Jump to content
Kiyoat Husker

Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

What is your belief about Abortion Law in the USA?  

56 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TheSker said:

So each country determines if an act is illegal, such as murder or theft?

Could you just skip to the gotcha thing you have to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LumberJackSker said:

Could you just skip to the gotcha thing you have to say

There is no "gotcha thing".  I'm interested in where the morality baseline comes from....so I'm asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LumberJackSker said:

I don't think being religious is a bad thing and I've seen it do great things for people. I guess the only problem i have is when it comes to issues like abortion or even gay marriage it seems like people try to force their views on people. 

 

I get your point, and to that point, I don't like or intend to force anyone's beliefs. I certainly would hate for any of the gay folks I know to be killed or jailed simply for their life-styles like they are in other parts of the world. Personally, as far as anyone who has had or conducted an abortion (at least at the level that current laws require), I'm ready to forgive them for what I see as a crime against God and society. However, it'd be awesome if they all admitted that chopping up a baby in the womb is in fact ending a life, and then ended the practice.

 

I'm curious though since you mentioned forcing beliefs... What constitutes forcing a belief to you? When RoevWade/abortion is taught in elementary schools (at least going by the school books) as generally a "good" thing, would you constitute that as forcing beliefs? It's certainly not wanted by all parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oade said:

 

I get your point, and to that point, I don't like or intend to force anyone's beliefs. I certainly would hate for any of the gay folks I know to be killed or jailed simply for their life-styles like they are in other parts of the world. Personally, as far as anyone who has had or conducted an abortion (at least at the level that current laws require), I'm ready to forgive them for what I see as a crime against God and society. However, it'd be awesome if they all admitted that chopping up a baby in the womb is in fact ending a life, and then ended the practice.

 

I'm curious though since you mentioned forcing beliefs... What constitutes forcing a belief to you? When RoevWade/abortion is taught in elementary schools (at least going by the school books) as generally a "good" thing, would you constitute that as forcing beliefs? It's certainly not wanted by all parents.

Thats a good question i don't remember it being framed like that when i was in school. If it was a public school i guess i would just want the curriculum to cover the facts like what the law covers and not for the teacher to paint it one way or the other. 

I'm honestly not sure how its covered at a Catholic school or any school with a religious affiliation.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

Morality and religion aren't the same thing. Criminal laws/punishment on the things you listed are based largely on whether one persons actions directly hurt another, and to what extent. Some of them may resemble things that are said in the bible, but the founders were opposed to making laws based on it. 

As far as abortion, the belief that life begins at conception is based off peoples religious views , not science, and many of those people want to force that belief on others by banning all abortion. I don't think that's right.  

 

The idea that life doesn't begin at conception is also not based on science. So the idea that life does not start at conception is based on what? Morality?

 

That's the real challenge of the argument is being able to prove it one way or another scientifically undeniably, and I'm looking forward to that day!.... But in the mean time, I'd simply be glad for a few concessions from abortionists. Because right now we're trending in the direction of abortion up to the moment of birth like in NY, the moment of conception is barely in the conversation anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LumberJackSker said:

Thats a good question i don't remember it being framed like that when i was in school. If it was a public school i guess i would just want the curriculum to cover the facts like what the law covers and not for the teacher to paint it one way or the other. 

I'm honestly not sure how its covered at a Catholic school or any school with a religious affiliation.

 

Just to clarify, "Good" is probably the wrong way to say what I mean entirely. It wasn't presented as "good" when I learned it (not that I can remember anyway), but it was presented in the name of "progress, women's rights, civil rights, and ending back alley abortions" - all of which I hope we can all agree are "good" things in spirit and intentions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Oade said:

 

The idea that life doesn't begin at conception is also not based on science. So the idea that life does not start at conception is based on what? Morality?

 

That's the real challenge of the argument is being able to prove it one way or another scientifically undeniably, and I'm looking forward to that day!.... But in the mean time, I'd simply be glad for a few concessions from abortionists. Because right now we're trending in the direction of abortion up to the moment of birth like in NY, the moment of conception is barely in the conversation anymore.

"life" is the word that the whole argument hangs on . At some point in the pregnancy a microscopic sperm and egg combination becomes a separate, self sustaining entity we call a human being, and killing it should be considered murder. I don't think that point is in the early amoeba stages, and neither do most scientists, but i damn sure wouldn't support abortion up til birth. Fighting for either extreme is not a good solution to me , that's why i said i think setting a federal fetus viability date and make laws according to that.  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Oade said:

 

Riiight. Not being charged for abortion (or murder, or assault, or anything) after killing an unborn child, is appropriate here. You make a good point, lol.

 

If this man had killed two adults, he'd be charged with two murders.... This man killed one adult, and one unborn child (at an age children can live outside of the womb no less, not that it really matters), but is then only charged for the crimes against the adult. This is good, justified, and the charges fit the crime, how?

