I believe that up to a point the rights of the woman (the realized life) trump that of the fetus. I don't believe that a woman should be required to undergo dangers of pregnancy without her consent.
It’s also morally wrong to condemn an unwanted child to a life of abuse and misery. It doesn’t matter if it’s with biological parents/relatives or as an adoptee or foster child. The religious right attempts to occupy a moral high ground here but it can’t. “All life is precious” as long as your tax dollars aren’t being used to help provide a better life.
Who have you heard express their displeasure with their tax dollars going to help less fortunate children? I’ve never heard that in my life. That would never come from an actual Christian.
Yet opinions are not uniform. Forcing uniformity in law where uniformity in opinion doesn’t exist, is how this entire problem was created.
Which is essentially the verbatim opinion of RBG on the matter. That by creating a national standard (which isn’t their job) they only created more division and resentment
Yet opinions are not uniform. Forcing uniformity in law where uniformity in opinion doesn’t exist, is how this entire problem was created.
Which is essentially the verbatim opinion of RBG on the matter. That by creating a national standard (which isn’t their job) they only created more division and resentment
I've asked similar in past discussions. Never got an answer which I found to be rooted in logic. There exists criteria to distinguish living and non living things. Those criteria are established, tested, and universally adopted. There also exists a hierarchy of classification of living things which is also an established "gold standard". Lastly, organizational parameters are established for organisms which distinguishes between elements of cells, cells, ....all the way up to a biosphere.
At some point the developing embryo meets every determined classification of a human. I'm afraid it meets those parameters much sooner than would make people comfortable.
Believe the answer was established under the Covid movement of vaccinations to trust science. If the baby is moving on their own or assisted through the mothers body it’s deemed science. And we should trust it.
Some in my church would probably point out that I am not a Christian, despite my disagreement.
And as Christ really does belabor the whole forgiveness thing, I do prefer to cast my allegiance with the OG Old Testament God when reading comments on the internet.
I am curious... How many on here believe that woman should not be able to have an abortion (in places where it's legal) over the objections of the man?
I believe that up to a point the rights of the woman (the realized life) trump that of the fetus. I don't believe that a woman should be required to undergo dangers of pregnancy without her consent.
She 100% saw the ruling as creating division and descent. She thought the states were moving in the right direction and should have been permitted to continue to do so. So I don’t disagree that she thought it was too quick (because she thought states were naturally moving that way)
But she also saw the decision it’s self as creating dissent/resentment.
I am curious... How many on here believe that woman should not be able to have an abortion (in places where it's legal) over the objections of the man?
If isn't a human being, why not? Why is there any sort of aversion to it? Who cares if a woman gets one or not if the entity in question isn't a life that is entitled to rights?
This is another one I've never understood. "I abhor abortion, but support a woman's right to one." If it isn't murder, or it is not the termination of something that is entitled to rights, why exactly do you abhor it?
If isn't a human being, why not? Why is there any sort of aversion to it? Who cares if a woman gets one or not if the entity in question isn't a life that is entitled to rights?
I am curious... How many on here believe that woman should not be able to have an abortion (in places where it's legal) over the objections of the man?
No, I would say that you neglected a responsibility that consented to assuming and that neglect led to the death of your child and you belong in prison.
What you want to do is to force a woman against her will to accept a responsibility she does not want. And by so doing you want to expose her to risks she does not consent to assuming.
I am curious... How many on here believe that woman should not be able to have an abortion (in places where it's legal) over the objections of the man?
Good question and I don't have a good answer for you. I think the decision is 100% up to the woman whether to abort or not but part of me thinks the man should be excused from financial support if the woman chooses to have the kid over his objections. I know that is probably not workable and would open a can of worms full of unintended consequences.