InChrist
Free4ever
Killing is not necessarily equivalent with murder. God is the giver of physical life and He alone has the right to determine when to end it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There's no such thing as the "war on women"
- Thread starter Dirty Penguin
- Start date
Killing is not necessarily equivalent with murder. God is the giver of physical life and He alone has the right to determine when to end it.
InChrist
Free4ever
Yes, it feels good to agree. Thanks for the lesson.
Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.Romans 12:17-18
Kalidas
Well-Known Member
And yet don't most Christians believe in free will? So God sees the future and decided to allow the end of a childs life because of this knowledge? I only ask because my son is one of these children that was never given the chance to live out his life. When my fiance went into labor there was no Heart beat, I still remember the words. I don't recall God giving me a choice in the matter. So either there is freewill and I want my son back god damn it! Or God is in ultamte control and he killed my son, you decide.
InChrist
Free4ever
I am very sorry about the loss of your son. I definitely don't have all the answers about a heartbreaking situation like you've experienced. Many things happen in this life that we have no control over. I don't think freewill means we have the freedom to dictate every circumstance in our lives or others.
I believe God is in control and for some reason He knew it was best to bring your son to heaven immediately. Maybe for your son's sake, your sake, or your fiance's sake. But like I said I don't really know why. Yet I trust God had good a good reason and if you seek an answer from Him you would have more hope of getting one from Him than from me.
Kalidas
Well-Known Member
Just to be sure out understand I am not mad at toy or anyone for that matter. Just wanted to know your response. I already pretty much have an answer nut understand I do not have a monotheistic view of God such as you do
dust1n
Zindīq
Fair enough. Gods kills babies; righteous. Woman kills fetus; immoral.
I think we found agreement, finally.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
He's not required to match his personal views with the information that you've posted, Heather.
He doesn't have to. And he's provided practical reasons as to why the actual point of viability isn't of greatest concern to him, given his views on the subject.
It doesn't have to. And Roe vs. Wade yielded a legal opinion that that the point of viability is 24 weeks onward. We know that babies have survived outside the womb earlier than this. With the increase in technology, since 1973, premies have a better chance at survival, if born prior to 28 weeks. The 22 week premie just might have a chance and that chance might increase in time.
Roe vs. Wade resulted in a balancing act. States have the responsibility to ensure that their laws consider both the health of the mother and the viability of the fetus.
Last edited:
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
You ought to get a better grip on what you are defending if you want to continue defending it. Do you actually think the new restrictions he is proposing are reasonable? I don't believe you do. I think sometimes we just get stuck in out of pure stubbornness..
I respect the data that Mystic has provided and feel more comfortable with an extention to 24 weeks, as I'm thinking about those situations where women are faced with troubling decisions regarding not only their health but that of their FETUS. A severe abnormality that is threatening for the fetus, may take time to mull over and deal with.
And if such law didn't allow for those therapeutic abortions for parents who have discovered that their fetus has a severe abnormality, I couldn't support such law.
Fortunately, the majority of such issues are identified in utero prior to 20 weeks gestation, but, that doesn't mean that mother is ready to terminate the pregnancy, if that's the best choice, at 20 weeks. I watched my sister suffer having carried a boy with spina bifida for 19 weeks and then go through a HELLACIOUS abortion, that was supposed to be handled with great care, considering her emotions.
HOWEVER, I totally get what Freethinker is saying and agree with him, from a practical standpoint. A woman who doesn't have a medical reason to abort and is waiting until the 20+ week is a woman that I don't understand. Considering my personal connections with my unborn, while in the womb. I can't help but to think their actions murderous.
I appreciate that, though, in fairness, I don't hold the opinion that he's dumb at all.
He presents a viewpoint that isn't embraced with warm and fuzzies here and I respect the hell out of him for standing firm. I DO AGREE with many of his points and do think that a good deal of women in America would benefit from thinking before doing.
Last edited:
I understand and respect his personal ethics. Where I would contest the stance he's taken is when he wishes to vote for either legislation or justice appointees that share his point of view and wishes to make it an over-reaching restriction. When he says, "I would put women who abort after 20 weeks in prison for life," I must debate the ethics of such a stance.
