Re: Religion And Football
posted at 1/30/2010 12:46 AM EST
Roy, it seems that you have a fairly rigid viewpoint on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. The subject, however, is NOT black and white.
In some respects, it is black and white in terms your birth control examples. But I understand in all issues there is always gray area, specifically with the issue of rape or when the mother's life is in danger. In those cases, there are no easy answers.
Your example of genetics is dangerous ground. Are you sure the pro-abortion folks want to argue that a baby with genetic defects should be aborted. Sounds a bit like Hitler and the master race stuff. Where is the line drawn?
7) if a drug dependant welfare mom, who has 10 other children, gets pregnant by yet another man - should she have the baby or have an abortion?
It's funny you used this example. I remember reading a column by this one columnist in USA Today years back who used this same example. She asked that exact question to a someone who favored abortions, only the number of children was 14 children (I think). She asked the person should the mother have had the 15th child. The activist said no. The columnist said, she was the 15th child.
As to my example about the dates, like I said, I've never received an adequate answer. It's the abortion crowd who seem to have an answer. I've heard woman talk of what the feeling was like when they were carrying their baby and the 'miracle' of creating life, so I'm in their corner of that, which is why I don't understand the abortion crowd who don't have that view. If they did, there is no choice to make.
6) if a woman purposely entraps a man - says she was on birth control - and gets pregnant - should the man have to pay child support
This isn't an abortion question. But it does bring an interesting point and forget about entrapment. If a man and a woman have consensual sex out of wedlock and the woman gets pregnant, should the man have to play child support if he doesn't want the kid? Women who favor abortion will say yes. OK fine. What if the woman doesn't want the kid but the man does? He can't force the woman to have the baby. To me, that's a double-standard. It took two to tango, so to speak, but only the woman can decide the future for both parties. If the woman says having the baby is going to ruin her life, she can abort and be done. But if she wants the baby and the man doesn't, he's on the hook for the next 18 years.
To me, if you're going to force the man to pay 18 years of child support, then the man should have some rights too. If he wants the baby, then instead of the mother having to play 18 years of child support, why make her have the baby. She's only on the hook for nine months? If you're not going to do that, then legally, if conception occurred out of wedlock, if the woman wants to be the only one who can make a choice, then only she should be the one who deals with the results -- LEGALLY, mind you. Morally, I don't agree. I feel the man should live up to his responsibilities of his actions. But morally, so should the woman.
Yes, there is a lot of gray area, which is why like I've said a number of times now: the focus of the Pro-Life crowd shouldn't be making abortion illegal. It should be making it unnecessary. The casualness many on the Pro-Choice crowd treat abortion and life is disturbing.