Continuing from last time.
AL: Thanks for your response Rhology. I do want to correct a couple things you said and if you don't want to take my word for it, you can check in with any medical organization or provider or just your wife's OBGYN or even a simple google search will give you good information. 1 in 4 pregnancies result in a miscarriage (and resulting abortion/terminated pregnancy). That is 25%. NOT 1%. Any women who has gotten pregnant learns about this possibility upon her first visit to the doctor. Also, before Roe v. Wade, abortions were not performed in a medically safe environment and therefore, many women died or were no longer able to have children as abortions were performed by people who were not qualified to do so. So...just b/c you want to make it illegal for a women to get an abortion, it doesn't mean they won't happen and you are therefore, NOT protecting the lives and health of women at that point. How is that Pro-Life? I also want to clarify something. I am absolutely NOT advocating that men be forced into vasectomies OR casterations. I was merely suggesting that it takes 2 to get a women pregnant and your beliefs do not allow for ANY responsibilty for unwanted pregnancies or abortions by men. It's nice to hear that you will allow a "rape exception" for abortion. In addition, it's nice to hear that you think men should be forced to pay for child support. Good news!! These types of laws are already in affect in every state and guess what?? They do not always work. There are TONS of men who don't pay a dime in child support despite being legally ordered to do so. As you mentioned, "Who is to judge whether the woman really did want the pregnancy or whether she is using the situation to get back at the man? Who will judge the hearts in that case?"
AL: And the answer is...the WOMAN will decide what to do with her body. It is her choice and her decision and she may choose to consult with friends, family, doctors or God or whomever but bottome line is. It's the Woman's choice. Not yours.
AL: The good news for all the women out there is that the right to choose has already been decided and has been upheld by courts across the country for decades. Even now...when people who want to take women's rights and freedom of choice to be taken away and even though there are many radicals in several states who have attempted to pass lawas making it even more difficult for women to access health care and family planning services, ALL of the laws have been struck down in federal court and a women's right to choose has been protected. Maybe you'd have better luck in other countries like Somalia or Saudia Arabia or Libya. They like supressing women over there. In some cases it is part of their religion to do so...your new organization might find wider acceptance in those parts of the world where women are considered nothing more than property and 2nd class citizens.
JT: AL... Well put! So ever notice its always the religious groups. Always... Its called seperation of Church and State for a reason...
Me: If anyone is bored by this thread, I remind you that no one is forcing you to read. :-)
thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, I know there are many miscarriages. However, you didn't ask about that; you had mentioned medically necessary surgeries that result in the death of the unborn baby. That's what the 1% figure meant.
Abortions TODAY are largely not performed in safe, clean medical environments, so I hope you'll consider that.
Thing is, the wire coat hanger has long been the prop of "choice" for those staging pro-abortion rallies or protests. You see them on signs and buttons and hanging around necks, all designed to symbolize what will happen to women if they ever lose the legal right to kill their unborn offspring. There are a couple of serious problems with this tactic and, ultimately, this line of thinking.
First, the "coat hanger defense" has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion. It makes no attempt to justify the act; it simply argues that if women ever lose this right, they'll die en masse from self-induced abortions. Those who make such an argument conveniently ignore the fact that abortion, itself, kills a living human being, not by accident but by design. It is completely backwards to argue that society must "keep it safe" for one human being to kill another human being, one who is completely innocent and defenseless. It is like arguing that we should legalize armed robbery because bank robbers might die in the process of holding up a bank. Laws must protect the potential victim, not the potential assailant.
Also, if you hold to Darwinian evolution by natural selection, it's strange that you would have a moral objection to natural selection taking place. If these womens' systems are not strong enough to withstand these infections and syndromes, then what is the problem removing these women (and their defective genes) from the gene pool? They won't introduce any offspring into the gene pool either (fortunately, since the offspring die in the process), so these weak systems and weak uteri will not perpetuate themselves in future generations. That's a good thing, right? Even if women become sterilised by abortions incompetently performed, is that not an occurrence of natural selection as well, deactivating the uterus of the woman whose genes were not strong enough to resist pointy-ended trauma and/or subsequent infections and whose offspring were not strong enough to survive the application of chemical weaponry and forcible dismemberment? What's the objection here, precisely?
(Remember, I'm not a Darwinian, so don't try to act like this is MY view, please. And if you're not a Darwinian, fair enough.)
As for rape, I'm afraid you misread me. I would NOT be in favor of a rape exception for abortion. As I said, one should not carry out violence on an innocent 3rd party for the crimes of his father.
But you read correctly about the child support thing.
I do realise that the child support system doesn't always work, but that is also not the unborn child's fault. Don't avenge wrongs on those who haven't committed them. It is better to suffer evil, if unfortunately unavoidable, than to do evil.
It's fine, for the sake of this argument, if the woman chooses what to do with HER body. However, THE UNBORN CHILD IS NOT PART OF HER BODY. You must deal with this.
And there is no need to consult with God - He has already spoken on the issue, very very clearly. Giving and taking of life is His prerogative and responsibility. We do not have the right to murder, even the very young. This is merely oppression of the powerless by the powerful.
As for your last paragraph, let me ask you to consider these words on the lips of someone who owned slaves at the turn of the 18th century:
>>The good news for all the whites out there is that the right to choose to own slaves has already been decided and has been upheld by courts across the country for decades. Even now...when people who want to take owners' rights and freedom of choice to own slaves to be taken away and even though there are many radicals in several states who have attempted to pass laws making it even more difficult for landowners to obtain slaves, ALL of the laws have been struck down in federal court and a slaveowner's right to choose has been protected. Maybe you'd have better luck in other countries like England (where slavery had already been abolished). They like oppressing landowners over there. In some cases it is part of their religion to do so...your new organization might find wider acceptance in those parts of the world where whites are considered nothing more than equal to blacks.<<
Anyway, it is NOT true that "all the laws" have been struck down. I'm sorry that you are only familiar with what the mainstream media likes to report, but you could certainly stand to do a bit more research on it.
Also, it is totally disrespectful and unfair to talk about countries dominated by violent, demonic religion such as Libya and Somalia, comparing them to us. We want to make sure that babies have their rights too. Half (or more) of all babies aborted are female! We are looking out for EVERYONE'S rights - babies and women. You really think that denying rights to the weakest in society will reliably lead to making sure everyone else's rights will consistently be respected? Think again.
Anyway, polls consistently show that the majority of Americans polled are pro-life. Abortion may well be abolished in the USA. It would be better to get on the correct side now; you don't have any good arguments and you are demonstrating callous disregard for the lives of the very young. Please reconsider again, please pray more, please read the Bible more, please feel more, please seek more fairness.
You apparently have no idea of the:
1) origin of
2) reasoning behind
3) meaning of
4) basis of
"the separation of church and state" is. Best not to speak of that of which one is ignorant.
Please prove me wrong and demonstrate that you do know those things and how they relate to this question.