Would you ever vote for a lawmaker who supports murdering babies?

[JacksBratt]

I certainly can.

God takes away hundreds of millions of ihuman lives every year. The #1 cause of death worldwide is miscarriages if zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are included.

God... is God... What He does is always righteous.

We are not God. We are not all knowing. We are ignorant and arrogant to even believe that we have the right to take the life of a human that God has allowed to be conceived.

 

[GodLovesCats]

God.is God. What He does is always righteous.

We are not God. We are not all knowing. We are ignorant and arrogant to even believe that we have the right to take the life of a human that God has allowed to be conceived.

God allows a lot of bad things to happen. That does not make any of them right. So you can't convince me it is better for rape "babies" to live than not exist because they were conceived by sin against the mother's will. I cannot morally, ethically, or philosophically accept any claim that a rape victim is less important than the unwanted human life that was created by a rapist. That is not what the Bible says.

 

[parousia70]

I am for saving the mother's life above that of the unborn child when her life is at risk. If there is a chance that the fetus could survive, then by all means try, but if it puts the mother's life in danger, then that is a no from me. The mother's life comes first.

Interestingly, we have solid, tangible, physical evidence that this is also what God believes and wants.

That evidnce is the Uterus. God created the uterus with the PRIMARY function to protect the life of the mother over and above the life of the baby.

Human fetal development requires unrestricted access to a parent's blood supply, which makes pregnancy (and miscarriage) incredibly dangerous for the carrier. The uterus was created to control and restrict whether placental cells can get that access, and to eject it before it develops enough to kill the host. THE FUNCTION OF THE WOMB IS TO PROTECT THE PARENT'S LIFE. The very structure of the womb very firmly prioritizes the life of the parent over the life of the fetus.

It's not a nurturing organ—it doesn't need to be. A fetus is frighteningly good at getting the resources it needs to nurture itself. If they are implanted anywhere other than the womb (most often the fallopian tube, but also sometimes the bladder, intestine, pelvic muscles and connective tissue, and the liver) placental cells will rip through a body, slaughtering everything in their path as they seek out arteries to slake their hunger for nutrients.

Fetal cells will happily grow in any of these places, digesting and puncturing tissue, paralyzing and enlarging arteries, raising blood pressure to feed itself more, faster; but it will be unable to be ejected. It's no coincidence that genes involved in embryonic development have been implicated in how cancer spreads.

Rather than a soft cozy nest, a womb is a veritable fortress designed to protect the person from being killed by the developing cells inside them.

The "miracle" of birth is that we have a protective organ designed to, if all goes well, let us survive it. It doesn't always go well. It is life or death. Someone who chooses to get pregnant, stay pregnant, and carry a fetus to delivery is legitimately choosing to risk their life to do it.

I am unaware of any scriptural, moral, ethical or legal principle that says Government has, or should have, the authority to require that 1 human being MUST be forced to put their own life at risk so that another human being may live. However, if it can be shown that there is such a principle, in the United States anyway, it would be a 14th amendment violation to restrict the application of that principle to the Mother- Fetus relationship, and instead must be equally applicable to ALL persons, both born and unborn.

The Irony is, even the staunchest pro life advocate would roundly reject the notion that Government should have the authority to require them to risk their life so another already born person may live.

 

[Derf]

God allows a lot of bad things to happen. That does not make any of them right. So you can't convince me it is better for rape "babies" to live than not exist because they were conceived by sin against the mother's will. I cannot morally, ethically, or philosophically accept any claim that a rape victim is less important than the unwanted human life that was created by a rapist. That is not what the Bible says.

You're right, of course, that the mother is no less important than the baby. But no more important, either. Thus, we don't put the mother (rape victim) to death any more than we put the baby (also a rape victim) to death. That's what the Bible says.

 

[parousia70]

That's what the Bible says.

Chapter & Verse Citation required.

 

[GodLovesCats]

You're right, of course, that the mother is no less important than the baby. But no more important, either. Thus, we don't put the mother (rape victim) to death any more than we put the baby (also a rape victim) to death. That's what the Bible says.

Everyone knows that is not true because a baby cannot exist without a biological mother. Only the mother is a person with any rights, if you are specifically talking about unborn "babies" here. Only the mother can go to school, get a job, volunteer, and donate to society. If she decides not to get an abortion, the "baby" will eventually become equal to her. But it is morally, ethically, philosophically, religiously, and scientifically impossible to put them on the same level when one human is just a developing body incapable of any perception and thought inside the other.

 

[Derf]

Chapter & Verse Citation required.

Would you read it? Cats won't. She already said she doesn't think the Bible has relevance in this discussion.

 

[JacksBratt]

God allows a lot of bad things to happen. That does not make any of them right. So you can't convince me it is better for rape "babies" to live than not exist because they were conceived by sin against the mother's will. I cannot morally, ethically, or philosophically accept any claim that a rape victim is less important than the unwanted human life that was created by a rapist. That is not what the Bible says.

Nobody is more or less important in this world. A human life is a human life.

It's not about who is more important. Both are human lives.

I think it would be great if we could ask a "rape baby" if they deserve to live.

You should kill the child because it's father was a criminal? We don't even kill rapists. But you want to kill the innocent life created by a criminal act?

Whether you kill the baby or not.... the mother will live with the trauma created by the rape.

We have pedophiles all over this world.. Do we kill them when they are caught? Nope....

Imagine the trauma faced by a child after it has been molested.. Yet you don't kill the pedophile.

This is so wacked..... People try to explain away the fact that even at conception a human child exists.

Exodus 23:7
King James Version​

7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.​

 

[JacksBratt]

Everyone knows that is not true because a baby cannot exist without a biological mother. Only the mother is a person with any rights, if you are specifically talking about unborn "babies" here. Only the mother can go to school, get a job, volunteer, and donate to society. If she decides not to get an abortion, the "baby" will eventually become equal to her. But it is morally, ethically, philosophically, religiously, and scientifically impossible to put them on the same level when one human is just a developing body incapable of any perception and thought inside the other.

How do you know that a baby, in utero, is not capable of perception and thought?

If this was, in fact, the reason that it is right to kill someone.. what about people in a coma?

Should we kill them just because they are not capable of the things that you insist are prerequisite for being allowed to live?

We don't even know, in the case of a coma victim, that they even will eventually awaken... Yet, the chances of a fetus becoming a functioning human are almost 100%.

What about CP babies? Should they be killed because they cannot live without support?

You are heading down a slippery slope anytime you try to justify the killing of a human life... at any age or in any location.

If I went into a lab and killed a bunch of eggs that someone had had harvested for IV fertilization... what do you think the law would do to me?

 

[GodLovesCats]

How do you know that a baby, in utero, is not capable of perception and thought?

The abilities to perceive and think require having things that do not exist during the first month of pregnancy. That was easy.

If this was, in fact, the reason that it is right to kill someone, what about people in a coma?

There is your answer: Comatose humans are people, unlike zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos - and, therefore, have the constitutional right to life. Everybody who graduated from a public high school in America knows both personhood and the right to life require birth. The right to kill an unborn human being, but not a person, is explicit in our federal Constitution.

Now keep in mind I am not saying it is right to kill an unborn human being at any time for any reason. I have always supported limitations. But it is always wrong to say any unborn human is a person with the right to life and try to equate that tiny offspring with a comatose person.

 

[Derf]

The right to kill an unborn human being, but not a person, is explicit in our federal Constitution.

No, it is not! Roe v Wade tried to make the case that it was IMPLICIT in the federal constitution, but they failed, though it took 50 years for their failure to be made manifest. I hope it doesn't take another 50 for your falsely argued position to be shown for the moral repugnance that it is.

 

[parousia70]

How do you know that a baby, in utero, is not capable of perception and thought?

If this was, in fact, the reason that it is right to kill someone.. what about people in a coma?

Should we kill them just because they are not capable of the things that you insist are prerequisite for being allowed to live?

We don't even know, in the case of a coma victim, that they even will eventually awaken... Yet, the chances of a fetus becoming a functioning human are almost 100%.

What about CP babies? Should they be killed because they cannot live without support?

You are heading down a slippery slope anytime you try to justify the killing of a human life... at any age or in any location.

If I went into a lab and killed a bunch of eggs that someone had had harvested for IV fertilization... what do you think the law would do to me?