When you say you see his arguments as practical, I don't see them as practical, but arbitrary and whimsical. Sure, he doesn't have to match his ethics with the data I have provided and dust1n has provided, but it's difficult to refute facts when suggesting when a fetus is viable.
And that's a good thing. :yes:
If technology were to efficiently and compassionately help fetal viability continue to lower the gestational age, I would lower the gestational age in my ethics from abortion to induced labor. Right now, likelihood of survival is roughly 24 weeks as a 50% survival rate. Hence my position on induced labor at 22-24 weeks. If technology is capable of lowering that gestational age under 20 weeks, I would change my position accordingly.
dust1n
Zindīq
What reasons? The only responses I ever got from freethinker regarding restrictions on women week 12-20 were a.) viability, b.) when "consciousness begins" (which I showed is also not possible until 22-24 weeks) and c.) because 12 weeks was enough time for a woman.
I'm not really sure which one of those is practical. They are reasons for his determination, but he is in a debate forum providing these reasons for his position, and if his reasons don't support his position, then they are culpable to criticism. He certainly has the right the believes what he wants, but I don't see why anyone here shouldn't contend with those reasons he provided.
I think he conveyed his thoughts pretty clear, too.
We aren't in disagreement about 20 weeks being reasonable (save the typical exceptions), but freethinker set the date of twelve weeks long ago, and (unless I missed something) has never retracted that statement.
Alceste
Vagabond
I don't think he's dumb. I think he's a smart man with a dumb opinion, which he could easily alter if he were willing to recognize that his reasons for wanting to drastically restrict access to safe abortions after week twelve are all complete nonsense. 1) the fetus is not viable. 2) the fetus is not conscious, and 3) 3 months may not be enough time for some women to even realize they are pregnant, let alone decide whether or not they want to start or enlarge a family. In addition to that, there is no medical way to pinpoint the exact day a woman passes from "totally Ok" to "severely restricted", or from there to "life in the slammer", so his proposal would be completely impossible to put into practice. The specific arbitrary obstacle he wants in place after week twelve (seeing a second doctor who is willing to sign a statement of medical necessity) would create further delays, which is precisely what he claims he wants to avoid.
So it's dumb.
Smart people can easily come up with dumb opinions. All they have to do is ignore all the evidence and not think things through very carefully.
And yeah, he did express himself clearly, but because he is confused about the practicality and viability of his plan, and his reasons for proposing it, his posts are confusing to most of us.
I am so sorry to hear about your sister's horrible, traumatic experience. Thank heavens we don't let people like free thinker decide what the law should say, or she and her doctor might be in prison for life.
Last edited:
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Medical science would disagree.
Passing restrictive laws do not lower the rate of abortion. All it does is make those abortions illegal, unsafe, unsanitary, and deadly. I've posted this before, but I'll do it again here:
Source - The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide
Say we were to take your suggestion and ban abortions everywhere at any time, this suggestion would put a LOT of women at risk ensuring they'd find themselves in unsafe conditions when seeking them out:
That number is down, however, and it's because of the results of utilization of contraceptive use and the stigma surrounding contraception is on the decline, too. Not because of restrictive laws, but because girls and women between the ages of 15 and 44 are becoming more vocal about safe and accessible contraceptive use, and are finding more confidence in vocalizing when they want to become pregnant in the first place.
So, to reduce abortions, restricting women through laws don't work. Comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives work. However, there will always be unintended pregnancies, and statistics show a good number of women will seek out a means to terminate the pregnancy. The vast majority of them in the first 9 weeks.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I wouldn't expect a woman to make a statement like this. Can you not think of a time when an abortion is necessary or is this your final stance? I can think of at least four instances where it would necessary.....:sad:
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
What if the child is going to be born with a horrible disorder and will only have a few years of nothing but agony, misery, and pain to live and experience? What if the mother will die from the pregnancy, and the odds aren't too high for the unborn either?
