Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314949 |
What my peers here think?
I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
- 1,508 Replies
Even if only Catholics adhered to these rules, they are still spreading HIV and AIDS throughout the continent through their sexual relations with non-Catholics.
Well in that case, it would be the responsibility of the other to deny said Catholic sex without condom use. Trust me, there are a great number of Catholics who are willing to use condoms because they are oblivious to the Church's standpoint on issues.
To my inderstanding, there is no scale of sin. No 'lesser' or 'greater' evil in the eyes of God. Therefore, why not just condone condoms, as it is no more 'wrong' in God's eyes than not condoning condoms and letting innocents die?
There is for Catholics. Mortal sins can condemn you to Hell without repentance, venial sins stray you from your connection to God. Mortal sins have a few conditions around intent and circumstance, but the main one is that it must be grave matter. That is why I take the standpoint that if it must be one or the other, it should be the venial (condoms) rather than the mortal (innocent lives lost).
The Catholic Church's intent is to stop both by denying condoms. Without condoms, they hope that people will stop having sex to avoid STDs. I would stand by that approach if it would work in the long run, but I honestly don't think it will stop everyone from having sex. And those who stop having sex and transferring AIDs will be countered by the increase that will inevitably happen because of the others that are having sex.
Also (I know you weren't implying this purposely) you mistake Catholics for being inhumane. I would keep my standpint on all my issues even if it had no effect on my eternal salvation. Even if this world is only temporary, I still want it to be the best it can be.
Most of said pro-lifers are anti contrception.
I am too. But I only apply my belief to my own life, because I know a lack of contraception won't stop sex, pregnancy, and abortion.
Well in that case, it would be the responsibility of the other to deny said Catholic sex without condom use.
Most peopl it afflicts in Africa have zero access to medical care and have no idea they even have the disease until it is far too late.
Trust me, there are a great number of Catholics who are willing to use condoms because they are oblivious to the Church's standpoint on issues.
I'm not saying there aren't, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case in Africa.
There is for Catholics. Mortal sins can condemn you to Hell without repentance, venial sins stray you from your connection to God. Mortal sins have a few conditions around intent and circumstance, but the main one is that it must be grave matter. That is why I take the standpoint that if it must be one or the other, it should be the venial (condoms) rather than the mortal (innocent lives lost).
I see. However by not condoning the use of condoms the Catholic Church is, effectively condemning millions of people to death. Surely that overrides the condom sin and is the lesser of two evils.
The Catholic Church's intent is to stop both by denying condoms. Without condoms, they hope that people will stop having sex to avoid STDs. I would stand by that approach if it would work in the long run, but I honestly don't think it will stop everyone from having sex. And those who stop having sex and transferring AIDs will be countered by the increase that will inevitably happen because of the others that are having sex.
To avoid getting an STD in some of the worst affected areas in Africa, that would mean not having sex with anyone. Expecting people to live the lives of celibate priests is naive and unreasonable.
Also (I know you weren't implying this purposely) you mistake Catholics for being inhumane. I would keep my standpint on all my issues even if it had no effect on my eternal salvation. Even if this world is only temporary, I still want it to be the best it can be.
I would never claim that Catholic people are inhumane, only the official stance of the Catholic Church is, with regards to this issue inhumans in my opinion.
Most peopl it afflicts in Africa have zero access to medical care and have no idea they even have the disease until it is far too late.
Good point. Catholic standpoint on condoms is not to interfere with the intent of sex, so unless all of them are planning to get pregnant, they are disobeying the Catholic rule either way. Might as well let them stop STDs. That's why I have the opinion I do.
I see. However by not condoning the use of condoms the Catholic Church is, effectively condemning millions of people to death. Surely that overrides the condom sin and is the lesser of two evils.
AND
To avoid getting an STD in some of the worst affected areas in Africa, that would mean not having sex with anyone. Expecting people to live the lives of celibate priests is naive and unreasonable.
That is what Catholicism wants. It would be what I agree with, but I know everyone has different beliefs about sex and condoms. Therefore, I find it in myself to tolerate this. As an organization, the Church cannot do so or otherwise all Catholics will misinterpret the intent of this gesture.
I would never claim that Catholic people are inhumane, only the official stance of the Catholic Church is, with regards to this issue inhumans in my opinion.
I know, I didn't mean to sling insults if that's what I did. I was just saying, the Catholic Church as well as its Cathlics want the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, I don't think the Church will do so, based on reasons I gave above.
Good point. Catholic standpoint on condoms is not to interfere with the intent of sex, so unless all of them are planning to get pregnant, they are disobeying the Catholic rule either way. Might as well let them stop STDs. That's why I have the opinion I do.
Death is a pretty harsh punishment for disobeying this rule.
That is what Catholicism wants. It would be what I agree with, but I know everyone has different beliefs about sex and condoms. Therefore, I find it in myself to tolerate this. As an organization, the Church cannot do so or otherwise all Catholics will misinterpret the intent of this gesture.
Is that not a fault of the Church then, not a fault of the people suffering from their decisions?
Death is a pretty harsh punishment for disobeying this rule.
It's not supposed to be a punishment to the people. It's the outcome of having sex without condoms. The Church doesn't want sex without the intent of pregnancy, which I doubt is going to happen with a condom anyway. So these people must intend not to have children either.
Is that not a fault of the Church then, not a fault of the people suffering from their decisions?
The standpoint, I would have to say no. The response to it, I do not agree with. The fault (in my opinion, not everyone's) lies with the people, but the response to the fault is a fault in itself. Remember, many people want to keep the ideology lasting. As said in Batman Begins, *as a man I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored I can be destroyed but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.* Probably the last place you'd expect a quote from, but it kind of applies. Anyway, but as I am not the symbol itself, I'm more than willing to extend a hand (or a condom, in this case) to those in need.
*revives thread*
Anyway, I think it's a misconception that people have commonly that abortion is legal up to the end, when really it's only 1st trimester.
Abortion is wrong. Who are you to sat whether or not a person lives or dies? NO-ONE should ever have to die because of YOUR mistakes.
Abortion is compleatly fine. They are not tecknicaly alive yet, so it whould be like killing a rock. There are things you can gain from it, and the loss whould be the same as dropping a rock down the grand canyon.
Im against abortion. I believe that a human becomes a human at the moment of conception. So having an abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.
No there not, niether thinks. Niether is alive.If the parents wan't abortion, then they should get it. Plus, scientist could gain valuable information if abortion was aloud. If a parent doesen't want there baby, and somthing like a condem break happens, then why should they not be able to get it?
Abortion is wrong. Who are you to sat whether or not a person lives or dies? NO-ONE should ever have to die because of YOUR mistakes.
Who are you to say that a fetus should commandeer a grown women for almost a year?
An unborn child and a rock are completely different.
Only in that a fetus is made up of genetic material that has the potential for life, the same as sperm, should masturbating be illegal because it kills sperm?
Only in that a fetus is made up of genetic material that has the potential for life, the same as sperm, should masturbating be illegal because it kills sperm?
Yes but if you wait nine (or so) months a fetus will eventually become a human. Sperm is only one half of the genetic material. (The ovum the other half.)
Hopefully your sperm doesnt become a child after nine months.
Yes but if you wait nine (or so) months a fetus will eventually become a human. Sperm is only one half of the genetic material. (The ovum the other half.)
If you get a girl pregnant and wait nine months that sperm will have eventually became a human.
You must be logged in to post a reply!