Are we justified to Kill in self defense?

 

[parousia70]

Would you read it? Cats won't. She already said she doesn't think the Bible has relevance in this discussion.

Yep, I'll read it. Show me the scripture.

 

[JacksBratt]

The abilities to perceive and think require having things that do not exist during the first month of pregnancy. That was easy.

Many abortions are done well beyond that time frame.

There is your answer: Comatose humans are people, unlike zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos - and, therefore, have the constitutional right to life. Everybody who graduated from a public high school in America knows both personhood and the right to life require birth. The right to kill an unborn human being, but not a person, is explicit in our federal Constitution.

If this is the case, why have some states given the right to life to unborn?

At conception two live cells, a sperm and an ovum, combine with human DNA to form a living growing being. It is alive, it is human.

If the right to kill it was explicit in the "Federal" constitution... the Federal supreme court would not have given that decision to each state.

Now keep in mind I am not saying it is right to kill an unborn human being at any time for any reason. I have always supported limitations. But it is always wrong to say any unborn human is a person with the right to life and try to equate that tiny offspring with a comatose person.

I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with you here.

 

[JacksBratt]

Are we justified to Kill in self defense?

I would say that every human has the right to kill in self defense... if that is the force that is necessary for the preservation of their own life.

It would be nice if an unborn baby had the ability to defend itself.

 

[Derf]

Yep, I'll read it. Show me the scripture.

First let me reiterate what I'm trying to show:

You're right, of course, that the mother is no less important than the baby. But no more important, either. Thus, we don't put the mother (rape victim) to death any more than we put the baby (also a rape victim) to death. That's what the Bible says.

The baby is a victim, not the perpetrator of the crime, right? The baby's father is the perpetrator, right?

Ezekiel 18:20 (KJV) The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Let's start with that.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, it is not! Roe v Wade tried to make the case that it was IMPLICIT in the federal constitution, but they failed, though it took 50 years for their failure to be made manifest. I hope it doesn't take another 50 for your falsely argued position to be shown for the moral repugnance that it is.

Roe vs. Wade was not the only SCOTUS case that concluded abortion rights are in the U.S. Constitution. It is just the most famous one. All abortion rights rulings except Dobbs vs. Jackson Medical Center determined this. They each used a different part of the United States Constitution in their rulings supporting every woman's right to have an abortion. The only reason Dobbs vs. Jackson Medical Center went the other way is three partisan judges who were appointed by a totally unqualified president who only cares about himself are on the bench.

 

[Derf]

Roe vs. Wade was not the only SCOTUS case that concluded abortion rights are in the U.S. Constitution. It is just the most famous one. All abortion rights rulings except Dobbs vs. Jackson Medical Center determined this. They each used a different part of the United States Constitution in their rulings supporting every woman's right to have an abortion. The only reason Dobbs vs. Jackson Medical Center went the other way is three partisan judges who were appointed by a totally unqualified president who only cares about himself are on the bench.

Maybe, just maybe, he cared about babies in the womb, even if just for a short amount of time. And at least his judges knew what "woman" means.

But your post exactly shows how it's not "explicit" in the constitution, if the judges can't agree on where to look for it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Maybe, just maybe, he cared about babies in the womb, even if just for a short amount of time. And at least his judges knew what "woman" means.

But your post exactly shows how it's not "explicit" in the constitution, if the judges can't agree on where to look for it.

Where did you get that nonsense from:? Justices were tackling different cases, each with their own unique conditions and questions. So it is natural the same clauses in the Constitution do not apply to every case. Nothing in Roe vs. Wade took away the rulings of other cases that used a totally different part of the Constitution, but came to the same conclusion.

 

[Derf]

Where did you get that nonsense from:? Justices were tackling different cases, each with their own unique conditions and questions. So it is natural the same clauses in the Constitution do not apply to every case. Nothing in Roe vs. Wade took away the rulings of other cases that used a totally different part of the Constitution, but came to the same conclusion.

But not because it is "explicit in the constitution", but because they were trying to justify a preconception, which is what you've been doing this whole thread. You decided what was right in your eyes, and then you grasped at any straw you thought would support your bias. That's bad law for supreme court justices, it's bad law for Christians, and it's bad law for innocent babies in the womb.