All About Me discussion
Debations
>
Abortion
But what about rape? If somebody raped a girl and she got pregnant wouldn't she want to abort a child? I mean, she would have to live with a reminder of something that most likely ruined her life
Marija *Until It's Over and We're Older* wrote: "But what about rape? If somebody raped a girl and she got pregnant wouldn't she want to abort a child? I mean, she would have to live with a reminder of something that most likely ruined her life"Easy. Adoption.
I found this thought-provoking debate topic: "If abortion isn't murder, then why is killing a pregnant woman considered double homicide?"
BlackStar103 {I'll Save A Place For You In Hell} wrote: "Kirbylover902 wrote: "Marija *Until It's Over and We're Older* wrote: "But what about rape? If somebody raped a girl and she got pregnant wouldn't she want to abort a child? I mean, she would have ..."Too many kids waiting to be adopted DON'T get adopted... .
Mod
Gee this is a very controversial topic for light discussion. A few things to say on this. One is that I believe in choice for the mother, as it is her body.Legally speaking only, our judicial system neither considers a fetus a *human being* nor is it murder if there occurs a legal abortion. Just a statement of fact.
Morally speaking, as far as ethics, the mother and her rights win out. The rest of it as far as personal morality, it is arbitrary according to one's personal views, feelings and beliefs. So, opinion, is opinion. Everyone has one and a right to one. No one opinion can really be the ONLY one that can be. Again if it is personal opinion the rights of the mother win out again. Her opinion and choice-minded people's opinions are just as valid as yours.
Then there is the *religious* question. Well, not everyone has the SAME religion, so we could call stalemate right away in that all are *valid* to someone. But let's for discussion sake dismiss that.
I'm looking at the main religions only here, the Abrahamic ones which are the most widespread. Doesn't mean they are right, just that more people adhere to them.
We'll start with the Quran, as most people don't know much about it. It does not mention abortion. I does have one verse about killing children, but this probably refers to the practice of killing children after they are born. Boys are valued more than girls, if that tells you anything. My guesses is that if it occurred it was a private family matter.
Next: The Torah (Christians call it the old Testament). No commands referring to abortion. There is one instance of a man injuring a woman with child and it dying. I'm sure you remember that execution was the punishment for many minor offenses as well as capital ones in the Torah. The punishment for the man in this case is monetary recompense. In other words, the unborn child is not a person (no murder involved), just considered property. One rather glaring verse in the Torah is a reference to killing the babies of enemies by dashing them against rocks. Ps. 137:9, but again, not an abortion reference, but one to infants already born.
Christian bible? No mention of abortion. Quite a wonder why it is a pretty hot issue for none of these three main holy revelations to even mention it, no laws regarding it.
In closing I want to mention that the Jewish Rabbis have an attitude regarding abortion and that is that it is the rights of the mother that dominate. The unborn is not a person. We know how careful the Jews are to not offend God. if this were a question of murder, you'd see them jumping on the issue. One difference between Jews and Christians. If their Torah doesn't say anything on an issue, Jews don't make up what they think it might say on something. They would not even consider creating their own commandments. The Jews don't go by their opinions. Nuff said.
Kill doesn't refer to bugs, animals and non-human beings. It also doesn't encompass war becos God ordered Israel into war many times. There are specific punishment given for murder, always of a human being. There isn't a fetal reference to be found as far as legalities, except for the verses where the man hurts a woman and her infant she is carrying. He pays the penalty in money for loss of property. Also God orders the death penalty for criminals many times. Even for *disobedient children*.
Well, yes, but I don't know if that is quite the same, since we don't know whether supernal beings can be killed. Since the Christian Bible seems to talk about eternal punishment, one could conclude that a supernal being doesn't die.
