DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 14, 2012, 10:35:52 AM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/68ce2bf1.jpg)
-
Hmm
Just dawn on me if abortion is illegal would those potential parent find other means to dispose of kids. Remember pro-life does not make unwed pregnancy acceptable.
-
If abortion is made illegal, the dead fetuses will simply be thrown in less elegant dumpsters.
This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Whitney Houston.
I feel sorry for Whitney Houston.
I am not going to feel sorry for stupid anti-choice propaganda pictures.
-
Hmm ...Just dawn on me if abortion is illegal would those potential parent find other
means to dispose of kids.
The point isnt to make abortion illegal....
The point is to show what an absolute horror abortion is.
But for the sake of your argument/point there is little doubt that
if abortion was not readily available the numbers would be
astronomical lower.
-
If it were illegal, the numbers would be unknown, just like the number of purse snatchings, burglaries of drug dealers and, yess, alien abductions.
Abortions will never be made illegal in this country. Just like gay marriages being made illegal.
You and your medieval silly church are on the wrong side of history.
-
I think the horror concept is somewhat new. pretty sure in the 50`s religious parents would prefer thiers daughter to have an illegal abortion then to have such a scandal.
even today pro-life organization do not try to lessen concept of scandal. ex. alot people prefer that a virgin not that palin girl tell kids not to have kids out of wedlock.
-
I think the horror concept is somewhat new. pretty sure in the 50`s religious parents would prefer thiers daughter to have an illegal abortion then to have such a scandal.
even today pro-life organization do not try to lessen concept of scandal. ex. alot people prefer that a virgin not that palin girl tell kids not to have kids out of wedlock.
Abortions were available in the 50's and 60's. They were caqlled D&C's then. And religious parents sent their unwed daughters to stay at a relatives house or the various homes for unwed mothers usually run by religious groups.
And as far as advocating against single mother hood, i would expect a single mother to have a greater impact on the audience than a virgin, who has no first handf knowledge of the trials of raising a child by yourself.
I mean would you rather drug counseling from a former addict or from someone who had no clue what they were talking about. Same with booze or gambling.
-
You and your medieval silly church are on the wrong side of history.
yeah sure....your support for this horror will not go unpunished.
(http://www.godandscience.org/images/slavery.gif)
-
Funny thing the same concept applies to drugs also. Ozzy osborne was called a hypocrite for being anti-drug by his own son.
I agree with you BT experience seem to me adds more credibility by my book
-
Yeah, sure, oppression of fetuses.
Get real, Supercatholic.
-
don`t forget it was`nt too long ago kids born out of wedlock was not treated kindly also. pre-abortion time was not the best for some kids. I`m not saying abortion fixed things,but that factors are involved that created a need for it .
that maybe why abortions lately are down. the acceptabilitry to have kids out of wedlock could be the reason. Single moms are few in the 80s. but today you can swing a dead cat and hit one.
ever noticxe no reseach has been done on how many kids who got pregnant were on the abstinence only program.
-
ever noticxe no reseach has been done on how many kids who got pregnant were on the abstinence only program.
==========================================
Odds are very, very high that anyone who got pregnant on an abstinence only program was not good at abstinence.
-
Yeah, sure, oppression of fetuses.
Actually much worse than "oppression"
really not even close.
It's the slaughter of people just like Claire.
This horror...much, much worse than slavery....will not be sustainable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk0cW6MGLas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk0cW6MGLas)
-
What do you mean "sustainable"?
Is there a shortage of human beings on this planet?
Obviously if this woman's fetus had been terminated before her birth, then God would have inserted her soul in the next available born human.
Or perhaps God only inserts a soul at the very moment of birth, in which case that would not have been necessary.
Or do you argue that this is beyond God's ability?
You will never NEVER convince me that a woman has an absolute right to give birth or not at her discretion, and NOT YOURS. Why you keep on with this crap is anybody's guess.
-
What do you mean "sustainable"?
