How "pro-life" is it to deny the sacrament?

[Whateverman]

It brings us back to the point from 500 posts ago: women are called "murderers" when they think they should have the right to protect themselves (their bodies, their livelihoods, or even perceived risks), while men are heralded as heroes when they shoot someone who was no risk to themselves.

I don't think that analogy holds water. It's not completely unreasonable, but I can't imagine (and have never seen) a woman treating a pregnancy as a grave threat to her life and limb. Yes, I can admit there must be extreme situations in which this applies, but not in the general sense; a fetus is not a threat in (anywhere near the) same sense that a robber/mugger/intruder is.

Please understand: I'm only rejecting the analogy. I'm totally on-board with women having the moral right to terminate their own pregnancy.

ps. WRT that latter sentence, I don't believe that right should be absolute, but that's a different subject which I wont bring up here. It's the difference between being 100% pro-choice and believing that there are circumstances in which abortion can be a moral wrong/evil.

 

[Temujin]

I don't think that analogy holds water. It's not completely unreasonable, but I can't imagine (and have never seen) a woman treating a pregnancy as a grave threat to her life and limb. Yes, I can admit there must be extreme situations in which this applies, but not in the general sense; a fetus is not a threat in (anywhere near the) same sense that a robber/mugger/intruder is.

Please understand: I'm only rejecting the analogy. I'm totally on-board with women having the moral right to terminate their own pregnancy.

ps. WRT that latter sentence, I don't believe that right should be absolute, but that's a different subject which I wont bring up here. It's the difference between being 100% pro-choice and believing that there are circumstances in which abortion can be a moral wrong/evil.

I don't believe ANY right should be absolute. Except freedom from torture. There are no circumstances when that's justified. Every other right I can think of can be qualified in some way.

 

[Whateverman]

I don't believe ANY right should be absolute. Except freedom from torture. There are no circumstances when that's justified. Every other right I can think of can be qualified in some way.

Quite right. Speaking only for myself, I think it's really important to establish that there are more than two views in the abortion debate (aka. pro vs con). It's a complicated subject, and the reality is that opinions from both sides are often shaded gray; different people believe abortion should be allowed/prevented in different circumstances.

I was simply taking pains to be sure readers understand my position isn't a stereotype.

 

[Temujin]

It varies by state. As far as I know, most states don't have anything specific written into law. States that have "reasonable force" laws have them written in such a way to protect (pardon my bluntness here, but) white men. For example, if a white man shoots a black man when the black man wasn't doing anything, he'll say, "I thought he was a burglar" and get away with it. Because those in power say, "Well, gosh, that's reasonable. I mean, he LOOKS like a burglar." But if a black man shoots a white man, even to protect his life, he gets killed on sight.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be. On the contrary, it's very, very wrong. But I've seen it happen with my own eyes, and anyone who claims this doesn't happen isn't paying attention.



I suspect there are probably more than what gets reported.



And here it is.

It brings us back to the point from 500 posts ago: women are called "murderers" when they think they should have the right to protect themselves (their bodies, their livelihoods, or even perceived risks), while men are heralded as heroes when they shoot someone who was no risk to themselves.

Thank you for this information. I would also commend you for demonstrating that abortion is not a straight religious issue. There are sincere Christians and sincere atheists on both sides of the argument. The most difficult part seems to be getting those on each side to admit that the other side has any moral case at all. That doesn't apply to you, but sadly it does to many here, particularly on the "pro-life" side. I think we were lucky in the UK that the promoter and champion of the Abortion Act 1966 was a sincere Christian and son of the manse. That took a lot of the religious heat out of the discussion. It was still touch and go at the time, though now you would be hard-pressed to find any significant public figure who was anti-abortion.

 

[Temujin]

Quite right. Speaking only for myself, I think it's really important to establish that there are more than two views in the abortion debate (aka. pro vs con). It's a complicated subject, and the reality is that opinions from both sides are often shaded gray; different people believe abortion should be allowed/prevented in different circumstances.

I was simply taking pains to be sure readers understand my position isn't a stereotype.

I agree. It's the constant focus on stereotype that prevents any possibility of compromise.

 

[BMS]

I agree. It's the constant focus on stereotype that prevents any possibility of compromise.

Pro-choice abortion is where the mother can kill her own offspring by choice. In principle its a mentally retarded piece of hatred.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

The next time someone breaks into your home to murder you, perhaps the government will just let that remain between you and your murderer...

"Choice" Glob of cells.

 

[Temujin]

Pro-choice abortion is where the mother can kill her own offspring by choice. In principle its a mentally retarded piece of hatred.

You prove my point again. If only you were so good at proving your own assertions.

 

[HillsboroMom]

...but I can't imagine (and have never seen) a woman treating a pregnancy as a grave threat to her life and limb.

You can't?

You've obviously never been a woman before.

I have been in at least two situations in which I would be kicked out of my home if it was discovered that I was pregnant. And I'm a middle-class white person. How much more common is this for women who are not as privileged as I am?

Yes, I can admit there must be extreme situations in which this applies, but not in the general sense; a fetus is not a threat in (anywhere near the) same sense that a robber/mugger/intruder is.

In most cases, yes.

In some cases, simply being pregnant can be a death sentence.

