Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm guessing you would have been on the side of the aisle to keep slavery since in the law, it is allowed, right? The discussion is whether the law, status quo, makes sense.
<snip>
Nope. The thread is about "What exactly does the Bible say about abortion." This thread is about what the Bible says about it, not whether the law makes sense. Incidentally, I'm adamantly opposed to slavery, of any kind. However, now that you mention it, I believe the Bible is perfectly OK with slavery.
This was the primary reason why it was pushed so hard in the 60's. Women wanted to have just as much sexual freedom as men.
Actually that was something the religious far right started claiming later on. It was campaigned for because women wanted to be able to have SAFE and LEGAL abortions. (They had the pill. Sexual freedom had already been achieved.) They campaigned for the right to have control over their own body without the Church or Uncle Sam or the Rev. Ralph of the Church of Whatever telling them what they could or couldn't do.
Plenty of women, who didn't want "sexual freedom" had gotten abortions prior to Roe v. Wade. Married women in stable relationships were having to go to some back alley shop in Tijuana for an abortion. Roe v. Wade had little to do with sexual freedom. It did, however, have a lot to do with reproductive rights of women. Reproductive not sexual. Roe v. Wade was NOT campaigned for so women could have wild orgies.
Actually that was something the religious far right started claiming later on. It was campaigned for because women wanted to be able to have SAFE and LEGAL abortions. (They had the pill. Sexual freedom had already been achieved.) They campaigned for the right to have control over their own body without the Church or Uncle Sam or the Rev. Ralph of the Church of Whatever telling them what they could or couldn't do.
Plenty of women, who didn't want "sexual freedom" had gotten abortions prior to Roe v. Wade. Married women in stable relationships were having to go to some back alley shop in Tijuana for an abortion. Roe v. Wade had little to do with sexual freedom. It did, however, have a lot to do with reproductive rights of women. Reproductive not sexual. Roe v. Wade was NOT campaigned for so women could have wild orgies.
You're right. I thought pregnancy was the result of sex, not storks.
Pregnancy was a primary excuse for women to say no to their demanding male counterparts. Not anymore. You abort the baby, or I'm going to leave you. Hopefully the "liberated" will wake up and see that "freedom" is an illusion and nothing more than a nice punch line at a cocktail party.
I'm curious what the church's strict position on abortion is based upon? Do all christian denominations share the same view on it or just catholic?
Seeing as though the "God" of the Bible personally killed COUNTLESS children, making the law to kill any child who curses their parents, leads me to believe that YHWHY is not only pro-abortion, but pro-abortion to the point of disposing of the children post natal. Talk about late term abortions .
You're right. I thought pregnancy was the result of sex, not storks.
Pregnancy was a primary excuse for women to say no to their demanding male counterparts. Not anymore. You abort the baby, or I'm going to leave you. Hopefully the "liberated" will wake up and see that "freedom" is an illusion and nothing more than a nice punch line at a cocktail party.
The only women who treat abortion lightly, or as a "convenient" form of birth control, are sociopaths, those lacking critical thinking skills, and/or those whose ethical bar is set at ground level.
Not exactly good candidates for motherhood anyway.
You're right. I thought pregnancy was the result of sex, not storks.
Pregnancy was a primary excuse for women to say no to their demanding male counterparts. Not anymore. You abort the baby, or I'm going to leave you. Hopefully the "liberated" will wake up and see that "freedom" is an illusion and nothing more than a nice punch line at a cocktail party.
Or we could realize that a woman (or a man for that matter) doesn't need an excuse to say no. The kind of relationship you seem to be describing is one that both parties would probably be better out of anyway.
You seem to be making the point that without reproductive control ( contraception, abortion, etc...) and freedom from social stigma men and women would have to remain trapped in abusive, loveless relationships and because of the sanctity of marriage, that would be a good thing!?! If reproductive freedom and less social stigma means that people can more easily leave bad situations, it seems like a positive thing to me. Why are we so interested in maintaining marriages of convenience, marriages "for the kids", marriages for money, and marriages based of guilt or fear? Why not encourage marriages based on love, and free choice, and voluntary commitment?
I thought pregnancy was the result of sex, not storks.
It is. Roe v. Wade was NOT about sexual freedom. Anyone who claims that is either misinformed, likes to lie, or has a desperate desire to push an agenda. Which is usually religious.
There was a lot of discussion and debate about when life began, a woman's right to choose, the Constitution. Sexual freedom? Nope.
The bible does not mention abortion. The medical profession says the heart starts beating in a fetus at 5-6 weeks.
IMO that is the beginning of life as the heart is now pumping the blood carrying the necessary nutrients and oxygen to the different cells that will give the baby enough life support to eventually survive outside the womb.
For that reason I have no problem with early abortion as close to conception as possible. Rape, incest, health issues and momma's life and future are the important things and they effect only her and is her choice alone. It is a terrible and painful decision for her and causes much stress and tears now and often the rest of her life.
The church and other people should either respect her decision or be quiet about it. They don't have to walk in her shoes.
To me, I would think sentience/brain function would be a better indicator. The heart is a muscle controlled by electrical impulses. But how is that a life without a functioning brain?
This was the primary reason why it was pushed so hard in the 60's. Women wanted to have just as much sexual freedom as men. Ironically, it empowered men even further. Something at least one feminist saw coming...Article | First Things
“Abortion facilitates women’s heterosexual availability,” MacKinnon pointed out: “In other words, under conditions of gender inequality [abortion] does not liberate women; it frees male sexual aggression. The availability of abortion removes the one remaining legitimized reason that women have had for refusing sex besides the headache.” Perhaps that is why, she observed, “the Playboy Foundation has supported abortion rights from day one.” In the end, MacKinnon pronounced, Roe’s “right to privacy looks like an injury got up as a gift,” for “virtually every ounce of control that women won” from legalized abortion “has gone directly into the hands of men.”
That argument assumes that women don't have an inherent legitimate reason to decline to have sex with all comers -- they need unwanted pregnancy or -- good grief -- a headache as an excuse? Women are autonomous human beings. All they need is to say no ... they don't need a reason or some kind of justification. That's all they've ever needed. The whole argument assumes women must give up their power to men unless they have a headache or might saddle them with a paternity suit.
Also, isn't there something called birth control?
Look, I'm a dude, and like all dudes I wish women were much more frequently and intensely and consistently and uncomplicatedly interested in sex throughout their lives than they generally are. So selfishly, I really don't want to clue them in on the fact that all they have to do is say "no", but ... there you have it.
I also don't appreciate the "all men are pigs" ethos that suggests that none of us know what "no" means.
To me, I would think sentience/brain function would be a better indicator. The heart is a muscle controlled by electrical impulses. But how is that a life without a functioning brain?
The brain is fully formed at about 12 weeks. It has been fed and nourished by the blood and oxygen from the heart, imo the life source. but I am no scientist
All my babies let me know they were humans when they first fluttered, letting me know they were indeed little babies alive and growing and fully dependant on the nourishment I fed them through my own life source..my blood..until the day they were developed enough to take their own first breath of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
