A few bad eggs

[Archivist]

That was my point. Which came first, Gods law or mans? Which do you follow first, Gods law or mans?

You are still ignoring the question: how is applying secular law to secular matters "forsaking faith in God?'

 

[Habbit Animal]

Nothing like reducing a woman to the status of being nothing more than an incubator.

That's the objective of the pro-life movement.

I do understand that the law was not written clearly, and the hospital decided to go with the interpretation that they had to keep a brain-dead woman on life support because she was pregnant. One member of the Texas legislature who was interviewed on NPR said that was never their intent when the law was drafted.

And they're probably saying that because the Munoz family is getting involved in changing the law. Because law makers be able to have a law be very clear when it ends up on the Governors desk for signature.

 

[Yarddog]

Texas even has a law that tries to force dead women to give birth.

No they don't. They have laws protecting the fetus.

 

[Yarddog]

That's the objective of the pro-life movement.

No it isn't. That would be like saying the objective of pro-choice is to murder babies.

I am pro-life. Pro-lifers respect life, both that of the mother and baby.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

You are still ignoring the question: how is applying secular law to secular matters "forsaking faith in God?'

Again, I don't see the origins and definition of marriage being defined as secular law, even though man tries to redefine what God had already established in the very beginning.

So in truth man is trying to redefine Gods law.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Texas even has a law that tries to force dead women to give birth.

That's because those legislators that passed such a measure see women as incubators. Not as people. Believing, as the pro-life movement demonstrates consistently, that sperm has more rights than a woman has the sovereign right to choice.

 

[Yarddog]

That's because those legislators that passed such a measure see women as incubators. Not as people. Believing, as the pro-life movement demonstrates consistently, that sperm has more rights than a woman has the sovereign right to choice.

Entirely incorrect. Pro-lifers believe God when he says "do not kill". Women, for the most part, choose to be incubators for their babies or they freely choose to have sex which leads to pregnancy. If they want to follow God, don't have sex unless they are willing to carry their baby.

 

[Habbit Animal]

No it isn't. That would be like saying the objective of pro-choice is to murder babies.

Interestingly enough that is exactly what a lot of pro-lifers think. They omit the "choice" and read, murder instead.

Entirely incorrect. Pro-lifers believe God when he says "do not kill". Women, for the most part, choose to be incubators for their babies or they freely choose to have sex which leads to pregnancy. If they want to follow God, don't have sex unless they are willing to carry their baby.

Pro-choice isn't aligned against having a baby by choice. That's what pro-lifers don't get.
They're, as your words infer, anti-choice and pro-force in making a woman carry to term against her will.

And truly God shouldn't be a factor in this at all. For obvious reasons.

 

[Archivist]

Entirely incorrect. Pro-lifers believe God when he says "do not kill". Women, for the most part, choose to be incubators for their babies or they freely choose to have sex which leads to pregnancy. If they want to follow God, don't have sex unless they are willing to carry their baby.

But any duty that a pregnant woman has to carry the fetus to term ends with the death of the pregnant woman. That is particularly true if the pregnant woman left instructions specifically stating that she did not want to be kept alive by artifical means.

 

[Yarddog]

But any duty that a pregnant woman has to carry the fetus to term ends with the death of the pregnant woman.

Of course, she is dead.

That is particularly true if the pregnant woman left instructions specifically stating that she did not want to be kept alive by artifical means.

Yes she did but was she asked that question in regards to her fetus if it could be delivered? We don't know when she had her Living Will signed or if she had been asked if her baby had the chance to live what she wanted done.

Just to let you know, my problem with most on this issue is the statements made about the legislators and the Pro-life organizations. People need to keep it real. There is no intentions "against" a woman but for the life of the baby.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Entirely incorrect. Pro-lifers believe God when he says "do not kill". Women, for the most part, choose to be incubators for their babies or they freely choose to have sex which leads to pregnancy. If they want to follow God, don't have sex unless they are willing to carry their baby.

You're arguing that women should be punished for having sex and that their choice to have sex then precludes their having a choice about what carries in their womb afterward.
You'd be wrong. If you're female you have a choice to do what you want with your body. But you don't have a right to tell other women what to do with theirs.

If it's a matter of following God then pro-choice is the only option. When someone believes all things happen by God's will then spontaneous abortion, which is a miscarriage, is God choosing for that pregnant woman to lose her baby.

