Abortion (4 Viewers)

[AngelSpeaks]

Your response is an example of avoidance.



Unless your religion says that the other isn't a person yet.



I was never looking for a middle ground because to you it is always and only about the fetus or baby. But there IS a third party, the pregnant woman, and it is HER rights that become somewhat of a problem in this discussion.

Right to terminate a life? When does that right end? Before or after a fetus can survive outside the womb? Medical science is making a fetus more viable earlier in the pregnancy. If a woman, who is 22 weeks or more pregnant, loses that child as a result of an attack or negligence, is that an abortion or a homicide? Is she or her surviving family entitled to justice or compensation? I've known women who miscarried in this time period, or later, and they had named the child and had a burial service, they didn't toss the unborn into the garbage. My husband's five month old nephew who passed before we got married was mourned the same as my brother's daughter who died in her mother's womb at 8.5 months.

 

[Jon]

Is it morally right to murder the unborn? I am talking the child that could have been had you procreated. Not only have you deprived it of its fetus stage, you have deprived it of any life at all. It is an argument I use against Vegans. Don't kill animals for food because it truncates their life. But eating no meat means there is no meat industry and so you have truncated all their lives, especially the unborn.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My position remains simple.

1. Religions exist that do not declare that a fetus is a person before birth.
2. The USA and many other nations allow freedom of religion. Even to extremes in some cases.
3. Therefore even though I am personally against abortion, I don't have the right to interfere with someone acting according to their religious beliefs regarding that intimately personal situation of unwanted pregnancy. I consider this a very narrow zone of no interference.

4. This lack of rights and lack of condemnation does not extend to those who would act with violence to others, for example: The Oct. 7th Hamas attacks; the Saudi doctor who drove his truck into a crowd in Germany.

 

[ColinEssex]

I supported her in her time of need knowing how painful this decision was to her. You might ask, why wasn't she using birth control? The answer is the Catholic church forbade birth control at that time and so she obeyed the tenants of her faith.

More fool her then. Just shows how stupid people are regarding religion.
Col

 

[Isaac]

A part of me almost hates to point this out because I think that I will be jumped on for saying this but it's the truth. The idea of killing your kids because they are inconvenient doesn't stop when they are born, and women are disproportionately represented among those who kill their children by drowning or strangling or whatever the case may be. You won't hear liberals say that too often but I've noticed this is definitely the case

 

[Pat Hartman]

Let us not forget that my friend was r*ped by her legal husband who she was in the process of divorcing. So, stop with your judgment Colin. SHE was an unwilling party to the event.

 

[ColinEssex]

Let us not forget that my friend was r*ped by her legal husband who she was in the process of divorcing. So, stop with your judgment Colin. SHE was an unwilling party to the event.

Oh come on dear, don't get out of your pram. I'm not referring to the 'event' as you call it, I'm referring to the idiocy of following the fairy story religion and the demands of a religion led mostly by paedophiles (as we have seen dozens of times).
If people follow hypocritical religion or religious ramblings by perverts blindly, then that's their own look out. Don't come crying to me when it goes t*ts up.
Col

 

[Isaac]

My position remains simple.

1. Religions exist that do not declare that a fetus is a person before birth.
2. The USA and many other nations allow freedom of religion. Even to extremes in some cases.
3. Therefore even though I am personally against abortion, I don't have the right to interfere with someone acting according to their religious beliefs regarding that intimately personal situation of unwanted pregnancy. I consider this a very narrow zone of no interference.

4. This lack of rights and lack of condemnation does not extend to those who would act with violence to others, for example: The Oct. 7th Hamas attacks; the Saudi doctor who drove his truck into a crowd in Germany.

The problem is your rules no longer work if extended to other situations.
You say you have no right to interfere in abortion because people have their own religious views, but what if those religious views included killing a 5 year old - would you still have no right to intervene?
The reason that you are not allowed to kill a 5 year old is because enough people can agree on their MORAL values about that topic.
Thus, all of our rules and laws are still based on a moral valueset, whether you wish it were or not

 

[Isaac]

Oh come on dear, don't get out of your pram. I'm not referring to the 'event' as you call it, I'm referring to the idiocy of following the fairy story religion and the demands of a religion led mostly by paedophiles (as we have seen dozens of times).
If people follow hypocritical religion or religious ramblings by perverts blindly, then that's their own look out. Don't come crying to me when it goes t*ts up.
Col

Those religious organizations you so despise are the main avenue that people receive charity and help who are in desperate situations, outside the government. I am glad they are there, because I want desperate people to be able to find help.

 

[pbaldy]

The problem is your rules no longer work if extended to other situations.
You say you have no right to interfere in abortion because people have their own religious views, but what if those religious views included killing a 5 year old - would you still have no right to intervene?
The reason that you are not allowed to kill a 5 year old is because enough people can agree on their MORAL values about that topic.
Thus, all of our rules and laws are still based on a moral valueset, whether you wish it were or not

I was going to say something similar. Are we going to allow the application of Sharia law in the US, since it's their religious belief? Stoning, whacking off hands, and so on? I hope not. If you want to live under that law, move to a country that practices it.

 

[ColinEssex]

Those religious organizations you so despise are the main avenue that people receive charity and help who are in desperate situations, outside the government. I am glad they are there, because I want desperate people to be able to find help.

Hmm, if you say so. I think at this juncture it would be prudent for me to hold my tongue and allow you to enjoy the next few days without arguing with me. Have a very happy Christmas. May your god go with you.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You say you have no right to interfere in abortion because people have their own religious views, but what if those religious views included killing a 5 year old - would you still have no right to intervene?

In the USA, explicitly yes, since the U.S. Constitution clearly asserts that people who have all of the civil rights associated with "the people" must include natural-born citizens. I.e. you become a citizen at birth. Therefore, LEGALLY there is a right to due process and various other protections. This is the most common basis for those who would challenge the religious views of Christian Scientists when they deny treatment to a child.

Understand that in other countries, particularly those with a strongly religious orientation, that right is not always available. In some Islamic countries, decapitation is the fate of homosexuals, people found guilty of apostasy, people who are Christian, ... a laundry list.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The USA and many other nations allow freedom of religion. Even to extremes in some cases.

The US does not allow murder. PERIOD. Islam allows murder but luckily we do not operate under Sharia law, at least not widely. You keep making this a religious discussion. I keep trying to make it secular. My arguments have nothing to do with religion and I don't push my personal beliefs regarding the use of abortion as a form of birth control AND my position is not consistent with my own early religious training.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Fetuses in the USA are now petitioning Joe Biden for a pardon.