I am quite sure, and actually 100% confident that
the slaughter of tens of millions of babies is not sustainable
and will be on the darkened ash heap of history just like other
disgraceful outrages that have been overcome.
Is You will never NEVER convince me that a woman has an absolute right to give
birth or not at her discretion, and NOT YOURS. Why you keep on with this crap is
anybody's guess.
Oh I know, just like I could have never convinced slave-holders that blacks were humans.
(http://edenpoliticalcartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prochoicehistory.jpg)
It is not at my "discretion", it's not about me....it's about the innocent baby.
The reason we will never ever give up fighting for the babies is the value of life.
Stop fighting for them? Not a chance!
(http://data.whicdn.com/images/21619587/Women+and+Abortion_thumb.jpg)
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/f07cd8b3.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QmeEdFOSc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QmeEdFOSc)
May she finally rest may she finally find peace.
-
I can't blame whitney on that regard,she was'nt exactly in the public. I think i haven't her name mention for at least two years. It 's up to the public who they pay attention to(sadly)
-
The fact is that celebrities get more celebrity than non-celebrities. It is not anyone's fault. Dumping on a dead celebrity will change nothing.
-
Dumping on a dead celebrity will change nothing.
Neither will pretending some alcoholic/druggie was someone to be admired.
-
Actually i don't really hear much admiring going on.
-
I am not admiring anyone. There is no more reason to admire Whitney than Elvis, and for the same reasons.
I heard no one talking about what a waste it was to mourn the death of Elvis, though.
Celebrities will always make the headlines. Unknown people, regardless of their heroism, will not. It is just a fact of life, and it happens in every country that has a free press.
-
Good point.. To achieve illegality will require years ,in the most optomistic estimate. But to make the horrors well known and understood might happen at the speed that facts can be transmitted.
Alternately we can leagalise all murder, after all we just learner that God can reinstall the murderee right away anyhow.
-
I have no idea what you mean by that, Plane.
-
Posted by: Plane
« on: February 19, 2012, 05:46:27 PM »Insert Quote
Good point.. To achieve illegality will require years ,in the most optomistic estimate. But to make the horrors well known and understood might happen at the speed that facts can be transmitted.
Alternately we can leagalise all murder, after all we just learner that God can reinstall the murderee right away anyhow.
I have no idea what you mean by that, Plane.
What do you mean "sustainable"?
Is there a shortage of human beings on this planet?
Obviously if this woman's fetus had been terminated before her birth, then God would have inserted her soul in the next available born human.
Or perhaps God only inserts a soul at the very moment of birth, in which case that would not have been necessary.
Or do you argue that this is beyond God's ability?
You will never NEVER convince me that a woman has an absolute right to give birth or not at her discretion, and NOT YOURS. Why you keep on with this crap is anybody's guess.
Since murder victims are quickly reassigned to new bodys , I don't suppose that I will EVER convince you that murder is anything more than a victimless crime.
As fully grown American citizens we shoulod all have the right to kill our dependants when necessary or convienient andf it is NO ONES business but our own if we do.
Is this not consistant with your concept of right?
-
Again, a fetus is not a dependent. You will not convince me of this stuff.
-
Again, a fetus is not a dependent.
So theoretically you would see nothing wrong with an abortion one week before the baby is born?
-
It would seem that in Xo's and like minds, that until that birth, that child does not exist. (kinda like Schultz, on Hogan's Heros....."I see nutting". It's just some mass of cells, inappropriate of any term outisde of fetus, and then *poof*, like magic, its a child. Neat trick
-
The fact is, whether a woman has a child or not is ENTIRELY HER BUSINESS and NOT ANY OF YOURS. It is that bloody simple.
-
Excellent use of the word "bloody". But yea, its cool how you use magic to determine when a fetus becomes a child....*poof* now you're a child. Or is it when the woman decides? Hey, its a fetus until she says so. Its her business and not anyone else's, right? Maybe 5 months? How about 5 years
-
the solution is something that pro-life is not exactly willing to try. Make having sex and having a child out of wedlock acceptable. one member awhile ago said there are isolated places in the U.S. that has this and no abortion has occur. just making it veiwed bad so far has gotten little results. I brought up it may encourage abortion.
-
I'm not sure what you mean "willing to try", Kimba. This anti-abortionist (as opposed to the term pro-life because who isn't "pro-life"?) could care less what others do, behind their doors. There should NEVER be a law dictating when or where a person can have sex (as long as its not a public spectacle)
The issue becomes the child. If folks don't have the where-with-all to either keep things zipped up, or at the very least, use BC & condoms, should that translate into punishing, and murdering the unborn child? How was it there fault? and look at the statistics.....those women having children out of wedlock consistently place those children at a grossly unfair advantage, broken home, no father figure, ususally financially unstable, with the results being those children hanging around the wrong click of "friends", and the downward spiral is perpetuated, by their childrens' bad, and usually irresponsible, if not criminal decision making
So, no, making out of wedlock actions "acceptable" misses the whole point. That of personal responsibility and dealing with the repercussions of one's actions
-
The fact is, whether a woman has a child or not is ENTIRELY HER BUSINESS and NOT ANY OF YOURS. It is that bloody simple.
You know that whole civil war misunderstanding could have been avoided if more people had of had this attitude twards slavery.
Is it appropriate for the government to intervene in any other sort of murder?
-
No, the government has no business interfering with a woman's control of her own body. this is nothing like the Civil War.
-
all the point you made sirs is all true but also some of the reasons why abortion is considered. the point is to remove the factors that causes abortion to be considered. Making pre-marital sex shameful is not a reliable system so far.
-
To try to remove the stigma of something that is wrong, on so many levels, isn't the right tact in trying to "make it right". Excuse my bluntness, but dog food, is still dog food, no matter how you package it in, or how many cloth napkins you painstakingly try to surround it with
That said, people can do whatever they mutually want with each other behind closed doors. The issue is when an innocent 3rd party is brought into the equation. Then all bets are off, and that life becomes sacred, regardless of some pc fetus label one might want to put on he or she, as if that supposedly removes the overt indecenscy of supporting the murder of that unborn child
-
There is no such bloody thing as an unborn child.
-
(http://data.whicdn.com/images/21619587/Women+and+Abortion_thumb.jpg)
Wrong, yet again
-
I think I see your point the life of an unborn child is not worth changing ones ethics.
-
That is not a child, it is a fetus.
Again, a woman has a right whether to bear a child or not. It is NOT UP TO YOU.
-
That is not a child, it is a fetus.
LOL....see what I mean? Anything to take the spotlight of how could one is at supporting their murder. As if the poltically correct term maks the actual act. Then *poof*, magically it becomes a child. Amazing trick
ITS AN UNBORN CHILD which is the SAME as a Fetus. You claimed there was no such thing as an "unborn child". Surprise, you were wrong again
Again, a woman has a right whether to bear a child or not. It is NOT UP TO YOU.
Deflection alert....no, not "again", as no one is claiming a woman shouldn't have a right to have a child. Never has been the issue
-
A woman has an absolute right, pregnant or not to have a child or not have one. It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor ever will it be, any of your beeswax. It is immoral for the government to prevent her from doing whatever she wishes.
-
A woman has an absolute right, pregnant or not to have a child or not have one.
Absolutely. Maybe not smart...maybe even stupid, if not wrecklessly irresponsible, depending on her financial and housing circumstances, but yea, she has that right to have one or not to.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor ever will it be, any of your beeswax.
It becomes beeswax, when an innocent 3rd party is involved. THAT's where the immorality reigns, with those who try to coat their immorality in a more politically correct blanket, like fetus ( = AN UNBORN CHILD)
It is immoral for the government to prevent her from doing whatever she wishes.
She can do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body....just so long as it doesn't interfere with anothers, outside of any potential death to the woman, if the preganancy isn't averted
-
The state claims otherwise. The innocent third party is not a third party in the states eyes until they are viable.
The state does funny things. They claim personhood for a corporation but don't claim personhood for a fetus until they reach a certain stage of development.
And it is the states definitions that we have to work with.
All the more reason to vote for the recently converted pro-lifer Mitt Romney to be the nominee.
Well that and Ann Coulter likes him since her first choice didn't run.
-
The state claims otherwise. The innocent third party is not a third party in the states eyes until they are viable.
I guess we're starting to play semantic games now, since courthouses across the country, will recognize 2 deaths, with 2 counts of murder, in that of a pregnant woman. Then again, we've already gone down that road, so "the state" can see an innocent 3rd party, especially when the stage that an unborn child is viable is, can be as young as 23weeks. Then again, we've already gone over that as well. I'd prefer "conception" as the marker for personhood, but I'll settle for 23weeks, if that's where "the state" wants to draw the line, and I'm guessing that this unborn(http://data.whicdn.com/images/21619587/Women+and+Abortion_thumb.jpg) child is well beyond 23weeks, which kinda blows xo's tactics right out of the water
And not sure what Ann Coulter has to do with anything, either
-
Re in murder cases the killing of the fetus is involuntary to the mother. Regardless of her wishes.
The states sees that as an important condition.
But it would be interesting to see how the judges would rule if the murder took place at an abortion clinic in the middle of a procedure.
-
Point being that "the state" recongizes a 3rd party after a point in time that the unborn child becomes "viable". As I said, 23weeks works for me......for now
-
Point being the state does not recognize personhood in the unborn child until they reach viability . But they do have certain rights if they are wrongfully extinguished against the wishes of the mother as would be the case in murder or homicide or manslaughter.
-
Point being the state does not recognize personhood in the unborn child until they reach viability .
Umm....I think I JUST SAID THAT "'the state' recongizes a 3rd party after a point in time that the unborn child becomes "viable.....which is as early as 23weeks ::)
-
Point being the state does not recognize personhood in the unborn child until they reach viability .
Umm....I think I JUST SAID THAT "'the state' recongizes a 3rd party after a point in time that the unborn child becomes "viable.....which is as early as 23weeks ::)
No you left out the part about some states recognize personhood at the point of conception in cases where the fetus is killed involuntarily. It's the voluntary part that matters.
-
No, you're trying to conflate 2 issues. I'm dealing with the person, the unborn child, that "the state" recognizes he or she, as early as 23weeks. But yes, in the murder of a pregnant woman, that "personhood" can be made at conception, although that does little for the life that was murdered, in that determination
-
Our courtrs can't define "person" how can they define "viable"?
Oh if only someone here understood language well enough to translate "Fetus" from the Latin.
-
I am a Libertarian when it comes to born human beings.
The born outrank the unborn.
I really do not give a damn about the unborn, if their mother does not want them, why should I?
-
Who said you should?? :o
-
I am a Libertarian when it comes to born human beings.
The born outrank the unborn.
I really do not give a damn about the unborn, if their mother does not want them, why should I?
According to "National Geographic" there are more slaves on Earth now than there was in 1850.
Are you very liberal about the rights of slave owners?
-
The PERCENTAGE of slaves has diminished a lot. The actual number may have increased because there and many times more people.
My opinion on slavery is entirely unrelated to my opinion on the absolute right of as woman to not have a child she does not want.
It is none of my beeswax if she wants to have the child or not. It is none of yours, or any government's, either.
Fetuses are not slaves. Get serious.
-
Not sure why you keep arguing a point that's not at issue....that of a woman having the right to have a child or not. Of course she has that right
-
Not sure why you keep arguing a point that's not at issue....that of a woman having the right to have a child or not. Of course she has that right
So you are saying abortion is a right?
-
THAT's a different question. The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand. So NO, that's not what I'm saying
-
The right to NOT have a child, even if she is pregnant, is obviously the right to have an abortion.
How would this not be so?
