2007-11-09 21:42:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
gelfling, are you retard??? this is not a topic about god
2007-11-09 22:07:55 · update #1
Yes and I will be completely honest here. I cannot reconcile abortion of any kind in my own mind yet. I do think about it alot and talk about it maturely when given the opportunity. I cannot agree with anyone who agrees with abortion but this might be subject to change without notice.
2007-11-09 22:22:58 · answer #1 · answered by fierce beard 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know many atheists who would never have abortions under any circumstances. But all of them support the ability of a person to choose. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, what kind of mother would they make? What kind of person would the child of an unfit, unwilling, irresponsible mother become? I ask myself those questions and that's why I'm pro-choice.
2007-11-10 05:55:15 · answer #2 · answered by foru0810 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Abortion is one of those cases where it would be convenient to have a book or a clergyman to tell me what to do so I could skip thinking about it.
As it is, we're all generally pro-life, the difference is only at the margins.
2007-11-10 05:52:56 · answer #3 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of, course I'm pro-life. I don't believe that people should go around murdering others.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I think that a fetus is human at the instant of conception. I also don't think that the government has any business telling a woman that she can't have an abortion.
.
2007-11-10 05:50:09 · answer #4 · answered by Weird Darryl 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Pro life? Sure, let live and let, well, live, I guess.
Or are you talking about this holier than thou "pro birth" (and who gives a damn about the kids once the mothers have fulfilled their duty to society) movement? In that case, "pro choice" of course.
2007-11-10 05:55:20 · answer #5 · answered by The Arkady 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i am in a way. i dont see abortion as a means of solving your "problem" just because of one drunken night. now when it comes down to a matter of it being life or death for the woman, she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.
2007-11-10 05:50:33 · answer #6 · answered by king_james_lxvii 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I am.
The woman's life is secondary to that of the fetus so long as there is any hope of bringing the fetus to the age of viability. If there is no such hope, then and only then does the woman's life become priority.
If the mother is old enough to be carrying a child, then she has utilized some of her human potential. The child is a clean slate and still has its full potential.
Thus, in a simple calculus of human potential, the child is more important.
If the child is not desired by the birth mother, every single one of 50 states has a list of parents WAITING to adopt a baby -- even babies who have medical problems. Let me make sure that is clear: Every ... single... state... No exception. The infant CAN find a home with loving parents. So the unwanted child line holds absolutely no water.
Every infant is wanted. (It sucks, yes, that children older than 18 months have vastly lower adoption rates, but we're talking newborns here, not toddlers and above)
2007-11-10 05:45:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 6⤋
Yes. The Woman's.
2007-11-10 05:45:03 · answer #8 · answered by neoplop 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yeah dude. H_Chick says choose life.
2007-11-10 05:45:48 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd never condone or support a God who drowned and slaughtered millions of his own children (more than Hitler), and/or who conspired to have his own kid beaten and killed, that's for sure. God obviously thinks it's just fine to kill your own children.
2007-11-10 06:05:26 · answer #10 · answered by gelfling 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