BF2S Forums Would you consider the pro-life view to be sectarian?

im pro life, and am not a member of the religious right, so no.

TMo sums up my views on the matter. They invented the pill, condoms and all sorts of other stuff as birth control. Abortion is just a way of avoiding responsibility that should be dealt with.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

im pro life, and am not a member of the religious right, so no.

Same. I'm jewish and I'm pro-life. And I'm also not religious in any way, shape, or form. Sorta like Billy Joel

ThomasMorgan wrote:

I'm pro-choice in the sense that if either the baby or mother will be put at risk or if it's a case of rape or incest, then abortion should be allowed.  It should not be allowed as a form of birth control if the mother decides she is unfit to be a parent or just decides she doesn't want a child.

That's what I say too... if it's the mother's fault (i.e. not taking resposibility and using condoms or the pill) it shouldn't be allowed after like... the 3rd month. BUT if it happens as the result of rape, or is threatening th elife of the mother, it should be valid.

Sergeriver, schools already do that, but people don't pay attention.
I am pro-life and religious, but my pro-life view is not solely because of my faith.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2006-08-21 06:41:51)

Flecco wrote:

TMo sums up my views on the matter. They invented the pill, condoms and all sorts of other stuff as birth control. Abortion is just a way of avoiding responsibility that should be dealt with.

I don't understand that way of thinking at all, having an abortion is taking responsibilty for the accidental conseption.

Yes but the only way to truely prevent birth that is 100% is abstinance. Every other way has a chance of getting pregnant.

Well you usually find out about the pregnacy with in 1-2 months, so no adoption alot of the times isn't even an option. There are cost involved with being pregnant and caring the fetus for the full 9 months.

What's wrong with abortions? Admittedly they are something you would strive to avoid, but I see them essentially as just another form of contraception - just a bit further down the line. It all just depends on where you draw the line, 3, 4, 5 months into a pregnancy, who cares - it's not a person yet. Unwanted babies ruin lives.
*edit* A 'morning after pill' is pretty much an abortion - are pro-lifers against them too? If so why?
I hope it won't be too long before the stigma surrounding abortions disappears, a bit like with contraception and Catholicism (not completely disappeared but almost).

Also, Wizardspike - please try to form coherent grammatical sentences, especially when they are to be used as the title of a thread.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-21 15:55:48)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

To all those "pro-life" guys, can you tell me the earliest thing you can remember?  Chances are it'll be 2 or 3 years old at the earliest and we are talking about undeveloped babies that have no sense of life, emotion, pain or anything......

Then how come undeveloped babies flail around and struggle against the devices? Ones intactly removed will sit there on pans shrieking (if they have the capability). I recall a story about one being old enough to lie there exposed on a stainless-steel table screaming. The 'mother' had experienced difficulties during the procedure, and paramedics were brought in. One of them saw the screaming baby and, against the clinic's wishes, took it back to the hospital. Never did hear if he/she survived, because it was against policy to tell.

Just because most people don't remember anything earlier than 1.5-2 years of age doesn't mean that we should be allowed to abort them too, does it? Wait, could we detect possible deviations from the norm while they're in the womb? Well, let's just go ahead and adopt a system of eugenics right now! What about someone with a memory disorder? They'll never recall anything beyond the moment, so just kill them now. Maybe you should put retarded people into the equation. And then the otherwise crippled, what about them? Hell, someone in their eighties may have difficulty recalling details about their childhood. A man with Alzheimer's might not remember his early life at all (except from time to time). I'd be pro-life even if I wasn't religious.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-21 16:27:53)

Canin wrote:

Unwanted babies ruin lives? Just think of all the aborted babies there have been, and just one of them may have been able to cure a whole list of ailments down the line. As for abortion versus having to live a poor life, boohoo, your poor. The government has tons of programs for the poor, I know because they take my hard earned money to pay for them in the form of taxes. And as far as nine months is too short a time for an adoption, you do know that any state hospital must take in and deliver a child, and also that most if not all states now allow a child within a certain time frame to be left at a hospital, church or police station, no questions asked. Seems to me there are a great number of options other than abortion. And fass, your right, the only 100% guarantee of not getting pregnant is abstinence, so freckin what. Abstinence and virginity are virtues lost in this world right now. On the whole the world would probably be mush better off if more people had those virtues.

Unwanted babies generally do ruin lives. Both the parents and the childs.

Citing the potential of an arboted fetus to "cure ailments" is as foolish as citing that a parent who cannot afford to abort her child would have done the same.