You're moving the goal posts. You were originally upset that NY changed it's laws such that the guy who killed a pregnant woman had the abortion charge dropped. If NY laws were not changed, the guy still wouldn't have been charged with two murders.

 

4 hours ago, Oade said:

 

The idea that life doesn't begin at conception is also not based on science. So the idea that life does not start at conception is based on what? Morality?

 

That's the real challenge of the argument is being able to prove it one way or another scientifically undeniably, and I'm looking forward to that day!.... But in the mean time, I'd simply be glad for a few concessions from abortionists. Because right now we're trending in the direction of abortion up to the moment of birth like in NY, the moment of conception is barely in the conversation anymore.

Nobody is arguing life doesn't begin at conception. In fact both the sperm and the egg are living cells prior to conception, and the embryo is also alive after conception. Science has long ago proven that.

 

And the abortion law in NY has late-term restrictions, here's what it actually says:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You're moving the goal posts. You were originally upset that NY changed it's laws such that the guy who killed a pregnant woman had the abortion charge dropped. If NY laws were not changed, the guy still wouldn't have been charged with two murders.

 

Nobody is arguing life doesn't begin at conception. In fact both the sperm and the egg are living cells prior to conception, and the embryo is also alive after conception. Science has long ago proven that.

 

And the abortion law in NY has late-term restrictions, here's what it actually says:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

 

No, I haven't moved any goal posts, but there are certainly multiple issues at play here.... My original post that you responded to was pointing out that a father had killed his pregnant GF and (wanted)unborn child, but will only be charged for the murder of one of those two humans. The only thing I said in regards to that murder are that the man should be held accountable for his crimes, that is a flaw in the system that has resulted from not respecting and acknowledging that child as a human life before birth.

 

So at what point do these lives deserve constitutional protections? Or do they at all?

 

At what point is the second bolded part not true or just to you (because that is why its being debated)? What health condition would require an abortion for sake of saving the mother's life or health (esp in the third trimester)? Do you understand how an abortion is preformed logistically (esp late-term abortions)? You should go watch an abortion being preformed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oade said:

 

 

Some abortion logistics:

 

The “No Life-Saving Abortions” Lie, and Why It Persists

 

Tough questions — and answers — on ‘late-term’ abortions, the law and the women who get them

Quote

 

But I read in a tweet that there are no medical reasons affecting a pregnant woman that would require a later abortion rather than delivery …


[Dr. Omar] Hamada, an obstetrician-gynecologist and theologian who has spoken out against abortion on Christian radio stations and Fox News, was echoing an idea expressed by some abortion opponents.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.

Numerous groups that oppose abortion, including the National Right to Life Committee, allow for exceptions when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Many also accept it in cases of incest or rape.

Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

Ok? So At what point do you draw the line?

 

At that late of a stage, regardless of fetus viability, a delivery is necessary. It's not as if the child is just re absorbed into the mothers body. A delivery of some sort is required. However, it is not required to end the child's life before deliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oade said:

 

Ok? So At what point do you draw the line?

 

At that late of a stage, regardless of fetus viability, a delivery is necessary. It's not as if the child is just re absorbed into the mothers body. A delivery of some sort is required. However, it is not required to end the child's life before deliver.

Read the links I posted because that's not true. Here's from the second link:

Quote

Jennifer Gunter, obstetrician and gynecologist practicing in California, offered this scenario on her blog: “A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Oade said:

 

No, I haven't moved any goal posts, but there are certainly multiple issues at play here.... My original post that you responded to was pointing out that a father had killed his pregnant GF and (wanted)unborn child, but will only be charged for the murder of one of those two humans. The only thing I said in regards to that murder are that the man should be held accountable for his crimes, that is a flaw in the system that has resulted from not respecting and acknowledging that child as a human life before birth.

 

So at what point do these lives deserve constitutional protections? Or do they at all?

 

At what point is the second bolded part not true or just to you (because that is why its being debated)? What health condition would require an abortion for sake of saving the mother's life or health (esp in the third trimester)? Do you understand how an abortion is preformed logistically (esp late-term abortions)? You should go watch an abortion being preformed.

 

There are a number of health issues that require a trained physician to make a decision on the risk to the mother, and the child.  Sometimes these are identified early on in pregnancy, other times (RARELY) they are determined late, or happen late due to an accident or issue.

 

My question (I was super active and involved early on in this thread and have been away so I may have missed some intricacies in the debate posts) is do you trust the judgement of a physician?  

 

It seems that many pro life advocates struggle with the scientific expert analysis provided by the people who have trained extensively in this very topic (pediatrics, OB/Gyn, medicine, medical ethics etc) unless it aligns to their beliefs.  So the debate becomes one of your belief and opinion and faith vs. experience, science and data.  

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×