When God makes a choice about a woman's womb, a woman has every right to make her own choice about her own womb as well.
Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will violates their privacy. It also forces them to assume a higher moral standard for life than that what God demonstrates when he aborts babies every minute of every day.

 

[Yarddog]

Interestingly enough that is exactly what a lot of pro-lifers think. They omit the "choice" and read, murder instead.

Interestingly enough, you don't know what you're talking about. I know that many associate abortion with murder, which in most it actually is, but I don't know of very many Pro-lifers that believe that the "intentions" of the Pro-choice factions is to murder babies.

Pro-choice isn't aligned against having a baby by choice. That's what pro-lifers don't get.

Did you mean to say this the way that you did? You don't think Pro-lifers know what Pro-choice means? Women want to have the choice to carry their babies or not. If they choose not to, they want to have the option of having an abortion.

What they should understand is that almost everyone had the "choice" to have the sex which got them pregnant and some don't want to accept the consequence for their actions.

They're, as your words infer, anti-choice and pro-force in making a woman carry to term against her will.

My words don't infer that at all but it shows that you have a problem understanding simple things. You don't get it.

Pro-life means just what it says but pro-life must take into account all life in order for it to be pro-life. There are some, mostly conservatives, who forget about all life and only focus on "anti-abortion" and forget about the mother and child. They also forget about many other Pro-life issues, such as the poor or those on death row, etc...

And truly God shouldn't be a factor in this at all. For obvious reasons.

I cannot believe that someone who identifies themselves as a Christian believes that god shouldn't be a factor in this at all. What are your obvious reasons? You took a bite from the Tree of Knowledge and now you are trying to hide it from God? It won't work because he will find out anyway.

 

[Interplanner]

LovelyJar, do you consider yourself to be a certain kind of Christian or do you think that you are pretty much what has always been understood as the Christian view of these things?

 

[Yarddog]

You're arguing that women should be punished for having sex and that their choice to have sex then precludes their having a choice about what carries in their womb afterward.

You are arguing that a baby should be killed because a woman doesn't want the responsibility of carrying what they freely chose to create. Do you think that all women are being punished for having their babies? I guess your mother was punished for having you, huh?

If you're female you have a choice to do what you want with your body.

Then accept the consequences which comes with your free will choice to sexual relations with a man. If not, don't have the sex.

But you don't have a right to tell other women what to do with theirs.

I do have the obligation to protect life which God instilled in a woman's fetus. The woman may not love the fetus as Jesus called her to do but that doesn't take away our obligation to try and save life.

If it's a matter of following God then pro-choice is the only option. When someone believes all things happen by God's will then spontaneous abortion, which is a miscarriage, is God choosing for that pregnant woman to lose her baby.

How do you get from a fetus dying because of health issues of either the mother or the fetus to 'that okay's a woman to kill her fetus for whatever she chooses' and God is okay with that?

When God makes a choice about a woman's womb, a woman has every right to make her own choice about her own womb as well.

Oh, now I see. You put yourself equal with God.

Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will violates their privacy.

It comes down to who has the right to live? A woman has the right to live and the baby has the right to live. Killing a living baby because a woman doesn't want to have that child isn't grounds for killing.

It also forces them to assume a higher moral standard for life than that what God demonstrates when he aborts babies every minute of every day.

You really make a wonder what you are capable of doing to a 2 year old that you don't think needs to live.

 

[Archivist]

Of course, she is dead.

So you admit that there is no duty to carry the fetus to viability.

Yes she did but was she asked that question in regards to her fetus if it could be delivered? We don't know when she had her Living Will signed or if she had been asked if her baby had the chance to live what she wanted done.

It doesn't matter what she was asked. An individual drafting such a document can put in any such instructions (If I am pregnant and I die I direct that...).

Just to let you know, my problem with most on this issue is the statements made about the legislators and the Pro-life organizations. People need to keep it real. There is no intentions "against" a woman but for the life of the baby.

Well it sounds like there were such intentions against the women in the recent Texas situation. Her husband and her parents all stated that she had made it clear that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

 

[Yarddog]

So you admit that there is no duty to carry the fetus to viability.

Not on her part. She's dead. That is what you said.

