Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[Mercifull]

 

Was it not the Pope (not sure which one) that said that a foetus is not human until 40 days after conception?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pope is not God. He has no right to make such a judgment. Life is what it is, life.

I always thought that the word of the Pope is the word of God?

[frogact]

 

 

Was it not the Pope (not sure which one) that said that a foetus is not human until 40 days after conception?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pope is not God. He has no right to make such a judgment. Life is what it is, life.

I always thought that the word of the Pope is the word of God?

The Catholic faith teaches that, I guess, but he is clearly only a man.

[insane]

 

 

Was it not the Pope (not sure which one) that said that a foetus is not human until 40 days after conception?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pope is not God. He has no right to make such a judgment. Life is what it is, life.

I always thought that the word of the Pope is the word of God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a Catholic belief. Even in the Bible, the Apostle Peter, the first pope is at odds with the apostle Paul, because Peter was acting like Christianity was exclusive to Jews only. Peter recognized his faults and changed his ways.

[Barihawk]

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a pretty grand claim; you have no idea about adoption do you? Do you think a mother would just give up the child, stone cold and not care about it? How about all the emotional trauma associated with voluntary giving up a child that you created? WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t this be grounds for abortion because it is not mentally and emotionally healthy for the mother to give birth and adopt out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have volunteered in adoption centers several times, mind you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure the mother feels less emotional trauma when she treats the unborn child like unwanted waste bye-product instead of the cute warm fuzzy baby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I am under the bold claim that if the mother is not in a position to have a child, she should not be having sex in the first place.

[frogact]

 

 

 

That's a Catholic belief. Even in the Bible, the Apostle Peter, the first pope is at odds with the apostle Paul, because Peter was acting like Christianity was exclusive to Jews only. Peter recognized his faults and changed his ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the Catholic belief that the word of the pope is the Word of God would make Christianity exclusive to those who follow the pope only. The fact that there are millions of Christians in the world who do not follow the pope is proof enough for me that that teaching is false, not to mention that the Bible doesnt say that Peter was the first pope, nor does it say anywhere that I have to go through any mortal man to get to God. But I suppose that's a debate for another topic. 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I am under the bold claim that if the mother is not in a position to have a child, she should not be having sex in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with that, but you left out the other half. The potential father who is not in a position to have/care for a child should ALSO not be having sex.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

That's a Catholic belief. Even in the Bible, the Apostle Peter, the first pope is at odds with the apostle Paul, because Peter was acting like Christianity was exclusive to Jews only. Peter recognized his faults and changed his ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the Catholic belief that the word of the pope is the Word of God would make Christianity exclusive to those who follow the pope only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd make that correction that it would make Catholicism exclusive to those who follow the pope only.

[frogact]

Can't do that because he's equating the pope's word with God's Word.

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To which I also agree. Consentual sex shouldn't happen unless both partners are ready to accept the consequences. Birth control should be taken, and I would reccomend both a condom and the pills. That way, the chances of pregnancy are slim to none.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Can't do that because he's equating the pope's word with God's Word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It still makes Catholicism only exclusive to those who follow the pope. It has nothing to do with Protestantism. There is a baptist road down the street from my house and most people there are under the belief that their preacher is inspired by God when he speaks (most people believe their preacher is inspired by God in their sermons). I happen to be under the belief that this particular preacher teaches very blasphemes and un-Christian things. Is the belief that my neighbors think he speaks God's word and I do not affect Christianity? Of course not. It only affects that church.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Ironically, the Catholic belief that the word of the pope is the Word of God would make Christianity exclusive to those who follow the pope only. The fact that there are millions of Christians in the world who do not follow the pope is proof enough for me that that teaching is false

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that there are millions of people in the world who do not follow Jesus is proof enough for me that Christianity is false.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

The fact that there are millions of people in the world is proof enough for me that God doesn't exist. (Not really -- I just thought that was the natural next step).

