The voters have decided that Watchful_questioneer is wrong!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also by Watchful_questioneer
+70Talent should not be rewarded with respect; hard work should be, amirite?
Also about woman, raped, and abortion
+331If a woman was raped, then she could have an abortion. If she or the baby could potentially die from the birth, then she could have an abortion. If she went and had a one-night-stand or just got drunk, it's her own fault, the kid should be born but should not remain in the care of such an irresponsible parent; put him/her up for adoption after birth. amirite?
Also about woman, abortion, and legal
+138It doesn't make sense for a pregnant woman's murder to be considered 'double homocide' if an abortion is legal, Amiright? amirite?
Also by Watchful_questioneer
+5Why didn't the hipster chicken cross the road? This one explains itself, Amirite?
Also about woman, abortion, and legal
+418So wait; killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal? amirite?
Because killing is okay as long as you don't kill too much. Because you can always tell when a woman has been raped. Its only immoral once you cross an imaginary line that they government creates. This post is beyond wrong. Abortion is either completely legal or illegal. There is no middle ground.
I don't think that under any circumstances should it be completely legal to do infinite times. I think it should be either completely illegal, or legal with reasonable boundaries
thats a valid argument for a pro-life stance. There are NO reasonable boundaries that can be created given the circumstances. Nothing logical anyways. People will continuously claim to being raped to get abortions and limiting the number is extremely subjective and contradictory. It would be like saying you can only kill three people but the 4th is illegal. Makes no sense. Therefore, you either allow abortion (infinitely) or ban it altogether. I'm a supporter of the latter.
I see what you're saying. Any way to allow for an exception to allow abortion a will simply be argued for every instance in which somebody desires to get an abortion. But making it a law, and making it difficult to work around would likely discourage many people from trying to get many abortions. I feel abortions should not be regular, and only a last resort (if at all plausible) when the pregnany was a mistake. it all comes down to whether you think people should get second chances when the cost of a mistake it to get an abortion
If abortion is okay to you once, it's okay any time after that. The arguments for pro-choice (or pro-life) don't disappear after one abortion. This isn't a free demo.
i feel like the only potential reasoning for an abortion is when you made a mistake, and the circumatances make it extremely necessary to fix it, but past that, it's a moral issue to repeat the same mistake again at such an expense
One of the major arguments for pro-choice is that the bearer of the fetus has the option, since it is growing in her body. That argument remains intact on, say, her third abortion. Personally, I agree that the woman has a moral obligation to do whatever it takes to not be put in the position where she needs yet another abortion, but the 'choice' argument still stands.
What if she's married, takes precautions, and still over the course of her marriage she gets pregnant repeatedly? That's still immoral if she doesn't want children?
Or what if she's single and doesn't want to be pregnant? Guys can have sex with as many partners as they wish without experiencing pregnancy. It's not just the woman's fault, and pregnancy certainly shouldn't be a punishment.
Well, if it happens repeatedly, then you would think she'd eventually learn to use better precautions. Contraceptives are fairly reliable, so if it is the fault of the contraceptives for being ineffective, then it is not the woman's fault, and that is why a certain amount could be allowed.
I don't really think it's immoral, just unnecessary. I know someone who has had about 7 now. If you're going to get one because you don't want a kid I think you should start being more careful after maybe the second time.
It would be a good deterrent. Giving a limited number of chances for life, people would be almost as careful as if it were illegal to conserve their chances. At the same time, they aren't doomed if it happens a couple of times. This is not a moral issue, but I YYA'd because it's a good idea.
You can do the rape thing because of you claim rape then there will be an investigation and if they prove you werent raped then there will be a heavy fine.
I don't think you would want a woman that has HAD five abortions to have a child...I think there might be something mental going on at that point.
What people don't get, is that the people getting the abortion obviously don't a have religion to base a moral practice on. If your religion doesn't allow abortions, then they won't get them. Separation between the Church and State is important because you can't make it illegal for someone to eat beef if they aren't Hindu.
Morals =/= religion
I said a religion to base a moral practice on. Not that morals are strictly religion.
So if someone doesn't have a religion, they can't have morals is what you're saying.
No. I said. "a religion to base a moral practice on." It's like saying I'm Catholic therefore I believe that abortion is wrong. Yet, my mother taught me to respect women. If I didn't have a religion, would i believe that abortion is wrong? I could. But if i don't who are they to say that I can't because their god says so. I believe that abortion is wrong, yet I do not believe it should be illegal. It's their choice, not ours. If they don't believe in a certain belief it isn't fair for them to have to abide by our rules.
That's my opinion on abortion, also. I'm Catholic too. However, your original comment didn't portray that view very well.
My original comment had no ties to my view. What I had said was that the people getting said abortions, do not have religious based morals to stop them from getting abortions. I however, did not say that religions equal morals, or that all morals are based on religion.
You said "people who get abortions obviously don't have a religion to base moral practices on". You're basically saying you can only have morals if you have a religion to base them on.
I did say that, though that is not what it means. i reiterated after the fact. I see where the confusion may happen within that statement.
Well it is directly translated to me that one must be religious in order to be morally sound and I think other people felt the same way regarding your comment.
The way i percieved it was griffin14 meant that people who get abortions don't get their morals from religion. They can still get it from life and experience, though. It's not true, though, because not all religions condone abortion (if none else, at least pastafarianism)
That's where the Hindu/beef reference comes in. I also stated if their religion doesn't allow it. Not that religion itself doesn't allow it.