A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Reply to topic
Aetixintro
First Post
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:30 pm  A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle Reply with quote

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Like it? Your view?

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 41: Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:53 am
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

Nice try. Not what you said. Here it is and I quote:
Quote:
a human sperm is also an innocent human life
End quote.

It is a common tactic from the pro aborts and like I said just plain bad science.

*********

Biology tells us that the human embryo is a whole, living human organism with his/her own DNA, whereas the sperm cell is not a whole organism; rather, gametes are part of a human organism, like skin cells.

What you stated here does not change the fact that a sperm cell is alive and human. You are just affirming my claim that the only difference between what you call a human life and a sperm is a bunch of chromosomes, which you seem to place great significance on.

Quote:
Sperm cells are not morally equivalent to embryos, then, because they are not whole organisms. So, the pro-life movement is not equating the death of sperm cells to the death of embryos, as it would be the same as equating the death of skin cells to the death of a toddler.

That's a value judgement and has nothing to do with whether sperm cell is alive or human at all.

Quote:
The human embryo, from fertilization, is on a self-projected path towards adulthood. She will continue to grow and mature through her natural biological life cycle unless she is killed by something before then. This is an undisputed biological distinction, by both pro-life and pro-choice experts.

Granted.

Quote:
The real debate about the life of human embryos when it comes to the abortion issue is over philosophical claims—in other words, whether or not this biological human life is valuable and has the same level of dignity as you and I do.

Right, and my view is, it is not as valuable and has a much lower level of dignity as you and I do.

Quote:
It isn’t a matter of science. The science is settled. It is now a question about human rights and what evils we will argue is acceptable.

So why are you brining science up at all?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 42: Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:41 am
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

So like I said, and like the video suggests your view/position is illogical as well as tyrannical. Your argument is the illogical bodily autonomy argument.

You say that a lot, demonstrating it, not so much.

Quote:
Again, one human’s rights end where another human’s rights begin.

Which is why abortion should be allowed, even if a fetus has rights, they ended where the rights of the woman begin.

Quote:
May we do whatever we want with anything that is on our private property? May we attack or kill innocent people who are passing through or seeking refuge? No, we must respect the rights of other people.

And yet you don't seem to respecting the rights of women much.

Quote:
May a pregnant woman ingest drugs that she knows will cause her child to be deformed or disabled? Clearly not. And if knowingly harming the child is wrong, killing her (through abortion) is even worse. Bodily autonomy is important, but there are obvious limits to that autonomy when someone else's body is also involved.

Is that so obvious? Why is it beyond limits to that autonomy?

Quote:
The right to control one's body does not justify the intentional killing of others. Nor does it nullify our obligations to the youngest and most vulnerable members of the human family.

Why not? When rights conflict, we have a choice as to which one is more important. You picked one side, I picked the other. The mere fact that rights are conflicting, is not justification to pick one side over the other.

Quote:
https://www.mccl.org/post/2016/12/19/my-body-my-choice-why-bodily-autonomy-doesnt-justify-abortion

Lots of assertions, it just expect the reader to take their words for granted. So what if can't kill someone on a private property, why would that mean the right to life of a fetus trumps the right to autonomy of a woman? It doesn't say.

Quote:
Also, over 99% of the cases of abortion are not performed due to rape... No parent is permitted to starve or kill their child.

False by counter-example: abortion is where it is permitted.

Quote:
You argument is basically saying if a woman is pregnant the baby growing inside of her is only protected if the baby is wanted. The very same baby is in there at the very same moment in time and is celebrated and protected if he is wanted and killed and discarded if he is not.

Yep. And you counter-argument amounts to an appeal to emotion. That's yucky, therefore it is illogical as well as tyrannical. Try harder.

Quote:
Again, it brings us back to exactly what happened under Hitler. One human being got to decide/determine if another innocent human being has the right to life.

Again, it's also the same argument with eating cattle but not pets, you pick Hitler because you are appealing to emotion. You have different value judgment than I do, that's not enough to form an argument around.

