I know this because it’s common sense. If pregnant women don’t have the right to abortions then they have less rights than corpses and a fetus would have more rights than any other human, and that wouldn’t be right.How do you know this? Does your church teach it? Where did you learn that you can murder the child you created through your own freely chosen act - an act designed to produce children!
I believe that murdering an innocent can in no circumstances be a moral act. Your Church, from my quick investigation, is willing to make some exceptions, but nothing like the open slather approach you adopt. In fact, few if any Christian Churches, have the same view of “common sense” that you do.I know this because it’s common sense. If pregnant women don’t have the right to abortions then they have less rights than corpses and a fetus would have more rights than any other human, and that wouldn’t be right.
Do you agree that abortions are acceptable for rape victims? If you don’t then ‘it was your choice so abortion is bad’ doesn’t make sense.
I’m not the member of any Church.I believe that murdering an innocent can in no circumstances be a moral act. Your Church, from my quick investigation, is willing to make some exceptions, but nothing like the open slather approach you adopt. In fact, few if any Christian Churches, have the same view of “common sense” that you do.
I don’t really know if I understand this. If you’re asking if I think that it’s moral to get an abortion after getting pregnant from consensual sex, then yes.Murdering you own child, not the product of rape, seems to compound the evil, since you freely embarked on the course that you knew could give rise to the child you wished to avoid. You murder the child that you yourself placed into mortal danger (being committed to abortion) all the while denying any responsibility for events, or duty to the child. To do that is to adopt the position that the child is a “nothing”, no more than a cancer, doing you wrong.
You declare religion Baptist. Whether you participate is a separate question I guess. I thought you might at least be influenced by their beliefs.I’m not the member of any Church.
I suspect you understand. Im asking you nothing. I’m stating the implications of your position. You argue it is OK to create a child, immediately placing them in mortal danger (given your a priori intent to abort), and then to in fact murder them, all the while feeling entirely justified in what you have done. .I don’t really know if I understand this. If you’re asking if I think that it’s moral to get an abortion after getting pregnant from consensual sex, then yes.
I answered that previously. There is no situation where murdering an innocent is moral.So you do agree that abortion should be available to rape victims?
I agree with most of that. Although I am not actually trying to get pregnant just so I can get abortions. I am glad that the option is open to me if I ever need it.I suspect you understand. Im asking you nothing. I’m stating the implications of your position. You argue it is OK to create a child, immediately placing them in mortal danger (given your a priori intent to abort), and then to in fact murder them, all the while feeling entirely justified in what you have done.
I think you in fact agree with all of it. **I agree with most of that.
I think you in fact agree with all of it. **
That’s fine. I don’t understand why you keep telling me what I agree with, which is why I was confused.
You do have a point with that.There is a teaching, which says that you must follow your conscious. However, if someone’s conscious says that non-procreative sex is fine, then the teaching immediately changes, and now it says: “you must follow your conscious ONLY if it is well-formed”. And when one asks what is a well-formed conscious, then the answer is: “your conscious is well-formed if it follows what the church says”. So why worry about this “conscious”? It is superfluous. The teaching could be abbreviated to: “you must follow whatever the church says”.
Whether you in fact fully understood the implications of your position was not evident to me. Now I see that you do.That’s fine. I don’t understand why you keep telling me what I agree with, which is why I was confused.
That’s fine. I am glad to possibly inspire other readers.Whether you in fact fully understood the implications of your position was not evident to me. Now I see that you do.
And I would hope for other readers to also see the implications of the behaviour to which you assert a right *(on no basis other than your personal assessment of “common sense”, which vast number of others, including most if not all Christian Churches, reject - and thus is plainly **not ***“common”).
That’s a non sequitur. Your assertion of what is common sense does not override the fact that what is not widely held is by definition not “common”.That’s fine. I am glad to possibly inspire other readers.
And I already know that most Christians reject common sense, you don’t need to tell me that.
Abortion denies the right to life of the unborn.Main argument is that refusing an abortion is giving a fetus more rights than someone who has already been born (including giving them more rights than the mother). I’m glad that abortion is legal so it is there if I ever want one in the future.
A mother is not allowed to survive using someone else’s body without their consent but a fetus is (according to pro-lifers).Abortion denies the right to life of the unborn.
How is protecting that right, giving more rights to the unborn, than to the mother carrying the child? The mother has the right to life. It is illegal to kill women.
The unborn baby should have at least it’s mother protecting it.
Very good questions.I think PROLIFE seem to be “unfairly” heavy on woman’s responsibility in this “oversexed society” where porn, and free sex is encouranged by culture of men.
I know that abortion is wrong and I try not to defend it, though I can see why women need the right to own their body because as a woman I know pregnancy and raising a child is a superheavy responsibility and you have to have love in your heart to raise a child.
Women who are not loved, they just not capable to give love either, therefore abortion.
So I’m wondering: what PROLIFE FOR MEN means?
Does Prolife enforce the law for MEN to support the child?
If an adult woman decide to abort her pregnancy because the man refuse to support her/ refuse the responsibility, what is catholic position regarding the man’s culpability of the murder of the fetus?
Mothers and fathers a called to the same end. Love God and neighbor.I think PROLIFE seem to be “unfairly” heavy on woman’s responsibility in this “oversexed society” where porn, and free sex is encouranged by culture of men.
I know that abortion is wrong and I try not to defend it, though I can see why women need the right to own their body because as a woman I know pregnancy and raising a child is a superheavy responsibility and you have to have love in your heart to raise a child.
Women who are not loved, they just not capable to give love either, therefore abortion.
So I’m wondering: what PROLIFE FOR MEN means?
Does Prolife enforce the law for MEN to support the child?
If an adult woman decide to abort her pregnancy because the man refuse to support her/ refuse the responsibility, what is catholic position regarding the man’s culpability of the murder of the fetus?
Only if you state first that donating blood is above human life. Which is no truer than self autonomy is above human life.I’m sure that is true for some people but that wasn’t what I meant.
That’s like saying that the ultimate conclusion of the right to choose not to donate blood is that it’s better to be killed than to have to do so.
The right to choose not to donate blood is above the life of the person who needs the blood.Only if you state first that donating blood is above human life. Which is no truer than self autonomy is above human life.