Abortion - Views?

Remove all ads!

Have you ever heard of the so called "honor murders" practiced by immigrants from certain countries? Parents "objecting pregnancy" can be a bit more serious than not liking the fatness.

Contraceptives are never 100% certain. Are you suggesting people should live in celibacy?

And adoption: there's quite a lot of bureacracy and red tape involved in the whole process. While there are quite a lot of willing parents lined up to adopt, as well as a big bunch of unwanted children waiting for it, it's surprising how rarely they meet. If you give your child away, in many countries it has a very good chance of never even getting to a temporary foster home to wait for those white-picket-fence-parents, because orphanages are overcrowded as it is.

 

Yes, he does suggest people remain celibate unless they want children.

 

No.

Parents don't know if the pregnacy will be a healthy one or not. And of course if the foetus is irrevesibly damaged it would be better for it to live in pain, having for example no arms or legs Or death (or seriuse health damage) at birth.

And your other arguments about sex don't make sence. "Think before having sex, don't have sex if you don't want children, etc". You have no right to tell others what can they do with each other as long as no one is hurt.If some whant to have sex before marriage, it's OK for me.

And about rape. Ask any woman if she'd like to carry such baby for whole 9 months and then give it to adoption. I'm sure many women would be delighed to bear a such child, which will remind them about the rape.

And I thought that Poland is a part of Europe. Guess I was wrong and such middle aged views are still present.

And one more question to Chev. Are you for of against death panality?

 

I forgot to address this one. Why are you assuming incest is consensual? "Sure, daddy, do me." You think that's how it works?

 

@ Chev,

What you see as a slippery slope, others may view as natural progression or the evolution of social mores. I'm not a fan of change for its own sake, but neither am I a proponent of anachronism.

No, because we recognise that the decision is not so simple as that. I've been advocating contraception and prevention so strongly in this thread (although I'll confess to a certain implication of abortion as a "Final Solution" in my arguments, although of a much different nature). Comparing abortion to genocide is somewhat disingenuous, though - unless it's forcible, in which case it can be entirely accurate.

Dehumanising a subject to be killed is an ancient practice, certainly. I don't see myself as dehumanising a zygote or a foetus; that would only be true if I was blindly pro-choice and in favour of abortion on demand at any time. The more options that are on the table (including abortion, child assistance, welfare, et cetera), the better; I don't think many people want more abortions to be performed. I've already stated an order of preference - with abortion last on the list.

So you say - and then proceed to categorically dismiss any argument about balancing rights in favour of an absolute preference for one's over another's. I was avoiding a rights-based argument for exactly that reason, since I knew we'd just be and nothing would come of it.

In the end, I think most of this debate does revolve around that balancing of entitlements and duties. I have stated, many times, that abortion is not the only solution. When it becomes the key question, however, it DOES become an absolutist debate, and one which I was attempting to avoid for those reasons I've listed.

And I was of the opinion that I had included the right to existence/duty of care prominently in my position - once a foetus becomes viable outside the womb, I am strongly opposed to non-emergency abortion. Until that point, and arguably for some time before that (as medical advances improve), it is a complex and tragic issue, but one which should not be cast aside on purely moral grounds. There is a moral and humanist argument either way, after all.

I'm not saying "cast aside morals" - I'm saying that I refuse to let one particular branch of them (whether that be pro-choice or pro-life) dictate terms, particularly when the concepts of "good" and "evil" are so mutable and subjective dependent on your morality that a black-and-white perspective often becomes a straightjacket.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice zealots can rant and never have to worry about responsibility for it. Policy-makers have to find a path through all the dogmatic nonsense spouted by both sides and get to a workable solution. Reality couldn't care less what anyone thinks of it. It's what one does about it that matters. If you won't support abortion under any circumstances, you need to provide alternatives.

While reducing the demand for abortion is an uncontestably good thing, banning it won't solve anyone's problems. It will probably only make things worse for the mother who can't support children. Truly unwanted pregnancies have a way of ending up in babies being dumped, killed or placed in state care. All of those scenarios can arguably be worse than early abortion.

