CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
An adult woman should be able to abort her pregnancy whenever the hell she wants. Be it in the fourth week or the thirtieth week. Her body and life are her own damn business and certainly not the concern of some fat white rich misogynist politicians in Washington DC. The same ones who will do nothing to help her raise the kid and will even probably pass legislation some day to make it harder on poor mothers who use social assistance programs.
Absolutely correct, such a decision should be left to the discretion of the expecting mother with a little consideration given to her partner's opinion. In countries where anti abortion legislation exists many women are forced to use ''back street'' abortionists with all the immediate and long term dangers this involves. If the female survives the butchery of amateur surgeons she will almost certainly develop serious medical conditions in later life such as damage to the bladder where scar tissue will form causing lesions which in turn can become cancerous. All because the self righteous morons cannot accept that the pregnant mother is the only one who should have the final decision. Many international bodies including the W.H.O., have called on the Vatican to relax it's preachings on abortion in light of the Zika disease which affects the brain development of unborn babies, and, which according to this body, is expected to spiral to between 2 and 3 million.
I think abortion on a 40 week fetus should be just as legal as abortion on a four-week old fetus. Pro Choice is Pro Choice. It's not called "Pro choice with a time limit."
Put me down for a 2. With an exclamation point after it.
Since no-term abortion is legal in my country than I would say it is pretty clear the fetus (NOT a baby yet, sorry) has no rights. It is the mother who has the rights. We call this Pro Choice.
You just changed the subject after I proved you wrong on the "fetal rights" thing.
Nobody was talking about the Constitution claiming abortion to be a right. The topic does not come up in that document.
Nor does the rights of fetuses come up in the Constitution. Or anywhere.
But I just gave you TWO links which proved that in a Nation that has legalized abortion, the fetus has not rights. You need to read the argument in the last link I gave you, since I know you haven't. It explains to you how the fetus is part of the mother and cannot be separated in legal terms from her. Thus, the mother's rights--as in Pro Choice--are the only ones that are viable.
God is pouring out wrath, wake up! The world doesn't belong in the temple of God!
38 And the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him 3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. 4 I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords; 5 Persia, Ethiopia and Put with them, all of them with shield and helmet; 6 Gomer with all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you.
7 “Be prepared, and prepare yourself, you and all your companies that are assembled about you, and be a guard for them. 8 After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them. 9 You will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you.”
10 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “It will come about on that day, that thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil plan, 11 and you will say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates, 12 to capture spoil and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places which are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired cattle and goods, who live at the center of the world.’ 13 Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with all its villages will say to you, ‘Have you come to capture spoil? Have you assembled your company to seize plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to capture great spoil?’”’
14 “Therefore prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “On that day when My people Israel are living securely, will you not know it? 15 You will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great assembly and a mighty army; 16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog.”
17 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring you against them? 18 It will come about on that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel,” declares the Lord God, “that My fury will mount up in My anger. 19 In My zeal and in My blazing wrath I declare that on that day there will surely be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. 20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the beasts of the field, all the creeping things that creep on the earth, and all the men who are on the face of the earth will shake at My presence; the mountains also will be thrown down, the steep pathways will collapse and every wall will fall to the ground. 21 I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains,” declares the Lord God. “Every man’s sword will be against his brother. 22 With pestilence and with blood I will enter into judgment with him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, with hailstones, fire and brimstone. 23 I will magnify Myself, sanctify Myself, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the Lord.”’
An adult woman should be able to abort her pregnancy whenever the hell she wants. Be it in the fourth week or the thirtieth week. Her body and life are her own damn business
I agree, but there is more to it than that, and it is important to expand on your statement.
Certainly ALL people should own our own meat, whether that be to tattoo it, ingest drugs, commit suicide, etc., or have abortions.
That ownership includes both rights and responsibilities. While I have the right to do anything to my body I want, I have the responsibility to pay for that without imposing the consequences or costs on anybody else. (I own my house, so I get to decide who can come in, and I am the one who has to pay for its upkeep and repair.)
At the point of viability, the fetus owns its own meat, too. It does not, however have any rights to the woman's/mother's meat.
Therefore, sensible discussions of the issue revolve around balancing the rights of the mother with those of the fetus (post viability), and balancing the rights of the woman with her responsibilities.
- 1 - I absolutely agree that the Mother has the right to an abortion at ANY point during the pregnancy for ANY reason.
- 2 - If the fetus is viable, (now the medical cutoff is 20 weeks) it must be delivered with care and protection of its life. That means a 20-week (or later) abortion must be a live birth, and the kid must get all the NICU care available. The viable fetus must be protected from those who would steal its ownership of its own meat.
