"But if pollsters probed beyond the word "abortion" I'm quite sure that number would go down. How many of those would agree that delivering a baby breech up to the neck, stabbing the base of the baby's skull, and suctioning his brains out is morally acceptable? How many would agree that aborting at 39 weeks due to financial concerns is morally acceptable? How many would agree that drawing and quartering a late-term baby who feels all the pain is morally acceptable? How many would agree that aborting to fit into a prom dress is morally acceptable? How many would agree that aborting to cover up incest is morally acceptable?"

I love the way you assume that people who are against abortion are the ONLY people who know what the words means. I also love the way you threw ID&X in there even though its ILLEGAL and no longer falls under the umbrella of a legal abortion, which is what that poll asked about. I also love the prom dress comment, because its comlpetely ridiculous and you know it. And obviously- when a girl gets an abortion after incest, its only to "cover it up", not because of her wish to not be forced to give birth to an inbred child she never consented to having. *eyeroll*

And you know, if they were "probed further" and asked about abortion in rape or incest cases, 60-80% of people would find abortion in that case morally acceptable, and more than 50% of Americans think first trimester abortions should be legal, regardless of whether or not they personally find it to be morally acceptable.

On a happy note, more Americans support Stem Cell Research and premarital sex than animal testing, and 8% more people see homsexuality as morally acceptable than 7 years ago, while the change in abortion views is only 2%. You sure you still want to claim the pendulum is swinging in your direction? Facts say otherwise...

I'd have to say almost all of them are morally unacceptable.

Gambling, I have no problem with as long as it remains a pastime and does not become obsessive.

Having a baby outside of marriage is morally commendable, if the alternative is an abortion.

The HAVING the baby is fine, it was the "making of the baby" that was immoral. As long as the distinction is understood, I would have to disagree with that one.

I think the statistic on polygamy is really interesting. Especially when you compare it to the statistics on homosexuality. I wonder what the disconnect is with that? If it's ok for two women to be together, why not two women and a man?

Also, it's interesting that people consider adultery almost universally morally repugnant, but don't consider matters of life and death to be so.

Even more strage is that people seem much more comfortable with doctor assisted suicide than suicide in general. It seems odd that so many people feel that the situation is morally different when the outcome is the same.

Lauren!! Where have you been? Are you the same Lauren I know or a different Lauren? I have missed you! :)

I wondered by polygamy was defined only as "one man and two wives" and not "one wife and two husbands."

I don't think the responses would be any different, so why did the pollsters find it necessary to so narrowly define polygamy?

Fortunately, American public opinion on abortion really hasn't changed over the years. The numbers go up and down one or two points, but basically stay the same.

In 1975, 54% believed abortion should be legal in some cases, 21% believed it should be legal in all cases, and 22% believed it should be illegal in all cases.

In 2007, 55% believed abortion should be legal in some cases, 26% believed it should be legal in all cases, and 18% believed it should be illegal in all cases.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

Anon, 9:18a, said: "And obviously- when a girl gets an abortion after incest, its only to "cover it up", not because of her wish to not be forced to give birth to an inbred child she never consented to having. *eyeroll*"

Anon, only an idiotic person too chicken to go by any other than "anonymous" could invent such spin. Nor do you apparently have a nose on your face, since as easy to see abortion is an incest perpetrator's best friend as it is to spot that.

"idiotic person too chicken" is a violation of Jill's rules. Moderators?

How many would agree that aborting to fit into a prom dress is morally acceptable?

What a great idea. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of this happening? Isn't sex supposed to be reserved for prom night, not before prom night? (sarcasm alert)

If there are any teens reading... save sex for much, much later, like maybe even for marriage....prevents a lot of headaches.

Uh huh... only that was actually me, I just forgot to put my name in, which happens sometimes. Way to flip your lid about it instead of actually responding to anything I said.

I notice you don't react the same way to Pro Life anons...at all...ever. Cute.

And yes, I'm such an "idiotic coward chicken" that most of you know my face AND my full name and some of you have my email address.

