Which is more evil, bringing a child who will likely have a difficult life into the world, or killing him in the womb denying him even a chance at life?
Fortunately I will never have to make such a decision. Life has many shades of gray, as mentioned before. The woman is the host of the fetus. It is her decision. Bringing an unwanted child into this world is an immoral act.
No I hadn't, so I looked it up. Beare attacked to women forcing the abortion upon them. They did not seek an abortion. Nothing in the testimony shows that Belfort, who was worried she was pregnant by Christopher, had asked for the child to be removed. But in the end the account has nothing to do with the discussion since the entire incident occurred in England, and holds no bearing (no puns intended) on the US. Not really. I made my argument earlier that the OP is incorrect in using the 9th as the basis for abortion being legal and allowed, where the 4th covers the issue outright. The line I responded to was: Which was false as there were no laws that made abortion illegal until the very earliest one in 1821. It might not have been a right, but it was legal and not an uncommon practice among midwives. There is nothing about the 9th with regards to what I responded to. Your response then was: At which point I tore apart the article to show that not one case presented, nor really any part of the ensuing article showed that abortion was illegal. Your response afterwards was: I did concede my license in using the date around the bulk of the laws passing, although I do note now the wording, "then being quick with child". Back then that meant was we mean by viability now, and was considered to be when the child first began moving in her womb. So abortions were still legal prior to that point in gestation. Then you brought up Beare, which has no relevance to the discussion since that was England, not here. Finally you say this: Since my arguments to you were about whether or not abortion was legal prior to 1821, nothing I presented was whether or not the 9th held sway. Red herring on your part. Further, as I pointed out most abortions are chemical/medical in nature, and those are included in what abortion opponents want banned. Again, the surgical aspect becomes a red herring since they are a minority of abortions today. Most surgical abortions are for either saving a woman's life or to rid her of an already dead or terminal offspring, such as the one in Ohio, so as not to allow the woman to be damaged or further damaged with the hope of being able to have future children. Quite honestly, why anyone would not want to save a woman's life and/or womb so that she can have further children, should she so choose, is beyond me. But still, in none of what I have said, have I asserted that the 9th holds sway. So why should I have to show anything towards that since it's not my argument?
Separate issue. If there is deliberate mislabeling for that issue, I'll address it in a thread about that issue.
A subjective value. There are those who hold that it would be more evil to subject a child to such difficulties. Hell, for that matter, there are those who would say that it is better to make women in that condition of life sterile so that such children are not born. Now I find that forced sterilization is as evil as forced pregnancy and forced abortion, but the point remains that there is no one answer to that question.
FoxHasting said: You: ""Rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus should be slam dunks"" Why an exception for rape and incest? A fetus is a fetus. So YOU contend that all fetuses are NOT "innocent life" with rights..... LOL. "leeway" says it's OK to kill what YOU call "innocent life" with rights????LOLOLOL .
There is a Christian answer to that and that's what my moral values are based on. Moral values are objectively and universally true. That has been accepted by philosophers and other learned men since the beginning of time. Morals are not subjective, otherwise they would be called personal preferences. For those who disagree I suggest you start researching Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and C.S. Lewis. Lewis is particularly cogent.
Gee, that's nice but they are not what everyone's morals are based on nor should they be. Baloney...they are as ephemeral as farts in the wind... They don't rule the universe They could be because that's what they are Your rulers don't rule everyone... What do your rulers say about freedom?
There may be, but in case you did not realize, not everyone adhere to that particular faith. They are? Who made them so? SOME philosophers, not all by any stretch. Of course they are. And they are. That is why some people find it immoral to have sex outside marriage for instance and others enjoy it.
If morals are nothing more than each individual's preferences you are very vulnerable in a very big, very cruel world. Good luck.
No, I do not, but clearly you do. Here is a refresher. https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/fem...man reproductive process,pronounced: ZYE-goat). Clearly your mother has not explained to you some things.
This issue is not a black or white question. My point has been if a woman willingly engages in sex she shoulders the risk of pregnancy. That's not the case in rape or incest. Wipe the slumber off your screen and notice I also suggested a 15-20 week cutoff. The point is compromise; devise a system that is acceptable to most citizens.
OK, at that stage it's a human body in development. At what stages is it OK to kill, at stage does it have a right to life? Another individual preference? Two weeks into pregnancy? 6 months, 60 seconds before birth, 1o days after birth, 2 years old, 10 years old, 15 years old? It's the mother's personal preference right? Yes, my mother and father did teach me about human reproduction, they also taught me human life is sacred from conception to the moment of death.
What does that mean in this context and how is it relevant? At the stage where the woman who's organs make that development possible decides to withdraw that possibility, but in more practical terms till it can sustain its own life. It does not have a right to life, just like the rest of us. What is the right to life and where is it defined and enshrined? Yea and clearly you are still at the birds and the bees lesson. You should have taken a biology class. Good for you, live by it and stay the hell out of other people's lives.
Can a newborn sustain it's own life? Does the mother breast feed? Do the parents care for and provide for necessities? By your standards the newborn can survive on it's own, sustain independently by providing for it's own needs. You know, sustain itself. The problem is that pro-life advocates think only of their own convenience, all rights and no responsibilities
Yes a newborn can, having the organs that make that possible. Hopefully yes, as it is the best for infant development. In the absence of that anyone can give the baby a bottle and that has nothing to do with capacity to sustain life, that being a biological function not one of care. I bet that you could not sustain your own life in the context you put it. Hopefully. Neglect is a terrible thing. They are not my standards, It is basic biology. You really should take a class. Hope you are enjoying playing with your strawman. The problem really is that you have no clue what you are talking about.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Gee, that's nice but they are not what everyone's morals are based on nor should they be. "morals"...they are as ephemeral as farts in the wind... They don't rule the universe They could be because that's what they are Your rulers don't rule everyone... UNANSWERED: What do your rulers say about freedom? Then it's a good thing so many , many people besides "Christians" have them It's good that so many people with COMMON SENSE help form laws ...
FoxHasting said: You: ""Rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus should be slam dunks"" Why an exception for rape and incest? A fetus is a fetus. So YOU contend that all fetuses are NOT "innocent life" with rights..... LOL. "leeway" says it's OK to kill what YOU call "innocent life" with rights????LOLOLOL YUP, SHE DOES...not you, not Repubs Bigger Government, SHE does... . So THERE IT IS...women who have consensual sex must be punished ....clear as a bell... And I guess the fetus due to rape is NOT "precious innocent life " as Anti-Choicers claim......what TF makes it different??? Which is what we had for 50 years until control freaks decided that wasn't PUNISHING women enough
Yes, like the Supreme Count in the Dobbs decision. Now the good common sense people of Texas, Mississippi and others get to form the laws. That's a good thing/
FoxHastings said: ↑ Gee, that's nice but they are not what everyone's morals are based on nor should they be. "morals"...they are as ephemeral as farts in the wind... They don't rule the universe They could be because that's what they are Your rulers don't rule everyone... UNANSWERED: What do your rulers say about freedom? UNABLE TO ? Officially ducked and dodged Then it's a good thing so many , many people besides "Christians" have them It's good that so many people with COMMON SENSE help form laws ... Yup, they didn't need morals....they had LAW.....it might be a bad law that tries to deny citizens their rights by incredibly mentally diseased individuals but it's still a law
