Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned?

[98cwitr]

Plus the whole issue of attributing a choice to something without a working brain.

It is a great attempt at emotional manipulation pretending that fetuses are just tiny and cute mini-adults, but applying any sort of actual thought to the subject makes it obvious that there are major differences.

So it would seem, based on this, that you're okay with turning off life support for a person without a DNR. Is that correct?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Put simply, my Church teaches that abortion is a tremendous moral evil. No possible good can come from it, ever, period.

I will never stop calling for a ban to all abortions.

Church doesnt have anything to do with state laws and shouldn't. So what ever is in the bible is a mute point. When it comes to govermwnt laws.

 

[KCfromNC]

So it would seem, based on this, that you're okay with turning off life support for a person without a DNR. Is that correct?

Thanks for a great example of So's law. Not sure how you got here from there - might want to report the bug to Google maps navigation team, though.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

But in saying this, you do presume to have the rights to
a) force every state to abort children on their soil, and
b) allow expectant mothers (and fathers) to be judge, jury and executioner over the life of another.

You have some contradictions to work out if you wish to continue supporting Roe.

Yes. The states has allowed worst thing to happen on their soil. And the fetus remain won't last long.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are beginning to fulfill prophecy...
2 Peter 3:9 NKJV
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Posting examples of people speaking for a conspicuously absent god isn't exactly the best comeback to someone pointing out it is conspicuously absent.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Church doesnt have anything to do with state laws and shouldn't. So what ever is in the bible is a mute point. When it comes to govermwnt laws.

My religion shapes my worldview. My worldview determines the policies I support.

I don’t see why I should abide by a secular worldview because something something muh Constitution or whatever.

 

[98cwitr]

Thanks for a great example of So's law. Not sure how you got here from there - might want to report the bug to Google maps navigation team, though.

I think you mean "Poe's Law?"

And it's not exaggerated. That's what the claim is: To imply that unborn babies don't have "working" brains and therefore it is okay to kill them is parallel and synonymous to having a coma patient that is on life support; if you leave them alone for 9 month they'll be fine, but because they're a burden at this or that time, then it's okay to kill them? Sounds incredibly barbaric to me.

"Plus the whole issue of attributing a choice to something without a working brain."

Babies have a working brain by 12 weeks

"It is a great attempt at emotional manipulation pretending that fetuses are just tiny and cute mini-adults"

Why is the value of an adult so much greater than the value of a child?

"applying any sort of actual thought to the subject makes it obvious that there are major differences."

Enumerate those differences for us; because the most stark that I see is that an unborn baby is innocent of any sin and the adult is most certainly a sinner. So when a sinner advocates the killing of a human who has not had any capacity to sin, we see the fundamental error in such logic.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think you mean "Poe's Law?"

You are incorrect.

And it's not exaggerated. That's what the claim is: To imply that unborn babies don't have "working" brains and therefore it is okay to kill them

Good thing I never implied this. I was simply pointing out the obvious - it was a distraction to ask about the choice of something which can't actually choose anything.

Why is the value of an adult so much greater than the value of a child?

No idea, but we're talking about fetuses, not children so I don't see the relevance.

Enumerate those differences for us

You really need me to list the differences between an 8 week old fetus and an adult human? Things like being able to think, live independently, and so on. I mean, they've been mentioned multiple times in the thread.

because the most stark that I see is that an unborn baby is innocent of any sin and the adult is most certainly a sinner

All you need to do to have this influence public policy decisions is prove sin is real, and that any of these claims you're making about it are in any way backed up by actual evidence.

 

[crossnote]

Posting examples of people speaking for a conspicuously absent god isn't exactly the best comeback to someone pointing out it is conspicuously absent.

Why not if it has already been prophesied to happen?...

2 Peter 3:3-4 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I think you mean "Poe's Law?"

And it's not exaggerated. That's what the claim is: To imply that unborn babies don't have "working" brains and therefore it is okay to kill them is parallel and synonymous to having a coma patient that is on life support; if you leave them alone for 9 month they'll be fine, but because they're a burden at this or that time, then it's okay to kill them? Sounds incredibly barbaric to me.



Babies have a working brain by 12 weeks


Why is the value of an adult so much greater than the value of a child?


Enumerate those differences for us; because the most stark that I see is that an unborn baby is innocent of any sin and the adult is most certainly a sinner. So when a sinner advocates the killing of a human who has not had any capacity to sin, we see the fundamental error in such logic.

Psalm 51:5 and the concept of Original Sin begs to differ with this assessment.

 

[KCfromNC]

Psalm 51:5 and the concept of Original Sin begs to differ with this assessment.

That's the great thing about religious beliefs - everyone gets to make up their own.

And also a good reason to keep them far away from public health policies.

 

[98cwitr]

Psalm 51:5 and the concept of Original Sin begs to differ with this assessment.

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

 

[KCfromNC]

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Yeah, seems to contradict the claims in post 177.

 

[98cwitr]

Yeah, seems to contradict the claims in post 177.

And yet it doesn't. My point is that there no Scriptural basis on calling the unborn sinful; and even if they were, that's no reason to kill them. The unborn are created in the image of God too...and so to advocate for that destruction demonstrates a desire or willingness to destroy that which God has created; not out of self defense, but out of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability. I will let God judge those.

 

[KCfromNC]

but out of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability.

That's a pretty impressive characterization of what has actually been posted so far in this thread.

 

[98cwitr]

That's a pretty impressive characterization of what has actually been posted so far in this thread.

And by far, the majority reason why abortions are performed today; and thus so very applicable.

And to the Psalm; does David's claim speak in the first or third person?

 

[KCfromNC]

And by far, the majority reason why abortions are performed today; and thus so very applicable.

That's an opinion, but you're welcome to it.

And to the Psalm; does David's claim speak in the first or third person?

As I mentioned before, I don't really much one way or the other. People are welcome to read whatever they want into those sorts of texts to back up their opinions. Just keep it out of fact-based public health policy discussions.

 

[durangodawood]

....Second, please give your reasons for voting the way you did.....

I like a 9th amendment right to privacy.

imo the 9th amdmt is rarely taken seriously. But it should be.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

My religion shapes my worldview. My worldview determines the policies I support.

I don’t see why I should abide by a secular worldview because something something muh Constitution or whatever.

Christians are suppose to live their lives the way they live it. And leave secular people allow. And hopefully the government doesn't go back to trying to force their views on secular people. I see right now people are trying to force their ways on us. But it's never worked in the past. And it never will work.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Christians are suppose to live their lives the way they live it.

That doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility anymore. If it ever was. Which I doubt.

And leave secular people allow.

See, here's the thing. All law is somebody's idea of morality etched into legislation and enforced by people armed with guns. There's a loaded gun on the other side of every law.

Since morality is being legislated and since it is being enforced with violence or at least the threat of violence, I think it's fair for me to ask myself what kind of laws my country should have. So I've taken my own side and I support laws which favor my worldview.

If my worldview being legislated into policy steps on the toes of some atheist or secularist, I can rationalize it by acknowledging that they would do (and have done) (and, in fact, are right now actively trying to do) the same thing to me in favor of their worldview. Any twinge of remorse I might feel over that comes down to a genuine lack of any personal grudge on my part against those who have a different opinion. It truly is nothing personal. But I still want my views enshrined into law, thx.

And hopefully the government doesn't go back to trying to force their views on secular people. I see right now people are trying to force their ways on us. But it's never worked in the past. And it never will work.

As I say, laws are ultimately enforced by people who are armed with loaded guns.

I think it can work.