ABORTION.......

Intrepid wrote:

Does a person who ends up in jail because of an irresponsible act not give up something? Freedom.

Interesting. So do you equate having an unwanted pregnancy with a crime? And if the irresponsible person who irresponsibly conceived, are you saying that her punishment is for the to be obliged to carry the pregnancy to term, and raise that child?

Wow! That is laying a lot of responsibility on what you consider an irresponsible person. Imagine if society had to deal with all those irresponsible women who had to give up their freedom of choice because of their irresponsibility, together with the products of their irresponsibility.

I don't think a woman needs to give up control over her own body at all. She isn't required to give up control over her own body after her baby is born.

Nor is she allowed to intentionally harm that baby or any child in any way. It doesn't matter that the baby cries incessantly or totally cramps her social life or keeps her awake when she wants to sleep or needs food when she would much rather be doing something else. She is not ethically or morally or legally allowed to harm the child no matter what that does to her body. She may not want the child. She may hate it. She may give it away. But she is not legally allowed to intentionally harm it.

Why should it be in different before the baby is born?

When she makes the choice to risk pregnancy, why should the new life within her be punished? The woman still has complete choice over her own body. But she also has responsibility for the new life that she chose to bring into the world. It doesn't matter that it is an inconvenience or that she doesn't want it or she hates the idea of being pregnant. She should not harm the life that she took on as a passenger.

Once we agree on that issue is settled, then the other issues such as rape, incest, health of the mother, welfare of babies when there are too many to live, etc. can be debated. There is no point in debating any of it so long as the developing baby is considered a parasite or some other subhuman adjective.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:

Intrepid wrote:
If a woman becomes pregnant through consentual intercourse, she has done so of her own free will and should follow through without using abortion as a form of birth control. She, and her partner, should have been more responsible in the first place.

Intrepid- So may I conclude by what you are saying is that a woman deserves to be deprived the rights to her body because of an irresponsible act? On the other hand, if the pregnancy was not her "fault", (as through rape) she is entitled to control her body?




Does a person who ends up in jail because of an irresponsible act not give up something? Freedom.

I gave an analogy. If you want to consider it a crime, that is up to you. You are speaking of punishment, not me.

Some of us think that something being legal does not necessarily make it a good thing.

And some of us think having control of your body is not a license to injure or kill your kids.

Foxfyre wrote:

And some of us think having control of your body is not a license to injure or kill your kids.

And having control over your body...means having control over your body.

We are talking about the right to terminate a pregnancy...not a license to kill kids.

For those of us who believe the unborn baby is still a baby, killing it is killing it no matter what words you use to describe the deed.

My point is simply this.

You believe that...

...I am trying to take away a woman's right by not wanting abortion banned and you have stated I am wrong in trying to do so.

I believe you are trying to take away my right for freedom of religion by wanting freedom from religion and seem to think it is ok for you to do so.

You would advocate the right for a woman to have freedom of choice but not my right to freedom of religion?

What don't you understand about that?

Well gee, Frank, when you make statements like it's a woman's right and no one should try to take it away from her, I kind of get you are telling me I am wrong to try to do that.

Well, at least you agree it's ok for you to try to take away someone's rights.

Now, why is it okay to take away some people's rights and not others?

Questioner,

If Frank is advocating freedom from religion, as he has stated he wants to wipe Christianity from mankind, that IS trying to take away my right to freedom of religion.

I don't want to get into it with you, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't critique the necessity of my statements. I don't do that to you.

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

If Frank is advocating freedom from religion, as he has stated he wants to wipe Christianity from mankind, that IS trying to take away my right to freedom of religion.

I don't want to get into it with you, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't critique the necessity of my statements. I don't do that to you.

Your previous statement was in error. You're attempting to use that erroneous statement to make a point. This indicates that the point will fail. If I make a statement that is in obvious error, I would HOPE that you would point it out to me so that I could either change said statement, or withdraw it altogether as it would do nothing but invalidate whatever point I was trying to make.

Well gee, Frank, when you make statements like it's a woman's right and no one should try to take it away from her, I kind of get you are telling me I am wrong to try to do that.

Well, at least you agree it's ok for you to try to take away someone's rights.

Now, why is it okay to take away some people's rights and not others?