Quote:
What a horrific position to hold. May no one ever decide you are not worthy of protection – that you don’t matter.

You say that yet have no problem strapping away my humanity with comparing me with Hitler. The more you do that, the more likely someone would decide I am not worthy of protection, that I don't matter.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 43: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:31 pm
Reply
Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post (1): benchwarmer
Anyone's personal religious belief about this issue is irrelevant to the government's role in authorizing legal access to abortion as component of family planning (assuming certain reasonable restrictions apply such as prohibitions against late-term abortions except in cases where the mother's life is at risk).

Since the only reasons to infringe upon a woman's right to choose what happens to her body are religious, the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from legislating on this issue in a way that endorses your religious perspective to the restriction of other perspectives. The religious doctrine that leads you to believe that abortion is murder cannot be objectively demonstrated in a way that justifies the use of the government to criminalize abortion. This is because the government is for the people (all people) by the people; not for the Christians by the Christians.

Unless you can objectively falsify the claim that a 6 week old unconscious fetus does not qualify as a sentient human being that could not otherwise exist outside the mother's womb, then you should not expect the government to endorse the completely religious assertion that person-hood begins at conception. Sure, I don't like the idea of someone deliberately ending a pregnancy for no better reason than it being an inconvenience either. However, I also understand why the government cannot and should not interfere with that woman's decision because to do otherwise will set a dangerous precedent for establishing and enforcing other theocratic ambitions. If you are asking why theocracy would be bad, consider how it might work out for you if Muslims with theocratic ambitions were to become the majority in charge of our government one day.

From the perspective of the government, Christians have the freedom to exercise their right to peacefully discourage women in their congregation from seeking an abortion as a resolution to an unwanted pregnancy. On the other hand, Christians do not have the right to use their influence to impose that perspective through the legislative process on every American. To do otherwise is a violation of the Constitution and erodes the freedom of religion for everyone.

So, the best way for Christians to minimize abortions is to continue to discourage pre-marital sex if they must, accept the reality that abstinence only education has actually increased unwanted pregnancies, permit education on contraception to accommodate and protect those who fail to resist sexual temptations, encourage adoption for those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, and offer compassion to women who decide an abortion is their best option. Otherwise, using the government to unconstitutionally limit or eliminate the availability of abortion will only result in tragedy for more than just the unborn but also the determined women who will feel compelled to end their pregnancy through less than safe means.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 44: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:41 pm
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
[Replying to bluegreenearth]


Quote:
Anyone's personal religious belief about this issue is irrelevant


I agree.

Quote:
Since the only reasons to infringe upon a woman's right to choose what happens to her body are religious


Bzzzzzzzz . . . . and you were doing so well. Abortion is not a religious issue it’s a human rights issue.


Quote:
the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from legislating on this issue in a way that endorses your religious perspective to the restriction of other perspectives.


The first amendment actually says nothing about the separation of church and state. In fact, separation of church and state was originally more about protecting religious freedom and protecting individuals from the state.
****

Although the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment, the establishment clause was intended to separate church from state. When the First Amendment was adopted in 1791, the establishment clause applied only to the federal government, prohibiting the federal government from any involvement in religion. By 1833, all states had disestablished religion from government, providing protections for religious liberty in state constitutions. In the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the establishment clause to the states through the 14th Amendment. Today, the establishment clause prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion.

The establishment clause separates church from state, but not religion from politics or public life. Individual citizens are free to bring their religious convictions into the public arena. But the government is prohibited from favoring one religious view over another or even favoring religion over non-religion.

Our nation’s founders disagreed about the exact meaning of “no establishment” under the First Amendment; the argument continues to this day. But there was and is widespread agreement that preventing government from interfering with religion is an essential principle of religious liberty. All of the Framers understood that “no establishment” meant no national church and no government involvement in religion. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that without separating church from state, there could be no real religious freedom.


https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/the-first-amendment-says-nothing...


Quote:
The religious doctrine that leads you to believe that abortion is murder cannot be objectively demonstrated


There is no need to point to any religious doctrine. One needs only to point to science.


Quote:
in a way that justifies the use of the government to criminalize abortion. This is because the government is for the people (all people) by the people; not for the Christians by the Christians.


Exactly. It’s a human rights issue. When a women finds out she is pregnant, science shows there is a human being growing inside a woman. If the government is for the people (all of the people), they certainly shouldn’t be able to discriminate against the unborn.



Quote:
Unless you can objectively falsify the claim that a 6 week old unconscious fetus does not qualify as a sentient human being that could not otherwise exist outside the mother's womb, then you should not expect the government to endorse the completely religious assertion that person-hood begins at conception.


A 2 week old baby couldn’t exist outside of the womb without being taken care of either. Also, is a 40 year old in a coma a sentient human being? The growth of human beings is a continuum. A 7 week baby in gestation looks different from a 7 week baby outside the womb, and a 7 month old baby looks different than a 7 year old baby and a 7 year old looks very different than a 70 year old. We are continually changing, and yet always a human being.


Quote:
Sure, I don't like the idea of someone deliberately ending a pregnancy for no better reason than it being an inconvenience either


So, you are opposed to over 99% of all abortions?


Quote:
. However, I also understand why the government cannot and should not interfere with that woman's decision because to do otherwise will set a dangerous precedent for establishing and enforcing other theocratic ambitions.


So, is it enforcing theocratic ambitions to tell a woman if she can’t afford to take care of her 2 year old, she still can’t kill him?


Quote:

From the perspective of the government, Christians have the freedom to exercise their right to peacefully discourage women in their congregation from seeking an abortion as a resolution to an unwanted pregnancy. On the other hand, Christians do not have the right to use their influence to impose that perspective through the legislative process on every American. To do otherwise is a violation of the Constitution and erodes the freedom of religion for everyone.


So, do Christians not have the right to impose on the legislative process regarding killing ones toddler because the parents find her inconvenient?

Quote:
So, the best way for Christians to minimize abortions is to continue to discourage pre-marital sex if they must, accept the reality that abstinence only education has actually increased unwanted pregnancies, permit education on contraception to accommodate and protect those who fail to resist sexual temptations, encourage adoption for those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, and offer compassion to women who decide an abortion is their best option.


So, when slavery was still legal, the best thing Christians should have done to minimize slavery was to discourage it as much as possible, but beyond that they really couldn’t have changed the law or it would have violated the separation of church and state. I DON’T THINK SO.


Quote:
Otherwise, using the government to unconstitutionally limit or eliminate the availability of abortion will only result in tragedy for more than just the unborn but also the determined women who will feel compelled to end their pregnancy through less than safe means.


So, you agree a tragedy is occurring for the unborn. Great. That’s a start.

******

Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it.

https://www.hli.org/resources/abortion-no-constitutional-human-right/

It’s time to overturn Roe v. Wade. Most people don’t even realize that the woman in Roe v. Wade didn’t even end up having an abortion and she admits she was simply used as a political pawn for those who wanted to push their anti-life agenda. Abortion is the gravest injustice of our times. An entire class of human beings – the most vulnerable among us – are being permitted to be killed because some other human being deems them of no value and denies them the most basic human right – the right to life.

This has nothing to do with religion. It’s mass genocide and it’s disgusting. It’s bad for the baby, bad for the woman, and bad for society and ignorant not to recognize it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 45: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:35 pm
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
[Replying to post 44 by RightReason]

It seems the only reason you believe abortion to be a human rights issue is because of your religious belief that leads you to a misrepresented and biased perspective of fetal development. Therefore, it is entirely based on religious belief. Your assessment of Roe v. Wade is equally corrupted by religious bias, misinformation, and Pro-Life propaganda. For the record, there is no such thing as pro-abortion. No woman ever fantasizes about having an abortion. Coming to that decision is always traumatic and not the government's business to intervene. Pro-Lifers seem only to want live babies to make dead soldiers. The hypocrisy is palpable. I will say nothing more on this issue. Good bye.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 46: Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:09 am
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
[Replying to bluegreenearth]



Quote:
It seems the only reason you believe abortion to be a human rights issue is because of your religious belief that leads you to a misrepresented and biased perspective of fetal development.


I encourage you to Google fetus. It is a scientific term and it means an unborn human baby with a unique set of DNA. This isn’t a matter of religion or opinion. So, you seem to be the one with a misrepresented and biased perspective of fetal development.


Quote:
Therefore, it is entirely based on religious belief.



It has noting to do with religious belief.


Quote:
Your assessment of Roe v. Wade is equally corrupted by religious bias, misinformation, and Pro-Life propaganda.


Nope. Just facts. Google it.


Roe is unjust. The facts of embryology show that a fetus is a distinct and living human being at the earliest stages of development. Justice would require the law to protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family, regardless of size, ability, age, dependency, or the decision of others. Roe was a constitutional mistake because it is bad constitutional law, because it is NOT constitutional law. It is undemocratic. Abortion laws were struck down in all 50 states and replaced with a nation wide policy, permitting abortion for any reason, which is not what the American people wanted. Roe is inconsistent with public opinion, which favors substantial legal limits on abortion. There was no justification, because there was no inconsistency with the Constitution, which our country is founded on, to invalidate state rules and public opinion on this matter. Please learn about the history of this unjust ruling.



From Wikipedia.

Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey (September 22, 1947 – February 18, 2017), better known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe", was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973.[2] . . . McCorvey stated that her involvement in Roe was "the biggest mistake of [her] life."[4]


According to McCorvey, friends advised her that she should assert falsely that she had been raped by a group of black men and that she could thereby obtain a legal abortion under Texas's law which prohibited abortion; sources differ over whether the Texas law had such a rape exception.[14][15][16] Due to lack of police evidence or documentation, the scheme was not successful and McCorvey would later admit the situation was a fabrication.


McCorvey would later assert that she had been the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey



Quote:
For the record, there is no such thing as pro-abortion. No woman ever fantasizes about having an abortion.


Of course not. And why is that? Because everyone knows you are taking the life of an innocent human being and all human beings recognize how horrific that is.


Quote:
Coming to that decision is always traumatic and not the government's business to intervene.



Yes, slaveowners in the south tormented over whether they should have slaves, but they knew their livelihoods and the entire Southern economy might suffer. They felt horrible, but insisted that the government had no right to intervene in their personal affairs.


Some day, I hope very soon, America will wake up and realize they have been on the wrong side of history. There will come a day when future generations will say I cannot believe there was a time when it was actually legal for mothers to kill their babies. How could this have happened?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 47: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:38 am
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

I encourage you to Google fetus. It is a scientific term and it means an unborn human baby with a unique set of DNA. This isn’t a matter of religion or opinion.

But your idea that human fetus have some God given right to live, is a matter of religion and opinion.

Quote:
Justice would require the law to protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family, regardless of size, ability, age, dependency, or the decision of others.

Hence the protection of the right to abortion.

Quote:
Of course not. And why is that?

Because it is a fix for something having gone wrong.

Quote:
Because everyone knows you are taking the life of an innocent human being and all human beings recognize how horrific that is.

That's your religion speaking again.

Quote:
Some day, I hope very soon, America will wake up and realize they have been on the wrong side of history. There will come a day when future generations will say I cannot believe there was a time when it was actually legal for mothers to kill their babies. How could this have happened?