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
I don't think he's dumb. I think he's a smart man with a dumb opinion, which he could easily alter if he were willing to recognize that his reasons for wanting to drastically restrict access to safe abortions after week twelve are all complete nonsense. 1) the fetus is not viable. 2) the fetus is not conscious, and 3) 3 months may not be enough time for some women to even realize they are pregnant, let alone decide whether or not they want to start or enlarge a family. In addition to that, there is no medical way to pinpoint the exact day a woman passes from "totally Ok" to "severely restricted", or from there to "life in the slammer", so his proposal would be completely impossible to put into practice. The specific arbitrary obstacle he wants in place after week twelve (seeing a second doctor who is willing to sign a statement of medical necessity) would create further delays, which is precisely what he claims he wants to avoid.
So it's dumb.
Smart people can easily come up with dumb opinions. All they have to do is ignore all the evidence and not think things through very carefully.
And yeah, he did express himself clearly, but because he is confused about the practicality and viability of his plan, and his reasons for proposing it, his posts are confusing to most of us.
I am so sorry to hear about your sister's horrible, traumatic experience. Thank heavens we don't let people like free thinker decide what the law should say, or she and her doctor might be in prison for life.
I don't think he has a dumb opinion and if you read this entire thread, you'll find that he really has been misquoted.
You personally, discounted statistical data that he provided to support his opinion, accusing his sources of being biased. Stats are stats, are they not? We aren't forced to interpret them in the same way or accept them. A small percentage of abortions performed in the United Stated are abortions performed after the 20+ week. This is fact.
We're debating over a very small percentage of women.
I have to add, that what amazes me about self-proclaimed feminists is that they tend to want rights for women, but, often undermine the ability of a woman to exercise intelligent and responsible choices. Science and technology works to our advantage as women, if we care to utilize it. First and foremost, we're able to prevent unwanted pregnancy and this is much easier, less costly and far less invasive than battling with the emotions and societal pressures that are associated with an abortion.
Second, we're able to utilize common sense and inexpensive tools to assist us in predicting ovulation. By paying attention to our cycles, we're not only able to detect early pregnancy but a myriad of other problems that an absence of menstruation might suggest. Emergency contraception is available over the counter now to help us more efficiently move past mistakes or to put our mind at ease.
We're able to independently in the privacy of our own homes determine, within days of a missed period as to whether or not we're pregnant. It doesn't cost a dime to pay attention to your own menstrual cycles. We should be doing so anyway as women if we value our health.
There have been women who have had normal cycles and were still pregnant. I know this, but, the majority of these women (that you hear about anyway) aren't part of an abortion statistic. The instances that you hear about, highlight a surprise birth.
I absolutely think it's realistic as hell to determine pregnancy early and make decisions regarding abortion prior to week 20, even if my views on viability differ from Freethinkers - I'm totally with him on the concepts that he's presented in terms of common sense and responsibility.
I don't think that this is going to become law. If it did...it's not going to negately impact my "peer group". We wouldn't be considering abortion after the first trimester anyway, if we would consider it at all. Everyone is either on birth control or are aware enough of their choices, that pregnancy would be detected early enough to end before it blossomed into a 10 week pregnancy, let alone a 20+ week pregnancy. As I explained about my sister, the spina bifida was diagnosed weeks before the abortion. She wasn't pregnant anymore by 20 weeks gestation.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
First of all, in your sister's situation (allegedly week 19), there would have to be a police investigation to establish the exact date of conception. 19 weeks is far too close to freethinker's deadline to take chances, given that her "crime" is supposed to be so serious it warrants life in prison for both your sister and her doctor. Even if the criminal justice system were able to determine that your sister managed to squash her procedure in before the deadline, she world still have to produce an assessment of medical necessity from some other doctor not involved with her abortion in any way. Again, whether that statement was legitimate or adequate would have to be established in criminal court, because we are talking about potentially murdering a child. Or at least free thinker is. Given that it's not really "medically necessary" to murder a child just for having spina bifida, she might have experienced delays obtaining this statement, perhaps having to see multiple doctors, all of whom would be fearful of criminal prosecution for making the wrong judgment and most of whom would surely err on the side of refusing permission for that reason. Any delay caused by having to have her choice rubber stamped by another doctor would have pushed her back over the 20 week mark, at which point she would have had no choice to have the child because her own life was not at risk. Otherwise, into the slammer with her.
I think that's a horrific picture, and I'm awfully surprised you don't have any problem with it given the love for your sister you undoubtedly have.
