Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Don't like abortion?

Fine. Don't have one.

Next.

Coming from someone who has professed to being, "too selfish to have kids". Jeff, you don't adequately understand the other side of the issue.

How many that support abortion have kids? It would make for an interesting survey.

[M.D. Holloway]

Anyone know how many abortions annually are carried out on rape and incest victims? How about when the mother is in danger and a choice has to be made?

And can anyone offer how many abortions are carried out annually?

So that leaves how many abortions as a means of getting rid of a problem or a mistake?

Hmmm. I think there are product out there that can help and are cheaper. Condoms and the pill come to mind.

If she still thinks she could get preggers on the pill or doesn;t like condoms, pop her in the can. After a few minutes in she won't want it any other way.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

How many that support abortion have kids? It would make for an interesting survey.

I have a kid, and I support a woman's right to not have some other person tell her what she can and can't do with her body and her life. Especially cranky, sanctimonious white males...

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by sjf911

How many new prisons would we have had to build? How much more drug and violent crime would we have had to pay for? How many more special ed programs for the ineducable? How much more in welfare costs? How many more Walmarts would we have to endure?

Good questions Steve! I think too a population growth of 50 million aborted, and roughly half that aborted number at working age right now would effect the prison system, violent crimes, education, welfare, new stores (walmart) and all at some cost no doubt.

Those 22.848 million aborted of working age, right now, would with out question add something to the nations economy. This problem could be solved using a statistical model, could it not?

Some of the 50 million in population would have statistically suffered illness and disease that results in death. And some statistically would be dead also by accident.

We could probably determine that one of the 50 million would be a lottery winner, if they were all playing the lottery.

We might argue that a set of statistics reflecting large urban area would apply even though it is clear that abortion occurs in rural communities as well. What do you reckon?

[daepp]

Originally Posted by nostatic

why is it that the "Christians" often the most judgmental?

Todd: I have thought about this a lot. Along with the oft repeated claim that Christians are hypocrites.

I have come to believe that because Christians take a strong stance on certain arguments, they can be held accountable for same. A secular thinker does not typically hold to hard fast principles such as those found in the written 10 Commandments - just as an example. It is hard for a Christian to call a secularist that he's a hypocrite or judgmental when that secularist has not established hard fast principles back upon which his actions or thoughts can be compared.

Does that make any sense?

IMHO of course.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Pro choice = you can't tell me what to do, regardless of morality.

Have not heard that angle yet.

So by that logic it is OK to enforce certain moral guidelines. I'll buy that. Makes sense. At least as long as those guidelines fit the way you and I think.

Some places the "morally" correct way of thinking dictates a rape victim should be stoned to death.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I have a kid, and I support a woman's right to not have some other person tell her what she can and can't do with her body and her life. Especially cranky, sanctimonious white males...

I'm yet to understand why it's a "woman's right" to kill a baby. Because let's not mince words here, that's what it comes down to. It's not "what to do with her body or her life", we're talking about killing a child here. At least skip the BS and get to the point. Of course, that's what it's all about, right? Phrases like "a woman's choice", "it's her body", "it's just a fetus", are just an attempt to remove emotion from the equation. Because lets face it, "suck a baby out with a straw" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[TerryBPP]

My wife works at the local hospital and sees 1st had why abortion should exist. A baby with a meth addicted mother and a HIV positive father was brought into her unit by her very loving, very religious new adopted parents. The baby had constant fevers and a rash. Turns out the baby not only is HIV positive but has leukemia. Not to mention the likely emotional issues. The baby will live for a year but in constant pain and heavily sedated.

The parents were fully aware of the childs history but now want to sue the adoption agency due to the large medical bills. They are also very distraught.

My question to you anti abortion faithfull:

Who wins in this situation by letting this child be born?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Have not heard that angle yet.

So by that logic it is OK to enforce certain moral guidelines. I'll buy that. Makes sense. At least as long as those guidelines fit the way you and I think.

Some places the "morally" correct way of thinking dictates a rape victim should be stoned to death.

"Thou shall not kill" is pretty universal, is it not? I hope we can agree on that one, that murder is immoral and illegal.

Pro choice amounts to saying that you can kill the child because it's yours, and developing inside your body. It's selective morality, because you're starting to make exceptions, times when it is ok to kill.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Coming from someone who has professed to being, "too selfish to have kids". Jeff, you don't adequately understand the other side of the issue.

How many that support abortion have kids? It would make for an interesting survey.

I have kids. I do not support abortion.

My b in law has a history of downs in his family.

They went for an amnio to test with their kids.

I already knew the answer but I asked my wife what they planned to do if the test was positive.

I told her if it were us we'd have the baby and deal with what life dealt us.

She agreed.

But that's us.

I don't fell that it's my place to make their life choice for them.

