Why the focus on abortion?

[goout]

goout:

Well thanks for your opinion.

It is not just an opinion that some people consider children a blessing, and other people do not. It is a fact.

You subject human beings to your opinion as to their value.

No, I don’t. I am not qualified to decide or declare what is valuable for you (or anyone else), and what is not. As such I make no declaration about your value system. Of course this cuts both ways. Value is a subjective opinion.

Wow.
so in your opinion, you don’t think we have a duty to feed hungry people, build safe roads, provide welfare for the poor, house the homeless, etc…

You probably know that these things are codified into law in the US, and thankfully the opinion you hold does not carry the day in these matters.

It may have just hit you that we impose values on people ALL DAY LONG.
Welcome.

 

[IQ170]

Wow.
so in your opinion, you don’t think we have a duty to feed hungry people, build safe roads, provide welfare for the poor, house the homeless, etc…

You probably know that these things are codified into law in the US, and thankfully the opinion you hold does not carry the day in these matters.

It may have just hit you that we impose values on people ALL DAY LONG .

What you said has nothing to do with my post. You are so far out that I am going to leave you to your views.

 

[Annie]

I hope your “handle” doesn’t mean your IQ has been tested to be 170…

 

[MamaJewel]

Secondly, she addressed that the uterus’ purpose is for the fetus. Your reproductive system literally constantly prepares itself for a pregnancy. Hence, your biological fetus can claim a right to your uterus. The pro choice tendency to compare this to say, an organ from your mother

Nobody has the right to claim another’s organ for any of their purpose. And tread lightly with this scenario, because it pretty darn looks like a woman’s immune system prepares for a placenta/pregnancy. So is a fetus allowed to claim that too? No. A woman has the right to her autonomy. It does not matter what the biological purpose of her body is. A woman is much more than her biological purpose. To reduce her to her biology subjugates her as a means to an end as a fetal container.

The problem is that we cannot consent to only part of the consequences of an action.

I cannot drink and drive and say, well, I consented to getting tipsy, but not to getting a ticket.

The reason I get a ticket for driving drunk is that I could cause an accident. Can I say, well, I consented to driving impaired, but not to causing an accident? No.

In fact, driving while impaired is illegal precisely because it can lead to an accident. The DUI laws were strengthened because people whose loved ones had been killed in DUI accidents worked to strengthen the laws.

A miscarriage can be a very painful experience. The way to deal with that grief is not to minimize its importance but to go through it. Healing will come.

Drunken driving and sex are two totally different events. You get a ticket when you drink and drive because driving while drunk is against the law.

Having consensual sex between two adults isn’t illegal. And funny thing with drunk driving…a drunk driver can cause vehicular homicide or injury and get jail time. He or she isn’t ordered to make any direct retribution to the victims by handing over the direct use of their body parts.

But you’re implying that a woman has to hand over the use of her body by another human being because she had sex.

 

[Annie]

I am not implying it, I am full out stating it.

The human inside a mother’s womb has a right not to be killed just as his or her mother does.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Nobody has the right to claim another’s organ for any of their purpose.

Wouldn’t this mean that obligations don’t really exist?

 

[MamaJewel]

The next question then, is Capital Punishment then justified? Especially since the offender is an innocent child. Are they entitled to the same normal court hearings and appeals that society would to, say, a murderer?

Umm, are you saying that rape is justified? One human inside of another, get it?
No human being has the right to be inside of another human being without consent at any stage of human existence.

Who mentioned capital punishment?
The courts looked at privacy and pregnancy and decided that abortion is legal under various circumstances.

 

[OSN]

Virgo there has to be an obsession about Abortion, because if not. If we just ignore it, or take it too lightly, laws that were just recently passed in New York , where a fully born child can be killed got slipped into this bill. I am not so bent on things like I.V.F , or contraceptives , an I can understand abortion in the context of either the mother or the baby is going to die an one has to be chosen to live…

But I am totally against willy nilly abortions that Hollywood and the left tries to pretend is NOT what they are referencing but are focusing on life and death choices of the mother or child/ and rape and incest.

I believe beyond a shadow of the doubt that the left wants to treat Abortion as a completely normal medical procedure with no moral qualms what so ever or concern. That if a woman wants to have unprotected sex and becomes pregnant, it isn’t a big deal., just go get an abortion, an more over, the government will pay for it. Because democrats demand that the government pays for it.

There is far more evil lurking in the Democrat party and the left than they care to admit, and if the world sits by idle, and doesn’t stay constantly focused, we end up with Laws being passed like in New York. To allow a child to be murdered after it is born. If the mother chooses.

The irony is, it is still illegal in all 50 states for someone to just randomly commit murder of a child. Criminals still get prosecuted and put on death row for murdering the unborn of a pregnant woman, or children.

So you have to wonder then, why is it okay for democrats to support abortion, but then all of a sudden they have a moral compass on flat out Criminal Murder ?

 

[MamaJewel]

Wouldn’t this mean that obligations don’t really exist?

What do you mean?

The human inside a mother’s womb has a right not to be killed just as his or her mother does.

Many people disagree with that, including the courts.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What do you mean?

I mean no one is entitled to anything that they don’t own.

 

[MamaJewel]

Once conception has occurred, there is an individual, who is alive, and who is separate from his or her mother.

That’s disingenuous.
It is not separate from the woman unless it was conceived in vitro.
While it has distinct DNA, if it has any chance of taking its first breath it is very connected to the woman’s body. Her body better maintain homeostasis for two bodies, or she dies and so does the embryo/fetus.

The very argument that scientifically promotes the embryo/fetus as its own person is the same argument that promotes abortion because one person can’t be forced (legally mandated) to provide direct bodily life support to another human being.

