Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die
Joel Send a noteboard - 26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM
Fortunately for her and her four existing children, she told Bishop Romney to take a long walk off a short pier.
Agreed; pity most GOP lawmakers only agree under protest, and some not even then. I love how Rick Berg says he would pass a federal abortion ban with no rape exception as a Senator, but the penalty for violating it would be "left to others." Um, no, that is not how legislating works, and he knows it.
I agree with erring on the side of caution so long as we do not know when a fetus is a child, but since we do not know neither I nor anyone else (especially the state) should dictate that decision to anyone convinced a fetus is or is not a child. It is a judgement call, and judgement calls should be left to individuals we KNOW they affect until/unless we know the also affect others. Give me proof a fetus is a child and I will enthusiastically endorse abortion bans with no exception but saving the mothers life. Believe it or not, that is where my sympathies lie, but my sympathy is no substitute for evidence, much less proof.
Yes, but what if one is instead Mitt Romney?
The only Old or New Testament comment I have seen (though Ex. 21:22 is suggestive) is Toms citation of "thou shalt not kill a child in the womb." That says nothing of when a fetus IS a child in the womb, so it resolves nothing: We know not to kill children, and no one disputes that; the issue is when a fetus becomes a child whose life is sacred.
If your worry is that a mother whose life is in danger will not be able to get an abortion, then in keeping with the rest of our laws and morality, there should be a self defense exception which allows a mother to get an abortion if her own life is in danger.
Agreed; pity most GOP lawmakers only agree under protest, and some not even then. I love how Rick Berg says he would pass a federal abortion ban with no rape exception as a Senator, but the penalty for violating it would be "left to others." Um, no, that is not how legislating works, and he knows it.
But there is some dispute about when the unborn is "a being", so we err on the side of killing them? You can say that you are erring on the side of freedom, but when it comes to taking a life, personal freedom should be, and is, restrained in favor of another's right to life.
We heavily regulate the taking of life. In fact, you generally can only do it in defense of your own life or somebody else's. And even then your actions will be scrutinized to ensure that a killing was indeed in self defense.
This does not rely on any religious argument, but if you would like to take religion into account (assuming a judeo/christian background) then it is beyond simple. God has commanded us not to kill. If we are unsure about the status of babies in the womb then the only reasonable and safe position, morally speaking, is to err on the side of life. I believe that most christians would agree that shedding innocent blood is at or near the top of the worst sins you can commit. Yet we cavalierly allow the killing of the unborn in the mother's womb when at best we are not sure how God views it.
We heavily regulate the taking of life. In fact, you generally can only do it in defense of your own life or somebody else's. And even then your actions will be scrutinized to ensure that a killing was indeed in self defense.
This does not rely on any religious argument, but if you would like to take religion into account (assuming a judeo/christian background) then it is beyond simple. God has commanded us not to kill. If we are unsure about the status of babies in the womb then the only reasonable and safe position, morally speaking, is to err on the side of life. I believe that most christians would agree that shedding innocent blood is at or near the top of the worst sins you can commit. Yet we cavalierly allow the killing of the unborn in the mother's womb when at best we are not sure how God views it.
I agree with erring on the side of caution so long as we do not know when a fetus is a child, but since we do not know neither I nor anyone else (especially the state) should dictate that decision to anyone convinced a fetus is or is not a child. It is a judgement call, and judgement calls should be left to individuals we KNOW they affect until/unless we know the also affect others. Give me proof a fetus is a child and I will enthusiastically endorse abortion bans with no exception but saving the mothers life. Believe it or not, that is where my sympathies lie, but my sympathy is no substitute for evidence, much less proof.
Christians have something else to go on besides just common sense and the pure feeling of wrongness that accompanies the idea of killing the unborn. The early church fathers have spoken out against abortion. What weight do they hold? If you are a trinitarian christian they must hold some weight.
Yes, but what if one is instead Mitt Romney?
The only Old or New Testament comment I have seen (though Ex. 21:22 is suggestive) is Toms citation of "thou shalt not kill a child in the womb." That says nothing of when a fetus IS a child in the womb, so it resolves nothing: We know not to kill children, and no one disputes that; the issue is when a fetus becomes a child whose life is sacred.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
God Distances Self From Christian Right
- 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM
1219 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM
356 Views
Depends on when a fetus is a being, which the GOP contends is "at the moment of fertilization."
- 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM
549 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is....
- 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM
723 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin?
- 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM
584 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but...
- 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM
592 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon.
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
632 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
632 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance.
- 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM
583 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right?
- 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM
513 Views
You're getting rather emphatic.
- 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM
581 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that.
- 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM
566 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this.
- 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM
636 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect
- 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM
641 Views
So we legalize an illegal act because some are willing to harm themselves to do it? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 10:02:37 PM
316 Views
no, we legalize the act so that it can be performed safely without killing both mother *and* child *NM*
- 26/10/2012 11:08:52 PM
330 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no.
- 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM
561 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals
- 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM
585 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive.
- 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM
609 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all...
- 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM
624 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal
- 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM
526 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are.
- 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM
684 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors.
- 27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM
618 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient."
- 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM
528 Views
Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die
- 26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM
535 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child.
- 26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM
527 Views
Fantastic question.
- 26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM
562 Views
No, I would err on the side of caution; have often said as much in just those words.
- 27/10/2012 01:18:19 AM
548 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously.
- 27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM
551 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism
- 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM
628 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative
- 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM
604 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time!
- 26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM
569 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment.
- 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM
528 Views
Or it could mean....
- 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM
583 Views
Having addressed this in response to Legolas in moondogs thread on Mourdock, I will just link that.
- 27/10/2012 01:43:48 AM
591 Views
I agree
- 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM
618 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend.
- 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM
583 Views
There is a logically consistent way; you did not ask for it, so I will be brief.
- 27/10/2012 02:53:09 AM
590 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause.
- 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM
574 Views
God intends everything.
- 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM
660 Views
"Intends" is a big word.
- 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM
604 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM*
- 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM
313 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM*
- 26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM
330 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular.
- 26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM
544 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms. 
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
592 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
592 Views
Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that.
- 27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM
560 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact.
- 27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM
534 Views
Come on, Tom.
- 27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM
532 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well.
- 27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM
595 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM*
- 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM
331 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads.
- 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM
547 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the
- 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM
557 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent?
- 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM
560 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM
329 Views
[citation needed]
- 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM
513 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM
315 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose
- 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM
552 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it.
- 27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM
535 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up.
- 27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM
740 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress?
- 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM
620 Views
amazing
- 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM
664 Views
Women are certainly encouraged to weigh in, but everyone is entitled to thoughts on the matter
- 28/10/2012 02:22:55 PM
540 Views