Conclusive proof that the Catholic Church is stupid.

[Ironslave]

In theory, thats a great plan. But I'd imagine it's completely unrealistic for the majority of rape victims.

You have to take the pill within three days of the sex. I don't know about you but if I was raped, I'd probably be in a state of shock for alot longer than three days.

oh of course, not denying this at all... not all will, some might.

I don`t have a problem with looking at abortions because of rape on a case by case basis.... but they`re rare. Getting pregnant is not really an easy thing to do, even without any birth control (including `pulling out`), which is why so many married couples monitor the woman`s cycle when they`re trying to get pregnant.

I just think people should use common sense, that`s all.

 

[Rageking]

dont catholics consider the morning after pill abortion though? Its a baby at the time of conception.

 

[El Freako]

Eh, in contrast for this example, nobody made the parties involved go to bed with each other (lets not include the 5% cases of rape)... The violinist was just put there and forced to stay there with you, not the same at all with 95% of abortions.

The way I see it is this, you own a house, and you lease it out to people for a 9 month contract. After a few days/weeks, you decide you don't want those tenants there. Do you:
A) let them finish their lease and go on their way?

B) kill them.


Those who need abortions are almost always reckless, and it's just another example of people being unable to make good decisions, and take care of themselves. If they did this, 95% of abortions would not be necessary.

Although I realise that a lot of abortions are due to carelessness I still consider the mother's right to do what she wants with her body as paramount. Being pregnant is hard and a lot of women and girls are not ready or willing to go through the process or to deal with the responsibility of a child. Lets consider having a child as a disease such as HIV or Hepatitis, one that might not kill you but for which there is no cure as yet and you will have to live with it for the rest of your life. Say you contracted this disease by accident, perhaps due to carelessness but unintentionally all the same. Now let us imagine that there is a medical breakthrough that allows you to cure yourself of the disease with the first 3 months of infection. Now you should be well within your rights to avail yourself to this cure shouldn't you. Who can deny you the chance to cure yourself of a disease that you will have to live with for the rest of your life. Hence a mother should have the right to "cure herself" of the "pregnancy disease", within reason of course. Late pregnancy abortions for any reason other than saving the life of the mother are tantamount to murder even in my books.

Now I know you will want to respond with the rights of a fetus as a person but it is a very slippery slope of an argument and therefore not able to be clearly defined, whereas the mother's rights are. Early pregnancy abortions are a woman's right because the embryo/fetus cannot be clearly defined as a human and at the time are little more than a parasite with no brain or sensory function.

And in cases of rape, no argument. Abort away. Denying them that right is the height of callousness in my opinion.

 

[Skeptic]

I do not believe in abortion when the female becomes pregnant due to carelessness or stupidity or ignorance.

I believe in abortion in he cases of rape victims.

 

[Ironslave]

Although I realise that a lot of abortions are due to carelessness I still consider the mother's right to do what she wants with her body as paramount. Being pregnant is hard and a lot of women and girls are not ready or willing to go through the process or to deal with the responsibility of a child. Lets consider having a child as a disease such as HIV or Hepatitis, one that might not kill you but for which there is no cure as yet and you will have to live with it for the rest of your life. Say you contracted this disease by accident, perhaps due to carelessness but unintentionally all the same. Now let us imagine that there is a medical breakthrough that allows you to cure yourself of the disease with the first 3 months of infection. Now you should be well within your rights to avail yourself to this cure shouldn't you. Who can deny you the chance to cure yourself of a disease that you will have to live with for the rest of your life. Hence a mother should have the right to "cure herself" of the "pregnancy disease", within reason of course. Late pregnancy abortions for any reason other than saving the life of the mother are tantamount to murder even in my books..

adoption?

 

[Tech]

I guess I just don't like the idea of other people telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. I feel like, if it's inside your body......it's yours.

 

[El Freako]

adoption?

Shit... I actually thought of that at the start and was going to add something in regards.

But it changes little, the mother has still had to go through the whole experience/ordeal of pregnancy. If she is not even intending to keep the baby then it would not really be an enjoyable experience for her. As per my argument, she has the right not to have to go through that experience.

 

[El Freako]

I guess I just don't like the idea of other people telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. I feel like, if it's inside your body......it's yours.

Exactly!

 

[Ironslave]

Shit... I actually thought of that at the start and was going to add something in regards.

