a woman's right to choose
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
a woman's right to choose
Okay, so I have a lot of questions! Here's one more. I am against abortion, but a liberal friend said it is not the government's business to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices, since people have been given free will. I wasn't sure how to answer this. Any ideas?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi D.K.,
The fact that God has given us free will only means that He does not force us to do the right thing. He lets us choose our path. But this doesn't mean that all choices are equally acceptable. Every time a person sins or commits a crime, he is exercising his "free will," but that does not mean that the action chosen is a legitimate action, or that there will be no penalties for choosing so selfishly.
As for a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices without government interference, I would say that she has such freedom of choice, so long as her reproductive choice does not involve sinful or criminal activity. However, if an unmarried woman wants to get pregnant, and sells herself as a prostitute in order to do so, this is not a legal option open to her, in most states. If a wife wants to limit her family size by castrating or killing her husband in his sleep, this also would be a criminal act. Likewise, if she wishes to limit her family size by killing her children, this would be a matter where the State has the right to interfere.
Of course, those who talk about "reproductive choice" are really using the phrase as a euphemism for "abortion," which means a woman's "decision to kill her living baby." That this should be an illegal act should be so obvious as to require no argument.
Abortion is not a "reproductive choice" at all. The fact that a human child exists to abort means that the woman has already made a prior reproductive choice, and now wishes to be free from the consequences of that choice—at the expense of killing an innocent human victim.
Unless she was impregnated by rape, the pregnant woman is one who has willingly exercised her "reproductive choice" by engaging in a reproductive act, and has, in fact, reproduced! Even if the pregnancy is the result of rape, this is no argument in favor of committing the additional crime of murder, and victimizing another innocent party.
At the point of conception, a new human life has come into existence, and the decision to abort comes too late to be a choice relevant to reproduction—which has already occurred. It is simply a choice about homicide. The question of the legality of abortion rests upon our prior assumptions as to whether it ought to be legal for one person to kill another human being whose existence is deemed inconvenient to him/her.
No one in the Western world is advocating that governments restrict a woman's legitimate choice of whether to reproduce or not. If she wishes to remain childless, she may choose (as have millions of women before her) either to remain celibate, or to prevent pregnancy in other ways that no one has ever thought of outlawing.
On the other hand, if she wishes to reproduce, she is at liberty to marry (the only setting in which God has authorized for babies to be conceived and brought-up), after which she can engage in as much "reproductive activity" as she and her husband may choose.
Of course, human choice is not absolute, nor final. Ultimately, it is God who allows reproduction to take place or not—regardless whether a couple are attempting to or attempting not to conceive. Sex acts do not guarantee conception, and birth control does not always prevent it. Even the hope of marrying and having a family is never realized for some who desire it.
God makes the final choices, which is how it ought to be, and how men and women should wish to have it. The one way to guarantee a particular outcome would be to choose celibacy. Only once has God overridden this circumstance, and He is not likely to do so again.
Women and their husbands have been happily making their own reproductive choices without legal restriction since the dawn of time. Of all the modern nations known to me, only China (which enforces involuntary abortion) actually interferes with a woman's reproductive freedom—by limiting family size to one child per family.
To my knowledge, no one in the Western World wishes for the State to get involved in a woman's legitimate reproductive choices.
However, most civilized people think that the State has a duty to outlaw murder.
Steve
The fact that God has given us free will only means that He does not force us to do the right thing. He lets us choose our path. But this doesn't mean that all choices are equally acceptable. Every time a person sins or commits a crime, he is exercising his "free will," but that does not mean that the action chosen is a legitimate action, or that there will be no penalties for choosing so selfishly.
As for a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices without government interference, I would say that she has such freedom of choice, so long as her reproductive choice does not involve sinful or criminal activity. However, if an unmarried woman wants to get pregnant, and sells herself as a prostitute in order to do so, this is not a legal option open to her, in most states. If a wife wants to limit her family size by castrating or killing her husband in his sleep, this also would be a criminal act. Likewise, if she wishes to limit her family size by killing her children, this would be a matter where the State has the right to interfere.
Of course, those who talk about "reproductive choice" are really using the phrase as a euphemism for "abortion," which means a woman's "decision to kill her living baby." That this should be an illegal act should be so obvious as to require no argument.
Abortion is not a "reproductive choice" at all. The fact that a human child exists to abort means that the woman has already made a prior reproductive choice, and now wishes to be free from the consequences of that choice—at the expense of killing an innocent human victim.
Unless she was impregnated by rape, the pregnant woman is one who has willingly exercised her "reproductive choice" by engaging in a reproductive act, and has, in fact, reproduced! Even if the pregnancy is the result of rape, this is no argument in favor of committing the additional crime of murder, and victimizing another innocent party.
At the point of conception, a new human life has come into existence, and the decision to abort comes too late to be a choice relevant to reproduction—which has already occurred. It is simply a choice about homicide. The question of the legality of abortion rests upon our prior assumptions as to whether it ought to be legal for one person to kill another human being whose existence is deemed inconvenient to him/her.
No one in the Western world is advocating that governments restrict a woman's legitimate choice of whether to reproduce or not. If she wishes to remain childless, she may choose (as have millions of women before her) either to remain celibate, or to prevent pregnancy in other ways that no one has ever thought of outlawing.
On the other hand, if she wishes to reproduce, she is at liberty to marry (the only setting in which God has authorized for babies to be conceived and brought-up), after which she can engage in as much "reproductive activity" as she and her husband may choose.
Of course, human choice is not absolute, nor final. Ultimately, it is God who allows reproduction to take place or not—regardless whether a couple are attempting to or attempting not to conceive. Sex acts do not guarantee conception, and birth control does not always prevent it. Even the hope of marrying and having a family is never realized for some who desire it.
God makes the final choices, which is how it ought to be, and how men and women should wish to have it. The one way to guarantee a particular outcome would be to choose celibacy. Only once has God overridden this circumstance, and He is not likely to do so again.
Women and their husbands have been happily making their own reproductive choices without legal restriction since the dawn of time. Of all the modern nations known to me, only China (which enforces involuntary abortion) actually interferes with a woman's reproductive freedom—by limiting family size to one child per family.
To my knowledge, no one in the Western World wishes for the State to get involved in a woman's legitimate reproductive choices.
However, most civilized people think that the State has a duty to outlaw murder.
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve