"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[Angel4Truth]

Might a poor family that can barely feed itself not see another child as a good thing but another mouth to feed in time of famine that makes everyone starve?

And I assumed that the woman in my example was married, but not in control of her reproductive rights. Your arguments revolve around rich western lifestyles. Not everyone lives like you.

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

In 2010, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).


In 2010, 55.6% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.7% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 7.7% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).

Among women who obtained abortions in 2010, 40.3% had no prior live births; 45.9% had one or two prior live births, and 13.8% had three or more prior live births (CDC).

This from the CDC blows your argument to shreds, most women who have them arent having them because they have too many mouths to feed, sorry.

 

[quip]

Contraception is a human right? Contraception is the result of the twisted liberal idea that families need to be small, something nobody ever thought until about the 20th century. Its also the result of the acceptance of fornication. If sex were between a husband and wife as it should be, and children were viewed by them as blessings as they should be, the issue would be moot.

Personal economic circumstances (lower wage jobs; two parent providers, employer greed) dictates smaller families and the financial need to keep it that way. Contraception will succeed or fail in a capitalist market like any other....all of these are hardly the result of liberal factors...yes?

 

[mighty_duck]

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

In 2010, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).


In 2010, 55.6% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.7% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 7.7% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).

Among women who obtained abortions in 2010, 40.3% had no prior live births; 45.9% had one or two prior live births, and 13.8% had three or more prior live births (CDC).

This from the CDC blows your argument to shreds, most women who have them arent having them because they have too many mouths to feed, sorry.

How does your conclusion follow from the statistics you quoted??

 

[Angel4Truth]

How does your conclusion follow from the statistics you quoted??

her/his argument was that it was about having too many mouths to feed, those statistics show that pretty false

 

[mighty_duck]

her/his argument was that it was about having too many mouths to feed, those statistics show that pretty false

How?

I see that 85% of abortions are performed out of wedlock, and 60% already have at least one child. If anything, while not conclusively proving gcthomas's argument, I would argue the statistics strengthen their argument.

How do they "show that pretty false"?

 

[mighty_duck]

Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o....www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o....www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

I killed my baby because I spent too much money on shoes, makeup and McDonalds.

Has a nice ring to it.

I guess they never thought of giving the child to an adoption agency? That pretty much wipes out the "I couldn't afford a baby" defense.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Three Ways Christians Rationalize Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates
Stand Firm | Three Ways Christians Rationalize Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates

I’ve been engaged in a number of conversations lately with Christians—some of them well known orthodox Anglican thinkers and leaders—trying to justify their support for pro-abortion politicians and candidates. In almost every exchange I’ve run into slightly different forms of the same three arguments

The first goes something like this: “I agree that abortion is wrong but we cannot legislate moral choices. Instead, why don’t we simply focus on preaching the gospel. Only changed hearts will bring about a changed culture.”

The logic behind this rationalization is stunningly bad—so bad it’s hard to answer without a tinge of incredulity and exasperation. But here’s a paraphrased summary of my most common response: Right you are about changed hearts. But why the false dichotomy? One might as well say: “I agree that killing toddlers is wrong, but we cannot legislate moral choices.” Sure we can and we must. Not only do we proclaim the gospel and pray that God’s grace will change hearts and change the culture but we also put laws on the books that prevent people from killing their children.

Both/and not either/or.

The second rationalization employs logic every bit as bad if not worse than the first but a little more subtle. It goes something like this: “Yes, abortion is a great evil and yet it is merely one great evil alongside poverty, injustice, inadequate health-care and preemptive war. Why take this one great evil and elevate it above the others? I vote for the candidate who will, overall, do the most good. Every once in a while, that will mean voting for a pro-choice politician.”

The trick to this justification is to make abortion “just like” an ineffective economic policy or the failure of a particular party to resolve the health-care crisis or engaging in what some consider an unjust war. While all of these things do indeed result in destructive consequences for many people, the radical difference between abortion and any of them is that abortion is the purposeful killing of a human being. The others might result in death for many innocent people but such a result is accidental not purposeful. No free-world politician sets out purposefully to design an economic policy to kill people. Abortion has only that purpose and only that end. Comparing abortion to bad economic policy is like comparing the inept driver who accidentally swerves into oncoming traffic and kills another driver to the very good driver who purposefully drives into a crowd on the sidewalk at full speed.

In an article posted on the Christian Research Institute website Scott Klusendorf writes:

“Are pro-life advocates focused too narrowly on abortion? After all, informed voters consider many issues, not just one.

Of course abortion isn’t the only issue-any more than the treatment of slaves wasn’t the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day. Thoughtful Christians attribute different importance to different issues, and give greater weight to fundamental moral questions. For example, if a man running for president told us that men had a right to beat their wives, most people would see that as reason enough to reject him, despite his expertise on foreign policy or economic reforms. The foundational principle of our republic is that all humans are equal in their fundamental dignity. What issue could be more important than that? You might as well blame politicians like Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for focusing too narrowly on defeating the Nazis, to the neglect of other issues.”​

The truth is that the ongoing , purposeful, legalized killing of innumerable unborn infants in the United States is a moral crime of such depravity that genocide, slavery, and mass murder provide the only the only legitimate comparisons.

The third rationalization involves a kind of paradigm shift. “The question is not,” some will say, “whether abortion is right or wrong. It is manifestly wrong. The question is who gets to decide? Is it right to give such power to the national government. Shouldn’t these kinds of decisions be left to the mother, the one who carries the greatest burden in caring for the unborn child? A one month old ‘fetus’ can’t survive after all unless the mother sacrifices her body to care for it? Shouldn’t she be the one who ultimately decides whether she can “

On the one hand the argument is an attempt to piggy-back on the increasingly prominent libertarian sentiment among conservatives. “Hey, if you really support less government why would you want the state getting involved in a woman’s womb?” On the other hand the argument suggests that the right to live ought to be determined by the measure of a human being’s independence.