- 3 - The responsibilities that correlate with rights of woman's choice mean that the cost of the abortion and any post abortion care are the responsibilities of the woman, NOT the state and its taxpayers.
You notice I left out the father, because he has no rights whatsoever to decide yes or no on the abortion. It is not his body or his choice, so the cost of an abortion he has no say in is not his bill to pay.
By contrast were the child to go full term, the father and mother (NOT the taxpayers) would be equally responsible for the costs of the birth because the birth is the natural result of the sex they both had.
Whoever wants to retain (or adopt) rights to the kid, must also accept all responsibilities for the kid from that point on.
Her body and life are her own damn business and certainly not the concern of some fat white rich misogynist politicians in Washington DC. The same ones who will do nothing to help her raise the kid and will even probably pass legislation some day to make it harder on poor mothers who use social assistance programs.
The result of connecting rights with their attendant responsibilities is that it supports the woman's rights, and removes any valid argument for meddling by uninvolved third parties (the state religious groups, sometimes the father) by removing them from the field of responsibility.
Use of the social programs is what validates the government's meddling in the lives of those who access the programs.
Personal accountability and personal responsibility (taking care of yourself, cleaning up your own messes, and paying ALL your own bills) are the ONLY paths to freedom.
The use of a foreign legislation to act as foundation of basic representation was a shortfall to the abilities of woman in general to form a united states on their own behalf before United States Constitution. Sorry, Girl Power the world no longer has time to wait for a criminal stall. A clear and present danger has been created by this demonstration of lack ability. There is only one way abortion can be described publicly as legal. It is religious one, as a woman may always carry this liberty with her, even as she can be seen overcoming the burdens of human guilt, as she alone does not understand all events that may have place or had transpired against her, in the natural formation of new human life.
A woman’s commitment to United States Constitution was put to public test, it was at no point ever in any way her test alone. No repetitive introduction to Civil War acting as instigation to global conflict would have suggested Female Specific Amputation as the foundation of resolution to a single United State to be shared by all woman. Pushing instead a foreign, unconstitutional, self-righteous view, and self-incriminating criminal confession publicly asking for consensus not joint unity, asking for public forgiveness, or public permission to organize murder not unity.
As a man who has witness the harm unleashed on many woman, and not one woman in general. Let me make this clear as possible, as people together can find cause, as woman, you have been in given written grievance of officially dismissal in the matter of Constitutional United states Representation. Your effort by its lack of Constitution is officially aborted.
All elective abortions are done because the mother believes she is protecting herself or the child from harm (or another child in the case of selective reduction of multiples.)
Again, this debate is about abortion, not self defense. There is no reason to cut an unborn baby to pieces. Elective abortion is murder. Also, liberals can be prolife.
Is trying to push a grapefruit out of your vagina a "medical problem"?
If we use the standard of pain, etc. involved in rape or other actions where you can legally defend your health, doesn't pregnancy exceed that standard? Whether through vaginal delivery or through cesarean section?
If we use the standard of pain, etc. involved in rape or other actions where you can legally defend your health, doesn't pregnancy exceed that standard? Whether through vaginal delivery or through cesarean section?
Like I said - contraception is not 100% (about half of women who get an abortion were using some form of contraception) and contraception is not likely to be used during rape, etc.
Again you are trying to avoid the question:
If we use the standard of pain, etc. involved in rape or other actions where you can legally defend your health, doesn't pregnancy exceed that standard? Whether through vaginal delivery or through cesarean section?
By mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States and Roe v Wade, abortion IS a right. All of it. The right of a woman to choose what to do with her own damn body, and her right not to be forced to have kids if she doesn't want to.
You sound confused. On one hand you call yourself Liberal, and then you say you are a moderate on abortion. And that moderates only believe in abortion when the mother's life is endangered?
This is total bullshit. A "moderate" on abortion would be more along the lines of wanting to allow 1st trimester abortions only.
Whereas, your stance on abortions only being allowed to save the mother's life is a right-wing Conservative stance. Maybe that of a Moderate Republican.
A "moderate on abortion" would be somebody who is in favor of Pro Choice, but who would maybe place a time limit (1st or 2nd Trimester) on that choice.
Or they might stipulate the mother has to be an adult, or have parental or legal guardian consent. Or they might limit the number of abortions a woman could have.
But your view of Abortions only to save the mom's life is much further to the Right than Moderate.
Also, I notices you have backed down on your liberal views quite a bit over the past couple of months, as the criticism here on this site has increased in ferocity against you. If you sincerely have undergone a change in your political views, fine, but I hope you are not capitulating simply to curry favor or to make friends.