-
THAT's a different question. The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand. So NO, that's not what I'm saying
Actually it isn't a different question. You have extended a right to women to chose whether to have a child. Which is mighty generous of you. But you didn't clearly limit the options available with this grant of a right.
Perhaps you could expand on the choices available with this right.
-
Is there no diffrence between the right to have a child or not and the right to kill a child or not?
-
Apparently there is dispute as to the legal definition of child.
-
Apparently there is dispute as to the legal definition of child.
Oh?
As there was a dispute in the definition of Dredd Scott's citizenship?
I don't think the dispute arises from the subject being non human, the dispute is about the personal rights of this humans owner, as it was for Dredd Scott.
-
Dred Scott has nothing to do with abortion. Slavery has nothing to do with abortion. I have no idea why you keep dredging this crap up.
To be a human being, you must be born. If you are unborn, you are (a) invisible to humans by the naked eye and (b) a fetus.
A fetus is not a human being. Period.
-
Oh?
As there was a dispute in the definition of Dredd Scott's citizenship?
Are you stating that the legal grounds for the decision of the Supreme Court was incorrect based on existing law in 1857?
-
Do the blind have no reason to respect the rights of other human beings?
If I learn how to pronounce your name in Latin do I gain the right to kill you?
Thomas Jefferson , no less, searched his mind dilligently for justifacations of slavery, racial distinctions that could be magnified into differences irreconcileable with the respect due a citizen.
I don't really know what you look like , but if you look diffrent enough, if you need diffrent things, if you smell funny to me, if you like strange food, can I discount your humanity by how diffrent your humanity is from mine?
I don't know if you are large or small, is the one of us that is larger more human for being a more massive human?
I see a very close parrellel bewtween the intelectualls who needed intelectual justifacations for denying the human rights of other races in the 18th century and people who today try to intellectualise diffrences between "born" and "pre-born" as reasons to deny the humanity of a person who if left to develop another hour would be a person fully.
It is not rational, it is an attempt to clothe in rationality an irrational thing that seems necessacery.
I think that Thomas Jefferson realised the dissonance , but endured it well enough to operate his plantation.
This is exactly what we are looking at today , but too near to see.
-
THAT's a different question. The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand. So NO, that's not what I'm saying
Actually it isn't a different question.
Actually, it is. Rights of anyone are sacrosanct...UNTIL they abridge the rights of another. The woman has an absolute right to want or not want a child. Again, never been the issue. When that 3rd party is brought into the equation, THAT's when your question about abortion enters....which makes it altogether a different question
-
Oh?
As there was a dispute in the definition of Dredd Scott's citizenship?
Are you stating that the legal grounds for the decision of the Supreme Court was incorrect based on existing law in 1857?
Yes it was!
Have you ever perused the majority opinion?
It includes this reduction to absurdity; That to recognise the citizenship of a black man would make it impossible to deny him firearms. Obviously this is impossible to allow.
Now is this real logic?
There was law that should have protected Dredd Scott, but Justice Tanney saw desaster in its enforcement, unfortunately didn't see the desaster even more immanant in denying the humanity of what should have obviously been a human being.
-
And your position is that a nonviable embryo has rights that trump the rights of the host?
-
There was law that should have protected Dredd Scott
Which law was that?
-
THAT's a different question. The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand. So NO, that's not what I'm saying
Actually it isn't a different question.
Actually, it is. Rights of anyone are sacrosanct...UNTIL they abridge the rights of another. The woman has an absolute right to want or not want a child. Again, never been the issue. When that 3rd party is brought into the equation, THAT's when your question about abortion enters....which makes it altogether a different question
Well said!
-
There was law that should have protected Dredd Scott
Which law was that?
." His case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, he had lived with his master Dr. John Emerson in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court decided 7-2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott)
Justice Taney ruled the Mousouri compromise unconstitional after the Congress has struggled so to produce it.
I guess he thought he needed to, but his efforts only helped widen the schism.
