Discussion: Abortion I

Leonard Goenaga: Interesting note: If a property owner invites someone into their private property, and then kills them, they are charged with murder. However, in an abortion, a woman invites a child into their body (sex), claims the human life to be their property, and executes innocence via abortion. The legality of private property with two very different moral outcomes.

Friend 1: MOST abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body, thus, wouldn’t that NOT be an open invitation? And what about rape? That’s forceful entry.

Leonard Goenaga: Rape makes less than 2% of abortions. We are talking about a super majority.

Also, regardless of whether a child is wanted (God forbid a human life be more important than another persons wants and desires), individuals openly have sex. Overtly, the result of sex is possible pregnancy.

Any woman who has sex knows there is a possibility of getting pregnant. The person who invites the person to their house knows there is a possibility they will actually come.

In other words, abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body. What a terrible terrible reality! Someone desires selfishness to a point of eliminating human life. In legal terms we call that murder.

The open invitation arrives by the willful decision to pursue sex. It is purely something not forced upon them (minus the super minority of rape).

Friend 2: Sex is not an invitation for a child.
Do you use birth control?!?!
My point exactly, just because you have sex, it does not mean you are inviting a child into your life.
Married women have abortions, not just young women.
There are 3 reasons why people have sex (willingly)
1. Love
2. Sexual attraction
3. They want a baby

And don’t forget rape victims. That is NOT an invitation to a child. And don’t forget women with health complications either. They have the right to chose their life, over someone who has not been born yet, heck, who is not fully developed and is a fetus.

Not everyone wants a baby. Atl least at that given moment. Should 2/3’s of everyone else who is having sex be banned from making love?!? You (by this I mean people with this mentality) can’t control their sex lives. They will have sex because they want too. NOT because they want a baby. Sex does not equal inviting a baby into your life.

This is really a ridiculus comparasson. You have FULL control into whom you invite to your home. You do not have full control about when you get pregant. And the only possible suggestion that can stem from this logic is “don’t have sex.” But over half of new borns are not planned. You can’t ban 2/3 of the population, further more, you can’t even inforce it. Do you know that oral sex is against the law in the state of Florida?!?! How many people do you think get blow jobs?!?! It can’t be enforced.

Further more, there is a seperation of church and state. People need to keep their religion out of politics and try to control WOMEN’S bodies. It’s THEIR body, nobody elses. If people will try to mix church and state, we will soon be little the middle east, controlled by religion, even if we do not all share the same religion. We have a seperation for a reason.

Friend 3: I would argue to say that most abortions are not wanted or desired, but women feel its the only option and are rushed into making a life changing decision… Maybe they are afraid of what others will think of them for getting pregnant without a husband (judgment from over-righteous), maybe they do not have any emotional or financial support (feel they dont want to bring a baby into a world of misery), maybe their significant other is threatening to leave them if they don’t… there are so many reasons other than wanting to ‘murder’ their unborn child!

Maybe what people should be doing is not accusing them of murder, but helping them find other options… instead of standing in front of abortion clinics with hate signs, maybe they should reach out to them with a loving arms saying ‘let us help you get through this, please don’t abort your baby’ or ‘have you considered your options?’ or ‘Can I give you information on post-abortion counseling?’… How many Churches do you know that sponsor single moms with unexpected pregnancies? Or offer post-abortion Bible Studies?

Most women don’t want to get an abortion… but sometimes feel they have no other choice… it is our job to promote abstinence but sometimes people make mistakes… shouldnt they feel as if they would be forgiven by the Church instead of judged?

Friend 4: Just going with the analogy here… So I have a party (sex) and then somebody shows up that I didn’t invite (baby). In L’s own words (almost): Overtly, the result of a party is possible party crashers.

Can I kill them? Well, no, not really. But if they’re in my house and eating my food and sleeping in by bed I think I have a right to force them out. Is it selfish to not want to give up my food and shelter to my uninvited guest? Or is that my right?

Leonard Goenaga: I do not think I need to argue that it is common knowledge that sex leads to the possibility of children, regardless of whatever method of control is used. Any moment of sex is an invitation for the natural possibility of pregnancy. If my wife gets pregnant, awesome! It does not mean it interferes with my lifestyle, and I now have a right of lifestyle > human life.