The momentum for legalised abortion is undeniable, you are already on the wrong side of history. Ever noticed how morality goes one way and we've never regressed back to something that was abandoned? Your hope has as much chance as the hoping there will come a day when future generations will say "I cannot believe there was a time when it was actually legal for blacks to marry whites."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 48: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:03 am
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
[Replying to Bust Nak]

Quote:
RightReason wrote:


I encourage you to Google fetus. It is a scientific term and it means an unborn human baby with a unique set of DNA. This isn’t a matter of religion or opinion.

But your idea that human fetus have some God given right to live, is a matter of religion and opinion.


Nope. It’s a human rights issue. It’s something every human being can recognize, regardless of belief in God or not. It is a matter of natural law. A person, simply by being a member of the human race has the right to life. It’s something all men can know via reason and acknowledgment of the world we live in.

Is the belief that rape is wrong only a matter of religion? Yeah, that’s what I thought.


Quote:
Quote:
Justice would require the law to protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family, regardless of size, ability, age, dependency, or the decision of others.

Hence the protection of the right to abortion.


Huh? One person’s rights end, where another person’s rights begins.


Quote:
Quote:
Of course not. And why is that?

Because it is a fix for something having gone wrong.


If one is being honest, something hasn’t gone wrong, has it? Science tells us if a man and woman engage in the sexual act, a new life can be created. So, actually if that happens, then that is exactly what happens in nature. The body is actually doing what it is suppose to do. Fertility and pregnancy are not diseases.


Quote:
Quote:
Because everyone knows you are taking the life of an innocent human being and all human beings recognize how horrific that is.

That's your religion speaking again.


No, I am research shows the overwhelming majority of people know the taking of an innocent life is a horrific thing. Religion has nothing to do with it.


Quote:
Quote:
Some day, I hope very soon, America will wake up and realize they have been on the wrong side of history. There will come a day when future generations will say I cannot believe there was a time when it was actually legal for mothers to kill their babies. How could this have happened?

The momentum for legalised abortion is undeniable


I’d say the momentum to overturn it is undeniable. We have a pro life President in the White House and seeing all the upcoming competition, there is a really good chance he will be re-elected. He is doing a good job of appointing judges to the Supreme Court, who will support life. We are in a good position to finally help women, children, families, and society. An improvement on valuing life is just what this culture needs.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 49: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:23 am
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

Nope. It’s a human rights issue. It’s something every human being can recognize, regardless of belief in God or not. It is a matter of natural law. A person, simply by being a member of the human race has the right to life. It’s something all men can know via reason and acknowledgment of the world we live in.

Newsflash, most people don't "know" this, the majority support legalised abortion with certain limit, The latest poll shows 3:1 in favor. Step out of your bubble.

Quote:
Is the belief that rape is wrong only a matter of religion? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Right, note the marked difference between rape and the abortion issue. That should be enough to show that it's based on religion.

Quote:
Huh? One person’s rights end, where another person’s rights begins.

Exactly. Even if the fetus had any rights, it ends where the woman's right begins. I pointed this out in an earlier post.

Quote:
If one is being honest, something hasn’t gone wrong, has it?

Rationality is the issue here, not honesty. They are pregnant, they don't want to be, therefore something has gone wrong.

Quote:
Science tells us if a man and woman engage in the sexual act, a new life can be created. So, actually if that happens, then that is exactly what happens in nature. The body is actually doing what it is suppose to do. Fertility and pregnancy are not diseases.

Sure, but it can be an example of things going wrong. What happens is exactly what happens in nature does not imply one way or the other whether something has gone wrong or not.

Quote:
No, I am research shows the overwhelming majority of people know the taking of an innocent life is a horrific thing. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Again, the majority of people are fine with legalised abortion. Also note the close correlation between Christianity in particular and pro-life advocates.

Quote:
I’d say the momentum to overturn it is undeniable. We have a pro life President in the White House and seeing all the upcoming competition, there is a really good chance he will be re-elected...

He is not going to over turn it even if he gets re-elected, is he? Nor will the Supreme Court even with the deck stacked. The GOP is relying on single issue voters to actually do something about the issue.

Quote:
We are in a good position to finally help women, children, families, and society.