-
THAT's a different question. The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand. So NO, that's not what I'm saying
Actually it isn't a different question.
Actually, it is. Rights of anyone are sacrosanct...UNTIL they abridge the rights of another. The woman has an absolute right to want or not want a child. Again, never been the issue. When that 3rd party is brought into the equation, THAT's when your question about abortion enters....which makes it altogether a different question
Well said!
Thanks Plane. It happens every once in a great while 8)
-
Justice Taney ruled the Mousouri compromise unconstitional after the Congress has struggled so to produce it.
I guess he thought he needed to, but his efforts only helped widen the schism.
Except that the Kansas Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise 3 years earlier.
-
Justice Taney ruled the Mousouri compromise unconstitional after the Congress has struggled so to produce it.
I guess he thought he needed to, but his efforts only helped widen the schism.
Except that the Kansas Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise 3 years earlier.
Ok , but this was the Supreme Court, why couldn't they have found the Kansas Nebraska Act unconstitutional?
The majority opinion attempts to make clear the case for denying the citizenship of anyone of African ancestry.
It was not based on high quality logic , seems more like it was based on fear.
-
Ok , but this was the Supreme Court, why couldn't they have found the Kansas Nebraska Act unconstitutional?
They could have, but that wasn't the case at hand. Dred Scott was a private property issue.
-
Ok , but this was the Supreme Court, why couldn't they have found the Kansas Nebraska Act unconstitutional?
They could have, but that wasn't the case at hand. Dred Scott was a private property issue.
If it was not important to the question at the time , why do you bring it up now?
-
"The fact is, whether a has a child or not is ENTIRELY HER BUSINESS and NOT ANY OF YOURS. It is that bloody simple."
How can anyone honestly believe this? Is a one year old independent? Is a 90 year old with demntia, independent? In both cases, they are granted life and law protects them from being slaughtered, burned alive in saline, or have their brains sucked out. And yet, an innocent life can be taken without thought or guilt. Who stands up for these innocent lives that never had a choice?
No, it is our business. We need to make it our business. A three person family is destroyed every minute in this country at the hands of "Physicians" allowing a women to pursue their choice. It is wrong now, it was wrong in the past, and it will be wrong in the future. Life has really become meaningless to so many, that there is no longer a pang of guilt over the destruction of so many innocent babies.
So very sad, very sad.
-
All the more reason to vote for the recently converted pro-lifer Mitt Romney to be the nominee.
Well that and Ann Coulter likes him since her first choice didn't run.
I second that!!!!
-
If it was not important to the question at the time , why do you bring it up now?
I believe you introduced the comparison of slavery to women's choice.
-
If it was not important to the question at the time , why do you bring it up now?
I believe you introduced the comparison of slavery to women's choice.
Yes It is practicly the same question.
Who would support my right to own a slave ?
Would it matter how much my slaves were dependant on me?
Would it matter if my slaves were very young , small, or diffrent from a regular human somehow?
Why isn't a Fetus its own property?
-
"The fact is, whether a has a child or not is ENTIRELY HER BUSINESS and NOT ANY OF YOURS. It is that bloody simple."
How can anyone honestly believe this? Is a one year old independent? Is a 90 year old with demntia, independent? In both cases, they are granted life and law protects them from being slaughtered, burned alive in saline, or have their brains sucked out. And yet, an innocent life can be taken without thought or guilt. Who stands up for these innocent lives that never had a choice?
No, it is our business. We need to make it our business. A three person family is destroyed every minute in this country at the hands of "Physicians" allowing a women to pursue their choice. It is wrong now, it was wrong in the past, and it will be wrong in the future. Life has really become meaningless to so many, that there is no longer a pang of guilt over the destruction of so many innocent babies.
So very sad, very sad.
So true, and so often cloaked in the politically correct term "fetus", as if that makes their murder "ok"
-
In your comparison of slavery to women's choice, who is the slave?
What is the property? What is your claim to the property.
-
I am sorry BT.