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the Catholic belief that the word of the pope is the Word of God would make Christianity exclusive to those who follow the pope only. The fact that there are millions of Christians in the world who do not follow the pope is proof enough for me that that teaching is false

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that there are millions of people in the world who do not follow Jesus is proof enough for me that Christianity is false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mind elaborating? After all, God told Adam to be fruitful and multiply.

[Lionheart_0]

Let the women do waht they wish, it is their own bodies (hey, the baby is actuly part of the mother, has half the DNA dosent it?)

[Astralinre]

Let the women do waht they wish, it is their own bodies (hey, the baby is actuly part of the mother, has half the DNA dosent it?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because another body is dependent on you doesn't mean that it's your body. A one-year-old baby is still dependent on its parents for everything, but that doesn't give them the right to kill it if they want.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Mind elaborating? After all, God told Adam to be fruitful and multiply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am showing him that his criticism of Catholicism:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that there are millions of Christians in the world who do not follow the pope is proof enough for me that that teaching is false

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is wrong because the same could be said for Christianity in general since millions of people in the world do not practice it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he said: millions of Christians do not follow pope = Catholicism is a lie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I say: millions of people do not follow Jesus = Christianity is a lie

[Barihawk]

I disagree with him. And there are about 2.5 billion Christians in the world, thats a big following. Not all are Catholic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't even know what the new Pope's name is. His word doesn't interest me, since I have a personal relationship with God (and Christ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But we digress. This thread is not for religious talk (that should go in the "Do you believe in God?" thread. This is more of a moralistic debate.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Let the women do waht they wish, it is their own bodies (hey, the baby is actuly part of the mother, has half the DNA dosent it?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still have "half" of my mother's DNA so I don't understand your point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And once again, I reiterate...if the woman is the only one with the choice about "what to do with her body" than the exact opposite should apply. If a man wants to abort the baby and the woman decides not to, since the man has no say in the matter he should be exempt from paying child support. I'm sure you'd agree with that, right?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Abortion isn't exactly physically healthy for the fetus... I'm not trying to be a smartalec, but would you really tell an adopted child that it would have been better had he been aborted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about hundreds of other ova that don't form into a child, what made that kid special? From the point of view from the maternal mother maybe the emotional pain (in having a child she can't contact) is too much to handle and an abortion might have been a better choice; however the childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view is that they are being looked after properly so it seems like the right choice, it all comes down to what perspective you are looking at it from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/3 of Americans have an abortion in their life time, so many of posters here would have a mother that made an abortion in their life. What would it feel like to be the foetus that was aborted? A foetus aborted is no different from an unfertilised ova, it is moot to talk about the future child's life since they weren't going to exist in the world in the first place.

 

 

 

In the case of an adopted child, the child does in fact exist since no abortion took place so the child does in fact have some sort of sentient existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just rambling a bit but I really don't get your point, you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t apply a moral judgement to something that might occur (or for that matter something that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have any moral decisions); you better not go outside because you might accidentally harm someone and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong. It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physically healthy for the sperm to discard it without use or in the case of ova, not conceiving (why is this ok, but not for foetuses).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because another body is dependent on you doesn't mean that it's your body. A one-year-old baby is still dependent on its parents for everything, but that doesn't give them the right to kill it if they want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A foetuses body can not live independently from its mother since its organs are not developed (so it relies on the mothers organs to cater for the foetus); A one year old child can live independently from the mother (no physical connection to mother).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have volunteered in adoption centers several times, mind you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure the mother feels less emotional trauma when she treats the unborn child like unwanted waste bye-product instead of the cute warm fuzzy baby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I am under the bold claim that if the mother is not in a position to have a child, she should not be having sex in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, doing what counselling mothers on their hard decisions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mother might have some form of emotional trauma no matter what she chooses; the problem with adoption is that trauma will be long term. How can you get over the loss of your child when you know that is still out there, at least with abortion the ordeal has some form of closure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t anything more to sex then having children, do you know how naive that statement is (the truth finally comes out, abstinence the best form of protection!)? Do you know what itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like to have sex with a partner you love, the reason for sex in a relationship isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâjust becauseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ or ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâfor funÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; Just because there is an associated risk with doing something doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do it. Sex is an integral part of many peoples marriage, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m willing to gamble that many people on the pro-life side do indeed have sex; are you seriously saying to me that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re planing to abstain from sex when you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want a child (so whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that sex for a few periods of your whole life)? You better stop eating because you might get fat have a heart attack and die. Every action we take has some form of risk; you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t live life in a bubble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To which I also agree. Consentual sex shouldn't happen unless both partners are ready to accept the consequences. Birth control should be taken, and I would reccomend both a condom and the pills. That way, the chances of pregnancy are slim to none.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theoretically yes, but thats not what the data says:

