plays the issue down is
because the phase is assuming the loss was
due to an
accident.
well, as it's the only text in the bible
concerning the death of a fetus that's
your own interpretation - there's no
qualification of your claims that it's
only treated lesser because it's an
"accident".
Did you read the rest of the post? I'm
just curious as no pro-lifer/anti-abortion
people have addressed it
just thought i'd point out the american
bible societies version of the text
concerning the death of the fetus. Irt
indictaes that the interpretation is that
the death of the fetus is secondary and by
no means equal to the death of the woman
(it doesn't fall within the ambit of "life
for a life" and, again, no reference that
this is because of an 'accident'). The
reference to the 'harm' that follows means
the death of the woman. The death of the
fetus is assumed in 21:22 where a fine is
imposseable
