If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[AV1611VET]

So there's no impact on the fetus if the pregnant woman kills herself, just as there's (supposedly) no impact if the same happens when a child is in a room?

Cute.

 

[SelfSim]

Cute.

Yours is a totally daft argument based on wilfull ignorance of the concerns of women.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yours is a totally daft argument based on wilfull ignorance of the concerns of women.

Secular women, maybe.

But somehow I don't think Christian women have those concerns.

And for the record, if my argument is "totally daft" because it is based on ignorance of the concerns of women; what is it, if it is based on respect to the concerns of God?

In your opinion?

 

[Astrid]

When medicine was a battle wound could be dealt with in 30min by hacking off a limb or you died things were very binary.

I saw a documentary about end of life care, were the choice was 24hours a lucid interaction which passing away the next day or highly medicated and unaware existence for a few months.

This is where science can give real choices and options.
So I do not agree there is no solution. For me that is ignoring care and social responsibility that occurs now in all aspects of social interaction, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Letting young people make decisions alone is not helpful, but equally avoiding education and family support is often not there which makes the whole problem leading up to the situation very predictable.

Well good grief. Of course there can be solutions short of abortion for specific cases.

There is no general solution.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Well good grief. Of course there can be solutions short of abortion for specific cases.

There is no general solution.

I suppose the concern many have is similar to how disabled people with learning difficulties have found themselves in prison accused of terrible crimes, without adequate representation. Any legal system tends to move to the lowest and simplest common denominator.

In the case of abortion, it is ban it all, or allow it all.
Those that complain with the withdrawal of Roe vs Wade, how is it that over 50years the society has still not resolved the issues to bring in agreed law to declare at federal level what can and cannot be done.

All the current protests etc. reflect this lack of agreement and how difficult it is to pass law across the USA. Is there any hope of coming together of people with a reasonable approach?

 

[Astrid]

I suppose the concern many have is similar to how disabled people with learning difficulties have found themselves in prison accused of terrible crimes, without adequate representation. Any legal system tends to move to the lowest and simplest common denominator.

In the case of abortion, it is ban it all, or allow it all.
Those that complain with the withdrawal of Roe vs Wade, how is it that over 50years the society has still not resolved the issues to bring in agreed law to declare at federal level what can and cannot be done.

All the current protests etc. reflect this lack of agreement and how difficult it is to pass law across the USA. Is there any hope of coming together of people with a reasonable approach?

Ban it all or allow it all? What sane person would think that?

IMO the solution lies far in the future in a very different society
where responsible people welcome every child.

 

[SelfSim]

Secular women, maybe.

But somehow I don't think Christian women have those concerns.

Then they would not impacted by a legalised abortion decision because they still have the right to deny one.
That argument is moot.

And for the record, if my argument is "totally daft" because it is based on ignorance of the concerns of women; what is it, if it is based on respect to the concerns of God?

So the 'murder' accusation of yours, is now justified as being totally daft (inconsistent) and we're wading through that deceptive smoke-screen and getting to the core of the matter.

If it is now supposedly based on your 'respect to the concerns of God', (which may also be a deception), then why are you coveting your neighbour's wife's body by forcing her to comply with your religious belief?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then they would not impacted by a legalised abortion decision because they still have the right to deny one.
That argument is moot.

It's the right to GET one, not DENY one, that I'm concerned with.

Not only that, but the failure to consider it murder is just plain wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

It's the right to GET one, not DENY one, that I'm concerned with.

Bigotry and covetousness.

Not only that, but the failure to consider it murder is just plain wrong.

Reintroduction of a deception won't fool anyone.

 

[SelfSim]

Why aren't foetuses baptised?

 

[LightLoveHope]

Ban it all or allow it all? What sane person would think that?

IMO the solution lies far in the future in a very different society
where responsible people welcome every child.

I have heard both the ban it all and the allow it all argued.
But by your definition they must not be sane people.

I would say empathetic people work through a system which encourages some and discourages others.
The main driving ethic is health care for people caught in this dilemma is better for all than back street abortions where women literally died.

I know a community doctor who gave up medicine because they could not cope with the pressure on offering abortions to those that requested it. I know another who worked an STI clinic who helped drug addicts and prostitutes stay clean. I think this summarises the dilemma of getting the law involved in complex personal issues that are deeply contentious and difficult for any of us to see anything but our own perspectives. God bless you

 

[Platte]

I have no problem with someone’s right to their own body. You want to abuse drugs. That’s on you. But no way should a doctor be able to prescribe you drugs for the purpose of you abusing drugs. No way should a doctor be allowed to perform an abortion unless it’s to save the life of the mother.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have no problem with someone’s right to their own body. You want to abuse drugs. That’s on you. But no way should a doctor be able to prescribe you drugs for the purpose of you abusing drugs. No way should a doctor be allowed to perform an abortion unless it’s to save the life of the mother.

That's the ticket. The child's (lack of) well-being is irrelevant, the mother's well-being is irrelevant. But unaffected, comfortable middle-aged man's feelings are assuaged so everything is right with the world.

 

[Platte]

That's the ticket. The child's (lack of) well-being is irrelevant, the mother's well-being is irrelevant. But unaffected, comfortable middle-aged man's feelings are assuaged so everything is right with the world.

I'm not the one who supports killing the child...and I certainly don't think a doctor should be assisting with the madness.

 

[Astrid]

I have heard both the ban it all and the allow it all argued.
But by your definition they must not be sane people.

I would say empathetic people work through a system which encourages some and discourages others.
The main driving ethic is health care for people caught in this dilemma is better for all than back street abortions where women literally died.

I know a community doctor who gave up medicine because they could not cope with the pressure on offering abortions to those that requested it. I know another who worked an STI clinic who helped drug addicts and prostitutes stay clean. I think this summarises the dilemma of getting the law involved in complex personal issues that are deeply contentious and difficult for any of us to see anything but our own perspectives. God bless you

A word game about my choice of an informal use
of "sane" hardly negates my observation that the
absolute dichotomy between "ban all" and "allow all"
is brainless and unrealistic.

That many indulge in brainless behaviour and
beliefs hardly speaks to the quality of sanity.

Both of those extremes would be general rules, as in covering all cases.
I asked if you think there is a general rule ( that would be sane) that you might care to propose.
So far you e not even approached a response.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm not the one who supports killing the child...and I certainly don't think a doctor should be assisting with the madness.

Whoosh!

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not the one who supports killing the child...and I certainly don't think a doctor should be assisting with the madness.

Its not a child, therefore its not a killing.
The well being of a newly born child and its new mother, need to be considered separately from your own desires.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its not a child, therefore its not a killing.

Is it alive?

 

[SelfSim]

Is it alive?

Is what alive? A foetus?

 

[Platte]

Its not a child, therefore its not a killing.
The well being of a newly born child and its new mother, need to be considered separately from your own desires.

You do realize that killing the unborn child is the key element of an abortion. A doctor shouldn’t be involved in the killing of an unborn baby.