I think that the supreme court should take a next look at ROE V WADE, and settle this once and for all....
There has been a lot in the news about this subject. Some are pro-life and some are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice. Most may not agree but I would like to get other opinions.
Have you seen the movie "Unplanned?"
I am pro-choice I believe a woman should have the right to decide what she does with her body and no one else should have the right to tell her.
I'm pro abortion. For all these people who are going to force a woman to keep a baby she doesn't want or can't take care of why don't you adopt those kids.
Next time you think about banning Abortion you just remember all those homeless people you don't look at and all the sections of the city you are afraid to go too.
Banning abortions won't stop women from having them. The bans are a futile effort, and a waste of taxpayer time and money.
Banning abortions won't stop women from having them. The bans are a futile effort, and a waste of taxpayer time and money.
"Between 1974 and 1983 the repeat abortion rate soared drastically - 166%."
It is definitely NOT a futile effort to ban abortions. And I can't think of a better way to spend taxpayer money. It would be first on my list.
"Since legalization, abortion has become so routine more than 40 million unborn
babies have been aborted since 1973. In 1996, 1,365,730 abortions were recorded, an
increase of well over 100% since 1973, when the annual figure was 615,831, according to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About every 20 seconds a baby is
aborted. 159 abortions are done every hour, 3,805 every day, 115,744 every month.
Almost 30% of all pregnancies are now ended by abortion."
The quotations are taken from Georgia Right To Life website.
The other data to consider is the effect that abortions have upon the mother including physical, psychological and emotional trauma and, in some cases, death.
It's also interesting to imagine what sort of people may have been lost forever who were geniuses in some field that would have been a vital asset to our country and we'll never know. We'll never know.
I find it interesting that a majority of the people that say we can't ban abortions or women will get them illegally are the same people who are calling for a gun ban as if people won't get guns illegally.
Personally, I am not pro-choice, because abortion IS murder. Am I also not pro-life, because we already have too many people in this world and most of them suck. I suppose I am pro-prevention. Condoms are cheap and easily accessible, and abstinence is free.
I find it interesting that a majority of the people that say we can't ban abortions or women will get them illegally are the same people who are calling for a gun ban as if people won't get guns illegally.
Personally, I am not pro-choice, because abortion IS murder. Am I also not pro-life, because we already have too many people in this world and most of them suck. I suppose I am pro-prevention. Condoms are cheap and easily accessible, and abstinence is free.
History. When abortion was illegal, women were still having abortions. Banning them pushes them underground, and women die.
Banning guns, same principle. People who want them, will find a way.
I find it interesting that a majority of the people that say we can't ban abortions or women will get them illegally are the same people who are calling for a gun ban as if people won't get guns illegally.
Personally, I am not pro-choice, because abortion IS murder. Am I also not pro-life, because we already have too many people in this world and most of them suck. I suppose I am pro-prevention. Condoms are cheap and easily accessible, and abstinence is free.
History. When abortion was illegal, women were still having abortions. Banning them pushes them underground, and women die.
Banning guns, same principle. People who want them, will find a way.
It is so stupid worrying about someone who is not born ....
There is enough people and there are too many people who no one cares about. It is so stupid worrying about someone who is not born when there are so many people who are not worried about who are alive. The bottom line is, people love sticking their nose in other people's business.
Banning abortions won't stop women from having them. The bans are a futile effort, and a waste of taxpayer time and money.
"Between 1974 and 1983 the repeat abortion rate soared drastically - 166%."
It is definitely NOT a futile effort to ban abortions. And I can't think of a better way to spend taxpayer money. It would be first on my list.
"Since legalization, abortion has become so routine more than 40 million unborn
babies have been aborted since 1973. In 1996, 1,365,730 abortions were recorded, an
increase of well over 100% since 1973, when the annual figure was 615,831, according to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About every 20 seconds a baby is
aborted. 159 abortions are done every hour, 3,805 every day, 115,744 every month.
Almost 30% of all pregnancies are now ended by abortion."
The quotations are taken from Georgia Right To Life website.
The other data to consider is the effect that abortions have upon the mother including physical, psychological and emotional trauma and, in some cases, death.
It's also interesting to imagine what sort of people may have been lost forever who were geniuses in some field that would have been a vital asset to our country and we'll never know. We'll never know.
As I said, banning abortion won't stop them. It will simply make it unsafe, and women will die.
What lowers the abortion rate is free and accessible birth control.
Women aren't incubators.
Banning abortions won't stop women from having them. The bans are a futile effort, and a waste of taxpayer time and money.
"Between 1974 and 1983 the repeat abortion rate soared drastically - 166%."
It is definitely NOT a futile effort to ban abortions. And I can't think of a better way to spend taxpayer money. It would be first on my list.
"Since legalization, abortion has become so routine more than 40 million unborn
babies have been aborted since 1973. In 1996, 1,365,730 abortions were recorded, an
increase of well over 100% since 1973, when the annual figure was 615,831, according to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About every 20 seconds a baby is
aborted. 159 abortions are done every hour, 3,805 every day, 115,744 every month.
Almost 30% of all pregnancies are now ended by abortion."
The quotations are taken from Georgia Right To Life website.
The other data to consider is the effect that abortions have upon the mother including physical, psychological and emotional trauma and, in some cases, death.
It's also interesting to imagine what sort of people may have been lost forever who were geniuses in some field that would have been a vital asset to our country and we'll never know. We'll never know.
As I said, banning abortion won't stop them. It will simply make it unsafe, and women will die.
What lowers the abortion rate is free and accessible birth control.
Women aren't incubators.
I agree that banning abortions will not stop them, but legalization drastically increases the number. I guess you didn't read my post before you wrote your response. Banning anything is not an answer, but saying that birth control is an option is obvious but doesn't always work and it's not free.
Abstinence is free but that's not practiced very much anymore.
The people who opt for abortions are generally looking for an easy way out of an uncomfortable position they got themselves into. It's a selfish act that totally disregards another person's right to life.
There are many organizations that are willing to help people deal with their particular situation (unwanted pregnancy) that might not be as easy, but are obviously more humane.
What does your comment about incubators have to do with the post? I never said women were incubators. Here is the definition. What is your point?
in·cu·ba·tor
1. an enclosed apparatus providing a controlled environment for the care and protection of premature or
unusually small babies.
2. an apparatus used to hatch eggs or grow microorganisms under controlled conditions.
3. a place, especially with support staff and equipment, made available at low rent to new small businesses.
The abortion discussion centers around the fetus, or the unborn, rather than the woman and her right to life.
Thus reducing a woman to the status of an incubator, instead of a person with a mind and a soul.
The abortion discussion centers around the fetus, or the unborn, rather than the woman and her right to life.
