ABORTION.......

Eorl wrote:

Yes Momma I think so. Theists and atheists must expect to have massive problems understanding each other.

If it was me that was pregnant I would err on the side of caution...it's forcing others to do so at the risk of pushing abortions "underground" that I can't condone.

Eorl,

I think you miss the whole point. Making things right that are wrong just takes away the responsibility for people's actions. Of course, there are those gray areas of rape, incest, etc., that must be considered. But, when I am speaking about abortion, I am speaking mainly of the ones that are done for the convenience of the woman, and according to statistics, this is the majority of abortions performed.

0 Replies

Momma,

In an ideal world every pregnant 14 year old would be responsible and would never do anything foolish like try to precure an illegal abortion so her parents don't find out.

The world I live in is not such a world and I don't want that girl to die for her foolishness. Legal abortion is the price I must pay for that.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Momma,

In an ideal world every pregnant 14 year old would be responsible and would never do anything foolish like try to precure an illegal abortion so her parents don't find out.

The world I live in is not such a world and I don't want that girl to die for her foolishness. Legal abortion is the price I must pay for that.

Eorl, according to these statistics the abortion rate is the highest for women aged 18 to 19.

And I am sorry to disagree with you, Eorl. But the one that pays the highest price for abortions is the children.

Abortion Statistics - Demographics

Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young. 52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)

Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.

Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

0 Replies

The stats and demographics are besides the point. What are the REAL consequences of outlawing abortion? Will any 14 year olds die horrible deaths from infection after botched backyard jobs? History says yes. Preventing just one of these deaths justifies legal abortion from my POV. The fact that it makes it easier for women who you don't think need abortions is an unfortunate side effect. It's all about what is best for the most people, freedom to use your body as you wish and access to professional medicine. (Keep in mind I dispute your view that foetuses are people who deserve the same rights)

0 Replies

Eorl,

Oh, I know that you don't believe that fetuses are people who deserve the same rights. You have made that abundantly clear, as have many others. However, I do, as do many others.

The real consequences of outlawing abortion? Some children will be born instead of not. Some abortions will be performed that should not. There is no easy answer to this, Eorl. I wish to God there was, but there just isn't.

And I have to disagree with it is all about the freedom to use your body as to wish, Eorl. How many die from using their bodies as sponges for drugs? How many die using their bodies for sex? It's all a matter of each person's own conscience.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

It's all a matter of each person's own conscience.

Indeed.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Momma,

In an ideal world every pregnant 14 year old would be responsible and would never do anything foolish like try to precure an illegal abortion so her parents don't find out.

The world I live in is not such a world and I don't want that girl to die for her foolishness. Legal abortion is the price I must pay for that.

Eorl,
In almost every post you make you refer to a 14 year old girl. Why did you pick that particular age? Women of all ages have abortions and most of them are older than 14. Is this because of some kind of personal experience, or are you trying to make a particular point by excluding other ages?

The fact is that if proper precautions are taken in the first place, we would not even have to discuss abortion. Unborn fetuses would not have to be subjected to this barbaric procedure.

0 Replies

Intrepid,

No nothing personal. She's just a "for-instance" example of the kind of person who I see as most in danger in a system that outlaws abortion...able to fall pregnant, but not adult enough to make sensible responsible decisions.

The whole point of having abortion legal (at least the way I see it) is to protect people like her...even if she is a small minority.

No amount of education or church guidance is going to eradicate teen pregnancy entirely. As I've said, I'm all for reducing the number of abortions but not at the risk of people's lives.

By far the best way of reducing abortions would be good contraception. Let's encourage and educate about contraception from about age 11 or 12 !! What.....you christians aren't keen? Why not?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Momma,

In an ideal world every pregnant 14 year old would be responsible and would never do anything foolish like try to precure an illegal abortion so her parents don't find out.

The world I live in is not such a world and I don't want that girl to die for her foolishness. Legal abortion is the price I must pay for that.

No, Eorl, actually you aren't paying any price.

It is the unborn who pay the price with their lives. They die for your foolishness.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Momma,

In an ideal world every pregnant 14 year old would be responsible and would never do anything foolish like try to precure an illegal abortion so her parents don't find out.