[cool_chick]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

It's selective morality, because you're starting to make exceptions, times when it is ok to kill.

That sounds like the death penalty or war.

[lendaddy]

I'm not sure why the line is drawn at birth by the left. Certainly the logical approach would be 6-9 months post birth or so. The kid is not really aware at that point and certainly cannot support itself in any way, perhaps less than when in the womb to be honest. What right do you/we have to force the mother to raise a child she doesn't want?

I play some devils advocate in the abortion arguments simply because it's interesting to see people twist themselves up in what they think is logic.

[MFAFF]

Matt,

Gonna disagree with you .....

I have no problem with allowing an informed choice of whether or not to continue carrying to term...and equally I have no problem looking my son in the eye either....

The reasons for one are not to be compared with the reasons for the other...as often they cannot be compared....just look at a beaten, abused infant and you will look for ways of making sure others avoid being born to such an existance...not a life an existance.

I had the enviable task of spending a week day with my son recently...a great opportunity you might think.. sadly in this case it was as a result of one of his first grade friends stepping in front of a bus because his parents hurt him too much....it makes you think that the quality of a child's life has far more of an effect than its life itself.

His 'right to life' was curtailed by his parents' actions as much at his age as if he had been terminated....sure at least he had an opportunity...but at what price for him? Was the existentialist notion of a 'right to life' sufficient justification for a life of five probably painful years? (And to explian, his parents are of a religious belief that views abortion and contraception as immoral, hence this child's life originally).

Yes, adoption by all means, but adoption in the West is now so politically 'correct' that it deters those who do too often, it is too convoluted and intrusive...afterall the standards being applied to prospective adoptive parents are not applied to natural parents...

Do you prevent these 'naturals' from becoming parents, forcibly remove their children? Into homes; forced adoption? At some point you get into a situation where the child's life is being decided by somebody else...action may lead to destruction, as may inaction.

The overall balance, and its all we can seek rather than absolutes, is that permiting it has fewer downsides than making it illegal, seeing the results of illegal abortions you might consider the destruction that it brings in itself. It is in many ways the lesser of two evils.

Neither are 'good solutions'; as those that live where it is illegal seek to make it legal and those who live where it is legal seek to make it illegal....



As for who pays... the same old folks that pay for every other issue, those who pay taxes...and their kids.

[nostatic]

why is it that many "pro-life" are also "pro-death penalty"?

There also is a reasonable question as to when a dividing cell becomes a "baby." For me it is when there is viability outside the mother. I am against late-term abortions. My opinion, ymmv. But a male can't really understand what a woman goes through during the whole thing. Yes, he has his own "issues" to deal with, but it isnt' the same. The whole "I know best.." or "God says..." is paternalistic hubris and bs imho.

[frogger]

I thought this was interesting:

Catholics and Protestants have abortion rates that are roughly commensurate with their share of the population.
• Catholics represent 24% of the population and 27% of those having abortions — roughly 350,000 per year.
• Protestants represent 49% of the population and 43% of those having abortions — roughly 560,000 per year.
• 13% of those having abortions are self-described Born-Again or Evangelical Christians — roughly 170,000 per year.

Whassup?

[berettafan]

'right to choose what to do with her own body' is a bogus statement when it concerns a child.

this is the big lie of the pro-choice side. they want the entire discussion based on a premise that is wrong! it's not the woman's body, it is a child. a human being.

[lendaddy]

Maybe when the child can pass a low level cognitive test?

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

"Thou shall not kill" is pretty universal, is it not? I hope we can agree on that one, that murder is immoral and illegal.

Pro choice amounts to saying that you can kill the child because it's yours, and developing inside your body. It's selective morality, because you're starting to make exceptions, times when it is ok to kill.

To me Thou shalt not kill is pretty universal. But to others we know it is not. Our society, rightly I believe, values life more than some others. Nothing wrong with that. I can not wrap my head around their way of thinking. Can't justify it in any way.

There may come a time in my life that I need to make a very personal life altering decision that will affect me forever. I don't want my options limited by your moral code even if it is the same as mine. If I break my moral code I have to live with the consequences of it, not you. You don't have to live with the consequences of forcing me to comply with your code, I do.

That's where you and I part on the topic.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by frogger

I thought this was interesting:

Catholics and Protestants have abortion rates that are roughly commensurate with their share of the population.
• Catholics represent 24% of the population and 27% of those having abortions — roughly 350,000 per year.
• Protestants represent 49% of the population and 43% of those having abortions — roughly 560,000 per year.
• 13% of those having abortions are self-described Born-Again or Evangelical Christians — roughly 170,000 per year.

Whassup?

It's called hypocrisy, how does that change the argument?

[frogger]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Maybe when the child can pass a low level cognitive test?

You mean like performing a valve adjustment on a 911?