The “libertarian” justification betrays an implicit denial of the unborn baby’s humanity. If, in fact, the unborn baby is “a baby”, then whether or not to kill it cannot be a decision left to the mother or father or both. Not even Ron Paul, I hope, would want to allow parents to kill toddlers or infants or retarded children. All these rightly enjoy the protection of the national government and the law. It should not be different for an unborn baby since “baby” it is. To argue otherwise is to implicitly accept the secularist position that a newly conceived human is somehow less human than than we are—a position both genetically and biblically repugnant.

Likewise, if we are going to define the right to live using independence or autonomy as the measure, then we will be opening a very dangerous door. There are many people who cannot survive apart from the care of another. Do they have less right to live than the more autonomous among us? Such reasoning is not very far from the “useless eater” ethics employed by health professionals in early mid-twentieth century central Europe. We are all, in fact, on some level “dependent.” Where do we draw the line? A toddler is more autonomous than a one month old unborn baby but the toddler is far less autonomous than I am. So why draw the line at the unborn month old baby? Why not the toddler? Why not the homebound grandmother? Morally, it makes very little difference. Once you tie human life to autonomy, life becomes very cheap indeed.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o....www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

"cant afford a baby" can be said to cover anything, i was talking about a claim made of "too many mouths to feed already" thats a bit more specific.

 

[resurrected]

Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

because it'd be too embarrassing to admit their selfishness

 

[WizardofOz]

One should acknowledge that it's far more logical to say abortion is preventing a life rather then taking one.

I propose that a cat is more subject to the title 'alive' then a fetus.

:hammer:
'I don't think fetuses are actually alive, therefore abortion must remain legal'.

 

[Granite]

Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o....www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

Poverty needs to be more of a focus for the pro-life movement but I've found they see it as a borderline distasteful subject and one that "liberals" (or whatever) seem to have soured them on. This needs to be fixed.

 

[SammyT]

The actual history of abortion is that even when illegal it was still done extensively but often in unsanitary conditions. I am against abortions but I am even more against making abortion illegal. Oz asks what would change my mind. If our society would put in place protections for women during and after the pregnancy yet do so in a way that did not make it appealing as a way of life (welfare abuse). I seriously doubt that can be done. Especially since it would also require provisions for the children who certainly do not deserve to be born into poverty and a miserable existence. These are tough equations and our leaders seem more inclined to spent trillions on munitions to blow holes in deserts and drones to execute infidels. Are our priorities not a bit off kilter?

You're against abortion but even more against making it illegal? Why & how are you against abortion if you're not for making it illegal?

And according to the law, if a baby is murdered in the womb by someone other than the mother, that's murder. Kill mom too, that's double murder. So why should we have a contradictory position for a mother who is also the murderer of her child? Why should we take into account that when women self-abort that it's unsanitary, even if they die from performing an abortion? To make the law uncontradictory & equal, we would lock the mother up for homicide if she didn't die performing the procedure.

 

[Skybringr]

What are your rationalizations? How do you justify legal abortion? If you're pro-choice, let me know why!

What would it take to change your mind?

Abortion is legal because the feminist lobby demands it. And because everybody and their daddy is a feminist, even if they are also conservative or religious, it's politically incorrect to speak against feminism and by extension such people are inept in speaking against abortion.
~and so it remains~

It's there as a result of society's hypocrisies and contradictory standing.


I'll say this:
Let a woman perform their own abortion in the primal fashion, and I can guarantee they will never do it again or support it. Abortion clinics exist to desensitize women to the unnatural act they desire.

 

[shagster01]

You're against abortion but even more against making it illegal? Why & how are you against abortion if you're not for making it illegal?

So everything you oppose you believe should be illegal?

So this picture actually is a fair representation of you then. . .

 

[SammyT]

So everything you oppose you believe should be illegal?

So this picture actually is a fair representation of you then. . .

No. But abortion should be considered murder & be illegal in my opinion. Especially since if anyone else did the same thing, it would be considered murder.

 

[quip]

I'll say this:
Let a woman perform their own abortion in the primal fashion, and I can guarantee they will never do it again or support it. Abortion clinics exist to desensitize women to the unnatural act they desire.

So, the 'backalley' issue...specifically, the health of the woman is simply hogwash? :dizzy:

 

[SammyT]

So, the 'backalley' issue...specifically, the health of the woman is simply hogwash? :dizzy:

Why should we care about the health complications of someone who just murdered their offspring?

 

[quip]

Why should we care about the health complications of someone who just murdered their offspring?

For the same reason you care about the health care of someone who just murdered their appendix or perhaps their cancerous tumor.

 

[Skybringr]

No. But abortion should be considered murder & be illegal in my opinion. Especially since if anyone else did the same thing, it would be considered murder.

So a women should go to prison for premeditated murder in getting an abortion :doh:

So many preach this, but would never have the stones to actually go through with it because deep down they know it's completely outrageous.



In the 4th century, Spain mandated that a woman who gets an abortion, even if it's to save her life, is to be banned from holy communion for life.
In that era, no communion pretty much meant one was booted out of the Kingdom- they condemned them to Hell, in other words.

What I find extraordinary is that they didn't consider it ~murder~, because ~murderers~ were not barred for life from communion.
They simply had a mortal hatred of abortion_