Not alive materially. But if one speaks of them past the mythology, they are more alive than us. Although the Christian texts do claim even the souls of men are eternal, otherwise how would they suffering eternally in hell. As the Church Lady says, isn't that convenient. lol
█▓▒░QʊɛɛռArtsy░▒▓█ 402 wrote: "Actually, there is one situation where this wouldn't be totally bad. I don't know how rare this is, but sometimes, a woman cannot go through with childbirth, because otherwise she and the baby woul..."Too many babies are put up for adoption that NEVER get adopted.
BlackStar103 {Death Is The Way Of Living} {Every Action Has A Consequence} wrote: "The the whole 10 Commandments state; You Shall Nit KillFind that stupid tho cuz with all the Crusades and everything."
I was gonna say that about the Crusades and add in "not to mention all the OTHER wars, including the nuking of the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan at the end of WWII... ."
Mod
and there's plenty of couples out there who want to adopt. now, if the woman wants to give up her baby, she has 9 months to find a good couple to adopt it, instead of just shipping off to someone who won't be able to find the child a good home. that doesn't sound so hard.
█▓▒░QʊɛɛռArtsy░▒▓█ 402 wrote: "Amber wrote: "█▓▒░QʊɛɛռArtsy░▒▓█ 402 wrote: "Actually, there is one situation where this wouldn't be totally bad. I don't know how rare this is, but sometimes, a woman cannot go through with child..."In theory it ISN'T all that hard, in practice however there truly are more kids placed for adoption worldwide than there people who want to adopt.
There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not all. But really this is not the point. The point is that you are trying to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to. Another problem is that Christians fight against abortion, but you don't see them and their church offering to support the mother if she chooses to keep the child. They lay it on the state. If that mother agrees, that church should form a legal contract with her to support her child until its grown. They say they care about the unborn, but where is there concern for the born? It has to be the mother's choice and no one else's.
Wendy wrote: "There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not all. But really this is not the point. The point is that you are trying to force a woman to do som..."Exactly!
Wendy wrote: "There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not all. But really this is not the point. The point is that you are trying to force a woman to do som..."Precisely, that's why I call them "Pro birth and to Hell with what comes afterwards!"
Good call. The concern ends if a fetus continues to be carried.
Yep. That's why I call them what I said I did in my previous post.
message 22:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
Uh, yea, actually, a lot of Christians do offer support so that's a weak argument.
Caitlyn » If you can teach me physics, I'll love you forever « wrote: "Wendy wrote: "There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not all. But really this is not the point. The point is that you are trying to force a w..."Not enough of them do, Caitlyn. More of them fall under the ageis of being called a "Jesus Thief," according to the information in the book GRAND THEFT JESUS: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
message 24:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
That can be said of everyone. It will never be good enough and it won't ever end till the world ends.
Caitlyn » If you can teach me physics, I'll love you forever « wrote: "Wendy wrote: "There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not all. But really this is not the point. The point is that you are trying to force a w..."SOME individual Christians offer *support*, but on not on the by and large to the degree it would require. Do you see churches advertising in their programs and charities to support a fatherless child like the state does until they are out of school? No, and you won't because it is a large financial burden that they prefer to state to take care of. They are too concerned about the mother's sin of husbandlessness. They are too concerned about championing unborn rights, but going no farther than leaving it in the hands of the mother or the state. So, no, it's not a weak argument. Name 5 church with programs that support a child until they are 18, on demand. Sorry, no win.
Caitlyn » If you can teach me physics, I'll love you forever « wrote: "Amber wrote: "Caitlyn » If you can teach me physics, I'll love you forever « wrote: "Wendy wrote: "There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not ..."Amber: That can be said of everyone. It will never be good enough and it won't ever end till the world ends.
It cannot be said of everyone, except many conservative Republicans who are always trying to end people programs. Voters and government had to draw up bills and approve financial aid for dependent children. So far, it's still in effect. You don't hear most people protesting aid to children. When citizens approve laws and then agree with them when they are in force, it is our citizens who have carried out and uphold this aid to dependent children without judgement about how they got here. Amen to that.
message 27:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
There's Christian organizations including World Vision and Compassion. I don't know churches off the top of my head because I don't GO to five different churches. I go to one. I know only a few others that we have worked with throughout the years for different things. Now I don't WHAT churches you've been looking at, but clearly there's an issue with them. Do NOT try to stereotype and say that all Christian cburches do that because that is a huge lie and just shows ignorance.
