Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

throughfireytrial said:

Yet, many mothers would be perfectly willing to give up their life for that of their child...Christ-like love.

Click to expand...

Specifically pregnant women with ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes?

ChristianForCats said:

Specifically pregnant women with ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes?

Click to expand...

Yes, that includes some from all these categories. Again, Christ-like love, willing to suffer and die for one's child...by choice I'm speaking and so it becomes a very difficult situation once one begins the process of legislating life.

throughfireytrial said:

Yes, that includes some from all these categories. Again, Christ-like love, willing to suffer and die for one's child...by choice I'm speaking and so it becomes a very difficult situation once one begins the process of legislating life.

Click to expand...

No one should have to die in those situations. A foetus at that stage is most certainly not a child.

throughfireytrial said:

Yet, many mothers would be perfectly willing to give up their life for that of their child...Christ-like love.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a sign, to me, that the evil one is making some progress as we head into the final stretch of time. Even a century ago, he could not have fooled women into believing this stuff (men maybe).

2Tim. 3:1-9 comes to mind. "...lovers of self" is the first of many traits that will be prominent in the last days. The most precious and innocent of mankind has been tossed aside in the name of self, primarily lead by certain women's groups. I remember Dr. Laura used to call one them "National Origination of [I don't know what kind of] Women." Anyone recall that? She nailed it. It was a new breed of women taking over politics.

Unborn children have always been prized all throughout history. Now, look at the abortion clock. A dozen babies were snuffed out just in the time it took me to write these last couple sentences. Worldwide today 50K+. We're in the last days.

ChristianForCats said:

No, Democrats do not say a fetus is subhuman just because they sometimes call it what it is. It's either a human or not human; there is no in-between. Pro-choice voters know fetuses are humans. The difference is constitutional. Where we live, the Bible cannot and should not govern Supreme Court rulings.

Click to expand...

So Christians at the time should not have opposed Plessy v. Ferguson, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, or ableman v. Booth? Can't imagine you're prepared to defend your principle that God's law is either inferior to civil law or that civil law somehow takes precedence...

Yekcidmij said:

So Christians at the time should not have opposed Plessy v. Ferguson, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, or ableman v. Booth? Can't imagine you're prepared to defend your principle that God's law is either inferior to civil law or that civil law somehow takes precedence...

Click to expand...

Why do you ask? Unless all of those trials were specifically about abortion, they are off topic.

ChristianForCats said:

Why do you ask? Unless all of those trials were specifically about abortion, they are off topic.

Click to expand...

They show that your principle cannot be consistently applied and so it's wrong. Your principle means Christians should have supported segregation and the Fugitive Slave Act since those were upheld be supreme Court decisions. So your principle cannot be consistently applied...unless you're prepared to support those things, in which case, I guess you just got me...

Yekcidmij said:

They show that your principle cannot be consistently applied and so it's wrong. Your principle means Christians should have supported segregation and the Fugitive Slave Act since those were upheld be supreme Court decisions. So your principle cannot be consistently applied...unless you're prepared to support those things, in which case, I guess you just got me...

Click to expand...

That is ironic. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which ended slavery.

ChristianForCats said:

That is ironic. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which ended slavery.

Click to expand...

I dont think you understand the problem you're in right now.

One thing I've concluded seeing this debate over the years. The pro-choice side is based in emotion. There is a skin of logic to it, but when that's breached, it's pure emotion. I only need to look at how their arguments devolve as things progress. My pro-choice reasoning years ago bore similar characteristics.

Calminian said:

One thing I've concluded seeing this debate over the years. The pro-choice side is based in emotion. There is a skin of logic to it, but when that's breached, it's pure emotion. I only need to look at how their arguments devolve as things progress. My pro-choice reasoning years ago bore similar characteristics.

Click to expand...

Looking at how pro-lifers incorrectly insist the word fetus seems to devalue human life, which is ridiculous because the word is just a life stage like infant and toddler, I am certain they also user a lot of emotion in trying to justify their beliefs. If you want to complain about pro-choice people using emotion to drive their beliefs about aboriton instead of logic, why don't the pro-life people use logic themselves and accept what a fetus really is?

ChristianForCats said:

That is ironic. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which ended slavery.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the decision is more complex than that. Basically they say that when life begins (in the sense of this discussion -- in some sense obviously even the sperm are alive) is a philosophical and theological issue on which the court shouldn't take a position.

They review the history. Until the 19th Cent abortion wasn't always illegal. There was little sign in the common law of it being considered murder. Current laws started in the late 19th Cent. While there were probably other motivations, during that period abortion was still dangerous. Hence the Court considered the 19th Cent laws justified on medical grounds.

However by the time they made their decision, it was no longer dangerous. Hence there was no remaining medical justification, and they didn't consider other justifications constitutional.

Their decision that it should be allowed without restriction in the first trimester had nothing to do with viability, as I had always assumed. Rather, they believed that until the end of the first trimester, it was less risky to abort than to continue the pregnancy. That means there was no medical reason to restrict abortion then. (Incidentally, the mortality rate of abortion has continued to go down, while the mortality rate of pregnancy has actually been going up, so at this point their reasoning might lead to a later point in pregnancy.)