Most importantly, while a woman may not literally be in mortal danger, she may feel as if there is no choice (for whatever reason). If we had universal health care, I'd be a little less adamant that abortion remain completely unfettered.

It's the difference between being 100% pro-choice and believing that there are circumstances in which abortion can be a moral wrong/evil.

I believe that abortion is almost always morally wrong. And I've had one.

I just think that sometimes it's the least evil choice in a sea of evil choices.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Because it is legal. The commandment does not abjure legal killing. There are other reasons why abortion is not murder, but they don't involve the comparison.

So was the Holocaust legal. and murder

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Abortion is a Marxist religious sacrament.

 

[Whateverman]

Most importantly, while a woman may not literally be in mortal danger, she may feel as if there is no choice (for whatever reason).

But this just reiterates that my objection of the analogy was justified. The threat from someone assaulting you is a mortal threat, and you don't react to it as "I don't have any choice". You react to the threat; period.

Again, my objection is to the analogy, not a woman's right to choose to abort her baby.

I believe that abortion is almost always morally wrong. And I've had one.

I just think that sometimes it's the least evil choice in a sea of evil choices.

That's interesting. I don't think I believe as you do, in that an abortion can often be morally neutral (and in a few rare circumstances, a moral good). Almost always regrettable, yes, but not necessarily morally-wrong. Moral wrongness, in my view, would increase the longer the baby gestates, until it would be absolutely wrong to abort. That of course is my opinion, rather than a disagreement.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence, though. It's the one reason that I've never advocated for an abortion in my own relationships; it's almost always good to explore alternatives (including letting the woman make the choice completely on her own).

 

[HillsboroMom]

Moral wrongness, in my view, would increase the longer the baby gestates, until it would be absolutely wrong to abort.

I'm not sure I can put a judgement on it like this.

The only time a woman aborts late in the gestation is for medical issues. I don't believe there have been any cases where a woman didn't want to keep a baby, and waited until the 3rd trimester, just because. No, when an abortion happens that late, it's because the mother had every intention to keep the child, but something has gone wrong. Horribly wrong. At this point, the parents have probably picked out names, purchased the crib, thrown the baby shower.

And then they get the news. The child cannot survive. It won't make it to term. And if it is allowed to continue, the mother will never be able to conceive again.

Yet some people think this is not reason enough. They would deny the parents the right to end the child's life in such a way that they might spare some pain to both mother and child.

I'll say it again: the anti-choice side is not pro-life.

 

[Whateverman]

I'm not sure I can put a judgement on it like this.

The only time a woman aborts late in the gestation is for medical issues. I don't believe there have been any cases where a woman didn't want to keep a baby, and waited until the 3rd trimester, just because. No, when an abortion happens that late, it's because the mother had every intention to keep the child, but something has gone wrong. Horribly wrong. At this point, the parents have probably picked out names, purchased the crib, thrown the baby shower.

And then they get the news. The child cannot survive. It won't make it to term. And if it is allowed to continue, the mother will never be able to conceive again.

Yet some people think this is not reason enough. They would deny the parents the right to end the child's life in such a way that they might spare some pain to both mother and child.

I'll say it again: the anti-choice side is not pro-life.

That's true. Anti-choice or pro-birth - but not "pro-life"

ps. thanks again for a good exchange of ideas. I'd expect this from you on a normal/average day, but lately, the forum has gotten even more contentious (where I didn't think that was possible) - so I'm going out of my way to highlight basic civility between people who don't necessarily agree on every issue. Many here seem to reject the very idea...

Thanks for helping to keep this place sane

 

[Temujin]

So was the Holocaust legal. and murder

No, the Holocaust was not legal. Its perpetrators were tried, convicted and hanged.

 

[BMS]

No, the Holocaust was not legal. Its perpetrators were tried, convicted and hanged.

Of course in Nazi Germany it was legal. You only agree with what us legal in the country you favor if you agree with the law.

 

[Temujin]

Of course in Nazi Germany it was legal. You only agree with what us legal in the country you favor if you agree with the law.

International law supercedes Nazi Germany. International law has nothing to say on abortion, so national laws apply. You fail again.

 

[BMS]

I'm not sure I can put a judgement on it like this.

The only time a woman aborts late in the gestation is for medical issues. I don't believe there have been any cases where a woman didn't want to keep a baby, and waited until the 3rd trimester, just because. No, when an abortion happens that late, it's because the mother had every intention to keep the child, but something has gone wrong. Horribly wrong. At this point, the parents have probably picked out names, purchased the crib, thrown the baby shower.

And then they get the news. The child cannot survive. It won't make it to term. And if it is allowed to continue, the mother will never be able to conceive again.

Yet some people think this is not reason enough. They would deny the parents the right to end the child's life in such a way that they might spare some pain to both mother and child.

I'll say it again: the anti-choice side is not pro-life.

What woman? Start to talk about the unborn human AS WELL or we wont communicate with you any more

 

[BMS]

International law supercedes Nazi Germany. International law has nothing to say on abortion, so national laws apply. You fail again.

Fail you fail again you fail evey time so at least you are 100% which I suppose is something

 

[Temujin]

What woman? Start to talk about the unborn human AS WELL or we wont communicate with you any more

I wish.