Oklahoma -- where abortion is now illegal even BEFORE you are pregnant!

[Kenny]

It's a serious question. Why not rejoice over all those babies go to Heaven and will not risk losing that? For is that not a good thing?

So, just wipe off 2 billion people so that they can go the Heaven? Or when you baptism people, just hold them under the water for 10 minutes so that they can go to Heaven?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, just wipe off 2 billion people so that they can go the Heaven? Or when you baptism people, just hold them under the water for 10 minutes so that they can go to Heaven?

Well, if you let them grow up, some of them will go to Hell, but you save them all if you kill them all. Think of all the souls you save for the price of one, you.
It is called a paradox for a reason or if you like reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, just wipe off 2 billion people so that they can go the Heaven? Or when you baptism people, just hold them under the water for 10 minutes so that they can go to Heaven?

Take #2.

Honest. To me with reading some Christian theologians only 3rd trimester fetuses have souls. I know you speak for the Christian Faith. You don't and neither do I. We speak as individuals and I will call you out when you claim you can speak for The Christian Faith for all of us.

 

[Kenny]

Take #2.

Honest. To me with reading some Christian theologians only 3rd trimester fetuses have souls. I know you speak for the Christian Faith. You don't and neither do I. We speak as individuals and I will call you out when you claim you can speak for The Christian Faith for all of us.

Yes, obviously I don't speak for all Christianity. It is too big and varied to put it in one small box.

However, I can safely say it is mainstream Christianity that I speak of.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, obviously I don't speak for all Christianity. It is too big and varied to put it in one small box.

However, I can safely say it is mainstream Christianity that I speak of.

In your country properly. I doubt that you with your politics as grounded in your version of Christian Faith would find much in common with a left leaning European Christian.

 

[HonestJoe]

No, I posted this once. But the actual bill says terminate pregnancy not fertilization. So this thread is mostly arguing a strawman.

It does define "unborn child" on the basis of fertilisation though so the statement is technically true. That's what makes the exception for contraception and emergency contraception strictly necessary after all. There is a potential complication in that "emergency contraception" itself doesn't appear to be defined.

I'd suggest that this is just more evidence that trying to formally legislate this kind of thing in such strict technical detail is problematic.

 

[Kenny]

In your country properly. I doubt that you with your politics as grounded in your version of Christian Faith would find much in common with a left leaning European Christian.

I disagree...

We would both believe that Jesus died, resurrected and is seated at the right hand of the Father and would take communion together.

My politics is the Kingdom of Heaven, everything else is of lesser importance

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree...

We would both believe that Jesus died, resurrected and is seated at the right hand of the Father and would take communion together.

My politics is the Kingdom of Heaven, everything else is of lesser importance

No, not as I remember at least one thread where you gave input. That was politics for the everyday world and not just the after life.

 

[Kenny]

No, not as I remember at least one thread where you gave input. That was politics for the everyday world and not just the after life.

I disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree.

Well, yes. But it was about health care and you had one subjective view of it and I have another.
In historical terms in Denmark when we went from Catholic to Protestant the health care went from the Church to the King. It is just another tradition,
You are the product of one subculture in the world and I am the product of another, but we both in the end use God. We just do it differently.

 

[Kenny]

Well, yes. But it was about health care and you had one subjective view of it and I have another.
In historical terms in Denmark when we went from Catholic to Protestant the health care went from the Church to the King. It is just another tradition,
You are the product of one subculture in the world and I am the product of another, but we both in the end use God. We just do it differently.

And just what is my health care position? (physical)
And what is my spiritual health care position?

lest you misunderstand.

 

[crossfire]

It does define "unborn child" on the basis of fertilisation though so the statement is technically true. That's what makes the exception for contraception and emergency contraception strictly necessary after all. There is a potential complication in that "emergency contraception" itself doesn't appear to be defined.

I'd suggest that this is just more evidence that trying to formally legislate this kind of thing in such strict technical detail is problematic.

Indeed, defining unborn child on the basis of fertilization and then allowing emergency contraception reveals that this law is more about controlling women than it is about protecting the unborn.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When do they argue that another human exists? And what do you make of my questions anyway?

They define an unborn child as from fertilization to birth. This is a little confusing because they say you cannot terminate any pregnancy then say contraception and emergency contraception is ok. All medical definitions of pregnancy are from fertilization to birth. It seems like they are trying to say you can prevent implantation but not terminate a pregnancy after implantation because that seems to be the implication of the wording.

If this is true, then I think your argument is not relevant because this law is trying to stop terminating after implantation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It does define "unborn child" on the basis of fertilisation though so the statement is technically true. That's what makes the exception for contraception and emergency contraception strictly necessary after all. There is a potential complication in that "emergency contraception" itself doesn't appear to be defined.

How would you define it? The WHO defines it as:

Emergency contraception refers to methods of contraception that can be used to prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse. These are recommended for use within 5 days but are more effective the sooner they are used after the act of intercourse.

Emergency contraception

I agree a definition in the bill would be good.

I'd suggest that this is just more evidence that trying to formally legislate this kind of thing in such strict technical detail is problematic.

That is with most laws. It is not a good reason to try to stop abortions.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

They define an unborn child as from fertilization to birth. This is a little confusing because they say you cannot terminate any pregnancy then say contraception and emergency contraception is ok.

It doesn't seem coherent

 

[crossfire]

They define an unborn child as from fertilization to birth. This is a little confusing because they say you cannot terminate any pregnancy then say contraception and emergency contraception is ok. All medical definitions of pregnancy are from fertilization to birth. It seems like they are trying to say you can prevent implantation but not terminate a pregnancy after implantation because that seems to be the implication of the wording.

If this is true, then I think your argument is not relevant because this law is trying to stop terminating after implantation.

Actually, the medical definition of pregnancy is when a blastocyte implants in a host. If you use in vitro fertilization to create blastocytes, no one is pregnant. Pregnancy only occurs when a blastocyte successfully implants. You need a "who" (person/host) for a pregnancy to occur, as pregnancy is a medical condition experienced by an individual person.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This is not legal until Roe v Wade is overturned, of course. But that seems to be a technicality at this point.

Oddly Texas women were going to Oklahoma in recent months to get abortion services, now that is over.

This is how Republicans make themselves less and less appealing to the average voter. As voters reject the GOP the Republicans will have to find more and more unethical ways to affect election outcomes in their favor.

Yes, the Religious Right says it's normal for there to be a falling away, yet they feel the need to go to extreme measures to win. They should accept the attrition of their party and religion.

 

[HonestJoe]

How would you define it?

It doesn't matter how we define it, the key unknown would be how future courts define it. There could be concern of companies and medical professionals being reluctant to provide contraception (normal or emergency) in fear of legal issues under this law, especially if there are any new drugs or methods developed for that purpose in the future.

It is not a good reason to try to stop abortions.

I agree. I hope you didn't think I was defending this legislation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Actually, the medical definition of pregnancy is when a blastocyte implants in a host. If you use in vitro fertilization to create blastocytes, no one is pregnant. Pregnancy only occurs when a blastocyte successfully implants. You need a "who" (person/host) for a pregnancy to occur, as pregnancy is a medical condition experienced by an individual person.

Well, other medical definitions have a different definition of pregnancy. They should have defined it in the bill. It seems they do mean after implantation you cannot terminate the pregnancy due to contraceptives being allowed.

pregnancies

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, just wipe off 2 billion people so that they can go the Heaven? Or when you baptism people, just hold them under the water for 10 minutes so that they can go to Heaven?

That's not answering my question. Why not look to the silver lining in abortion in at least those souls go to Heaven and will never risk losing that?