You say that in the same breath you show support for Republicans, who is all for people pulling themselves up by their boot strap, to put it nicely. You want to help reduce abortions? Start by building a social safety net, start by pumping money into education.

Quote:
An improvement on valuing life is just what this culture needs.

The last thing we need is the government making laws based on religion.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 50: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:36 pm
Reply
Re: Abortion is a Church / State Separation Issue.

Like this post
[Replying to post 49 by Bust Nak]

[quote] Newsflash, most people don't "know" this, the majority support legalised abortion with certain limit, The latest poll shows 3:1 in favor. Step out of your bubble. [/quotae]

Newsflash, most people are not ok with abortion for any reason at any point in a pregnancy.

Most Americans do not agree with United States abortion laws. Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy, but most believe that abortion should be highly restricted: 79% believe it should be illegal after the first trimester; 87% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal after 6 months of pregnancy, while only 16% believe it should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

https://marchforlife.org/reasons-for-hope/

In a December 2017 survey, roughly half of Americans (48%) said having an abortion is morally wrong, while 20% said they think it is morally acceptable

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/06/facts-about-abortion-debate-in-...


Quote:
Quote:
Is the belief that rape is wrong only a matter of religion? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Right, note the marked difference between rape and the abortion issue. That should be enough to show that it's based on religion.


I have no idea what you are talking about. What should be enough to show it’s based on religion?

Research shows women regret their abortions and typically feel pressured into getting one. They also often suffer from post abortion depression and guilt.


Quote:
Quote:
Huh? One person’s rights end, where another person’s rights begins.

Exactly. Even if the fetus had any rights, it ends where the woman's right begins. I pointed this out in an earlier post.


The fetus is not trying to kill the women. The fetus didn’t even ask to exist.

Parents have an obligation to the children they bring into this world. A parent would not be permitted to starve their 3 year old, and say, “Well, he was infringing on my rights!”.

Quote:
Quote:
If one is being honest, something hasn’t gone wrong, has it?

Rationality is the issue here, not honesty. They are pregnant, they don't want to be, therefore something has gone wrong.


And they need to take responsibility for their actions/behavior. If they cannot afford to take care of the child they conceived, or are emotionally unable to, they can arrange for someone else to, but they do not have the right to kill the child. Why should the mother have the right to kill an innocent child? All children, planned or unplanned, wanted or not, deserve protection and as human beings deserve the right to life.


Quote:
Quote:
Science tells us if a man and woman engage in the sexual act, a new life can be created. So, actually if that happens, then that is exactly what happens in nature. The body is actually doing what it is suppose to do. Fertility and pregnancy are not diseases.

Sure, but it can be an example of things going wrong. What happens is exactly what happens in nature does not imply one way or the other whether something has gone wrong or not.


I believe you just made my point. So, you don’t get to say, it is wrong that this child has come into existence, so let us get rid of him. It might not be your plan, but now that the child is here, you don’t get to decide if he lives or dies. Maybe it is wrong for you to be a parent, so put the baby up for adoption –don’t kill the baby because you think his conception was wrong.


Quote:
Quote:
I’d say the momentum to overturn it is undeniable. We have a pro life President in the White House and seeing all the upcoming competition, there is a really good chance he will be re-elected...

He is not going to over turn it even if he gets re-elected, is he?


We’ll see.

Quote:
Quote:
We are in a good position to finally help women, children, families, and society.

You say that in the same breath you show support for Republicans, who is all for people pulling themselves up by their boot strap, to put it nicely. You want to help reduce abortions? Start by building a social safety net, start by pumping money into education.


Studies show Republicans do that more than Democrats – are more generous with their money and give to more charitable organizations that is. Abortion is oppression of women. They deserve better.

Quote:
Quote:
An improvement on valuing life is just what this culture needs.

The last thing we need is the government making laws based on religion.


Again, this issue isn’t about religion. It’s a human rights issue.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version