Can a religious Christian believe that abortion should be legal? (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

As a protestant christian who tries to be thoughtful and someone who's faith is an important thing to them, I don't have a strong opinion on abortion. I can see both sides of it. 

To me, it really boils down to where life begins. And I get it, that isn't super easy. As a christian, I also have conflict over things like war and the death penalty. 

I know there's a lot more nuance to it but I usually fall back to a general feeling of: Killing Is Awful.

So to answer your question @timschochet, my answer is "I think so" but I'm not going to say with certainty I know. 

Thanks Joe. Some very interesting and informative responses in this thread. 

 

[FairWarning]

I feel it's the woman's decision.    It's her body and she has to live with her choice.  In cases of rape or the health of the mother or baby, totally their decision.  

 

[Sweet J]

I completely disagree.   Manslaughter and accidental death are absolutely immoral.  We not only have a moral obligation not to murder, but to avoid needless death through negligence and reckless behavior.  It is why we have penalties associated with it.  If someone dies because you were being careless, you failed your moral obligation to look out for your fellow man and chose to be negligent for selfish reasons.

Dude. There are a bunch of things that are illegal, but perfectly "moral." And plenty of things that immoral but legal. "Morality" is not a stand-in for legality. 

 

[Sweet J]

1) Pro-life people are pro-life because they think that abortion harms another human being.  Hardly anybody thinks that contraception does so.  So basically the folks you're describing see these as two things as completely different and distinct.  (I know Catholicism in particular takes a negative view on contraception, which I disagree with).

2) Science is completely silent on the issue of whether a fetus possesses any kinds of rights that need to be respected.  There is no "pro-science" or "anti-science" stance on abortion, other than wrongly invoking science in support of whatever position you've staked out.

3) From a strictly religious standpoint, abortion is no worse than any of the other things you cited.  From a philosophical point of view, it's (arguably) worse in the same way that murder is worse than gossip.  But that's not anything particularly rooted in Christianity.

I responded to the last point earlier in the thread.  "How can you be pro-life but still believe in limited government elsewhere" is a bad argument and you should feel bad for making it.

I don't know. I think there may be a difference of opinion on the contraception vs. abortion thing. For example: the morning after pill; when does "fertilization" happen (does implantation into the uterus or something else?); etc. I think there could be some gray area. 

 

[renesauz]

Most religious folks seem to think the fetus is invested with a soul at conception....and thus abortion would be murder. The Biblical evidence on this is fairly scarce. Virtually zero of them are ok with abortion up until 9 months (and neither am I)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't know. I think there may be a difference of opinion on the contraception vs. abortion thing. For example: the morning after pill; when does "fertilization" happen (does implantation into the uterus or something else?); etc. I think there could be some gray area. 

Fair enough.  I'm admittedly painting with a broad brush here.  Just trying to clarify that there's nothing inherently inconsistent about being opposed to abortion but in favor of birth control.

 

[Zow]

Dude. There are a bunch of things that are illegal, but perfectly "moral." And plenty of things that immoral but legal. "Morality" is not a stand-in for legality. 

A bunch of public defenders just nodded in unison as they reviewed their umpteenth driving on a suspended license, contracting without a license, or possession of marijuana case.

 

[rockaction]

As someone who isn't particularly religious but used to be pro-life, I would say that it's certainly possible that the converse could be true. One need not be pro-life to be a Christian. One might believe, like me, that the procedures and methods used to enforce the law would be so intrusive and so deleterious to society that it is better left to the Lord to determine who is and isn't being immoral when it comes to enforcing the edict that all life is sacred from conception.

 

[rcam]

Fair enough.  I'm admittedly painting with a broad brush here.  Just trying to clarify that there's nothing inherently inconsistent about being opposed to abortion but in favor of birth control.

I dunno. In Genesis, I am pretty sure a dude gets killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground rather than knocking up his sister-in-law in his brother's name. At least, that is how I recall it. Much more explicit regarding coitus interruptus than abortion. I *want* to say there was a passage that said something like if two men are fighting and a pregnant women is harmed because of it and loses her unborn she gets a cow or a goat or has to sacrifice a cow or goat. I mean, maybe abortion clinics need to just have a stable of goats or cows in the back and everyone gets one in a gift bag or something.