Thus reducing a woman to the status of an incubator, instead of a person with a mind and a soul.
Tell me I am not the only one to see the irony in this choice of phrasing.
The abortion discussion centers around the fetus, or the unborn, rather than the woman and her right to life.
Thus reducing a woman to the status of an incubator, instead of a person with a mind and a soul.
Tell me I am not the only one to see the irony in this choice of phrasing.
The abortion discussion centers around the fetus, or the unborn, rather than the woman and her right to life.
Thus reducing a woman to the status of an incubator, instead of a person with a mind and a soul.
Tell me I am not the only one to see the irony in this choice of phrasing.
Amazingly enough, a woman has a right to life. That is not considered when fetishizing the unborn.
The abortion discussion centers around the fetus, or the unborn, rather than the woman and her right to life.
Thus reducing a woman to the status of an incubator, instead of a person with a mind and a soul.
Tell me I am not the only one to see the irony in this choice of phrasing.
Amazingly enough, a woman has a right to life. That is not considered when fetishizing the unborn.
One of the flaws in the anti-abortion argument is it speaks from the Disney-fied version of childbirth.
Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. And, no matter how rose-colored your glasses, pregnancy and childbirth is no easy thing.
Bottom line, a woman has final say over her body, and her life.
One of the flaws in the anti-abortion argument is it speaks from the Disney-fied version of childbirth.
Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. And, no matter how rose-colored your glasses, pregnancy and childbirth is no easy thing.
So many things could be said in response to even just a few short lines...
You are basically saying - this is a scary and difficult experience for me, so I am going to kill you to avoid a scary and difficult experience for me. Not life threatening, just scary and difficult. There are life threatening pregnancies which I do not deny, but that is not what you are saying here.
Abortion for convenience sake (which is beyond the vast majority of the procedures performed) is one of the biggest cop out, irresponsible, entitlement arguments ever presented. It is meritless and indefensible. There is no convincing argument that legitimizes killing someone due to inconvenience.
Bottom line, a woman has final say over her body, and her life.
The fundamental flaw in this argument has always been (and will always be) once a woman becomes pregnant - there is more than just one body involved. You can spin it any which way you want, but that doesn't change the scientific and biological fact that there is a second body in the equation. A body that the woman has been entrusted with, regardless of the circumstances.
One of the flaws in the anti-abortion argument is it speaks from the Disney-fied version of childbirth.
Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. And, no matter how rose-colored your glasses, pregnancy and childbirth is no easy thing.
Bottom line, a woman has final say over her body, and her life.
Pro Choice. I can understand peoples feelings though and can see some instances but other than that I think a women's body is hers to make such choices.
One of the flaws in the anti-abortion argument is it speaks from the Disney-fied version of childbirth.
Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. And, no matter how rose-colored your glasses, pregnancy and childbirth is no easy thing.
Bottom line, a woman has final say over her body, and her life.
A woman shouldn't have the say over somebody else's body- I.E the child that will be killed.
The 'her body/her choice' crap is nonsense. We tell women what they can & can't do with their bodies all the time.
Want to take illegal drugs? The Government won't let you.
Want to rent yourself out as a prostitute? The Government won't let you (in 99% of the country)
Want to engage in pedophilia? The Government won't let you (and rightly so)
So, is it so horrendous a concept that the government tell a woman that she can't murder her unborn child for the sake of convenience?
One of the flaws in the anti-abortion argument is it speaks from the Disney-fied version of childbirth.
Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. And, no matter how rose-colored your glasses, pregnancy and childbirth is no easy thing.
Bottom line, a woman has final say over her body, and her life.
A woman shouldn't have the say over somebody else's body- I.E the child that will be killed.
The 'her body/her choice' crap is nonsense. We tell women what they can & can't do with their bodies all the time.
Want to take illegal drugs? The Government won't let you.
Want to rent yourself out as a prostitute? The Government won't let you (in 99% of the country)
Want to engage in pedophilia? The Government won't let you (and rightly so)
So, is it so horrendous a concept that the government tell a woman that she can't murder her unborn child for the sake of convenience?
We made certain drugs illegal. So now, nobody takes drugs.
We made prostitution illegal. So now, there are no more prostitutes.
We made pedophilia illegal. Look Ma, no more pedophiles!
Abortion is never about convenience. Never.
One of the flaws in the anti-abortion argument is it speaks from the Disney-fied version of childbirth.
Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. And, no matter how rose-colored your glasses, pregnancy and childbirth is no easy thing.
Bottom line, a woman has final say over her body, and her life.
A woman shouldn't have the say over somebody else's body- I.E the child that will be killed.
The 'her body/her choice' crap is nonsense. We tell women what they can & can't do with their bodies all the time.
Want to take illegal drugs? The Government won't let you.
Want to rent yourself out as a prostitute? The Government won't let you (in 99% of the country)
Want to engage in pedophilia? The Government won't let you (and rightly so)
So, is it so horrendous a concept that the government tell a woman that she can't murder her unborn child for the sake of convenience?
We made certain drugs illegal. So now, nobody takes drugs.
We made prostitution illegal. So now, there are no more prostitutes.
We made pedophilia illegal. Look Ma, no more pedophiles!
Abortion is never about convenience. Never.
And this argument is also nonsensical. As I said before (possibly in this thread) you can't dictate what's illegal on the basis of 'they'll do it anyway.' It's an immoral treatment of a human life. And 95% of the time it IS only for the sake of convenience.
95% is a made up statistic. When you have to make up the numbers, you know it is a bogus argument.
| Why Women Choose Abortion | |||
| Inadequate finances to raise a child | 21% | ||
| Not ready for responsibility | 21% | ||
| Woman's life would be changed too much | 16% | ||
| Problems with relationship; unmarried | 12% | ||
| Too young; not mature enough | 11% | ||
| Children are grown; woman has all she wants | 8% | ||
| Unborn child has possible health problems | 3% | ||
| Woman has health problems | 3% | ||
| Pregnancy caused by rape, incest | 1% | ||
| Other | 4% | ||
| (Average number of reasons given: 3.7) | |||
| Source: Torres and Forrest, as cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States | |||
| (October 2001) |
95% is a made up statistic. When you have to make up the numbers, you know it is a bogus argument.
I apologize for the wonky formatting. I was trying to make it more readable, and it messed up the columns and format a bit.
It looks like JediJohnnie's number is actually pretty close since the top six or seven reasons can all be boiled down to some sort of convenience excuse/argument. Is it exactly 95% - no, obviously not... But it is much closer to that (hovering around 90-95% depending on which you consider to be convenience arguments and since you cannot really classify the 4% other - can't rule it in, but also can't fully rule it out either) and far far far far away from being a "made up" statistic to support a bogus argument.
So before you decide to disregard someone's argument by accusing them of making up numbers, maybe do a little bit of research first. Dismissing an opposing viewpoint as bogus simply because it cites to a statistic is being just as shortsighted as what you are [wrongfully] accusing JediJohnnie of (i.e. making up numbers). That is the sort of tactic people who have no convincing counter argument usually resort to.
I pulled this list from this website (https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8) under the heading The vast majority of abortions are elective. But if you look at their source (cited below) you can track it back to the original source - one that is widely cited elsewhere.
Why Women Choose Abortion Inadequate finances to raise a child Not ready for responsibility Woman's life would be changed too much Problems with relationship; unmarried Too young; not mature enough Children are grown; woman has all she wants Unborn child has possible health problems Woman has health problems Pregnancy caused by rape, incest Other (Average number of reasons given: 3.7) Source: Torres and Forrest, as cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States (October 2001)
I'm Pro-choice. You never know what women are going through..Abusive relationships, mental health issues, HEalth problems-High Blood Pressure etc. This decision is between that woman and GOD. Period. So the pro-life ppl can be pro-life but they are, and can't judge another person for deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I thank God my mom didn't terminate me but if she did I WOULD NOT KNOW! I would be with the LORD.
How about debate it is none of your business what a woman does with her body.I'm Pro-choice. You never know what women are going through..Abusive relationships, mental health issues, HEalth problems-High Blood Pressure etc. This decision is between that woman and GOD. Period. So the pro-life ppl can be pro-life but they are, and can't judge another person for deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I thank God my mom didn't terminate me but if she did I WOULD NOT KNOW! I would be with the LORD.
You're talking about high risk pregnancies and that does involve a critical decision making process. That mother does have to choose. And any decision made will involve God. If one really invoked God in the process, I firmly believe they would choose life since God is the creator of life.
I think we've been debating on this forum that elective abortion for convenience or for birth control is wrong in countless ways. The right to life exists for the mother AND her unborn baby.
I too am glad that your mother chose life for you. And my only consolation for babies being put to death in their mother's womb means that they will be in heaven.
How about debate it is none of your business what a woman does with her body.
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
If anyone thinks i am going to back down from putting Gods word up....think again and show your true self.
Much discussion Re abortion and the sad thing about it NOT too many care about Gods view.To save band width the link is here to those that MIGHT care.
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/abortion-in-the-bible/
Pretty obvious those that support abortion could care less what God thinks.And then you have some on the fence that could care what God thinks.Even many that are against it seem to wait till man corrects it.But then again thats why this world is the way it is RE the problems in it.If anyone thinks i am going to back down from putting Gods word up....think again and show your true self.
Much discussion Re abortion and the sad thing about it NOT too many care about Gods view.To save band width the link is here to those that MIGHT care.
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/abortion-in-the-bible/
Who in this forum challenged you about giving us God's point of view? FC forum posters are the most tolerant people I've ever seen in a public forum. I rarely hear of anyone on here being radically opposed to someone else's point of view. And there are plenty of FCers that use God's viewpoint in their posts.
I cannot fathom your defensiveness. I think we all want to see what you have to say. And thank you for referencing a good site to visit on the topic being discussed.
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
Men are not the only ones making the laws.
Separation of church & state has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. It's a human rights issue.
By your reasoning, there would still be slavery, since Jefferson's “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” would be violating 'separation of church & state.'
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
Investigate and find out what separation of church and state really means before you throw it into an argument. It's actually to keep the state (government) from forming a state religion and not at all about keeping religion, or God, out of governmental affairs. It's not in the Constitution per se. It was a paraphrase by Thomas Jefferson.
The following quote is from from Teachinghistory.org.:
"The United States Constitution does not state in so many words that there is a separation of church and state. The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the Constitution promotes freedom of religion and prohibits the federal government from inhibiting its citizens’ ability to worship as they wish."
BTW, men should definitely have a say on whether or not their babies are slaughtered before they're allowed to be born. It shouldn't only be the woman's prerogative. The daddies might actually want to be a daddies. Why doesn't anyone think about them?
And even if they are not the daddies, why should they necessarily be for murdering babies by anyone? Unborn babies are still human beings (albeit quite small and helpless) and deserve the right to live. And if men want to fight for the defenseless little babes, I say, "Go for it!"
95% is a made up statistic. When you have to make up the numbers, you know it is a bogus argument.
I apologize for the wonky formatting. I was trying to make it more readable, and it messed up the columns and format a bit.
It looks like JediJohnnie's number is actually pretty close since the top six or seven reasons can all be boiled down to some sort of convenience excuse/argument. Is it exactly 95% - no, obviously not... But it is much closer to that (hovering around 90-95% depending on which you consider to be convenience arguments and since you cannot really classify the 4% other - can't rule it in, but also can't fully rule it out either) and far far far far away from being a "made up" statistic to support a bogus argument.
So before you decide to disregard someone's argument by accusing them of making up numbers, maybe do a little bit of research first. Dismissing an opposing viewpoint as bogus simply because it cites to a statistic is being just as shortsighted as what you are [wrongfully] accusing JediJohnnie of (i.e. making up numbers). That is the sort of tactic people who have no convincing counter argument usually resort to.
I pulled this list from this website (https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8) under the heading The vast majority of abortions are elective. But if you look at their source (cited below) you can track it back to the original source - one that is widely cited elsewhere.
Why Women Choose Abortion Inadequate finances to raise a child Not ready for responsibility Woman's life would be changed too much Problems with relationship; unmarried Too young; not mature enough Children are grown; woman has all she wants Unborn child has possible health problems Woman has health problems Pregnancy caused by rape, incest Other (Average number of reasons given: 3.7) Source: Torres and Forrest, as cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States (October 2001)
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
Investigate and find out what separation of church and state really means before you throw it into an argument. It's actually to keep the state (government) from forming a state religion and not at all about keeping religion, or God, out of governmental affairs. It's not in the Constitution per se. It was a paraphrase by Thomas Jefferson.
The following quote is from from Teachinghistory.org.:
"The United States Constitution does not state in so many words that there is a separation of church and state. The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the Constitution promotes freedom of religion and prohibits the federal government from inhibiting its citizens’ ability to worship as they wish."
BTW, men should definitely have a say on whether or not their babies are slaughtered before they're allowed to be born. It shouldn't only be the woman's prerogative. The daddies might actually want to be a daddies. Why doesn't anyone think about them?
And even if they are not the daddies, why should they necessarily be for murdering babies by anyone? Unborn babies are still human beings (albeit quite small and helpless) and deserve the right to live. And if men want to fight for the defenseless little babes, I say, "Go for it!"
