- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,374
- Reactions
- 17,753
Can't argue with the logic there but it would be exactly the same if they hadn't had sex in the first place. Some of us wouldn't be here.weird said:I wonder if RU486 was around in our grandparents time, how many 'currently alive' people in this forum would even be able to respond to this post![]()
I have no problem with your views but I find it really strange that the church (most if not all religions) takes the view that (1) abortion is wrong (2) sex outside of marriage is wrong.
Now, if the argument is about killing unborn babies etc then I can follow that logic. No problem so far. But the anti-abortionists practically always bring up the argument that you or I wouldn't be here if we had been aborted. That is correct in a logical sense but it is an incompatible argument with the idea that there is something wrong with sex outside of marriage since prevention of that would also have caused some of us not to be here.
Many, particularly the church, preach both which is contradictory since they are both supporting and opposing things which lead to the same outcome whilst arguing that the outcome is the basis of their reasoning. Just doesn't stack up. It would make sense if there wasn't the "you might not be here" argument used to justify the position taken. But they keep raising that very argument.
As I said, nothing personal. I'm not particularly keen on abortions myself (though I accept them as inevitable in practice and therefore support proper standards and proceedures) but I just take issue with the "you might not be alive today" argument against abortion whilst many of it's supporters continue to argue in favour of other ideas which also lead to the exact same result. Can't have it both ways.
