MattUK, it makes sense when you think about it. Most men are not directly impacted by the issue of abortion. Granted, this changes when a male's wife or girlfriend decides to have one. However, the vast majority of pro-life male's I've spoken with have based their opinions on relgious values, media coverage or another reason. Many of them haven't thought about the emotional impact it has on a woman. The women I've talked to, however, are able to look at the issue as it pertains to them as a female. Because it is our rights being affected, we are able to look at the situation from all different aspects. Please don't misunderstand, I am not bashing the male species. There are pro-choice men just as there are pro-life women. All I am saying is that if men had the ability to become pregnant and bring life into the world, or have an abortion and not go through it, I wonder if their opinions would change. At the very least, I wonder whether they would choose to look at the issue from different viewpoints.
No offence taken. I was actually teasing a bit. It was just funny to see a load of guys banging on about principals and morals when it's not them that are directly affected. Personally I'd hate the issue to affect me. I've been touched by it once, though thankfully not directly. It must be an incredibly difficult thing to go though for a male as you'd want your opinions to be heard, but at the same time it wouldn't be your body that was affected. Ultimately the decision is the womans, it would be an awful sense of powerlessness.
I lean towards pro-life, but it's not a religious chose...it's more or less based on when are they scientifically humans, and whether or not I think at that point it's consistant with my other views on individual rights and such. Although I don't really have a solid position, other than I think it should be left to the states. I've known many women that have done it. I've dated quite a few, and to be honest, my level of respect dies (although I dont' speak of it) when I'm told they've done it. I believe as an individual you are responsible for all your actions, and that's despite the consequence of your parents,..... I believe if anything, it's selfish to put yourself before a baby. If anything, if I could experience such, I would give it for adoption. Curious....a man has no chose in paying child support (which I believe he's morally and should be lawfully held accountable), but he has absolutely no say in whether the abortion is or isn't appropriate. Yeah, I understand it's the womans body, but to know 'my child' was aborted would anger me quite a bit.
I just don't understand how someone couldn't want to have their child. I don't get it. Kids are cool!
Rick_Michael, a lot of women don't want to go through the process of childbirth, only to give away their baby. Is that selfish? Who really knows. The fact is, if a woman is unable to keep her baby due to medical reasons, personal reasons, emotional troubles, etc... she should be freely allowed to make that choice. Now, would I want the father to be involved with the decision? Yes, of course. But not everyone thinks that way. The bottom line boils down to what's best for all parties involved. If a woman believes abortion is the answer, she should be allowed to make that choice.
I know, I'm just accounting for the thousands or millions of women out there that don't want their child.
Also a lot of pro-life people are Christian, pro-wars, pro-death penalty and pro-torture, which seems a bit contradictory, but hey its that culture of life
Anything done in pure self-interest is 'selfish'. Many thing I do in my life aren't done because I'll get the money or because I'll think more highly of myself, but rather another person benefits out it...and to some level that might be an interest of my own. From what I heard, this is rare in comparison to the latter reasons. Your opinion. I'd say it's fairly odd to call a human a concious being (as most scientist refer to us as), but since a child is concious in the mother it lose that level of humanity...that I don't understand. I'd understand the arguement that the child is still protoplasm (which it is in earlier stages), because that's a scientific potentiality, not an actuality. This issue strikes me in the same way as illegal immigration supporters do, because it seems those that support either just have a particular bias in the opinion...and it's not built on an objective arguement. I mean I've said it several times before, and it seems like I always get a reponse more or less built on 'opinion' rather than fact. I'm not taking the religious standard into account, I'm just taking the standard of what we consider humans...we should not murder. That has been a standard for centuries. I am impressing the question upon you: how is a concious baby outside of a mother different than a concious baby inside of a mother? Are they not human? I suggest they are (by scientific standards), therefore I do not understand the differences in standards.
braindead? killing a helpless baby vs putting to death a murderer? Are you saying a baby is like a murderer or the murderer is just a helpless baby? geesh. OK, back to your Christian bashing... (ferret)
Aren't Christians supposed to against ALL forms of murder, turn the other cheek and all that. Some people seem to be very selective in their beliefs.
Depends on your interpetation of the bible. Durning moses journey to get the ten commandments, the bible says god ordered moses to kill in certain occasions. In almost all occasions god orders deaths as a matter of getting rid of the sinners ie murders, oppressors,thieves, and adultery. When he gives the commandment to the people it was, though shall not 'murder'....which essentially the wording (in those times) meant not to kill the innocent. Jesus recognized moses, and even the commandments he brought with him...as he said he didn't come to destroy the prophets but to fullfill the phrophecy. As far as his exact interpetation of Moses life (and actions), I'm not sure what Jesus thought. ???? I believe the turning of the cheek is interpeted differently, depending on the person's view. My Catholic friend said, 'well, if it's a matter of making a mistake or words or actions that aren't violent or threatening, then I definitely believe one should forgive continually....but when it involves violence all bets are off.' If Moses is spoken of correctly, god seemed to promote 'justice' so to speak. I can't say I get anything concise out of Jesus comments. Right before his death he was said to say ' If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would have taken up arms to defend it, that I should not be delivered into your hands.' So by that same string of thought, this is our kingdom and 'give on to ceasar that which ceasar' by protecting by taken up arms to protect our innocent. Jesus specifically said to some, that they'd never see the gates of heaven (even though most people interpet he came to forgive everyone), and I'm almost predisposed to think that forgiveness didn't actually mean anything physical, rather it meant something spirtual/emotional. The man next to Jesus asked for forgiveness, and even though Jesus suffered along side him (he forgive him) but didn't relief him from this world's judgement. Just my point of view.
Religious viewpoints are fine. I'm all for people believing what they want to believe in. However, as far as arguing against controversial topics like abortion by using the Bible as backup, well... that doesn't really fly with me. I don't hold the Bible as complete truth, and I don't feel it's a very effective source of information to draw from when debating different topics. Then again, that is just my two cents.
The bible shouldn't ever be used for anything involved in making laws. We're supposed to have seperation of church and government, and for a good reason ...
There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It's a myth, often argued by people who really believe it exists. Despite that, it has nothing to do with murdering babies. Just goes to show that some people will take the life of another for their own personal convenience and lack of personal responsibility. Five weeks - a heart beat, a living child. Doesn't sound very "progressive" to me. Ferret: I didn't think homosexuals were affected by abortions. How does it affect you?
You usually are wrong when you try to say what the Bible says, my guess is you are getting your information second hand instead of reading it yourself. Punishing a murderer vs. killing a baby who doesn't get to even say if he wants to die or not? Doesn't quite compare now does it? Strange that you keep trying to say it does somehow. A man comes and kills one of my kids, do I: let him go to do it to another? or stop it from being a possiblitity? Really simple to answer... I don't really see a choice in the matter. Actually it would be more humane than letting them rot in prison.
I don't really know how abortions effect homosexuals, but I would imagine that un wanted pregnancys in general effect society negatively yeah ok, As much as you would love to live in facist / theocratic state Gtech, thats not what america is about
Debunked If the right people were always excuted then maybe I could see executing people, but since innocent people are convicted pretty regularly .... Would you be happy if you or someone else you love was going to be executed for a crime they didn't commit? When you support the death penalty you are supporting that happening to someone Fetus != Baby, at least to me. They should give free birth control out to everyone cradle to grave, and it would help eliminate these problems