Those Christian based organizations are like corporations, not private churches and mostly deal with hungry children in other countries. They don't deal with expectant American mothers and certainly don't advertise for them to come to them for help. I can think of a good slogan. "Thinking about an Abortion? Talk to us first". What I really meant is in the news, individual churches or their umbrella organizations such as the Assemblies of God or Southern Baptists, Mormons. They don't openly discuss let alone have programs to support fatherless children. They have accepted that the state does this. Yet they want a BIG SAY in a mother's decision. There may be a few Christian churches that might do this, but if there are, I have never heard of them and they certainly aren't in the news. I doubt a church, as a rule would even consider supporting a fatherless child until they are 18. I don't think this is a stereotype. I think this is largely non-existent. Question: has your church taken on the support of an unmarried mother's child? That would be rare. The church now let the state do what they used to do. Frankly. I don't even know if they used to do that. Church used to take care of the elderly, but I believe it was only those in their congregation, not anyone outside the church. Churches let the state take care of support of the elderly, social security, welfare, etc., just as they let the state support fatherless children. If we are hard press to find such instances, then we can be pretty sure that churches don't do this much if at all.
Caitlyn {'Cause simple is as simple goes} wrote: "Amber wrote: "Caitlyn » If you can teach me physics, I'll love you forever « wrote: "Wendy wrote: "There are 5000 orphans in Iraq whose parents have been executed. Some have been adopted, but not ..."True but for each of us the world ends the day we die.
Wendy: "SOME individual Christians offer *support*, but on not on the by and large to the degree it would require. Do you see churches advertising in their programs and charities to support a fatherless child like the state does until they are out of school? No, and you won't because it is a large financial burden that they prefer to state to take care of. They are too concerned about the mother's sin of husbandlessness. They are too concerned about championing unborn rights, but going no farther than leaving it in the hands of the mother or the state. So, no, it's not a weak argument. Name 5 church with programs that support a child until they are 18, on demand. Sorry, no win. "
This is both LOGIC AND common sense. Unfortunately, such arguments are useless on an issue such as this because people who are against abortion, for whatever reason, refuse to listen to logic and common sense.
sad but true Amber. However, we ought to champion logic, common sense, human rights and compassion wherever we can, despite those who don't listen or reject it.I kind of look at it this way. Just because something doesn't affect me personally doesn't mean I shouldn't speak up about it. I hope when the time comes that when something affecting me comes up, someone will speak up for me.
message 32:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
Better to never exist than to be denied help because the churches see you as a sinner already because your mother committed the "crime" of single motherhood.
message 34:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
Any church that erroneously believes Christ DID NOT drive the money changers from the Temple or erroneously believes he DID NOT say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."In other words, the mainstream churches that ALSO endorsed Shrub Jr.'s decision to go to war with Iraq & Afghanistan post 9/11/2001... .
Robert S. McElvaine's Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America has a LOT to say about these churches ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... ) as does Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz's I'm Fine with God... It's Christians I Can't Stand: Getting Past the Religious Garbage in the Search for Spiritual Truth ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... ). I've read BOTH of these books... .
Caitlyn //Survival is a Must, So Will You Stand With Us?// wrote: "I'd really like to know what churches you all have come in contact with to believe that."Stray churches that *may* support children until 18 may exist. I just don't know where. You think they make it a secret? My husband is a Christian. He is well familiar with Assemblies of God in four states, and in Manitoba Canada, as well as several Baptist churches in at least four cities including our own. He belongs to the Mormon church and they have no such practice anywhere. They have uniform standards. The point is hypothetical stray churches are not the norm and I don't know of any or any who advertise this in their mission statements online. Stray churches do not take care of a nationwide need. There are a few church that *care for their own* but would not support strangers' children. Get real.
Caitlyn //Survival is a Must, So Will You Stand With Us?// wrote: "So are you trying to say because churches "supposedly" don't offer support to certain people, then abortion is ok?"What I'm saying is that a majority of Christians, even to the point of entire churches crusading politically make a big deal about an unborn fetus, but toss them to the state if the child is born. In a previous post I outlined the commands and attitudes of the Quran, Torah and Christian bible. There is NO command regarding abortion. Christians make it a #1 issue, but based on what? Their opinions of what they think something SHOULD be. Even religiously speaking, it isn't enough to tell a woman what to do with her body legally. Even if there were a religious edict, it is still the woman's right to her own body. She is not obligated to follow their morality or their religion. That would be taking away her rights.
On another note, many Christians and their churches, esp. the Catholic church are against contraceptives and morning after pills that only expel the fertilized egg that isn't even a zygote yet! They are in fact encouraging abortions and unwanted pregnancies. That is screwed up to say the least.
You don't see them campaigning against or penalizing their own congregation for adultery and divorce. The wide-spread availability and incidence of both is rampant. But they don't come down on their own people, let alone campaign against the general population. There are many and clear commandments against adultery and divorce, but they don't mention them. One can only assume that it is acceptable to them. They need to tend to their own business and leave others out of their opnions of force.
message 38:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
Stray churches that *may* support chil..."
Well I'm non-denominational and if you want to "get real", you've never come to my church and one's we work with so actually you can't say anything :)
message 39:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
What I'm say..."
Based on that fact that a newborn life is just as precious as any other no matter what. THAT is what it's based on. Question: Would you have an abortion?
What is precious to you, may be an agony to another. Again, it's a matter of personal feelings, opinion and personal rights. To answer your question: I am unable to have children, but hypothetically I would not have an abortion as a matter of ego I guess. I would consider it a part of me. I never cared to have a baby, so it works out. I do however love children and am great with them and am rather a motherly type. Strange eh? However, I would want the choice to have an abortion if it came to that decision. I want other woman to have that choice also because it is so personal and it is their bodies.To address your previous comment. I am not saying there may be an individual church that might do this. I venture to say, yours doesn't or you would have said so. I am saying that by and large, church would not do take care of an infant's support from birth to 18, yet they want every woman to carry their pregnancy to birth. That is irresponsible as well as cruel and heavy handed. They promote anti-abortion as God's law and I don't find that law anywhere in the Abrahamic texts. Only once in the Torah and in that case the fetus is considered property and the execution-prone Torah does not call it murder. There is execution or other strong penalty for even accidentally killing a human being. The fetus is not considered a human being in the Torah.
message 41:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
You see you are equating abortion with murder and not even any of the Abrahamic scriptures say that. Murder constitutes a full formed human being outside the womb. So what you are calling murder is only something from your own opinion. Not even our present laws call it murder. So again, it is your opinon against mine. Murder doesn't enter into it.What *makes it right or ok* as you say is that no authority considers it murder, only individual opinons based on feelings. I take it your opinion on abortion has only to do with *late term* abortions where the fetus is more fully formed, not with zygotes and tiny formations without even a brain or even later without a functioning brain. *????* I told you why abortion was different. Only illegally performed abortions, just like any other medical practice done without a license is a crime. So what makes is right is public agreement (our own USA laws) and that, so far, most agree that a woman's right should pervade.
How would I justify removing life forming inside me? Hypotheically, since I don't consider it a moral question, it would be based on my feelings. I already told you my primary feeling, but exploring incidences where I would choose to abort it would have to do with my personal feelings. Am I healthy enough at the time? Do I want a baby? Do I want the rest of my life dedicated to caring for a child? Well, to answer the last question, so far, I would because I am very motherly. But I understand that some woman are not motherly and those women should not be forced to have a child and half-heartedly or grudgingly care for it. Now, to me, THAT is immoral.
You speak of punishment. For what? I don't even find it is illegal anywhere except in some people's minds.
