Vatican attacks US abortion move

reply to post by Mdv2


I believe that the Vatican should mind their own business and rather than complain should used their wealth to feed the hungry in the world.

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by StevenDye

 

Once again: the fetus does not have a CHOICE, it is not a sentient being and can not have one. It is an undeveloped growth inside the mother. SHE is the only sentient being in the equation and the only one with a choice. A woman should be the only person allowed to dictate what goes on in her uterus.

According to scripture life begins at conception. Abortion means death, which means you are killing a living thing. "thou shall not kill" not "thou shall not murder".

What expertise do you have, to say when the soul enters the body?

If you kill, you forfeit your place in heaven!

Is the fetus not growing? Developing? Eating? Breathing? Doctors say "Yes, it is."

If you get an abortion both you and the doctor performing the task, forfeit your place's in heaven.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Mdv2

 

I believe that the Vatican should mind their own business and rather than complain should used their wealth to feed the hungry in the world.

A star for you my (always) wise friend.


res

Originally posted by BugByte
If you get an abortion both you and the doctor performing the task, forfeit your place's in heaven.

Assuming one believes in Heaven.

Why is there so much concern about everyone getting into Heaven,
or going to Hell?

Make your own way there and do not concern yourself about the journey of others.



res



[edit on 26-1-2009 by resistancia]

reply to post by BugByte

What expertise do you have, to say when the soul enters the body?

Guess what this is why no one forces you to abort, because if you believe such things then it is your right to not have an abortion. But guess what the rest of the world does not have to do with their bodies what your religion suggest. Your religions claims are unfounded, even if there was proof of a soul who can say that it has anything to do with your religion anyway? That's why I rely on science when it comes to this issue, here's the best part: you don't have to, that's your choice. So don't tell other people that they have to rely on your belief system to approve what they do with their bodies.

reply to post by resistancia


Thanks

You know I wonder sometimes who in this time and age actually listen what the Vatican has to say anymore.

Yes lots of people take heed of one of the most corrupt institutions on this planet.


In my opinion the Vatican has no credibility and does not speak for ALL mankind.



take care all
res

reply to post by resistancia


I'm merely pointing out the fact that she does not decide when life begins, and why many people believe it is wrong to have an abortion.

Why do I care whether or not you or anyone makes it into heaven? Because we are all brothers and sisters on the planet, and I personally would like us all to be in heaven. Whether you believe or not.

Sorry, double post for some reason.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by BugByte]

Originally posted by Supercertari
Pregnancy involves two individuals and abortion is an assertion of the rights of one over another

The vast majority of abortion cases involve either both partners agreeing to this or one of them not wanting the decision. It is only a minority where there is conflict of interest and when that is the case, abortion should not be ruled out as legally as it may verywell go there. The law should be available.

If there is conflict of interest then abortion should not be readily available, obvious alternatives like counselling, advice or if so be it, the courts will decide, but then what is to stop that woman in anycase from doing so and in turn doing complete harm to herself?

To rule abortion completely out, make it complete illigal is unrealistic, especially in the 21st century where we have new issues to deal with.

and that is the most fundamental of rights, that to life.

It is very hard to pin point where life begins and where it does not. I my opinion that line is totally blurred, nobody can really make the decision over that matter other than the individual herself. It could be argued that those billions of sperm that died during protected intercourse should have the fundamental rights to life as well... we could even go so far as to argue masterbation. The lines are blurred, as in our body life is existent everywhere. A few individuals cannot make it law where life must begin, that should be a private decision, left to those partners involved.

Your "as far as I can see it" is going a bit further than the President's "above my pay grade"

Wonderful... your recycling the rightwing name tags from last years elections.... Damn straight its above his pay grade, as said above, the decision to where life begins from sperm to fetus can only be made by those partner(s) involved, not by government. Isnt it above Obamas pay grade to tell you when to spend the night with your partner, or is that private thing? Isnt it above Obamas pay grade to tell you whether you should donate an organ to somebody on the verge of death?

When you preach individual freedom, preach it on all terms, not just the one centered to your belief, otherwise its just hypocrisy.

government openness he allows a "presumption" in favour of disclosure where there is a doubt. Where abortion is concerned he presumes in favour of the constructed "woman's right to choose" in preference to the fundamental right to life.

As said above, its a decision only an individual under that circumstances can make. To establish whats life is almost impossible, there is a lengthy window between that which is sperm and the other which is a one/two week old fetus. If we are to establish permenant anti-abortion laws then why not establish a law saying that you can only have intercourse for the sake of having kids? How about if a woman is raped, she must suffer through yet another truamer of pregnacy with the child of the rapist? How about the young 14year old molested or the 12 year old girl who had done what she was not suppose to do, now she is pregnant? As said, the laws of abortion leave that option open, an option only those two partners or legal guardians involved could make. Its not our business. We cannot draw that line.