 

 

 

N"Information in the pregnancy history section of the NSFG indicated that 568 (8%) of the contraceptive use segments during the observation period had ended because of an accidental pregnancy. Of these, 71% (404) resulted from contraceptive failure during the first 12 months of method use; the remainder occurred in subsequent months."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general I love this little statistic. It shows that you are doing more harm making abortion illegal then to leave it legalised, should we really be pushing for illegality when we have data such as this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country (Abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44*/Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where abortion is legal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States 26 12

 

 

 

England/Wales 15 9

 

 

 

Netherlands 6 12

 

 

 

Finland 10 11

 

 

 

Japan 14 18

 

 

 

Australia 17 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where abortion is illegal:

 

 

 

Brazil 38 220

 

 

 

Colombia 34 100

 

 

 

Chile 45 65

 

 

 

Dominican Republic 44 110

 

 

 

Mexico 23 110

 

 

 

Peru 52 280

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Abortion isn't exactly physically healthy for the fetus... I'm not trying to be a smartalec, but would you really tell an adopted child that it would have been better had he been aborted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about hundreds of other ova that don't form into a child, what made that kid special? From the point of view from the maternal mother maybe the emotional pain (in having a child she can't contact) is too much to handle and an abortion might have been a better choice; however the childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view is that they are being looked after properly so it seems like the right choice, it all comes down to what perspective you are looking at it from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/3 of Americans have an abortion in their life time, so many of posters here would have a mother that made an abortion in their life. What would it feel like to be the foetus that was aborted? A foetus aborted is no different from an unfertilised ova, it is moot to talk about the future child's life since they weren't going to exist in the world in the first place.

 

 

 

In the case of an adopted child, the child does in fact exist since no abortion took place so the child does in fact have some sort of sentient existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd urge you to check your facts and clarify your point. Ova and sperm have only the DNA of the mother and father, a foetus obtains entirely new DNA - its an entirely new being. (You might not think its a baby - but it clearly is a new being).

[Barihawk]

Yeah there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t anything more to sex then having children, do you know how naive that statement is (the truth finally comes out, abstinence the best form of protection!)? Do you know what itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like to have sex with a partner you love, the reason for sex in a relationship isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâjust becauseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ or ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâfor funÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; Just because there is an associated risk with doing something doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do it. Sex is an integral part of many peoples marriage, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m willing to gamble that many people on the pro-life side do indeed have sex; are you seriously saying to me that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re planing to abstain from sex when you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want a child (so whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that sex for a few periods of your whole life)? You better stop eating because you might get fat have a heart attack and die. Every action we take has some form of risk; you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t live life in a bubble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I don't. I'm one of those funny Christians who will enjoy sex for both procreation and intimacy safely within the bounds of marriage. And you don't have to abstain from sex if you don't want a child in marriage, you can use a variety of techniques to not get pregnant in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never said you shouldnt, only that you should be ready to reap what you sow if you are not prepared.

