il Topo, what do the anti-abortion people want? Do they just want to push abortion underground, so they can pretend it isn’t happening? It seems to me that there are a number of things that could be done to reduce the demand for abortion, but outlawing the practice is not one of them.
That is a prime example of why anti-abortion is not a correct term. What the the pro-life people want? Just to save lives of unborn children?
And if you follow il Topo’s little rule and exchange murder for abortion in your sentece, you will still get the idea.
Certainly it is. Do you believe that abortions were more common prior to Roe v. Wade?
They want to decrease the number of deaths. Take the number of deaths due to abortion now (with their understanding that with every successful abortion, there is one death, that is in the millions per year) and compare it to the number of deaths after abortion is outlawed. Even if the back-alley stuff becomes prominent, and mothers and unborn die in botched abortions, if the number of deaths is decreased overall, they might think that is some progress, not the end of the battle, but some progress towards endind senseless deaths.
I think outlawing it might decrease it quite significantly. Why wouldn’t it?
—I think outlawing it might decrease it quite significantly. Why wouldn’t it?—
I don’t think she understands that you are counting the unborn.
Even if the number of women who die as a result of trying to get an illegal abortion increases, the total number of deaths would still be less if the number of abortions were less (as they almost certainly would be. Plus, there is the added fact that the women who died chose to have a risky abortion, so their deaths cannot be counted in the same way as unborn that are simply killed without any choice in the matter at all.
We have moral obligations to help those in need of help. We rarely codify those into legal obligations. Parental care is one of those situations.
If you assume that the living human is of moral consequence, however, that issue is, as JThunder notes, beside the point, because this is not like choosing not to donate a kidney to a child: it’s much more like taking back a kidney already donated to a child (with or without your consent), thus killing the transplantee.
Of course, I don’t think anyone seriously treats “living” as an important criteria, and “human” is simply beside the point (except for those happy with arbitrary distinctions like species).
Um, I think you’re misreading. She was specifically referring to reducing the numbers of abortions.
Good grief, Hazel. Do you REALLY want me to trot out the “Illegal Abortion Myths” links yet again?
Indeed, there is every reason to believe that would be so.
Good grief, I’ll stand right up and tell you that if abortion were illegal, I’d still have one.
If I had to risk my own life, so be it. Some of us are that determined to remain child free.
:rolleyes: How far fetched is this abortion nonsense going to get? No offense, but in my humble opinion the woman donates her uterus/womb to be used by a baby whenever she “donates” her body for sexual intercourse since she knows this can produce babies. How cold and heartless are people going to get towards unborn babies anyway? Let’s just keep killing them and flushing them, huh? Cos, well, I just don’t want a baby, ya know? It’s always me me me, the center of the universe is wonderful me me me. Give me a break! If you don’t want a baby, either don’t have sex or have a tubal ligation or whatever. You really think we’re not going to have to answer for all the killing of these unborn babies? :smack:
How many times does it have to be explained to you that this is unreasonable and naive?
It’s cruel to expect people who are in committed relationships, or are married, and don’t want to have children to abstain from ever having sex. It’s also ridiculous to say ‘have a tubal ligation’ as if you’re saying ‘have a chocolate sundae’. It’s virtually impossible for a younger woman to convince a doctor to do the procedure, especially if she’s child free and wants to remain so.
Sorry, but a human being shouldn’t be put to death because someone just has to have that sex. I will never believe anyone has the right to take a life that’s a result of their own actions just because it’s inconvenient!
You want the relationship and everything it entails including the sex but you don’t want the responsibility for the results of that sex. It’s selfish and wrong. Give him or her (it’s not an it) up for adoption if you don’t want him or her. I will never believe you have the right to take a human life because it’s in your way or inconvenient. It’s not that baby’s fault it exists. You have sex, the baby is your responsiblity. Life is sacred and you nor anyone else has the right to play God with human lives.
Adoption is not an answer. I want no offspring. That means zero, not ‘one that I gave up for adoption’.
I will never go through labor, I will never accept the health problems of carrying a pregnancy. What’s selfish and wrong is for you to try to make that decision for me. You don’t understand my circumstances, you don’t live my life, you don’t have to deal with any of the fallout, you have no idea the detriment of what you expect of me, yet you want to make the decision.
My life is sacred too, you know, and it’s not up to you or anyone else to play god with my life.
You not going to get much sympathy with such a selfish remark. No one is trying to kill you for convenience. And no one wants you to get pregnant and have a baby either. As a matter of fact, i would rather you didn’t. But, they do expect you to face your responsibilities if yu just can’t help yourself. If you think that is unfair, well so is life. At least you got that.
I’m not surprised that I can’t convince you that taking an unborn child’s life is wrong. All I can do is tell you, and if you decide to get an abortion then it’s God you’ll answer to, not me. Only He can reach your heart, if it’s open to be reached. I find the whole thing very tragic and sad. 
Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
What you expect of me is irrelevant. I have to be able to get up in the morning, and I’ll do what it takes to do that.
That’s a whole other argument. The existence of god is immaterial to the law, and your belief in it is certain irrelevant to me.
Reading this thread, I have one question:
Isn’t it sort of useless debating most aspects of abortion as long as one side believes that an embryo or fetus or whatever, at any stage at all, is a living being that is morally equivalent to an adult human, and the other does not?
If we really wanted to get anywhere, wouldn’t it be necessary to focus on this issue, and this issue alone?
Which does not, by any means, prove (or even remotely suggest!) that the number of abortions would remain unchanged if abortion were outlawed.
As opposed to, say, the lovingkindness demonstrated by the act of cutting up an unborn human being?
Kindly spare me that nonsense about the “cruelty” of abstinence. I am a healthy, physically fit 35-year-old male who is a virgin BY CHOICE. I have a blossoming romance with a trim, beautiful 36-year-old woman who is also a virgin BY CHOICE. We knew what the consequences of sex would be, and so we chose to exercise self-control and keep our pants on.
Cruelty? Give me a break.