And I'd like some data (since you apparently have it) on the reasons incest victims state for having an abortion.

Nice name calling, by the way, thats really cute and charming of you. Certainly goes a long way in helping me take you more seriously.

"idiotic person too chicken" is a violation of Jill's rules. Moderators?

Not when it's directed to a chicken named Anonymous.
:)

Amanda, Jill, didn't know it was you, we know you aren't a chicken!

Anon - (oh...Amanda)

Please read Jill's words before you post. I'll repost her words:

" How many would agree that aborting to cover up incest is morally acceptable?"

She didn't ask how many would agree that aborting because of incest is morally acceptable. She asked about covering it up being morally acceptable. This is because she was being specific about the reason and not generalizing.

"I also love the way you threw ID&X in there even though its ILLEGAL and no longer falls under the umbrella of a legal abortion, which is what that poll asked about. "

The Supremes upheld the ban however most states have not set up any kind of law that would actually punish anyone who does it. so.........I'm sure you can figure it out from there - it is still an issue.

"I also love the prom dress comment, because its comlpetely ridiculous and you know it. "

This happened with one of Tiller's patients. It's not as rediculous as you would like to think. Especially in 1st trimester abortions on teenagers.

"And you know, if they were "probed further" and asked about abortion in rape or incest cases, "

Lets get off this kick, shall we. It is very disturbing that less than 1% of abortions is constantly used as an example when over 90% of abortions is used for something other than rape/incest; life/health of mother. Let's try to focus on the real issue and stop attempting to pull at heartstrings.

and Amanda -

"And I'd like some data (since you apparently have it) on the reasons incest victims state for having an abortion. "

Huh? We are discussing covering up incest which means the incest is unknown therfore there is no data available. When it comes to known incest and the woman chooses abortion the reason generally is because it was incest.

Hal -

I haven't been here much - however I took her comment not directed at anonymous personally but at the fact no name was used....... I haven't been here much though, so I'll let the others know of your concern.......

Hal - you apparently didn't get the memo. The rules only apply if you don't agree with Jill.

Janet - In all the dealings I had with pregnant teens, not a single one of them was concerned about their prom, or their prom dress for that matter - once they realized they were pregnant.

MK - i agree thats a weird stat. But I think that stigma and judgemental attitude against single moms and pregnant teens is contributing to a woman wanting an abortion. You should have seen the way people would stare at some of the girls I worked with when they walked in to the clinic. And when you're scared out of your mind as it is, dealing with that makes the whole thing even worse. Having people mutter "slut" under their breaths when you walk by... who would want to subject a 14 year old girl to that kind of nonsense?

All - I have known 1 victim of incest in my life. She was raped by her half brother. She had already reported her rape and the half brother had been arrested before she had an abortion. Despite DNA evidence, since he was only 16, he got a slap on the wrist, spent 6 months in juvie, 2 years on probation, and is now back at home. Awesome. Jill, wouldn't it be great if she'd had that baby, and they'd all just be one big happy family, right?

Thanks Janet...

glad to know you also think its okay to call people names when they are pro choice anonys, but have never made a single comment to pro life anons.

Valerie - Jill brought up incest, not me. I simply responded to what she said. Regardless, you may think 1 or 2 % is insignificant. I don't.

"We are discussing covering up incest which means the incest is unknown therfore there is no data available."

So if there is no data available, claiming there is some massive cover up going on is pure speculation. Besides, I thought you just said it was only 1%, so we should stop pulling at heartstrings?

Thanks Janet...

glad to know you also think its okay to call people names when they are pro choice anonys, but have never made a single comment to pro life anons.

Amanda, I'm sorry if my comment offended you, it was nothing personal. I was only commenting on Hal's response, not yours.
Obviously my attempt at humor was a poor one.

Not taking it personally Janet - I get what you were saying. I'm just a little surprised at the fact that its okay to call someone a chicken if they don't leave their name - when not a SINGLE pro-life anon poster has been replied to in the same manner.

Amanda,

While I've never insulted anyone using anonymous, I have called them to task whichever side they were one. Just ask JLM.

Hal,
Even moderators have limits. Sorry.

Janet,
I got the humor.

Val,
Thanks. Got the email.

Valerie, you say it doesn't appear to have been directed personally at the person posting. Take another look, notice she's attacking the that the poster was such a person who would invent such "spin" (i.e., opinions), not primarily the anonymous part. She says "nor do you..." She is clearly calling this person idiotic and chicken:

"Anon, only an idiotic person too chicken to go by any other than "anonymous" could invent such spin. Nor do you apparently have a nose on your face, since as easy to see abortion is an incest perpetrator's best friend as it is to spot that."

"While I've never insulted anyone using anonymous, I have called them to task whichever side they were one. Just ask JLM."

I can vouch for this, Amanda. We've also badgered S. to leave a name. It still says "anonymous" but now he signs the bottom of his post 'S.' But yeah, JLM, that was fun to badger her to leave a name...

mk, I know you can't edit Jill's work. And you shouldn't, it's her site. You could, if you felt strongly about it, state publicly that you'd prefer she refrain from name calling, or just send her a private email.

If Hisman can stop calling me a murderer, maybe Jill can find some peace in her heart and some softness to her words.

Thank you Bobby. I'd forgotten about S. And Janet, weren't you Anon for awhile?

Amanda,

When I read the first post, I thought we had a tough, smart new anonymous poster.

Instead we have tough, smart Amanda.

Thanks for standing up to the abuse, and consistently putting facts, reason and humanity into the discussion.

Hal,

How's this for diplomacy?

I prefer that EVERYONE refrain from name calling and insults.

IMO. ;)

Amanda -

Please try to pay attention.

She mentioned the COVERING UP of incest not incest itself. Therefore we are discussing the crime of COVERING UP a crime and not the crime itself. Get it now?

And according to both the CDC and Guttmacher rape/incest is less than 1% not 1 or 2%. I've posted on that numerous times.

I never said that 1 or 2% is insignificant, I said that discussing the over One Million abortions that are used as birth control is what needs to be addressed. Huge difference. I was saying that bringing up the whole rape and abortion thing was pulling at heartstrings but not that they are insignificant.

"So if there is no data available, claiming there is some massive cover up going on is pure speculation. Besides, I thought you just said it was only 1%, so we should stop pulling at heartstrings?"

Again, try to keep up. Covering up a crime as serious as incest is a huge thing. Constantly bringing up rape when discussing the morality of abortion is pulling at heart strings.

As for the data....

There are 3 cases pending in Indiana; 2 cases pending in Ohio; Several cases pending in Kansas; one case pending in Massachusettes; and one case pending in Missouri that deal with the covering up of statutory rape/incest and this is just the ones that I know about. This is something that is happening all the time. There are many blogs/websites devoted to victims who have gone through this and are trying to tell their stories now that they are adults. If these women file lawsuits it is in a civil lawsuit because there is a statute of limitations in most states for rape/incest. (which is bogus and needs to be changed) Since it is a civil lawsuit, it is virtually impossible to research because I would have to know the name of the person and the case # which I wouldn't know because I don't know about them and the news media doesn't routinly report on civil lawsuits.

Oh yeah, Janet too! I'm sooo glad she started using a name.

I would be interested in asking how many of the 48% that felt abortion was morally wrong thought that they had the right to impose their choice on this issue upon others.

Amanda,

On a happy note, more Americans support Stem Cell Research and premarital sex than animal testing, and 8% more people see homsexuality as morally acceptable than 7 years ago, while the change in abortion views is only 2%. You sure you still want to claim the pendulum is swinging in your direction? Facts say otherwise...

You found this happy? I find it really sad that people are more concerned with using animals to further medical advances than with using humans to do the same thing.

Even if you don't think that the unborn are fully persons, surely you'd acknowledge that they are above animal status! At least equal?

That just really strikes me as sad...

I think this is interesting- yet not.

As it doesn't appear as though things have changed *that much*, but I suppose *some* change is better than none?

