Re: Any anti-abortion atheists?

"Osprey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Erica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Bob Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > The current law about abortion , according to roe vs wade, is that it is
> > > a private matter between a woman and her doctor in the first trimester.
> > > After that, it is up to the state, as long as they have a provision for
> > > medical reasons.
> > >
> > > Third trimester abortions are very rare, and are regulated already.
> > > Would you rather let someone have an abortion, or just let the woman
>  die?
> > >
> > > I suspect you would let the woman die.
> >
> > Bob, dude, buddy, pal, ye ol' top poster -- which one of us are you
> > replying to.
> >
> > Eh, I'll answer for me, just in case.
> >
> > First off, I'm pro-choice, you shmuck. I hope you can see that your
> > last presumably knee-jerk statement wasn't fair considering you didn't
> > know where I stood except in relation to one statement made by
> > robparr. More specifically, my own personal decision would be
> > pro-life; however, I would not presume to tell another woman what to
> > do. To even try would be ridiculous. She's going to do whatever she
> > wants, legal or illegal, regardless. How could she not, after all is
> > said and done it's STILL her body.
> 
> Just to help you understand the other side.  You are entitled to your
> opinion, and I am not suggesting that you have to change them.
> Many of us who do believe in God, realize that our body's are not just ours.
> God has given us life, and it is our responsibility to take care of our
> bodies and protect life.  This means protecting the unborn.  God has given
> us the wonderful miracle of being able to create life.  A woman's womb, it
> is her responsibility not only for herself but to God, to protect the
> unborn.  That is how many of us view our bodies and the unborn.  Now
> granted, reading your previous post, you may go on the attack.  I would hope
> not. I am only responding to you so you may get a better understanding on
> how others view the issue.
> 


I really love it when people say something like this.  They say: "You
are entitled to your opinion, and I am not suggesting that you have to
change them."
but then they go on to say that God has given US life and it's OUR
responsibility to take care of OUR bodies...God has given US this
wonderful miracle.  I especially like the "A woman's womb, it is her
responsibility not only for herself but to God, to protect the
unborn."

So in the same sentence, this person said: you're entitled to your
opinions, as long as you service your greater responsibility to God. 
Amazing how short sited that is.  When you make statements like that,
are you really respecting others opinions? Are you really respecting
others rights to choose their religious beliefs? I don't think so. 
You're saying that even though you don't believe in God, you still
bend to God's will.  I personally don't believe in God, and I don't
have to do anything that respects a God except respect others' rights
to choose their religious beliefs.


> >
> > Second, I was just pointing out the ludicousness of robparr's criteria
> > for what constitutes a human being, ie not until fetus is born does it
> > become a human being. At least that's what I got from that statement.
> > Well, that's too late. Way, WAY too late. And, as you say, abortions
> > at that point are already regulated.
> 
> The fetus is a human being.  From the moment of conception. We do not become
> a "person" until after birth.
> There is a difference.  And the ONLY reason for that, is for legal reasons
> only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > The fact that I did so through excessive sarcasm is my bad.
> 
> That is a shame that you have to be that way.  I would like to suggest that
> you try to understand the other side, if you want to have your opinions
> understood.
> When you use sarcasm, you only defeat yourself.
> 
> I just got
> > slightly steamed, is all. But robparr's tone didn't warrent it, so I'm
> > sorry.
> >
> > My criteria leans more toward "viable outside the womb without
> > extraordinary assistance," though I think that the entire issue is way
> > too complex to make alot of sweeping black and white statements.
> >
> > Out of curiousity though, does anyone know what sort of medical
> > emergency would have to be happening for a late-term abortion,
> > presumably partial birth,  to be needed, rather than some sort of
> > cesarian procedure where the child may, or may not, survive?
> 
> This is a good argument and one reason I do not support PBA.  I can't think
> of any reason why a cesarian can't be done to save both mother and child.
> 
> 
> >
> > As for the choices of mothers and their families in regard to
> > earlier-term fetuses, that would be up to the individuals involved and
> > the situations they find themselves. I would hope that life doesn't
> > become so cheap that such decisions are taken frivously. Most of the
> > time I'm sure they are not. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter what you,
> > I or Pope John Paul say about the situation. The people actually
> > involved are the ones who have to live with their decisions, and will
> > need counseling and support either way.
> >
> > I would also hope that such counseling would include all the options,
> > as opposed to the "You're pregnant. You don't wanna be. You don't have
> > to be" quickie counseling that my friend got when she was 16. She
> > still regrets the decision she made, and feels that if she'd had more
> > information, she might have acted differently.And that goes for the
> > death penalty, euthanasia, war -- other areas that should be
> > considered if one is "pro-life."
> >
> >