You know, the more I read of this argument, the more I am convinced that feminist dialogues about attempting to control female sexuality have merit. I don't doubt that some people will be acting as selfishly as you claim, Chev, but to impose a blanket ban based on such a misogynist and holier-than-thou stereotype is utterly galling.

You can boil this down to "right to life versus right to self-determination". Since most hold both to be inalienable and absolute, a compromise is necessary.

Those attitudes held when there was a relatively homogenous society with broadly similar views and attitudes. In an increasingly heterogenous society, imposing the one set of values and morality is increasingly untenable. Put simply, who am I to tell someone else how they can live their life? More importantly, how do you propose to enforce such laws without trampling people's rights and creating additional consequential problems?

The only way to effectively enforce a ban on abortion is to impose a near-dictatorial regime of policing and education on a population. I'm sure I don't need to go any further with that description to demonstrate why I believe abortion to be the lesser evil.

Off-topic: necrophilia and zoophilia are illegal and unacceptable behaviours for different reasons. A person's body is their own property, even after death, and can't be violated in any way (even for medical reasons) without prior consent of the deceased or their executor, or unless an autopsy is declared necessary. Animals are protected against cruel and perverse treatment.

In this situation, of course you have a moral responsibility to act. The same applies to abortion, IMO; one has a moral obligation to ensure that someone is fully aware of the consequences and likely outcomes of the procedure (and of not doing it). However, the situation is much more complex than "kill or not kill" and is not black-and-white for those who don't share your religious convictions. Put simply, there are greater long-term considerations that are implicit in both actions.

True. I was just illustrating that your absolutist position is fundamentally compromised and that rights-contests inevitably end up infringing on someone's liberties and entitlements. Two absolute rights clashing, necessary compromise solution required.

How convenient is it, then, that the authors of such sentiments should never have been subjected to that situation? However, I was not addressing punishment in my argument earlier; I was noting that abortion is typically a tragic event, and was lamenting that some will do it for entirely selfish reasons.

That is why I wanted to get away from rights-based discussions/arguments; they typically achieve nothing except a feeling of self-righteousness and the casting of recriminations back and forth. "Workable solutions" means an appropriate response; the first and only question should not be whether to have an abortion or not. In the end, rights need to be balanced; I find a certain irony that we agree on this, yet you utterly refuse to address that need.

 

How frigging selfish are these people? Further, don't they have families and or friends that can help them? Can't you get someone ot watch the baby while you are at work or school? If you are in no position to raise a child, then you should be careful with having sex. If you want to postpone childbirth or not have more children, Birth Control is not evil in a marriage. Relationship problems mean that you shouldn't be having sex. Remember that the Bible forbids Adultery and Fornication. Maybe people ought to take another look at religion...

Under those circumstances, it's not my place to speak. If I was dierctly involved (father of the child, close family, priesthood leader), any counsel given would likely come after fasting and prayer, and likely after a priesthood blessing given (Mormon Ordinance).

When they choose to seek help rather than murder their unborn children. In Canada, Welfare and Disability supports do grant extra money to those with dependent children, but there needs to be subsidized daycare for children who's parents work. The family of the mother (and of the father where possible) needs to be involved as a support for the new family. Personally, I wouldn't shun dating a single mother (though I'd likely suck as a stepfather). Those closest shouldn't abandon the parents of the child in their time of need.

That does seem excessive. To mention one organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does help arrange adoptions, taking children from women who give them up and place them in proper homes, with a mother and a father. It's not about red tape, but about love.

But abortion hurts an unborn child. Therefore, it ought not be allowed. Abstinence is perfectly valid advice that won't get them into this situation.

 

Two things: I'll bet many of them tried using Birth Control or condoms, but mistakes do happen. Is it their fault if they are in the 5% of faulty birth control? I think not

And, you said the Bible forbids Aldultery and Fornication. What about the many people who don't listen to the Bible? Forget about them, did you?

And getting someone to watch your kids while at school is a big hassle. You would need a source of income to pay for the sitter, and for food, clothing, etc. for it. If you did need that money, you'd probably get a job, not go to school. Especially since the male responsible for the birth does not always take responsibility and find someway to help pay for it.

 

/me reads Gnarf's post


Sounds like the Mormons have got it all together. I'd like to add a little something, though.

Abstinence or birth control should prevent all unwanted pregnancies from consensual acts. Being too stupid to use either does not entitle you to end the life you have unwittingly created. However, ignorance of safe sexual practices brings a gray area into this. IMO, the cause of the unwanted pregnancy should be the determining factor. (Though which side some causes would fall on is a matter of much debate even within my own cranium. ) The alternate solution is no more or less palatable: sex ed in schools at age 13 (or whenever the average age of puberty is).

So basically, we're screwed either way. I just hope we don't get pregnant.

@Saber:

Consider it an act of Divine/Natural intervention to give you the child you need/deserve to have. Or just stop screwing every five minutes. BTW, I believe it's actually more like 0.1%

No, it doesn't matter where he got it from. It's been said before and bears saying again: Separation of church and state does not mean an anti-church state. Some things are simply a good idea regardless of your spiritual beliefs.

[ October 14, 2005, 06:53: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

I've been getting sex ed since age 10...

 

Maybe they should be...

First off, where possible, the man should be held accountable for the life he was involved in creating. Secondly, the woman should have a support network. Family or friends should help out where possible. If these are not feasable, then adoption should be considered. All I care is that these children are not murdered.

Thanks Fel. Often people can make points better than I can...

 

It must be acknowledged that what can be a morally superior choice is not often wise to enforce as societal law, particulary when the proposed law is virtually unenforceable.

Look at the prohibition experiment: Clearly the banning of alcohol is a morally superior law as compared to the way our current system of laws handles the drug. Alcohol causes death, disease and lack of inhibition resulting in all kinds of morally repugnant behavior; it can also be brewed in the kitchen or closet of any human being possessing even the slightest inclination.

A woman with a coat hanger and access to a friend or a website can abort her pre-baby. Those lacking the courage to do so themselves, which will be most, will instead look to the services of the alleys. While some lucky women will have access to competent doctors and nurses willing to break the law, most will not.

And to ask the question logically following the proposed prohibition of abortion, are we going to throw a young woman of nineteen years, having been caught self-aborting, into jail on charges of first degree murder? If the law is going to treat her pre-baby as an equal to, lets say, myself, wouldn't a life sentence be typical in response to premeditated murder?

When we start conducting autopsies, writing obituaries, and then holding funerals for first-trimester womb-seeds...well, I am going to have to move to a different land at that point.


Edit...

By the way, my gem changed! Woohoo! Take that Jesus-freaks!

 

To Gnarfflinger and co:

We're not living in a dream world where fathers can't shirk their responsibilities, adoption is easy, money is plentiful to hire competent babysitters, where abusive boyfriends don't beat up their girlfriends over an unwanted pregnancy.

And even if the chance of birth control failing is 0.0001%, it still happens. Do a bit of math, as to how many people there are in this world.

And out of those who follow the rules of the Bible, quite a few don't practice birth control at all due to a certain Catholic Church. Many of them live in poverty, and the children they can't provide for often get abandoned and end up living on the streets - as beggars, thieves or child prostitutes. This happens in South America all the time. So tossing around Bible quotes is hardly the answer here, much as some of its ideas are good and noble.

Sad as it is, most of those suggestions for better alternatives than abortion - which I btw think *would be* preferable to abortion - would require the society to fork out some cash. A lot of cash. And that's not likely to happen.

In the current situation - the here and now, not the theoretic utopia - there are quite a few instances where abortion is the lesser evil. I don't *like* the idea of killing an unborn, but outright prohibiting it can only lead to more misery.

 

I think these two points illustrate examples of where the pro-life side doesn't see the pro-choice side's point. There are very, very few people that favor abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, abortion as a first choice option, or abortion as after-the-fact birth control. What most pro-choice people argue however, is that sometimes it is the best choice.