I am quite happy with the increase of the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships. Makes me think there is some hope left in the US...

Hello Rae,

Got your phone message, saw the pictures! LOVED having you. Can't wait til your "summer" visit!

"I would be interested in asking how many of the 48% that felt abortion was morally wrong thought that they had the right to impose their choice on this issue upon others."

Jaybones, I believe that rape is morally wrong and should be illegal. Should I have the right to impose that choice of mine on others?

I know MK, but theres a pretty huge difference between what you've said to people, vs. calling them a chicken and an idiot.

But theres also a huge difference between you and Jill regardless. I didn't mean to lump anyone else in there.

But Jeez, I won't make THAT mistake again... I fear the cold wrath of Jill. Who knows what fun names I might get called next time?! The curiousity is almost tempting!!

=) jk

Hal -

"Valerie, you say it doesn't appear to have been directed personally at the person posting. Take another look, notice she's attacking the that the poster was such a person who would invent such "spin" (i.e., opinions), not primarily the anonymous part. She says "nor do you..." She is clearly calling this person idiotic and chicken:"

I still don't see it...sorry. She is directing her comment to an (or so she thought) anonymous poster - how can anything be personal when that person is anonymous? Maybe I'm just reading too much into this......who knows.....

Also, I haven't been around much and calling someone idiotic or a chicken used to be standard practice......I'm assuming this has changed? Because if this is the way it has always been you and I would have been in trouble for many discussions we've had with each other! ;-)

(Just an FYI to everyone - I still think of all of you and remember everyone in my prayers. I am not around much right now because my family is taking up so much of my time - hopefully I will get used to everything soon and can come back.....)

mk: 11:37:Thank you Bobby. I'd forgotten about S. And Janet, weren't you Anon for awhile?

Funny you mention that! Yes, mk, I was the biggest chicken of them all. Lol. I started as anonymous, then Gabby (bet 'cha didn't know that), then came back as Anonymous, then Anon 2, and finally....well you know.... (Looking back, I probably drove you a little crazy.:)

Amanda,

Yeah. I just wanted it known that we don't ALWAYS pick only on prochoicers. Posting as anonymous just makes me crazy, cuz you get so confused.

I mean, really, you could pick the handle bullwinkle or Napoleon...and you'd still be anonymous, but we'd have a "sense" of who we were talking to...

And I know your's was an accident. No problem.

Yeah, Anon 2... LOL

Janet,

Yes. You did. But mostly because there were three anonymous' at that time. And you weren't all pro life. It was a bit tricky!

Janet,

Wow! I DIDN'T know you were Gabby. I remember Gabby. er, you. er...well you know what I mean. er, who I mean, er...ah forget it.

"And according to both the CDC and Guttmacher rape/incest is less than 1% not 1 or 2%. I've posted on that numerous times. "

But you're the one saying there is a cover up going on - so obviously the number is much higher than that. If its not, isn't it still "pulling at heart strings" to be focusing on a cover up thats less than 1% of over a million abortions? You can't have it both ways. Either is a small number and addressing it is an emotional appeal, or its a much larger and more significant number than you want to accept.

"I was saying that bringing up the whole rape and abortion thing was pulling at heartstrings but not that they are insignificant."

If it IS significant, how is mentioning its significance simply "pulling at hear strings"?

"Again, try to keep up. Covering up a crime as serious as incest is a huge thing. Constantly bringing up rape when discussing the morality of abortion is pulling at heart strings."

Oh I see. So its only a huge thing when it supports your agenda, but just an emotional appeal when it supports mine. Cool. Thanks for clearing that up.

mk: I confused myself too. I had three times as many comments to sift through and answer, coming from both sides. I'm glad I finally switched too! Bobby, sorry, I know it wasn't easy for you either (God love you.) :)

Amanda,

We live in a far-from-perfect world. Killing that 'living' part through abortion solves zip. Pretending that this short-term action is somehow the 'best', is foolhardy. We PL don't have everything all neat and tidy, but you do not either, nor does PC.

Somehow we believe that all the verbage that we adults spew is somehow of more value than even one human life (however conceived) And that how we think (and act) is very important. This is an illusion, the hallmark of an oppressor. No thank you!

Very insightful, John.

John McDonell,

My Honey! Too true. If only everything could be solved with words. Love, yes. Words, no. It takes elbow grease. It takes getting your hands dirty. It takes learning a person name. It takes caring. It takes recognizing that just because a person types some words on a blog, they are not typed words. They are a person. They have a face, a soul, a heart. Can't see 'em. Just have to trust that they are real.

It takes recognizing that just because a person is in someones womb, they are not just cells. They are persons. They have a face, a soul, a heart. Can't see 'em. Just have to trust that they are real.

"That which is essential, is invisible to the eye"

"Of magic doors there is this; you do not see them, even as you are passing thru."

"Creatures, I give you yourselves," said the strong, happy voice of Aslan. "I give to you for ever this land of Narnia. I give you the woods, the fruits, the rivers. I give you the stars and I give you myself. The Dumb Beasts whom I have not chosen are yours also. Treat them gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts. For out of them you were taken and into them you can return. Do not do so."

"You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content."

Hey Bethany, yes it's me!

I really don't think this poll is too relevant.

There's a difference between what people find morally acceptable and how people will act when put in that situation. Of course, everyone would love to enforce their morals on everyone else, but no one would like everyone else's morals forced upon them.

Take lying for example. I'm pretty sure close to 90-100% of people would say lying is morally wrong, but you know what? Most people lie.

What people feel is morally right and what people do in accordance with what they feel is morally right is often different.

Quote of the day ~ "So I'm warning you, being a fetus inside a woman who doesn't want you is a bad idea, dangerous for you-the-fetus. If you must be a fetus, be a fetus whose mother wants you."

That's pretty funny, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. I guess if we're going to personify the unborn, as quite a few people do, then it's apropos.

"I guess if we're going to personify the unborn, as quite a few people do..."

The person who made the quote, SoMG, is one of them. He/she believes that the unborn is a human person.

I'd have to say almost all of them are morally unacceptable.

Gambling, I have no problem with as long as it remains a pastime and does not become obsessive.

Having a baby outside of marriage is morally commendable, if the alternative is an abortion.
.......................................

So if abortion isn't an option having a baby outside of marriage is not morally commendable?

The HAVING the baby is fine, it was the "making of the baby" that was immoral. As long as the distinction is understood, I would have to disagree with that one.

...................................

Giving birth is fine but having sex and gestation, which would constitute the "making of the baby', is immoral?
That's pretty messed up mk.

I call people out all the time on either side if that makes you feel better, Amanda. I don't think I call people names, though. At least I realllly try very hard not to.

Rae,

Are you coming to visit this summer?!! I hope so..I had so much fun with you and MK and Gabriella did too! Maybe we can go the Museum of Science and Industry!!

Sally,

I believe the premarital sex that leads to the pregnancy is what MK is calling immoral..not the having the baby part.

I fear the animals are winning.

Sally,

You're kidding right?

If not, I'll reexplain, but so far you are the only person that didn't understand what I was saying.

Obviously, since I believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral, simply saying having a baby outside of marriage is MORAL would lead one to believe that the ACT that got you pregnant was moral also.

I was simply drawing a disctinction.

Once the horse is out of the barn, then of course I think having the baby a moral action...considering the alternative would be an IMMORAL action, ie: abortion.

If abortion didn't exist, then the question wouldn't even make sense.

Sally,

I believe the premarital sex that leads to the pregnancy is what MK is calling immoral..not the having the baby part.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 20, 2008 3:05 PM
................................

No sex, no baby. How could the cause of pregnancy be immoral without the state of pregnancy being immoral as well as the possible outcome/baby? Do the ends justify the means in this instance?
The concept is illogical and a confused jumble of hypocritical dogma to me Elizabeth.

Sally,

MK reexplained it for you probably better than I could.

Sally - premarital sex is immoral. (Been there - done that)
Birthing the child from that sex is not immoral. (Been there, done that as well.)

You seem to be confused that a moral good can come from a moral wrong. Try this:

Suppose I knocked you to the ground - would I be morally wrong for doing so? It would appear so. But suppose had you remained standing a truck with a broken bar sticking out would have decapitated you. The seeming moral wrong, brought about a moral good in the greater context. Your life was saved.

The greater moral good is that the child once conceived, no matter how, be given life.

It does appear that the ends justify the means, however what you leave out is intent, which is crucial to morality. My knocking you down was with the intent to save your life, the danger unknown to you at the time. You could not know my intent until after the incident.

The intent of the premarital sex is not to have a child. (or if it is by the woman, then that's deceptive and morally wrong!)

The intent of the woman may change from merely sex to life. That's a greater moral good.

Hope this clarified things.

Sally,

You're kidding right?

If not, I'll reexplain, but so far you are the only person that didn't understand what I was saying.

Obviously, since I believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral, simply saying having a baby outside of marriage is MORAL would lead one to believe that the ACT that got you pregnant was moral also.

I was simply drawing a disctinction.

Once the horse is out of the barn, then of course I think having the baby a moral action...considering the alternative would be an IMMORAL action, ie: abortion.

If abortion didn't exist, then the question wouldn't even make sense.

Posted by: mk at May 20, 2008 4:14 PM
..............................................

Oh I get you mk. Sex is immoral. A sin. If one accepts their punishment by gestating, the sin is forgiven. Obviously you find pregnancy to be an act of contrition. An act of remorse. 'Avoiding' one's 'punishment' is another sin. Of course this pertains to outside of marriage.
Within marriage, a whole new set of rules. Sex is not a sin and actually mandatory. Being married is inviting as many pregnancies a woman can manage to obtain and maintain even if it kills her. Being God's will and all. Because sex is no longer a sin but women are the creators of the sin of sex and deserve punishment.
What a way to bring children into the world!

careful Sally, if you call a baby "punishment" for getting pregnant, you'll have a whole thread dedicated to attacking you.

Sally,

C'mon. There is no way that you are not getting this.

They are two different actions.

Each must be weighed on it's own.

One is premarital sex.
It, to me, is a moral wrong.

Two is letting a human being live, or killing it.
Letting it live is a moral right. Killing it is a moral wrong.

By saying that having a baby out of wedlock is a moral right you are implying that sex outside of marriage is a moral right.

I just tried to seperate the acts. Having a baby, any baby, for whatever reason, is morally right.

But I was aware that people like you would not be able to seperate the two things, so I did it for you.

Sally,

Obviously you are just in a feisty mood.

Being pregnant is not a punishment for premarital sex. It is a consequence.

You can keep twisting my words and putting them in my mouth, but people on here know me well enough to realize that it's your words and not mine.

You are the one that looks at pregnancy as a punishment. Not me.

You are the one that wants to erase the consequences. Not me.

You are the one that thinks having the baby renders the immoral sexual act null. Not me.

I've said it four times now, but something is blocking it from getting through.

They are two different things. Each requires a moral choice. They are not connected. You can make one moral choice, one immoral choice. 2 immoral choices. 2 moral choices.

Sally - premarital sex is immoral. (Been there - done that)
Birthing the child from that sex is not immoral. (Been there, done that as well.)

You seem to be confused that a moral good can come from a moral wrong. Try this:

Suppose I knocked you to the ground - would I be morally wrong for doing so? It would appear so. But suppose had you remained standing a truck with a broken bar sticking out would have decapitated you. The seeming moral wrong, brought about a moral good in the greater context. Your life was saved.
...........................

The action would be your choice. If you knocked me down and it caused my death would you still find your action moral?

The greater moral good is that the child once conceived, no matter how, be given life.
......................................

No matter how? You might want to qualify that statement. If there is a child at conception, continuation of gestation is unecessary. A woman is essential to the creation and life of a potential child. I find nothing 'moral' in forcing a woman to do so. In fact I find it immoral.

It does appear that the ends justify the means, however what you leave out is intent, which is crucial to morality. My knocking you down was with the intent to save your life, the danger unknown to you at the time. You could not know my intent until after the incident.
...........................

Uh huh. And if you kill me by knocking me down with the clear intent to save my life, you get no punishment. The immoral act of taking my life becomes moral due to your accidently becoming immoral for moral reasons. Clear as mud.

The intent of the premarital sex is not to have a child. (or if it is by the woman, then that's deceptive and morally wrong!)

..................................

It is sinful for a woman to have sex with the intention of becoming pregnant if she isn't married. If she is married, having sex with the intent of becoming pregnant isn't a sin. That's nuts. And hateful.

The intent of the woman may change from merely sex to life. That's a greater moral good.
...................

Initial intent cannot change. Either one had intent or one did not. It really does come down to accepting punishment doesn't it. If an unmarried woman accepts her punishment for her sin, it is no longer a sin. If she doesn't she has sinned and sins again. Quite the double standard.

Hope this clarified things.
..............................

I've been clear over 'things' for quite some time Chris. Thanks for the input though! I know that some of you religous folks are well meaning.

Sally,

Please, please, please, show me where anyone except YOU has said that pregnancy is a punishment for premarital sex.

mk,

You said: Being pregnant is not a punishment for premarital sex. It is a consequence.

Sally said: pregnancy is a punishment for premarital sex.

I see where Sally is coming from. It's a bit confusing to someone who is prochoice. Many people view their consequences to wrongful actions as punishments. Consequences to wrongful actions are usually not pleasant things.

IMO, I would reprase your line to "Being pregnant (or, the baby) is a BLESSING to the consequence of premarital sex.", since all children are blessings from God. The consequence will be, perhaps, raising that child as a single parent or struggling to make ends meet.

IMO, of course!

If you knocked me down and it caused my death would you still find your action moral?

No. If the intent was aimed at saving your life, but in the process something went wrong - then I would still be liable for your death and it would have been wrong. Morality is objective, not subjective, hence you correctly point out my "action". (Indicating to us you know morality is objective.)

If there is a child at conception, continuation of gestation is unecessary. A woman is essential to the creation and life of a potential child....

A man is necessary too. Abortion is a moral wrong because a human being is killed. That human has unique DNA, is not a "part" of a woman, and has every moral basis as every other human "being". Sex is prima facie consent to the risk of pregnancy. Laws can be morally wrong. Your issue isn't with me - it's with the idea you might be wrong.

Your remarks indicate that because you change to a specific term: "sin".

It is sinful for a woman to have sex with the intention of becoming pregnant if she isn't married.

Actually the term is called fornication, and while it is considered a 'sin' I could provide excellent moral reasons why fornication is still morally wrong without resorting to Scripture. It has to do with parental fiduciary duties.

Initial intent cannot change...
I explained things in terms of moral rights and wrongs and goods. You've switched to the term to sin, which literally means to fall short of the mark (of the life God intended us to have). As a sin, fornication is still wrong because the marriage bond is missing.

If you understood fiduciary duty and covenant bonds you probably wouldn't be confused about why there is a moral difference when it comes to procreation (real or potential) within marriage and outside of marriage.

As for sin - your problem isn't with me - but yourself and the One you have to face one day.

There's repentance - changing your direction.

And yes - that must come of your own free will.

JLM: I would say mk is correct - A consequence is a natural result, and may be good or bad. Punishment is not natural, therefore must be imposed upon someone, has a negative connotation.

I have to agree Janet. I wasn't making a moral or subjective observation about the baby...The baby just is. That's enough of a reason to remain pregnant. Don't really need to attribute blessings or punishment. Not if we are speaking in strictly secular terms. Although as Chris brought up, Sally herself is the one that brought religion into this.

Janet & mk,

I know! I get EXACTLY where you were coming from, mk. I was just pointing out that the confusion comes into play when using that word while speaking with someone that is prochoice. I thought I said that in my post. I guess I was as clear as mud!

