Do you believe abortion is justified under certain circumstances?
i am pro-life, and you can call me a hypocrite for "supporting" abortion in cases of rape, incest, health to the mother, but i think circumstances must be taking into account. there is a difference between a guy planning to kill someone with a gun for five years and doing it and a guy who accidently kills his best friend with a gun. and for those who are worried about the sancitity of life, i wonder how many of those people are vegans? considering GOD said "thou shalt not kill" nor "thou shalt not kill human beings". it's not alright to kill humans but killing pigs is fine?
Answers:
Right or wrong does not change because of circumstance.or opinion. Murder is murder, it cannot logically or morally be a matter of opinion. Very little is actually.
P.S. Since it is absolutely wrong , murder is murder,, the mother can have no say.
I agree with eveyrthing you said..
Except the last part. God said that the animals were given to us for food.
rape, if the mothers' health and life is at risk and incest.
Those are the ONLY times it should be considered. Not when some nutcase liberals decide that they are too lazy and stupid to take responsibility of their own actions.
all or nothing... thats my views. its not up to me or anyone to say what someone else can do regaurding that.
It's not hypocritical in the case of the health of the mother since she was here first and there's no argument that right to life includes her life. The other cases are hypocritical and smack of those who want to deny women equality and the right to control their own bodies. If it is truely right to LIFE this includes both the life of the mother and the baby, nothing to do with the damn rapist. You want to allow someone to be killed after a rape to make you feel better? Kill the rapist, not the baby.
Abortion is a decision to be made between the woman and her God, not the government. Therefore, I think the government should butt out. After all, the government is so impotent that it can't enforce the laws it passed and it constantly tells us that it can't deport 12-30 million illegal aliens. If it can't do that job, why should we trust it with any decision on abortion? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's. If you live what you believe, you will have no need for laws because you will be living your religion and you will practice God's laws. Judge not lest ye be judged!
Well unfortunately Peter Thou shall not kill does not count for women who have been "inconvenienced" by their sexual acts so they head to the clinic and shed they're child and their moral responsibility.In certain cases i believe it is unavoidable to save the women's life or in the case of a woman who is raped but the amount of times that these cases happen are very few compared to the "I don't want a kid" for whatever reason abortion.So in my opinion the answer to your questions unfortunately is yes
If you want to get an abortion get one if you don't want one don't get one...simple.
If I tell a pro-life proponent that I think guns should be illegal they get bent for attacking their right to arm themselves. But they have no problem attacking a womans right to choose.
Lets just pick and choose the rights we like and skip the ones we don't.
-If it is not affecting the health of the would be mother
-if the new born is having generic problems
-if the birth endangers mother's life
-if legal issues warrent
and on any other extra ordinary reasons,abortion is correct.
I too am Pro-life but I do have sense enough to know there are going to be times where abortion is going to be needed.
Here is the problem when you try to offer some kind of comprise to Pro-choice they want it all and drives me back to the none side of the debate.
There reality is the majority of people don't want abortion ban in all cases or want abortion legal in all cases.
It is the all or nothing side that keeps this flame a buring.
Being a believer in the almighty I find it impossible to condone abortion under any circumstance. Take the baby and put it up for adoption but do not stifle a life that God has started. Two people may hump like rabbits but only God can enable the sperm to fertilize. That is a base fact. Just as we fail to understand many test given to us, we fail to accept conception as an act of God not man.
One has to remember that when the KJV was written down, "kill" was synonymous with "murder." To cause the death of another without guilt would be to slay or slaughter that person. So, when the translator of the KJV wrote "Thou shalt not kill," the thought in his head was on all fours with the meaning "Thou shalt do no murder" to a 21st Century speaker.
As far as recognizing that there are grey areas out there, I think this is responsible thinking. I used to be vehemently anti-abortion, but certain problems cropped up. For example, the novel "The Cardinal," made into a movie by Otto Preminger, has a plot climax when the monsignor's sister gets knocked up, she falls on hard times and she does not get pre-natal care. In fact, she does not even go to the ER when she goes into labor, except that two days later, she's not progressing and then she gets taken to the hospital. The baby's head is good and stuck, wedged beyond the ability of medicine to extract absent a radical caesarian. The standard medical procedure in this case is a craniotomy, which is practically indistinguishable from a partial birth abortion. The doctor hands the consent form to the monsignor, 'cos sister is so sedated she does not know what planet she is on.
The Roman Catholic doctrine in this case is to prohibit intervention. Eventually, the baby will die in utero, at which point a craniotomy is okay because you're not killing the baby. Or Mommy will die in childbirth, at which point you can do the radical caesarian and extract the baby.
The problem is that in about 90% of these cases, you lose both Mommy and Baby. This is supposed to be pro-Life, but it's not. It's simply anti-abortion as an ideology and consequences be damned.
That was the first chink in the armor that I relied on to adopt the teaching of the Church as authoritative, because the teaching in this case is demonstrably wrong. Once you reject the magisterium--once you accept that you are allowed to think for yourself--the rest of the Church's system starts to fall apart. And then you come to accept a pro-choice policy, at least for unquickened pregnancies.
Lo, and behold, St. Augustine taught precisely that: the termination of an unquickened pregnancy is not per se sinful. Of course, Thomas Aquinas went the other way, and the Church tossed out most of Augustine's teachings in favor of Thomas', because the scholastic movement supported the doctrine of papal supremacy, and not just in matters spiritual.
Be careful. Start thinking this way (and read a few good books, like Gary Wills "Papal Sin" and Ridley "Bloody Mary's Martyrs") and the next thing you know, you won't be so terribly Catholic no mo', you may end up as a Protestant! Or a Buddhist :-)
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Questions and Answers: