is abortion a right thing to do?

[Asexual-Slut~Enya]

d0tted_half_n0te

I don't think abortion is right...

Abortion is murdering... killing someone who's innocent..

some countries allow this but others don't.

it's not a good isea to kill the fetus.

I deem abortion to be nothing more than a judicious, reasonable application of lethal force -- it is a means of restoring the bodily integrity/autonomy/domain of the woman in question.

Can you explain, then, why the act of killing as a means of self-defense should be deemed equitable to murder?

[Asexual-Slut~Enya]

Marauder_Slade

I believe that abortions are guaranteed to go to heaven also, the awful part is when they are told that they were unwanted here on earth.

Never mind, then, that forcing a woman to carry the undesired embryo/fetus to term isn't likely to make it any more desired.

Marauder_Slade

I wonder what you are doing in the Morality and Religion forum then?

Note the bolded word.

Marauder_Slade

Praise God I don't live in China where (I heard) it is illegal to not have abortions after your 1st child.

And you presume that I support such measures?

You are aware that I am pro-choice, correct?

Marauder_Slade

Praise God not everyone agrees with you that having a child ursurps "a woman's right to bodily integrity/autonomy/domain" - or else we would cease to exist as a race.

That is because the embryo/fetus only violates the woman's bodily integrity/autonomy/domain only when the woman in question no longer desires to carry it to term.

Think of it in the same way you'd differentiate consensual sexual intercourse from rape.

Nice, fallacious application of the slippery slope argument, however.

Marauder_Slade

I never thought of that - good question...

Then you support the notion that there are circumstances where a person's right to live does not supersede another person's right to bodily integrity/autonomy/domain.

Now, of course, I must ask you to validate your stance with respect to the embryo/fetus. That is, what gives the embryo/fetus the right to utilize the woman's bodily resources without her expressed, on-going consent when you would not condone such behavior under other, related circumstances?

Marauder_Slade

Did you miss the part about "final resort"?

No, I didn't -- you are dodging my question.

How do you justify the judicious application of lethal force under circumstances that may, or may not, actually pose a direct threat to the life of the property owner (remember: the burglar, or whatever, has only broken and entered the household) when you are not willing to justify such measures under circumstances where a direct violation of bodily integrity/autonomy/domain has occurred?

Whether or not the use of lethal force was seen as a last resort, or not, is irrelevant to my question.

Marauder_Slade

This is talking about Christians may not have anyting that people in the world consider to be meaningful, including freedom; but if we have Jesus then we are more free then anyone can imagine & God owns everything in the world & because He is our father He makes whatever we need avaliable to us when we need it.

In other words, you'd have no qualms if I were to take the very clothes off your back?

Marauder_Slade

I am refering to morality, not bodily integrity/autonomy/domain which is a concept I am only now being introdiced to; perhaps if you could find this idea in the scripture then I would understand you better. Oh yea I forgot you do not perscribe to my scriptures, sorry.

It isn't that difficult a concept to grasp. Essentially, you are the master of your own domain: that is, your body is, first and foremost, your own, and that no one else possesses the right to utilize its resources without your expressed, on-going consent.

Marauder_Slade

How about if I asked you to as a personal favor?

You are asking me, then, to weigh in on scripture I have never read? How could you possibly expect a relevant answer given that I have no awareness of the context from which any quote you provide derives?

Marauder_Slade

Rape & non-consentual incest does not involve consent.

And, I repeat, a consent to sexual intercourse does not imply a consent to pregnancy, nor a consent to the continuation of said pregnancy should it occur.

Marauder_Slade

I do not appreciate abortions in those circumstances but I would not argue with anyone who had that as their reason to get one; any other reason besides mother's life at risk of expiring is not acceptable as an excuse to commit murder of a baby in my opinion, I thought I made that clear.

And what of those women who did not suffer rape prior to the impregnation?

You would not argue with those women who did suffer rape, even though you abhor the procedure no less, but you would deign to argue with the woman who didn't suffer rape?

That strikes me as being very pro-punishment.

Marauder_Slade

Can I ask you a question? Is it ok for the father of the baby to force the woman to have an abortion against her will?

Certainly not -- it is her body, not his, that is being utilized by the embryo/fetus.

Marauder_Slade

Because if the male consented to have sex but did not consent to a pregnancy he should have equal rights to terminate.

No, he shouldn't -- I've already stated that it isn't his body that is being utilized by the embryo/fetus.

If you want to argue whether or not the father has a right to terminate his parental responsibilities, by all means, do so; however, that particular argument doesn't belong in this thread and I'll ignore it.

Marauder_Slade

As I posted earlier my mother told me if she could have aborted me she would have, so thanks so much for killing me off. Well if she followed your wishes we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Wow, that is a nice, blatant appeal to emotion there. wink

[Hisdaughter01]

Personally i don't think its ok...but that is because I was almost aborted...

[Asexual-Slut~Enya]

Marauder_Slade

I thought I stated previously that I don't agree when it "may not pose a threat to life".

It would be prudent to note, then, that there are very few circumstances that involve a definite, immediate threat to your life -- there is, almost always, a chance that you may not die.

Luckily for you, and for me, our law is not founded on the notion that the risk of death must be definite -- though it must be immediate, at least to a certain degree. If I feel that a reasonable threat to my safety exists, I am well within my rights to utilize lethal force as a means of protecting my integrity/autonomy/domain -- so are you, by the by.

