The whole question behind the abortion debate is just who “the next guy” is. We make all sorts of laws against various things, even if we’re not going to be the ones who suffer from those things. I mean, nobody’s forcing me to murder anyone, or rob anyone, or rape anyone. It should be my choice whether to do all of things, right? Well, no, because all of those things hurt other people. And likewise, most opponents of abortion oppose it because they believe that a fetus is a person. If one were to grant that for the sake of argument, then the rest logically follows: Of course it’s reasonable to restrict an activity that will harm those persons. So if you’re going to argue in favor of allowing abortion, what you really need to argue is that the fetus isn’t a person.
I disagree. If you want to believe that a fetus is a person, that abortion is wrong, don’t have one.
Whatever you believe does not make it right for me. It’s not about the fetus, for me. It’s about the individual. They want their beliefs enshrined in law when there is no need. I am capable of making my own decisions and do not need them acting on my behalf, deciding their opinion has more weight than mine when it comes to my life and future.
There are numerous people who believe that killing animals for food is ethically and morally wrong. To which I say, then don’t eat any. Would you be okay with them, deciding to err on the side of caution, and force everyone to live as they believe, because, after all, they are just watching out for our ethics and morality? Of course not.
You live according to what you believe, I have no problem with that. When you try to make everyone live as you believe, you’ve crossed a line you shouldn’t have.
Exactly, which is why laws against murder are wrong. Why should those who think it’s OK to kill others be forced not to?
So no “pro-lifers” want to address the adoption issue? I didn’t bring it up to be facetious, I am genuinely interested in the way you think about it.
What do you want addressed? From what I hear it is difficult and should be made easier and more affordable. There should also be better screening in place to weed out abusive people.
And like I said, despite being Catholic I think non-abortive birth control should be used to prevent pregnancies in the first place.
I’d like to see the points in my first post addressed. I didn’t phrase it in question form, but I think it’s clear what I’m asking. I’m typing on my phone, so I’d prefer if I didn’t have to re-write the post in question format.
Although a pro-life, I haven’t been involved in any pro-life movements for a long time, so I don’t know who’s spreading what misinformation and cannot comment on that, and a lot of people are probably unaware that there 100,000 unwanted children. I never heard that number before. But I 100% agree that the truth should always be told.
And as for the problem of unwanted kids, we should be both working on the reasons for that. One reason is people wanting their own biological kids, and so if they can’t get pregnant naturally then instead of adopting, they’ll take fertility drugs or do in vitro fertilization or something along those lines.
I think if those women could be persuaded (and for those saying it’s their own damn business and they can do fertility treatment if they want, please note I’m saying they should be persuaded, not forced) to adopt, it would help lower the amount of unwanted kids up for adoption.
There are other things that could be done, such as lowering the cost, if at all possible, which would allow more families to be able to afford adoption.
Although it is not an easy decision for the vast majority of women contemplating an abortion, it’s not accurate to say it’s a difficult decision for all those women. For some it is just a medical procedure they go through with little to no emotion.
But yes, that’s not typical and it should not be presented as such.
Because we all agree that murder is wrong.
Seriously? You really need this explained to you?
If we all agreed it’s wrong then we wouldn’t need laws against it.
Adoption: encouraged, should be easier.
Unless and until, you confidently feel you, yourself are capable of letting someone else, walk out of the hospital, with a child you’ve just given birth to, you should refrain from suggesting it, as a solution, to others.
And I say this to you as a woman who has done exactly that. No one is more offended, by this reasoning, than women who have actually surrendered a child.
Adoption is not a solution to your objection to abortion, stop putting it forward as one. You look a fool when you do, in my opinion.
Say what now? Does this reasoning apply to rape?
Even rapers and murderers don’t want it to happen to them or their’s. It’s not that they don’t agree that rape and murder are wrong and should be illegal, it’s that they think they can get away with it, under certain circumstances.
Are you being purposely dense?
You’re flippantly disregarding the argument that an unborn child is a human being, comparing them to animals. Because you’re convinced they aren’t human, you’re telling us to not take our beliefs seriously. THAT is being dense.
Out of curiosity, would you happen to know what percentage of those children are infants? (Whenever I’ve heard people complain about foreign adoptions, someone always says that unwanted babies are in pretty short supply, and that the children without homes in the US are almost all older. I don’t know how true that is, though.)
My comparison wasn’t of unborn children to animals, but that imposing your morality on others is wrong.
We live in a democracy, the majority agree that rape and murder, etc are crimes. Abortions is legal because our elected officials/ a majority, have agree it should be.
Because it offends your sensibilities doesn’t give you the right to impose your belief on others. As with vegetarians, who believe that eating meat is morally wrong. We have no problem with them living according to their beliefs, but no one should have to give up eating meat who doesn’t believe accordingly.
You want the right to live according to your beliefs, while denying the same right to others. Whereas choice, allows both groups, minority and majority, to live according to their deeply cherished beliefs, and is clearly the solution.
The only obstacle I see is the group who thinks they know what’s best for everybody. They don’t just want the freedom to follow their beliefs, they want to insure everyone else has to live according to their code.
Some beliefs don’t deserve to be taken seriously, such as when they are just a matter of playing word games for propaganda purposes. You say that a fetus qualifies as a human being? Fine, so what? A mindless lump of tissue is just as mindless whatever name you give it; all your word games do is create a class of “human being” it is moral to kill. But calling it a “human being” makes it sound like there’s an actual moral issue here, however illusionary it is. You might as well call an appendix or tumor a human being and insist that removing it is murder too.
As for comparing them to animals; that’s insulting to most kinds of animals, not to the fetus. A dog or bird is of much more moral relevance than some mindless bit of flesh since they have desires, awareness and sensation.
So your logic is that if a woman can’t stand the thought of giving up a baby, she should just kill it?
I usually avoid Abortion because it’s a quagmire of a subject. It’s a great example of how the extremes of an issue dominate the conversation.
For the right- there’s never going to be a practical way to outlaw abortion. Prostitution, drug abuse, etc. all go on despite laws against them.
For the left- too many abortions happen because people (men and women) are irresponsible.
It is no more natural for a woman to take her temp. etc. or have sex just when she is un-fertile. I know of many RC women and men who had problems in their marriage because of the CC’s stand on birth control. Using a condom or birth control method that works for the couple is the best. One cannot block God’s plan if God chose to want the couple to concieve. Just as They expect to keep a person alive through artificial means.
Why then is killing innocent people okay in a war? There are exceptions to every rule. and to believe a fertile egg is a human being is not a biloligical fact. The law sets a time when abortion is illegal, except in the case of saving the mother’s life. Her life is important, more so than a group of cells that cannot be told to be yet a human being(it will become one).Self defense should also be a woman’s right, just as in any other case. It is a religious concept that conception makes the cells a human being, not a biological one.
So right makes might? Then I guess up until recently it was OK to deny gays the right to marry or serve in the military because the majority of Americans were against it. I guess Jim Crow was OK because the majority of southerners were for it.
Just because the majority believes something doesn’t necessarily make it so, or make it right.