Why abortion is a good thing

It's only "self-evident" to you.....don't you see how your opinion has nothing to do with women's rights and how little they care about some stranger's opinion of them?
It just doesn't matter. (BTW, erroneously thinking abortion is contraception doesn't aid in any credibility you might have)

Please show proof that women who have abortions have no good reason at all and why YOU should dictate what a "good reason " is?

Why can't you answer that question? Ya know, back up something you post???

 

Isn't it nice that you'd have a choice?

Why do you think every human and what they do or feel should be based on what you would do or feel?

I think psychologists would have a word for that....

 

1- Who says the foetus is "not yet a person"? Likewise is a rosebud not a rose? In either case it seems a pity to prune them out before they've had a chance to bloom.

2- Jesus said- "..the very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Matt 10:30) which might also refer to the DNA programming in a sperm and egg.

3- Jeremiah didn't want to be a prophet and tried to talk his way out of it- "I'm too young, nobody will listen to me", but God said "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and chose you to be a prophet", so we could speculate that he has a plan for every one of us beginning as foetuses but as this is not the Religion section we can't really discuss it further. (As to whether God is omniscient on this testing ground called earth, that's debatable too)

4- If I'd been born 2 years later is surely irrelevant, I can't see what you're getting at.

 

1- When you said earlier "In that case isn't it our moral duty to protect them as they can't protect themselves?" you are (a) making the assumption, with no evidence, that the fetus is a person or (b) stating that we must protect all defenseless things, which would include insects, rodents, and all manner of things that we kill for convenience. If you are asserting that the fetus is not only a living thing which happens to have human DNA, but is also a person, then you are lacking in evidence.

2- Given the context of the Bible it is more consistent to assume this refers to the omniscience of God. If it refers to DNA of the sperm and egg, then it is critical that we protect every possible combination of sperm and egg by having promiscuous sex. Otherwise we are allowing some potential combinations to expire without every creating a child.

3- Jeremiah did not want the job, but (of his own free will) decided to do it anyway. God gives us all free will (even Jeremiah). Common sense tells us that if the soul binds to the sperm, or the egg, or the zygote, or even to the embryo... God would be condemning countless souls to never have a chance to become persons (or it suggests that the soul just moves on and inhabits some other physical body). God would know what choices each person will make, so God would have known Jeremiah's mother would not have an abortion (or an accident that would cause a miscarriage).

4- The point is that you were making a claim based on what might (or might not) have happened if your mother had aborted you. If, for example, your mother had aborted her unexpected pregnancy... but 2 years later (when both of your parents were in a better position to raise a family) you might have been born into a human body with very similar DNA and with more mature parents who would probably have molded you into an even better human being. There is no reason to believe the "you" created two years later would not have attended to your mother when she needed you.

 

All we can do is speculate about abortion because we just don't know at what point a foetus becomes a human being with all human rights, and the bible doesn't pin it down either and simply provides more food for speculation, for example an angel in human form told Samson's future mother to lay off the booze-
"..see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean.You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.” (Judges 13:4+)

 

You: ""All we can do is speculate about abortion because we just don't know at what point a foetus becomes a human being with all human rights""

No, we do NOT have to speculate. The fetus becomes a person with rights at birth.

The bible has nothing to do with it.....and you can't even show where in your bible it says there is anything wrong with abortion...

 

Right, in grey areas like this we can only use our own judgement.
For example if continuing a pregnancy would risk a mothers life for medical reasons, or if scans show the baby would be born severely handicapped physically or mentally, I think abortion should be considered at her request.

 

First of all, abortion is a form of birth control. The reason a woman has an abortion is to control whether she gives birth to a baby. Abortion isn't contraception because contraception is defined as preventing pregnancy. Pregnancy is when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall.

My question to you would be, does it make any differece if the statistics show that a woman chooses abortion as early as possible in gestation?

Do the reasons really matter why a woman chooses? Your earlier statements in this thread seem to indicate you feel that the woman's reasons matter.

 

Can't answer those INconvenient questions?

NO, "we" do not use our own judgement, the woman wo is pregnant uses HER own judgement......."we" have nothing to do with it.

