-
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!
Roe v Wade Overturned?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
The Black Whirlwind
Well-Known Member
yes, there is no observable evidence. theres a little thing called faith, and it seems you dont have it.
The Black Whirlwind
Well-Known Member
and yes, i do think it is wrong to destroy anything with life, without a real reason to do so.
ChrisP
Veteran Member
Killing without a need ( and I mean need not want, or want passing itself off as need) is wrong because you just removed someone/thing else's ability to change the world we live in for the better.
Killing for food is an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that carnivorous and omnivorous bodies need meat to maintain health of mind and body. When was the last time you heard of a tiger killing for any reason other than food or self defence.
Killing for food is an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that carnivorous and omnivorous bodies need meat to maintain health of mind and body. When was the last time you heard of a tiger killing for any reason other than food or self defence.
The Black Whirlwind
Well-Known Member
what makes it wrong? for people with free will, murder is taking away someones right to be alive.
scitsofreaky
Active Member
The whole problem with this debate, no matter where it comes up, is that neither side has sufficient evidence. The existence of a "soul" has no evidence, but no evidence against it can exist because it is usually meant as something that goes beyond the physical. And the "evidence" for the existence of a "soul" is usually something along the lines of "I/We know the soul exists, and just because you don't believe doesn't make it so." While the last part is a valid point, this does not prove anything. Laws have to be based on what we all 'know' for sure. This is why I stand by my previous statement, despite any feelings I have about abortion.
You're not being serious I hope 
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
In reply to the originating thread post inquiry, the short answer is that such a SCOTUS ruling would default responsibility back upon individual States to determine legality/availability of reproductive choice to it's respective female citizens.
As such, most of the States with the highest rates of unintended pregnancies (which ironically enough retain the highest numbers of opponents to reproductive rights/choices) will impose their "righteous" might and will upon: the most ignorant; the most poor; the most underprivileged; and most ignored segments of a supposed "free" society. Get unintentionally pregnant in California? No problem. Get a 12 year-old pregnant in Mississippi? Fine. Let's defaultingly force the child to get transported to a "legal" State for an abortion, or otherwise bear the due and righteous "punishment" of her pre-adolescent "sinful" transgressions and predilections by means of State-mandated, imposed, and dutifully enforced criminal statute in bringing a pre-teen's unintended/unwanted fertilized embryo to full term and delivery.
[Just today, on CNN, there was a televised effort to reunite an 18-month-old infant with her (currently) 13[!] year-old mother.
Um, hello?
This means that the "mother" in question was no more than 12 years-old, and probably 11[!!!} years-old at the time of her initial pregnancy/delivery. I'll lay 100 to 1 odds that the missing "mother" is herself the progeny of young parents (or single-parent) living in abject and crushing poverty and ignorance, with neither the means nor financial wherewithal to pursue any options (legal or otherwise) to rightfully and (safely) medically terminate such a conspicuously untimely, untoward, and undesirable circumstance.
Is it really a good idea to criminally enforce pubescent teen girls into motherhood at 11 years of age?
Is it really?
Does anyone really think that criminalizing/prohibiting abortion choice will reduce unwanted pregnancies?
SPARE ME any arguments of "legal adoption" alternatives. Unless or until virtually ALL unwanted children are placed (now) within adoptive homes/families (and NO, "foster homes" are NOT adoptive homes), there is NO compelling or persuasive argument to be lent that any and all unwanted embryos MUST be brought to term and delivery by means of enforceable criminal law. Barring passage of specified federal law that specifically prohibits legalized abortions of any kind, anywhere (a law that would NEVER see passage in both houses of Congress); only the poorest, most ignorant, and most vulnerable would be forced to accept unwanted/unintended pregnancies beyond realistic (and legal) recourse, means, or methods.
IF only...the evangelical Christian opponents of reproductive choice would adopt the Beatitudes from Jesus as precedent over the OT's 10 C's...the meek and poor that hunger and thirst for righteousness might one day find the fulfillment, comfort, and mercy that is often spoken of, but all too infrequently lent on their behalf.]
As such, most of the States with the highest rates of unintended pregnancies (which ironically enough retain the highest numbers of opponents to reproductive rights/choices) will impose their "righteous" might and will upon: the most ignorant; the most poor; the most underprivileged; and most ignored segments of a supposed "free" society. Get unintentionally pregnant in California? No problem. Get a 12 year-old pregnant in Mississippi? Fine. Let's defaultingly force the child to get transported to a "legal" State for an abortion, or otherwise bear the due and righteous "punishment" of her pre-adolescent "sinful" transgressions and predilections by means of State-mandated, imposed, and dutifully enforced criminal statute in bringing a pre-teen's unintended/unwanted fertilized embryo to full term and delivery.
[Just today, on CNN, there was a televised effort to reunite an 18-month-old infant with her (currently) 13[!] year-old mother.
Um, hello?
This means that the "mother" in question was no more than 12 years-old, and probably 11[!!!} years-old at the time of her initial pregnancy/delivery. I'll lay 100 to 1 odds that the missing "mother" is herself the progeny of young parents (or single-parent) living in abject and crushing poverty and ignorance, with neither the means nor financial wherewithal to pursue any options (legal or otherwise) to rightfully and (safely) medically terminate such a conspicuously untimely, untoward, and undesirable circumstance.
Is it really a good idea to criminally enforce pubescent teen girls into motherhood at 11 years of age?
Is it really?
Does anyone really think that criminalizing/prohibiting abortion choice will reduce unwanted pregnancies?
SPARE ME any arguments of "legal adoption" alternatives. Unless or until virtually ALL unwanted children are placed (now) within adoptive homes/families (and NO, "foster homes" are NOT adoptive homes), there is NO compelling or persuasive argument to be lent that any and all unwanted embryos MUST be brought to term and delivery by means of enforceable criminal law. Barring passage of specified federal law that specifically prohibits legalized abortions of any kind, anywhere (a law that would NEVER see passage in both houses of Congress); only the poorest, most ignorant, and most vulnerable would be forced to accept unwanted/unintended pregnancies beyond realistic (and legal) recourse, means, or methods.
IF only...the evangelical Christian opponents of reproductive choice would adopt the Beatitudes from Jesus as precedent over the OT's 10 C's...the meek and poor that hunger and thirst for righteousness might one day find the fulfillment, comfort, and mercy that is often spoken of, but all too infrequently lent on their behalf.]
Excellent observation if true. It might be interesting to hear observations on what, precisely, 'will' is, and when this evolving life form evolves "any kind of will at all, free or otherwise".Flappycat said:
Darkdale
World Leader Pretend
Flappycat said:
They feel pain. They have brain patterns. They have heart beats. What do you want? Have you ever watched a video of an abortion? The children try to save themselves, helpless as they are. I don't have a problem with you saying that it should be legal... but moral? That's just twisted.
Not till the 3rd trimester.Darkdale said:
Fluffy
A fool
I find that this does not distinguish an embryo from the rest of humanity. Similarly I find that this does not distinguish humanity from rocks but there we go.
I am not pro-life I am simply pro-choice (weird I know). The embryo has the same rights as any other human being, in my opinion, but so does the mother. I can think of no way of deciding whose rights should come first so I merely take the practical route. A mother can express her choice whilst an embryo cannot and, therefore, the mother's must take precident.
Having said that, a mother must give a reason for why she wants an abortion. Because she is going on holiday in a few months and doesn't want to cancel is not a good enough reason although this is acceptable under current law. I have not yet decided where the line should be drawn, however.