 

[Sweet J]

I dunno. In Genesis, I am pretty sure a dude gets killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground rather than knocking up his sister-in-law in his brother's name. At least, that is how I recall it. Much more explicit regarding coitus interruptus than abortion. I *want* to say there was a passage that said something like if two men are fighting and a pregnant women is harmed because of it and loses her unborn she gets a cow or a goat or has to sacrifice a cow or goat. I mean, maybe abortion clinics need to just have a stable of goats or cows in the back and everyone gets one in a gift bag or something.

wait, are we talking about the same book where one of the fathers of the religion pimps his wife out to some pharos because he's not sure he'll be received well enough? 

Or the one where Lot's daughters are like "let's get him drunk and have his babies LOL"

 

[dgreen]

wait, are we talking about the same book where one of the fathers of the religion pimps his wife out to some pharos because he's not sure he'll be received well enough? 

Or the one where Lot's daughters are like "let's get him drunk and have his babies LOL"

Genesis is not a children’s book. 

 

[derek245583]

I feel it's the woman's decision.    It's her body and she has to live with her choice.  In cases of rape or the health of the mother or baby, totally their decision.  

Didn’t she make a decision when she decided to have sex? Obviously not in the case of the second sentence of your post.

I guess my thought is....she had a choice already. 

 

[Jayrod]

Dude. There are a bunch of things that are illegal, but perfectly "moral." And plenty of things that immoral but legal. "Morality" is not a stand-in for legality. 

A bunch of public defenders just nodded in unison as they reviewed their umpteenth driving on a suspended license, contracting without a license, or possession of marijuana case.

Good points.  I'll own this, I was wrong here.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not sure we want to go down the morality path here in terms of "life".  A pretty good argument can be made in favor of abortion given the immoral ways we treat those forced to be brought into this world by restricting abortions, which is a pretty big reason I have moved towards pro-choice (though not there completely...still waffle from time to time).  If one is to be "pro-life" that can't stop at birth.  You need to be fully on board with complete support of that individual from conception through death IMO and that isn't the case for most pro-lifers I know.  The attitude changes once born it seems and there's a transition from "everyone deserves to live" to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps people!!!" and that'd disgustingly immoral to me.

 

[AAABatteries]

I completely disagree.   Manslaughter and accidental death are absolutely immoral.  We not only have a moral obligation not to murder, but to avoid needless death through negligence and reckless behavior.  It is why we have penalties associated with it.  If someone dies because you were being careless, you failed your moral obligation to look out for your fellow man and chose to be negligent for selfish reasons.

What?  Maybe you mean something different but accidental death is a wide range of things that in many cases has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Jayrod]

What?  Maybe you mean something different but accidental death is a wide range of things that in many cases has nothing to do with morality.

See two posts above yours.  I was wrong.

 

[Godsbrother]

Genesis is not a children’s book. 

Genesis absurdity list.  Weird that Phil Collins is not even mentioned.

 

[Jayrod]

I'm not sure we want to go down the morality path here in terms of "life".  A pretty good argument can be made in favor of abortion given the immoral ways we treat those forced to be brought into this world by restricting abortions, which is a pretty big reason I have moved towards pro-choice (though not there completely...still waffle from time to time).  If one is to be "pro-life" that can't stop at birth.  You need to be fully on board with complete support of that individual from conception through death IMO and that isn't the case for most pro-lifers I know.  The attitude changes once born it seems and there's a transition from "everyone deserves to live" to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps people!!!" and that'd disgustingly immoral to me.

You are the third person now to make that (tired and false) argument. 

Also, by your statements here can be logically extrapolated that people who are likely to have a rough life don't need to live at all.

Cool.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I dunno. In Genesis, I am pretty sure a dude gets killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground rather than knocking up his sister-in-law in his brother's name. At least, that is how I recall it. Much more explicit regarding coitus interruptus than abortion. I *want* to say there was a passage that said something like if two men are fighting and a pregnant women is harmed because of it and loses her unborn she gets a cow or a goat or has to sacrifice a cow or goat. I mean, maybe abortion clinics need to just have a stable of goats or cows in the back and everyone gets one in a gift bag or something.

