The issue of Abortion in accordance to Christian beliefs

Unborn babies have the right to life. But the poor, disabled, sick and elderly don't. This is in the bible somewhere, heard it on Fox.

 

In an ideal world we wouldn't have or need abortions. It's a terrible thing.

However, we don't live in an ideal world. Personally, I think there are times when abortions are necessary and as we saw before Roe v. Wade- making abortions illegal only pushes the market underground- which is unsafe for the woman and fetus.

 

It's unsafe for the fetus by design, in either instance.

 

Yeah, but I'd rather have a doctor do it in a clinic than some guy in a backalley with a clothes hanger or pennyroyal tea.

 

Would you be in favor of new taxes to fund more entitlements for all those babies that would have been aborted?

 

Best of luck. Might I suggest pushing her off of the Houston Planned Parenthood building as a means to that end? It's conveniently shaped like a staircase for that very reason.

 

During pregnancy, partially subsidize. Put them up for adoption. Along those lines but it needs a study. I'm optimistic it's possible.

Bottom line, I don't find justification for murder the fashion in which life was created.

 

So there are only two options...abortion or a boatload of new entitlements? I would think there are many points in between the two extremes. Something that would help would be a system in which deadbeat dads are simply not tolerated. The states need to be a lot more aggressive in collecting child support. No woman should have to bear the cost of parenting alone when daddy has no disruption in his life or pocketbook. Never.

 

I can't wait until the games count!

 

Me too. Wait... what?

 

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with public policy.

 

So public policy is based on.... ?

Ryan drew a distinction between principles and policy. And that was his way of "tolerating" abortion in cases of rape or incest. The creation is still innocent of anything-- except being unwanted.

 

Of course there's more than two options, but how effective would those middle road options be?

How would you implement a system that doesn't tolerate deadbeat fathers? Send them with jail? Doesn't seem like a good idea, since they need their freedom to make money and having a criminal record will prevent them from finding a good job. How much child support do you think can be collected from the fathers in the first place? The majority of women who seek abortions are from the poorer demographics, so I'm guessing the fathers would be from the same demographic.

 

The flying spaghetti monster, obviously.

 

In Texas, child support for one child in generally 20% of monthly income. So it is material regardless of economic strata. You would be surprised the number of deadbeat dads out there who could afford to pay. I was a creditor attorney on a case where the debtor made about $3,000 per month. He owed over $20,000 in delinquent child support.

It's disgusting that we allow these guys to get away with it. My former law partner was a family law attorney. A guy can be put in jail for 6 months FD failure to pay child support. He always told me you would be amazed how much money a guy will come up with when faced with jail time. The problem is that only a small percentage of these cases ever go to court. Generally it happens when the mother hires an attorney and files a motion for enforcement of the support order. The state should get involved, but they don't.

 

Sorry, but you have no say in the matter unless said life is dependent on your body.

 

Under your logic the child has no voice, that's for sure.

 

Even the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that. There is case law holding that the state can regulate abortion after the first trimester, which is before viability.

I also find it interesting that you call it a life. If it is a life, then the abortion would kill it. That would make you okay with killing under these circumstances. Most pro choice arguments are premised on it not being a life.

 

I disagree with the USSC on issues like parental notification or mandatory delays, but this is hardly the issue. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. States can only regulate abortions before viability if they do not impose a "substantial obstacle" on a woman's ability to get the procedure.

Of course the fetus is a life. I doubt any serious pro choice advocates would deny that. My point is that the state should not be allowed to require that a woman use her body to sustain that life.

 

It's an interesting moral standard, that it's permissible to kill another human being if it is dependent on you.

Even if its existence is a result of your own actions.