You have never been poor, obviously, and thus cannot sympathize. I think you should not belittle the plight of others before you can understand it.

The government has some welfare for the poor, but not much and certainly not enough. Welfare alone will not remedy their economic status. Furthermore, many pro-lifers are trying to dismantle welfare for the poor.

As for adoption, we already have an overflow of oprhans up for adoption, do we really need more?

Abstinence and virginity? Laughable, not only does it contradict survival instinct, if anything it is more prevelant now than ever. Even the catholic church which preached monogomy, and abstinence for the clergy was perhaps the most lecherous establishment of its time. Abstinence is a myth propagated by the Catholic chruch in the earlier centuries of the last millenium.

Canin wrote:

Unwanted babies ruin lives? Just think of all the aborted babies there have been, and just one of them may have been able to cure a whole list of ailments down the line. As for abortion versus having to live a poor life, boohoo, your poor. The government has tons of programs for the poor, I know because they take my hard earned money to pay for them in the form of taxes. And as far as nine months is too short a time for an adoption, you do know that any state hospital must take in and deliver a child, and also that most if not all states now allow a child within a certain time frame to be left at a hospital, church or police station, no questions asked. Seems to me there are a great number of options other than abortion. And fass, your right, the only 100% guarantee of not getting pregnant is abstinence, so freckin what. Abstinence and virginity are virtues lost in this world right now. On the whole the world would probably be mush better off if more people had those virtues.

Yup - if everyone exclusively had the 'virtues' of abstinance and virginity the world would be a much better place - there wouldn't be any people in it for a start.

From any non religious stance having lots of sex is a good thing. The purpose of life is procreation, the need of the species to continue it's existence, to save all of mankind. What nobler cause is there than that.

Abortions are a by-product of social evolution, which will become more accepted as society evolves further. There will probably always be religious radicals who are against abortions but, I believe, in the not too distant future they will be thought of as backwards religious nutters by society in general - much as fundamentalist Muslims are today.

I still don't see what people have against abortions - foetuses aren't people they are just a sort of blob that will eventually turn into a person.

jonsimon wrote:

Unwanted babies generally do ruin lives. Both the parents and the childs.

Citing the potential of an arboted fetus to "cure ailments" is as foolish as citing that a parent who cannot afford to abort her child would have done the same.

You have never been poor, obviously, and thus cannot sympathize. I think you should not belittle the plight of others before you can understand it.

The government has some welfare for the poor, but not much and certainly not enough. Welfare alone will not remedy their economic status. Furthermore, many pro-lifers are trying to dismantle welfare for the poor.

As for adoption, we already have an overflow of oprhans up for adoption, do we really need more?

Abstinence and virginity? Laughable, not only does it contradict survival instinct, if anything it is more prevelant now than ever. Even the catholic church which preached monogomy, and abstinence for the clergy was perhaps the most lecherous establishment of its time. Abstinence is a myth propagated by the Catholic chruch in the earlier centuries of the last millenium.

I'm not going to bother rebutting the first two sentences as it would result in a flame war. As for not being poor and not understanding. Don't judge people you don't know without first finding out the facts. I have been poor, as described by the government. Have I been homeless? No, I have always been fortunate to have a roof over my head, whether it be my own, my parents or someone else in my family to take my family in. But not having money to buy food, that is poor. Not having money to buy clothes, instead wearing someone elses second hand clothes because it was only a quarter a garment at the thrift store, that is poor.

As for the government welfare system. I know a little about that too, my family having been in need of food stamps when I was a child and then being denied them while the next person in line pulls up in a Cadillac and is given them. The welfare system hasn't changed in the last 25 years either, all its done is created a welfare state that generations are sponging off of because they feel thats the way it should be.

On the adoption point, I know people who have adopted and they were unable to adopt from within the US. They ended up adopting from Russia. Another went through the adoption process 4 times before being able to adopt from within the US. So perhaps the process is the cause of the so called over abundance of orphans in the US.

As for your retort on abstinence and virginity, I was not implying that everyone should stay a virgin their whole life. I do however advocating abstinence and virginity until marriage. Imagine where the STD rate would be right now if that were to happen. But alas it is not so.

And as a final thought you chose to bring religion into the mix. My religion as a matter of fact. The only reason you claim that the Catholic priests were the most lecherous is because they were held in the highest esteem. A priest is not infallible. They are not GOD or JESUS. They are human and have human tendencies and failings. Preaching abstinence and monogamy are good things. How else will a marriage survive if it were not monogamous, and what better way to lower the abortion rate than through abstinence?