- Thread starter Creepy
- Start date
tsmith said:
Nope, for women, a women's body belongs to her, NOT the church.
Let me explain this to you, the hypocritical Catholic church was behind the ruling in the first place, and was NOT for the benefit of "humans", but for the benefit of the church.
If you need more help, please let me know.
ROBERTSON said:
Well thanks for explaining nothing.
The fetus has it's own DNA, so it's NOT her body that she is aborting.
Human life or the right to life is not for the benefit of humans??????
How is the Catholic church hypocritical in this case?
If you don't understand how important and precious human life is, then I am not the one who needs help.
Must make more Catholics
Must make more Catholics
Well it still looks like you need help.
Who said anything about a women aborting her own life.
So the women is just simply a host for reproduction, without any rights, quite common for the two major religions who treat women as second class ?
Your stance is that a women who is raped, or a victim of incest, has no rights,
A possible baby being born into squalor, and with no future, is benefiting any human.
Sorry, we have advanced way beyond that thinking.
The catholic church was behind the original rule, for its own benefit, NOT for the benefit of humankind.
That religion brain washed the young to believe any form of birth control, and male masturbating was a sin, why, simply because it meant that another possible Catholic would not be born.
Catholic Hospitals in Ont. were instructed by the church, that if only the unborn OR the women could be saved, let the women die.
I do understand that being indoctrinated at an early age by some selfish religious hierarchy, makes it difficult to look at the rights of women.
Must make more Catholics
tsmith said:
Well it still looks like you need help.
Who said anything about a women aborting her own life.
So the women is just simply a host for reproduction, without any rights, quite common for the two major religions who treat women as second class ?
Your stance is that a women who is raped, or a victim of incest, has no rights,
A possible baby being born into squalor, and with no future, is benefiting any human.
Sorry, we have advanced way beyond that thinking.
The catholic church was behind the original rule, for its own benefit, NOT for the benefit of humankind.
That religion brain washed the young to believe any form of birth control, and male masturbating was a sin, why, simply because it meant that another possible Catholic would not be born.
Catholic Hospitals in Ont. were instructed by the church, that if only the unborn OR the women could be saved, let the women die.
I do understand that being indoctrinated at an early age by some selfish religious hierarchy, makes it difficult to look at the rights of women.
Last edited:
Let's just keep fighting about abortion, NOT the ones who are living, suffering, and god knows what.
US lost track of 1,500 undocumented children, but says it's not 'legally responsible' - CNNPolitics
US lost track of 1,500 undocumented children, but says it's not 'legally responsible' - CNNPolitics
Crimson Angel
Reviewer
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2017
- Messages
- 499
Prim0 said:
Just get a vasectomy and you wouldn't have to worry about a single thing about this problem. Seriously. I just had one and it was the best decision of my life.
I wish I can be the spokesperson of vasectomy clinics because I cannot stress how important it is for penis-wielders who don't ever want children to get one. And if you do want children you can always freeze your own semen.
Back on topic - I would never question a woman's choice on the fetus because it's her body. She chooses however she wants to do with it. However, eugenics is a different story (i.e. would you abort a child if you found out the child is female/homosexual/disabled/Asperger's/etc) and is something I prefer not to discuss at all.
Crimson Angel
Reviewer
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2017
- Messages
- 499
I expect people who are "against selectively aborting female fetuses" to also be "against selectively aborting gay/Asperger/non-Asian/disabled fetuses". Otherwise it would be a double standard. That's all I'm going to say.
Crimson Angel
Reviewer
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2017
- Messages
- 499
papasmerf said:
Whatever she wants to do with the fetus is completely up to her and nobody else.
But if a woman were to say "I found out that my child has the 'gay' gene so I'm going to abort him" or "I found out that my child is female so I'm going to abort her" then that says a lot about the woman.
That's why when it comes to eugenics I'm undecided and frankly it's something I don't want to talk about. I would not feel comfortable around a woman who aborted a gay/trans fetus because she only wants cis/heterosexual children but it's still her choice.