The world I live in is not such a world and I don't want that girl to die for her foolishness. Legal abortion is the price I must pay for that.

No, Eorl, actually you aren't paying any price.

It is the unborn who pay the price with their lives. They die for your foolishness.

Once again real life, your ignorance and arrogance comes to the fore. Take the time to read my reply to you earlier in this thread, and do not seek to judge everyone that holds a pro-choice stance as a murdering savage that enjoys the suffering of others.

And since abortion is protected by law in America, perhaps your last line applies more to you and your side than Eorl's.

Find a way to prove to the courts that the fetus is a human, or save some of your scorn for yourself mate.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Momma,

In an ideal world every pregnant 14 year old would be responsible and would never do anything foolish like try to precure an illegal abortion so her parents don't find out.

The world I live in is not such a world and I don't want that girl to die for her foolishness. Legal abortion is the price I must pay for that.

No, Eorl, actually you aren't paying any price.

It is the unborn who pay the price with their lives. They die for your foolishness.

Once again real life, your ignorance and arrogance comes to the fore. Take the time to read my reply to you earlier in this thread, and do not seek to judge everyone that holds a pro-choice stance as a murdering savage that enjoys the suffering of others.

And since abortion is protected by law in America, perhaps your last line applies more to you and your side than Eorl's.

Find a way to prove to the courts that the fetus is a human, or save some of your scorn for yourself mate.

Hi ?er,

I am sure you must have taken the time to read my post. I wonder, therefore why you didn't notice that I didn't use the word "murdering" or "savage" to describe Eorl, nor anything close.

I would be very afraid to have you on a court interpreting law since you seem to read things into written statements that are not really there.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi ?er,

I am sure you must have taken the time to read my post. I wonder, therefore why you didn't notice that I didn't use the word "murdering" or "savage" to describe Eorl, nor anything close.

Allow me to expalin the method at which I arrived at such a consideration.

Quote:

No, Eorl, actually you aren't paying any price.

It is the unborn who pay the price with their lives. They die for your foolishness.

By uttering such as the above you elude to having intimate knowledge of what being on the pro-choice side of things does to Eorl, myself, and others. Since you say it costs us nothing, you therefore "assume" that we approve of the killing of what potentially may be babies. By assuming such, it's safe to conclude that you hold us in the same regard as people that, if not willfully participate in, would happily stand by and watch children be mowed down by someone else.

Pro-Choice is a conflict of morality for many. However, given the inability of others to physically prove what needs to be proven we feel just in the stance we have taken. If and when it is ever proven otherwise I will feel no worse than I do now about it.

But you don't see that. Because we're not in agreeance with you, we are all to happy to slaughter children, thus it costs us nothing to hold our stance.

Quote:

I would be very afraid to have you on a court interpreting law since you seem to read things into written statements that are not really there.

Spend less time being witty and cutting, and more time trying to prove your case to those that can change it.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

real life wrote:

Hi ?er,

I am sure you must have taken the time to read my post. I wonder, therefore why you didn't notice that I didn't use the word "murdering" or "savage" to describe Eorl, nor anything close.

Allow me to expalin the method at which I arrived at such a consideration.

Quote:

No, Eorl, actually you aren't paying any price.

It is the unborn who pay the price with their lives. They die for your foolishness.

By uttering such as the above you elude to having intimate knowledge of what being on the pro-choice side of things does to Eorl, myself, and others. Since you say it costs us nothing, you therefore "assume" that we approve of the killing of what potentially may be babies. By assuming such, it's safe to conclude that you hold us in the same regard as people that, if not willfully participate in, would happily stand by and watch children be mowed down by someone else.

Pro-Choice is a conflict of morality for many. However, given the inability of others to physically prove what needs to be proven we feel just in the stance we have taken. If and when it is ever proven otherwise I will feel no worse than I do now about it.

But you don't see that. Because we're not in agreeance with you, we are all to happy to slaughter children, thus it costs us nothing to hold our stance.

Your reasoning is faulty. I have no concern at all for what being on the pro-abortion side does to you or Eorl or anyone else's feelings since it is the result of a choice that you made, and can change at any time.

I am concerned with the effect it has on the unborn since it is not by their choice that they die, but by someone else's choice. They are the ones who pay a price with their lives.

If you have a conflict of morality, then you simply need to decide which is more important: saving lives or preserving someone's convenience.

We have all sorts of safety laws that businesses and individuals must adhere to that guard against the POSSIBILITY that a life MAY be put in danger.

Since most skeptics, including you, admit that a human life may be at stake then this clearly is the higher priority, is it not?

(And I believe the word you're looking for is 'allude' not 'elude'.)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your reasoning is faulty. I have no concern at all for what being on the pro-abortion side does to you or Eorl or anyone else's feelings since it is the result of a choice that you made, and can change at any time.

I am concerned with the effect it has on the unborn since it is not by their choice that they die, but by someone else's choice. They are the ones who pay a price with their lives.

The reasoning is sound, you just choose to ignore it's implications. Nothing more I can add to it.

Quote:

If you have a conflict of morality, then you simply need to decide which is more important: saving lives or preserving someone's convenience.

We have all sorts of safety laws that businesses and individuals must adhere to that guard against the POSSIBILITY that a life MAY be put in danger.

True. Had you bothered to read and digest what I wrote to you yesterday you would see that while that argument may sound good at first glance, it doesn't hold up. We're not talking about the possibility that a life may be put in danger, we're talking about the possibility that it is a life. THAT's the difference. That's what the courts weren't' convinced of.

With that doubt in place, I can't, in the interest of liberties and rights, take away the right of choice based on the 'possibility' that we may be doing an injustice. Can't.

Quote:

Since most skeptics, including you, admit that a human life may be at stake then this clearly is the higher priority, is it not?

I would dearly love to say yes. Again, I can't. This country wouldn't be what it is without adhereing to the exactness of the laws as best it can.

Quote:

(And I believe the word you're looking for is 'allude' not 'elude'.)

Yes, thank you.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

real life wrote:

Hi ?er,

I am sure you must have taken the time to read my post. I wonder, therefore why you didn't notice that I didn't use the word "murdering" or "savage" to describe Eorl, nor anything close.

Allow me to expalin the method at which I arrived at such a consideration.

Quote:

No, Eorl, actually you aren't paying any price.

It is the unborn who pay the price with their lives. They die for your foolishness.

By uttering such as the above you elude to having intimate knowledge of what being on the pro-choice side of things does to Eorl, myself, and others. Since you say it costs us nothing, you therefore "assume" that we approve of the killing of what potentially may be babies. By assuming such, it's safe to conclude that you hold us in the same regard as people that, if not willfully participate in, would happily stand by and watch children be mowed down by someone else.

Pro-Choice is a conflict of morality for many. However, given the inability of others to physically prove what needs to be proven we feel just in the stance we have taken. If and when it is ever proven otherwise I will feel no worse than I do now about it.

But you don't see that. Because we're not in agreeance with you, we are all to happy to slaughter children, thus it costs us nothing to hold our stance.

Quote:
I would be very afraid to have you on a court interpreting law since you seem to read things into written statements that are not really there.

Spend less time being witty and cutting, and more time trying to prove your case to those that can change it.

The main criticism the pro-abortion laws--is that better?--people have against the pro life people is a) they say pro lifers want to control other people's bodies. How charitable is that characterization when the pro lifers consistently say they are interested in protecting the life of a child, not controlling anybody else's life?

b) the pro-abortion-laws people say that the pro-life people accuse the pro-abortion-laws people of being 'baby killers' or some other equally incendiary term because the pro-life people believe abortion does in fact end the life of a child and, when done as a matter of convenience, is no different than killing any child. Some actually use the word "murder" though most don't.

Now if equating an act as murder translates to the one committing the act as a murderer, I don't think many, if any, of the pro lifers on this board have drawn that conclusion. I think most pro lifers are more interested in educating women to the fact that they are responsible for a life they have allowed to be created. If a woman can be expected to have concern for a born baby, a woman can be expected to have concern for an unborn one.

