The right to choose

[MissileMan]

Actually, I saw on tv one time that this is more properly translated as "though shalt not murder", murder being the criminalized form of killing, a qualifier, if you will.

That would make a difference, I've only ever seen it as "kill". However even "Thou shalt not murder" might be subject to an "unless". For example, if an abortion is required in order to preserve the life of a woman, although I guess that might be considered self-defense.

 

[theim]

Good for you, you got it.....YOU have the right to choose to allow YOUR religion to decide your stance on political issues.

When will you learn that this is not about religion? The desire to not see unborn children killed because of a mother's conveniance is not something that is shared only be evangelican Christians. Get with the program.

 

[Hobbit]

That would make a difference, I've only ever seen it as "kill". However even "Thou shalt not murder" might be subject to an "unless". For example, if an abortion is required in order to preserve the life of a woman, although I guess that might be considered self-defense.

Yeah, check some of the newer translations and they'll say "murder," since it's far closer to the meaning of the Hebrew word than the broad word "kill." If it said, "Thou shalt not kill," then there are a lot of prophets disobeying this rule, such as Elijah executing hundreds of prophets of Baal after the incident at Mt. Carmel or the long list of capital crimes under Mosaic law.

 

[Merlin1047]

I want to exercise my right to make decisions about my body and my life. I want the right to make those decisions in a manner that is safe, without having to seek the permission of someone that I dont agree with. This then would be my good reason for the right to choose. It keeps you and your belief system out of my life.

Sage, you as well as many who responded to you in this thread miss the point. In the final analysis, restrictions on abortion have little or nothing to do with religous or ethical beliefs, but have everything to do with the legitimate function of government.

One of the most basic functions of government is to protect the helpless from predation and abuse by those more powerful than they. That was the reason for ending slavery, giving women the vote, and for the civil rights laws. That is also the reason that government has every right to set restrictions on abortion. What is more helpless than an infant in the womb? What is more deserving of our protection than a budding life which is totally incapable of defending or speaking for itself?

Some assert that abortion is wrong from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. Personally, I think that view is nothing but unvarnished religious zealotry. Others see no problem with partial birth abortion. I see that as nothing short of murder under all but the most extreme circumstances. Sometime after fertilization a tissue mass develops into a human life. I am far from being smart enough or wise enough to state where that point is. But once that point is reached, abortion no longer becomes an issue about a woman's right to choose. It becomes an issue of killing a human being. If it is wrong to kill an infant after it has exited a woman's body, then why do some think it is acceptable to kill that same infant a few days earlier?

Yes, I believe that women have a right to choose up to the point where a fetus becomes viable. At that time, the right of the fetus to live becomes the dominant consideration and killing that fetus becomes nothing less than outright murder.

Women have the gift of bringing life into the world. With that gift comes the responsibility to cherish that life and to recognize the fact that there comes a time when the right of a woman is second to the right of a new life.

 

[dmp]

If it is wrong to kill an infant after it has exited a woman's body, then why do some think it is acceptable to kill that same infant a few days earlier?

Yes, I believe that women have a right to choose up to the point where a fetus becomes viable. At that time, the right of the fetus to live becomes the dominant consideration and killing that fetus becomes nothing less than outright murder.

There are people in comas who are likely less 'viable' than some babies which are killed - we don't kill those on life-support, simply because they aren't able to survive outside a womb...yet babies are not afforded such protection. It sucks.

 

[ChrisH]

Some of you are correct. It is a woman's body and she has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to get a piercing, she has the right to choose to get a tattoo, she has the right to choose to chop her own arm if if she pleases. She DOES NOT have the right to kill another innocent human being (a baby) just because it is in her body.

MOST women get abortions for convenience. They make a mistake, have unprotected sex, get pregnant and then decide to get an abortion. That is wrong!

 

[Mr. P]

Some of you are correct. It is a woman's body and she has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to get a piercing, she has the right to choose to get a tattoo, she has the right to choose to chop her own arm if if she pleases. She DOES NOT have the right to kill another innocent human being (a baby) just because it is in her body.

MOST women get abortions for convenience. They make a mistake, have unprotected sex, get pregnant and then decide to get an abortion. That is wrong!

Chris...do you oppose the "morning after pill"?

 

[ChrisH]

Chris...do you oppose the "morning after pill"?

No I do not support the 'morning after pill'. If you do not believe you can have sex in a protecful manner, in an effort to prevent yourself from getting pregnant, then you shouldn't be having sex at all!

An innocent baby should not be killed, I don't care if it was conceived the night before, because you make a mistake, that could have been prevented in the first place!

 

[Mr. P]

No I do not support the 'morning after pill'. If you do not believe you can have sex in a protecful manner, in an effort to prevent yourself from getting pregnant, then you shouldn't be having sex at all!


An innocent baby should not be killed, I don't care if it was conceived the night before, because you make a mistake, that could have been prevented in the first place!

Let me be sure I understand you...Your opinion is a baby exists at conception, upon fertilization. Is that correct?

 

[Joz]

No I do not support the 'morning after pill'. If you do not believe you can have sex in a protecful manner, in an effort to prevent yourself from getting pregnant, then you shouldn't be having sex at all!
that could have been prevented in the first place!

What about a married couple who uses birth control & it fails? About 10% of users are failed by their contraceptives each year. Grant you, if children are not wanted, a permanent method should be sought out. But I know personally of a women (no, not me) who did actually have the sterilization surgery and after 15 years, became pregnant. She was VERY distraught.
And please don't tell me this was a miracle; meant to be. I'm not being smart, here. I do believe in God, etc. I guess I just view things differently.

 

[dmp]

What about a married couple who uses birth control & it fails? About 10% of users are failed by their contraceptives each year. Grant you, if children are not wanted, a permanent method should be sought out. But I know personally of a women (no, not me) who did actually have the sterilization surgery and after 15 years, became pregnant. She was VERY distraught.
And please don't tell me this was a miracle; meant to be. I'm not being smart, here. I do believe in God, etc. I guess I just view things differently.

then...so what? That's my answer. Action. Consequence. Anyone having intercourse must be prepared for 'worst case' scenarios. Anyone Mature enough to stab-and-jab should be held accountable for their actions. Children are never a burden to those who love them. There is a long waiting line of parents hoping to get the chance, even if the biological parents do not.

 

[ChrisH]

Let me be sure I understand you...Your opinion is a baby exists at conception, upon fertilization. Is that correct?

If you want to say that, then yes. I believe a life exists from the time of conception, upon fertilization. That may be a controversial view, but it is my view.

What about a married couple who uses birth control & it fails? About 10% of users are failed by their contraceptives each year. Grant you, if children are not wanted, a permanent method should be sought out. But I know personally of a women (no, not me) who did actually have the sterilization surgery and after 15 years, became pregnant. She was VERY distraught.
And please don't tell me this was a miracle; meant to be. I'm not being smart, here. I do believe in God, etc. I guess I just view things differently.

Certainly there are extreme circumstances that exist, as you have just outlined. But, as you said, I believe permanent methods should be sought after if no children are truly wanted. If both husband and wife agree that they do not want more children or children period, then I believe both should get the permanent method to prevent, it to be even safer, not just one of them.

But, even in a circumstance involving a married couple and the above mentioned circumstances, I do not believe abortion of any kind is right and I do not believe in the morning after pill.

That is just my view, I am sure others share, as controversial as it may be.

 

[dmp]

If you want to say that, then yes. I believe a life exists from the time of conception, upon fertilization. That may be a controversial view, but it is my view.


Certainly there are extreme circumstances that exist, as you have just outlined. But, as you said, I believe permanent methods should be sought after if no children are truly wanted. If both husband and wife agree that they do not want more children or children period, then I believe both should get the permanent method to prevent, it to be even safer, not just one of them.

But, even in a circumstance involving a married couple and the above mentioned circumstances, I do not believe abortion of any kind is right and I do not believe in the morning after pill.

That is just my view, I am sure others share, as controversial as it may be.

You are appologizing for your point of view - don't.

Fwiw, I think it's more accurate to say 'Married couple should seek a surgical sterilization if having another child will cause them to freak out.' My wife and I are sure we don't want kids. Very sure. However, neither of us have had anything permanent done; nor will we likely in the forseeable future. If she does get pregnant, we'll freak out for awhile...then nut up and raise the child to be a God-Fearing, Patriotic man or woman.

 

[Joz]

That is just my view, I am sure others share, as controversial as it may be.

Please do not take offense, but you sound like a 'young' man. My views have changed over the years of life I've had. I admire you for 'sticking to your guns'. But please don't condemn someone else for the decision they made according to 'their conscientous', however misguided it might seem.

 

[Bonnie]

No matter what the situation is, I still want smeone to explain to me how it is the BABY (innocent victim) that gets killed, and what is wrong with adoption????? Why do we as a society take our wrath out on the baby??? How does the baby defend itself????

 

[dmp]

Please do not take offense, but you sound like a 'young' man. My views have changed over the years of life I've had. I admire you for 'sticking to your guns'. But please don't condemn someone else for the decision they made according to 'their conscientous', however misguided it might seem.

He hasn't condemned anyone. He's been the most appologetic of voices in the Pro-Life group in this thread.

And look - it's like you are more worried about the feelings of the adults involved, than the feeling the baby has of a large needle being shoved into it's skull; for no other reason than the baby's mere existance.

 

[Merlin1047]

If you want to say that, then yes. I believe a life exists from the time of conception, upon fertilization. That may be a controversial view, but it is my view.

Your view is based on religious teaching. Now there's nothing wrong with that, you are entitled to your view. I'd suggest that (assuming you're not married) before you marry a woman, you reconcile this issue with her and make sure you're both on the same sheet of music.

But we do not live in a nation run by the Pope. We do not view women as brood stock. We have to balance a woman's rights against the interest of an unborn child.

It should be clear by now that I oppose abortion in most cases. But I also do not share the radical view that any fertilized egg must be protected. Personally I think that is ridiculous. If we carry this line of thinking to it's ultimate conclusion, then we should have a battalion of studs whose sole purpose is to impregnate every ovulating woman in the country so that the eggs do not go to waste. (Please, no volunteers)

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, women have rights. That includes the right to decide whether or not to allow a fertilized egg to develop. Neither you nor I have a right to tell a woman that any conception must be carried to term. But as I've said before, once the fetus becomes viable, now it has rights too and in most cases the rights of the fetus are paramount.

 

[Mr. P]

No matter what the situation is, I still want smeone to explain to me how it is the BABY (innocent victim) that gets killed, and what is wrong with adoption????? Why do we as a society take our wrath out on the baby??? How does the baby defend itself????

I guess that's all in how you define a "baby" Bonnie. Chris uses the at conception
angle...Many use the viability angle. So it comes down to your own personal belief.

 

[Merlin1047]

And look - it's like you are more worried about the feelings of the adults involved, than the feeling the baby has of a large needle being shoved into it's skull; for no other reason than the baby's mere existance.

You're reaching, D. Joz's question dealt with aborting a very early term pregnancy. Chris advocates against the use of a morning after pill. I'm sure you're sufficiently up on your biology to know that the cells aborted the morning after have no skull in which anyone can stick a needle.

 

[Mr. P]

There is a long waiting line of parents hoping to get the chance, even if the biological parents do not.

Well then I guess we can shut down all the foster care familys and the orphanages now. No use for them anymore with all the long lines.