Here’s why I’m "pro-choice": So many religious people like to point out in their arguments, that these foetuses are children at any point in the womb. Those "children" that get aborted are surely pure, void of any form of sin? So when they get flushed, sucked or poked to death they must go to heaven by default. Right to the old perfect nursery in the sky, living in eternal bliss. No need for living a life of potential struggle, pain and agony. They get a free pass to what they see as the best place in the world. What kind of monster are they to deny them of this win win situation?
So by your logic; a fetus shouldn't ever develop...an egg should be fertilized, incubated for a few weeks then aborted. If they all go to heaven then why take a chance of coming out of your mother in the first place. You've already done what you would have struggled to do: earn a place in heaven. No need to drudge through a painful life. Why lower your thinking to the level of radical anti-abortionists? They use stupid arguments to validate their point...and right now some pro choice sciforumer is guilty of the same........tsk-tsk-tsk little Johnny Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's their logic. Its a point to show the stupidity of their logic. They need to find a better argument.
My opinion of abortion is hybrid. That is, I think a women should have the right to have an abortion, but other choices must be considered first. I especialy believe in the right to choose in cases of rape. The way I see it, a woman never has the choice of being raped. Therefore, she doesn't have the option of not getting pregnant. This is forced upon her. Getting pregnant from a rape could quite possibly be emotionally scarring for the woman. It would be natural for her to not want to go through with it. The way I see it, making her go through that pregnancy is just a punishment for getting raped. In all abortion cases, other choices must be considered. Also, the choice should be discouraged, but not looked down upon. But in cases of rape, the option shouldn't be discouraged, although not encouraged either. And it certainly shouldn't be looked down upon.
athel your losing itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! that was the most incoherant i have ever seen you bePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i dont think anyone would force a girl to go through with a pregnancy from rape, ever. where i DO think there is a problem is in the area of the paternal role in NORMAL cases (not rape). Legally if a girl goes through with it and has a child the father would be forced to pay for the child, yet when it comes to deciding wether the child is even born he has no choice at all? piture this a women has an argument with her partner and to punish him she aborts the child he is waiting for, out of spite. Is this right? can the guy have an argument with a mother and out of spite decide he will never pay child surport again? I know that this is a bad example but it highlights the stands we apply where no matter what the father wants for his child he has no right to even see it alive. How would an expecting mother feel if the goverment or the father could abteraly FORCE her to abort? here she is waiting for this new life that she can love and carefor and someone else decides that she isnt alowed to. you would here people screaming from one end of the earth to the next but the fathers bond isnt as strong is that what it is? it is cirtanly the case that it doesnt matter.
I can't tell the gender of most of you from your screen names. But once again I will inject my wife's counsel into this argument. Except of course that I will clean it up so it will get through the filters. "I'll give a flying fuck what men think about abortion the first time one of you assholes gets pregnant."
Have you seen the remnants from an abortion? It's some very ugly stuff. I wouldn't wish that form of death on my worst enemy!
:bugeye: Are ya serious? I thought I was making myself perfectly clear. Well in case ya need it, here's my previous post in summarized form: Allow the choice, but it should be discouraged, and consider other possibilities first. If a girl was raped, she shouldn't have to go through the pregnancy, so it shouldn't be discoraged, but other possibilities should still be considered. Does that help, Asguard?
Then women should only have an opinion on child molestation if… that is an invalid argument. If a rabid dog is walking down the street and heads towards a kid in a sand box, I should not be sued or charged for a crime if I shot the dog. It is not my dog and it is not my kid and it is not my property but I think that I still have an ethical responsibility to get involved. I oppose murder of any sort particularly of innocents who are unable to make choices to protect themselves.
Yes, they are children as in woman with child. They are free from having actually committed sin, yes. But they still inherit the inclination to sin from Adam. No, neither baptist nor catholics believe these children automatically go to heaven. The issue, however, isn't really decide theologically. The fault in your reasoning is that your assuming a given action is wrong simply because of good effects. In fact, however, Christian theology(via Paul) is that ever sin allowed by God has a greater good.
On the contrary, it was clear and concise. It would be nice if that were true. You have underestimated the range of positions on this issue.