Marauder_Slade

In my opinion the truth is still clean no matter how much dirt you throw on it; so just as none of my arguments are going to change your mind, none of yours are going to change mine, because I believe that the bible = truth & so anything that dissagrees with it is rubbish.

Yours isn't the conversion I desire -- I do not continue participation in hopes that I'll change your mind, or the minds of any with whom I converse. Instead, I aim to sway those who may not have formulated a concrete decision and just happen to be skimming as I am posting.

Marauder_Slade

You are entitled to your opinion. Just realize that this quote makes no distinction wether a woman or a man should be allowed to terminate.

It doesn't need to. The man in question doesn't stand to suffer a violation of bodily integrity/autonomy/domain.

Marauder_Slade

I think that is unfair. If abortion is legal then I should have equal say in the issue because the product is half my dna.

You may have provided half the DNA, but you provide nothing beyond that -- it is the woman who stands to suffer most from an undesired pregnancy forced to term because it is her body that is being utilized against her will.

Marauder_Slade

You dodged my question, are you enjoying this conversation?

And which question would that be?

[The Dark Thought]

Marauder_Slade

am just stating opinions & asking questions - I do not feel it nessisary to defend any opinion of mine, any defence avaliable was already provided when I gave you scriptures in previous posts. If you refuse to acknoledge them then there are no words that I can say to add.

If I may, I have a few problems with your posts.

For starters, build your opinion on facts, not religious dogma. Scripture is not a valid ethical text and to bring it into the debate surrounding a procedure which was legalized within the past century is a purposeful skewing of the text. I'm sure you are fimiliar with the results of the house built on sand. Logic (which is arguably the greatest gift of God) and actual data is bedrock, not texts who were unable to even address the subject directly.

To continue with that, the highlighted section of your responce is a direct contradiction, as if you did not defend your opinion, you would not ask questions of others opinions nor respond to their questions.

Remember, that by law, from which the base is (suppose to be) logic, a person has the right to not be deprived by life, liberty and property (LL&P) to the degree that many states also add the exception that one may defend those rights by allowing the right to kill another should the killed person in question appeared to deprive the other of LL and/or P. Is it not logical that the woman who is pregnant is being deprived of liberty and potentially life if she is forced by the fetus to undergo the pain and suffering of childbirth unwillingly, with even the potential to kill the pregnant woman?

Logic is the greatest gift from God. To discard it is insulting the very God who gave it to you. All that said, I am a pro-choice agnositic.

[XxemotionalychallengedxX]

i think its your choice,if you want to be a murderer then be one...im not one to judge

[Asexual-Slut~Enya]

XxemotionalychallengedxX

i think its your choice,if you want to be a murderer then be one...im not one to judge

Do I even need to address the irony in this post?

[Biot-Savart Law]

Asexual-Slut~Enya

XxemotionalychallengedxX

i think its your choice,if you want to be a murderer then be one...im not one to judge

Do I even need to address the irony in this post?

I, ah, don't think they would get it.

[gil_gil]

yeap.

[Exotic Guy]

no

[E-Z-MONEY]

Angels_Satire

Asexual-Slut~Enya

XxemotionalychallengedxX

i think its your choice,if you want to be a murderer then be one...im not one to judge

Do I even need to address the irony in this post?

I, ah, don't think they would get it.

Agreed.

[Asexual-Slut~Enya]

Marauder_Slade

I was thinking along the lines of someone who is high on pcp weilding a gun or a machete who was unstopable with submission techniques. ninja

Or perhaps when you are outnumberd; killing one of your opponents may demoralize the crowd & they will possibly disperse (or be further enraged, but think twice before continuing the attack).

Okay.

Now, can you explain why an embryo/fetus should be permitted the right to utilize a woman's bodily resources without her expressed, ongoing consent?

Marauder_Slade

I dissagree if an unwanted/unknown child of mine is running around on the face of the planet it is a serious violation of my integrity & domain.

Bear in mind, however, that, in the context of the conversation, we are discussing bodily integrity/autonomy/domain.

Marauder_Slade

I wasn't asking that, I was suggesting that if it is her will to have the child & his will to terminate then a termination should ensue because "A consent to sexual intercourse does not imply a given consent to pregnancy or, further, to the continuation of said pregnancy should it occur." - your own words.

No, the man may not have consented to the pregnancy, which is why I offered up the alternative argument that a man may terminate his parental rights (which is offtopic, by the by); but, ultimately, the pro-choice argument is founded on the premise that a woman can abort given her right to bodily integrity/autonomy/domain.

Again, I repeat, the man is not the party responsible for carrying the embryo/fetus to term -- it is not his body being utilized against his will and, as such, he doesn't stand to suffer the various risks.

Marauder_Slade

Also as we read earlier in this forum, there are possible undesireable side-effects to both pregnancy & abortion.

True, though the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth greatly outweigh those risks associated even with the most risky of late-term abortions.

Marauder_Slade

Are you enjoying this conversation question confused

Sure, why not? I chose not to answer this question before because I don't see how it ties into the debate.

Marauder_Slade

You think it is ironic that XxemotionalychallengedxX said that they won't judge right after they made a judgement that abortion = murder; however I agree that abortion = murder & that it is not an opinon or a judgement call, but rather a fact. I think perhaps what XxemotionalychallengedxX was trying to say is contained in this scripture "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Cor 14:38.

Stating that you believe something to be "fact" does not make it so. "Murder" is a human construct and, for that reason, any, and all, circumstances that would warrant its application is, ultimately, a judgment call.