Abortion due to gender.

[Pro-Life_Teen]

I don’t see where you’re getting this. Abstaining is too costly, sex is fun and cutting it out of one’s life is too high a price to pay. I’m not saying women are unable to abstain, I’m saying abstaining would lead to a too great reduction in one’s quality of life.

Too great a reduction to whose life? Unmarried promiscuous women shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. Married women can certainly manage to abstain if the need is great enough. Or using very conservative NFP, if a pregnancy would be an issue to health.

However, I would urge women using abortion as a back up to birth control to have their abortions in the first trimester, which is probably what happens anyway. I think enjoying sex is reason enough to possibly abort a first trimester fetus

Enjoy sex is reason enough to possibly kill one’s little child? That is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read. For one- you can have sex while you’re pregnant. If you for some reason are having sex and can’t be pregnant at the moment, but find yourself such, you should deal with it. It’s a child- your baby. You do not have the right to murder them for something as petty as wishing to have more sex.

What sort of twisted married woman would it be that does that? Yes, married, unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well, I set up that example to illustrate that people don’t believe that all humans are equal. I don’t think you think this either. If you had a newly fertilized egg and an adult human being and only one could live, and you had to choose which one, would you really flip a coin?

But the one you set up more accurately reflects abortion without health/life reasons.

If I had a newly fertlized egg, it would be in my uterus, and I probably wouldn’t know of it’s existence. How could that impede me from saving some other person?

 

[kimmielittle]

You’re very hard to talk to, so don’t be upset if i no longer respond to your posts.

 

[shannyk]

I don’t see where you’re getting this. Abstaining is too costly, sex is fun and cutting it out of one’s life is too high a price to pay. I’m not saying women are unable to abstain, I’m saying abstaining would lead to a too great reduction in one’s quality of life.

However, I would urge women using abortion as a back up to birth control to have their abortions in the first trimester, which is probably what happens anyway. I think enjoying sex is reason enough to possibly abort a first trimester fetus.

Ah. The truth comes out.

flyingfish, I have an OT question for you…I know you are Canadian, what kind of schooling did you have growing up? Catholic or not? Just curious.

 

[flyingfish]

If I had a newly fertlized egg, it would be in my uterus, and I probably wouldn’t know of it’s existence. How could that impede me from saving some other person?

It’s a contrived hypothetical. Say it was one of those eggs fertilized in a lab and now in a petri dish in a room with an adult woman and a man who says he will kill one of them but you have to say which. (If you say nothing, he kills them both and you and himself, say… so you have to choose!).

 

[ContegoFides]

However, I would urge women using abortion as a back up to birth control to have their abortions in the first trimester, which is probably what happens anyway. I think enjoying sex is reason enough to possibly abort a first trimester fetus.

Wow… are you serious?

I’m struck by how blythely you state that enjoying sex is reason enough to have an abortion. Even the die hard pro-aborts I’ve seen know that abortion is very difficult on a woman and can have very serious complications. That for enjoying sex? Forget about the fact you appear to propose that enjoying sex is worth more than someone’s life.

The degree of narcissism and self-centeredness reflected in such a statement is simply mind-boggling. Seriously. Enjoying sex is a reason to undergo the trauma of abortion? Have you seen the ultrasounds of an abortion procedure, where the baby fights for its life? Enjoying sex is worth more than that?

I was originally motivated to post based on what I saw regarding the OP - the notion of having abortions to pick a gender. I was going to say that the whole problem is in the misplaced premise that children are objects for us to obtain.

But this just blows me away.

 

[flyingfish]

Ah. The truth comes out.

Well it’s only part of the truth, but yes, I think sex is important enough to take the risk of killing a 1st trimester fetus if need be if for some reason the woman can’t carry the pregnancy to term (say either as a result of health issues, or financial issues or whatever).

But ideally, if the couple uses contraception well (whether NFP or artificial) this situation should only arise very rarely, since there are plenty of methods with a very high effectiveness rate.

flyingfish, I have an OT question for you…I know you are Canadian, what kind of schooling did you have growing up? Catholic or not? Just curious.

Public schooling, I never attended Catholic school.

 

[flyingfish]

Wow… are you serious?

I’m struck by how blythely you state that enjoying sex is reason enough to have an abortion. Even the die hard pro-aborts I’ve seen know that abortion is very difficult on a woman and can have very serious complications. That for enjoying sex? Forget about the fact you appear to propose that enjoying sex is worth more than someone’s life.

The degree of narcissism and self-centeredness reflected in such a statement is simply mind-boggling. Seriously. Enjoying sex is a reason to undergo the trauma of abortion? Have you seen the ultrasounds of an abortion procedure, where the baby fights for its life? Enjoying sex is worth more than that?

