Abortions and the bible.

#76
#76
LouderVol said:
A life is being taken. That's murder. You just quibble because it makes you uncomfortable to admit that women are killing their own children.

You have to change the vocabulary to lie to yourself. This is how I know there is no real argument for it. You cant directly talk about it.
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier, I do not view a sperm as a life, I do not view an egg as a life, I do not view a zygote as a life.
 
#77
#77
05_never_again said:
Ok then, the question is simple - if at no point the unborn being is a human life, or if not a life something other than a clump of cells that is entitled to some kind of protection, why have limits on it?

If it's a medical procedure in the same vein as an appendix removal, what's the big deal? Allow them at any point during the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

New York has that covered
Reproductive Health Act: New York State Senate Passes Bill | National Review
The legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth.
Click to expand...
 
#78
#78
05_never_again said:
Ok then, the question is simple - if at no point the unborn being is a human life, or if not a life something other than a clump of cells that is entitled to some kind of protection, why have limits on it?

If it's a medical procedure in the same vein as an appendix removal, what's the big deal? Allow them at any point during the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Obviously, at some point in the process a fetus becomes a viable human being. I cannot dispute that, but where? With regard to pregnancy, anti-abortion laws are saying that the rights of the fetus at any point in the process are given more weight than that of the mother. We are forcing her to carry a child to term. I would give the mother preference up until the point of viability.
 
#80
#80
simvol said:
Some think everything happens for a reason and we have no right to influence the future in such a consequential way as abortion. Others lean towards this life in a random and uncaring universe as all there is. I can understand why Christians feel compelled to stop what they see as murder while people like me privilege the health and comfort of fully sentient beings above the rights of potential people.
Click to expand...
I guess you are fine killing people with mental disabilities, sense they arent fully sentient.

Its murder. Comfort has no part in the conversation. If it's a case of the mothers life/limb is at stake that's different. More self defense. But I am not setting the rules based on the exception.

Slaves weren't considered real people, women weren't equal. Unborn babies are the next unrecognized people deserving of rights.

Assuming it's not a case of rape the women had dozens of choices before she got to the point of taking someone else's life. Heck wrap it up, plug it up, have the surgeries, use whatever contraceptive you want. But dont confuse murder as means of comfort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and marcusluvsvols
#81
#81
DC_Vol said:
Anyone who has a child and experienced the pregnancy - from feeling the kicks and movements inside, hearing the heartbeat early on, seeing the child on the ultrasound, to receiving the cargo delivered on the day of birth - and is still ok with abortion has a serious defect in their conscience.
Click to expand...
Sadly most abortions are had by women who have had a baby before.
 
#82
#82
n_huffhines said:
When does it become intelligent/sacred life? That is the question. Before that point, it is not homicide/murder. After that point it is. Anybody acting like they know when that point is not reasonable. I would say it's obviously sacred life if it's developed enough to survive premature birth, but anything earlier than that is a big ol' question mark.
Click to expand...
Not really. If you want to dive into the religious side its whenever the soul enters the body. Not sure what the word on that is as it's never been part of the argument.

Its human life. Even if you dont consider it a human being it is it's own life. If you accept individuality as important that should be enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#83
#83
ClearwaterVol said:
Obviously, at some point in the process a fetus becomes a viable human being. I cannot dispute that, but where? With regard to pregnancy, anti-abortion laws are saying that the rights of the fetus at any point in the process are given more weight than that of the mother. We are forcing her to carry a child to term. I would give the mother preference up until the point of viability.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say given more weight. I'd put it more like anti-abortion laws are simply saying that the fetus has rights, period. If you think that the fetus is a human being, or not quite a human being but some entity that is entitled to rights, then you can't just eliminate it. There's a law against murder, for example. I wouldn't frame such a law by saying that the rights of the person being murdered are "given more weight" than those of the murderer.

After all, pro-choicers (or at least all I have seen) have no problem a person who kills a pregnant woman, even with the baby before the point of viability, being charged with 2 murders. Does the simple fact that the unborn child is wanted make killing the unborn wrong? If the child isn't wanted, either before or after viability, then eliminating it is OK? I don't really follow the logic. If the woman was murdered on the way to an abortion clinic, should the murderer be charged with just a single murder?

I've just never been able to get on board with the "...but it's the woman's body" argument because it...just isn't entirely true. Abortion is not a procedure akin to an appendix removal, a knee replacement, or a nose job, but pro-choicers try to frame it in that language. There is another life/potential life in question here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#84
#84
LouderVol said:
I guess you are fine killing people with mental disabilities, sense they arent fully sentient.

Its murder. Comfort has no part in the conversation. If it's a case of the mothers life/limb is at stake that's different. More self defense. But I am not setting the rules based on the exception.

Slaves weren't considered real people, women weren't equal. Unborn babies are the next unrecognized people deserving of rights.

Assuming it's not a case of rape the women had dozens of choices before she got to the point of taking someone else's life. Heck wrap it up, plug it up, have the surgeries, use whatever contraceptive you want. But dont confuse murder as means of comfort.
Click to expand...

I know you want to call it murder, but simply repeating it doesn't make it so.
 
#86
#86
luthervol said:
You are using magic to mean that the process isn't fully known and understood?
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective . Quick couple science questions ... when / if a mars rover finds a groups of active cells on mars what will all the scientists say we have found ? What are all the scientists and governments looking for on other planets ?

Edit : the answer “martians “ will disqualify you from this survey .
 
#87
#87
LouderVol said:
Not really. If you want to dive into the religious side its whenever the soul enters the body. Not sure what the word on that is as it's never been part of the argument.

Its human life. Even if you dont consider it a human being it is it's own life. If you accept individuality as important that should be enough.
Click to expand...

When does the soul enter the body? This is a question that can never be answered and we're trying to solve real world problems, so we need something better than religious arguments (especially since they don't even know* when the soul enters the body). It cannot be resolved that way.

If it's not intelligent/sacred life and it's just cells, why would it be treated as an individual? Just because it can become intelligent life, doesn't make it that.

*seems like something that should have been clarified if it's a violation of probably what is the most important of the ten commandments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#88
#88
05_never_again said:
I wouldn't say given more weight. I'd put it more like anti-abortion laws are simply saying that the fetus has rights, period. If you think that the fetus is a human being, or not quite a human being but some entity that is entitled to rights, then you can't just eliminate it. There's a law against murder. I wouldn't frame such a law by saying that the rights of the person to be murdered are "given more weight" than those of the murderer.

I've just never been able to get on board with the "...but it's the woman's body" argument because it...just isn't entirely true. Abortion is not a procedure akin to an appendix removal, a knee replacement, or a nose job, but pro-choicers try to frame it in that language. There is another life/potential life in question here.
Click to expand...

Potential life is a good term. By forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, you are impinging on her rights. If you believe that it is a good policy to do that then you believe the unborn has rights that are superior to the born. If the rights were equal then we could just induce labor and let the cards fall where they may, but the pro-lifers want to force women to be an incubator against their will. Admittedly, mine is an arbitrary line, but it seems to be a balanced approach and one that I can live with.
 
#91
#91
luthervol said:
As I stated earlier, I do not view a sperm as a life, I do not view an egg as a life, I do not view a zygote as a life.
Click to expand...
Are you aborting zygotes? It's my understanding a pregnancy test wont pick up on a zygote. It's at least to the embryo stage of development before it can be aborted.

So again you are lying to yourself to keep from dealing with reality.
 
#92
#92
ClearwaterVol said:
Potential life is a good term. By forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, you are impinging on her rights. If you believe that it is a good policy to do that then you believe the unborn has rights that are superior to the born. If the rights were equal then we could just induce labor and let the cards fall where they may, but the pro-lifers want to force women to be an incubator against their will. Admittedly, mine is an arbitrary line, but it seems to be a balanced approach and one that I can live with.
Click to expand...

Something that has “ potential “ is not yet there . Is it alive or not ?
 
#93
#93
05_never_again said:
I wouldn't say given more weight. I'd put it more like anti-abortion laws are simply saying that the fetus has rights, period. If you think that the fetus is a human being, or not quite a human being but some entity that is entitled to rights, then you can't just eliminate it. There's a law against murder, for example. I wouldn't frame such a law by saying that the rights of the person being murdered are "given more weight" than those of the murderer.