"But any duty that a pregnant woman has to carry the fetus to term ends with the death of the pregnant woman."

Naturally, the dead woman has no obligation. Now, those that are left behind, may be a different story. Of course, that is between them and God.

It doesn't matter what she was asked. An individual drafting such a document can put in any such instructions (If I am pregnant and I die I direct that...).

They can but who thinks about such a circumstance when having a Living Will drafted. I know that they didn't ask my wife if that may be something to consider when they drafted ours.

Well it sounds like there were such intentions against the women in the recent Texas situation. Her husband and her parents all stated that she had made it clear that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

So, you know that the legislators had this case in mind when they voted to enact this law? And their intentions all along was to force a corpse to carry a fetus without any regard to the fetus?

 

[Archivist]

Not on her part. She's dead. That is what you said.

Then if there is no duty there is no issue over which to argue. Fetus does not survive the pregnant woman unless she has provided otherwise.

They can but who thinks about such a circumstance when having a Living Will drafted. I know that they didn't ask my wife if that may be something to consider when they drafted ours.

But it isn't up to the lawyer drafting the document to suggest what should or shouldn't be included. My lawyer didn't suggest that I should leave money to my college when I drafted my will, I went in knowing that I wanted language providing for that in the will.

So, you know that the legislators had this case in mind when they voted to enact this law? And their intentions all along was to force a corpse to carry a fetus without any regard to the fetus?

No, I never said any such thing. Please read what I wrote: "it sounds like there were such intentions against the women in the recent Texas situation." I never said that such intentions existed on the part of the Texas legislature as you are wrongly claiming. In fact in another thread on this topic I specifically said that one of the drafters of the law said that it was never intended to impose such a duty--that it was the hospital that misinterpreted the language of the law.

 

[Yarddog]

Then if there is no duty there is no issue over which to argue. Fetus does not survive the pregnant woman unless she has provided otherwise.

The fetus did survive though and it is not ours to say that there is no duty on man's part to help life to survive.

But it isn't up to the lawyer drafting the document to suggest what should or shouldn't be included.

Who said that it was?

My lawyer didn't suggest that I should leave money to my college when I drafted my will, I went in knowing that I wanted language providing for that in the will.

Did your lawyer or anyone else suggest that you should make provisions for how your money may be disbursed upon the event of your death? Mine did. That is one of the main purposes of a "Last Will and Testament".

How a fetus should be treated in the event of a sudden on the part of the mother is not a common purpose of a Living Will, though.

No, I never said any such thing.

Yes you did.

Please read what I wrote: "it sounds like there were such intentions against the women in the recent Texas situation." I never said that such intentions existed on the part of the Texas legislature as you are wrongly claiming.

Please read what was written and to which you made your response to.

My quote from #70:

Just to let you know, my problem with most on this issue is the statements made about the legislators and the Pro-life organizations. People need to keep it real. There is no intentions "against" a woman but for the life of the baby.
​

Your reply from #75:
Well it sounds like there were such intentions against the women in the recent Texas situation. Her husband and her parents all stated that she had made it clear that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

Now, you may not have read my post very well and didn't notice the "legislators" right there in the quote but you should have made the distinction in your reply but as this was written, I was entirely correct.

In fact in another thread on this topic I specifically said that one of the drafters of the law said that it was never intended to impose such a duty--that it was the hospital that misinterpreted the language of the law.

I certainly would agree and you most likely didn't fully read the my statement before responding. Regardless, neither the Legislators or the Pro-lifers acted with the intentions of making the woman an incubator. Their intentions were to save a fetus but unfortunately that meant that the body that she left behind would be an incubator in an attempt to save life.

God Bless,
YD

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Here's what I'm talking about with a few bad eggs...

Yahoo!

This move right here will allow the federal government, along with federal judges in states to strike down any resistance in those states where anti gay marriage laws already exist.

This is nothing more than a strong arm tactic to push forward lawlessness.

 

[Yarddog]

Here's what I'm talking about with a few bad eggs...

Yahoo!

This move right here will allow the federal government, along with federal judges in states to strike down any resistance in those states where anti gay marriage laws already exist.

This is nothing more than a strong arm tactic to push forward lawlessness.

The Federal government is simply recognizing the "legal" status of homosexuals, not the religious status. The government will recognize gay marriage they cannot force Churches to do the same.