I keep being told that God objects to abortion...

[parousia70]

Okay. I get it. Complete and unrestricted access to abortion for any reason.

I’m calling for The exact opposite.
Full pregnancy restrictions, & enforceable laws. Put the state in complete charge of procreation. When it can happen, who can participate, how those who participate can act, what they can eat, where they can go, who they can associate with, etc. It’s well past time we took this important step to protect the innocent.

And for sure at the very least we need to take the first step to create the the National menstrual registry and start requiring, right away, all menstruating women to submit their monthly menstrual tissue for examination to insure the fetal remains of any and all miscarriages are properly laid to rest. That’s the bare minimum that we pro lifers need to demand, and, though a good start, would just be a start.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I’m calling for The exact opposite.
Full pregnancy restrictions, & enforceable laws. Put the state in complete charge of procreation. When it can happen, who can participate, how those who participate can act, what they can eat, where they can go, who they can associate with, etc. It’s well past time we took this important step to protect the innocent.

And for sure at the very least we need to take the first step to create the the National menstrual registry and start requiring, right away, all menstruating women to submit their monthly menstrual tissue for examination to insure the fetal remains of any and all miscarriages are properly laid to rest. That’s the bare minimum that we pro lifers need to demand, and, though a good start, would just be a start.

Just so we're clear, your not going to answer my original question? If convenience abortion is the minority of abortion cases, what's the problem with outlawing them?

 

[SPF]

I likewise support basic restrictions on behavior of pregnant women during their pregnancy. They should be allowed to eat only approved foods, at approved amounts, of course making it illegal for pregnant women to smoke or drink alcohol, and they should be restricted by law from partaking of any hazardous activity, such as most sports, hazardous activities such as Ice skating, walking on the snow or ice, driving in rainy or low visibility conditions, severe temperature changes, any amusement park rides, mowing the lawn or operating dangerous machinery, etc... only when Government steps in and regulates this type of the behavior of pregnant women every hour of every day can we know we are doing everything possible to protect the unborn. Government knows what's best for the unborn, after all, and we clearly, demonstrably can't trust women to make these correct decisions for themselves.

It doesn't seem consistent to only have such laws to protect the unborn. What happens when the baby is born? Can the breast feeding mother go back to drinking, smoking, and putting whatever she wants in her body? Shouldn't the law also carry forward the restrictive laws concerning driving in rainy or low visibility conditions while the mother is transporting the infant? Surely the infant is just as valuable as the unborn, right?

It sounds to me like you're not being consistent by only recommending these laws to protect the unborn.

 

[pescador]

I'll go a step further.
I support laws that require all miscarriages' be buried in a cemetery or remains cremated.
I also support a national registry for all women of childbearing age so we can closely monitor their mensural cycle to make sure if they happen to get pregnant and "Miscarry" that said miscarriage was not caused by any negligence on the part of the mother.

Since "miscarriages" outnumber abortions by at least double in this country, we must do something to insure that any that are the result of negligence of the mother are properly punished.

All women of Childbearing age should be required to submit a sample of their menstrual tissue to the national government registry every month for examination, and if fetal tissue is found, then an investigation into the behavior of the mother during the pregnancy be launched, and if negligence is found, the mother punished.

I likewise support basic restrictions on behavior of pregnant women during their pregnancy. They should be allowed to eat only approved foods, at approved amounts, of course making it illegal for pregnant women to smoke or drink alcohol, and they should be restricted by law from partaking of any hazardous activity, such as most sports, hazardous activities such as Ice skating, walking on the snow or ice, driving in rainy or low visibility conditions, severe temperature changes, any amusement park rides, mowing the lawn or operating dangerous machinery, etc... only when Government steps in and regulates this type of the behavior of pregnant women every hour of every day can we know we are doing everything possible to protect the unborn. Government knows what's best for the unborn, after all, and we clearly, demonstrably can't trust women to make these correct decisions for themselves.