I didn't feel the need to be technical about "separation of church and state" but it seems like you clearly understood that I was referring to "keeping religion, or God, out of governmental affairs." ;)
So we should go by what you mean instead of the original meaning of the text?
You understand that there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, right?
The definition of fetus is an unborn human baby.
Also, I hope you don't truly think it is simply a matter of wanting or not wanting to be daddies/parents.
Just what do people become after they have a baby? What do you call them other than mommies/daddies/parents? Or do you mean that they are okay with being mommies/daddies/parents (or whatever name you what to ascribe to them) as long as they can have the authority to end their fetus/baby's life?
And why would anyone think they have the right to make a decision that doesn't regard their own being in the first place? And the woman should be able to decide what happens to the "unborn babies" she (NOT the "daddies" or other men it may/may not concern) is carrying (in HER body, in case that isn't clear) especially if it endangers her "right to live."
I would respect a woman's decision to have an abortion if it really threatened her life, but those cases are extremely rare. And I still hold that a man should be involved in a decision that will end the life of his own offspring. He was definitely involved in the conception. Many men are capable of being responsible and caring.
Also, "slaughtered" made me giggle.
If the word "slaughtered" in reference to unborn babies made you giggle, then you already have a heart problem.
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Do u understand what that scripture means?Elizabeth was carrying John the Baptist and Mary was to be Jesus mom.It certainly looked like "Life"existed in Elizabeths womb.Ponder that!!
I'm familiar with the scripture and I do realize that life existed in both of the women's bodies. What is the point you're trying to make? And I'm very happy that Elizabeth and Mary elected to have their babies. Ponder that.
I knew when this thread was started that there would no changing of opinion on either side. I expected it might become ugly and that was never my intention. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think it's tragic if that opinion takes another person's life.
If YOU are not the one that is pregnant, you should not have a say! I don't see how men are the ones making these laws.
Also, Separation of church and state!
Investigate and find out what separation of church and state really means before you throw it into an argument. It's actually to keep the state (government) from forming a state religion and not at all about keeping religion, or God, out of governmental affairs. It's not in the Constitution per se. It was a paraphrase by Thomas Jefferson.
The following quote is from from Teachinghistory.org.:
"The United States Constitution does not state in so many words that there is a separation of church and state. The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the Constitution promotes freedom of religion and prohibits the federal government from inhibiting its citizens’ ability to worship as they wish."
BTW, men should definitely have a say on whether or not their babies are slaughtered before they're allowed to be born. It shouldn't only be the woman's prerogative. The daddies might actually want to be a daddies. Why doesn't anyone think about them?
And even if they are not the daddies, why should they necessarily be for murdering babies by anyone? Unborn babies are still human beings (albeit quite small and helpless) and deserve the right to live. And if men want to fight for the defenseless little babes, I say, "Go for it!"
I didn't feel the need to be technical about "separation of church and state" but it seems like you clearly understood that I was referring to "keeping religion, or God, out of governmental affairs." ;)
So we should go by what you mean instead of the original meaning of the text?
Yes.
You understand that there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, right?
The definition of fetus is an unborn human baby.
Yes, unborn.
Also, I hope you don't truly think it is simply a matter of wanting or not wanting to be daddies/parents.
Just what do people become after they have a baby? What do you call them other than mommies/daddies/parents? Or do you mean that they are okay with being mommies/daddies/parents (or whatever name you what to ascribe to them) as long as they can have the authority to end their fetus/baby's life?
The way you speak of it makes it sound as if the man is missing out on an opportunity [of being a parent], and the issue is deeper than that.
And why would anyone think they have the right to make a decision that doesn't regard their own being in the first place? And the woman should be able to decide what happens to the "unborn babies" she (NOT the "daddies" or other men it may/may not concern) is carrying (in HER body, in case that isn't clear) especially if it endangers her "right to live."
I would respect a woman's decision to have an abortion if it really threatened her life, but those cases are extremely rare. And I still hold that a man should be involved in a decision that will end the life of his own offspring. He was definitely involved in the conception. Many men are capable of being responsible and caring.
Life threatening abortion cases are only a fraction to the whole, as you mentioned. Sadly, additional realities include women and girls getting pregnant as a result of rape who do not desire to keep the child. Then, there are the families who conceive and find out that their unborn has a fetal anomaly (ie. rare disorder,defect) making them want to terminate the pregnancy. Furthermore, there are people who just aren't ready or able to care for a child (adoption doesn't work for everyone).
People are not just having abortions on a whim.
Also, "slaughtered" made me giggle.
If the word "slaughtered" in reference to unborn babies made you giggle, then you already have a heart problem.
No, my heart, as of now, is A-Okay. :) But, yes, in this context I giggle at the tone in which I consider to be over-dramatic.
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Do u understand what that scripture means?Elizabeth was carrying John the Baptist and Mary was to be Jesus mom.It certainly looked like "Life"existed in Elizabeths womb.Ponder that!!
I'm familiar with the scripture and I do realize that life existed in both of the women's bodies. What is the point you're trying to make? And I'm very happy that Elizabeth and Mary elected to have their babies. Ponder that.
I knew when this thread was started that there would no changing of opinion on either side. I expected it might become ugly and that was never my intention. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think it's tragic if that opinion takes another person's life.
This is from another person who also replied, not me, so I have no idea what point he/she was trying to make...
And, yes, it would be foolish to think an online forum would change anyone's opinions on such a topic (but if that's anyone's goal - they can give it a go). I don't think this has turned ugly, but I don't mind civilly challenging views I don't necessarily agree with.
95% is a made up statistic. When you have to make up the numbers, you know it is a bogus argument.
I apologize for the wonky formatting. I was trying to make it more readable, and it messed up the columns and format a bit.
It looks like JediJohnnie's number is actually pretty close since the top six or seven reasons can all be boiled down to some sort of convenience excuse/argument. Is it exactly 95% - no, obviously not... But it is much closer to that (hovering around 90-95% depending on which you consider to be convenience arguments and since you cannot really classify the 4% other - can't rule it in, but also can't fully rule it out either) and far far far far away from being a "made up" statistic to support a bogus argument.
So before you decide to disregard someone's argument by accusing them of making up numbers, maybe do a little bit of research first. Dismissing an opposing viewpoint as bogus simply because it cites to a statistic is being just as shortsighted as what you are [wrongfully] accusing JediJohnnie of (i.e. making up numbers). That is the sort of tactic people who have no convincing counter argument usually resort to.
I pulled this list from this website (https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8) under the heading The vast majority of abortions are elective. But if you look at their source (cited below) you can track it back to the original source - one that is widely cited elsewhere.