With regard to his statistic, it's meaningless unless we know what proportion if those procedures were medically necessary, and we don't. We also don't know what proportion occur in the three week gap between the arbitrary twenty week mark and actual fetal viability.Without that information, there's no way to determine whether or not the disputed one percent is a moral outrage or a fairly normal distribution of procedures that terminate life threatening pregnancies or severely sick fetuses with little chance of survival.
Finally, with regard to birth control, it costs money. All of it. Some women don't have it. Also, none of it is 100% effective. With regards to tracking your period, I've already mentioned that mine was never regular. Many women I know do not have regular periods. Not much point marking the calendar when it could be anything from four to seven weeks, is there? Even if there was, who does that? I don't know anybody who even has a calendar to mark. Lol. Pee tests also cost money that some folks don't have. Regardless of how long it ideally takes a woman to realize she's pregnant and make a decision, the law should always err on the side of personal freedom rather than repression.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1
National Abortion Federation: Women Who Have Abortions
There's a good place to start...
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Let me make two points here:
The gestational age of Connor was never in question. It was a planned pregnancy. My sister had been trying for months to get pregnant and KNEW the date that her last period started. She took a pregnancy test shortly after missing her period. If you do so within a week of your last period, you're 4-5 weeks pregnant. Her OBGYN used the date of her last period to calculate a due date. Ultrasound at 6-8 weeks confirmed that there was a living embryo with a normal heart rate. The measurements of the embryo and fundus confirmed my sister's due date and subsequently, gestational age. The next ultrasound at 12 weeks further supports a due date and gestational age by measurement of embryo/fetus and fundus.
Triple screening is usually done between 15-20 weeks gestation. And this, I can see as problematic with such a proposed law. Physicians would be forced to provide screening earlier (15-18 weeks) to allow for results, further ultrasound to explore abnormalities, amniocentis and decision making.
As I stated before, my sister was provided time to go to several specialists and to mull over her decision. The pregnancy was terminated by 20 weeks.
The bill proposes a ban on abortions after 20+ weeks. This translates to a woman not being able to obtain a legal abortion for non-medical reasons at 20+ weeks. To abort, she would have to seek illegal service. The performing practioner would be placed under investigation and there would have to be evidence (ultrasound, medical records,etc.) to verify that an illegal abortion had occurred. The physican would be under fire before the patient.
Sorry sweetpea. We know the abortion laws in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Even if such a ban applied in the commonwealth then, my sister's situation is non applicable, as her situation was deemed therapeutic due to the severity of Connor's defect, the statistics provided for his survival out of the womb and the mental health of my sister.
As it stands, a second trimester abortion is legal in the Commonwealth, if performed in a licensed hospital.
I haven't read freethinker's posts regarding this type of investigation, but, even with this proposed ban, which I doubt will become law...
A patient isn't going to be placed under investigation before an attending physician would, if they were suspect of performing an illegal service, per this ban.
Again, I don't know where the hell you're getting this stuff from. This isn't how it works in the real world and this isn't how things will work, even if such a ban becomes law.
A woman will simply be denied the service, if she's 20+ weeks along in her pregnancy. She'll have to carry her baby to term or seek illegal services.
Any problem with what?
Do you read what people post? I've already told you that I lean towards a ban that is more consistent with fetus viability and would NOT want to deny a woman the right to make these types of decisions.
This is getting ridiculous.
Regardless, it's 1-2% of abortions.
And here we go, making asinine excuses as to why it's not possible for women to be responsible and intelligent with their choices.
I haven't used birth control for over 10 years and haven't had to, because my partner withdrawals and I chart. I'd be okay with a pregnancy. If I wasn't okay with a pregnancy, we would be utilizing a form of contraception.
Charting doesn't cost me a freaking dime. I've been pregnant twice and they were planned pregnancies. I enjoy using my mind and saving my pennies. Sex is enjoyable and it feels damn good knowing my body and being in control.
I've been with two men in the last 13 years. No unwanted pregnancies. My due dates were off by days with both pregnancies.
I suppose you think that an abortion is less expensive than a calendar, contraception and pregnancy tests.
More power to you, sweetness.
Last edited: