Ok, I have a personal rule to drop out of threads once a warning has been issued, so I guess everyone will have to agree to disagree.
I just wanted to thank Blake for a well thought out post #3 which addressed the OP and was completely ignored. I got something out of it, at least.
Do women and girls who become unwed mothers as a result of foregoing abortion face a heightened risk of living in poverty? Or does divine intervention reliably prevent that?
How often do conservatives allow their opponents to clarify their positions in this way?
To a point the answer is yes (to both of those). God is not bound by your perception of what are contradictions.
But this was not the context of my post you quoted. It was simply a reply to a post stating if God took care of His people there would be no poor people, which I rejected. It was not targeted to mothers with infant children.
Indeed they need more than things but they do need care,food, education,loving parents, the feeling of being wanted,a warm and dry place to live,being human they have human needs, proper medical care etc. which the poor people in Haiti and other poor countries( and even some in this country) do not get. It takes money,time to get a lot of things a child needs,even proper prenatal care, that the pro-birthers do not seem to want to pay a few dollars more a year in taxes to supply them with their needs once they are born.
Years ago there were many children dying because of lack of medical care, in third world countries (and like Haiti), they still do not get the care they need,the solution should be that any woman who needs proper birthcontrol should get it for free, if they cannot afford it and that would do away with a lot of their needs for abortions and save a lot of babies from starvation that goes on in many poor people’s homes.If birth control is a sin, then having children you cannot care for is a bigger one in my estimation!
How many people are alive today because their mothers had abortions rather than risking a life of poverty, went on to continue their education, get a productive life, and then give birth? Instead of raising children to believe welfare is the way to live, they have created productive members of society.
This is somebody’s life taken with out the will or knowledge of that person for the good of someone else.
Self Preservation is the right of every human being, and a woman has the right to self preservation. The fertile egg isnot somebody, until it can be recognized as such, and in a case where it means the mother’s life, that is her right to decide if she would want to take the chance of her life or a Zygote!
If this is how it works, if a woman is so desperate that she had decided that the only way she will survive would be to have one of her children given to death I could fully accept that and would understand the pain in her heart.
You do realize that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed well beyond the “fertilized egg” stage, right? You also realize that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed for the sake of rescuing the pregnant woman from impending death, right?
With regard to situations where the woman’s life is at substantial risk, would it not be preferable to save both lives if at all possible? Or, if only one life can be saved, should this decision not be made by a highly trained medical practitioner who is more capable of determining which life has the better chance of survival?
I know this has been commented on. And yes with the fidelity of a sledge hammer - but anyway… (I originally wrote it was a bit contrived, but more accurately I restated it as —>) It is very contrived, they are not forcing her to bear children by any stretch of logic, though one could say they are preventing her from stopping her body from bearing children.
On the far outside it would be abandonment of care at the most - no where near rape (and in some ways abandonment is far worse).
You know, kanicbird you can twist wording around forever and ever. Play all the semantics games you want. But those of us operating in reality recognize that we’re talking about real people with real lives, not just gibbering nonsense about love and support.
The end result of your philosophy is that women are denied personal and bodily autonomy in favor of zygotes and embryos who are not people, nor children, nor imbued with any rights, particularly not the right to make use of someone else’s body unbidden. The end result of your philosophy is forced pregnancy, forced birth (which will necessarily mean, in some cases, forced death) and in many cases, lives of exceptional hardship.
And you know, I have been on the inside of the “prolife” movement. I worked closely with a leader of a national “prolife” organization for a not insignificant period of time. I’ve been dragged bodily away from blockading clinic doors. I have worked as a “counselor” (with no qualification for the title beyond a workshop held on two Saturday mornings and a binder full of poorly supported “information”) at a “crisis pregnancy center.” I know this movement from the inside.
And I remain in close contact with people in this movement. (Keep your friends close…)
The material support being offered to the women these organizations coerce with their half-truths and promises is minuscule considering the $200k or so that it costs to raise a child to 18 in this country. It’s miniscule considering the thousands it costs to have an uncomplicated vaginal delivery in a hospital. It’s miniscule compared to the financial loss of weeks off of work for recovery after birth.
It would have to be. There is no way that these organizations could possibly provide substantial financial help to any substantive number of women without bankrolls of hundreds of thousands. They don’t have money like that. Nothing close.
And they’re not trying. The CPC I was last affiliated with, which is tied into the largest national organization of them spent more money in 2010 (per the budget sent to supporters in their newsletter) on advertising and sending one of their supporters to ultrasound school than they did on their total financial support to more than 150 clients. They spent nearly as much on pregnancy tests as they did on financial support for clients. And that’s entirely typical. And this is a CPC in a relatively affluent suburb, with affluent suburban supporters. Inner city centers are operating on an even lower budget, and doing even less of merit with it.
The lying needs to stop.
tumbleddown thank you for that. I am not into what the pro-life movement does, not into spreading the anger and hate that goes back and forth.
The anger expressed in the abortion debate I believe is ultimately anger at God but misfocused at others and often the child is the one who is sent to die.
We have created a society with rules designed by mankind which highly devalues children and motherhood, it is the modern societal values that is used to twist the meaning and hide the truth - truth that I believe many know to be truth in their core being.
There is a law that only to save the woman’s life is an abortion legal only up to a certain point. The many people who have one after that date is because of the woman’s health. If one believes that every egg should reach maturity to adulthood once born, then they should be willing to aid the child and rest of the family untill it reaches Maturity, with food, decent lodging, health care,education, etc. too many don’t and there are way too many who want a woman to sacrifice her life, but don’t want to do any sacrificing of their own.
It should be left to the woman and her doctor. The best way to stop the need for abortion is education and reliable birth control, which too many believe is a sin, but care little once the child is born as to what happens to it. If this were not so, there would be less child abuse,and less going hungry in this country and in 3d world countries. A woman is more than a incubator,and has the right legally to decide what happens to her own body! It is legal and laws shoud not be based on a religious belief.
In truth, ALL RULES AND LAWS ARE OF HUMAN DESIGN, that is a proven truth. One can believe it was from a God on a mountian top but that is a belief in what another human has said an other human said(of which there is no historical truth that he even existed) was the word of God!
No person living on this planet has the right to use anybody else’s body without their permission. What gives a fetus this special right?
I’ve heard anti-abortion protestors tell women going into Planned Parenthood “I’ll give you all the help you need.” Help like welfare? As the OP asked “Where is all the money going to come from?”
…Okay.
So I see the “a-woman-has-the-right-to-decide-what-happens-to-her-own-body!” obfuscation is out in force today.
I know I’ve pointed this out many times before, but the majority of women have abortions for reasons which are minimally related to the fact that it’s their body. Hell, for the majority of abortions, the only part the woman’s body plays in the decision to abort is that because her body is involved she can abort. Most women have abortions for reasons completely unrelated to it being “her body”, but rather boil down to the fact that she doesn’t want to take care of a child or that having a child would interfere with whatever life plans the has. The two are completely different. Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge regarding abortions know this. And if you don’t know this, you can go to Guttmacher and simply look it up.
What you say may be true, though you would have to prove no alien intervention. What I am referring to is not a written language, nor law nor code, it’s something inherent in the human heart it is Love, Love is above all laws all rules, as Love is God.
Those points are accurate - but they also apply to, say, a woman with a five year old who decides that she doesn’t want to take care of a child or that it interferes with whatever life plans she has. Or with someone who’s seeking adoption, for that matter. The “woman’s body” point is brought up because when the matter is abortion, they’re in the unique position of the fetus being entirely dependent on that woman’s body.
IOW, you’re pointing out that women have different reasons for having an abortion. True. But the “it’s her body” argument is not put forth as a reason for doing so; pro-choicers bringing up this particular “obfuscation” aren’t saying “Well, women want to have abortions because it’s their body and they should have the power to control it”, but “Well, women want to have abortions for many reasons - and they should be able to, because it’s their body and they should have the power to control it”. It’s an important difference. Perhaps i’ve just overlooked people posting that the “it’s their body” idea is the reason behind wanting an abortion - could you give some examples of this obfuscation?