imported post
openryan wrote:
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
5) A woman's control over her body is a valid topic here. While many conservatives wish to argue otherwise (for good or for bad), a person should have control over what he or she does with his or her body without harming others.
I do however wish there was a limit on how many children you could have.
Hypocricy, its not just for gun haters.
You took that out of context from two different posts, from two different people, one of which being me.
If you want to make a point, make a valid one.
I believe that the objection to my post is that I say that people should not be allowed to harm others, but HC believes that an unborn child is a person. I don't believe that a fetus is a person, and thus I don't feel that an abortion is harming others, therefore no hypocrisy there.
Even if one believes that a fetus or unborn child
is a person, then shouldn't that entity be held responsible for the damage it does to the mother? A seemingly absurd statement, I know, but a pregnancy costs the mother through her not being able to work, having an increased strain (and greater chance of injury) to the legs and back, an increased strain on most other parts of the body, pain and suffering during childbirth... and the list goes on. If the entity in the womb is a person, is s/he not responsible for his/her actions/effects? As I've said, absurd, yes, but I believe a valid point still.
But, the previous paragraph requires one to remove the pregnancy from the act of sex, and I don't feel that many religious people are ready to do that. The truth is, though, that in our modern times, like it or not, many people have sex frequently without getting pregnant, and many people get pregnant without having sex.