As far as the fetus, I used to debate this and have researched when a fetus can even feel pain because it lacks brain development and capacity. You are coming from the position that these are thinking entities that have a conception of living outside the womb. None of us know that and medical technology plus psychology points to that they do not have that capacity.
Animal abusers are punished for abusing full formed animals, just as there are laws for abusing fully formed children. There are no laws for *abusing* unborn puppies.
Again, these are your personal hypotheticals situations based upon your feelings and opinons. It isn't right to force those on another woman just because you feel that way. It is just conjecture on your part that one of the unborn may be a boon to society. As you know there are unwanted children even in our country in orphanages. This is a good argument that couples want babies and that parents don't care enough about older children to adopt them. So there is already a surplus. I don't get it. People want more babies in the world, as many as we can make, but they don't want to parent older children who were once babies. SMH. There are opportunities to adopt from other countries, unless the parents for some reason want an *American* baby. There is no shortage.
Yes I am really FOR THIS. The woman must retain that right to her body and to this decison. This is not a choice even the law can make for her. To me that is immoral. The rest is all opinion and personal feelings. There is no other source, not even religious that gives any definite answer. It leads me to believe that this was always the woman's choice and should remain so. Any high-minded ideas about imaginings about the *feelings* of a fetus that can't think or even feel pain shouldn't enter into it.
message 43:
by
notyourfriend, Those who claim sanity are just as insane as us
(new)
Mod
No, we DON'T punish animal abusers. If you followed the Michael Vick case, you'd KNOW that already, Caitlyn.Again, you are IGNORING the fact that there are more kids put up for adoption than actually GET adopted.
You are ALSO ignoring the feelings of existing children who LOST Mama because she was forced to give birth to a baby that in turn KILLED Mama. What bout THOSE kids? Or do they NOT matter? Especially if their FATHER wants nothing to do with them and they have no other relatives?
Or what about when the baby clearly has no chance of survival but Mama will STILL die as in the case of Savita Halappanavar? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi... : In October 2012, pregnant Indian lady Savita Halappanavar suffered a miscarriage and died after seeking treatment at the hospital. The death led to protests over Ireland's anti-abortion laws and investigations into the actions of the hospital during her treatment. The inquest returned a verdict of "medical misadventure" on 19 April 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of... There's just literally not a snowball's chance in Hell that Savita's baby could have survived at only 17 weeks of gestational age.
Then there was the case of a 12 year old in Argentina...her government was CLEARLY told that continuing the pregnancy would KILL her... .
Caitlyn //Survival is a Must, So Will You Stand With Us?// wrote: "And that is why society today sucks and is so corrupt with ignorant people. Abortion is selfish. Everything you just said proved it to be so."Selfish? What is selfish is being influenced by people to require you to have a child you don't want and that others have no intention of supporting if you keep it. Most abortions are short term ones, so its harming no one except those whose opinions believe it is wrong. And it is only a personal belief since there is no legal or religious precedent to support it. You are confusing selfishness with making a decision about the rest of your life. No one should be forced into parenthood.
Amber, that is atrocious those extremes that prevented the saving of the mother's life because of a personal and unsupported belief about the fetus being all important. I can see Ireland's extreme laws against abortion since they are largely Catholic. It is the church's view on anti-Abortion and anti-contraception that rules that. What do they base it on? It comes down to *God told the Pope*. The present Pope has done so much on cleaning up corruption in the church. He may not touch the long standing *Church beliefs* on abortion and contraception.
Wendy wrote: "Cailin, that is atrocious those extremes that prevented the saving of the mother's life because of a personal and unsupported belief about the fetus being all important. I can see Ireland's extrem..."You accidentally called me Caitlyn. Wendy.
Wendy wrote: "Ty. Amber. Corrected."I noticed. It happens
What do you expect, considering it's Monday? *wink*
also I dont believe in abortion for religious reasons....which beings up the fact that people shouldnt have to live by what I believe and have their rights taken away. So personally, I think its wrong but I wouldn't take away another persons rights.