This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Peter Heck video - "The Sound of Abortion"

#21ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 7:31:37 AM
Suibom posted...
Why should the government be forced to pay for their irresponsibility?

95-98% of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's health, incest or rape.


Citation needed.
#22ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 7:35:22 AM(edited)
I guess God is the biggest pro-abortion promoting doctor of all, considering all the miscarriages in the world. I don't see anyone up in arms over that.

Another thing, if you wish to argue that the state or federal definition of personhood is incorrect, then you should demonstrate why.
#23Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 7:37:34 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
Suibom posted...
Why should the government be forced to pay for their irresponsibility?

95-98% of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's health, incest or rape.


Citation needed.



http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#2
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#24ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 7:47:39 AM
So, its more like 90%. Mother and foetal health problems alone add up to 7%.

Also interesting is that 16% of abortion receivers used contraception but it failed, and 53.6% reported having used contraception.

So, do you still endorse forcing a woman to carry a child to term if she did everything in her power to prevent it (barring abstinence which is not a realistic alternative), can't support the child and can't afford the cost of raising a family?
#25Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 7:49:44 AM
Here's another citation:

http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/currentstats.shtml
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#26Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 8:01:01 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
So, its more like 90%. Mother and foetal health problems alone add up to 7%.

Also interesting is that 16% of abortion receivers used contraception but it failed, and 53.6% reported having used contraception.

So, do you still endorse forcing a woman to carry a child to term if she did everything in her power to prevent it (barring abstinence which is not a realistic alternative), can't support the child and can't afford the cost of raising a family?


Since you're squabbling over percentages, it's more like 92-93%.

I'm for people being responsible for their actions.

Having sex always comes with risks, protection or not. If a person is unwilling to deal with those risks, they shouldn't engage in it.

What you and I feel are reasonable preparation and responses to those risks I'm sure vary.

I feel it's responsible to prepare for children before engaging in sex. Obviously, I feel marriage, steady income, and a stable home are part of that. Does that ensure that an unplanned pregnancy may occur before all those are in place? No, but what fault is that of the child?

Had my wife and I gotten pregnant before we were ready, sure it would have been a financial setback. Some of our goals may have changed. Our timeline would have changed. I was already done with college and in a stable job. We had a home. But my wife was still finishing nursing school. We would have adapted our lives to accommodate the unexpected baby. We wouldn't have shirked our responsibility that comes with the side effects of sex, desired or not.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#27DarkContractorPosted 1/30/2013 8:05:13 AM
From: Thuggernautz | #024
So, its more like 90%. Mother and foetal health problems alone add up to 7%.

Also interesting is that 16% of abortion receivers used contraception but it failed, and 53.6% reported having used contraception.

So, do you still endorse forcing a woman to carry a child to term if she did everything in her power to prevent it (barring abstinence which is not a realistic alternative), can't support the child and can't afford the cost of raising a family?


elaborate, please.
---
www.youtube.com/user/MisterPillow An apologetics channel on the Christian faith (And I'm better looking than Proudclad)
#28lastheroPosted 1/30/2013 8:26:08 AM
Had my wife and I gotten pregnant before we were ready, sure it would have been a financial setback. Some of our goals may have changed. Our timeline would have changed. I was already done with college and in a stable job. We had a home. But my wife was still finishing nursing school. We would have adapted our lives to accommodate the unexpected baby. We wouldn't have shirked our responsibility that comes with the side effects of sex, desired or not.


Good. For. You.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#29AynRandySavagePosted 1/30/2013 8:39:40 AM(edited)
Patriotwolf posted...
I find most people who are pro choice to have a psychological bias. What I mean by that is that for them, the unborn fetus is not tangible. In other words, people who are pro choice have no emotional connection. They will be all up in arms when they see one of those aspca commercials, but seem to drop the ball on abortion because they think they know when life begins


Life begins at conception but having a tangible emotional connection with "a life" isn't reason enough to pass a law that curbs someone's rights. Last I checked, vegetarianism wasn't mandated by law.
#30AynRandySavagePosted 1/30/2013 8:39:12 AM
Suibom posted...


What you and I feel are reasonable preparation and responses to those risks I'm sure vary.



If this is about responsibility, what happens if a woman isn't responsible for conception? If a woman is raped, does she have the right to an abortion? If so, that either means that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby, or that its morally permissible to kill babies. Which is it?