Abortion is Wrong

E

Eyeseeyouwantingme

Member
Bottom line this is complicated stuff, yes?

I share the whole uncertainty about terminations that comes with being a parent, but in my case with a few complications. Because our triplets were born premature (like all triplets) I have spent several months of my life in contact with babies not much older than the legal cut-offs for abortion. For those that are describing them as viable... well yes, but only just, and in a whole lot of cases that I was present for, not for very long. Even when babies survive being born THAT premature they tend to be condemmed to a lifetime of serious medical issues - to the point that it has recently become an issue in the sense that they often require expensive support a long time past the point that it is readily accessible to them.

I have also just donated half a dozen of the little potential people (spares left after we had the girls) that we are talking about to people I have never met to (hopefully) help them to have children. I have no idea if I would refer to them as actually being alive as such, but will freely confess to being attached to them in a vague way, and that I do occassionally have 'concerns' (not sure if that is really the correct word) about their hypothetical futures.

All of that said. Anyone who has spent as long as ten minutes in a house with kids that are neither wanted or loved will know that there are many worse things than your existence never having really started. Pro choice, yes, up until I am able to actually get pregnant and carry a child my only input into this debate should really be this sort of mildly pointless rant. Pro-abortion, no. In an ideal world we wouldn't need this as an option other than for a pretty limited bunch of medical emergencies.

But, this is no ideal world, and shows no sign of becomming one any time soon. Part of me also wonders that if all of the anti-choice folks out there are spending their time and energy wisely? There are literally millions of actually alive, and actually starving, freezing, thirsty etc children in the world. Don't they need help more than the currently hypothetical ones? Or is it just my nasty pragmatic streak at work again...

paul
 
E

Exotic_Beautye

Member
I find it funny (or, y'know, tragic) that the people most opposed to abortion are also the people most opposed to the things that limit abortions.
Effective sex education and subsidised contraceptives have the largest effect on abortion rates. You limit the number of people getting pregnant accidentally, you will limit the number of people doing difficult things to 'fix' that situation.
I'm a Bill Clinton fan on the topic: they should be legal, cheap and rare.
 
C

crocodile_dundee_usa

New member
This all day.

Liberals have managed to make this into a women's rights issue, mostly because the politicians opposing abortions are the same ones who are way behind the curve on women's rights, but in the mind of a Christian, it's pretty simple. A fetus is clearly a living organism, and its species is homo sapien, so killing it is killing a human, and therefore abortion is murder.
 
W

webster

Member
The Abrahamic religions all share a similar stance, Judaism/Christinaity/Islam, I'm assuming, that Buddhism takes the same outlook on it, I know Hinduism does. All disagree with Abortion.
 
A

AlyssaL

Member
That's not surprising - every little life brought into the world is another one to be brought into the cult. I'd be surprised at any evangelical religion that encouraged sensibly limited breeding - it goes against their whole reason for being.
 
S

supersongbird

Member
No, but they do carry on through family lines. I should've been clearer in what I was trying to say there.

Seen from an evolutionary standpoint a religion is engineered to best do one thing - grow (if it weren't, it would've died out) so limiting the number of people being produced to support that religion is counter-intuitive.

There are of course variants, as always.
 
D

divinee

New member
I would say that from the evolutionary standpoint the requirement is survival - but that's nitpicking really. The best way of ensuring survival is growth, so I take the point that you are making.

Evangalising is one way of growing, but for evangalising and non-evangalising religions equally, growth can be ensured through vigorous breeding. (Ahem!)

But let's throw another idea into the ring. If growth was the most important thing, then why place restrictions on who can breed, and under what circumstances? Why have these strict moral codes that inhibit procreation?
 
J

juanxdoom

New member
Interesting question - and now I'm going into wild yet interesting (to me) speculation.

A child brought up in a stable household is more likely to be well-adjusted, well-fed and healthy, so encouraging stable households makes for a healthier, better-adjusted society. One way to do this is to try and ensure that only people in a socially-accepted relationship breed with one another to produce more fodder for the cultural grouping. Not only this, but you're also more likely to have the fodder accept the cultural conditioning if both of their authority figures accept the same cultural memes (hence marrying within the church).