Why Women Choose Abortion Inadequate finances to raise a child Not ready for responsibility Woman's life would be changed too much Problems with relationship; unmarried Too young; not mature enough Children are grown; woman has all she wants Unborn child has possible health problems Woman has health problems Pregnancy caused by rape, incest Other (Average number of reasons given: 3.7) Source: Torres and Forrest, as cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States (October 2001)
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
95% is a made up statistic. When you have to make up the numbers, you know it is a bogus argument.
I apologize for the wonky formatting. I was trying to make it more readable, and it messed up the columns and format a bit.
It looks like JediJohnnie's number is actually pretty close since the top six or seven reasons can all be boiled down to some sort of convenience excuse/argument. Is it exactly 95% - no, obviously not... But it is much closer to that (hovering around 90-95% depending on which you consider to be convenience arguments and since you cannot really classify the 4% other - can't rule it in, but also can't fully rule it out either) and far far far far away from being a "made up" statistic to support a bogus argument.
So before you decide to disregard someone's argument by accusing them of making up numbers, maybe do a little bit of research first. Dismissing an opposing viewpoint as bogus simply because it cites to a statistic is being just as shortsighted as what you are [wrongfully] accusing JediJohnnie of (i.e. making up numbers). That is the sort of tactic people who have no convincing counter argument usually resort to.
I pulled this list from this website (https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8) under the heading The vast majority of abortions are elective. But if you look at their source (cited below) you can track it back to the original source - one that is widely cited elsewhere.
Why Women Choose Abortion Inadequate finances to raise a child Not ready for responsibility Woman's life would be changed too much Problems with relationship; unmarried Too young; not mature enough Children are grown; woman has all she wants Unborn child has possible health problems Woman has health problems Pregnancy caused by rape, incest Other (Average number of reasons given: 3.7) Source: Torres and Forrest, as cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States (October 2001)
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
IMO, yes they do. Perfectly.
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
EVERY of the statistics I referenced in my earlier explanation of this post equals "convenience"
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
EVERY of the statistics I referenced in my earlier explanation of this post equals "convenience"
In your opinion.
Since you will never be faced with making that choice, your opinion doesn't matter.
[quote author=nickylanena link=topic=89122.msg1284053#msg1284053 date=1562996796]
Was this reposted for me to see? If so, this pretty much sums up what I said - there are many realities/reasons in which a woman would choose to get an abortion. Each of the aforementioned is a reason. Whether a woman feels ready or not to give birth/raise a child or whether they are facing complications with a pregnancy is still a valid reason for that woman. You/him/her/they/we may not like the reasoning but who is anyone else to decide (despite beliefs and feelings)?
Either way, IMO these are decisions that are thoroughly thought out and not merely whimsical.
If this wasn't posted for me to see, thanks for sharing regardless.
@nickylanena, it was originally posted to counter another member who attacked JediJohnnie's earlier post about roughly 95% of abortions being performed for the sake of convenience and that member's baseless claim that Johnnie was spouting fake made up statistics. When Johnnie was proven correct with verified sourced statistics, she devolved into lower and more baseless arguments until finally hitting rock bottom with: men have no right to any opinions.
You are correct that each category is a legitimate reason given - valid or not - they are the reasons truthfully given and thought out by the person facing the abortion. The point though - is that the vast majority of these categories boils down to convenience rather than health. The main shouting points are always: Health of the mother!!! and Rape & Incest!!! Yet statistics show that these make up such a small number of the overall abortions.
Hi UGetPaid,
I was asking linderlizzie if she had reposted this for me. I do agree that they are the main points people bring up (maybe even more so when justifying late-term abortions). But I wanted to point out to her, like you also mentioned, that each of the aforementioned is a reason.
Okay - well I didn't expect to change your mind anyway, but hopefully gave you something to think about.
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
EVERY of the statistics I referenced in my earlier explanation of this post equals "convenience"
In your opinion.
Since you will never be faced with making that choice, your opinion doesn't matter.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
None of the statistics equal "convenience."
EVERY of the statistics I referenced in my earlier explanation of this post equals "convenience"
In your opinion.
Since you will never be faced with making that choice, your opinion doesn't matter.
::) :'(
The eye roll is for your faulty logic and unwillingness to have a rational discussion about a topic when someone presents a legitimate response to your faulty logic - I've already given a rational response to your "statistics are made up" argument. Your response is that I am not entitled to an opinion because I am a man. That is the most BS asinine argument out there and I have lost quite a bit of respect for you for making it. There are many women who share and would echo my opinion verbatim. In your mind, do they have a right to the same opinions I profess because at least they are women who might be faced with an unexpected pregnancy? Why or why not?
The teary eyes are for all of the children (not inanimate lifeless tissue) who will die as a result of entitlement thinking such as yours.
Inadequate finances to raise a child = it will cost too much to have/raise this child - making it inconvenient for me. Having $ is more important than the life I have created, which will suck away all of my fun money. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
Not ready for responsibility = raising a child is too big of a responsibility - it would be inconvenient for me to end my selfish me first lifestyle and be a nurturing mom to this life I have created. I'm not ready to do that, so I will kill the unborn child instead. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
Woman's life would be changed too much = having and raising this child will impact my daily schedule and where my focus and energy are directed. It will change my world from top top bottom. I don't want to change my life, so I will instead end the life of that child which would otherwise change it. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
Problems with relationship; unmarried = My boyfriend is going to hate/leave me if I have a baby and he is forced to man up and pay child support; or I cannot do this alone as a single mother. Since I am not married and my baby's father is a worthless piece of crap, I will kill the life we have created to avoid the struggles that come from single motherhood. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
Too young; not mature enough = I am not old enough or experienced enough to raise a child myself. I might actually have to grow up and take responsibility for my actions. It would be much easier if I just kill this life I've created instead. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
Children are grown; woman has all she wants = I thought I was completely done with dirty diapers, potty training, school programs, sassy teenagers, etc. It's my turn to be the center of my universe again. This baby I've created is going to ruin that plan. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
Unborn child has possible health problems = I don't want a child that isn't perfect or is more difficult to take care of than a 'normal' child without special needs or one that might die anyway. Instead of the unconditional love that I will get from a sick or special needs child, my focus is on the pain or embarrassment that I will suffer as a result of this imperfect child and I should kill it now rather than wait to see what blessings he or she might bring into my life. Abortion = Convenience Objective truth... not my opinion.
The last two categories: Woman has health problems and Pregnancy caused by rape, incest I am not going to classify as convenience arguments - although depending on the specific circumstances they still could be.