There is no "grey area", abortion is legal.

 

Doesn't the father get a say?

 

If she does it for a good reason on health grounds for her and the foetus I don't think anybody would mind.

 

I can't tell if this is farce.

If it's serious, it is the exact caricatured argument that your so called grown up "liberals" make as to why abortion should be legal.

That is pretty ironic, eh?

 

What if a woman's contraception failed to work properly and she didn't intend to become pregnant, therefore she runs to the doctor so she can take medicine that begins her cycle so as to shed the lining of her uterus and abort the embryo?

Is that not an acceptable reason?

 

You ASK questions but find my questions too INconvenient to answer ?

Unlike YOU I CAN answer : No, the father gets no say. Did you want fathers to be able to force women to have abortions? Ya, I know that's an INconvenient question and you won't answer

What difference does it make if "anyone would mind". ? It's no one else's business.....what can't you get about that?


Nevermind, those are just more INconveneint questions and you don't do INconveneint ...but expect other to...

 

Something tells me there was a "decrease in crime" when the Nazis ascended to power as well.

Not the issue here.

Presumably, then, you understand that before that point the question remains open; so why would you not give the fetus the same benefit of the doubt we give accused murderers?

As to whether or not to murder the child?

 

When I asked if fathers should get a say in abortions you seem to think i was suggesting they could force women to abort!
In fact I was just wondering what'd happen if a woman wanted to abort, but her partner/hub didn't want her to abort?
Surely the foetus is jointly owned between the two of them?

 

She might think it's an acceptable reason to get rid of it, but me and a lot of others wouldn't.

PS- just to digress slightly, was Dawkins right to say this?-

 

You're seriously bringing Nazis into a discussion about abortion??

I've learn years ago that there's no arguing with those who bring Hitler or Nazies into social or political discussions. It means the person's opinions are too radical and often too hateful for a proper debate.

 

And therefore you can't even begin to imagine what it's like and you should never get to dictate that a woman be forced to gestate and give birth against her will.

 

It doesn't mean any such thing, obviously; but I suppose when sacred cows are threatened, one excuse is as good as another.

 

I understand that lots of others wouldn't. I'm asking, should society make a law protecting a fetus through the first trimester of gestational life?

Tests for Down's syndrome are conducted during the first trimester. I have no problem with first trimester abortions. So I would not support a prohibition of a woman to abort a pregnancy in first trimester regardless of her reasons.

Where I might disagree with Richard Dawkins is the use of the words "should abort". If he would have said, "women should have the choice to abort", I would agree.

 

What you really wanted was to divert from those INCONVENIENT questions I asked by changing the topic... . You don't seem to like inconvenience for yourself .

The fetus is NOT jointly owned. Why would a man "own" something that's in another person's body ?


You said "doesn't the father get a say".

Unlike YOU I answered and said no, why would he get a say? If his "say" was to tell her to get an abortion does that mean she has to?

YOU can't answer that because what you really meant was , "why can't the father force her to have the kid, your interpretation of "have a say" ..."


Now , care to go back and answer the questions you keep ducking ?

 

This is a strange argument.

Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Parental responsibility lasts a lifetime.

I think men can imagine and do consider the lifelong responsibility required.

It would also be reasonable to assume women more likely consider the lifelong responsibility more often than the gestational phase of life when making a determination whether to terminate a pregnancy.

 

It's not so strange. The poster she's arguing with seems to feel his feelings on abortion and women should influence their decisions, actually mean something.
And he has no idea of what he wants to force women to do.

For instance , pregnancy is NOT "just 9 months". It's 9 months of an assault on a woman's body, physical changes that will be PERMANENT(longer than your "9 months"), pain, mental stress, financial /educational/ career setbacks that could last a lifetime.

Parental responsibility does NOT last a lifetime unless the child dies before it's 18.

 

OK, seems to be a 'fly by night troll".....but it was interesting to see this "Pro-Lifer" take such joy in thinking abortion kills those he doesn't like, liberals...

Too bad he doesn't know Repubs have abortions, too