While the term privacy is used, I think that's misleading. Rather, the concept is that the government has no right to restrict citizens where there isn't good reason. The fact that a majority of other citizens have philosophical or religious objections is not a good reason. Remember, rights are not limited to the Bill of Rights. Indeed a number of the Founders objected to the Bill of Rights because they worried that it would cause courts to enforce only rights explicitly mentioned there. There's a more basic principle that the government can only limit citizens where it serves a legitimate government purpose.

They applied this principle using the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, but it's a basic principle behind the American Government. Other courts had used the 9th Amendment. I don't think any amendment is actually needed.

Part of the reason I go through this is because a lot of people say "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court just made it up." But there very definitely is the idea of government limited to specific purposes, and that's the principle they really used. If you're going to attack the decision you need to do it differently. If we lose the concept that the majority can't impose its philosophical views on a minority, we all lose a lot, but in the long run conservatives are probably most at risk.

hedrick said:

Part of the reason I go through this is because a lot of people say "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court just made it up." But there very definitely is the idea of government limited to specific purposes, and that's the principle they really used. If you're going to attack the decision you need to do it differently.

Click to expand...

One of the Supreme Court judges based his opinion on the Ninth Amendment instead of the Fourteenth. I mentioned this in a few other abortion threads and did not get a rebuttal.

ChristianForCats said:

Looking at how pro-lifers incorrectly insist the word fetus seems to devalue human life...

Click to expand...

I don't believe the term fetus devalues human life. I use it. There's only an issue when some insist fetus as the only term for an unborn baby, and that the term itself implies pre-human or not yet a baby. The term, itself, however, is fine in my view.

Calminian said:

I don't believe the term fetus devalues human life. I use it. There's only an issue when some insist fetus as the only term for an unborn baby, and that the term itself implies pre-human or not yet a baby. The term, itself, however, is fine in my view.

Click to expand...

I don't think embryo and fetus are the only words for unborn baby. It just drives me crazy that some pro-lifers disagree with us and refuse to use it.

ChristianForCats said:

I don't think embryo and fetus are the only words for unborn baby. It just drives me crazy that some pro-lifers disagree with us and refuse to use it.

Click to expand...

But why? If a person wants to stress the humanity of a fetus by calling it a baby, exclusively, that's perfectly fine, as both terms are correct. Does it also bother you when NPR bans the term baby?

NPR: ‘A Baby Is Not a Baby Until It Is Born’

Calminian said:

But why? If a person wants to stress the humanity of a fetus by calling it a baby, exclusively, that's perfectly fine, as both terms are correct. Does it also bother you when NPR bans the term baby?

NPR: ‘A Baby Is Not a Baby Until It Is Born’

Click to expand...

Because their reasoning is the word fetus devalues human life, which is not true at all. There is no reason people should think there is any devaluation of life when a life stage term is used. That is the issue here - people insisting on not using a good word for a bad reason.

Moving along . . .

Calminian said:

Yeah, this is a sign, to me, that the evil one is making some progress as we head into the final stretch of time. Even a century ago, he could not have fooled women into believing this stuff (men maybe).

2Tim. 3:1-9 comes to mind. "...lovers of self" is the first of many traits that will be prominent in the last days. The most precious and innocent of mankind has been tossed aside in the name of self, primarily lead by certain women's groups. I remember Dr. Laura used to call one them "National Origination of [I don't know what kind of] Women." Anyone recall that? She nailed it. It was a new breed of women taking over politics.

Unborn children have always been prized all throughout history. Now, look at the abortion clock. A dozen babies were snuffed out just in the time it took me to write these last couple sentences. Worldwide today 50K+. We're in the last days.

Click to expand...

I listened to Dr. Laura for a long while...lunch time on the radio in my car! She often nailed it!
It is as though people no longer even understand where one is coming from when mentioning putting the unborn before oneself. I also feel that motherhood is deemed undesirable...the household duties and taking care of children...teaching them Christianity, etc. It takes time, time which cannot be easily found when the mother works...even the desire fades...too tired. What is society doing? What are our priorities? I really don't see it all reversing in the future, but do pray that it does. Self first/me first...just as you say...so very sad and so very sinful. Thanks for posting...encouraging to know there's someone in these forums who still understands!

ChristianForCats said:

One of the Supreme Court judges based his opinion on the Ninth Amendment instead of the Fourteenth. I mentioned this in a few other abortion threads and did not get a rebuttal.

Click to expand...

ChristianForCats said:

Because their reasoning is the word fetus devalues human life, which is not true at all. There is no reason people should think there is any devaluation of life when a life stage term is used. That is the issue here - people insisting on not using a good word for a bad reason.

Moving along . . .

Click to expand...

Well, moving along, keep seeking God! May we all earnestly desire to strive to live a Christ-like life.

throughfireytrial said:

Well, moving along, keep seeking God! May we all earnestly desire to strive to live a Christ-like life.

Click to expand...

AMEN