I have known women who have been in each one of these possible situations and have chosen the inconvenience of having a baby over the convenience of killing a baby. I have also known women who have been on the other side and had to make a really difficult and heart wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy. I have compassion and love for those women (and their deceased babies) and the truly awful decisions they faced. To anyone in this forum who has been in that horrible position, you have my sympathy and support, even if you feel like I am lashing out at you. It is my belief that you can be forgiven for that decision just like any other sin can be forgiven... but that doesn't make the next convenience killing of an unborn child right or okay.
I stand by my earlier point. The vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience sake. My male gender or @paints strong opposing viewpoint does not change that fact.
Women and young girls are both burdened and blessed with the responsibility of being the child-bearers. It absolutely sucks when they are scared and alone in facing that situation and the young men who have a hand in the life creation should also have something at stake. Thankfully, in many circumstances, the fathers do step up and take responsibility. Sadly, in many other cases - they show their true colors and skate away free.
This does not change the fact that a young innocent beautiful little boy or girl is just beginning to start a life journey and deserves a chance to make something special happen on that journey.
When the start of that little one's big journey is seen as nothing more than an inconvenience to mom it makes me cry inside. :'(
Hi Paints.First off i am sorry you had those experiences.Okay - well I didn't expect to change your mind anyway, but hopefully gave you something to think about.
As a woman who has gone through 2 life-threatening pregnancies and several miscarriages, I have thought it through extensively. Up close and personal.
In Gods eyes if a woman is told she must choose between her and the child the matter lies with your decision.This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.Ones conscience would come into play as well.
You misunderstood me.Convenience as in let me worry about it later,i can always have an abortion.
In Gods eyes if a woman is told she must choose between her and the child the matter lies with your decision.This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.Ones conscience would come into play as well.
When a mother's life is legitimately at stake, it is not an abortion out of convenience - which was never anyone's argument in this thread that I saw.
You misunderstood me.Convenience as in let me worry about it later,i can always have an abortion.
This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.
No prob keeping me honest U......even when i proof read posts LaLa land sometimes is round the corner.You misunderstood me.Convenience as in let me worry about it later,i can always have an abortion.
I think I see where I misread your commentThis isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.
I thought you were saying something different.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
Hi Paints.First off i am sorry you had those experiences.Okay - well I didn't expect to change your mind anyway, but hopefully gave you something to think about.
As a woman who has gone through 2 life-threatening pregnancies and several miscarriages, I have thought it through extensively. Up close and personal.
Drs are NOT always right.We all have seen they can be wrong and i have seen a few malpractices in our family over the yrs.
May i ask were the 2 pregnancies aborted?
In Gods eyes if a woman is told she must choose between her and the child the matter lies with your decision.This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.Ones conscience would come into play as well.
I know Jesus said the greatest love one can have for someone is to give their life.I am sure if faced with that many may find it difficult and i guess thats why we get 2nd opinions eh?
I am glad it worked out that way.Hi Paints.First off i am sorry you had those experiences.Okay - well I didn't expect to change your mind anyway, but hopefully gave you something to think about.
As a woman who has gone through 2 life-threatening pregnancies and several miscarriages, I have thought it through extensively. Up close and personal.
Drs are NOT always right.We all have seen they can be wrong and i have seen a few malpractices in our family over the yrs.
May i ask were the 2 pregnancies aborted?
In Gods eyes if a woman is told she must choose between her and the child the matter lies with your decision.This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.Ones conscience would come into play as well.
I know Jesus said the greatest love one can have for someone is to give their life.I am sure if faced with that many may find it difficult and i guess thats why we get 2nd opinions eh?
Neither were aborted, though the choice was always there if it became necessary. I thank God that my doctor saw me as a whole human being rather than a walking incubator.
God gave women the responsibility of bearing children. He doesn't require us to die in order to do so.
When the life that you can see-the woman-matters less to you than the potential life you can't, your opinion counts for less than nothing.
Neither were aborted, though the choice was always there if it became necessary. I thank God that my doctor saw me as a whole human being rather than a walking incubator.
God gave women the responsibility of bearing children. He doesn't require us to die in order to do so.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
When the life that you can see-the woman-matters less to you than the potential life you can't, your opinion counts for less than nothing.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
When the life that you can see-the woman-matters less to you than the potential life you can't, your opinion counts for less than nothing.
Neither were aborted, though the choice was always there if it became necessary. I thank God that my doctor saw me as a whole human being rather than a walking incubator.
God gave women the responsibility of bearing children. He doesn't require us to die in order to do so.
For what it's worth (and at the risk of getting your ire up again - which is not my intention), just to be clear - a mother's health being at risk is a much different issue than when pregnancy causes a financial crisis or having a baby will disrupt the mother's lifestyle or impose too big of a responsibility.
I know that your quotes above were directed at other thread comments not directly to me and I understand that I have no right to an opinion, but did you not get that point from my prior posts? If so, I apparently need to do a better job of expressing myself.
The point I am trying to make here is that both lives matter. The mother's life does not matter any less and in many cases matters more - but when we are only talking about the mother's inconvenience then that DOES matter less than the baby's life.
In cases where there is no threat to the woman's health, the baby's life should be protected. In situations where the mother's health is at risk - medical treatment should be given to save the mother. If that can be done while saving the child also - that should be considered. (This is not a doctor's forced incubation, but counseling and options and informed consent). If termination of the pregnancy is the only way to save the mother I see nothing wrong with that choice.
You are absolutely 100% correct when you say that God doesn't require women to die in order to bear children. I have no qualms about giving full agreement with that statement. In some cases that does unfortunately happen. But the flip side of your statement is also true. God also doesn't require or intend that innocent babies die in order for their mothers to live a more comfortable and less stressed life which the inconvenient pregnancy would bring about as a result if brought to term. I don't suppose I could get your agreement on that opinion?
I am glad it worked out that way.Hi Paints.First off i am sorry you had those experiences.Okay - well I didn't expect to change your mind anyway, but hopefully gave you something to think about.
As a woman who has gone through 2 life-threatening pregnancies and several miscarriages, I have thought it through extensively. Up close and personal.
Drs are NOT always right.We all have seen they can be wrong and i have seen a few malpractices in our family over the yrs.
May i ask were the 2 pregnancies aborted?
In Gods eyes if a woman is told she must choose between her and the child the matter lies with your decision.This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.Ones conscience would come into play as well.
I know Jesus said the greatest love one can have for someone is to give their life.I am sure if faced with that many may find it difficult and i guess thats why we get 2nd opinions eh?
Neither were aborted, though the choice was always there if it became necessary. I thank God that my doctor saw me as a whole human being rather than a walking incubator.
God gave women the responsibility of bearing children. He doesn't require us to die in order to do so.
Im sticking to my guns how God views it and as i explained to UG.I am glad you had a good Dr.There are 2 human lives involved here <as long as twins arent involved>....Life is precious in Gods eyes period for ALL.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
When the life that you can see-the woman-matters less to you than the potential life you can't, your opinion counts for less than nothing.
Are you being purposely obtuse? We've been talking about Abortion ON DEMAND. Not when the woman's life is at stake.
A human life is still at stake either way, but don't act like we haven't been clearly defining terms here.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
You are absolutely 100% correct when you say that God doesn't require women to die in order to bear children. I have no qualms about giving full agreement with that statement. In some cases that does unfortunately happen. But the flip side of your statement is also true. God also doesn't require or intend that innocent babies die in order for their mothers to live a more comfortable and less stressed life which the inconvenient pregnancy would bring about as a result if brought to term. I don't suppose I could get your agreement on that opinion?
What you call "inconvenient pregnancy" can mean life or death.
Last winter, a homeless woman and her newborn baby froze to death on a park bench.
Should she not have been able to abort, before both lives were lost?
If the woman has no value, how much do we really care about her unborn child?
You are absolutely 100% correct when you say that God doesn't require women to die in order to bear children. I have no qualms about giving full agreement with that statement. In some cases that does unfortunately happen. But the flip side of your statement is also true. God also doesn't require or intend that innocent babies die in order for their mothers to live a more comfortable and less stressed life which the inconvenient pregnancy would bring about as a result if brought to term. I don't suppose I could get your agreement on that opinion?
What you call "inconvenient pregnancy" can mean life or death.
Last winter, a homeless woman and her newborn baby froze to death on a park bench.
Should she not have been able to abort, before both lives were lost?
If the woman has no value, how much do we really care about her unborn child?
But you keep changing the parameters of the argument to suit your agenda and in the process make faulty assumptions of what I do or do not care about. I'm not able to justify my position to someone who keeps moving the goalposts.
With sincerity and unpatronizingly - may God bless you and your children, paints. I do not concede the argument to you, but I am not going to respond to your comment above which does not correlate in any way to what I said or the position I have consistently voiced.
Every child has the right to be wanted, loved and cared for.
Every child has the right to be wanted, loved and cared for.
But not the right to live... :'(
You are forgiven. ;)
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
I am glad it worked out that way.Hi Paints.First off i am sorry you had those experiences.Okay - well I didn't expect to change your mind anyway, but hopefully gave you something to think about.
As a woman who has gone through 2 life-threatening pregnancies and several miscarriages, I have thought it through extensively. Up close and personal.
Drs are NOT always right.We all have seen they can be wrong and i have seen a few malpractices in our family over the yrs.
May i ask were the 2 pregnancies aborted?
In Gods eyes if a woman is told she must choose between her and the child the matter lies with your decision.This isnt a matter of convenience as others have argued here.Ones conscience would come into play as well.
I know Jesus said the greatest love one can have for someone is to give their life.I am sure if faced with that many may find it difficult and i guess thats why we get 2nd opinions eh?
Neither were aborted, though the choice was always there if it became necessary. I thank God that my doctor saw me as a whole human being rather than a walking incubator.
God gave women the responsibility of bearing children. He doesn't require us to die in order to do so.
Im sticking to my guns how God views it and as i explained to UG.I am glad you had a good Dr.There are 2 human lives involved here <as long as twins arent involved>....Life is precious in Gods eyes period for ALL.
There is one human life and one potential life involved. The woman is life. Take care of her. The contents of her uterus is not your concern.
I just want to thank Jedijohnnie and UGetPaid for taking so much heat in this debate while remaining so gentlemanly and responding so logically to all arguments, baseless ones and otherwise. :notworthy:
You are absolutely 100% correct when you say that God doesn't require women to die in order to bear children. I have no qualms about giving full agreement with that statement. In some cases that does unfortunately happen. But the flip side of your statement is also true. God also doesn't require or intend that innocent babies die in order for their mothers to live a more comfortable and less stressed life which the inconvenient pregnancy would bring about as a result if brought to term. I don't suppose I could get your agreement on that opinion?
What you call "inconvenient pregnancy" can mean life or death.
Last winter, a homeless woman and her newborn baby froze to death on a park bench.
Should she not have been able to abort, before both lives were lost?
If the woman has no value, how much do we really care about her unborn child?
But you keep changing the parameters of the argument to suit your agenda and in the process make faulty assumptions of what I do or do not care about. I'm not able to justify my position to someone who keeps moving the goalposts.
With sincerity and unpatronizingly - may God bless you and your children, paints. I do not concede the argument to you, but I am not going to respond to your comment above which does not correlate in any way to what I said or the position I have consistently voiced.
The only agenda I have is to support women in the choices they make for their own lives.
Every child has the right to be wanted, loved and cared for.
Support the woman.
Exodus 20:13 King James Version of the Holy Bible: Thou shalt not kill.Amen
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
Abortion should be considerd a crime....
Paints,you say woman own their bodies.What about gays,drunkards and drug addicts?Clearly those 3 are sins against God.What makes abortion any different?The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
Do I think someone should keep having them due to irresponsibility? Absolutely not.
Pro abortion.
Paints,you say woman own their bodies.What about gays,drunkards and drug addicts?Clearly those 3 are sins against God.What makes abortion any different?The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
Not looking to debate with you,but God is out of the picture with you and HE views abortion as murder.
If you view the situation to be more important from a womans perspective rather then Gods.....i will accept how you feel and thats that.
Jesus opened a straight line to God. For women, too.And for murdered children.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
Just thought I'd mention that the fruit of the tree was not 'poisonous'. That is, if you're referring to the tree in the midst of the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve sampled.
Or is it "Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well."
Abortion shouldn't be banned when considering the extreme case of a rape victim getting pregnant because other cases just show a lack of responsibility.Suppose you were the product of a rape victim?Would you have liked to be aborted?
I will say this a million and more times. It is no one business what a woman does with her body but the woman, man of child and doctor. Not your sin if that is the case and you have no right to interfere in another person choice. Bible thumpers need to worry more about their own life. The bible is rewritten who knows what GOD said and when it was said. Lies of the WHITE man.Well you can say it another million times.You arent going to change how Jehovah feels about it and its only HIS decision that will count.
In my last breath I will say God bless all.I will say this a million and more times. It is no one business what a woman does with her body but the woman, man of child and doctor. Not your sin if that is the case and you have no right to interfere in another person choice. Bible thumpers need to worry more about their own life. The bible is rewritten who knows what GOD said and when it was said. Lies of the WHITE man.Well you can say it another million times.You arent going to change how Jehovah feels about it and its only HIS decision that will count.
In your last breath im sure you might change your mind and say,"God help me."