But it changes little, the mother has still had to go through the whole experience/ordeal of pregnancy. If she is not even intending to keep the baby then it would not really be an enjoyable experience for her. As per my argument, she has the right not to have to go through that experience.

Eh, maybe.... I just don`t like the idea of harming someone, when it could have easily been avoided. There are consequences to a lot of careless actions, I think this is one of those.

My thoughts are pretty similar to Skeptics.

 

[El Freako]

Eh, maybe.... I just don`t like the idea of harming someone, when it could have easily been avoided.

Abortion is definitely not something to be taken lightly in that regard. A great deal of thought should go into before the choice is made. But that choice should exist and be allowed.

 

[Skeptic]

Eh, maybe.... I just don`t like the idea of harming someone, when it could have easily been avoided. There are consequences to a lot of careless actions, I think this is one of those.

My thoughts are pretty similar to Skeptics.

Although I have the beliefs I said before... I do think there are situations without the cause of pregnancy being rape, where abortion is acceptable.

 

[BigBen]

Their is a number of problems i have with this.

My stance on abortion:
I don't believe in abortion. Here is the reason why: In logic reality is classified very reasonably, meaning what you can say of one thing based on something that came before it or something else are very step by step in nature the connections can not only be made they are made with the most reason( the event points largely to one direction).

So with that said i take the point of view of a philosopher on the matter of abortion and that helps me better decide what is more reasonable. When the sperm and the egg are separate their is no third party present at that time, it would be as if the woman went through her cycle and did not conceive. Once the egg has accepted the sperm a third party exists. This third party cannot be classified in essence as anything but human. The third party came from two humans and the result is a third human in essence. In form, which is the shape of what the essence exists in you can call it a cell or tissue or a fetus, they are all names for the different stages of growth cycle. But what exists in that form is 100% human. No one can make an argument against the essence of humanity in a pregnancy between two humans. You cant argue that two humans had sex and what the woman is currently pregnant with has the essence of a cow because it does not. With that said aborting a third party existence in the form of pregnancy is murder, you are killing what has the essence of a human regardless of its form. We are no more human in essence than a single human cell our form is drastically different but we are all very much on equal levels of humanity in essence. Essence is what we are, form is simply the matter in which it exists.


With that said the situation is extremely delicate. It is clearly her step fathers fault that the situation exists, so he is responsible for the abortions for having to take place. The child should in no way be punished for her actions if she was raped. Now where the child differs from an adult is she does not have the mental capacity nor the knowledge to understand the situation. One of the qualifications to commit a mortal sin is the full knowledge of what it is you are doing. I do not see a child understanding that, i more see the childs thought process at best being " if I have these baby's i have a large chance of dieing and if i don't have them i will be live." That would be my guess as to how in depth her reasoning is. I am only speculating on her mental maturity, but i find it some what harsh that the church reacted in the way it did towards the child and the doctors that possibly saved her life. Her step father needs to be put into prison and held responsible for every thing the child must endure.

My conclusion:
As reasoning adults it is not responsible to hold the child accountable for what happened. She should not be punished in any way because of her inability to really concretely understand the situation, and because she is a victim on more levels than one. The father needs to be punished heavily, life in prison, something to that nature. I understand that my conclusion does not address all the issues presented but those are the only comments i can make with certainty.

God bless
Ben

 

[Skeptic]

That just took you a very long time to explain very little.

 

[tim290280]

Some interesting thoughts.

My thoughts:
Abortion - should be legal, but doesn't and shouldn't replace proper safe sex practices.

Why - you enage in sexual activity you have to bear some/all of the consequences. But an unwanted child isn't likely to ever be treated well (especially in rape cases). There will be exceptions but the woman should have the right to choose as a result.

A point worth noting is that natural abortions occur until quite late into pregnancy. This can be the result of many things, but is down to how able the body is to nurturing the fetus. So saying it is a life at conception is grossly overstating the truth. Remember that it wasn't that long ago that a lot of women died in child birth, gotta remember how important it is to keep the mother healthy.

 

[BigBen]

That just took you a very long time to explain very little.

:iorofl:

true, but i explained why i felt the way i did was what took a majority of the time.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Their is a number of problems i have with this.

My stance on abortion:
I don't believe in abortion. Here is the reason why: In logic reality is classified very reasonably, meaning what you can say of one thing based on something that came before it or something else are very step by step in nature the connections can not only be made they are made with the most reason( the event points largely to one direction).