Im really only for abortion in the case of rape and incest and ofcourse when it is a risk to both lives, but if that means I have to choose between abortion in all cases, or no abortions under law at all, I would choose full rights abortion laws, because the complications of banning abortion goes too far.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by southern_Guardian]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by frankdatank

 

exterminating handicapped mentally and physically as most are on government assistance we should go ahead and take of elderly to or at least the ones recieving government assistance.

Woah, apples and oranges. This is another discussion for another thread. There's a huge difference between a fetus being aborted before it evolves past twelve weeks and those who are birthed, and those who are elderly.

Nice you should be a politician or work in media. I like how you add the 12 week thing in and try to tell me i'm in the wrong form and only use a part of my second post that was a rebutal to the logic of one of you post my thoughts on the subject no one knows for sure when or if we are endowed with a soul so maybe your killing your child or maybe just or small growth. Two the whole pro choice thing is wrong in most circumstances not counting rape ect. You do have a choice use protection be responsible ect. rape victims is where it gets much more complicated so i won't talk about that. Lastly a little rant irresponsible Men don't have freedom of choice they mess up and they are a Dad. Just my thoughts on the topic feel free to tell me if I'm wrong

reply to post by BugByte


Please accept my apology if I did misinterpret your post. I understand what you were saying.

res

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Would it not be easier to just keep it in you pant's? Rather than going through all the troubles of an abortion and expense's?

As for my religion I do not have one. I do not follow religions, as GOD the Father said "All the churches on the earth are corrupt". I only follow the True teaching of The Perfect Savior. Which no church teaches due to the Vatican's corruption. Even most Christians do not know the truth about Jesus which means they blindly believe in Him, and Jesus said that those who blindly follow will not get into heaven.

reply to post by marg6043

I believe that the Vatican should mind their own business and rather than complain should used their wealth to feed the hungry in the world.

Perfectly stated.

If this were your daughter, partner or some other woman you loved, what would be worse:

a) A pregnant woman goes to a legal abortion clinic. She undergoes counselling and an abortion is performed before 12 weeks under anaesthetic in a sterile, safe and clean environment with help on hand in case of complications. The woman also has access to aftercare and a post abortion checkup. There is also further counselling if needed.

b) A pregnant woman goes to a backyard abortionist who could be anyone wanting to make some illegal bucks. There is no counselling, there are no sterile, clean and safe conditions, there is no anaesthetist. The abortion is done using some kind of sharp implement with the risk of physical damage. The woman leaves and then haemorrages and has other nasty physical effects because:

infection has set in; there is still foetal matter left and the crude abortion was incomplete; the implement used has caused damage that may result in permanent sterility.

What is worse?

If the Vatican and right to lifers had their way then women would resort to option b if they were determined not to give birth.


res

[edit on 26-1-2009 by resistancia]

If the Vatican and right to lifers had their way then women would resort to option b if they were determined not to give birth.


res

[edit on 26-1-2009 by resistancia]

Thats a very powerful statement but I believe it is true. I have shared my opinion on the topic and so will not repost. The statement you make does make me rethink my opinion but on the other hand I will not hold others to lower standards then I hold myself barring mental illness, you must try to do what is right.

This may be on here somewhere, sorry if it is a repost.

My feelings on abortion go back and forth, each case is different. The thing I think is stupid is to give American taxpayers money to other countries to support abortions, especially in todays economy.

The other issue is that people can defend taking an unborn child's life, someone who has made no choices to be good, bad, or otherwise but we are going to shut down Gitmo and stop torturing people who made a concious decision to kill. An innocent baby means nothing but a terrorist deserves rights. Go figure.

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

Originally posted by Mdv2
I think it goes too far when people try to force others to share their opinion through legislation.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's always on an issue of someones choice to do one thing or another. You shouldn't legislate choices. Even if you don't agree, you shouldn't be trying to take away the choice from everyone else.

Based on your argument: murder, rape and other heinous crimes should be legalized because they infringe upon one's freedom of choice, which (according to you) trumps one's freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--all of which are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and--all of which are taken from an unborn child.

Under your premise, we might as well just have anarchy...not that anarchy is bad because there is such a thing as nonviolent, peaceful anarchy...but would it hold true for very long?

Life absolutely begins at conception. That is one definition of life. This is not about the Catholic Church or a women's choice. It's about whether or not abortion is unconstitutional and it is for the reasons stated. Row vs. Wade was a poor ruling. This is not a country set forth by a rule of man, but a country set forth by a rule of LAW.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by TheDarkNight]

reply to post by resistancia


I truly believe that the decision would rest's on the woman, my opinion means nothing whether or not I agree. If I was asked for my advise, I would say not to have an abortion.

But like I stated before, is it not just easier to keep it in your pants or use contraceptives?

reply to post by frankdatank


I respect your opinion frankdatank.

Just showing what I believe will happen if abortion is outlawed and legal clinics were to close. Backyard abortionists were the reality before we had legal abortion clinics.

res



[edit on 26-1-2009 by resistancia]