Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 12
View previous topic :: View next topic  

What kind of abortion law would you support?
A law that bans all abortions (which will never pass the Supreme Court)
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
A compromise law that would outlaw all abortions past the first trimester
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
A law like Britans (abortions within 22 weeks)
18%
 18%  [ 6 ]
Status Quo. More abortions good. Less abortions bad
15%
 15%  [ 5 ]
Abortion only if needed to save the mother's life
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
Abortion only for victims of sexual assault or incest
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 32

Author Message
donmuntean





Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 288
Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
I went looking for the passage and it seems there are too interpretations of the word miscarriage or gives birth prematurely


English Standard:

Quote:
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

King James And the Logos Bible etc. interpret it this way

While the Revised Standard Living Bible Good News etc interpret it this way:
Quote:
22 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


When I had read this originally I didn't realize there was a dispute as to the meaning of the word miscarriage. Don, do you know what the rabbinical interpretation of this passage is?


Here is a very good web page on this subject:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?.....mp;id=5700

"What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion


Gregory Koukl

The Torah's teaching about accidental "miscarriage"; has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

divider

Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.

Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. God’s personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God “knows” us even before we’re conceived.

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers I’ve discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If I’m right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.

Dead or Alive?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[1]

This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is “life for life.” In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, “the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.”[2]

At issue is the phrase translated “she has a miscarriage.” There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word “miscarriage” implies the death of the child. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, “The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.”[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Here’s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word “miscarriage” is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. There’s a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Let’s look at it.

Yeled and Yasa

A word’s meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word’s range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, “...she has a miscarriage...,” reads w˚yase û ye ladêhâ in the Hebrew. It’s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means “the child comes forth.” The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated “child” in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.”[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.” In the NASB yalad is translated “childbirth” 10 times, some form of “gave birth” over 50 times, and either “bore,” “born,” or “borne” 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means “to go or come out.” It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It’s translated with some form of “coming out” (e.g., “comes out,” “came out,” etc.) 103 times, and some form of “going” 445 times.

What’s most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”

Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] “Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....”

Genesis 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....”

Genesis 25:25-26 “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob.”

1 Kings 8:19 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

2 Kings 20:18 “And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

As you can see, it’s common for yasa to describe the “coming forth” of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

Note here, that we don’t infer the child’s death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (“whose flesh is half eaten away”), and doesn’t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?

Clues from the Context

This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that “comes forth” is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word “further” in the NASB is not in the original):

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....”

The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that “there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.”[9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

“There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...”[10]

Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn’t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn’t mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that’s what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel[11] means “miscarriage” or “abortion,” and is used three times:

Job 3:16 “Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.”

Eccl. 6:3-4 “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, ‘Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.’”

Psalms 58:8 “Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.”

The verb sakal[12] means “to be bereaved” and is used four times, including one time when it’s actually translated “abort:”

Genesis 31:38 “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.”

Exodus 23:26 “There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.”

Hosea 9:14 “Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”

Job 21:10 “His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.” Why? Because the word doesn’t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.

Three Questions

When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.

[1] The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined...” etc.

[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

[3] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).

[4] Strong’s Index word #3206.

[5] Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.

[6] Strong’s Index word #3205.

[7] Strong’s Index word #3318.

[8] The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.”

[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.

[10] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

[11] Strong’s Index word #5309.

[12] Strong’s Index word #7921.

[13] Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word yasa itself."
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The intresting part is that its all about a man striking a women and making her have an abortion.
Maybe because your patriachal religion sees women as property whose sexuality must be controlled so a legit male can someday gain the family property?

Are you ignoring the fact that Christianity has been pro-abortion for 90% of its existence?
Unwilling to condem those Christians as easily as you condem women who make a choice you will never have to face?

Using religion to argue against abortion. :roll:
The abortion arguement doesnt need myths and dogma.

If you want people to respect your lifestyle choice you need to stop pushing your agenda.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good luck getting rid of non-hetrosexuals. We have always been around and always will be.

Quote:
Simply a baby is a baby is a baby for me.


I know, when you couldnt tell a human embyro from a pig embyro you wish to give it the same legal rights as full humans. When there is no brain activity and it lacks neurons you wish to give it the same legal rights. We wont agree on this point because its subjective. I do respect your viewpoints though.

Quote:
Conservative men as misogynistic, how stereo typical


I find the following to be misogynistic yes.....

What kind of lazy slug of a woman would be so careless as to prevent any pregnancy from her illicit sex thus turning to abortion as a form of birth control?

It is the grossest selfishness to use abortion as birth control

Lazy and unprincipled women use abortion to eliminate their 'mistake'.

they are so stupid and desperate - let them have back alley abortions and maybe even die - why should anyone care

If they had an abortion yes [they are murders]


Also, I would like to thank you for the Poland example, I just think Polands old communist law and new catholic law are both extreme. I would not want to live in a country that had either set of laws (which both see things as very black and white). I also think that outlawing abortion has caused a ton of other problems in Poland.

The best ways to decrease abortions are sex education, access to birth control, and raising people out of poverty.
donmuntean





Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 288
Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
The intresting part is that its all about a man striking a women and making her have an abortion.
Maybe because your patriachal religion sees women as property whose sexuality must be controlled so a legit male can someday gain the family property?

Are you ignoring the fact that Christianity has been pro-abortion for 90% of its existence?
Unwilling to condem those Christians as easily as you condem women who make a choice you will never have to face?

Using religion to argue against abortion. :roll:
The abortion arguement doesnt need myths and dogma.

If you want people to respect your lifestyle choice you need to stop pushing your agenda.


What are you yammering about now? You mean choices I would never make. Also I did NOT use religion to support my position - I was responding to another posting...of course you never see context in anything. Oh and you might want to spell check your postings!
donmuntean





Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 288
Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

donmuntean wrote:
FascistLibertarian wrote:
The intresting part is that its all about a man striking a women and making her have an abortion.
Maybe because your patriachal religion sees women as property whose sexuality must be controlled so a legit male can someday gain the family property?

Are you ignoring the fact that Christianity has been pro-abortion for 90% of its existence?
Unwilling to condem those Christians as easily as you condem women who make a choice you will never have to face?

Using religion to argue against abortion. :roll:
The abortion arguement doesnt need myths and dogma.

If you want people to respect your lifestyle choice you need to stop pushing your agenda.


What are you yammering about now? You mean choices I would never make. Also I did NOT use religion to support my position - I was responding to another posting...of course you never see context in anything. Oh and you might want to spell check your postings!


Quote:

If you want people to respect your lifestyle choice you need to stop pushing your agenda

Reply:

What lifestyle choice [and what agenda] would that be? One could reply thus to this - Right back at ya!!


Last edited by donmuntean on Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
donmuntean





Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 288
Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
The intresting part is that its all about a man striking a women and making her have an abortion.


Right you are - that passage isn't about a woman who sets out to kill her own unborn child...
donmuntean





Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 288
Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
The best ways to decrease abortions are sex education, access to birth control, and raising people out of poverty.


I already noted that there is wide access to various forms of cheap birth control in Canada - one thing about that process though - they have to use it!!

Obviously when a woman has an abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - she didn't use these easily accessible birth control products.

So [in Canada] the issue isn't really accessibility to birth control - it's failure to use it...abortion is NOT a form of birth control.

Sex education? What? sexually active people do not already know that the 'act' results in pregnancy? We live in a era of sex obsession and don't think people have to go long without learning of 'everything' what to speak of birth control - isn't it taught in health class in schools?

Why don't parents pay attention and guide their kids properly in this regard?

As for poverty - what does that have to do with this? Sexually active 'poor' people are as capable and responsible in this regard as someone with means?

To become pregnant is where the choice is exercised and no matter how much circular discussion there is on the matter - birth is not a choice. In a civilized society abortion cannot be used to end unwanted pregnancy - except in very limited circumstances. :)
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Don, there is a rate of failure for every contraceptive.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
Hi Don, there is a rate of failure for every contraceptive.


So use two. :shock: :shock:

No woman should be having sex with a new partner without a condom anyway.

He should be wearing a condom if he has not been your partner for a very long time or has a medical certificate to prove he is clean.

He should be wearing a condom to protect himself from anybody that he hasn't partnered for years or been medically proven clean.

If your going to play Russian roulette don't get pissed because you got a hole in the head. Law of natural consequences, dontcha know? :wink:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Soooo have we reached any conclusions about what the best kind of abortion law would be or are we still too busy chasing side-issues to bother addressing the subject of the thread?

-Mac
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It appears most people want some type of abortion law and very few 3 out of 21 are satisfied with the staus quo.

A compromise law that would outlaw all abortions past the first trimester - 23% [ 5 ] is the winner.

The reactions by some on this thread show what a volatile issue it is. It appears impossible for people on the extreme sides of the issue to have anything close to a civil discussion.

I wonder how other countries managed to get abortion laws passed without a war happening? Anyone know what the protests in other countries where like?
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I don't know Mac,

Seems only 14% of the forum that voted would like to see the status Quo and the rest would like some sort of restrictions.

21 people at a Conservative site? What conclusion would you draw from it all?
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The conclusion I draw is that everyone is guilty of not using two forms of birth control at the same time, every time. Unless someone can come forward and say they have. I think most of us have been in a situation where pregnancy could have happened, but it didn't, and we felt damn lucky that it never. Why are we holding these women who want an abortion to a higher standard that we can hold ourselves?
And the rest of the forum didn't vote, because they agree with the government, the abortion issue will not be re-opened.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a very emotional debate which seems to bring out the very worst in people on both sides. Many of the posts were thought provoking and I suppose that's the best we can hope for.

-Mac
donmuntean





Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 288
Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7Reputation: 9.7
votes: 4

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
The conclusion I draw is that everyone is guilty of not using two forms of birth control at the same time, every time. Unless someone can come forward and say they have. I think most of us have been in a situation where pregnancy could have happened, but it didn't, and we felt damn lucky that it never. Why are we holding these women who want an abortion to a higher standard that we can hold ourselves?
And the rest of the forum didn't vote, because they agree with the government, the abortion issue will not be re-opened.


People don't vote on polls - look at any of them other threads - like my thread 'freedom of Information' under Canadian politics - over 9400 views and only 36 poll entries - seemingly very few voter participations for that ratio of views - just like this and other threads - most visits are from readers - people who do no more than read them - no actual participation - not even the simple polls.

The abortion law I would support is no abortions for any other reason than physical threat to the women along with rape and/or incest.

If the pregnancy is 'an accident' it must be carried to term and then adopted - I suspect that placing new born babies wouldn't be any problem! There is likely a long waiting list. The choice of adopt or abort? Which sounds better? The women would feel better in the end to know that even though she couldn't look after the child - the child still has a chance at life and love - the same as they have.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 12

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What kind of Abortion Law Would You Support

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB