• 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!

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

Will Oklahoma hold God responsible for failure to implant?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • No

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Oklahoma politicians are bonkers

    Votes: 17 89.5%

  • Total voters
    19

We Never Know

No Slack
Yes, you read that correctly. Oklahoma has just passed a law that defines "human life" as anything from the moment of fertilization.

But pregnancy requires implantation. Medical science knows well that many, many fertilized eggs do not successfully implant, and are thus flushed, and no pregnancy results.

My question is this: is Oklahoma going to hold God accountable for that FAILURE, because failure is indeed what it is, and given that it is outside of the control of any human, can only be in the hands of God? And how will they exact punishment?

How would they know?


In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses. In the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process as well, an embryo may begin to develop but not make it to the blastocyst stage — the first stage at which those cells destined to become the fetus separate from those that will become the placenta. The blastocyst may implant but not grow, or the blastocyst may grow but stop developing before the two week time at which a pregnancy can be detected. The receptivity of the uterus and the health of the embryo are important for the implantation process.


Conception: How It Works | Patient Education | UCSF Health
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
With the Texas-like provisions of anyone being able to sue anyone abetting an abortion, out of fear of a lawsuit, pharmacists will quit dispensing drugs for the aftercare of a miscarriage because they are the same drugs used for a medicinal abortion. Women who don't get aftercare treatment for a miscarriage will face possible future fertility issues. (The number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage are pretty close to the number of pregnancies that end in abortion.)
With the provisions for anyone to file a civil lawsuit in this new Oklahoma law, would any doctor dare administer a D & C to a woman who has had a miscarriage? It's the same procedure as early surgical abortions, and it helps to protect a woman's health and future fertility by cleaning out the old lining (that failed the embroyo) that may lead to infections or worse if they are not cleaned out. With a doctor not being able to release a patient's medical record to defend themselves in a lawsuit, there will probably be quite a few women who develop fertility problems in both Oklahoma and Texas due to a lack of proper medical treatment, or in any other state that enacts similar laws.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
With the provisions for anyone to file a civil lawsuit in this new Oklahoma law, would any doctor dare administer a D & C to a woman who has had a miscarriage? It's the same procedure as early surgical abortions, and it helps to protect a woman's health and future fertility by cleaning out the old lining (that failed the embroyo) that may lead to infections or worse if they are not cleaned out. With a doctor not being able to release a patient's medical record to defend themselves in a lawsuit, there will probably be quite a few women who develop fertility problems in both Oklahoma and Texas due to a lack of proper medical treatment, or in any other state that enacts similar laws.
And just think, citizens can't sue politicians for the laws they pass and impose when it causes harm, but citizens can sue doctors and hospitals if they fear being prosecuted for doing what was once a normal reproductive procedure. So politicians can act with recklessness and not be held legally accountable.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
With the Texas-like provisions of anyone being able to sue anyone abetting an abortion, out of fear of a lawsuit, pharmacists will quit dispensing drugs for the aftercare of a miscarriage because they are the same drugs used for a medicinal abortion. Women who don't get aftercare treatment for a miscarriage will face possible future fertility issues. (The number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage are pretty close to the number of pregnancies that end in abortion.)
What is your evidence for this claim? The law is against terminating a pregnancy not against using any particular drug.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Republicans are taking advantage of the c circumstances of the Supreme Court being packed with right wing judges to pass ideological laws banning abortion access for women.
The court was not packed, the justices were constitutionally confirmed. The deems have shown with Justice Jackson that they will put left wing people on the court as well.

They have made no provisions for pregnancies that are in trouble. They have made no adjustments to social services for the extra burden these laws will cause on their states. It is a catastrophe. It's irresponsible and sloppy and extremist. The vast majority pot citizens want reproductive rights for women. The more Republicans push this eobsolete, 1950's style bans on reproductive rights the less they will appeal to the average citizens.
It seems like your too emotional and not really looking at this logically. Do all idea's from the 1950's need to be withdrawn? Do you think that a woman that gets pregnant has no responsibility whatsoever for their condition?

Most people want abortion with restrictions, not like the bill the senate tried to pass. The dems would win this argument if they would push for abortions with restrictions such as not after 1st trimester.


Fine, they are Christians with conservative Christian morals. If their morals say they don't agree with terminating a fetus then they can not have that procedure done. But these laws are imposing right wing Christian morals onto all women in the USA and that is going backwards as a nation. The USA is a secular nation, not a Christian theocracy as Republicans are trying to impose.
I would say a lot of them are but not all. There are secular prolife people like myself.