I'm certain All truly pro life advocates would gladly join me in supporting such basic protections for the unborn.

What is it about freedom that you don't understand? When you write "Government knows what's best for the unborn, after all, and we clearly, demonstrably can't trust women to make these correct decisions for themselves" I wonder where your values come from. Certainly not from the Bible.

 

[parousia70]

It doesn't seem consistent to only have such laws to protect the unborn. What happens when the baby is born? Can the breast feeding mother go back to drinking, smoking, and putting whatever she wants in her body? Shouldn't the law also carry forward the restrictive laws concerning driving in rainy or low visibility conditions while the mother is transporting the infant? Surely the infant is just as valuable as the unborn, right?

It sounds to me like you're not being consistent by only recommending these laws to protect the unborn.

Wait... so your position is after the baby is born it has a right to continue to enjoy all the benefits it enjoyed while in the womb, and that government has a responsibility to make sure those benefits are provided for them?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What is it about freedom that you don't understand? When you write "Government knows what's best for the unborn, after all, and we clearly, demonstrably can't trust women to make these correct decisions for themselves" I wonder where your values come from. Certainly not from the Bible.

Libertarianism is hardly biblical.

 

[parousia70]

Just so we're clear, your not going to answer my original question? If convenience abortion is the minority of abortion cases, what's the problem with outlawing them?

No problem with that at all.
And to be fair, Convenience pregnancy should be outlawed too.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No problem with that at all.
And to be fair, Convenience pregnancy should be outlawed too.

Interesting how in order to avoid talking about what limits there should be on Abortion you automatically resort to limiting birth. Is this how pro abortion people's minds work?

Are you seriously okay with absolutely no limits on Abortion. None whatsoever? That a woman for any reason may procure an abortion at any time?

 

[parousia70]

Interesting how in order to avoid talking about what limits there should be on Abortion you automatically resort to limiting birth. Is this how pro abortion people's minds work?

Are you seriously okay with absolutely no limits on Abortion. None whatsoever? That a woman for any reason may procure an abortion at any time?

No I'm not ok with that. I think government should have full control over human procreation. No control should be given to the mother to make ANY decisions about it on her own.

Do you disagree?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No I'm not ok with that. I think government should have full control over human procreation. No control should be given to the mother to make ANY decisions about it on her own.

Do you disagree?

Look, can you be anything other than sarcastic? I am only being sincere when I ask the question about outlawing abortions of convenience.

 

[bekkilyn]

What is it about freedom that you don't understand? When you write "Government knows what's best for the unborn, after all, and we clearly, demonstrably can't trust women to make these correct decisions for themselves" I wonder where your values come from. Certainly not from the Bible.

Well see, big government oppression is okay provided it only infringes on the liberty of women. Freedom for me and not for thee.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well see, big government oppression is okay provided it only infringes on the liberty of women. Freedom for me and not for thee.

Is liberty for women good if it means they can kill their children for any reason? Is this what God wants of us?

Let's not pretend any of us are libertarians at heart concerned with freedom. We should be more concerned with what's right. We all have ideas of actions that should be limited by legal force.

 

[bekkilyn]

Is liberty for women good if it means they can kill their children for any reason? Is this what God wants of us?

We're talking government, not God.

Let's not pretend any of us are libertarians at heart concerned with freedom. We should be more concerned with what's right. We all have ideas of actions that should be limited by legal force.

And yet in another thread with guns or wedding cakes or some other thing that is not solely specific to women, we're all about freedom.

 

[parousia70]

Look, can you be anything other than sarcastic? I am only being sincere when I ask the question about outlawing abortions of convenience.

And I answered it plainly. I agreed with you.
My question is likewise sincere.
Where do you draw the line, and why?

Why do you not agree that Government has the duty and responsibility to control ALL aspects of procreation?
Why do you disagree with the idea that a woman should not be able to Choose when she gets pregnant and for what reasons, and how she is to behave during the pregnancy? Why would you trust ANY aspects of procreation be left to the decisions and choices of a woman?

