How can you be Christian and be Pro Choice?

Thanks. Good to know I wasn't outright roasted on the spit for being a moderately conservative, somewhat religious person fretting over the gray area.

It's used to justify the rights of a person, not to justify victimization. I'm all for the rights of an individual to his/her body, including assisted suicide. That's not my decision and it shouldn't be - nor should abortion be my decision for someone else. That's the short and sweet of where I stand, regardless of my religious beliefs that these things are wrong. There is, and should be, a great distinction between the two - even Jesus saw this, unto Caesar what's his, etc.

I agree. We just stand on opposite sides of what those rights should be, and whether the government should force a person to abide by those rights, or lack thereof.

 

I don't disagree with those who say that life begins at conception, or that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

However, neither the government nor other individuals should be able to control the decision that a woman makes whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. If you are not only willing & able, but will also follow through with taking in some unwanted child--regardless of health issues, deformities, race or mixtures of race, psychological problems, ad infinitum--you MAY have a right to judge in that specific case. But most people who hold such opinions find it easy to speak because they aren't faced with these issues.

The ultimate decision is, & should be, between the pregnant woman & God. If she makes the wrong choice, she is the only one accountable.

 

How can murdering her baby be the right choice before God?

 

So basically for you the right of a woman to make decisions about her body trumps any rights the unborn baby may have? I guess the whole abortion argument boils down to whether you think the unborn should have legal rights. That is likely based on whether you view the unborn as being a living being or not.

 

It's not just the woman's right to control her own body, though it is a factor. It's also the fact that she is the one who will be responsible for the child once it's born; & nature/God has put her in that position. Imperfect as she undoubtedly is, she is the one in the best position to determine what that child's life is likely to be like if she carries it to term. There are far too many factors that enter into it that no other person (or government) can know. None of us can even agree on what is fair or right, much less accept the responsibility for the results of any decision.

Sure, it MAY be true that an embryo constitutes a human life. But if we as a society take on the decision that her pregnancy must be carried to term, WE don't have to deal with what becomes of the child after that in a PERSONAL way, as she definitely does. It may cost us tax dollars for welfare, addiction, crime, etc. at some point; but we don't have to deal with it up close & personal.

Further, a huge percentage of the people who want to outlaw abortion are the same people who object to government spending for those same programs, & blame the victims for the situations they were born into. I'm not willing to make that kind of decision for anyone but myself.

Whether the unborn child has the right to be born or not, society is in no position to protect the child from whatever situation that child may be born into. I've seen situations in which, IMO, the child would have been far better off having never been born.

Hell, I have suffered tremendous angst at having to decide to end the suffering of an animal. I'd hate to be even partially responsible for some of the horrors that many innocent children suffer once they are born.

I believe that the best we can do, as a society, is to leave the situation & its consequences to whatever gods we may believe in to judge.

If anyone cares enough about the rights of the unborn, they can make the effort to make a difference to at least ONE child by adopting one considered "unadoptable." There may be a shortage of healthy white babies available for adoption; but there are plenty of others out there who have little or no chance of being a part of a healthy, loving family.

 

Would anyone have a problem if at the same time each abortion was performed the doctor also sterilized the woman? If so, why?

 

Disagree strongly. I bet the percentage would be in the single digits, if anything, of those same people who are unwilling to care for children. Able bodied adults is a different matter altogether.

 

I can understand the position that says an unborn baby is not alive yet and therefore has no rights. I reject that but I can understand it. The argument I can not quite grasp is the idea that it is better to kill an unwanted child because it will probably have an unhappy life. There is no way to predict outcomes for people and beyond that IMHO an unhappy life or atleast and unhappy start in life is better than no life at all.

The idea that society is forcing a woman to care for her baby if it outlaws abortion and is therefore putting an unfair burdern on her is pretty strange to me. The woman chooses to have sex and chooses not to use adequate protection therefore she accepts the risk of pregnancy and the burden associated with it. She is not an innocent party. Neither is the father and I do support forcing men to support thier children. We have laws to force men to pay child support and if they are too weak then I am for strengthening them.

 

yes, i would have a problem with that. that would be like taking the driver's license away from anybody who got in a car accident, banning any football player who got injured on the field, arresting a cancer survivor for smoking, etc.

 

Not really, according to most pro-choice people, you aren't taking anything of worth from the woman.