The irony of the abortion issue.

[initforme]

A birthrate decline of up to 15 percent is not bad.

 

[Leo123]

A birthrate decline of up to 15 percent is not bad.

Only if cyclical.

 

[initforme]

Only if cyclical.

For o ly 5 to 15 years

 

[Foxfyre]

Women trumpet their right to exercise control of their own bodies regarding reproduction. However, abortion is needed when a woman loses control of her reproductive cycle and gets pregnant unintentionally. A woman who is in control of her reproductive life knows when she is likely to get pregnant and has little need for abortion.

The so called 'rhythm method' is very inexact though and while birth control products have improved immensely over the decades, they still are not 100% fool proof.

But by the onset of puberty, every parent should be raising his/her sons and daughters to be aware of the consequences of having sex, protected and unprotected, and the responsibilities that come with that. It should again be a cultural norm that choosing not to have sex is perfectly okay for those who shouldn't take risks at a particular stage of life, and those women who don't want children should choose that option unless they are willing to accept the consequences of the risks they take.

I am speaking of voluntary sex now. Rape and incest is a separate discussion.

Though they are quite rare--fewer than 1% of pregnancies--there are valid and ethical reasons in which an abortion can be necessary. And those situations should be between the doctor and the woman and abortion should be legal.

But abortion on demand--discarding an unwanted developing human in the womb because he/she is not wanted--does seem odd when the federal government considers harming the unborn child in the commission of something like 60 crimes to be a felony and 38 states have similar laws protecting the unborn from outside assault, attack, illegal acts. Even California that has unrestricted abortion on demand considers murder of a pregnant woman to be a a double murder.

Which always brings us back to the original question. Is the unborn a woman's right to have a doctor kill because it isn't yet a human being with rights, but if somebody else accidentally or intentionally kills that unborn child, it is murder?

Doesn't quite compute does it?

I am opposed to unconditional banning of all abortion and equally opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand. But somewhere in there is the moral and ethical choice and the national debate should be focused on finding it.

 

[Leo123]

The so called 'rhythm method' is very inexact though and while birth control products have improved immensely over the decades, they still are not 100% fool proof.

But by the onset of puberty, every parent should be raising his/her sons and daughters to be aware of the consequences of having sex, protected and unprotected, and the responsibilities that come with that. It should again be a cultural norm that choosing not to have sex is perfectly okay for those who shouldn't take risks at a particular stage of life, and those women who don't want children should choose that option unless they are willing to accept the consequences of the risks they take.

I am speaking of voluntary sex now. Rape and incest is a separate discussion.

Though they are quite rare--fewer than 1% of pregnancies--there are valid and ethical reasons in which an abortion can be necessary. And those situations should be between the doctor and the woman and abortion should be legal.

But abortion on demand--discarding an unwanted developing human in the womb because he/she is not wanted--does seem odd when the federal government considers harming the unborn child in the commission of something like 60 crimes to be a felony and 38 states have similar laws protecting the unborn from outside assault, attack, illegal acts. Even California that has unrestricted abortion on demand considers murder of a pregnant woman to be a a double murder.

Which always brings us back to the original question. Is the unborn a woman's right to have a doctor kill because it isn't yet a human being with rights, but if somebody else accidentally or intentionally kills that unborn child, it is murder?

Doesn't quite compute does it?

I am opposed to unconditional banning of all abortion and equally opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand. But somewhere in there is the moral and ethical choice and the national debate should be focused on finding it.

The problem is not that a medical procedure like an abortion is available, it's that it's promoted mostly by Democrats under the guise of 'women's health' so, inconvenient 'mistakes' (developing human lives) can be sucked away for body part use and the barren, Marxie women will say 'you go girl!!!'.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not that a medical procedure like an abortion is available, it's that it's promoted mostly by Democrats under the guise of 'women's health' so, inconvenient 'mistakes' (developing human lives) can be sucked away for body part use and the barren, Marxie women will say 'you go girl!!!'.

I was pointing out the dichotomy of states demanding unrestricted abortion because what the woman wants is paramount and the developing human she is carrying merits no consideration whatsoever vs some of the same states making it a felony, even murder, if a criminal act harms/kills that developing human.

So is that an unborn human being that should be protected? Or something that can be thrown in the trash with a clear conscience? I don't see how they can have it both ways?

 

[Woodznutz]

More young people staying single until they have at least 150 thousand saved before marrying would help.

Great Biblical principle.

"Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house." Proverbs 24:27

 

[Woodznutz]

The so called 'rhythm method' is very inexact though and while birth control products have improved immensely over the decades, they still are not 100% fool proof.

"The 'rhythm method' works. All our kids are musically inclined."

