FormerFlash said:
J.B.Katz said:
Porteroso said:
D. C. Bear said:
Quote:
The only argument that matters is when a person is a person. I will admit I don't know the answer, but I'm not really interested in whether you think you know or not, because I know nobody has a good argument.
Do you believe that Roe was rightly decided?
The original Roe? No, because at its core the court decided it couldn't figure out the rights of the fetus, so it ignored any potential rights, and went with the known rights of women. Given that this was the right to life, that was highly inappropriate. In effect, ignoring it was the same as saying it doesn't exist for any fetus. Which the opinion said they couldn't decide.
The court should have handed down a decision that said it did not know whether abortion should be legal, except in cases of rape, incest, or medical need. Then, people would have had the power to weigh in on the rights fetuses have in their states, only necessary abortions would be protected at the federal level.
50 years later, we'd be in much better harmony, people having had the time to rebuild their lives in states that align with their beliefs.
The idea that one day, a woman can abort a dying baby that will also kill her, and the next she can't, is pretty awful. But that's what happens when the Supreme Court gives you a right. Any it gives, it can take away.
The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.
A Jewish congregation is challenging Florida's prohibition on abortion in that it violates their freedom of religion, as Jewish religious teaching views life as beginning at birth.
Your arguments are so nonsensical it's mind numbing. First of all, both the baby and the mother have a right to life. The babies right to life supercedes only the mother's right to kill it. Secondly, there are millions of pro-life Americans who aren't catholic or evangelical. Many people just believe killing innocent babies is wrong and they need nothing more than a conscience to tell them so, not religious teaching. The argument obviously isn't religious because you attempted to cite another religion that is arguing the exact opposite point.
And stop jumping directly to rape in every post. It's dishonest and you know it. It's less than 1% of abortions. If you're willing to agree you be in favor of outlawing abortion in 99% of the cases than we can debate the 1%. Until then, we're going to focus on the overwhelming majority of cases.
I suggest you seek counseling for your deep rooted hate of evangelical Christianity. I don't know who hurt you but it is obvious you have some sort of past trauma because you can't help but attack it in every post. Take a break from the internet before you have a coronary.
I was appalled when the Chinese government forced women who became pregnant with a second child against the state's one-child policy to have abortions.
I'm equally appalled that, in many states, women will be forced to act as incubators by the government, even if they have been raped.
I don't believe any government should exercise that level of control over any individual's body.
I don't consider forced birth pro-life. It's pro-fetus, at the expense of women who will die as a result of pregnancy complications, ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages that go untreated because of unscientic "heartbeat bills" that will make medical providers avoid treatment until it's too late. Every pregnancy involves a risk to life.
THAT's immoral, in my view.
I suggest you and many other men on this forum seek counseling for your deep-seated hatred of women, in particular the idea of women having sex outside of marriage and the fact that many of you still privately cherish the belief that women who are raped "asked for it" and that you remain unconcerned about the sexual abuse perpetrated by male religious leaders within your chruches. You might also explore how your utter disinterest in their lives, health and personal agency jives with spreading the love of Jesus. The old trope that Republican interest in children begins at conception and ends when they exit the birth canal is certainly in full view on this thread.
I also, in all seriousness, challenge you to look at the policies in your state that have historically made so many women choose to end a pregnancy because they'll get fired from their job, have other children they'll need to support, and don't have access to healthcare and childcare. I saw one article touting a plan by Marco Rubio and Mike Lee and one of their wildly progressive (/s) proposal involved extended Medicaid for a full 6 months after the woman gives birth. Note that the American College of Pediatricians recommends chldren be exclusively breastfed for 6 months and then transitioned to solids while breastfeeding continues for another six months. And many states, including Texas, never expanded Medicaid under the ACA, resulting in closures of rural hospitals and clinics and lots more deaths from addition to prescription painkillers like Oxycontin pushed by....doctors thanks to the Sackler family. Remember them?
Of course, this wouldn't matter to you and all the other good Christians on this site, since the woman's health and the health of her newborn only factor into your policy positions in that you oppose universal healthcare and other social support.