JLM: Gotcha! Clear as a whistle. :)

Sally,

Obviously you are just in a feisty mood.

Being pregnant is not a punishment for premarital sex. It is a consequence.
......................

A possible unwanted consequence that you would demand others to experience. That would be punishment.

You can keep twisting my words and putting them in my mouth, but people on here know me well enough to realize that it's your words and not mine.
.............................

As with Michelle Obama, you might not wish to utter anything if you cannot follow through or explain you own logic.

You are the one that looks at pregnancy as a punishment. Not me.

You are the one that wants to erase the consequences. Not me.
......................................
I'm the one that looks at sex and pregnancy without the need to assign sin or consequence over the incredibly common occurance of pregnancy.

You are the one that thinks having the baby renders the immoral sexual act null. Not me.
.............................

You are the one that seems confused over when to label sex, gestation and birth a sin. Gestating/making babies while married, groovy. Gestating/making babies outside of marriage, sinful. Married women that abort get one hell point? Unmarried women that abort get two?

I've said it four times now, but something is blocking it from getting through.

They are two different things. Each requires a moral choice. They are not connected. You can make one moral choice, one immoral choce. 2 immoral choices. 2 moral choices

...........................

What are two different things? Married sex as opossed to unmarried sex? The creation of a child within an unmarried woman as opposed to that of an unmarried women? How are these things different? I can't imagine wasting my time figuring out which label to apply to which situation since they are exactly the same. Sex is sex and gestation is gestation.

....................................

careful Sally, if you call a baby "punishment" for getting pregnant, you'll have a whole thread dedicated to attacking you.

Posted by: Hal at May 20, 2008 5:40 PM
.................................

Wouldn't that be an honor! @@

Sally,

Please, please, please, show me where anyone except YOU has said that pregnancy is a punishment for premarital sex.

Posted by: mk at May 20, 2008 7:36 PM
...............

mk. Sex is sinful. Within marriage, you personally expect all pregnancies to be welcome because there is no punishment by your deity for being so. Married women never abort in your fantasy world. All pregnancies are wanted.
Unmarried pregnant woman find themselves in a sinful state and are damned if they continue the pregnancy and damned if they don't.
Come on mk. Quit the dumb act.

Sally,

Sex is sex and gestation is gestation.

Ahhhhhh...finally. Now you've got it! Two different things. Sex is sex. (moral within marriage, immoral without) Gestation is Gestation. Always moral.

Whew. Just when I thought I'd have to explain the whole thing again.

BTW...you still haven't shown me where anyone besides you used the word sin.

mk. Sex is sinful. Within marriage, you personally expect all pregnancies to be welcome because there is no punishment by your deity for being so. Married women never abort in your fantasy world. All pregnancies are wanted.
Unmarried pregnant woman find themselves in a sinful state and are damned if they continue the pregnancy and damned if they don't.
Come on mk. Quit the dumb act.

I promise, Sal, when you say something intelligent, I'll stop acting dumb.

Sex is sinful? I've said that where? Married women never abort? I said that when? Unmarried women are damned if they continue the pregnancy? I'm pretty sure I have not used the word damned anywhere...All pregnancies are wanted? Again, putting words in my mouth. I have never said that, or anything else in your post.

Go back and read what I've written. If you'd like to address MY words, I'll be happy to continue this conversation. But at this juncture, you seem to be arguing with yourself. You make a statement, and then refute it using your own words. While it's entertaining, it's not really productive.

What are two different things? Married sex as opossed to unmarried sex? The creation of a child within an unmarried woman as opposed to that of an unmarried women? How are these things different? I can't imagine wasting my time figuring out which label to apply to which situation since they are exactly the same. Sex is sex and gestation is gestation.

....................................

Posted by: Sally at May 21, 2008 2:28 AM

One involves a family, one does not.

Remember: it is now becoming more possible to obtain stem cells from human embryos without destroying the embryos themselves. Some of those polled may be thinking of that when they formulate their answers. When people are told that human embryos ARE destroyed for ESCR, support for it dips.