If it is not for you to judge, why vote against a woman's right to choose?

Question

Most replied to this earlier question with "it's not my place to judge"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aoe1RRp6jYwkFP6Vxu3fS7Hsy6IX?qid=20060906094525AABATxt

Answer 1

The woman has the right to choose, if she chooses to have sex, she must accept the consequences of her actions. Choice comes with responsibility. We live in a society that hates responsibility, and will do anything to act frivolously. Even slaughter innocent children.

It's a sick state that our world is in when escaping responsibility is more important than human life. People claim to have a high value on youth, but the truth is they don't have any value on youth. Youth is more attractive so they like it. People's value in this day is on sex.

I am fully in support of a woman's right to choose. Choose whether she has sex or not. Once she makes that choice, she has made it. She must accept the consequences of her actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Abortion exists soley for the purpose of selfishness. With medical science that exists today, it doesn't happen that women are in danger through pregnancy. If there is a complication, they can do a C-section. It can happen that the baby dies in the process, but that is far different than just neglectively killing the child because it's inconvenient.

Those who vote against abortion realize the severe injustice that is abortion. It is not consistent with the rest of the laws regarding the unborn in America. It's murder if anyone other than the mother of the child kills it. If we are to take that attitude, then what prevents a mother from killing a born child? After all, it's the mother's choice! Such is a disgusting theory to almost all ears, but the only difference between a born child and an unborn child is which side of the womb they are currently on. Surely you would not say that a person on the east side of a fence has more value than a person on the west side of it. There is evidence of thought processes occuring in unborn children now as early as 6 weeks. Most people reject partial birth abortion, but how is it any different than slaughtering an unborn child? The only difference is their physical location.

The question becomes, is life important or is it not important? If it is not important, then be reckless with sexual activity, and give no concern toward the consequences, regardless of how destructive they may be. But if life is important, then use your head, and act with self-control and discipline, judging carefully actions about to be chosen.

Answer 2

Because it *IS* my right to judge. I am a scientist. I am a studier of morality. My science tells me that from the moment of conception, there is new human life -- despite it not, with current technology, being viable until approximately 5months of age.

At 5 months, the infant can survive with medical ICU. Who's to say in a decade we won't push that back to 4 months? What if we find a way to produce an artificial womb and from the moment of conception we are able to sustain the life of the embryo absent its mother? There's now no birth, so we cannot use 'birth' to define the starting point of life.

Life is a biochemical process that absorbs energy to maintain order. This process begins at conception. Left to run its course, the pregnancy will result, generally speaking, in a perfectly normal human being. Therefore, the immature form must be shown the same level of rights as the mature form, else we violate the future mature form's rights.

If I see a man pull a gun and aim it at another man, I have every moral obligation to prevent the murder, otherwise I am morally and legally complacent and therefore and accomplice; I share in the moral guilt. For the sake of the future mature being, I am just as morally beholden to render any and all reasonable and feasible assistance.

NOW... that said.

Current tech says 5months is viable. So what if you have a 4 month old fetus in a mother who has uterine cancer and will die within two weeks without massive histerectomy? The medical choice is to remove the uterus and end the child's life, saving the mother's, or, lose mother and thus lose the child as well. The loss of one life, however unfortunate, is preferable to the loss of two. This is permissible, but only if there is no medically viable reason to believe the mother can survive long enough to reach the child's viability.

Answer 3

I agree with notmelgibson-- I am not a woman so I can not tell a woman what to do, or not to do with her body or what is growing inside of it, even if I were the biological father of that fetus.

This debate has raged on for so long though-- technically, a calf is not a calf until it comes out and takes it's first breath of oxygen (from outside of the womb) on it's own-- why is it different when it is a human fetus?

We live in a world with double standards- it is okay to euthenize a dog, cat, any animal we want, and any other living thing, yet we can not euthenize a human even if they beg for it??

That is the same way with the abortion issue.There is alot of hypocricy involved in it-- religious people who swear they do not judge others judge homosexuals, and judge people who have different religions, and judge those for choosing whether to abort a fetus or not to abort a fetus.

I am religious, but I have risen above all of that. I shall not judge others, and I shall not engage in helping a woman terminate a pregnancy, and I shall not judge those who do. THAT is the REAL teachings of Jesus. To not engage in what we feel is wrong, and to not judge others. So those who say it is murder, and it is horrible, have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner.Which goes against the teachings.

The point is this-- humans are hypocrites and feel that they are the superior beings and should make all of the decisions for others. Is it right? No, but it is the way it is.

Answer 4

For any given single situation it may not be my place to judge but I can comment on the situation in general.

1. In my mind you can not debate this using God. You end up speaking apples and oranges with people who don't beleive vs those who do.

2. To me trying to diferenciate between a baby and a fetus is rediculus and is just a way to justify killing.

3. With rights come responsibilities. You have a right to use your body in ways you deem desired. But you also have the responsibility to deal with the fall out of these actions. Abortion is just a way to dodge responibility for your actions.

Now having said that every situation is different and that is what I can not judge. Someone could come with a perfectly acceptable reason for why they should be allowed to abort a pregnancy and for that situation that person may be correct. But if your talking about the act in general then I can comment and I do make statments and generally I feel it is wrong.

Answer 5

It is not people who do the judging here, but the word of God.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
God made those unborn babies. Who is anyone to kill it. This freedom to choose is so hypocritical. What makes anyone who has had a chance at life have the right to say an unborn baby doesnt have that same chance. What if their mother wanted the freedom to choose, then they would have been sucked out of their mother's womb and killed before they had a chance to live.
It's rediculous!

Answer 6

I've often thought that about people on here. They answer questions on abortion and sex by calling people murderers and whores; and you know that they're coming at it from a Christian standpoint, so you just want to say 'judge not, lest ye be judged' and 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.....Funny how people will use religion to back up their beliefs, but in order to do so they have to 'forget' so much of their own holy scriptures.

Side note: I am so sick of all this 'a woman has the right to choose whether she opens her legs' and 'a woman has the right to choose if she takes off her knickers' etc - IT TAKES TWO TO F*****G TANGO, YOU KNOW!

Answer 7

Religiously speaking you are right. Jesus said to tell others about the good news but not force anything on anyone. However, in this instance the arguments could be made completely secularly that it is murder and against the natural order of things. Whether you believe God created us or we evolved, one of our main purposes is to keep the species going by procreation. If you abort then you are going against that purpose (whether God-given or as part of natural selection) and so it is wrong morally. This isn't judgement this time because even if God never existed it would still go against evolution's plan.

Answer 8

If it's not for us to judge, then why prosecute people for who exercise their right of choice to kill, steal, and/or commit any other crime.

The answer, "it's not for us to judge", is a cop out. It is perfectly well within one's purview to judge if an act, or a thought, is morally correct or not - even if the act or thought itself is considered legal by society. That said, all must be careful to separate the person from the act. Good people occasionally do morally reprehensible things. And beyond the one act, we don't know enough to properly judge 'the person'. For the latter, it is up to the law, the courts, and God to render a judgment.

Answer 9

There is a difference in choosing appropriately and avoiding responsibility for decision already made. Morality is OURS to judge by a standard set down by God.

Let's be real here...Choice should come BEFORE the impact of the decision, not after. You have some really intelligent women out there pushing freedom of choice. I am all for choosing, but these intelligent women have put choice in the WRONG place at the WRONG time. The choice they are fixated upon is choosing after the FACT.

If it was a question about MONEY or POWER, these women would not only choose WELL, they would choose strategically to make sure they got the MOST out of their choice. How silly it would be to them to choose AFTER the disaster.

Let's really look at choice. Inteliigent women will choice PRIOR to action, not AFTER action. YOU make a choice to have sexual intercourse and fail at birth control. YOU had a choice prior to the intercourse to choose. AFTER intercourse, you must step up to the plate and be responsible FOR ALL you choices UP to the end result....what ever you get out of intercourse....pleasure, guilt, pregnancy, STD's or HIV, Herpes, joy, whatever follows is a result of CHOICE. You deal with it. Of all the things I have named, only a pregnancy is destroyed. STD, HIV, Herpes, etc, are all accepted as is and treated. Murder is not a TREATMENT, it is a removal of the problem....so happens that problem is a result of your choice. YOU can choose to destroy it, sure. But it is a choice out of ignorance and desperation. It is not the choice of intelligent, responsible women and men.

Bottomline........choose BEFORE removing YOUR panties and then NO other choice will have to be dealt with. This is how intelligent women CHOOSE! Responsible women then take all the end results and stand in judgment of self and say, "I did it, so I will stand behind it. It WAS my choice."

Answer 10

You made the choice to have sex, so you must deal with the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. This is why you should wait to have sex until you're married. When you are pregnant there is a living human being inside you. Everyone who has an abortion should be charged with murder because that is exactly what they are doing. It is not a judgement, it is the fact that murder is murder and should be dealt with.