Pregnancy for convenience is not a compelling reason that government should allow, is it?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

We're talking government, not God.



And yet in another thread with guns or wedding cakes or some other thing that is not solely specific to women, we're all about freedom.

The thread itself is about if God objects to abortion. I also think God cares about how we live our lives.

Regarding cakes I presume you would be in favour of forcing people to make cakes contrary to their desire. If freedom is the goal here you can hardly argue that position, as we as the position that an abortion should be acceptable for any reason.

Mind you I am not a libertarian, nor am I especially concerned with freedom or liberty.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And I answered it plainly. I agreed with you.
My question is likewise sincere.
Where do you draw the line, and why?

Why do you not agree that Government has the duty and responsibility to control ALL aspects of procreation?
Why do you disagree with the idea that a woman should not be able to Choose when she gets pregnant and for what reasons, and how she is to behave during the pregnancy? Why would you trust ANY aspects of procreation be left to the decisions and choices of a woman?

Pregnancy for convenience is not a compelling reason that government should allow, is it?

You haven't answered me at all. You've employed a cynical line of attack and argued for positions no one takes seriously.

I'll just conclude you accept sex selected abortion as a good and positive thing. I mean as long as there are less women around? Amirite?

 

[parousia70]

Regarding cakes I presume you would be in favour of forcing people to make cakes contrary to their desire.

Here's the thing about cakes, and bakeries...

If you open a bakery, you are benefiting off the public commons to do so, in fact you are DEPENDENT on the public commons, funded by EVERYONE, before you can generate dime #1 in your bakery business... you rely on roads, sidewalks, public utilities, foreign oil brought here on shipping lanes protected by the US Navy, the public education system that provides you with an educated workforce, stable currency, the court system to enforce contracts, the federally insured banking system, police, fire dept, etc...

When you receive these benefits that your bakery is 100% dependent on to even function, benefits that are REQUIRED to be paid for by ALL people, even the gays, you don't then get to say to the gays (or the Blacks, or the Puerto Ricans, or people who you think are too tall, or too short, or wear funny hats)... I'll freely take the benefit from your tax dollars, but I won't provide the product or service to you that I provide to other people I don't find "yucky".

 

[bekkilyn]

The thread itself is about if God objects to abortion. I also think God cares about how we live our lives.

Regarding cakes I presume you would be in favour of forcing people to make cakes contrary to their desire. If freedom is the goal here you can hardly argue that position, as we as the position that an abortion should be acceptable for any reason.

Since abortion isn't in the bible or brought up as even a remotely important issue in the bible, we can't decide on behalf of God whether or not he objects. We can make various guesses concerning the morality of it, but we really can't provide an answer to the OP.

However, the question within the thread to which I was responding had to do with government legislation, and I find it interesting how the very same people who are strongly opposed to violations of their own secular and religious liberties by big government are perfectly fine with it when it comes to issues that solely and entirely affect women.

Mind you I am not a libertarian, nor am I especially concerned with freedom or liberty.

And yet that's the topic of the post to which I was responding.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yet I was responding to your poor and inconsistent position. None us cares about libetertarian freedom yet so many pretend to be liberty at the forefront of this issue.

Now do we have no Christian basis to object to Abortion? We certainly have tradition. Aboritificiants have long been abhorred in the Church' reasoning as has infanticide and child abandonment. I wonder though, why does the parent on your basis of belief have any responsibility to actually look after the child? There's no biblical mandate, only an expectation that parents should look afterthejr children and be honored for it.

 

[SPF]

I think government should have full control over human procreation. No control should be given to the mother to make ANY decisions about it on her own.

Why then after such governing control over procreation should the government give back freedom to the parents to raise the children appropriately? Shouldn't you follow this to its logical conclusion and demand that the government also have full control over how all its citizens until adulthood are cared for?