This is a good example of deliberately straw-manning an argument.  It's basically the opposite of what this thread is supposed to be about (whether we can steel-man a pro-choice position that's consistent with Christianity).

 

[The Commish]

You are the third person now to make that (tired and false) argument. 

Also, by your statements here can be logically extrapolated that people who are likely to have a rough life don't need to live at all.

Cool.

Which argument?  That the government (and people in general) pretty much abandon parentless children?  Point me to the data that says otherwise please.  When was the last time you interacted with an orphanage in any meaningful way?  Genuine question.  I started working with these groups when I lived in Ohio 15 years ago and have continued to do that in the states of NC, SC and Florida since.  All four of those states have the same story.  It disgusts me that we turn our backs on these kids.  Pretending that we don't doesn't make them go away no matter how much we want that to be true.

How about we take a second and pause when one's initial argument is some sort of gross extrapolation to nonsense instead of actually discussing what the person they are replying to said.

Again....I'm good with the pro-life concept...the key part of the term being "life"...it's not just "birth".  Actions speak louder than words.  When was the last time you saw a thread here about orphanages and parentless child support programs or any politicians using those kinds of programs as a central tenant to their platforms like they do "pro-choice" or "pro-life"?

 

[Stealthycat]

To me, it really boils down to where life begins. And I get it, that isn't super easy.

why isn't it easy ?

if a woman is pregnant, there is a living unborn human in the womb .... if there isn't a pregnancy, there isn't a living unborn human in there

isn't it that easy ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

I feel it's the woman's decision.    It's her body

oddly enough, prostitution isn't legal

why? 

if its a woman's body, hers to do with what she chooses .... why isn't prostitution legal in every state? 

 

[Stealthycat]

You need to be fully on board with complete support of that individual from conception through death IMO

so people should have no self responsibility? parents and families shouldn't have responsibilities? I'm curious how you would mandate a certain baseline strategy/treatment of living humans from the moment a pregnancy begins until say, age 25 years old

a complete support so to speak ? and if someone or a family doesn't give what your baseline dictates then, what? 

That the government (and people in general) pretty much abandon parentless children?

what about the PARENTS that abandoned the children? 

your argument is "we" need to enforce a base standard for lives but you don't want to force the very people responsible for that life to provide - why ?  or maybe you do want to force them ? I'm confused on what you're lobbying for.

If you are saying we need to pour more money into neglected children, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, especially pro-life people. That 4 billion Biden is sending to Central America would help. Stop the adoption's for overseas children and focus more on adopting USA children. What group of people are responsible for all these neglected kids - drug use? poverty? single teen mom's? Whatever it is - lets focus on that, please, instead of the billions the Fed Govt spends on everything else !!!

but each of those lives are valuable and precious and mean something - don't kill them at 16, or at 12 years old or at 3 years old or 1 minute after birth or while being delivered or while in the womb either. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

As a protestant christian who tries to be thoughtful and someone who's faith is an important thing to them, I don't have a strong opinion on abortion. I can see both sides of it. 

To me, it really boils down to where life begins. And I get it, that isn't super easy. As a christian, I also have conflict over things like war and the death penalty. 

I know there's a lot more nuance to it but I usually fall back to a general feeling of: Killing Is Awful.

So to answer your question @timschochet, my answer is "I think so" but I'm not going to say with certainty I know. 

That has been my problem - trying to reconcile with when I consider somebody dead (heart, brainwaves, etc. ) to when I was considering life to start.    To me it's important to try to be consistent with these two things for this discussion and debate.  

 

[dawgtrails]

oddly enough, prostitution isn't legal

why? 

if its a woman's body, hers to do with what she chooses .... why isn't prostitution legal in every state? 

I think you would find decent overlap win people who think abortion should be allowed and prostitution should be legal

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think you would find decent overlap win people who think abortion should be allowed and prostitution should be legal

I would guess the same.  

 

[Gatorman]

so people should have no self responsibility? parents and families shouldn't have responsibilities? I'm curious how you would mandate a certain baseline strategy/treatment of living humans from the moment a pregnancy begins until say, age 25 years old

a complete support so to speak ? and if someone or a family doesn't give what your baseline dictates then, what? 

what about the PARENTS that abandoned the children? 

your argument is "we" need to enforce a base standard for lives but you don't want to force the very people responsible for that life to provide - why ?  or maybe you do want to force them ? I'm confused on what you're lobbying for.

If you are saying we need to pour more money into neglected children, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, especially pro-life people. That 4 billion Biden is sending to Central America would help. Stop the adoption's for overseas children and focus more on adopting USA children. What group of people are responsible for all these neglected kids - drug use? poverty? single teen mom's? Whatever it is - lets focus on that, please, instead of the billions the Fed Govt spends on everything else !!!

but each of those lives are valuable and precious and mean something - don't kill them at 16, or at 12 years old or at 3 years old or 1 minute after birth or while being delivered or while in the womb either. 

I think "the golden rule" and the concept of "am I my brothers' keeper" disagree with your premise here.

I know we are talking about the religious aspects of abortion here (quite narrowly), but I think those of us who are "pro-choice" would likely change our stance if the "Life and choice" parts were more spelled out. Right now, you can carry the baby to term and deal with those consequences yourself with less support from society than likely is necessary; put the child up for adoption (but only to the "right" people, not homosexuals), or have an abortion.

If the first two options here were better "choices", then perhaps there would be less abortion.  It is, in the end about morality, but the morality of life outside of the womb as much as that inside of it.

To the point of "being a good christian" if you live your life with faith (like Biden or pete buttegig) but have misgivings about societies roll in abortion, the death penalty, or homosexuality, that should not disqualify you as G-d is the final arbiter of that.

 

[Captain Cranks]

oddly enough, prostitution isn't legal

why? 

if its a woman's body, hers to do with what she chooses .... why isn't prostitution legal in every state? 

It should be.  

 

[Stealthycat]

If the first two options here were better "choices", then perhaps there would be less abortion.  It is, in the end about morality, but the morality of life outside of the womb as much as that inside of it.

morally speaking I don't disagree with you about contributing to the qualities of people lives ESPECIALLY children however, we have a Constitution, we have parental rights, we have a country that allows freedoms in such a way that people themselves need to take personal responsibilities and when they don't the fallout is a burden carried by others

there is a myth on this thread that pro-life people don't care - I am not sure if its just something that exists because pro-abortion people need to believe that as a counter or what but its not true in any way that I know of. 

IIRC 96% of women have their babies killed in the womb not because of rape, incest or medical issues but because they simply got pregnant and didn't want to and having it killed releases them from the burden and responsibility. At the same time, men do not have the option to opt out of a pregnancy they don't want, they are legally liable and forced burden/responsibility.

The core problem is the pregnancy nobody wants. THAT is what needs fixed. Fix that, and abortion wouldn't be a topic 

 

[The Commish]

I'm going to do this ONCE even though I tend to believe it will be a completely fruitless effort.  I am starting with the assumption that abortion is illegal and the person having the child is being forced to have a child they don't want merely because the law says they have to.  Keep this in mind as you read the  answers to your questions:

parents and families shouldn't have responsibilities?

They were trying to be responsible by not having the child at all, but that isn't allowed.  Forcing them to have the baby and saying "oh, and you're responsible for it too" is a complete #### position IMO.

I'm curious how you would mandate a certain baseline strategy/treatment of living humans from the moment a pregnancy begins until say, age 25 years old

I don't know what this is trying to ask, but I might be on board with "fully supporting the child/young adult through college age" rather than "for life"....seems like a decent compromise I'd be open to.

what about the PARENTS that abandoned the children? 

I don't know what this means.....in this scenario, the parent is trying to right a mistake by bringing the child into a world where they aren't wanted and where as soon as they're born, they are pretty much forgotten.  If the government is going to insist they have to be born, then it is also on the government to make sure they are taken care of IMO.  That's the moral way of handling it.

your argument is "we" need to enforce a base standard for lives but you don't want to force the very people responsible for that life to provide - why ?  or maybe you do want to force them ? I'm confused on what you're lobbying for.

In the simplest of terms, if the government is going to force people to have unwanted children, the government has to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of the situation they are creating.  They're either all in on support or they aren't.  

If you are saying we need to pour more money into neglected children, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, especially pro-life people. That 4 billion Biden is sending to Central America would help. Stop the adoption's for overseas children and focus more on adopting USA children. What group of people are responsible for all these neglected kids - drug use? poverty? single teen mom's? Whatever it is - lets focus on that, please, instead of the billions the Fed Govt spends on everything else !!!

but each of those lives are valuable and precious and mean something - don't kill them at 16, or at 12 years old or at 3 years old or 1 minute after birth or while being delivered or while in the womb either. 

This isn't an either/or proposition.  We can do both, but we don't and I RARELY if EVER see "pro-life" people pounding their chests about beefing up the support structures for post birth support.  Actions speak louder than words and it's disgusting to me how silent many of the "you're killing babies" people are completely silent on those same babies once born.

 

[sho nuff]

I think you would find decent overlap win people who think abortion should be allowed and prostitution should be legal

Possibly..though, I have a little more problem with legalizing prostitution.  More so from the standpoint of how often it is not the woman's choice and how many are forced into it and how it is already leading to so much human trafficking. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm going to do this ONCE even though I tend to believe it will be a completely fruitless effort.  I am starting with the assumption that abortion is illegal and the person having the child is being forced to have a child they don't want merely because the law says they have to.  Keep this in mind as you read the  answers to your questions:

They were trying to be responsible by not having the child at all, but that isn't allowed.  Forcing them to have the baby and saying "oh, and you're responsible for it too" is a complete #### position IMO.

This one is a big sticking point with me on the issue, especially when you mix the extreme position that we shouldn't even teach or allow birth control.   At that point you aren't even giving people the opportunity to make a choice, but punishing them as well if they do conceive a child.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

These threads would go better if people kept in mind that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just little shorthand labels we use for particular positions on abortion.  They don't have any meaning besides that, and it's not helpful to respond to an imaginary position that bears some some distant semantic relationship to the label but isn't connected to the underlying argument that the label is being used to signify.

For example, when somebody says "I'm pro-choice," what they're saying and what you should interpret them as saying is "I think abortion should be legal in most circumstances."  That statement tells you basically nothing* about the speaker's beliefs about prostitution, private schools, gun control, or any of the other topics that people try to drag into this.  Arguments along the lines of "Well if you're so big on personal choice, then how come we don't have legal prostitution" is exactly a strawman tactic, because you're responding to an argument that nobody is actually making.  You're just playing games with a label that we use for convenience.

A similar observation applies to the term "pro-life," but I'll leave that alone for the time being.  Suffice it to say that intelligent, thoughtful opponents of abortion rights occupy all sorts of various positions on other issues.

* I'm ignoring the empirical fact that some beliefs tend to correlate with one another because that's not important right now.  We all understand that a person might describe themselves and pro-choice but also be opposed to legalizing hard drugs, for example.  If you think that one automatically implies the other, you're making a mistake and you should try to correct that.  That's on you, not the speaker.    

 

[rcam]

This is a good example of deliberately straw-manning an argument.  It's basically the opposite of what this thread is supposed to be about (whether we can steel-man a pro-choice position that's consistent with Christianity).

This isn't strawmanning. Over the centuries single quotes, passages, or chapters of the Bible have been used exactly in the manner you are calling strawmanning. It also isn't like these are fringe ideas. The "mark of Cain"/"curse of Ham" was used for decades if not centuries to justify slavery. How many times have you seen someone hold up something like John 3:16 at a sporting event. That John 3:16 is a literal trump card. It is used in justification that all you need to do is believe in Jesus and you go to heaven - nothing else really matters. Getting killed by God by spilling seed on the ground has been interpreted many times that birth control is bad. In the Bible you literally see death as a response to birth control. However, IIRC, the only time it mentions an unborn getting killed the punishment is much less severe. Take from that what you will. To me, it is all a bunch of bunk that does far more harm than good.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This isn't strawmanning. Over the centuries single quotes, passages, or chapters of the Bible have been used exactly in the manner you are calling strawmanning. It also isn't like these are fringe ideas. The "mark of Cain"/"curse of Ham" was used for decades if not centuries to justify slavery. How many times have you seen someone hold up something like John 3:16 at a sporting event. That John 3:16 is a literal trump card. It is used in justification that all you need to do is believe in Jesus and you go to heaven - nothing else really matters. Getting killed by God by spilling seed on the ground has been interpreted many times that birth control is bad. In the Bible you literally see death as a response to birth control. However, IIRC, the only time it mentions an unborn getting killed the punishment is much less severe. Take from that what you will. To me, it is all a bunch of bunk that does far more harm than good.

