Abortion Discussion

[Hank77]

Where would PP get their organs to sell???

Liver tissue begins to form at 7 wks gestation.

I am beginning to recall something about her purposefully provoking the labor pains.

This is call inducing labor. Doctors do it a lot. They will break open the protective sack to speed up labor. They also use drugs to induce labor and cause the cervix to dilate.
She did the same thing, gave birth, and murdered the infant. Her reason for doing so may have been the same reason that Some women abort but that doesn't make this an abortion.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, you said the establishment clause.

Goggle establishment clause then get back to me...

 

[AirPo]

Goggle establishment clause then get back to me...

Quote is easier.

The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Quote is easier.

Very effective argument. I am singularly unimpressed.

 

[rjs330]

Personally I fail to see in scripture where it is OK to have the baby in the womb killed if the mother's life is in danger.

I understand your point. However I don't see in the scripture where you are not allowed to take a life to save a life. Self defense is an option in scripture. Let me couch it in this way. A train is going down the tracks and you see a mom and child tied on the tracks. One of them is going to die because you can't save both, what is your option? If you cannot take a life, to save a life then do you believe it is scriptural to let both die? How about a car in the river and you can only save mom or baby? I don't believe that God would expect you to allow both to die if you could save one of them. Here lets make a little more clear. Mom and child are hanging off a beam that drops 90 stories. The beam is about to break unless you knock one of them off. Both die because you did nothing or one dies to save the other. Do you think God would judge you for knocking one off to save the other? Just curious.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

And since the time of legalisation, the numbers have steadily declined.

Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of pro-lifers, but it is still over a million a year. It was 700,000 back in 1975.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I fixed your quote. The answer is yes, with that correction.

You did not fix it. You should not alter the original you are quoting. Readers should be able to read the original! If you do not like the original, leave it alone.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

The unborn aren't legal persons. Though I agree they should be protected. But up to a point, the mother's right to choose what happens to her uterus takes precedence.

The uterus is not a person nor an individual. How can it have more right than a human being that has its own DNA?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Because, as per the Supreme Court, a legal abortion, done according to accepted medical standards, with the mother's informed consent, is not a crime and cannot be prosecuted. And that supercedes any state law to the contrary.

In the country of ISIS rape is legally protected. Suppose Islam extremist succeed in imposing the ISIS sharia law in our country. Would you justify rape because it is now legal?

Now contrast rape with abortion. Rape harms but it does not kill the victim, while abortion destroys it. How can you defend murder?

 

[Archivist]

The uterus is not a person nor an individual. How can it have more right than a human being that has its own DNA?

But the person who owns the uterus is an individual.

 

[Archivist]

In the country of ISIS rape is legally protected. Suppose Islam extremist succeed in imposing the ISIS sharia law in our country.

There is no "country of ISIS." IS claims a Caliphate; no nation has yet recognized them as a country.

Would you justify rape because it is now legal?

Moot point--it isn't going to happen.

Now contrast rape with abortion. Rape harms but it does not kill the victim, while abortion destroys it. How can you defend murder?

Sorry, abortion isn't murder. It does not meet the definition of murder. That has been repeated numerous times in this thread.

Second, to require a rape victim to carry the fetus to term is involuntary servitude. Do you support slavery/involutanary servitude in other cases or just in cases involving rape victims?

 

[AirPo]

You did not fix it. You should not alter the original you are quoting. Readers should be able to read the original! If you do not like the original, leave it alone.

The irony!

The uterus is not a person nor an individual. How can it have more right than a human being that has its own DNA?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Yep, I think I'm the only one here that's bothered to actually read the study.

But then, you lot couldn't afford to read it, could you? Because it would clearly show how grossly wrong your position is.

Better to throw stones from a distance, right?

The study seems to be implying that all of these women have one of the traits that describes a sociopath... Now I don't know what circles you run in maybe all of the people you know have those traits. But the people that run in mine all seem to regret doing dumb things, so this is why I'm having a big problem accepting the accuracy of the study...

Now if you had done the study it would lend more credence to it and explain why you believe it, but it appears that you didn't. So the stone I'm throwing is that I wonder how can you believe it???

 

[civilwarbuff]

The study seems to be implying that all of these women have one of the traits that describes a sociopath... Now I don't know what circles you run in maybe all of the people you know have those traits. But the people that run in mine all seem to regret doing dumb things, so this is why I'm having a big problem accepting the accuracy of the study...

Now if you had done the study it would lend more credence to it and explain why you believe it, but it appears that you didn't. So the stone I'm throwing is that I wonder how can you believe it???

I probably missed this but what journal was this published in? Journal name, year and volume would be a big help. Many of these are now on line unless they are ancient......just point me to the post#.....

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

No, it is just a term that shows pro-aborts are killing babies and not "clumps of cells"

It don't show any such thing - merely assumes it.

 

[SteveB28]

Actually, it is not.
It is attributed to Joel Barlow who negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli. It is in Article 11. Joel Barlow, in no sense of the word, was a "founder".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11
However, from SCOTUS:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States
Your research is slipping.....

Who signed it?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Who signed it?

You want to go fish for red herrings...do it alone....(shaking my head)

 

[SteveB28]

Come to think of it, you are right. My mistake! However, the mentality which she demonstrated is similar to that of women who purposefully abort. Agreed?

I hope you are kidding.

 

[SteveB28]

Suppose she had provoked those labor pains via jabbing herself with a cloth hanger wire? Would that have made it an abortion. I am beginning to recall something about her purposefully provoking the labor pains.

Yes, let us keep adding details to our 'story' until it matches the point we are desperately trying to reach!

 

[Archivist]

You want to go fish for red herrings...do it alone....(shaking my head)

I've already pointed out that it was ratified by the US Senate. Treaties are given the weight of law upon ratification.