Interesting Logic Question:

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Lacey

No one is treating them like pets. They should care more about
the choices they make and the consequences of those choices.
Don't allow yourself to become pregnant if you know you will
kill that baby later! If they don't want the child, please don't
murder it, give it to someone who will love and cherish it.

I agree in principle.

However, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S business if a woman allows herself to get pregnant or not. It's also not the GOVERNMENT'S business as to if a woman is even pregnant. It's not the GOVERNMENT'S business if anyone is having sex or not. It's not the GOVERNMENT'S place.

Why do we think the GOVERNMENT can force a woman to give birth if she doesn't want to? As terrible as abortion is... that's some pretty serious power given to GOVERNMENT.

Now... I'm all for ministries that work on giving women prolife options and education. I think that is important. I also think churches and charities should arise to the occasion and address the issues that women face in crisis pregnancies to discourage abortion. But the moment the GOVERNMENT calls the shots on something so deeply personal as one's sovereignty over their own body... I get a bit cautious.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Nobody seizes anything. Nobody makes her do anything against her will. Women have been killing their babies for centuries. But to give approval of the heinous act and make it legal is immoral. And what of the baby's body? What about the poor child being cut to pieces, or salted to death? What about the freedoms and liberties of the child? It's a blight on our society. It's not a liberty issue---it's a fundamental right to life issue.

Okay... let's say they ban abortions tomorrow. And a woman wants an abortion for personal reasons which she doesn't wish to disclose. What happens?

Let's say that woman is denied an abortion. So she procures one illegally. What happens?

P.S.
Many immoral things are "legal". Legality has NOTHING to do with morality.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Or give the baby up for adoption. Millions of couples would love to adopt an unwanted child. My sister has three adopted children.

Those are all GREAT ideas that I support Deacon. However... notice something... everything is being stated in terms of what she should be forced to do. She should be denied an abortion and forced to give birth by the GOVERNMENT. She should want her child. She should put her child up for adoption if she doesn't want it.

Notice every position is another dimension of "control" of another. Dude... if a woman simply doesn't want to give birth... and doesn't want to discuss why... what do we do... do we force her to?

[Aquila]

For me the issue is sovereignty of a woman. Being the vessel that gives birth... if she is to have absolute sovereignty over her own body... she should be invested with the power to choose. HOWEVER, I advocate that women make wise choices before pregnancy. And should a woman become pregnant (yes, it's planet earth, we're all human, it's going to happen)... I advocate that she keep it or have it and put it up for adoption. If she chooses an abortion... it's all on her. She'll answer to God for it.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree in principle.

However, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S business if a woman allows herself to get pregnant or not. It's also not the GOVERNMENT'S business as to if a woman is even pregnant. It's not the GOVERNMENT'S business if anyone is having sex or not. It's not the GOVERNMENT'S place.

Why do we think the GOVERNMENT can force a woman to give birth if she doesn't want to? As terrible as abortion is... that's some pretty serious power given to GOVERNMENT.

Now... I'm all for ministries that work on giving women prolife options and education. I think that is important. I also think churches and charities should arise to the occasion and address the issues that women face in crisis pregnancies to discourage abortion. But the moment the GOVERNMENT calls the shots on something so deeply personal as one's sovereignty over their own body... I get a bit cautious.

Then maybe you should be fighting against mandatory vaccinations. I just quit nursing school over them trying to force me to get a flu shot that they said became mandatory in the middle of the semester. This was not mandatory when I signed up. Right now, I am trying to get my money back.

I think the debate becomes strange when abortion rights people talk about her own body, as if her body is the only one in question. Unfortunately, there are TWO bodies involved, intertwined in a way that she does not want but should have thought of before she engaged in intercourse. Of course, in instances of rape etc, she did NOT have a choice, but I would argue she does not have a right to kill another human being over her unfortunate circumstances.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Okay... let's say they ban abortions tomorrow. And a woman wants an abortion for personal reasons which she doesn't wish to disclose. What happens?

Let's say that woman is denied an abortion. So she procures one illegally. What happens?

P.S.
Many immoral things are "legal". Legality has NOTHING to do with morality.

I really don't know where you are going with this. What happens? Um, she kills her kid, right? If she gets caught, she goes to jail. Or maybe she dies from bleeding to death because of an illegal choice she made.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Those are all GREAT ideas that I support Deacon. However... notice something... everything is being stated in terms of what she should be forced to do. She should be denied an abortion and forced to give birth by the GOVERNMENT. She should want her child. She should put her child up for adoption if she doesn't want it.

Notice every position is another dimension of "control" of another. Dude... if a woman simply doesn't want to give birth... and doesn't want to discuss why... what do we do... do we force her to?

The government isn't forcing her to give birth. Nature is. She will either give birth to a dead baby or a live one.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

For me the issue is sovereignty of a woman. Being the vessel that gives birth... if she is to have absolute sovereignty over her own body... she should be invested with the power to choose. HOWEVER, I advocate that women make wise choices before pregnancy. And should a woman become pregnant (yes, it's planet earth, we're all human, it's going to happen)... I advocate that she keep it or have it and put it up for adoption. If she chooses an abortion... it's all on her. She'll answer to God for it.

Nature has mandated that the woman does not have sovereignty. To say otherwise is to fight against nature.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ILG

Then maybe you should be fighting against mandatory vaccinations. I just quit nursing school over them trying to force me to get a flu shot that they said became mandatory in the middle of the semester. This was not mandatory when I signed up. Right now, I am trying to get my money back.

I think the debate becomes strange when abortion rights people talk about her own body, as if her body is the only one in question. Unfortunately, there are TWO bodies involved, intertwined in a way that she does not want but should have thought of before she engaged in intercourse. Of course, in instances of rape etc, he did NOT have a choice, but I would argue she does not have a right to kill another human being over her unfortunate circumstances.

It is an unfortunate combination. Because, in order to attempt to protect the rights of the unborn child, you have to override a pregnant woman's sovereignty over her own body. Essentially... the GOVERNMENT would be forcing her to give birth against her wishes. And if we are to protect the sovereign right of pregnant women over their own bodies, we have to compromise the rights of the unborn child.

There is no way out of it. Either way... someone's rights and sovereignty over their person will be violated.

Therefore... we have to land somewhere. Someone's rights and sovereignty must be acknowledge and at the end of the day... someone has to have the final say. For those of a more libertarian stripe... many feel that the buck stops with mom. She has the ultimate authority over both her body... and her young. My mom used to get very angry and say, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out." Yes, a very rustic perspective... but mom saw it that way. And if I messed up enough... she'd beat me within an inch of my life. She used to say, "Every parent should be issued a single bullet when their child is born... and the doctor should say, 'Use it wisely.'" She wasn't a murderous woman. But she had an old school perspective that clearly defined that she viewed herself as the ultimate authority with regards to me... and my existence.

I think my mom drew her logic from Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (ESV)
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

In my opinion, by given women the power to choose... we respect a mother's sovereign right over her body... and her progeny. That DOESN'T mean that I like abortion. I HATE abortion. But I can't see the GOVERNMENT essentially forcing a woman to give birth against her wishes.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ILG

I really don't know where you are going with this. What happens? Um, she kills her kid, right? If she gets caught, she goes to jail. Or maybe she dies from bleeding to death because of an illegal choice she made.

I'm curious, how long? What's the charge?