Alabama's Restrictive Abortion Law: Rape and Incest Discussion

redleghunter · May 16, 2019

Archivist said:
The state if they force a woman to carry the fetus of her attacker to term against her will.

The child is in the womb because the state is at fault for he or she being there?

JerseyChristianSuperstar · May 16, 2019

SPF said:
I guess the reason I struggle with that position is because we are talking about the killing of another human being. That just seems like a big deal to me.
I don’t think we should have the freedom to choose whether or not another innocent human has the right to live or not.

If I thought the unborn wasn’t as morally valuable as a newborn then I could see the argument for it. But I really believe that an unborn truly is created in God’s image and truly does possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

Therefore, I don’t see how I could hold any position other than one that says the killing of the unborn for any reason other than medical emergency is wrong and we shouldn’t allow it

If you plant an acorn, it will eventually become a tree in weeks' time. It is not a tree the moment it has been planted, and neither is a fetus a living human being the moment of conception.

redleghunter · May 16, 2019

JerseyChristianSuperstar said:
View attachment 256596

If you plant an acorn, it will eventually become a tree in weeks' time. It is not a tree the moment it has been planted, and neither is a fetus a living human being the moment of conception.

Wow where did you get that anti-science from?

Archivist · May 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
The child is in the womb because the state is at fault for he or she being there?

The child is in the womb because the state won't permit the woman to have an abortion.

redleghunter · May 16, 2019

Archivist said:
The child is in the womb because the state won't permit the woman to have an abortion.

The child is in the womb because of a rapist. That should be an obvious fact all should recognize.

How does that violation of the rapist extend to the child?

HatGuy · May 16, 2019

JerseyChristianSuperstar said:
View attachment 256596

If you plant an acorn, it will eventually become a tree in weeks' time. It is not a tree the moment it has been planted, and neither is a fetus a living human being the moment of conception.

Unicorns are also real

RaymondG · May 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
The child is in the womb because of a rapist. That should be an obvious fact all should recognize.

How does that violation of the rapist extend to the child?

But isnt this the argument of pro life? The personal feeling of one....should be able to affect and be push on another....legally? If the thoughts of a few should be able to affect and limit the choices of many women...... Why cant the action of one rapist extend to one child?

Or can we only use this non-extension of actions when is benefits our personal views?

Archivist · May 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
The child is in the womb because of a rapist. That should be an obvious fact all should recognize. How does that violation of the rapist extend to the child?

No woman should be forced to carry the seed of her attacker against her will. That should be an obvious fact all should recognize.

ms.smith · May 16, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
I don't understand your first statement. To avoid carrying a child the woman must not be a mother. If the fetus is old enough to live on its own both people survive and the mother no longer needs to be pregnant.

I posted earlier because this thread is political, the legal side of a raped girl wanting an abortion must not be ignored. Alabama's governor is not allowed to base signing or vetomg the bill on the Scripture.

There is no way to preserve the child's life without leaving it in the woman's womb. We can't remove the child (product of rape, incest, etc) and grow it in a hospital, at least up until around 21+ weeks, and at that point the baby is viable but it isn't advised to remove it. Medically speaking. We can't remove the child from the mother without ending the child's life, in early pregnancy, it isn't medically possible. That was my point, although the thread has gone much further since I posted. Just replying to clarify.

ms.smith · May 16, 2019

Archivist said:
I noticed that none of those who say that a pregnant woman should be forced to carry the fetus of her attacker against her will have answered the question of developing diabetes. I guess women just aren't that important to them.

Gestational diabetes =/= T2 diabetes. It is a temporary condition caused by the placenta. You need to understand how that works before you go throwing it around. No placenta = no gestational diabetes.

I have had both severe pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes (don't have diabetes now, btw). I'm a woman. I am completely pro-life.

ms.smith · May 16, 2019

JerseyChristianSuperstar said:
View attachment 256596

If you plant an acorn, it will eventually become a tree in weeks' time. It is not a tree the moment it has been planted, and neither is a fetus a living human being the moment of conception.

Your picture is flawed.

Chicken eggs, as we eat them, are chicken periods, not chicken babies. They don't allow the eggs to be fertilized.

If you get eggs from a farm with a rooster, from time to time you will crack open an egg with a chicken baby, and you'll know it's a baby, not a chicken period.

redleghunter · May 16, 2019

Archivist said:
No woman should be forced to carry the seed of her attacker against her will. That should be an obvious fact all should recognize.

Yes this is in many cases the response. “The evil seed should not be carried.”

What evil did the conceived human life commit? What’s the moral answer to that Archivist?

Truly what’s the legal answer to termination of any life for the transgressions of others?

Even international law protects the lives of non-combatants.

SPF · May 16, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
I mean you don't understand women's issues related to the pregnancy which can result in them seeking a first trimester abortion. It is not all about the status of a fetus as a human being.

I don't particularly think it's fair to declare that men have no capacity to understand this issue because we don't carry a child. For example, I'm the husband of a wife that has had 4 pregnancies. We now have 3 children. I am a very involved and available husband, so it really did feel like we went through the pregnancy. Yes, I get that I didn't carry the children and experience the bodily and hormonal changes. But I was there, through it all. We have also fostered more children than I can count, with a very large portion of them being newborns. We have been involved with the mother's, helping them where we can.

I say that to say that when I compare myself to say a single woman who has never had a child, I think I actually do have a better appreciation and understanding of the issue.