So with that said i take the point of view of a philosopher on the matter of abortion and that helps me better decide what is more reasonable. When the sperm and the egg are separate their is no third party present at that time, it would be as if the woman went through her cycle and did not conceive. Once the egg has accepted the sperm a third party exists. This third party cannot be classified in essence as anything but human. The third party came from two humans and the result is a third human in essence. In form, which is the shape of what the essence exists in you can call it a cell or tissue or a fetus, they are all names for the different stages of growth cycle. But what exists in that form is 100% human. No one can make an argument against the essence of humanity in a pregnancy between two humans. You cant argue that two humans had sex and what the woman is currently pregnant with has the essence of a cow because it does not. With that said aborting a third party existence in the form of pregnancy is murder, you are killing what has the essence of a human regardless of its form. We are no more human in essence than a single human cell our form is drastically different but we are all very much on equal levels of humanity in essence. Essence is what we are, form is simply the matter in which it exists.


With that said the situation is extremely delicate. It is clearly her step fathers fault that the situation exists, so he is responsible for the abortions for having to take place. The child should in no way be punished for her actions if she was raped. Now where the child differs from an adult is she does not have the mental capacity nor the knowledge to understand the situation. One of the qualifications to commit a mortal sin is the full knowledge of what it is you are doing. I do not see a child understanding that, i more see the childs thought process at best being " if I have these baby's i have a large chance of dieing and if i don't have them i will be live." That would be my guess as to how in depth her reasoning is. I am only speculating on her mental maturity, but i find it some what harsh that the church reacted in the way it did towards the child and the doctors that possibly saved her life. Her step father needs to be put into prison and held responsible for every thing the child must endure.

My conclusion:
As reasoning adults it is not responsible to hold the child accountable for what happened. She should not be punished in any way because of her inability to really concretely understand the situation, and because she is a victim on more levels than one. The father needs to be punished heavily, life in prison, something to that nature. I understand that my conclusion does not address all the issues presented but those are the only comments i can make with certainty.

God bless
Ben

Repped.

 

[Storm]

I guess I just don't like the idea of other people telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. I feel like, if it's inside your body......it's yours.

I believe it's the first time i agree with you in a moral/political/super-cereal discussion.

 

[Zigurd]

I've had trouble deciding if I am pro or against abortion for a long time now. It's a moral battle I have going inside of me.

In one side, I really don't like the fact that a woman in a rape case can't decide what happens to her body yet AGAIN... the baby can become a psychological icon of the rape, meaning she will despise the baby and treat him like shit. Or it can change her life positively, like a golden arrow that strikes through a pond of shit and brightens her life.

One the other side it's not the babies fault. He will become a human being at a point, so the "not a human yet" is not valid for me. Everybody should be allowed a chance at life, even under the most undesirable circumstances.

I still don't know what the fuck to think. If a girl becomes pregnant through ignorance or "miscalculations" should it be obvious for her to have a baby ? She is a god damn idiot... if she can't help herself from getting pregnant how will she raise a child ? The baby will be greatly damaged.

Each position has it's pros and cons... but I really can't find a settling argument. For now, I stay in pro-life. In every case. A rape victim can always give the baby up for adoption, just like the idiot who got pregnant without wanting to. But I hate pushing an opinion I an not 100% about through a person who suffered so much as a rape victim.

GOD DAMN IT.

 

[Pickle]

I guess I just don't like the idea of other people telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. I feel like, if it's inside your body......it's yours.

:gaysign: times two

 

[Pickle]

"not a human yet" is not valid for me. Everybody should be allowed a chance at life, even under the most undesirable circumstances..

^If you were a mother pregnant heading into your second trimester and you found out your baby had down syndrome or something worse would you abort it? Consider the difficulties you would have in raising the child and the quality of life the child would have (average IQ of a person with downs is 50-60). :icon_ninja:


^away from the hypothetical, its not a "human yet" is very valid. What defines a human? A beating heart? Ability to think? Animals all show these traits. What seperates animals from humans? The ability to think and communicate with complexity with consciousness and with feeling. Can a foetus do that? No. Will it be able to do that? It doesn't matter, it isn't able to currently.

If its going to harm the mother mentally or physically i see no harm in giving her the choice to abort it.

Ironslave, i thought ud have a better outlook on this topic then "everything has a right to life".