Abortion Views

Quote:

---

Originally posted by awfullwaffle919@13 July 2003 - 05:18
A fetus is a baby. A baby is a baby. Killing a baby is wrong, not just religiously *************. Killing a baby outside, or killing a baby inside before being "born" is still killing a baby. And thats why aborting should be illegal.






Personal comments are neither appropriate or acceptable in this topic especially.
Keep your views to the topic without becoming insulting please.

---

If you are referring to me, you might take the time to read the entire thread, not the latest response.

I have posted my perspective, defended it, and I, at least, understand what I am talking about.

I also agree with Db that abortion is a bad decision, but his inability to articulate a fluid and logical response makes his post irrelevant.


Funny, how waffles' and db's posts disappeared. Duh!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+12 July 2003 - 23:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 12 July 2003 - 23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-awfullwaffle919@13 July 2003 - 05:18
A fetus is a baby. A baby is a baby. Killing a baby is wrong, not just religiously *************. Killing a baby outside, or killing a baby inside before being "born" is still killing a baby. And thats why aborting should be illegal.






Personal comments are neither appropriate or acceptable in this topic especially.
Keep your views to the topic without becoming insulting please.

---

If you are referring to me, you might take the time to read the entire thread, not the latest response.

I have posted my perspective, defended it, and I, at least, understand what I am talking about.

I also agree with Db that abortion is a bad decision, but his inability to articulate a fluid and logical response makes his post irrelevant.


Funny, how waffles&#39; and db&#39;s posts disappeared. Duh&#33; [/b][/quote]
ah dang...your right...it did get deleted....oh well...this topic isnt very important to me anyway. To bad my opinion is gone :( ....

Please try again, IC. [/color][/b] [/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

[b][color=blue]As morality is rooted in religion (no matter what anybody says to the contrary), I can use the principle of "Separation of Church and State" to zap this whole paragraph.

---

I think that may be one of the finest examples of a closed argument I have seen in a long time. :)

As I understand it, moral philsophy may be connected to religion but it is not bound to it. Confucius and Socrates paid scant regards to the religious niceties of the day preferring to focus on man&#39;s responsibilities in contributing to a well ordered society.

Religion is, however, inextricibily linked to faith in the unseen. Whilst I don&#39;t agree with this position I accept that it a real and valid part of many peoples lives. Those that wish to live within whichever creed, accept the dogma of that faith and live their lives accordingly. I consequently accept that abortion for a Catholic girl goes against her creed (unless authorised by the Pope, as in that nasty chemical accident in Italy a few years ago)

However, it is not the place of those with religious convictions to bind those who do not share their beliefs with laws and regulations contrived on a priori assumptions they do not accept. Which is why a theocracy in imho is always a bad thing.

With regards abortion itself, I am put in mind of one of the last things my grandmother said to me, following an operation that did not go as planned, "whatever you do, try and stay away from doctors". The idea that intrusive surgery should be a first recall for anything is, to me, bizarre.

After seven years of marriage my wife and I decided we were ready to face rugrats. Within a couple of years we had two of the little blighters - as far as I can see condoms do the business. Kids at school these days not only learn about sexual health but also what a condom is and how to use one. The religious argument would be perhaps more convincing if it was not so anti-contraception.

The whole issue is emotive and there seems to me too much emphasis in trying to bounce people who are going through a crisis in their lives into one approach or another. The messages that come out through politicians, churchmen, and the media are mixed to say the least. On one hand abortion is pilloried, on the other, single mothers are in the stocks for being a drain on society. There is no consistency of message and the pregnant girl is damned (if I may use the secular version) no matter what she does. In this the Church has been particularly culpable. The treatment of unmarried mothers was, until recent years, despicable. - an extreme example being the Magdellan Laundries in Ireland. It was little wonder that back street abortion clinics flourished as the risk of injury was far outweighed by the social stigma otherwise facing them.

In summary, I am pro-choice. But I believe that choice should be made without pressure, based on all the options available. If the girl or women decides she wants to have the baby then she should receive whatever support is necessary rather than be decried from the modern day pulpit (tabloid editorials) as a sponge on society. I also believe that contraception should be freely available to all that require it and that the ultimate aim should be that abortion is used only for those who for medical reasons are faced with difficult choices. As my Gran said "stay away from doctors" if you can help it. B)

PS Apologies to the medical profession I know they do a sterling job in difficult circumstances.

DB you think that if you make abortions illegal that would stop people doing it? :huh:

Many things are illegal including murder but people and governments do it when it suits them.

