Abortion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: Abortion
(23-08-2012 01:42 PM)SomeOne Wrote:  Will the "soul" of the child be lost? well, doesnt the bible says somewhere that all the childs go to heaven anyway?

Not the un-baptised ones. Purgatory was the original destination, but as they don't believe in that any more... baby souls go to hell.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:50 PM
RE: Abortion
(23-08-2012 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  Ok, what didn't I get?

If I am due tomorrow, it's still none of your business.

That said, I doubt anyone has ever aborted a baby that was going to make an appearance the next day, what would be the point?

Late term abortions are done to save the mother's life. Some mothers decide to save their own life, some decide to save the babies life. The father would have a lot to say about that. You don't.

And these things are so rare that it only obfuscates the whole issue to even mention them.

I apologize that my terseness has once again gotten in the way.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Lecture_preist

I was trying to form a rational basis of discussion.
I don't agree that a woman has an absolute right to decide throughout her pregnancy on abortion - once the fetus is viable, it becomes a human rights issue.

A woman has 6 or 7 months to choose to abort the pre-viable fetus.
A rational point at which she has relinquished her choice is when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
We can disagree on that, but it is rational.

I am not trying to cloud the issue with late-term abortion horror stories.

That sounds ok to me, and late abortions do have a place where there is a choice - somebody has to die, who is it, mom or kid.

These situations do happen on occasion, and like I said, at that point the father is very important too. He will now be the one to bear the consequences.

Under normal circumstances, I also think that the dad has a lot to say about things, but if he is the one who opposes abortion and the woman carries to term, he is also the primary parent and totally responsible for the kid for life.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:53 PM
RE: Abortion
(23-08-2012 01:49 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 01:42 PM)SomeOne Wrote:  Will the "soul" of the child be lost? well, doesnt the bible says somewhere that all the childs go to heaven anyway?

Not the un-baptised ones. Purgatory was the original destination, but as they don't believe in that any more... baby souls go to hell.

Does that depends on your religion or most religions share that point?

if your faith can move mountains it should be able to withstand criticism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: Abortion
(23-08-2012 01:53 PM)SomeOne Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 01:49 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  Not the un-baptised ones. Purgatory was the original destination, but as they don't believe in that any more... baby souls go to hell.

Does that depends on your religion or most religions share that point?

Restricted to certain flavours of Christianity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 02:02 PM
RE: Abortion
(23-08-2012 11:21 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 11:09 AM)Seasbury Wrote:  Where I was going with this is, from a Pro-Choice standpoint - it's either the woman's choice all the way through, or it is not.

Have a read of this: The Famous Violinist.

Judith Jarvis Thomson's article was (and remains) a hugely influential position on the woman's right to choice. I've seen this text published in several collections of philosophical writings. In one such volume, the very next article was on the suggestion that infanticide was a morally defensible position. Which allayed my fears (however briefly) that I actually was just a sick fuck. Undecided

Good read - thanks for sharing the link - I'd not read it before.

Even she is using twisted logic in her reasons for justification. Her quote:

"There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a standard we must not fall below." sums up the problem. If this is a standard that we must not fall below, then she is by de facto standards, denying a woman's right to choose period -- while attempting to make a case that abortion should be permissible in "select" circumstances.

This is really the entire point I'm driving toward -- it is either wrong in all cases (the Republican standard) or it is permissible when? In all cases? 1st term? Up to 20 weeks? Where is the line and what justification is used to determine the line?

I have an opinion - but it's not an issue that I care passionately enough about to advocate for. I think that's kind of a cop out, but it is what it is...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 11:33 PM
RE: Abortion
I agree with Chas's point of view here. The ethical thing to do in my view would be to leave it up to the mother until such point that there are two lives involved. In the case that two lives are involved--viability is the cutoff in my view--then the law should treat the decision to abort the same as it would in any situation where one person has to choose between saving themselves or sacrificing oneself for another. Nobody would begrudge someone from deciding to save themselves in a life or death situation.

I think that those in the pro-choice camp who refuse to acknowledge the sincerely held beliefs of the faithful--nomatter how ridiculous we think they are--end up talking past pro-life folks. It is wrong to impute mysogonyst motivations on everyone who opposes abortion. I bet if a poll were conducted on whether women have the right to remove lifeless tumors from their uterus, that nearly 100% would be in favor of that right.

If a two women are physically attacked--one who is pregnant and one who is not--it is human nature to be more outraged at the attack on a pregnant lady more than the one who is not. It is not religion that makes us feel this way. The feeling is ingrained in us. Failing to address the question of when life begins makes the pro-choice side look out of touch and inhuman.

The religious fringe will always oppose all abortions in all circumstances, but understand where that comes from. Pro-choice advocates can gain a lot of ground by ridiculing the notion that a single fertilized egg cell is a life. Then move on to being critical of the idea that a clump of cells is a life, and so on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: