• 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!

An Interesting Thing About The Missouri Abortion Bill

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Or? C, so deeply brainwashed into the CONservitive Meme that women are merely property of men.
Not a single conservative woman I know thinks that they are a man's property, and not a single conservative man I know would allege that their wives, sisters, female friends, etc. are their property. I'm sure there are some fringe crazies who believe this, but you cannot honestly tell me with a straight face that you believe this is the normative conservative position.

You know. Just as the bible describes them. Women, according to the bible, are not permitted to give permission about their own bodies-- that is the sole propriety of their OWNERS. Their fathers or brothers or uncles-- who ever owns them.
Show me anywhere in the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament where this is the case.

I'll be waiting.

Except that they are not "just as informed"-- else the'd be in favor of giving women control over their own bodies.

Instead of making them body slaves to men, and men's "sacred" sperms.

Because Every Sperm Is Sacred. Right?
Oh, come off it. Just because many pro-choice people don't view the unborn child as a human being doesn't mean that all women agree with that statement. Pro-life people take the biological perspective that the unborn child is a human, period, and they maintain that every living human being is entitled to the same legal rights and protections under the law as newborns. including protections against being murdered. I find it quite telling that proposed abortion laws are starting to be floated that would allow for infanticide in case an unwanted baby manages to escape the womb alive despite doctors' best efforts to kill it before it has the chance to see the light of day.

For pro-life people, it has never been about "controlling women's bodies", and this old, tired tripe needs to stop. It has always been about protecting the life of the unborn child. Just ask anybody in the pro-life crowd why they are pro-life. Or heck, ask any pro-life person in this thread.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Not a single conservative woman I know thinks that they are a man's property, and not a single conservative man I know would allege that their wives, sisters, female friends, etc. are their property. I'm sure there are some fringe crazies who believe this, but you cannot honestly tell me with a straight face that you believe this is the normative conservative position..

Would you like examples in pop culture? Or would you prefer biblical references instead?

Take the CONservitive movement known as Quiverfull. That's a fine example of women-as-property.

Then there are the countless examples in Evangelical TV where women are told to submit to their owners--erm-- "husbands".

And all that men are "Head Of Household, Lord And Master" from the bible.

All of that language? Is husbands own their wives, and daughters.


Oh, come off it. Just because many pro-choice people don't view the unborn child as a human being doesn't mean that all women agree with that statement. .

Fetuses are not human beings-- not yet. No more than a human liver is a human being, or human sperm or human ova are humans.

They contain the potential-- but the fact is? Most fertilized human eggs die on their own-- with no intervention on the part of anyone.


Pro-life people take the biological perspective that the unborn child is a human, .

Based on? What? Feelings? Wishes? The bible?

Because even the bible does not agree with them-- it clearly says that First Breath is the beginning of life.
... period, and they maintain that every living human being is entitled to the same legal rights ...

Unless? She is PREGNANT-- then she is relegated to a BODY SLAVE OF THE PRECIOUS FETUS.

The pregnant woman has NO RIGHTS OF ANY WORTH.

For pro-life people, it has never been about "controlling women's bodies", and this old, tired tripe needs to stop. It has always been about protecting the life of the unborn child. Just ask anybody in the pro-life crowd why they are pro-life. Or heck, ask any pro-life person in this thread.

It is old and tired because it is the most accurate representation of so-called "pro life" crowd.

PROOF: NONE OF THE ANTI-ABORTION LAWS HAVE PROVISION FOR DOCTOR CARE OF THE FORCED BIRTH, NOR FOR THE FORCED NEWBORN UNWANTED CHILD.

NONE.


That proves to 100%? ALL THEY REALLY WANT IS TO PUNISH WOMEN FOR ENJOYING SEX.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Would you like examples in pop culture? Or would you prefer biblical references instead?

Take the CONservitive movement known as Quiverfull. That's a fine example of women-as-property
Right, a few thousand or maybe a few tens of thousands, AKA a fringe few who up until you name-dropped them I had never even heard of. And I've studied the entire 2000-year history of Christianity extensively. Now compare that to the millions upon millions of pro-lifers from every (non-)religious and ethnic background in this country.

Then there are the countless examples in Evangelical TV where women are told to submit to their owners--erm-- "husbands".

And all that men are "Head Of Household, Lord And Master" from the bible.

All of that language? Is husbands own their wives, and daughters.
And by the same token, husbands are to serve and honor their wives, as Christ gives Himself for and honors His Church. Both husband and wife engage in mutual self-giving in Christianity, and the husband is to love his wife as he loves himself.

Fetuses are not human beings-- not yet. No more than a human liver is a human being, or human sperm or human ova are humans.
The difference between an unborn child and an organ or cell that belongs to another human is that an unborn child is its own entity. It engages in its own biological processes, even if it does rely on the mother for sustenance and a safe place to grow. They are, by definition, living human beings, and not just a part of the woman's body. They check off every box on the list of a living creature--engage in metabolic processes, adapt and react to their environment, maintain a state of homeostasis, grow and develop, and are composed of cells.

Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia

Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&ved=2ahUKEwjAp52mpqbiAhUEnKwKHagVBsYQFjARegQICBAC&url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/134403/Bogin%20%26%20Smith_2000_Evolution%20of%20the%20Human%20Life%20Cycle%20rd.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&usg=AOvVaw2ezEQcXII3q1E_wHjN8NYG Start reading on page 519 and work your way down.

They contain the potential-- but the fact is? Most fertilized human eggs die on their own-- with no intervention on the part of anyone.
Yes, miscarriages happen, and the resultant loss of human life is tragic. Hence why mothers are devastated when they figure out that they've miscarried at any stage in pregnancy.

Based on? What? Feelings? Wishes? The bible?
Mainstream and well-accepted science which I've linked to above.

Because even the bible does not agree with them-- it clearly says that First Breath is the beginning of life.
Psalm 139:13-16.

Unless? She is PREGNANT-- then she is relegated to a BODY SLAVE OF THE PRECIOUS FETUS.

The pregnant woman has NO RIGHTS OF ANY WORTH.
And yet we don't cry and moan when we don't let parents beat their children or throw them out on the street or prevent them from going to school or refuse them medical care or do drugs around them.

It is old and tired because it is the most accurate representation of so-called "pro life" crowd.

PROOF: NONE OF THE ANTI-ABORTION LAWS HAVE PROVISION FOR DOCTOR CARE OF THE FORCED BIRTH, NOR FOR THE FORCED NEWBORN UNWANTED CHILD.

NONE.
That's because the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics state that doctors are always to do their utmost to preserve life and serve all patients. You don't need to pass laws that tell doctors to do something they already do--provide neonatal care. As has already been pointed out in this thread or another, parents are free to give the child up upon birth in the hospital if they so choose; there are laws governing this.

That proves to 100%? ALL THEY REALLY WANT IS TO PUNISH WOMEN FOR ENJOYING SEX.
Ahh, now we've gotten to the rub. It's all about consequence-free sex. You're right, we do need to allow easier access to non-abortifacient contraceptives if people can't afford it, and we do need to have better sex education; my school was great in that regard. But we also need to teach both young men and young women to have sex responsibly and to exercise discernment and self-discipline in their sex lives. "Free love" causes more problems than it solves (and it doesn't really solve that many problems if we're honest), and the skyrocketing rates of single motherhood in this country and dads who fly the coop and refuse to take responsibility for the child they fathered are appalling.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
In the news....
Missouri House approves near-total abortion ban, sends it to governor for signature


If they really do believe that abortion is murder, & that it deserves a life
sentence, I wonder about the justification for punishing only one party to
the "murder", ie, the doctor. The mother's role as perpetrator is fundamental.
Anyone agree with this exemption?
I suppose to perpetuate the role of women as victims? I bet the state has some way around this. They always do.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Ahh, now we've gotten to the rub. It's all about consequence-free sex. You're right, we do need to allow easier access to non-abortifacient contraceptives if people can't afford it, and we do need to have better sex education; my school was great in that regard. But we also need to teach both young men and young women to have sex responsibly and to exercise discernment and self-discipline in their sex lives. "Free love" causes more problems than it solves (and it doesn't really solve that many problems if we're honest), and the skyrocketing rates of single motherhood in this country and dads who fly the coop and refuse to take responsibility for the child they fathered are appalling.
Most of the "Free love" folks are past reproductive age now. Many are in retirement homes now, and have brought their lifestyle with them.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Do you have a source for that claim?
Did you hear about the whole fiasco concerning Governor Ralph Northam's comments on the proposed Virginia abortion bill? You can find the video all over the internet.

And supposedly, the new New York abortion bill repealed a section of New York law which mandates that all babies who survive an abortion are required to be cared for and treated if they manage to make it out of the womb alive. I'm working on trying to find a hard source for that.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
They are, by definition, living human beings, and not just a part of the woman's body.
They more closely resemble parasites.

par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
  1. 1.
    an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
Just remove the "another species" part.

parasite
noun
par·a·site | \ ˈper-ə-ˌsīt , ˈpa-rə-\
Definition of parasite


3: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
And supposedly, the new New York abortion bill repealed a section of New York law which mandates that all babies who survive an abortion are required to be cared for and treated if they manage to make it out of the womb alive.
Which would still be required by other parts of the legal code. So there really is no change.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Yeah, you asked for sources, I gave them. It's not hard to click a couple links to Pew, Gallup and Wikipedia, is it?
If it's too hard for you to post some excerpts to support your argument, why do you think I should bother?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
In view of the multiple challenges to Roe v Wade, by the Christian Right, I think there is an opportunity to eliminate the need for abortion clinics and abortion doctors.

I can see someone starting a pharmaceutical company. Seed money would be provided by a massive fundraising campaign. The purpose, the only purpose, of this company would be the development of a safe, effective abortifacient. A pill that would be effective even on a six-month fetus.
 
Top