I thought I stated exactly that .
Are you parseing for something specific, ..?
I fear I am shooting in the wrong direction for you.
Children are not properly reguarded as property , but as persons , even to their own parents , no matter how dependant they are , no matter how profoundly responsible the parent is for the childs existance and continued existance , persons cannot be reguarded as property under any circumstance.
As a Person-- I am-- my ownership is me, for whom should this not be?
-
As a Person-- I am-- my ownership is me, for whom should this not be?
Apparently this does not hold true for women with embryo.
-
This reminds me of an episode of jerry springer which this one guy said" we're married, i own you ". He said this repeatedly.
-
Sorry, I see no similarity between slavery and abortion.
According to the Holy Mother Church, NO human life is innocent. We are all conceived in sin because of Eve & Adam taking bad culinary advice from a talking snake.
-
As a Person-- I am-- my ownership is me, for whom should this not be?
Apparently this does not hold true for women with embryo.
Certainly it does.
No less than it does also for her child.
-
A woman with embryo is not a woman with child under current law. She is a woman with child at around 26 weeks. Until then her ownership is hers.
-
ok
if the definition is life begin at conception
1. is the mother to be in trouble for smoking and/or eating junkfood
2.why is the church not telling wives they got the right to not have sex.
-
if the definition is life begin at conception
That is the million dollar question.
-
Should we allow something so important to be defined by an institution that believes in multigenerational eternal punishment for having very distant ancestors who were caught taking bad culinary advice from talking reptiles?
I am thinking, no.
-
Our opinions are informed by our culture. For many religion is a large influence on our culture. Those influences should be respected , understood and countered if need be with logic not derision.
Otherwise what is the point?
-
How logical is the doctrine of Original Sin, really?
Why should such a thing be taken seriously?
-
The logic is that there is a constant struggle between doing good and evil in our daily lives. It is the nature of man.
The concept of original sin and the Garden of Eden is simply a way of explaining that in the Judeo Christian Culture. I do not know how they explain the concept in eastern religions or how atheists explain it either.
-
A woman with embryo is not a woman with child under current law. She is a woman with child at around 26 weeks. Until then her ownership is hers.
Yes , just like Dred Scott.
And does the 27 week really mean anything?
-
And does the 27 week really mean anything?
Viability.
-
Science works against viability being a border.
Premies from earlyer and earlyer are being rescued.
What diffrence does viability really make anyway?
If I have a disease that is likly to kill me soon how much citizenship right should I loose for being nonviable myself?
Calling them nonviable obfuscates the fact that most abortions kill perfectly healthy babies who are viable in every respect save one.
How viable is a newborn? Few creatures are as dependant as a human child.
I would certainly allow that a life threatening pregnancy , like an etopic pregnancy, should be aborted. Other than that, viability is a very arbitrary standard.
-
Science works against viability being a border.
Yes it does. And it also works in the unwilling mothers favor.
Have they successfully transferred an embryo from a donor to a willing mother?
In the meantime viability is the line in the sand.
-
Yes embryos have indeed been transplanted, in this case earlyer is better and embryos that have not yet implanted have been transferred thousands of times.
If viability is really the border, then why was partial birth abortion ever an issue?
-
If viability is really the border, then why was partial birth abortion ever an issue?
Was it a real issue? My understanding is the thrid trimester was pretty much off limits from abortion based on SCOTUS rulings. But i bet enforcement was a problem. Much like our immigration laws.
-
If viability is really the border, then why was partial birth abortion ever an issue?
Was it a real issue? My understanding is the thrid trimester was pretty much off limits from abortion based on SCOTUS rulings. But i bet enforcement was a problem. Much like our immigration laws.
Is there enforcement?
-
I recall that a Doctor in Kansas may have been arrested. But it was recent history (<5 years ago) so the real answer is no the states probably don't prosecute and i am not sure if the feds have a criminal offense codified for 3rd trimester abortions.
I'm not even sure if unlicensed abortionists have been indicted.