.... sometimes the father is trying to stop the killing of his child by a woman exercising her "rights over my own body"

If that's truly the case, then here on MB, a person who has an affair is not committing adultery as long as they don't believe it's adultery, but a choice.

So are they committing adultery or not?

so, if your ex husband doesn't believe that cheating is wrong...is he in fact not cheating?

Look, there are people out there that think sex with children is okay...that doesn't change the FACT that is isn't.

Abortion is murder. Anyone that supports the right to choose is in fact guilty by association. It doesn't matter if one believes it or not.

Scott Peterson would have liked his case to have been decided on him committing ONE homicide, not two. Abortion rights advocates wanted Peterson to get away with murdering his infant!




full article here

Using your logic, Peterson was exercising his right to choose abortion for his wife - he did not murder his child. He murdered his wife and aborted his child.

Except that he did believe cheating is wrong.

I'm not arguing this. But telling someone so doesn't change their beliefs and, therefore, their actions.

One could also say that anyone that supports taking a woman's right to her own body away is a misogynist, or at bare minimum in support of oppressing women.

I'm not trying to argue the (im)morality of abortion. People believe what they believe. All I'm saying is there are ways to reduce the numbers of abortion, regardless of theses differences. Many of these things can be done personally. You can volunteer for the united way or a womens shelter. You can donate money to help provide health care to pregnant teens - all sorts of things. Wouldn't you feel good if you could save even just one? You can call me a murderer if you want MEDC. But I have not only never killed anyone, I have saved lives and this is fact which is a lot more valuable than the opinion of a stranger on the internet.

"This is a related issue, but not the same issue. I firmly believe we need much better and more thorough sex education. Children, boys and girls, should go into puberty knowing everything there is to know about sex, pregnancy, STDs, birth control and yes, even abortion. They should be comfortable enough to ask questions and have discussions with their parents."

I agree with you on this. Parents need to step up.

If abortion is "OK" there is NO reason to reduce the number.

Which side of this argument are you on?

Again, the title of this thread is "How to reduce abortion numbers." This is what I'm responding to. I already said in my first post I am anti-abortion. I also said I was pro-choice and explained why that is not a contradiction in terms. Do you want to reduce abortion or don't you? If not, why are you reading this thread?

To point out inconsistencies in your logic.


If "pro choice" means ability to choose abortion if one wants to, there should not be a limit of that choice - WHAT is your LOGIC for restricting a legitimate choice?

If there is nothing wrong with having an abortion - then to speak of limiting abortions is illogical.

I want to eliminate abortion not reduce it.

I believe the individual should have the choice. I never mentioned a thing about limiting or restricting that choice. I am simply describing ways I believe would reduce the number of abortions without taking away the choices of the individuals involved. Rather that take away their choice, make it so the choice to have an abortion is worse than being pregnant - even for those who don't believe there is anything wrong with abortion in the first place.

I never there wasn't anything wrong. In fact, I said I was anti-abortion. However, I'm also against suppressing human rights of any kind - including a woman's right to her own body. This is not the same as being pro-abortion. Many women, including myself, CHOSE to remain pregnant. My son is alive today because of MY CHOICE, not some regulator's or any other third party. MINE. I cannot possibly illustrate how critical this is. To take that away from me makes me a broodmare, not the mother that I CHOSE to be.

So what that means is that I have to accept that some woman may choose something I do not support. So instead of sitting back, I will do what I can to influence things so that this choice is less attractive and made less often. It is far more effective than pure legislation and it doesn't turn these women into livestock.

I would like to eliminate war as well but it's not going to happen.

So, how do you think abortions can be reduced?

Tabby1 responded: Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.

Tabby, I'd like to spend a little time discussing these "talking points" you tossed out.


1. Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective.

This is the argument for "Moral Relativity." To embrace this philosophy means that each individual can decide what is right and wrong FOR THEMSELVES, and no one can say that they are "wrong." That is the "slippery slope" when "absolutes" that transcend all individuals are tossed out and are replaced with "whatever I want."

Some people will "argue" that "society" can decide some "absolutes" (i.e. premeditated murder is "always" wrong) AND impose that moral absolute on everyone in the given society, and often even on those who may be in a different society.

But then we are in the position of "ceding" to the "society" the definition of "right and wrong. That might be all that bad, except for the fact that society often changes its definitions and what was once "wrong" can become "right."

We are seeing that sort of thing with the issue of Homosexuals who want to be in a committed relationship BUT who want to change the definition of "Marriage." Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, DEFINED as between a Man and Woman.

Regardless of the religious aspect of marriage, "marriage" is by definition between genders, between a man and a woman.

With respect to a baby, it has been for thousands of years thought of AS a baby even while in the womb in the initial phases of development. But NOW people, and a lot of "society" wants to "redefine" that baby into something less "repugnant sounding" in order to make killing that unborn baby more "acceptable."

But abortion IS "premeditated murder" of a baby. All that is happening is a redefining of terms to make it seem more "acceptable," and to allow the "greedy" to profit by the procedure.


2. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise.

It IS the truth. That baby IS a distinct being, separate from the mother yet dependent upon the mother, as it is dependent on mother-father-others as an infant, for its nourishment and continued life. Regardless of what others "think," all they are doing is applying "moral relativism" to enable them to do whatever they want to do.


3. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs.

That people will DO what they WANT to do is not abnormal. People make those types of choices all the time. People drink and choose to drive. People have sex and choose to risk terminal STD's and getting pregnant as a consequence of their CHOICE to engage in an activity that they DON'T "have to" engage in.

SOME people will NEVER listen to any argument that what they are doing is "wrong."

Some people WILL listen, especially if give ALL the facts and not the slanted facts that they receive from places like Planned Parenthood.

Some people will NEVER "give up" their Affair Partner, and some will. Should NO effort be made to TRY to "change their minds?


4. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.

How about this for a "better option?" DO NOT have sex with anyone outside of being married to another person? How about DO NOT have sex without multiple birth control methods being used?

How about "thou shalt not kill" as a better option?

How about recognizing the inherent sanctity of life that is present in all human beings and that any given individual is NOT "entitled" to take that life from someone else, "just because they want to?"






Tabby1 - "choosing to not be pregnant" NECESSITATES killing the reason someone IS pregnant (the baby), according to the way you are using your argument. It is just another way to try to "clean up" the choice to kill a baby and try to make it something other than what it is.

Now, if you are serious about the "choice to not be pregnant," then do what I suggested earlier and REQUIRE a couple engaging in sex to use MULTIPLE birth control methods as their "choice" to choose "not to be pregnant." Do NOT play "Russian Roulette" with a loaded gun and "expect" that you can "take the bullet back" once it's been fired.

Take ALL the bullets out of the gun, remove the firing pin, put a bullet with no powder in the gun, or put the gun somewhere in the room so that it COULD be used, but the "odds" are extremely remote, if not non-existant.




Tabby, unless the woman was raped, she CHOSE to engage in sex knowing full well that ONLY women "get pregnant." So while I agree that the "father" has a responsibility, the "courts" have said that the father does NOT have ANY say in whether or not his girlfriend or wife can have an abortion. So "where is the father" is a "red herring" argument when applied to the abortion issue. The MOTHER relinquished the "choice" for abortion when she CHOSE to engage in sex, KNOWING that a pregnancy could result, as that is HOW women become pregnant.

So to "accommodate" her "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever she CHOOSES, abortion advocates now want to give her the "additional" birth control method of KILLING the resultant baby.

That's NOT a choice. That's an excuse for murder. And they try to take the "sting" out of it by relentlessly trying to call the baby something "sub-human" in order to not have to deal with "absolute moral standards."

Tabby, because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps Jew killing being wrong is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose Jew killing, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose Jew killing. It won't eliminate Jew killing but it will reduce their frequency.

Tabby, I just used your own logic on the crime of killing Jews. Does it make any sense to you? Instead of hanging key Germans at Nuremberg, should we have just let it slide on the basis that murdering Jews was ok in their perspective? That it was our obligation to "present them with better options" so they will be less likely to kill Jews?

Did we commit a terrible miscarriage of justice when we decided that the "perspective" of WW11 Germans was wrong and hung them at Nuremburg?

Since everyone is entitled to their "own perspective" should we therefore unlock our prisons and free the rapists and murderers? Because according to their "perspective" they are justified in raping and murdering.

I just don't think you have thought alot of this through carefully.

Eliminate "abortion on demand" and require legitimate reasons (i.e., rape, incest, REAL potential physical harm or death to the mother, etc.)

"Health of the mother," the way the law is interpreted today, is ANYTHING that is not what the mother "wants." "I don't WANT to be pregnant" is good enough to say the "mental health of the mother" is sufficient CAUSE to kill the baby because it would cause "undo stress" on her to actually carry and deliver the baby.

hey, I know! In 1973, the # of abortions was HALF of that in the years following. Perhaps we could cut the # of abortions BY HALF very quickly if we undid whatever happened in 1973?

So you would advocate that all individuals have a "choice?" Most particularly, the one whose life is up for grabs? Or just choice for some?

If abortion is murder, with absolutely NO variation in degree of "wrongness" from murdering a born person, and if there should be no attempt at reducing the numbers short of absolutely eliminating all abortions, then why is there usually an exception granted in cases of rape and incest?

Even if I'm raped, that doesn't give me the right to kill someone who didn't rape me. Or does it?

I have the same question too.

There shouldn't be any but if the goal was to at least reduce the number start with one allowed abortion per woman. You get preggers again and don't want the baby then it should be taken away and adopted. The woman then gets sterilzed. But there would be outcrys about privacy violations, reproductive rights, blah, blah so we know how far this would go...there will never be an answer to reduce abortions. Either they are allowed or they aren't.