Just Asking About Abortion

[jj3jordan 2,099]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Bring me a mother that is carrying an unborn child that was placed in the womb by God without sexual intercourse and I would agree.

Agree with what?  There is nothing to agree with. Except that your statement as usual is nonsense.

[AU9377 5,295]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:09 PM, jj3jordan said:

I’ve read all that stuff you posted but none of it even comes close to allowing abortion. It is all a big stretch to tryout apply healing miracles such as the women bleeding to this subject. What is not a stretch is the greeting John the Baptist in utero gave to Mary with Jesus in her womb. The whole first chapter of Luke is good but specifically from Luke 1:39 on for a few paragraphs is pretty enlightening. Also Jeremiah being known in the womb and consecrated in the womb implies life in the womb is important and precious to God.

And it does not alter in any way my statement that you quoted. That’s irrefutable.

 

You can believe that life is precious, even in the womb, and still recognize the difference between a viable fetus and a handful of the ingredients.

[SLAG-91 1,498]

I'll just leave this snippet of lunacy here...

Planned Parenthood goaltending...

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

[homersapien 11,632]

5 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

I'll just leave this snippet of lunacy here...

Planned Parenthood goaltending...

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Well to be semantically and scientifically accurate, a pulsating bit of tissue is not a "heart".  It has no chambers and it pumps no blood. 

This is analogous to calling a blastosphere a "baby" or "infant" for purely rhetorical purposes.

It's fine with me if your religion demands that you consider a fertilized egg as a person - or a bit of tissue as a "heart" - but please don't impose your religious convictions on the rest of us based on such contrived rhetoric.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 9/2/2022 at 10:28 PM, AURex said:

There are many variants of abortion restrictions being enacted by state legislatures.

I have questions. And this is irregardless of laws passed in specific states. This is just asking your thoughts.

1. If a child (lets say 13) is inseminated by a family member (father, brother, uncle, cousin), she is a child. Should she be forced by law to bear that child? And why should she?

2. A high school girl is fed drugs or alcohol at a party and sexually used. She is pregnant as a result. Should she be forced by law to bear the child? Any why should she?

3. A woman (lets say 28) is kidnapped and raped. She ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to bear that child?

4. A married woman and her husband already have kids. They don't want any more kids. Their protection fails and she ends up pregnant. They really cannot afford supporting another child. Should she be forced to bear that child?

5. A pregnant woman faces a situation in which the pregnancy could kill her (example being ectopic pregnancy, many other situations). If abortion of the fetus could save her life, should she be required to continue her pregnancy?

6. A woman is pregnant, but the child is severely medically damaged, unlikely to survive for long after birth or be a catastrophic medical situation after birth requiring huge support financially and familialy. Should the woman be forced to bear the pregnancy?

7. A woman (28) and hr husband (29) do not want children. Despite precautions, she ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to squirt out a kid?

Keep in mind that, in states that have restricted or eliminated abortion, they also do not support programs for child care or raising children, many have refused Medicaid, and the mothers/families are left on their own.

These are questions, not attacks. Can others help me understand?

I'm really trying to understand all of this, because even in Biblical times, the mother took precedence over unborn.

 

I have a peripheral inquiry for you:

Who do you think, under our form of government, should answer those seven questions: (1) the people, through their elected representatives; or (2) an unelected Supreme Court majority? 

[CoffeeTiger 5,308]

30 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I have a peripheral inquiry for you:

Who do you think, under our form of government, should answer those seven questions: (1) the people, through their elected representatives; or (2) an unelected Supreme Court majority? 

 

Neither. 

 

The correct answer is that the individual pregnant woman and her doctor/care team should be the ones to answer those questions. Not the supreme Court, and not politicians. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Neither. 

 

The correct answer is that the individual pregnant woman and her doctor/care team should be the ones to answer those questions. Not the supreme Court, and not politicians. 

 

Okay, then just assume you had only two choices: (1) the people, through their elected representatives; or (2) an unelected Supreme Court majority.

[gabo4au 228]

On 9/24/2022 at 2:58 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

Okay, then just assume you had only two choices: (1) the people, through their elected representatives; or (2) an unelected Supreme Court majority.

 

The unelected supreme court didn't actually answer any of those questions. Actually they said that it is NOT their responsibility to answer those questions. They overturned a decision from a previous ruling that said it WAS their responsibility. So if you're implying that the supreme court shouldn't answer those questions, then you got your wish! They don't!

 

What they said was that it's up to each individual state to answer those questions, or not. Nothing to do with the supreme court, leave them out of it.

 

So with the new ruling it definitely IS up to the people through their elected representatives, in each state.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

On 9/6/2022 at 3:27 PM, jj3jordan said:

If you are a baby in one of the other states, sucks for you.

Are we really talking about a baby?