 

[Annie]

Right, because courts never, ever err.

 

[MamaJewel]

But you’re implying that a woman has to hand over the use of her body by another human being because she had sex.

I am not implying it, I am full out stating it

This makes women second class citizens with less rights to their own bodies/lives than a potential .person with no absolute guarantee of being born alive.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

This makes women second class citizens with less rights to their own bodies/lives than a potential .person with no absolute guarantee of being born alive.

She has plenty of other rights.

 

[MamaJewel]

You give a lot of faulty ethical & emotional hardships of ‘with child’ reasons not to be self giving for another human being’s life.

Maybe that’s because I’ve been pregnant 11 times and given birth to 8 living, human beings. I see that you’re sweet and genuinely concerned by the lovely response you wrote. But in my lived experience, and that of most other women I know who have given birth, the ethical, physical, financial, and emotional hardships are real and have life-long impacts on our health and lives so there is nothing faulty about what I wrote.

Peace to you as well.

 

[MamaJewel]

She has plenty of other rights

True. But legally she is entitled to all of the rights that any other individual with capacity has. From a legal pov, a pregnant adult woman with capacity has the same rights as an adult man or non-pregnant adult woman with capacity. Law reduces individual rights when there is criminal activity, not because of pregnancy.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Law reduces individual rights when there is criminal activity, not because of pregnancy.

Then if the law changes that conflict will be resolved.

 

[Lea101]

And tread lightly with this scenario, because it pretty darn looks like a woman’s immune system prepares for a placenta/pregnancy

What is the purpose of the immune system?

What is the purpose of the uterus?

A woman is much more than her biological purpose. To reduce her to her biology subjugates her as a means to an end as a fetal container.

Who’s reducing women? If saying that women killing their children is immoral means that women are now fetal containers to you, it says more about how you view women and mothers. Not me.

Nobody has the right to claim another’s organ for any of their purpose.

Not when the uterus is made to nurture and sustain the woman’s biological child for 9 months, and that preventing that would lead to the death of the child.

Liver, heart, skin, uterus…one of these things is not like the other. One of these things is made specifically for another life. The others are meant for other biological purposes for the person, not another life.

Just saying ‘no, you don’t have a right to anything no matter what’ is not a rebuttal.

Why is the right to bodily autonomy more important than the right to life (the violinist argument is the only decent argument to this, but even then pro lifers have rebutted it)?

What makes bodily autonomy more important than other forms of autonomy. E.g. Financial autonomy?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

My mom gave birth to 10, while I, of course, in no way know what she experienced, hardships & all; she did relate how difficult it could be.
~
Maybe you are trying to say that objective ethics means cold & heartless
regarding someones experience & hardships. While this is not true;
Jesus Christ & The Church teach diligent compassion to minister to persons,
and help through hardships, knowing that God gives the same; and the
close Grace brings a person to God; the better the concern for the other person.
And this means the mother; as well as the child. No one knows exactly
the child’s experience & pain; but another’s doesn’t justify putting the child
through that; or killing the child.
And the other justifications of what a born child may go through has a similar answer;
we minister to the situations that may hurt the child; and minister to things like
medical conditions.
Jesus Christ asked us to receive grace for rest for our souls, that His yoke,
which is easy & light; with Grace helping doing things His Way; we receive
strength for the ‘narrow & difficult way to life’ with all of it’s unearned & natural hardships. Since; The Spiritual; Life, Ministry, Mock Trial, Passion, Agonizing Death;
and Resurrection is real; His Yoke perfectly empathized to help toward God & God’s Ways. When going against; we fight against His yoke; so from the Divine Revelation;
transitory solutions on earth naturally harm one’s inner disposition toward God.
Justifications, and ‘emotional high’ experiences anesthetize the Grace of increase inner restlessness; but only willing received Grace helps someone realize this.
Those of Grace filled virtue; like the Ten-booms; who endured hardship to help fellow
human beings received their strength this way. Dietrich von Hildebrand from the early
1920s saw what was happening in Germany; and warned about this. So did others;
who saw through the apparent successes; like more working, rebuilding roads and so forth. It wasn’t until after horrible agendas & ideologies became evident & realized;
did many, including some clergy, know they should have listened to the warnings of those who saw through what was happening. What’s the point? Experience & hardship in this world - does not justify the means of addressing them, like killing a helpless human being.
Peace,
“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” - Jesus Christ, Matthew 11:29
*note: just realized, in Chapt. 11 Jesus Christ speaks of those, trying to force their way
into The Kingdom of God by violence; which He certainly warned does not promote
The Kingdom of God and all its Grace filled benefits like growing inner peace & joy;
to endure life’s experiences, like a sense of powerlessness to alleviate someone’s illness; or other hardships. God doesn’t inflict unearned suffering; God is perfectly Compassionately Benevolent; gives perfect Grace & strength. There must be a perfect rhyme & reason to everything that happens. “And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.” - Romans 8:28

 

[Annie]

This makes women second class citizens with less rights to their own bodies/lives than a potential .person with no absolute guarantee of being born alive.

The unborn human is a “potential person” only because our courts have decided it so. Person is a legal term that means whatever we want it to; thus we now have the absurd legal idea that a corporation is a person while an actual human is not.

We do not have rights because the government grant’s them, we have rights by virtue of being human. The government merely recognizes these rights, or not, as the case may be.

Women are made first-class citizens by being allowed to decide to have their unborn children killed.

To have children in fact makes women more important to a society, as it is they who provide the future of the society.

I am sorry that you miscarried some of your children; I too have been through that and it is very painful.