Sex is not > Human life.

No one should be banned from doing anything. The topic is life. Should someone be allowed to have sex? Sure. Should they also be allowed to deal with the consequences? Absolutely.

You have ABSOLUTELY FULL CONTROL about having sex. You can choose to do it or not. If you go jump out a plane, you can very easily die. Although the rush is there. You can choose to do it or not. If you die, it may very well be your fault.

Regardless of how good sex is, you have a right to do it and should also be responsible for its results. Nature shows us sex produces children.

The fundamental question is this: why in the world do you have any right to begin with? What is the root to having any right or liberty? This is human life. Because you are human, you have inalienable rights. Then there are secondary rights (privacy, protection, etc) bestowed by a government.

You could not have any right unless the sanctity of your life was presumed. The dead have no rights, only the living. The right to anything would be meaningless if the right to life wasn’t presumed. Government rests on the foundation of preserving life, which then leads to possible secondary rights and liberties.

For this reason, a child’s life, whom by the way has every necessary component from growth at the moment from conception, and only needs nourishment and time like everyone else, deserves the same fundamental essential right of life than a woman’s desire for sex.

Lifestyle does not trump the essential preservation and sanctity of life.

You cannot argue that a person has any right, whether to sex, or to privacy, without assuming they have a first essential right of human life. This is the hypocrisy of the pro-choice argument.

PS: Again, you have full control over whether you can get pregnant. It’s called choosing to have sex. You do not need sex like you need water, or food. It is not necessary to human living. We willfully engage in sex, with the natural response of pregnancy. For that reason it is absolutely in full control, as you can choose to do it or not. The  ramifications that you may get pregnant, and produce the miracle of childbirth, should sober one to the seriousness of the activity, and not be perceived as silly recreation. The murder of human life should be absolutely positively sobering.

If you were aborted, you would not be arguing for rights to have sex. You simply wouldn’t be.

@Friend 3: Sin is sin. We preach forgiveness of sin. Sinners leading sinners to repentance in Jesus. I’m not standing in front of an abortion clinic. Nor would I. Rather, people need to have their eyes opened to the absolute importance of human life. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be argued in favor of rights and liberties and desires and lifestyles, if we do not assume that human life is important enough to warrant any of those thing. Sanctity of human life MUST be presumed for any of that to mean a dime. It’s automatic. We assume it. We don’t say “You don’t have the right of the second amendment because my humanity means more than yours”. That was the mistake of slavery. People must hear this, because the ramifications of such selfishness is the murder of innocent children.

However, even in the deepest and darkest of sins, we find the purity of forgiveness. The first step of repentance is the acknowledge of a sin to repent of. If someone does not see it as a sin, they do not see themselves as needing a savior, and repentance. How I wish we could adopt those ‘unwanted’ children, who Christ said had direct access to God the father.

Looking at the pregnancy and women services of Christian organizations is  closer to how it is handled than the fringe. 1. The truth of human life. 2. The truth of true forgiveness.

@Friend 4: The difference in your analogy is that for one you can simply ask the person to leave. If they say no, and simply stand there, you cannot kill them. It would still be murder. You could call the cops, sure, but you could not kill them. In the case of abortion, you would kill the child. That is the very stark difference. Life’s preciousness established, the reality of having sex and producing such, means you are very much responsible. There is no right to good sex without consequences. Sex is designed very much with the purpose of pregnancy, and there is no right to continue having fun that would supersede human life.

In your example, you have property (a house and food), that you believe to be yours. However, you do not own that individual, because they are a human life (human life has ownership over itself; the opposite is called slavery). Inviting the person over relates more to inviting sex and it’s consequences, better than assuming some straggler wanders in. But even then, the comparison of humanity is clean.

PS: I also believe it to be quite woeful that the miracle of childbirth is compared to a ‘party-crasher’. The assumption there is that your right to party is more important than a human being (to fit your model, that party crasher would be killed for interfering with your ‘right to party’).

Another interesting note: You have every right to have sex, but you have no right not to get pregnant, let alone exterminate human life if you do. Oh society, what ever happened to that thing called responsibility, and dealing with the result of one’s actions? How dangerous this mentality of entitlement.