I'm not sure how you got from John 3:16 to the curse of Ham, but I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that this is a stream-of-consciousness thing. 

If you want to demonstrate that you're not straw-manning this, then how about responding to the posters who are arguing against birth control?  If such posters exist, they're wrong and I'll join you in saying so.  On the other hand, if you can't identify any such posters, then you're straw-manning by definition. 

 

[The Commish]

This one is a big sticking point with me on the issue, especially when you mix the extreme position that we shouldn't even teach or allow birth control.   At that point you aren't even given people the opportunity to make a choice, but punishing them as well if they do conceive a child.  

This is one of many I have consistently seen everywhere I've lived in working with abandoned kids.  

 

[whoknew]

Possibly..though, I have a little more problem with legalizing prostitution.  More so from the standpoint of how often it is not the woman's choice and how many are forced into it and how it is already leading to so much human trafficking. 

Not to derail the thread but isn't that an argument for legalized prostitution? Won't many of those issues be cleaned up without a prostitution black market?

Also - the thing that should be illegal in that situation is the kidnapping and forced rape. But not consensual prostitution.

 

[rcam]

I'm not sure how you got from John 3:16 to the curse of Ham, but I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that this is a stream-of-consciousness thing. 

If you want to demonstrate that you're not straw-manning this, then how about responding to the posters who are arguing against birth control?  If such posters exist, they're wrong and I'll join you in saying so.  On the other hand, if you can't identify any such posters, then you're straw-manning by definition. 

What? You mentioned birth control in the context of there was nothing inherently inconsistent about being pro birth control but anti-abortion. My response was there is scripture that can be viewed as decidedly against birth control because *death* is the reward for it. OTOH, there is no punishment with near the finality of death for the one instance where killing an unborn in mentioned. The Bible itself is "inconsistent" on the subject. 

 

[sho nuff]

Not to derail the thread but isn't that an argument for legalized prostitution? Won't many of those issues be cleaned up without a prostitution black market?

Also - the thing that should be illegal in that situation is the kidnapping and forced rape. But not consensual prostitution.

I think there would still be that black market.

There are also quite a few studies out there about "consensual" prostitution.

Legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking. One argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that legalization would help end the exploitation of desperate immigrant women trafficked for prostitution. A report done for the governmental Budapest Group* stated that 80% of women in the brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group, 1999: 11). As early as 1994, the International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, "nearly 70 per cent of trafficked women were from CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries]" (IOM, 1995: 4).

https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/10-reasons-not-legalizing-prostitution-janice-g-raymond-catw-2003#:~:text=In a 5-country study,risks and harm for women

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/prostitution-legalised-sex-trade-pimps-women

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/10/17/why-legalizing-prostitution-may-not-work/?sh=59d6ec266678

Last one gets into black market talk as well...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What? You mentioned birth control in the context of there was nothing inherently inconsistent about being pro birth control but anti-abortion. My response was there is scripture that can be viewed as decidedly against birth control because *death* is the reward for it. OTOH, there is no punishment with near the finality of death for the one instance where killing an unborn in mentioned. The Bible itself is "inconsistent" on the subject. 

A person can be both anti-birth control and anti-abortion.  They don't have to be. 

I think you're saying the first, and I'm saying the second.   

 

[Stealthycat]

I'm going to do this ONCE even though I tend to believe it will be a completely fruitless effort.  I am starting with the assumption that abortion is illegal and the person having the child is being forced to have a child they don't want merely because the law says they have to.  Keep this in mind as you read the  answers to your questions:

They were trying to be responsible by not having the child at all, but that isn't allowed.  Forcing them to have the baby and saying "oh, and you're responsible for it too" is a complete #### position IMO.

They were trying to be responsible by having sex which results in kids. Take that responsibility FIRST

I don't know what this is trying to ask, but I might be on board with "fully supporting the child/young adult through college age" rather than "for life"....seems like a decent compromise I'd be open to.

I don't know what this means.....in this scenario, the parent is trying to right a mistake by bringing the child into a world where they aren't wanted and where as soon as they're born, they are pretty much forgotten.  If the government is going to insist they have to be born, then it is also on the government to make sure they are taken care of IMO.  That's the moral way of handling it.

interesting

so if the Govt says I can't have a gun to protect myself, are they responsible 24x7 for my safety and are liable if anything happens to me ?  no, just because a rule or law is set does NOT make the Fed Govt liable and it never has been. Why you would apply it here I don't understand

In the simplest of terms, if the government is going to force people to have unwanted children, the government has to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of the situation they are creating.  They're either all in on support or they aren't.  

This isn't an either/or proposition.  We can do both, but we don't and I RARELY if EVER see "pro-life" people pounding their chests about beefing up the support structures for post birth support.  Actions speak louder than words and it's disgusting to me how silent many of the "you're killing babies" people are completely silent on those same babies once born.

the Fed Govt isn't forcing anyone to have children - PEOPLE are choosing to get together and get pregnant but what about this ..... a couple has a child and 3 months later decide they don't want it. 

can they have it killed? I mean yes, we don't allow that in society but why don't we? surely it'd be better for the 3 month old to die than to lead a horribly neglected life right ?

that's the premise put for too often that a life has to has XX and YY provided or its not worth living and it simply isn't real and to be honest, the other make believe that pro-life people don't support humanity is false as well. Repeating it doesn't make it real and valid either

of the 50 or so million aborted in the USA (20 million have been black abortions) how many would have been the next brilliant scientist, astronaut, president, NBA player or NFL player .... maybe one would have discovered the next generational energy source or been the next great ______

we'll never know - they were killed before birth

 

[The Commish]

I knew it would be a waste of time....

 

[Stealthycat]

note - nobody wants to tackle this

a pregnancy HAS to have a living unborn human in the womb - if there isn't a living unborn there isn't a pregnancy

add on that every law we have protects the unborn except one and the logical and reasonable conclusion is that allowing the killed of the unborn to stop a pregnancy is killing a living person 

and allowing it is inconsistent with everything we have in our society 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I knew it would be a waste of time....

I can only imagine the replies.  Please tell me guns or car accidents was brought up.  

 

[Stealthycat]

I knew it would be a waste of time....

because I disagree doesn't mean its a waste

I 100% agree MORE needs done for social nets, MORE needs done for children/babies/youth who have worthless parents. I'm on board with that, I can think of nobody who wouldn't be. 

killing 850,000 unborn's a year isn't the answer and completely ignores the core problem - the unwanted pregnancies

do you not agree ?

 

[Sweet J]

Possibly..though, I have a little more problem with legalizing prostitution.  More so from the standpoint of how often it is not the woman's choice and how many are forced into it and how it is already leading to so much human trafficking. 

Sure, but I think you solve that problem by regulating the crap out of it. I'd rather have a heavily-regulated prostitution (with rules in place to protect the vulnerable men and women) than prohibition, which leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. 

 

[dgreen]

Sure, but I think you solve that problem by regulating the crap out of it. I'd rather have a heavily-regulated prostitution (with rules in place to protect the vulnerable men and women) than prohibition, which leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. 

Yeah, I see no reason why prostitution can't be legalized and still have laws against forced labor, kidnapping, and child abuse.

 

[Sweet J]

because I disagree doesn't mean its a waste

I 100% agree MORE needs done for social nets, MORE needs done for children/babies/youth who have worthless parents. I'm on board with that, I can think of nobody who wouldn't be. 

killing 850,000 unborn's a year isn't the answer and completely ignores the core problem - the unwanted pregnancies

do you not agree ?

Also, apropos of nothing - but when organizations like Planned Parenthood get funded appropriately, abortions go down.

 

[Stealthycat]

Also, apropos of nothing - but when organizations like Planned Parenthood get funded appropriately, abortions go down.

what ??

 

[IvanKaramazov]

what ??

Access to birth control --> fewer unplanned pregnancies --> fewer abortions.

(At least I assume that's @Sweet J's argument.  He's right IMO).