Pro lifers have been consistent in their view that the pro-abortion-laws people do resist assigning human status to the unborn, resist calling it a baby, resist assigning any moral obligation to it so that they can justify their pro-abortion laws position.

c) Some pro abortion rights people try to make pro lifers look extreme because they want any abortion to be illegal and even extrapolate any suggestions of any limitations to wanting abortion for any reason banned. Nobody among the pro lifers here have said that abortion should never be an option. Some pro lifers try to make pro abortion laws people look extreme as allowing abortion for any reason and at any time legal and acceptable while some pro abortion laws people are not that lenient on the subject.

So we are still at the impasse:

1. Pro-abortion laws people do not consider the unborn to be a human being. Pro-life people do.

2. Pro-abortion laws people put the rights of a woman to do whatever she pleases ahead of any rights assigned to the unborn. Pro life people think if we can expect people to have concern for a baby that has been born, we can expect people to have concern for a baby that has not yet been born without violating anybody's unalienable rights.

3. Pro-abortion laws people do not assign a morality to conception of a child. Pro lifers generally do--they think the choice should be made prior to accepting a risk of pregnancy.

I think the debate could be cooled and maybe even become more constructive if two things happened:

--Pro abortion laws people would stop attacking pro lifers as people who want to control others and acknowledge that some restrictions on at least mid and late term abortions could be reasonable.

--Pro life people would be more clear that they do accept there being a valid reasons for abortion and that they are not out to deny women the right to an abortion when an abortion is in fact necessary.

If the two sides could agree on those two principles, then we could have a constructive debate on what is necessary.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

--Pro abortion laws people would stop attacking pro lifers as people who want to control others and acknowledge that some restrictions on at least mid and late term abortions could be reasonable.

--Pro life people would be more clear that they do accept there being a valid reasons for abortion and that they are not out to deny women the right to an abortion when an abortion is in fact necessary.

If the two sides could agree on those two principles, then we could have a constructive debate on what is necessary.

Very succinctly put Foxfyre. Thanks for taking the time to summarize this.

I agree completely with your first principle. I would be more than happy to see restrictions placed on mid to late-term abortions. By the mid to late term there is almost no reason why the woman should not have decided on whether to keep the baby or not.

I would still have difficulty accepting your second principle, however since it is (I believe) intended for the pro-life side's adoption that's not a concern.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

--Pro abortion laws people would stop attacking pro lifers as people who want to control others and acknowledge that some restrictions on at least mid and late term abortions could be reasonable.

--Pro life people would be more clear that they do accept there being a valid reasons for abortion and that they are not out to deny women the right to an abortion when an abortion is in fact necessary.

I said that I would not post on this thread again, but your post is so sensible that I have to recind that vow.

I think that I have mentioned, in the past, that I think that there has to be a damn good reason for a woman to abort a fetus that is over 24 weeks old. At that point, (and probably much before) the woman has had plenty of time to decide whether she wants to continue her pregnancy. The fetus has then developed most of its human structures, and is at a point in its gestational life where it could survive on its own.

On the other hand, I would think that an abortion is appropriate (including partial birth abortions), at any time in the pregancy, when the mother's health/life is seriously at stake, or the fetus is shown to have very serious deformities. It is a decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor.

In any case, in the early and middle stages of pregnancy, I think that it is up to the pregnant woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, and not necessarily a matter of "necessity".

0 Replies

I wonder how many women are ever actually endangered by having the baby? I was under the impression that a c-section was a non-lethal option?

0 Replies

women should be allowed to have abortions, plain and simple

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

It seems you have given us plenty to contemplate! What a well-written, thought out post. I would be more than willing to go along!

So, what's say everyone? Can we maybe adopt those two guidelines and incorporate them into our discussion? It will take a bit of give on both sides but perhaps if we are all willing then we can continue our debate in a manner that we won't offend (intentional or not) each other.

I know this is a hard subject for everyone. I think if it wasn't, that would mean that none of us cared. It's obvious we all do care becuase of the passions displayed.

I realize that no one can ever have everything they want without denying someone else. I am willing to work towards what is the best thing. But, remember, a compromise means you are willing to accept and abide by those compromises, but it doesn't have to mean that you have completely changed your mind about your views.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know