Democrats are pushing any such thing. They are allowing their constituents the freedom to make decisions with their doctors about their reproduction. If you don't like it, then mind your own business. It has nothing to do with you.
This is where your side needs to step back and recognize why there are prolife people in the first place. Most of us believe there is another person or potential person involved that cannot talk for themselves that has a right to life that should be protected. It is not that we want to control women or such. You can disagree with that but at least try to see it from our perspective and stop straw manning our position. It has to do with us in the same way if a mother harms their 2 yo child has to do with me. I don't call prochoice people murders because they are not.


They will if they are forced to give birth as republicans demand. Do you think being pregnant and giving birth is a cost effective option for a struggling family The Democrats have vastly more to offer these women than republicans do. If you disagree feel free to tell us what great policies republicans offer women in poverty.
No one is forcing anyone to give birth.


Why would any sane person vote republican? What do republicans offer the average citizen? More tax cuts for the wealthy?
Calling people insane is not a good way to try to convince people you are right. I would recommend you honestly look at why people vote republican over democrat. They are not insane.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
If this is true, then it needs to be addressed. I am sure most prolife people would agree.
I would hope so. Is it really wise to allow any old yahoo who doesn't know jack about reproductive health just start suing people who can't defend themselves because it would involve the disclosure of patients' private medical records? It is the patients who would be injured, and those causing their injury would be financially rewarded for causing such injury! What kind of twisted justice is that?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes, you read that correctly. Oklahoma has just passed a law that defines "human life" as anything from the moment of fertilization.

But pregnancy requires implantation. Medical science knows well that many, many fertilized eggs do not successfully implant, and are thus flushed, and no pregnancy results.

My question is this: is Oklahoma going to hold God accountable for that FAILURE, because failure is indeed what it is, and given that it is outside of the control of any human, can only be in the hands of God? And how will they exact punishment?

Good grief. :facepalm:

How is it illegal to have abortion before even fertilization occur? :emojconfused:

It’s a bit dim-witted...ok, ok, Oklahoma’s lawmakers are just bloody stupid. There I said it. :oops:

Perhaps they should grow some brain cells. :rolleyes:
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Yes, you read that correctly. Oklahoma has just passed a law that defines "human life" as anything from the moment of fertilization.
Do you have a better definition in mind? How would you define human (in the context of the abortion debate)

Any definition of human (in this context) , should imply that it is wrong to kill innocent humans.

But pregnancy requires implantation. Medical science knows well that many, many fertilized eggs do not successfully implant, and are thus flushed, and no pregnancy results.

How do you go from “some fertilized eggs fail to implant”

To therefore fertilized eggs are not human? To therefore it is ok to kill/destroy those eggs?
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Do you have a better definition in mind? How would you define human (in the context of the abortion debate)

Any definition of human (in this context) , should imply that it is wrong to kill innocent humans.

How do you go from “some fertilized eggs fail to implant”

To therefore fertilized eggs are not human? To therefore it is ok to kill/destroy those eggs?
"As many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows they’re pregnant. After they are aware, about 15%-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.

More than 80% of miscarriages happen within the first trimester. Miscarriages are less likely to happen after 20 weeks. When they do, doctors call them late miscarriages." (Source: WebMD)

Given that, I think I could make a perfectly good argument to anyone who calls themselves Christian or believer in God, that God Himself doesn't regard them as human, and feels that there is some reason sufficient to kill/destroy those eggs and fetuses.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
"As many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows they’re pregnant. After they are aware, about 15%-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.

More than 80% of miscarriages happen within the first trimester. Miscarriages are less likely to happen after 20 weeks. When they do, doctors call them late miscarriages." (Source: WebMD)

Given that, I think I could make a perfectly good argument to anyone who calls themselves Christian or believer in God, that God Himself doesn't regard them as human, and feels that there is some reason sufficient to kill/destroy those eggs and fetuses.

Ok so I'll wait for you to formulate that " perfectly good argument "

In ancient rome 30% of borned babies died before the first year / so should we regard them as none human ?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Why do you make a distinction between human on the one side and innocent human on the other?

With innocent I simply mean "not a criminal"
I am just making my premise more modest and less controversial / some people say that it's ok to kill criminals I use the word inocent just to avoid that controversy
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
With innocent I simply mean "not a criminal"
I am just making my premise more modest and less controversial / some people say that it's ok to kill criminals I use the word inocent just to avoid that controversy
Less controversial? For me that is a big warning flag that I might be dealing with a hypocrite who claims to value life but doesn't as soon as it's a person.
Are you such a hypocrite or would you support the notion that it is wrong to kill humans?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Less controversial? For me that is a big warning flag that I might be dealing with a hypocrite who claims to value life but doesn't as soon as it's a person.
Are you such a hypocrite or would you support the notion that it is wrong to kill humans?

you support the notion that it is wrong to kill humans?
Yes I personally do support that notion, but some people don’t, some people think it´s good to kill rappers, murderers etc.

The premise “it´s wrong to kill innocent humans” simply avoids the irrelevant controversy about killing criminals.
 
Top