List of sins updated (2 Viewers)

[jessyy]

yes i forgot to mention that it is impossible for you to have one lol.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

^ Because it's okay to insert a vacuum with a blade into a woman's womb, suck up an unborn baby, grind it and then leave its bloodied remains hanging from a dustbin outside the hospital, just because a woman didn't know what a condom was, right?

only if you eat it afterwards

 

[The_highwayman]

do you realise that abortions are also performed for health reasons? and medically, miscarriages are known as spontaneous abortions?
i agree that the procedure is terrible, but i know id prefer to go through with an abortion as opposed to my child starving as i cannot support it. best advice i have for you, if you dont agree with it, dont have one. its as simple as that.

adoption instead of abortion?
just because a mother could not support a child doesnt mean nobody else could.
this is not personal, just playing devils (or god's? lol) advocate

 

[jessyy]

i think it would be rather hard to carry around a child for 9 months, give birth then give it away the next day. if the woman had a job she would hvae to take maternity leave etc, shes still going to be affected either way.

i just dont agree with it being called a sin! im doing an assignment on this topic and have become quite a pro-choicer lol

 

[Kwayera]

adoption instead of abortion?
just because a mother could not support a child doesnt mean nobody else could.
this is not personal, just playing devils (or god's? lol) advocate

That also doesn't mean the mother should be subjected to 9 months of gestation, which IS physically dangerous for many women (including my family friend who's third pregnancy caused her to develop Type 3 (I think) diabetes, which proceeded to rob her of her sight and require her to obtain a liver, pancreatic and kidney transplants).

 

[Kwayera]

i think it would be rather hard to carry around a child for 9 months, give birth then give it away the next day. if the woman had a job she would hvae to take maternity leave etc, shes still going to be affected either way.

i just dont agree with it being called a sin! im doing an assignment on this topic and have become quite a pro-choicer lol

Well it's quite easy to ignore it being called a sin if you don't believe in God!

What shits me is that it screws people in third world and developing countries almost as much as the new "sin" of contraception does. Watch the birth rate rise concordantly with rate of AIDS infection!

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ If a woman cannot bear children, then what use does she have?
















/sarcasm

 

[Kwayera]

^ If a woman cannot bear children, then what use does she have?






/sarcasm

Yes, a fabulously erudite contribution to the discussion.

 

[The_highwayman]

That also doesn't mean the mother should be subjected to 9 months of gestation, which IS physically dangerous for many women (including my family friend who's third pregnancy caused her to develop Type 3 (I think) diabetes, which proceeded to rob her of her sight and require her to obtain a liver, pancreatic and kidney transplants).

obviously if the pregnancy will cause excessive harm to the mother then arbortion could be a genuine option, but it need not be the only alternative in 100% of cases.

It just seems that a lot of people these days think pregnancy leads to two options: abortion or become a parent. But you could still have a child and give somebody else (who may not be able to physically bear a child) the chance to become a parent. It's a plausible option.
Sure it's 9 months but, at least, the child will still be there if you decide one day that you want to know them.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Yes, a fabulously erudite contribution to the discussion.

I do try, you know.

 

[jessyy]

Well it's quite easy to ignore it being called a sin if you don't believe in God!

very true haha

What shits me is that it screws people in third world and developing countries almost as much as the new "sin" of contraception does. Watch the birth rate rise concordantly with rate of AIDS infection!

i read something quite interesting the other day about how australia cannot supply 3rd world countries with contraception and family planning, due to some man that was against abortion. thats sickening dont you think?

thats what really should be the sin, turning our backs on the obvious needs in the 3rd world countires.

 

[jessyy]

obviously if the pregnancy will cause excessive harm to the mother then arbortion could be a genuine option, but it need not be the only alternative in 100% of cases.

It just seems that a lot of people these days think pregnancy leads to two options: abortion or become a parent. But you could still have a child and give somebody else (who may not be able to physically bear a child) the chance to become a parent. It's a plausible option.
Sure it's 9 months but, at least, the child will still be there if you decide one day that you want to know them.

im all for people being surrogant mothers, adopting out children and keeping them.

but another option is abortion, which in some cases is the right answer for the woman.

 

[Kwayera]

obviously if the pregnancy will cause excessive harm to the mother then arbortion could be a genuine option, but it need not be the only alternative in 100% of cases.

It just seems that a lot of people these days think pregnancy leads to two options: abortion or become a parent. But you could still have a child and give somebody else who may not be able to physically bear a child to become a parent. It's a plausible option.
Sure it's 9 months but, at least, the child will still be there if you decide one day that you want to know them.

That's an extraordinarily obtuse way of looking at it.

There should be NO LAW in ANY COUNTRY regardless of RELIGION or CULTURE that FORCES a woman (or man, if that ever becomes possible!) to either keep or put the child up for adoption. It is a CHOICE on the part of a woman to "give somebody else who may not be able to physically bear a child to become a parent" (and might I add the the waiting list for babies who aren't caucasian males is astonishingly short), and should not be the only alternative. I am still astounded that people cannot make this connection; we did away with slavery, with the FORCING of someone to do something against their will. Why is this any different?

9 months is 9 months, and despite modern conveniences and medical interventions, many women still die in childbirth.

 

[Kwayera]

im all for people being surrogant mothers, adopting out children and keeping them.

but another option is abortion, which in some cases is the right answer for the woman.

The point is that it is a CHOICE to keep, adopt out or yes, abort.

Freedom, goddamnit!

 

[jessyy]

The point is that it is a CHOICE to keep, adopt out or yes, abort.

Freedom, goddamnit!

exactly.

 

[The_highwayman]

That's an extraordinarily obtuse way of looking at it.

There should be NO LAW in ANY COUNTRY regardless of RELIGION or CULTURE that FORCES a woman (or man, if that ever becomes possible!) to either keep or put the child up for adoption. It is a CHOICE on the part of a woman to "give somebody else who may not be able to physically bear a child to become a parent" (and might I add the the waiting list for babies who aren't caucasian males is astonishingly short), and should not be the only alternative. I am still astounded that people cannot make this connection; we did away with slavery, with the FORCING of someone to do something against their will. Why is this any different?

9 months is 9 months, and despite modern conveniences and medical interventions, many women still die in childbirth.

i'm in no way stating that abortion should be illegal. in this context of the thread i was simply suggesting that if one were to look at the 'new sins' (which i personally consider far too context-specific and not at all timeless like the first 7) then there is a third route around the 'abortion sin' if one CHOSE to take it.

 

[poWerdrY]

the list of sins have kind of cemented my atheism. before i was kind of in limbo between a christian and a sceptic (ive been reading a tonne of stuff on existentialism and stuff like that due to damned english and Transformations). but really man, pollution a sin? its so laughable that i wanna puke

 

[TacoTerrorist]

There should be NO LAW in ANY COUNTRY regardless of RELIGION or CULTURE that FORCES a woman (or man, if that ever becomes possible!) to either keep or put the child up for adoption. It is a CHOICE on the part of a woman to "give somebody else who may not be able to physically bear a child to become a parent" (and might I add the the waiting list for babies who aren't caucasian males is astonishingly short), and should not be the only alternative. I am still astounded that people cannot make this connection; we did away with slavery, with the FORCING of someone to do something against their will. Why is this any different?

Which would be fine if it were just regular free choice and if you weren't choosing life or death for a person.