22 Jun 04
Ivanhoe,
I think guppy poo just like me is saying "it is not his choice", but unlike pro life self labeled people he can follow his own moral path without feeling the need to force them on others. If we lived in a 100% Christian world (we don't) the church could enforce any morals on the population (they can’t).
Ivanhoe, I think it is great what you are doing, and I am sure we would all like to hear the stories of how you have helped someone wanting an abortion for what ever reason. I would like to hear how you changed her mind. (With offers of financial help, prenatal care, and adoption?)
I think it would be truly inspiring to us all.
Mike
22 Jun 04
3 edits
Originally posted by rapalla7Rapalla: " .... he can follow his own moral path without feeling the need to force them on others. "
Ivanhoe,
I think guppy poo just like me is saying "it is not his choice", but unlike pro life self labeled people he can follow his own moral path without feeling the need to force them on others. If we lived in a 100% Christian world ...[text shortened]... option?)
I think it would be truly inspiring to us all.
Mike
What I am doing is trying to prevent others to force their morals on a defenseless innocent unborn baby in the most devastating way there is: taking away ALL his or her rights included the most essential and basic human right and that is the Right to Life. What I am doing is protecting the Human Rights of unborn children. You and the people who are trying to accuse me and other pro-lifers of imposing our morals on others should take into consideration that they themselves, the pro-choicers, are imposing their morals upon the unborn children. They are not allowed to live. Do you understand that you are turning the world upside down ?
22 Jun 04
Originally posted by shavixmirYou have contradicted yourself by saying there are two living entities that are actually one. If the foetus were to die (and this is possible), the woman still lives, therefore, there are two different living entities, so the baby is not an integral part of the female's anatomy, it is a living being that is not self-reliant.
If a woman is pregnant and she kills herself. Does the foetus live or die?
It dies.
Until it is born it is an integral part of the female's anatomy.
23 Jun 04
Originally posted by shavixmirSuppose that a woman goes into labor and finds that she really doesn't like the pain. Suppose she decides she would rather have her child killed and removed than suffer through the agony of labor. Suppose this is her only reason (i.e., it is not the case that her life is at stake, there is no risk of injury, etc.) Apparently, on your view, she is justified in having the doctor kill her child under these circumstances. It is her body, after all.
If a woman is pregnant and she kills herself. Does the foetus live or die?
It dies.
Until it is born it is an integral part of the female's anatomy.
End of bloody story. I'm sorry, I've carried this argument a million times, and I'm sick of going into details.
I couldn't care less if it felt pain, read the bible or was a miniture film critic ...[text shortened]... s pregnant, I want to see what comes out so I can track down the father and shoot him.
😉
Now, what is the relevant moral difference between this circumstance and one wherein the mother has a doctor kill her child just after its birth? Does the presence of an umbilical cord turn an immoral murder into a permissible late-term abortion?
23 Jun 04
Originally posted by bbarrMy God, Bennet.
Suppose that a woman goes into labor and finds that she really doesn't like the pain. Suppose she decides she would rather have her child killed and removed than suffer through the agony of labor. Suppose this is her only reason (i.e., it is not the case that her life is at stake, there is no risk of injury, etc.) Apparently, on your view, she is justified ...[text shortened]... the presence of an umbilical cord turn an immoral murder into a permissible late-term abortion?
Pardon the pun.
You are getting real close to it.
This is what I said I was struggling to find.
Good work.
There is a fine difintion of "needs (as a human) being vs. want (for pain or convenience)" that you are getting to.
Watching with interest.
23 Jun 04
Originally posted by Ghanima AtreidesThat's where education comes in to play...sex ed...God may have said "be fruitful and multiply" but doesn't "demand" that we have children...he does demand that we use our common sense...so you believe that abortion should be used as a birth control method? What about putting the "unwanted" child up for adoption?...there are plenty of couples who would love to have a chance at adopting an unwanted baby...using abortion as birth control is just plain stupid...and unhealthy...in my opinion
And what about women who give birth to children they don't want and abandon them, or misstreat them? Not to mention very poor couples who have as many children as "God demands"and put them through hunger and cold...
Personally I agree with abortion to a certain extent-I think a woman/couple should only bring a child into this world when that c ...[text shortened]... will the parents. Besides, I make the difference between a child when it's born and two cells.
23 Jun 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicJust as with lawyers... Talentless killer doctors always comes down to money.
That's where education comes in to play...sex ed...God may have said "be fruitful and multiply" but doesn't "demand" that we have children...he does demand that we use our common sense...so you believe that abortion should be used as a birth control method? What about putting the "unwanted" child up for adoption?...there are plenty of couples ...[text shortened]... nted baby...using abortion as birth control is just plain stupid...and unhealthy...in my opinion
If a poor woman in the ghetto gets pregnant and has an abortion. She can ask and get a thousand dollars. The "doctor" gets about $2995 per abortion. From all sources. He then slips the poor woman a grand because she "needs it". He is a philantrhopist. Hallalujah! What a fine doctor he/she is. They gave to that poor woman. Can you ever challenge that? Would you have the guts? I don't think so.
Can you spell 'kickback'? I can. It is well documented. Unless you think that a thiry dollar per month pill is more expensive and obtrusive than an abortion.
Is there any reason in particular why you think the doctor is moral?
Dealing in death as he does?
Mr. Chanrefixer sir!
Money.
Follow the trail.
You are right. Never for birth control. That is immoral.
But for money? Then it becomes the vogue.
Sad, silly world we live in sir.
Mike