Ah, I see. God is in favour of abortions.
God is certainly in favor of free will but strongly offers His suggestion (bold mine and underline mine):
[QUOTE=Deuteronomy 30:19]
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live:
[/QUOTE]
It’s a commandment anyway so in the end life will be the choice.
How are you so sure there is no permission when it comes from a nascent life?
No, the “woman’s body” is brought up because it’s a nice talking point.
There’s no difference. Here, I can sum your argument up as such:
“The woman can have an abortion because she’s able to have an abortion on account of her being the one who is pregnant, and she can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever even if that reason is not linked to the fact that it’s her body.”
Essentially, a “Because she can!” situation.
There’s a stark difference between aborting because, say, you’re suffering from an ectopic pregnancy and aborting because you don’t think you can care for a child and don’t want to give it up for adoption. It doesn’t take a genius to see that one of those reasons is linked specifically to it being “her body” while the other one is not and could be applied, as you pointed out, equally to a five year old.
I don’t know. And as someone who likes the formulation that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, I don’t mean to rip into you. But when the President of the United States is a Harvard Law School honor graduate born to a teenage mother, this argument becomes a little weak.
Did you miss when Bill Clinton signed the bill ending long-term welfare eligibility?
Education, then marriage, then children is generally an easier order of events. But it’s hardly the only decent or workable one.
I don’t know. And as someone who likes the formulation that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, I don’t mean to rip into you. But when the President of the United States is a Harvard Law School honor graduate born to a teenage mother, this argument becomes a little weak.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Was the teenaged mother in question forced to have baby after baby? Were her children suffering from malnutrition because she couldn’t feed them all? Did the mother hate her children because she knew they were forced on her as a punishment? Was the kid raised without a mother because she died after being forced to have yet another baby?
If a teenager is repeatedly forced to bear children then abortion laws are not really the problem.
Of course they are; that’s what happens when you outlaw abortion. Especially since that doesn’t happen in a vacuum; the anti-abortion movement is only one segment of the larger misogyny movement. So where abortion is restricted or outlawed, you also see birth control restricted or outlawed; you see fewer rights for women, more hatred and abuse of them.
This is the legitimate and consistent position of an anti-abortionist. Rape is irrelevant to the termination of human fetus. Therefore it should be allowed to develop and be born free of the direct intervention of the female who is carrying the fetus.
Who will pay for the costs?
Not Republicans or conservatives. They are always against hand-outs and society helping individuals in need of assistance. Their core ideological principle is that humans should suffer if they lack the financial means to purchase available services. Conservation of privilege has to take priority in all cases.
For the answer to who will pay for such a pregnancy, the answer from conservative or Republican representatives is clear: let them suffer and die if they can’t pay for it – fetus included.
And deceiving women into killing their own children in their womb is not misogyny 
i DON’T KNOW ANYONE WHO IS PRO-ABORTION.The people who want a woman to have her rights are also pro-life, they are for the life of the woman and the other children she may have.
If the one’s who call themselvespro-life then they would consider all life and the consequences of having children that are born, taken care of, they would gladly sacrifice to see the child was cared for through adulthood, with proper medical care, education,all the necessities of life including helping the over burdened mother. Too many just want the birth, but once born they smuglly think they have done their part by picketing places like planned Parent hood, spending money and time to go to meetings and try to force a woman to do their bidding. If they donated that time and money to clothe, educate, feed and care for the life they so adamently say they support…then i may believe them.
Giving a few diapers or a few dollars is not nearly enough. Most of the protesters are also against paying more taxes, let alone giving till it hurts them. It is so easy to tell another what they should be doing.
If you put your God to the test( that St Paul uses), you would see that Starting with" Love is not self seeking," then god could not be love, nor love God. Love is a verb not a noun. according to many of the teachings about God, it is said he created man to know , Love, and Serve Him, that is self seeking!
There are many translations of the word God. John the evangalist used this discription, but that doesn’t make it true. It was his(a human’s) idea of what the word meant!
What woman is deceived into killing her own children, if she choses to bear the child ( and no one is forcing her to abort it)? It is her right to carry it from a fertile egg to birth. But there are those who would force her to carry a fertile egg to birth, then forget about the precious life once born!! The law does protect the child once it has reached the state that it is indeed a person and can be recognized as such.Then only if the woman’s life is in danger is abortion legal!
Providing good birth control, and the morning after pill(which there may not yet be a conception( should be In my opinion) available to all women of childbearing years so she can decide how to use her own body.
Since abortion was illegal whenever the woman in question became pregnant, the answer is obviously, in your terms, yes.
Our lives begins gradually, which is why this issue can’t begin to be resolved. I think that, until late in pregnancy, the potential mother is in a better position than law enforcement to decide on the trade-offs here.