This is cowardly. And shows no integrity. And will make others respect you even less. The people who command respect are those that stand up for their views. Despite heavy criticism. People like Saintnow and FromWithin. Even though I almost always disagree with them, they are passionate in their views and they have zeal.
I advise you not to compromise your views. For anybody. I am thinking you are very young. So take this as some advice.
Thanks.
Oh...BTW...I am Pro Choice all the way. Though I am Conservative in most of my other political views. I guess this is why I am an Independent, as there are a few issues I side with the Dems on. though, not many.
I doubt you even know what a Liberal is. Since your abortion views are decidedly NOT liberal. Yet you claim to be one.
I will arrange for you to have a night with LadyLinkTar and a bottle of champagne so you guys can get tipsy and play touchy feely if you can describe in your own words what a liberal is, without resorting to Google.
Roe Vs Wade has in no way addressed the legality, or extent of the self-incrimination imposed on them or the United States public by foreign unconstitutional legislation. Abortion is not Female Specific Amputation.
Now what a "TYPICAL PROGRESSIVE" statement you just made MOONBEAM ! All should be banned that you Progressives don't agree with it ! You are the "Classic Progressive" !
She should be banned because she creates a debate then doesn't actually participate in the debate. People try to convince her of their position and she doesn't listen. I can see why you would defend that kind of person.
Here is what MOONBEAM wrote and i quote -" You should be banned from making debates." What a Classic Progressive statement which you wrote and i quoted !
I did say that, but you didn't know why I said it. And, after I told you exactly why I said it you still disagreed with reality. That's being truly progressive.
"You should be banned from making debates." You Progressives want all banned the you don't agree with MOONBEAM and you have shown that with your own words !
Freedom should be accepted on default, and denied when what a person is freely doing is harmful. This isn't, so banning someone from making debates violates freedom in a bad way.
It isn't violating freedom in a bad way since she is just making pointless statements. If she isn't doing anything good with her freedom, it isn't bad when she loses that freedom.
You got more information at your fingertips on Margret Sanger yet the truth and reality is to scary for you to accept so you have to link a Left Wing rag that makes you feel good !
Well you are now going to be taken to school Progressive ! Are you ready for truth ? I know you aren't but you are going to hit with truth !
"Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?"
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
"And currently, less than 4 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics that offer abortion services are located in communities where more than one-third of the population is Black, according to a recent analysis conducted by Planned Parenthood that Alencia Johnson, assistant director of constituency communications at Planned Parenthood, shared with me via email. A broader analysis conducted by the Guttmacher Institute in 2011 based on data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that fewer than one in ten abortion providers overall are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are Black. It is simply false that Planned Parenthood is targeting Black women by setting up clinics primarily in Black neighborhoods."
Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.
Never said.
referring to immigrants and poor people
referring to 'inferior' people in general - think Idiocracy.
So what you got to say now
I say that the link I posted in my first reply answers your line of argument in total.
And that if all you have is ad hominem, your argument is tremendously weak.
You have been taken to task you Progressives by choice choose to be ignorant to facts. It is to scary for you to see truth because if you do you need a "Safe Space" to keep the Bogey Man away from you !
More truth for you Progressive !
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Again, large families - not black families, etc. She thought taking care of inferior people (white, black, immigrant, or other) was a burden on the rest - which was shared by several prominent black leaders of the time which worked with her.
for the purpose of racial "purification,", quoting a 1923 Sanger speech
Then quote the speech...
The whole line of argument is just (ignorantly) based on the supposition that if you like one thing a person has done, you must like everything they ever did.
"“I admire Thomas Jefferson, his words and his leadership — and I deplore his un-repentant slave holding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer and trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies — and I deplore the statements you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things we admire, and things that we deplore.”" - Hillary Clinton
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
"It seems to me from my experience where I have been in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with the white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the Clinic he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results among the colored people. His work in my opinion should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.
"The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
And relatedly:
"When we first started out an anti-Negro white man offered me $10,000 if I started in Harlem first. His idea was simply to cut down the number of Negroes. ‘Spread it as far as you can among them,’ he said. That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down. But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing."
She saw you coming before you were born…
She also said:
"Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.
The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies."
Arguing against Sanger - ad hominem; arguing that all progressives think everything Sanger ever did or said was great - strawman. Pretty useless overall. Nothing else to contribute??
You need more facts to scare you to a "Safe Place" ? Ok i can do that for you because i like brow beating a Progressive who chooses to be ignorant.
Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.
“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
Come on Progressive admit that Margret Sanger was a Racist ! Yet the truth is scary to you so i will brow beat you some more because you are ignorant !
Margret Sanger's vision is truth of her Racism but you Progressives will never accept the truth so you must be brow beat with the truth that is scary to you !