 

[HeyNorm]

The man is innocent ... and has no need to be responsible ...

When abortion as a form of birth control is legal, you are correct.

 

[HeyNorm]

The so called 'rhythm method' is very inexact though and while birth control products have improved immensely over the decades, they still are not 100% fool proof.

But by the onset of puberty, every parent should be raising his/her sons and daughters to be aware of the consequences of having sex, protected and unprotected, and the responsibilities that come with that. It should again be a cultural norm that choosing not to have sex is perfectly okay for those who shouldn't take risks at a particular stage of life, and those women who don't want children should choose that option unless they are willing to accept the consequences of the risks they take.

I am speaking of voluntary sex now. Rape and incest is a separate discussion.

Though they are quite rare--fewer than 1% of pregnancies--there are valid and ethical reasons in which an abortion can be necessary. And those situations should be between the doctor and the woman and abortion should be legal.

But abortion on demand--discarding an unwanted developing human in the womb because he/she is not wanted--does seem odd when the federal government considers harming the unborn child in the commission of something like 60 crimes to be a felony and 38 states have similar laws protecting the unborn from outside assault, attack, illegal acts. Even California that has unrestricted abortion on demand considers murder of a pregnant woman to be a a double murder.

Which always brings us back to the original question. Is the unborn a woman's right to have a doctor kill because it isn't yet a human being with rights, but if somebody else accidentally or intentionally kills that unborn child, it is murder?

Doesn't quite compute does it?

I am opposed to unconditional banning of all abortion and equally opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand. But somewhere in there is the moral and ethical choice and the national debate should be focused on finding it.

The entire debate needs to begin with your post, which is absolutely the best I’ve ever seen in regards to this issue.

Bravo.

 

[HeyNorm]

I was pointing out the dichotomy of states demanding unrestricted abortion because what the woman wants is paramount and the developing human she is carrying merits no consideration whatsoever vs some of the same states making it a felony, even murder, if a criminal act harms/kills that developing human.

So is that an unborn human being that should be protected? Or something that can be thrown in the trash with a clear conscience? I don't see how they can have it both ways?

The debate becomes real when we in act laws that state unequivocally that, if abortion is a form of birth control, and the woman refuses to use it, then the man cannot be held liable for her inaction.

 

[initforme]

Great Biblical principle.

"Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house." Proverbs 24:27

Gotta have $ to build thine house.

 

[Woodznutz]

Gotta have $ to build thine house.

The point of the proverb is to secure your job, career, income, before you start a family (house means family).

 

[ReinyDays]

When abortion as a form of birth control is legal, you are correct.

I was being satirical ... maybe I should have been more explicit ...

Only filthy animals abandon the female in her greatest need ... what cowards ... hating your own children ... tomcats lick their own assholes too, that's a bad example for humans ...

 

[Foxfyre]

"The 'rhythm method' works. All our kids are musically inclined."

LOL, so are both of ours. In addition to his full time engineering job, our son runs a low cost music school for 60 to 100 kids teaching piano, guitar, voice, violin. (He personally teaches piano and classical guitar.) In addition to her full time government job, our daughter has been a professional blues bass player. Both sing and were excellent musicians in school bands.

And both were entirely unplanned kids and both came at times it was specially difficult to work a child into the family and I did not want to be pregnant yet. But we managed. Killing them was neither an option or thought we even considered.

 

[initforme]

The point of the proverb is to secure your job, career, income, before you start a family (house means family).

Not only secure but have a huge nest egg saved before even dating.

 

[Foxfyre]

The entire debate needs to begin with your post, which is absolutely the best I’ve ever seen in regards to this issue.

Bravo.

Thank you. It is something I believe with all my heart.

 

[HeyNorm]

I was being satirical ... maybe I should have been more explicit ...

Only filthy animals abandon the female in her greatest need ... what cowards ... hating your own children ... tomcats lick their own assholes too, that's a bad example for humans ...

Only filthy animals KILL the child in it’s time of greatest need.

Get it now?

 

[initforme]

Only filthy animals KILL the child in it’s time of greatest need.

Get it now?

Moral of the story? Encourage young people not to have kids.

 

[ReinyDays]

Only filthy animals KILL the child in it’s time of greatest need.

Get it now?

I always have ... the OP condemns only the woman to this ordeal ... the father is excused to go impregnant more women ... that's no better than eating your own young ... the vixon certainly has to protect the kits from the dog-fox father ... same with brown bears ... fathers do eat their children in some mammal species ...

As a Christian, I advocate marriage before sex ... that pretty much eliminates the problem ... but that requires behaving like humans, not animals ... or at least mammals, a few bird species mate for life, it's still rare in nature ...