The highest moral choice is going to be to err on the side of nurturing the powerless party here, the fetus. Do I, does anyone, always make the highest moral choice? No, I just ate a yogurt I totally didn’t need. A higher moral choice would have been to give the money to famine relief.
On the internet, I’m going to encourage people to give more money to charities, and, yes, I will, I hope gently, discourage abortion. This is, to me, the route to being pro-choice without being pro-abortion. No rolleyes are necessary, unless you think it wise to insult political allies who don’t think exactly as you do.
Non-sequitur. Arguing that one should not be killed does not hinge on providing for whose who would otherwise be killed.
[citation needed]
Actually, don’t bother, because this is false-- I know this is false-- and is the usual pro-choice talking point. Apparently, you’ve never heard of the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, the Adventist Health Care System, whatever the name of the network is that manages CPC’s (they provide for something like 1.2M women a year. I can’t remember the name off-hand) or any of the other literally hundreds of pro-life organizations doing those things you somehow think they’re not (like this)?
What about free or low-cost housing? Free education? Free food? Free clothing? I’ve never seen, say, Planned Parenthood give out any of that. Have you? 
(Rhetorical question, of course.)
Because, generally speaking, they’re already paying more than their fair share of taxes. I’ve pointed this out quite a few times before, and I will point it out again. It’s safe to assume that most protesters would probably vote Republican. As both a percentage of their income and in total dollars, Republicans pay more in taxes than do their Democratic counterparts. It’s rather unremarkable that the people who already shoulder the majority of the tax burden would be opposed to paying more taxes, the majority of which would fall on them.
I do hope you realize that, in general, conservatives/Republicans are more generous than their liberal/Democratic counterparts, right?
It’s even easier to point the finger at someone else and tell them what they should be doing even though they’re doing it when you’re-- and not speaking of you, specifically-- doing less.
There’s no “deception” involved, and a fetus isn’t a child.
Nonsense. The only “party” that matters is the woman. The fetus is just a thing. The highest - and only - moral choice is to support the woman, because she’s a person and it isn’t.
:rolleyes: Please. It’s well known that the red states are supported by the taxes of the blue states. And the protesters are scum, who in this case would object to paying more taxes because they want their victims to suffer.
A ridiculous claim. Selfishness is a core value of American conservatism. They care about no one but themselves.
Ah, my dear Der Trihs. What you’re describing is called an ecological fallacy, whereas because blue states tend to pay more in taxes than red states, you assume that individually Democrats pay more than Republicans. As it stands, it’s not true.
Don’t let reality stand in your way.
[citation needed]
Indeed there are abortions after the egg stage, that is why i believe that every woman of childbearing years should have easy access to the morning after pill. That would stop the need for abortions. It would mean a woman who was raped, not in good mental health, or in dire poverty would conceive only if she chose to bear a child or risk her life. I had 7 children and 2 miscarriages, I was near my 3d month when I miscarried it was very difficult for me. I saw the miscarriages and it did not look like a baby, and that consoled me.
I wanted( and could afford) to have the 9 children, but I know there are not as many as me. If a woman has the morning after pill she wouldn’t necessarily be pregnant ( and many are not) so it should be up to her or her doctor what she chooses. Nor should she be made to abort if she wanted to take the risks that was needed.
The error that I see in the abortion debate is: the pro-birthers calling a fertile egg a baby, it does have human life, and so does a man’s sperm,so the use of the word “LIFE” Is used to try to force someone else’s beliefs on another!
The fact that there are still many children living in dire poverty,( dying of poverty in 3d world countries) is proof enough to me that The SA, or Catholic charities are not getting enough money or voulenteers to aid the Mother or parents to raise the child to adulthood. There is more than diapers, and a few cans of baby food, and milk. Just look to Haiti(80% Catholic,which teaches birth control is a sin) and see the poverty there, then think if Catholic Charities Then see if they are getting enough money to support all the born children to adulthood!!
And
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
There’s no “deception” involved, and a fetus isn’t a child.
[/QUOTE]
There certainly is deception as proof from DT’s post where DT is arguing for a method that provides the opposite of what he wants, stopping misogyny - his views actually increase it. This also calls into serious question** monavis**'s statement that scripture is just the words of man.
The answers in scripture go to core repeating issues of humanity, how Buddha stated that everything is interconnected. Our modern knowledge is not even close to the wisdom expressed on this modern day issue.
The story of Adam and Eve, where Eve was tempted and deceived by the serpent. Eve tried to obtain beauty, wisdom, and food - this IS the temptation for many abortions today. What she ended up with is greater pain once she has a child, submission to men (misogyny) and a problem child (Cain).
The deception is stated very well by DT - that being that the fetus is not her child, it is a removal of the heart of the mother to her very child - that is the deception.
This issue plays out in many forms, but it’s the same core issue of humanity, the ancients knew it, but our modern society fails to recognize that everything is connected and there are few core issues to humanity, actually one that being lack of Love.