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
"Margaret Singer and others considered the most menacing aspect of proliferating unfitness to be the growth of the custodial welfare state. “Protective and paternalistic laws,” said a speaker at the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference in 1925, benefited “the least desirable elements of society.” Such laws, he said, “are usually put forward upon moral or humane or altruistic grounds and in nearly all cases by professional agitators and stupid busybodies. . . . What they actually accomplish is the preservation of the misfit, the degenerate, the low, the unworthy and the more or less defective elements at the expense of the string and exceptional.” If practiced by the right people, he suggested, birth control could wipe out those evils for which welfare legislation gave at best merely symptomatic relief.15
That Spencerian attitude, embracing the familiar tenets"
-- Page 117 --
" of individualism, elitism, and antistatism, provided one base for the eugenic program. In 1932 Mrs. Sanger registered her acceptance of such ideas when she said that if society applied to reproduction the techniques of efficiency employed by “modern stockbreeders,” there would be no need for measures that were “fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good.”16 In the 1930s, Mrs. Sanger found that argument especially well received among those who opposed New Deal legislation.
Mrs. Sanger pointed out other dangers presented by an allegedly degenerate populace. “In a democracy,” she said, “it is the representatives of this grade of intelligence who may destroy our liberties, and who may thus be the most far-reaching peril to the future of civilization.” She condemned the initiative, the direct primary, and other progressive majoritarian reforms as “pathological worship of mere number.”17 She insisted that only the scientific regulation of fertility could save democracy from the threatening hoards of the unfit. Parents, she suggested, should have to “apply” for babies, just as an immigrant had to apply for visas to enter the country.18
Racism provided another base for eugenics. Many eugenicists did not confine the description of “unfit” to those with hereditary afflictions. They saw in Mrs. Sanger’s reference to immigration more than a convenient rhetorical analogy. Although Mrs. Sanger usually strove to avoid an ethnic definition of “unfit,” she herself occasionally pandered to the rankest nativist sentiment. In 1920 she decried the rising proportion of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, and their greater relative fertility once they arrived here. Those “foreigners,” she complained, were ignorant of hygiene and the conditions of modern life. They filled the slums and made the cities wretched. They threatened to replace native workers in many industries."
------------------
14. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, pp. 81, 91, 240; Mrs. Sanger apparently believed that “70% of this country’s population has an intellect of less than 15 years” (Margaret Sanger to Isabelle Keating, January 13, 1932, MSP-LC).
15. Max G. Schlapp, M.D. (Professor of Neuropathology, New York Post-Graduate Medical School; Director of New York Children’s Court Clinic), “The Survival of the Unfit,” in Margaret Sanger, ed., The Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, vol. 3, Medical and Eugenic Aspects of Birth Control (New York American Birth Control League, 1926), pp. 129-50
16. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, pp. 262, 105.
17. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, pp. 177-78.
18. Margaret Sanger, speech in Hartford, Connecticut, February 11, 1923, copy in MSP-LC.
For reasons already stated by me I would chose option 2. Abortions should automatically be available where the pregnancy is a consequence of rape, incest or where it can be identified the embryo will be stillborn, where the birth will result in the certain death of the mother, or simply when the mother-to-be wishes to abort the pregnancy. No one else has the right to try to force their sanctimonious misguided morals onto others.
I don't think abortion is good. It means losing a life another child. Abortion may be good because of rape and all the others, but wouldn't it be better if you donated the egg to someone who wants a child so badly but couldn't? Or give away the child instead of making it lose it's like?
Fine sentiments but impractical and assumes a lot. For instance you're assuming that there would be between two or three million mothers willing to be impregnated ( World Health Organization's figures, not mine.) with the eggs of an embryo which had the Zika brain damaging disease for which there is no known cure. You're also assuming that all the mothers-to-be who are unwilling to continue with pregnancy would wish to go through the gruelling procedure of having the egg removed. Also, who would be paying for your proposed surgical operations? Just accept that whatever the world needs now it is not an increase in population, especially by unwanted babies that would have to be cared for at the expense of the taxpayer in countries where welfare benefits are available, or to die a painful and lingering death from starvation and disease in nations where such luxuries do not exist.
29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. 36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.” 37 And answering they said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.”
1. You shouldn't instantly factor out the child here. I'm fine with abortion, as long as it's in the early stages of pregnancy. If you wait 8 months, and then say you want an abortion, is a definite no-go. You can't just wait until the fetus has already developed into a baby. But if you decide to have an abortion, it should be the woman's choice. The father of the child gets a say, but in the end, the mother should decide. The fetus is in her womb after all.