So you have NO use for the bible.What god will u be asking to bless us all in your last breath.In my last breath I will say God bless all.I will say this a million and more times. It is no one business what a woman does with her body but the woman, man of child and doctor. Not your sin if that is the case and you have no right to interfere in another person choice. Bible thumpers need to worry more about their own life. The bible is rewritten who knows what GOD said and when it was said. Lies of the WHITE man.Well you can say it another million times.You arent going to change how Jehovah feels about it and its only HIS decision that will count.
In your last breath im sure you might change your mind and say,"God help me."
Can't bring back any of the dead babies, but is it a bad idea to revive a controversial dead topic in the forum - just to see if any new users react to it?Obviously i am not a newbie,but i never mind commenting how i feel.
Can't bring back any of the dead babies, but is it a bad idea to revive a controversial dead topic in the forum - just to see if any new users react to it?
Please dont drink anything Uget while reading my posts.
I will say this a million and more times. It is no one business what a woman does with her body but the woman, man of child and doctor. Not your sin if that is the case and you have no right to interfere in another person choice. Bible thumpers need to worry more about their own life. The bible is rewritten who knows what GOD said and when it was said. Lies of the WHITE man.
Did anyone else hear the story about J.K. Dobbins as told by FOX sports announcer Gus Johnson? (Gus was roundly and unfairly criticized on social media for it afterward).\
Dobbins is the star running back for the Ohio State Buckeyes and he had a monster game against rival Michigan in early December. At one point late in the game Dobbins score one of his several touchdowns on the day and Gus said:
"J.K. Dobbins' mom Mya became pregnant when she was 18 years old. She went to the doctor because she was thinking about aborting the baby, but changed her mind. That baby turned out to be that young man, J.K. Dobbins - who she calls her miracle baby."
Being a Buckeye fan, I was fortunate enough to hear this story firsthand during the live broadcast of the game. What a proud and poignant moment that story was! Afterward, many pro-abortion people said Gus crossed the line in telling that story - disclosing personal details about JK and his mom, etc.
My reaction to that criticism = if it was "too personal" or somehow otherwise inappropriate, the story wouldn't have first been shared with Gus in the first place. Kudos to Gus for getting this out there. Kudos to Mya for having the courage to fully contemplate her decision before making the choice that she couldn't take back. And shame (or whatever word you can come up with which is the opposite of 'kudos') on anyone who vilifies either of them for publicly sharing this detail.
Not every baby who survives his or her mother's initial decision to get an abortion is going to turn into an all-pro athlete or someone with a significant impact on society, but who knows how many of these truly inspirational people who otherwise would have been a bright light we have sadly lost never to have known or realized their real-world impacts?
I also heard the comment by this guy early on and how everyone bashed it. Do people really prefer hearing garbage rather than good news? What a sad commentary on this world. :'(
I'm pro abortion. For all these people who are going to force a woman to keep a baby she doesn't want or can't take care of why don't you adopt those kids.
There has been a lot in the news about this subject. Some are pro-life and some are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice. Most may not agree but I would like to get other opinions.
And the MOST important reason is its murder in Gods eyes.There has been a lot in the news about this subject. Some are pro-life and some are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice. Most may not agree but I would like to get other opinions.
I used to be okay with a woman making the choice UNTIL I saw a site that explains from beginning to birth the life of a fetus. Since murder consists of someone dying that was previously alive, this should include babies in the womb. A baby has a heartbeat at 12 weeks old. So after that, shouldn't that be considered murder?
I believe a woman who is raped or her health would be in jeopardy should be allowed to have an abortion. There are a few other reasons to allow abortions, but i'm not okay with everyone being able to have one. Why do I say that? Because since Roe v. Wade, thousands of women believe it's a form of contraception. They have unprotected sex, get pregnant, have an abortion, and start all over again. It's dangerous for the women, death to another being, and I just don't think it should be allowed. Plus allowing abortion up to the date of birth and then severing it's spine at the brain stem. Is that right? No, it's murder. Or selling body parts? Is that right? No.
"Lies of the white man?"GREAT post Drutts to those ignorant RE bible.
The bible says,Eve was the mother of everyone living,and thru one man sinning caused the growing old and dying of mankind.
The bible being around for 1000s of yrs and translated into 1000s of languages shows its divinity.
Its also a history book and has shown its divinity by predicting future events,such as Jerusalem destruction in 70 CE as 1 example and there are many more,including King Herods inquiring to his men on the birth of the Messiah and they answered him from researching the bible from book of Micah in OT. the truth being born in Bethlehem.The bible even revealed the sadness that prevailed after Herod murdered all the 2 yr olds in Bethlehem after the astrologers never returned back to him to tell him where Jesus was.They were warned by an angel not to return to him cos Herods intent was to kill Jesus and the angel also told Joseph and Mary to go to Egypt till Herod died.Math 2
It also tells us the TRUE Gods name is Jehovah and Jesus is his begotten son and king of Gods kingdom in heaven and on earth forever and will soon put an end to Satanic and manmade rule.
I would never have an abortion but I don't think I have the right to impose my beliefs on someone else.
If we're going to be technical about it, it's not murder if its legal.Math 15:9 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.
If we're going to be technical about it, it's not murder if its legal.Untrue
Murder is illegal, abortion isn't but if you want to disregard the legal aspect of it, go right ahead.How many innocent people have been convicted of a crime in mans legal system?
Murder is illegal, abortion isn't but if you want to disregard the legal aspect of it, go right ahead.
TY UG.Murder is illegal, abortion isn't but if you want to disregard the legal aspect of it, go right ahead.
I'm gonna go with Donnamarg323 here. Not all of man's laws are the final authority on right and wrong, but if you want to disregard the moral aspect of it, go right ahead.
Life is what is important, abortion is a sin in the eyes of the maker...
Have you ever thought about the children who grow up and murder their parents? So many stories about that in this world and people are uptight about abortion rights.
Have you ever thought about the children who grow up and murder their parents? So many stories about that in this world and people are uptight about abortion rights.
MILLIONS (and I mean millions) more parents murder their unborn children than do children grow up to murder their parents. BOTH circumstances are tragic. It does not have to be one or the other as the sole source of tragedy.
Just because something (a parent murdered by their child) is reported in the news DOES NOT make it more relevant that the daily tens of thousands of abortions that are NOT reported, but are also "stories about that in this world" as you so put it.
EDIT to include source information on my statistics taken from https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/ (https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/):
According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.
In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. References and useful links:
- Abortion (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion)
- World Health Organization (WHO) (http://www.who.int/)- Statistics by the World Health Organization
- [1] Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96.
- [2] Jones RK et al., Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16