I suppose two (admittedly over-simplified) contrasting examples would help in making my point. Say some young professional making a good salary is screwing around with two or three guys at work (not all at once, I'm not saying she's involved in orgies) and she gets pregnant. If she decides she wants an abortion simply because it would be an inconvenience to have a baby at that particular time because she's having so much fun messing around with all these guys and she has this great career, and having a baby is just going to ruin all of this, well, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for her. And most people would not support an abortion in this instance. Most people would take the attitude that she should suck it up and take responsibility for her actions.

But what about a teenager from a poverty-stricken home? Say she has a boyfriend who tells her he loves her, she agrees to have sex with him, and then he stops seeing her after he gets her pregnant. She obviously has no means to care for this baby. And her parents are just scaping by the way it is, and now they basically are going to have to absorb the costs of this child too. In this case the pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. Having a baby is always a life-altering event, but in this case even moreso as it is going to have grave impacts on people beyond the mother.

The point I'm trying to make is sometimes these issues are painted too black and white. Yes, it can be argued that the teenager is no less culpable and just as responsible for being pregnant as the professional in the first example. But that's not the point, because responsibility is not the only thing to consider. In the examples above, I see some very justifiable reasons for the teenager getting an abortion, while the reasons the professional would give have no moral capital.

So don't try to label anyone who is pro-choice as advocating abortion. Most people prefer abortion to be the last option on the table. It is the option taken as a last resort, when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need to have any abortions, but sometimes reality dictates that abortion is the best solution.

 

Gnarf,

From what I've heard from you (and LKD and T2B for that matter) the LDS church is founded on some very good social premises which I whole-heartedly agree with. I am not surprised that they have actually made a tangible response to the problem, rather than just condemning it without offering a realistic workable alternative.

 

I'm not talking about an anti-church state (although, if it were up to me, it would be), but for the people who do not believe that sex before marriage is bad, why should they have to follow the same restrictions the bible gives? I don't think that sex before marriage is a bad idea, you just have to know what you are getting into. Birth Control, or protection should be used unless a child is wanted.

Sorry for the incorrect figure before. But, most people don't have sex every five minutes (and i realize it may have been an exagerration, but still, most people don't have sex every night or every other night). And no, I don't consider it an act of Divine intervention to give a child. Many others don't. Only those who believe in God (or other deities), would consider that. So the only other explination would be a faulty pill or condom (or other form of protection). Not their fault, I say again.

 

Agreed. But if you refuse to use birth control then you should either stop or expect a baby.

Of course it's not their fault if they're being responsible. The reason I added "/Natural" is because I believe that rare things happen for a reason. As in, condoms would normally be 100% effective if not for the exceptions that are meant to happen. If it ever happened to me, I'd think twice about my g/f getting an abortion, but I certainly wouldn't stop her from doing it if that's what she wanted.

But if you really want to reduce your chances of conceiving, abstinence is the best way, and is the only method that is 100% fool-proof. It's simply a matter of how big a chance you want to take. But as with gambling, you have to accept the consequences. Whether that consequence is abortion or adoption, you're still taking your chances every time.

 

Agreed (to everything). Abstinence is the only 100% full proof way. However, stopping people from having sex is pretty hard.

And yes, for people who refuse to use birth control, it should be no suprise to them if they have a child. Luckily for me, I will insist on birth control (when I have sex, that is. I'm only 15, so I haven't had sex yet).

 

Sounds fair to me. My response is no more callous than her decision to terminate the life of a child that would otherwise inconvenience her.

Perhaps the Governments ought to step in and work towards that goal. Make them actually earn the tax money that they extort from us. Find ways to make the fathers accountable, and enforce it if they try to skip out. Cut some of the costly red tape from the adoption process. Subsidized daycare to help lower income families or single parents would reduce that stress and create jobs. And I think that harsher punishments on domestic abuse should be in place.

Parents are accountable for the welfare of their children up to the age of 18. Any failure there is on their heads morally, but again, some of the solutions put forth in the previous paragraph would relieve some of those stresses.

Perhaps the Government ought to fork over some of that cash instead of lining their own pockets or giving tax breaks to their wealthy friends...

But this is why they have adoption. the chance to give the child a better home than the mother could provide on her own devices...

Condemnation accomplishes practically nothing. That's why we need solutions. AS has been pointed out, more than half of abortions come out of perceived hardships. Abandoning them to their fate, we ourselves are guilty of neglect. Jesus Christ even said that "In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." If we help them, we are helping our Lord and Saviour, if we abandon those in need, we abandon Christ...

That statements scares me...

It sounds to me like you have no desire to be part of the problem, and in your own way are trying to be part of the solution. Perhaps if those that don't care for the religious side could be influenced by your example in this matter, then you've done your part to help.

Agreed, not their fault that the device was faulty, but they should still know the risks before having sex. This makes them accountable for an unplaned pregnancy.

Once again Fel, you've said it better than I can.

 

Absolutely. But this is all "perhaps" and "ought to." Any suggestions on how to make these things actually happen? Money rules the world, and I'm not saying it should be like that, but sadly it is. Does anybody seriously believe the governments are gonna fork over the cash? So long as it isn't economically profitable in the immediate sense, they're not gonna do anything. No matter what the people paying their salary say.

And about domestic violence: Without a 24/7 surveillance it's pretty hard to keep it from happening, no matter how harsh the consequences. Quite a few cases never even get reported. Out of those that are, only a small percentage can be conclusively proven in court and result in sentences. And out of those, well...in most cases the violent hubby/bf returns to his old ways as soon as he's out.

I've mentioned the honor murders before, but no one's reacted. They're something to consider as well.

 

It was her own decision to terminate the life of the child. What had the child done before she killed it? Prison for killing isn't harsher than killing for nothing. Personally, I wouldn't like to put a nineteen year old in prison and thwart her start into the adult life. I'd rather see her learn her lesson, try to make up for it and take responsibility for her further life. I doubt she would get a life sentence for neonaticide, which is closer to abortion than the classic version of murder (i.e. no qualified or privileged subtype).

How much would you like living in a theocracy? Theocracy is bad but an anti-church state is okay? That's some peculiar logic. Works like, "if you steal from me it's bad, if I steal from you it's good," loosely to quote a certain book.

The same explanation applies to a newborn or generally offspring of any age. Whether or not you're at fault for the bad situation in which you are, it gives you no right to take other people's property or lives to fix it.

Agreed. The job needs to be done on the internal level. I can tell you it's possible.

Logically, by that line of reasoning, you should also accept the risk of birth control failing and accept the child if the little chance comes true and one is conceived.

I'm impressed...

There are also Christian churches which collectively don't listen to the part about fornication and yet still oppose abortion. You could even find Christian churches conveniently relativising the fifth commandment, or any commandment for that matter, and saying that everything goes so long as you think about it long enough.

At any rate, one doesn't need a religion to know that killing other humans is wrong. It shouldn't take anything save common sense and not even common sense but actually basic instinct to see that an unborn baby is a human entity.

If we are to stick to religions, it makes no sense for any religion to include commandments and then "but if you don't want to listen, here's a couple of hints for you" kind of teaching. That would be like putting, "but if still want to steal, that's fine by us; at least try to steal from the rich and don't hurt people in the process." Just an example.

Is fault at all relevant? Wasn't it their choice to have sex?

Killing the homeless and/or jobless would also solve some social problems, wouldn't it?

What the pro-choice side fails to see is that one can't just kill others for the sake of his plans and perceived happiness or to avoid hardship. What's the difference between killing on demand and killing only when it comes in your way for a bit more specific reason? What difference does first choice make from one of many alternatives or a second or third choice if the result is a conscious decision to kill? Who has the authority to decree that killing is the best choice? It surprises me that I can address the belief that it's moral to kill a baby because the mother wants to focus on her career, with a pale cast of respect. But it makes me wonder what we are going to discuss next. No healthcare or meds for patients with terminal illness or after 90 years of age? Euthanasia of paralysed people?

Obviously? No means? And you're going to tell me that I talk in absolutes. Who knows the future? Cannot she really support the child or is it, in all honesty, too much of a bother?

Put the boyfriend to prison, make him work and pay support. She needs to stop partying and start caring after the child. Something for something. Give her some welfare, but mostly try and get her a job. I don't like any sort of hiring preference but I can fancy the idea of single mothers being hired first. If she still insists on partying, then, well, give the child up for adoption. But I still don't believe people should be able to cast children away like that and shed the responsibility. Those who make babies should have them, support them and bring them up. There should be no legal option for people to neglect children like that. Of course, it's still preferable to abortion.

If you have children, you take responsibility for them and their upbringing. If you bring children in such a way that they end up single mothers, you bear a large part of the responsibility. Killing is never an option in solving economical problems, no matter how grave.

We can talk about black and white or not issues when discussing the criminal penalty, but not when deciding if abortion should be legal. We can think about justifications for any kind of crime but we still don't declare the crime a moral or morally neutral thing to do in general. While I don't say any teenager who has had an abortion should go to prison, I don't see it as a reason to make abortion legal.

Being pro-choice is by definition advocating abortion. In situations of varying kind and gravity, but still. You can be pro-choice and not advising abortion but not pro-choice and not advocating it. Whenever you choose to declare yourself as pro-choice, you should accept the truth that you are supporting a vision in which it's licit to terminate life to solve economical or social problems.

Most convenient, not best. Sadly, convenience has been becoming the highest ethical imperative in the modern civilisation.

The fact that someone screwed up and children end up on the street as a result doesn't make it all good and fine to solve the problem by eradicating children still in the womb. To one evil, another evil is not a solution.

Alcohol is bad when abused, not when drunk in reasonable amounts. Banning the whole thing away was excessive, hence the problem. A bit like banning away all sharp or blunt and heavy objects or belts from households because they often end up as tools in domestic violence.

Which isn't a bad idea, except I believe it should be more up to parents than schools at so early a stage. Sex ed is a good thing. Teenagers need to know how those things work.

Further impressed. We must exchange some thoughts over a beer or ten one day.

Parents need to put some effort in it. School teachers shouldn't be afraid to prevent students from engaging in sexual activities. If sixteen year olds have sex on a school trip a week or two after the first year in a new school starts in Mother Poland, then what must be going on France or the USA or the liberal Scandinavia?

So kill the baby to avoid the hassle? We're talking about a vital and controversial issue and we need to address it like responsible adults. If putting a pet to sleep because of economical problems would be frowned upon, then how can abortion be right? In the "ideal" world of the left-green-libertarian option, putting pets to sleep would be illegal but abortion would be a private choice and a sacred right.

People tend to have a strange outlook on religion. Have you ever seen a porn actress with a crucifix on her neck at work? Or a crucifix hanging down between a flasher's breasts on Mardi Gras, which flasher thinks she's a normal Christian woman right after the big party ends?

How low does the monthly income have to be to make it unselfish? You seem to believe that abortion actually kills something and that something isn't just a lump of cells. You seem to feel it as a tragedy. So what is it that makes you still want to allow it and keep it legal? Liberty? Tolerance? Non-involvement?

Pro-choice is at least as absolute as pro-life. Pro-choice works on one fundamental absolute: choice. The woman's freedom to kill her unborn. There are various buts and shoulds but ultimately the choice is placed before and above anything else. I am no more of an absolutist than pro-choicers are.

That's not the same. You don't warn an unaccountable attempting killer about the consequences. You prevent the killing. Telling the mother about the consequences of abortion is not analogous. Next, presenting women with pro-life arguments without invitation tends to be looked upon as a violation of their freedom of choice, their privacy, whatever. Ideally, the left would like abortion to be left totally alone, preferably praised from the ambo in each temple in the land. First remove the penalty, then prevent demostrations, then outlaw critique, then demand acceptation, even approval. This is how the slippery slope goes. Silencing is the crux of it but there is one thing that will never be silenced: own conscience. Those activists: abortion women, doctors, politicians will silence everyone and everything if they have enough vote or enough force but they will never silence their own conscience. That is the direction in which they are going, but they will never reach the destination.

Perverse? Homosexuality shouldn't be frowned upon as perverse because such subjective value-based criteria shouldn't be binding under law, but zoophilia can still be outlawed as perverse? And what if the inheritor grants permission to use the body for sexual gratification? What if the deceased person's will allows someone to have sex with his or her body?

Allowing it and saying it's all right to have is taking yet another moral responsibility on the state's shoulders. There's a difference between facing an evil and failing to win, and declaring the evil good to avoid the problem altogether.

Bigamy is illegal and so is polygamy despite the fact so many people would actually enjoy the idea. We could even hear gay rights activists bringing up the monogamy argument. Even those folks use values in their judgement, so how can they claim that values shouldn't be used in public life? Why aren't two wives legal for a guy to have if one husband is or should be? Everyone has a threshold and some breaking point where he will put his foot down and stand up for the values. There's no such thing as not enforcing any values under law and keeping it neutral. Especially when it comes to forms of killing that minorities accept.

Life is superior. Without this one, you can't have any of the others.

Holier-than-thou I can take but mysoginist and stereotype? Look on Shrikant's statistics for abortion reasons before calling me a mysoginist. I want to impose a blanket ban on killing, how anti-whatever (or myso-whatever) does this make me? I quote and summarise selfish reasons as given by those who have abortion. Am I still anti or myso for quoting and calling on it?

Who says good and evil is mutable? Isn't it a minority view trying to be imposed on the rest of people who believe it's natural, eternal or whatever, unsure or non-existent included?

Only if you believe the foetus not to be a human being.

How strongly? Strongly enough to want it enforced or still ready to submit it to practical concerns? At some point you have to say stop. What if the mother's self-determination, liberty and whatever else will be infringed by the very fact the child lives and her comfort and happiness requires that it should be put down?

If you aren't dehumanising the foetus, you are insisting that human beings can be killed for economical or social reasons.

Hey, wait a minute. The foetus is a fully human being when it's being killed by someone else than the mother but a lump of cells when being killed by her alone? If a dictator forcing abortions is committing proper genocide, then how is an abortion mother or doctor not committing a single account of proper homicide?

Non-consensual is rape and rape is mentioned as a separate issue.

Against. I would kill a thug myself if there were no other sure way of stopping him from murder, rape or severe bodily harm. I would rather have a murderer or rapist or violent beater executed than let free (e.g. in war). But I am against death as a proper penalty. It should only be used as a preventive measure on par with self-defence and when there's no other way.

It's not mediaeval, it's actually ancient. So what? Fornication is as ancient as marriage and your view is no more modern than mine in the historical sense. Plus, since when does old automatically mean bad? What's so inherently good about change for its own sake?

For the whole of nine months. As opposed to a child's nine decades if it has a good health. Do you really think a woman ever forgets about rape and it's only a child that reminds her of it? I doubt rape is ever forgotten and I know of women who love their children born of rape and their husbands who love those children as their own. Besides, the fact that someone isn't delighted by the fact you live doesn't give the person any right to kill you.

The problem is that the foetus is hurt. First, you say that no one is hurt by having sex in which the foetus is conceived, so sex is okay. But then you say that sex was okay and the foetus is undesirable, so the foetus can be hurt and even eradicated. Your argument is inconsistent.

First of all I suggest that people should take responsibility for their actions instead of first doing things because they are oh so adult and responsible and then asking for the responsibility to taken off their shoulders because they are oh so not adult and responsible.

I am not suggesting but firmly saying that people should not have sex if they are not ready for children. The rest is gambling and read Felinoid's post for further description.

Isn't it the default scenario in abortion after rape cases?

Bishops are people who work for the church. People who have abortion are those who first of all already have gone against the Church's teaching and are also considering yet another step against it, a more serious one. So do they really have more right to the money than bishops do? This is still an argument to consider, even if much of the wealth could be used in a better way and hierarchs don't need to live in luxury. But if we are expecting a bishop to give money to an abortion mother so that she wouldn't have an abortion, what should we expect from her, who is, after all, the child's own mother?

There are orphanages. If that's still bad, why don't let us kill the homeless and jobless to solve the problem of poverty?

[ October 15, 2005, 16:50: Message edited by: chevalier ]