As to the moral codes that inhibit procreation, again they seem designed to keep procreation to stable, legally enforceable relationships rather than to prevent it outright. Allowing the culture to determine who may, and who may not marry gives them a degree of control over potential 'rebels', particularly those who might want to marry a more loyal member.

Basically it's a giant (and probably accidental) eugenics program designed to create more hosts for the cultural memetics.

...

I think I have an idea for a story.
 
Z

Zarncar

New member
I believe it is wrong. I have talked with woman who have had an abortion only one seemed that it did not bother her. I do not think that it is a issue of male dominance. I think that is just what pro choice proponents use as an argument. It is about life. When does life begin? This is the question. I am a Christian but I would rather show love than throw stones. Many things we do in life like abortion are brought about because of selfishness on our part. Or maybe the woman was raped? God only knows how terrible that would be. As a Christian I believe that the church can start decreasing abortions by not being afraid to talk about safe sex, and educate individuals about the issue. I love life who doesn't?
 
D

DejatiredofSweet

New member
Martial arts are about fighting - the clue is in the way they are called "martial"

How you use that is up to you, but there is no inherent morality in it any more than a gun has morality in and of itself
 
B

BLAMt

New member
But they died out, which is kind of the important bit.



As Hannibal said, martial arts is about martial arts. Self defence is (surprisingly the clue is again in the name) about defending yourself.

And which helpless, precisely, are you referring to? It's best not to get into a value of life debate but with your views I'd be happy to do so.



Because something bothers someone does not make it wrong.



No - it's about providing more fodder for the mill.



Okay, a quick sanity check here.

You claim to have spoken to women who have been through abortions?

You claim that abortion is brought about because of selfishness?

Can you see the incredible contradiction between these two claims?



Actually I'd rather the church leave it to people who actually know about this stuff, rather than a bunch of celibate priests. Though if they stopped condemning all the sensible precautions that'd be a good start.



Well, I enjoy it. I wouldn't necessarily say I love it - and I know many people who merely thing it's okay.

Now what on earth does this have to do with anything else in your post?
 
X

xeeAudrieeX

New member
Unfortunately, it's a biological drive for species to be so aggressively short-sighted that many cause their own extinction events, often brought about through over-breeding and over-harvesting precious resources critical to survival. Humans are clearly no exception to this problem. I believe it's likely we'll cause our own extinction event in the next 1000 years or sooner. We'd need to leave Earth and travel 1000s of light years away for a chance, unless maybe we greatly reduced population stress to buy ourselves a little more time, assuming the climate holds out sufficiently. To heck with extinction though, lets expect people to stop behaving like animals hardwired to over-breed and defend the lives of fetuses that cannot feel pain until the 28th week of gestation. (That's 7 months by the way.) Seems like a rationale plan.
 
J

jasonjas

Member
Lil Bunny I respect your opinions I will try to answer your questions.

1. The unborn are helpless "I" believe that it is right to help the helpless when possible.

2. I believe life begins at conception

3. I am not going to throw stones at someone who has had an abortion. I want to show love to people. I may disagree yet Christ taught with love.
I am ignorant to all of the reasons of abortion it would be unreasonable for me to say I did I am also a man I would be arrogant to think I know how a woman feels. Although I feel woman have a great gift that is given by God to bring life into the world. When a woman becomes pregnant she is no longer one person but two. She has the responsibility to take care of the life within her. This is a gift it would be selfish destroy a life.

4. The church has an obligation to speak for the unborn you may not be a Christian than you are pardoned out of ignorance. If you believed than you could see with clear eyes. I also agree with you I do not condemn the precautions that is not something I will do in my ministry.

5. Life does suck sometimes just because I am a Christian does not mean I jump around singing all day. I wish.

BunnyRabitt I do not expect you or anyone else to agree with me this is the theology that I believe. Some share it some do not. Thank you for your response.
 
Top