[aallnn77]

This may be random but i heard a guy once say The only people who are for abortion have been born

[dwarfie76]

This may be random but i heard a guy once say The only people who are for abortion have been born

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, my friend is what it known as a platitude.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I'd urge you to check your facts and clarify your point. Ova and sperm have only the DNA of the mother and father, a foetus obtains entirely new DNA - its an entirely new being. (You might not think its a baby - but it clearly is a new being).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I should get you to check your facts and see that abortion up to 26 weeks is considered fine by the medical community (since the brain isn't fully wired to feel pain, and hence 'feel death'), but I guess your not going to take that into consideration. The foetuses DNA is not entirely new, why do children share similar physical features of their parents, stop playing dumb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ova or Sperm only having one set of DNA isn't the problem (ever heard of cloning? It's possible to have almost all DNA from one single parent, so youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re saying itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ok to abort cloned children?) the problem arises to what you consider living; if you consider the point at conception to be life then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stopping you from calling all reproductive cells living.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I don't. I'm one of those funny Christians who will enjoy sex for both procreation and intimacy safely within the bounds of marriage. And you don't have to abstain from sex if you don't want a child in marriage, you can use a variety of techniques to not get pregnant in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never said you shouldnt, only that you should be ready to reap what you sow if you are not prepared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You still failed to discuss this point:

 

 

 

"Information in the pregnancy history section of the NSFG indicated that 568 (8%) of the contraceptive use segments during the observation period had ended because of an accidental pregnancy. Of these, 71% (404) resulted from contraceptive failure during the first 12 months of method use; the remainder occurred in subsequent months."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can't have abortions then the only way to be 100% safe from having children is to abstain, pure and simple. ~6% pregnancy chance of getting pregnant in the first year of using contraceptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s isn't a foolproof way of avoiding children (it helps, but doesn't stop it). If I was faced with no abortion and 6% chance of having a child, I wouldn't want very much sex. Maybe I'm just ignoring something simple, what are some techniques at not getting pregnant at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is people put too much faith in contraceptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (and things like vasectomies) for being foolproof when in practice they arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t. No one should have to put up with a child they never wanted in the first place, sometimes precautions fail and abortions should be there as a last resort (the ultimate contraception, I guess).

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

I'd urge you to check your facts and clarify your point. Ova and sperm have only the DNA of the mother and father, a foetus obtains entirely new DNA - its an entirely new being. (You might not think its a baby - but it clearly is a new being).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I should get you to check your facts and see that abortion up to 26 weeks is considered fine by the medical community (since the brain isn't fully wired to feel pain, and hence 'feel death'), but I guess your not going to take that into consideration. The foetuses DNA is not entirely new, why do children share similar physical features of their parents, stop playing dumb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ova or Sperm only having one set of DNA isn't the problem (ever heard of cloning? It's possible to have almost all DNA from one single parent, so youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re saying itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ok to abort cloned children?) the problem arises to what you consider living; if you consider the point at conception to be life then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stopping you from calling all reproductive cells living.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, the medical community is very ambiguous about when its considered life. No where could you find an exact time they've decided on to say is life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I never tok a stance on abortion one way or another. I never say it was a baby, or that it should not be aborted. What I said that was a foetus is completely different than an ova and a sperm. In fact I said specifically you might not think its a baby and that's fine, but you can't deny that its an entirely new lifeform.

[Lionheart_0]

 

Let the women do waht they wish, it is their own bodies (hey, the baby is actuly part of the mother, has half the DNA dosent it?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still have "half" of my mother's DNA so I don't understand your point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And once again, I reiterate...if the woman is the only one with the choice about "what to do with her body" than the exact opposite should apply. If a man wants to abort the baby and the woman decides not to, since the man has no say in the matter he should be exempt from paying child support. I'm sure you'd agree with that, right?

 

 

 

No because if he didnt want the baby even the slightest bit, he shouldnt of been having sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think im gonna touch this topic anymore, too much religon involved, same with morals.