Board Thread:Clubs/@comment-38195691-20191127162526/@comment-72.205.23.158-20191211022524

108.12.254.38 wrote: 72.205.23.158 wrote: 108.12.254.38 wrote: Chicken tornado wrote: Hey guys, I'm a Christian, and I think It's super cool that there's a debate thread on here!

My thoughts on abortion:

If the pregnancy was consetual, yet out of wedlock:

I get it. It should be the "Woman's choice" right? "My body, my choice." Yes, your body may be affected by a prgnancy, but the child inside isn't "your body". It's a whole different, living, breathing organism that is so much more than a just a clump of cells. If you arent married, yet you're old enough to raise the child, and not be hurt by the pregnancy, than you have no excuse, other than your laziness. And for those feminists, who insist that abortions "empower" women, think about this: Doesn't the aborion benefit the man, instead of the woman? If you choose not to have the child, then the man gets off without any responsability, and can keep benefiting from the night time "events" of your relationship, consequence free. How is that fair?

If It was rape, and you are old enough to have a healthy pregnancy:

Yes, it might be difficult, but the fact remains that aboting your child is murder, regardless of if you're christian or not. As a lot of people have said, if the child is unwanted, giving it up for adoption or to a foster system is a good option.

If it was consentual, and you are married:

Why. Would. You. Do. That? The only thing that maight make the woman concider an abortion (or at least the only reason I can think of) is that they simply don't want the hassle of having a kid. If so: shame on you. You would rather kill an innocent baby than go through a little discomfort? An argument might be made that the family is struggling financially, and wouldn't be able to sufficiently support the child. This doesn't make sense to me, because the government has systems that support the baby through it's childhood, and again, adoption is always an option.

If the baby isn't going to make it anyway, or is disabled to the point where it would be more painful to be alive:

This is the one time that I believe abortion is acceptable. It's not only acceptable, but supportable, because it's for the better of the child.

On the topic of young pregnancies:

This is a valid point, but I believe that it's over stated a lot. When a girl gets periods, that is a sign that their bodies are capable of giving birth. This happens around 12, 13 years old. However, I don't think that age has anything to do with it, as much as the development of the girl's body. A 12 year old could be below the average weight/hieght, and still have started having periods. In that case, an abortion would only be acceptable if it was the only way for the girl to live.

All together:

In most cases, abortions are unneeded, if not selfish. In some places in the U.S., abotions are allowed up till one day before delivery. That means a fully developed baby, being slaughtered at the mother's selfish actions. I just can't wrap my head around that. When I researched abortion, to see how it was done, I found that tmost of the ways the abortions were performed were inhumane and painful for the child. This nearly convinced me to be pro-life. But what really did it was the fact that having an abortion for any reason other than 'it would put the child out of it's misery' is weakness and laziness in it's purest form. Who would murder a child just to keep thing simple for themselves?

Okay so I'm done with my rant. I want so say that i did read all of the posts above, and apreciate the fact that everyone here is willing to share their opinions without it getting heated. If you have any refuting arguments to any of my points I'd love to hear them! An abortion a day before delivery is definitely cruel and far too late. Depending on the circumstance, 3-4 months into the pregnancy is far more reasonable.

If the kid was concieved just because the couple forgot to use protection and are married, adults, gave consent, and just don't want a kid, then they shouldn't just kill the baby because they don't want it - they could put it up for adoption.

But if the pregnancy's a danger to either the mother or the baby's health, and abortion would ease the suffering of both of them, then it's a wise choice.

Overall, I believe abortion is not selfish in many circumstances, unless it's a case where a mother aborts at 8 months pregnant or gets rid of the baby just because she suddenly decides she doesn't want to raise a kid.

-cress So what you're saying is that since the baby is life threatening you would kill it - the murderer is ALSO life threatening, and is intentionally doing it, killing more than one person, and doing it with every understanding of what they're doing, knowing the consequences and yet STILL doing it - but they should be allowed to live because.... murder is wrong?

-Black Panther Sorry for not being more clear.

I'm trying to say that telling a murderer you're going to kill them just gives them more reason to think that they've done nothing wrong, which is the opposite of the thing you're trying to do. Killing a murderer would make them think murder is okay.

Abortion of a very young fetus is far more of healthcare than murder.

If a baby's health is in definite danger anyway or if it is dangerous to the mother's health (mental or physical), abortion is more than okay. I'm sorry... that just sounded a little more ridiculous to me. 1) that murderer won't be alive anymore to murder, and they will likely also understand WHY they're being killed 2) no, killing a murderer it health care, you iknow, like, LIFE care? That murderer is going to keep killing

-Black Panther