Yes, WhyNot, it’s legal to abandon an infant at certain designated places. That’s because those designated places have the procedures in place for ensuring that an abandoned child will get the necessary care. But while a hospital has procedures in place for ensuring care for an abandoned newborn, they do not have procedures in place for ensuring care for a four-month fetus (mostly because it’s impossible to do so with current technology).
And you moved the goalposts, too, because so far as I know, nobody has ever said that a pregnant woman should be mandated to transplant a kidney to her fetus, either.
Okay, let’s agree that we are not talking about abortion to save the life of the mother. Let us just consider an abortion for convenience’s sake.
I hold the opinion that someone who has an abortion for the sake of convenience is morally wrong. Therefore, I believe that someone who has a convenience abortion has done something wrong. Yes, that’s accusatory. Deal with it.
I won’t hate someone for having an abortion for convenience sake, anymore than I hate people who join the military, and kill people in battle. But killing is still wrong, in my strong opinion.
I will not rub your convenience abortion in your face either. That will not solve anything, nor change your mind, nor reverse the abortion.
I’ve done wrong things too. And I’ve dealt with them. Go and do likewise.
Intentions are not the single factor that determines the success or failure of a social program. As a good liberal I am in favor of free abortions under any circumstances and as an advocate of zero population growth (well, to be honest, I actually think the planet could use some negative population growth for a few generations), giving someone a financial incentive not to make a bad decision like giving birth to a child they do not want is a perfectly noble thing. Churches feed the hungry all the time for the opportunity to “minister” to them.
Well, as God’s Emissary it is my duty to tell you that He decides when that bundle of cells becomes a thinking, breathing and viable human being, and that if He wanted sex to be for the purpose of procreation only he wouldn’t so much fun to do(and watch).
Now, you might decide to ignore what I have told you, but that’s on you-I certainly won’t hate you for being wrong.
Pro-Choice, and for a few reasons. The first is that the decision to carry a fetus to term should be the dominion of the mother alone. Laws that would force a woman to carry the child against her will, seems draconian to me. The second reason is that nature always favors established life over potential life. Many different things can cause a woman’s body to abort a fetus, illness or infection for example. If you think that human life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg you should be horrified to know that a significant percentage of these zygotes never attach to uterine wall and are flush from the body. Yet we do not hold candle light services for these unattached zygotes.
That said, I’m not a cheerleader for abortion. No matter what side of the debate you fall on, it Is a tragedy for everyone involved. My hope is that the stigma of sex is lifted and contraception options become more readily available and utilized and prevent the vast majority of abortions in the first place.
I did *not *move the goalposts. I never limited them to transplantation of a kidney. I said:
A fetus uses my kidneys for filtration and excretion of wastes, my heart and blood vessels for nutrients and removal of waste, my hormones for development and growth, and my lungs for oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange, and my digestive system, bones, fat, and muscles for nutrients. These are only ethical with my consent.
For my 12 year old to use my kidney, or any other organ, it would need to be transplanted, and for that, she needs my consent. I can even give that consent, sign papers, be prepped for surgery, and then withdraw my consent and hop off the table and walk out with all my organs in situ. I can even DIE, and if I haven’t made previous arrangements to give my consent, she can’t have my organs.
We give fetuses more rights than born children, and dead women more rights than pregnant ones. That’s messed up.
He seemed perfectly clear to me - I’m not sure what you don’t understand so sorry if I’ve been whooshed. He is saying that once a fetus can be outside of the mother and be alive, in theory that presents an option other than abortion to allow a woman who does not want to be pregnant to no longer be pregnant.
Thank you - and yes - the point of viability is a possibly significant watershed for many people in this debate because, all other factors being equal, there is one more solution for ending the pregnancy than there was previously.
Everything I would have to say has already been said in this thread, and with more eloquence than I could probably muster, but - I am completely pro-choice. Abortions for anyone who wants one, no questions asked.
Maybe we don’t have an overabundance of people just yet.
WhyNot:
Considering that G-d has, in the Bible, caused infertile and post-menopausal women (e.g., Sarah) to have babies, the sex drive still serves a procreative purpose.
As for homosexuals, if there wasn’t temptation to sin (from a Biblical perspective), there wouldn’t be any real free choice, would there?
