Abortions and the bible.

#102
#102
ClearwaterVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
So simply the fact that a woman has made the decision to carry the child to term makes it a murder? What if she didn't want to carry the child to term - say she had future plans to have an abortion. Two murders or one? It doesn't make sense to me that your definition of murder depends on whether or not the mother wanted the child or not. Whether or not the mother wanted the child would appear to be irrelevant to the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#103
#103
It all boils down to personal responsibility for 90% of the occasions discussed in this thread.(excluding rape & incest)
 
#104
#104
05_never_again said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is more complicated than murderer and murderee. If that were the case the woman, each and every time would have a self defense claim. Reasonable belief that she was in bodily danger. Pregnancy certainly poses a risk.
 
#105
#105
05_never_again said:
So simply the fact that a woman has made the decision to carry the child to term makes it a murder? What if she didn't want to carry the child to term - say she had future plans to have an abortion. Two murders or one? It doesn't make sense to me that your definition of murder depends on whether or not the mother wanted the child or not. Whether or not the mother wanted the child would appear to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

You ignored the part where I said that many states with such laws have standards built into them that somewhat mirror their abortion standards.
 
#109
#109
n_huffhines said:
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.
Click to expand...
My stance isnt inherently based on my faith. So the soul doesnt matter as much to me as it might to others.

The baby at whatever point is it's own unique blend of DNA from the parents. It's an individual. If it was just the moms life abortion would kill her. So obviously there is a distinction in the action between who is effected so any argument for the mothers rights are not important, because the action being discussed doesnt effect her or her life.

When it does, you can bring her up. But considering only the baby, it's own unique set of life, is on the chopping block, those are the rights that take precedence.
 
#110
#110
NorthDallas40 said:
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. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

See, I view intolerance as more than simply making an off handed remark. I believe that Christians in this country are deserving of protection from discrimination. Just as I believe that hindus, jews and muslims are deserving of the same. Unlike some christians, I do not believe that they should be able to legislate their beliefs onto me.

I do believe that the Roe and Casey got it correct.
 
#113
#113
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...
Against their will? Are you kidding?

Women are the ones who consent to have sex to begin with, especially in today's "metoo" era. If they didn't want to have the child and go through the child-bearing process, maybe they should've thought twice about opening up their legs.

With that said, you can still have sex anyways without worrying. With birth control pills, or even condoms being available, there is absolutely no excuse for abortion.
 
#114
#114
LouderVol said:
My stance isnt inherently based on my faith. So the soul doesnt matter as much to me as it might to others.

The baby at whatever point is it's own unique blend of DNA from the parents. It's an individual. If it was just the moms life abortion would kill her. So obviously there is a distinction in the action between who is effected so any argument for the mothers rights are not important, because the action being discussed doesnt effect her or her life.

When it does, you can bring her up. But considering only the baby, it's own unique set of life, is on the chopping block, those are the rights that take precedence....
Click to expand...

....if it's intelligent life.

You quoted me, but you're not really talking about the point I made. I'm not even making arguments about the Mother's rights. I'm saying it's not murder if it's not intelligent/sacred life. Demonstrate that it is, or move along and talk to someone who is making points about the Mother's rights.
 
#116
#116
0nelilreb said:
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 .
Click to expand...
They will not say they found a human.
 
#118
#118
ClearwaterVol said:
See, I view intolerance as more than simply making an off handed remark. I believe that Christians in this country are deserving of protection from discrimination. Just as I believe that hindus, jews and muslims are deserving of the same. Unlike some christians, I do not believe that they should be able to legislate their beliefs onto me.

I do believe that the Roe and Casey got it correct.
Click to expand...
Is there a federal mandate on two counts of murder levied against a defendant in the killing of a pregnant woman? UVVA2004? Can’t have it both ways. 🤷‍♂️

Also how about the 38 states that establish human status to an unborn fetus in the case of homocide. The present state of federal and state legislation is situational at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and FLVOL_79
#121
#121
ClearwaterVol said:
It is more complicated than murderer and murderee. If that were the case the woman, each and every time would have a self defense claim. Reasonable belief that she was in bodily danger. Pregnancy certainly poses a risk.
Click to expand...
So does crossing a street or driving a car. Should we just lock her up? So does having tits (cancer), ovaries, (cancer and any number of infections), sex itself can be dangerous and cause harm.
She is going through huge hormone swings and not in a stable state of mind and therefore shouldn't be making decisions that impacts others.

See isnt it fun when someone takes the argument to ridiculous levels? You arent the only one who can do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Matt2496
#122
#122
ClearwaterVol said:
See, I view intolerance as more than simply making an off handed remark. I believe that Christians in this country are deserving of protection from discrimination. Just as I believe that hindus, jews and muslims are deserving of the same. Unlike some christians, I do not believe that they should be able to legislate their beliefs onto me.

I do believe that the Roe and Casey got it correct.
Click to expand...
yeah Christians are the only ones who try to push their beliefs on others
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#125
#125
n_huffhines said:
....if it's intelligent life.

You quoted me, but you're not really talking about the point I made. I'm not even making arguments about the Mother's rights. I'm saying it's not murder if it's not intelligent/sacred life. Demonstrate that it is, or move along and talk to someone who is making points about the Mother's rights.
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. I believe that all human life has inherent value due to the potential they have. That little clump of cells will someday have a mind that can be capable of solving problems, abstract thought, etc.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top