I was originally motivated to post based on what I saw regarding the OP - the notion of having abortions to pick a gender. I was going to say that the whole problem is in the misplaced premise that children are objects for us to obtain.

But this just blows me away.

I’ll give you an extreme situation, so you are not as outraged.

In another ongoing thread on this forum a man’s wife would stand a high chance of dying were she to get pregnant. Do I think they should stop having sex? No, that would be damaging to them and damaging to their marriage. However, if his wife happened to get pregnant, I think she would be justified in having an abortion.

(But it’s true I would also support the right for an abortion in less extreme cases, including one where the woman simply doesn’t want additional children.)

 

[kimmielittle]

Too great a reduction to whose life? Unmarried promiscuous women shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. Married women can certainly manage to abstain if the need is great enough. Or using very conservative NFP, if a pregnancy would be an issue to health.

Enjoy sex is reason enough to possibly kill one’s little child? That is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read. For one- you can have sex while you’re pregnant. If you for some reason are having sex and can’t be pregnant at the moment, but find yourself such, you should deal with it. It’s a child- your baby. You do not have the right to murder them for something as petty as wishing to have more sex.

What sort of twisted married woman would it be that does that? Yes, married, unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex.

 

[ContegoFides]

I’ll give you an extreme situation, so you are not as outraged.

In another ongoing thread on this forum a man’s wife would stand a high chance of dying were she to get pregnant. Do I think they should stop having sex? No, that would be damaging to them and damaging to their marriage. However, if his wife happened to get pregnant, I think she would be justified in having an abortion.

(But it’s true I would also support the right for an abortion in less extreme cases, including one where the woman simply doesn’t want additional children.)

How can another situation that has nothing to do with the original proposition reduce the horror of the statement that the fleeting pleasure of sex is worth more than the trauma of abortion? And we are accused of being obsessed with sex. I won’t be distracted by that other issue, so I will stick to this one without addressing the other.

I think this debate has less to do with sex or abortion rights as it does about your feelings regarding sex and the philosophy of the priority of self over all. How else could such a statement be justified? The only way the original statement cannot be seen as anything but overt evil is if personal choice were the paradigm for determining what is good.

Even deeper than that I sense a rage against the Catholic Church, a rage born of pain and heartache; a rage hidden in the guise of reason. You describe yourself as an ex-catholic agnostic, so something happened in the past.

I have experienced rejection in the Church. If what I say is true, then I can say that I empathize with you - even if I have no idea what the real underlying issue is for you.

I also get the sense that you will not be convinced in a public forum like this. I think you have too much self vested in these argument.

If you are willing, and you really want to engage in a debate of principles, then send me a private message. I can show through logic that faith in God and in his loving Church is reasonable and rational. Please do so. Might be a day or so as I have to go soon.

 

[flyingfish]

How can another situation that has nothing to do with the original proposition reduce the horror of the statement that the fleeting pleasure of sex is worth more than the trauma of abortion? And we are accused of being obsessed with sex. I won’t be distracted by that other issue, so I will stick to this one without addressing the other.

Just so you know, I wasn’t talking about one act of sex, but an entire life of having sex (in the context of a marriage, if you will). A woman may not be in the position to have a child, whether it’s because her health is too frail to withstand a pregnancy, because her family is far too poor to sustain another child, because she is in school and can’t take time off.

I do think sex is a basic human need, and abstaining from sex for a long period of time (entire fertile period of some 35 years for a woman who would risk losing her life if pregnant) is too big a sacrifice, and justifies having sex and possibly having an abortion at some point in the course of a life.

This was in response to another poster’s claim that the woman has the choice to abstain.

 

[kimmielittle]

How can another situation that has nothing to do with the original proposition reduce the horror of the statement that the fleeting pleasure of sex is worth more than the trauma of abortion? And we are accused of being obsessed with sex. I won’t be distracted by that other issue, so I will stick to this one without addressing the other.

I think this debate has less to do with sex or abortion rights as it does about your feelings regarding sex and the philosophy of the priority of self over all. How else could such a statement be justified? The only way the original statement cannot be seen as anything but overt evil is if personal choice were the paradigm for determining what is good.

Even deeper than that I sense a rage against the Catholic Church, a rage born of pain and heartache; a rage hidden in the guise of reason. You describe yourself as an ex-catholic agnostic, so something happened in the past.

I have experienced rejection in the Church. If what I say is true, then I can say that I empathize with you - even if I have no idea what the real underlying issue is for you.

I also get the sense that you will not be convinced in a public forum like this. I think you have too much self vested in these argument.

If you are willing, and you really want to engage in a debate of principles, then send me a private message. I can show through logic that faith in God and in his loving Church is reasonable and rational. Please do so. Might be a day or so as I have to go soon.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Just so you know, I wasn’t talking about one act of sex, but an entire life of having sex (in the context of a marriage, if you will). A woman may not be in the position to have a child, whether it’s because her health is too frail to withstand a pregnancy, because her family is far too poor to sustain another child, because she is in school and can’t take time off.

I do think sex is a basic human need, and abstaining from sex for a long period of time (entire fertile period of some 35 years for a woman who would risk losing her life if pregnant) is too big a sacrifice, and justifies having sex and possibly having an abortion at some point in the course of a life.

This was in response to another poster’s claim that the woman has the choice to abstain.

Sex is a human need in the fact that sex is necessary to continue human life, future generations of humans.

Sex is not an individual human need, like food, shelter or water. I could die without food, water or shelter. No one dies due to lack of sex.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Well, I like avoiding STD’s, irresponsible misogynistic guys, broken condoms, hormonal pills, pregnancy, and possible heartache. If abstaining from sex lowers my quality of life, I’d hate to see what it’s like if I’m actually having sex.

Aborting a baby because sex is fun, telling everyone to have only one child so you don’t have to give up any environmentally taxing comforts, saying it’s better to have one child and pay for their entire education than to give a child siblings…look, I get that poverty is bad (hence my desire to fight against it) but this is even worse.

Catholics are obsessed with sex? We’re the ones recognizing that relationships need to be built on more than just sex, that there are times when sex just isn’t possible, that self-control is necessary (not just in sex but in other areas), that it should only be used in a way that respects the bodies of both spouses…Yet, abortion’s OK because sex is fun?

 

[flyingfish]

Yet, abortion’s OK because sex is fun?

I think abortion is okay because the needs and wants (including sex) of an individual with a mind override the continued existence of a mindless organism. If a woman wants to have sex, but doesn’t want to go through a pregnancy, I think she is justified in having an abortion. yes.

 

[LittleSoldier]

why not? in your estimation it’s not even a person, I guess that would make it a thing? So why not let it die in a trash can, using your moral standards, I really can’t think of a convincing justification for not doing this whenever convinent.

Flyingfish,

What difference does it make if an infant starves to death in a trash can? Isn’t a trash can where we throw what we don’t want, what is useless, what is garbage?

The infant won’t know she is dying. The infant won’t know she is an infant. So why not just let her die? Who cares? She doesn’t have a mind, according to you.

But what will happen is that a human being will suffer needlessly. This particular human being, lying in a trash can amidst beer cans, parts of rotting hamburgers, and cockroaches, will starve to death - a death which is slow and agonizing. It is quite possible that parts of her (her nose, her ears, her tongue) will be nibbled on by rats and insects while she is still alive. She will be very cold and very alone, so soon after being warm and fed in her mother’s womb.

But she doesn’t have a mind, so she’s not a person, according to you.

That is just so sad. How can people be so cruel?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[flyingfish]

Flyingfish,

What difference does it make if an infant starves to death in a trash can? Isn’t a trash can where we throw what we don’t want, what is useless, what is garbage?

The infant won’t know she is dying. The infant won’t know she is an infant. So why not just let her die? Who cares? She doesn’t have a mind, according to you.

But what will happen is that a human being will suffer needlessly. This particular human being, lying in a trash can amidst beer cans, parts of rotting hamburgers, and cockroaches, will starve to death - a death which is slow and agonizing. It is quite possible that parts of her (her nose, her ears) will be nibbled on by rats while she is still alive. She will be very cold and very alone, so soon after being warm and fed in her mother’s womb.

But she doesn’t have a mind, so she’s not a person, according to you.

That is just so sad. How can people be so cruel?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

Sigh, I never said it’s okay to throw infants you don’t want into trash cans. I said they should be given up for adoption…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t see where you’re getting this. Abstaining is too costly, sex is fun and cutting it out of one’s life is too high a price to pay. I’m not saying women are unable to abstain, I’m saying abstaining would lead to a too great reduction in one’s quality of life.

However, I would urge women using abortion as a back up to birth control to have their abortions in the first trimester, which is probably what happens anyway. I think enjoying sex is reason enough to possibly abort a first trimester fetus.

This is the most disgusting, uncharitable post I have ever read in this or any forum. The truth rears its ugly head.

SEX IS FUN, everyone! SEX IS SO MUCH FUN THAT IT JUSTIFIES KILLING A CHILD JUST SO THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE SEX WITHOUT ANYTHING GETTING IN MY WAY.

Wow - women are such stupid creatures, off rutting without any regard to the consequences, like a couple of rabbits. No, I take that back. Rabbits don’t procure abortions. My apologies to the rabbits.

It always seems to come back to sex. I wonder why that is.

I apologize for my use of upper case letters. I try to stay away from that, but in this case I feel it’s appropriate to shout.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.