Although you may find people to debate this, many of the files we share are illegal as in copyright infringement of music, movies and books of course, there by we are doing somthing illegal but we still do it.

How you link abortion to Aids is beyond me, Contracting Aids comes from having unprotected sex with multiple partners(which doesnt mean pregnacy) and also from
injecting drug users sharing needles, there are less likly ways like blood transfusions and the like.

Abortion is a tricky question, i am pro choice and in Australia it&#39;s legal, but i do have reservations when it&#39;s abused or used as a quick fix for people like so much in the world is and those reservations dont come from religion as i am an athesist, But they are moral ones. :mellow:

The fact is Abortion happens and girls get pregnant even when people have used contraception.

Saying "dont do it" is fine of course and then no one would get pregnant, that however is forcing YOUR morals onto everyone else, and however lofty...that aint ever gonna happen.

That is indeed so, although the efficiency or otherwise of contraceptives does tend to be directly proportional the number of bottles of newkie brown sunk.

:D Until of course the requisite number is reached where little more than lying face down in the gutter can be safely negotiated.

I think the argument is that, by and large, contraceptives are pretty effective and should be the first port of call. They are also play a vital part in maintaining sexual health. There will always be occurences when despite all precautions a pregnancy occurs. Of these, a great many are elected to be carried particularly within a stable relationship.

Consequently, I remain pro-choice, but with a huge boost towards sensible safeguards.

I would say if the woman doesnt want to have the baby it is her right to do what she feels is the right thing to do we shouldnt be placed on this earth with a set of rules how to run our life ading a child to the life is a huge factor that has to be delt with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles,13 July 2003 - 04:01

Please try again, IC. [/color][/b]

---

Quote:

---

[b][color=blue]As morality is rooted in religion (no matter what anybody says to the contrary), I can use the principle of "Separation of Church and State" to zap this whole paragraph.

---

I think that may be one of the finest examples of a closed argument I have seen in a long time. :)

[/QUOTE]
Merely demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

It does seem an awkward fit to see the left&#39;s favorite shoe jammed onto the "right" foot.

If you could read a few of the earlier pages of this thread? Actually I have already tried to point out the efficacy of debating this issue from all points other than religion, as to introduce same renders debate somewhat opaque.

Sorry for giving an unintended impression.

BTW-thought your post was well done and to the point.

In answering the question, Is there a right to life in law or in biblical faith? we must distinguish between a virtue and a right. If I am walking along the bank of a river and someone who cannot swim falls or jumps in, it could be argued that I ought also to jump in to rescue the drowning person, even if my own life is thereby endangered. But the person who jumps or falls in cannot claim that I must jump in because that person has a right to life. The mere fact that rescuing another would be a virtuous choice does not give that other person a right to decide my actions.


The common-law rule is that we have no duty to save the life of another person unless we voluntarily undertake such an obligation, as a lifeguard does in contracting to save lives at a beach or swimming pool. Neither is there a biblical mandate that each of us is morally required to risk our lives to save the life of another. Jesus considered it highly exceptional and evidence of great love if "a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).


No one who has not willingly contracted to do so is legally or morally required to give his or her life, or to make large sacrifices of health or money, to save the life of another person. Even an identical twin is not legally required to donate a kidney or blood to save a sibling&#39;s life. The virtue of the Good Samaritan lay precisely in his doing something he was not obligated to do.


No woman should be required to give up her life, her health, or her family&#39;s security to save the life of a fetus that is threatening her well-being. At the very least she is entitled to self-defense. On the other hand, many women are willing to sacrifice their health and their future in order to have one or more children. The religious community that respects the freedom of women to make such a choice must respect equally their freedom to choose not to bear a child.


Laws cannot eliminate abortions. In Romania under Ceausescu, the Communist secret Police checked monthly on all female workers under the age of 45 and monitored pregnant women; yet Romania outranked virtually all other European nations in rates of abortion and abortion-related female deaths. In Brazil, where abortion is illegal, there are twice as many abortions as in the United States, although Brazil&#39;s population is only half that of the United States. In Latin America, illegal abortion is the number-one killer of women between the ages of 15 and 39. By contrast, in countries where abortion is legal, it is a medically safe procedure--11 times safer than childbirth.

As u say its not illegal to not help someone, however, it is illegal to kill someone. Either directly as in murder or slightly more indirectly by the removal of life support. Basically once the foetus has been granted human rights then it is illegal to have an abortion as it would be murder. (unless carrying the baby to term would kill the mother)