After all, pro-choicers (or at least all I have seen) have no problem a person who kills a pregnant woman, even with the baby before the point of viability, being charged with 2 murders. Does the simple fact that the unborn child is wanted make killing the unborn wrong? If the child isn't wanted, either before or after viability, then eliminating it is OK? I don't really follow the logic. If the woman was murdered on the way to an abortion clinic, should the murderer be charged with just a single murder?

I've just never been able to get on board with the "...but it's the woman's body" argument because it...just isn't entirely true. Abortion is not a procedure akin to an appendix removal, a knee replacement, or a nose job, but pro-choicers try to frame it in that language. There is another life/potential life in question here.
Click to expand...

I think you added the bold in an edit. I don't have a problem with such laws because typically they are applied when the pregnant woman had already decided to carry the pregnancy to term and was recognizing the rights of her unborn. Also, many such laws are constricted by the abortion standards in the state or use a viability standard.
 
#94
#94
NorthDallas40 said:
So what was the full context of each of those events as compared to a women who just decides she doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore? 🤔
Click to expand...
What about in Alabama if a woman is raped and gets pregnant her rapist faces less jail time than her if she gets an abortion. Hows that for context?
 
#95
#95
ClearwaterVol said:
How is it intolerant?
Click to expand...
Referring to the Christian God as an “imaginary being” in the context of their beliefs related to abortion sounds like a debate winning approach to me. 🤷‍♂️

While I’m a Christian, we are pro-life in our family only due to we feel killing defenseless unborns as wrong. However in the spirit of “mind your own damn business” were also pro choice for others. It would just really be nice if the kid had an advocate in the discussion other than just being a biological “inconvenience” to the mother.

From a legislative standpoint I believe the feds should be 100% quiet on this. I don’t believe abortion as a medical process is a constitutional right. And the feds need to let the states determine individually what they want to do. And there should be $0.00 dollars spent towards abortion or birth control frankly in my opinion.

But there has to be something between Virginia and Alabama’s approaches. 🤷‍♂️
 
#96
#96
K-town Vol Fan said:
What about in Alabama if a woman is raped and gets pregnant her rapist faces less jail time than her if she gets an abortion. Hows that for context?
Click to expand...
This is a flat out lie. The law only provides jail time for the doctors carrying out the abortion, not women who seek them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roustabout
#97
#97
ClearwaterVol said:
Obviously, at some point in the process a fetus becomes a viable human being. I cannot dispute that, but where? With regard to pregnancy, anti-abortion laws are saying that the rights of the fetus at any point in the process are given more weight than that of the mother. We are forcing her to carry a child to term. I would give the mother preference up until the point of viability.
Click to expand...
Forcing her? Did we force her to have sex in a manner that would get her pregnant? We haven't forced her to do anything.

We are protecting a life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NorthDallas40
#98
#98
ClearwaterVol said:
Potential life is a good term. By forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, you are impinging on her rights. If you believe that it is a good policy to do that then you believe the unborn has rights that are superior to the born. If the rights were equal then we could just induce labor and let the cards fall where they may, but the pro-lifers want to force women to be an incubator against their will. Admittedly, mine is an arbitrary line, but it seems to be a balanced approach and one that I can live with.
Click to expand...
No, not superior to. Just that the potential life has rights. Again, there's a law against murder. We wouldn't say that the rights of someone who is about to be murdered are "superior to" the rights of the person about to do the killing. I believe that you can do what you want, provided you don't infringe upon someone else's rights.

If a pro-choice person believes in the right to abortion right up until birth, and they don't believe the fetus is entitled to any sort of protection until birth, then there's actually nothing to discuss. We'll never be able to get past the personhood issue.

I am pro-life, but I do not know precisely where life begins. What I do believe is that the fertilized egg, at any point in the process, is some kind of entity (call it a "potential life") that I do think is entitled to a right to live. The discussion is much more complicated than "...but it's a woman's body." That phrase holds up if we're talking a knee replacement, a gall bladder removal, or a nose job. I don't think it holds up if we're talking a fertilized egg.
 
#99
#99
K-town Vol Fan said:
What about in Alabama if a woman is raped and gets pregnant her rapist faces less jail time than her if she gets an abortion. Hows that for context?
Click to expand...
Why didn’t you come in with that basis instead of your dumbass religious argument.

Do some searching. I’ve already stated the Gumps went too far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top