Archivist said:
And I simply feel that no woman should be forced to carry the fetus of her attacker against her will. Remember, my side isn't saying that the pregnant woman should be forced to have an abortion. We are simply saying that the choice must remain with her.

I get this, and part of me is inclined to agree with you. The law is not designed to dictate morality. For example, I believe that it is wrong and immoral to become intoxicated. Yet, I don't believe it should be illegal to become intoxicated. I do agree with the laws prohibiting intoxicated people from driving, because that protects both the intoxicated individual and anyone else they may encounter on the road. It's about protecting people, not legislating morality.

My hangup though is that I truly believe an unborn human being is just as much a human being as I am. I see no difference in value between an unborn human being and a 2 hour old infant. So for me, abortion raises the stakes. We're talking about killing a human being who is just as much made in the image of God as you and I. If that's true, if I'm right that unborn babies are no different in value than born babies, shouldn't the law protect them? Doesn't life trump liberty?

I think homosexual behavior is wrong. But honestly, if the secular government wants to allow homosexual marriage, I don't really care. In fact, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, as I think marriage is a religious thing. I think the term "civil union" should apply to any two people that want to have tax advantages and other governmental benefits from living together.

But abortion... abortion is literally killing another human being. An innocent human being who has done no wrong. I can't think of any other instance where we allow that. I don't think killing an innocent human being is something we should be allowed to do.

RaymondG said:
You welcome women to just give up children? Do you believe that the traversal through many foster homes (some good some not good), is a better alternative to a free trip directly to heaven(if you believe this happens)?

suicide rates are at all time highs for children in homes with the parents who bore them.... Yet you feel you are helping children out by forcing them into foster homes and home of parents who only had them because they were forced to?

Well what's the alternative, to kill them? I mean what are you really saying here... It sounds like you're saying that since a child will have to go through the foster system, which isn't as loving as a family that an acceptable alternative is to kill them? What about children already in foster care? Should I, as a foster parent be able to look at their parents and decide that since I don't think they're going to have a good life that it should be OK for me to kill them?

JerseyChristianSuperstar said:
neither is a fetus a living human being the moment of conception.

Again, you're very good at making statements without any sort of supporting evidence. You honestly believe that a fetus is NOT a "living human being" If they aren't living, are they dead? What are they? Are they not growing and developing? Can you provide even ONE credible reference to support your outdated and antiquated belief that a fetus is not a living human being?

redleghunter · May 16, 2019

RaymondG said:
But isnt this the argument of pro life? The personal feeling of one....should be able to affect and be push on another....legally? If the thoughts of a few should be able to affect and limit the choices of many women...... Why cant the action of one rapist extend to one child?

Or can we only use this non-extension of actions when is benefits our personal views?

Huh?

RaymondG · May 16, 2019

ms.smith said:
Chicken eggs, as we eat them, are chicken periods,

I can never look at an egg sandwich the same again..

RaymondG · May 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
Huh?

I felt the same when i read your post, but I saw little value in creating a one word reply. If you have ideas to share or questions to ask...that would be more helpful to the readers.

Robert6671 · May 16, 2019

Danielwright2311 said:
Its the mothers fault to kill a child, not the rape.

If any one kills a potential child and denied that child the right to live then you are blaming the child as the result.

Every one no mater who you are to be deserves the right to live.

Daniel if I plant a apple seed in the ground, is it a apple tree? Now I will give you this after about 3 or four mouths there is not doubt that there is a human being there. I think anyone would have a problem with a rape victim wanting to have an abortion at 6 months...but the 2 maybe 3 months she needs to make decision herself. You wish and many Christians wish to enforce there religious and moral beliefs into law. Separation of Church and state exist because there are many beliefs and we should allow any religion to enforce there beliefs on another.

Archivist · May 16, 2019

ms.smith said:
Gestational diabetes =/= T2 diabetes. It is a temporary condition caused by the placenta. You need to understand how that works before you go throwing it around. No placenta = no gestational diabetes.

I have had both severe pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes (don't have diabetes now, btw). I'm a woman. I am completely pro-life.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that gestational diabetes does increase a woman's risk for developing type 2 diabetes later on (which is what happened to one of my cousins). I am not just "throwing this around."

Archivist · May 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
Yes this is in many cases the response. “The evil seed should not be carried.”

Except I didn't say that, did I? Stop making up such falsehoods.

What evil did the conceived human life commit? What’s the moral answer to that Archivist?

Again, I never said that the conceived human life committed any evil. I said that "No woman should be forced to carry the seed of her attacker against her will." The moral answer is to allow the pregnant woman to decide what she wants to do.

Truly what’s the legal answer to termination of any life for the transgressions of others? Even international law protects the lives of non-combatants.

Except non-combatants are not inside of someone else against that person's will.

GodLovesCats · May 16, 2019

Danielwright2311 said:
And how does the slavery bill act to abortion rights?

This is wnat you need to go back to school for. The United States Constititution (USC) is not a law. It is a document that laws are based and restricts what laws can be signed by hte President. Its amendments do not count as laws, but parts of itself. Unlike laws, it is nearly impossible to repeal USC amendments. Only one, the 18th, has been repealed. The USC is not a bill, but the original document that was written in the late 1700s to govern America.

Alabama's Restrictive Abortion Law: Rape and Incest Discussion

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Senior Veteran

Thank You Jesus!

Some guy in a hat

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads