Kill does not equal murder. It is one thing to kill for self-protection, it is quite another to kill for pleasure...
Aren't you doing the very thing in your absolute definition of kill???
Can we at least stop pretending abortion is "healthcare"? It's birth control, plain and simple.
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
Kill does not equal murder. It is one thing to kill for self-protection, it is quite another to kill for pleasure...
Aren't you doing the very thing in your absolute definition of kill???
Funny, I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge it is a two-way street, and you've had many opportunities...
Shhhh...no one tell this jackass that different sects believe different stuff. Judeo? I've already pointed out one difference with the Jews on...abortion, I'll be damned! Maybe you are one of those Christians that have some...thoughts...on Jews.
Are you trying to score points with the ignored member???
I don't know how many times I can tell you both parties suck....I've done so here many, many times, yet it won't sink in. Perhaps that speaks more about you, eh?
How about don't type about the Bible on mescaline next time Raoul.
Nearly every word you said is wrong.
Nearly every word you said is wrong.
And you are a scorner...
a person who expresses contempt by remarks
Proverbs 21:11
King James Version
11 When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise: and when the wise is instructed, he receiveth knowledge.
No. That's the one I use to make fun of LINOs that go around calling themselves "political scientists." 🤣🤣🤣
Absolutely. It happens to be in the Bible. You should check it out.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
You're a liar....
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Somehow I saw Ignored Member's comment about me> IT was so out there all I could think of is this. Blasted it at 11:31pm and the wife is mad. BUt, I was laughing so hard and what he called me. I can't stop laughing. Oh well on the couch again. Where does he come up with this stuff? Child of Satan. what?
Dio and the Exorcist
Dio and the Exorcist
Last edited:
That somehow happens when you click on the content, you lying idiot trumptard oath breaker child of satan.
I did NOT stutter, you liar.
No that is not how it happens. The last post in a thread shows up, whether the poster is ignored or not...
I did not know that. He's still a lying idiot trumptard oath breaker child of satan.
I have a general question for those who are against abortion, and it won’t offend me either way.
My wife and I struggled to get pregnant for over 5 years. We finally did, and at 16 weeks they noticed our babies kidneys were not fully developing. Over the next two weeks and a telemedicine with Cincinnati, they told us she had potters syndrome and viability outside of then womb was 0%. Her heart rate was great, everything was growing as normal.. but without any amniotic fluid, she was basically gong to run out of room and die in the womb.
Dr Burns did a great job at explaining our options, which were to either have an abortion in the next two days in WV (bc it would still be under the legal age), think about it but if longer than two days we would have to go to PA to a clinic because they could abort two weeks later than we could, or carry this baby until it died in the womb and delivery it at the hospital.
What is the right answer here? Who should get to decided what happens to our baby that was going to die?
We decided to carry her until her heart stopped then deliver, which was a painful 10 weeks after we first found out. And I was anti abortion up until this time, now I just feel like there should be some exclusions.
My wife and I struggled to get pregnant for over 5 years. We finally did, and at 16 weeks they noticed our babies kidneys were not fully developing. Over the next two weeks and a telemedicine with Cincinnati, they told us she had potters syndrome and viability outside of then womb was 0%. Her heart rate was great, everything was growing as normal.. but without any amniotic fluid, she was basically gong to run out of room and die in the womb.
Dr Burns did a great job at explaining our options, which were to either have an abortion in the next two days in WV (bc it would still be under the legal age), think about it but if longer than two days we would have to go to PA to a clinic because they could abort two weeks later than we could, or carry this baby until it died in the womb and delivery it at the hospital.
What is the right answer here? Who should get to decided what happens to our baby that was going to die?
We decided to carry her until her heart stopped then deliver, which was a painful 10 weeks after we first found out. And I was anti abortion up until this time, now I just feel like there should be some exclusions.
Your wife’s case should definitely be an exclusion. I’m just not for it when people are too damn lazy to use protection so they choose to kill a perfectly good baby.
First off, I am deeply sorry that you and your wife had to go through this.
There's no easy answer here. As stated in the OP, there can and should be exceptions where the procedure is medically necessary. Your situation is the exception rather than the norm when it comes to the number of abortions performed in this country.
Abortions for medical need are a hard question, and I am also sorry to hear about y'alls situation. That is heartbreaking.
Part of the problem is I've had three close friends who had false diagnosis of fetal problems that were encouraged, even shamed by one doctor, into having an abortion, who had perfectly healthy children.
www.nbcnews.com
Btw, there is almost no "health of the mother" abortions.
Part of the problem is I've had three close friends who had false diagnosis of fetal problems that were encouraged, even shamed by one doctor, into having an abortion, who had perfectly healthy children.
Prenatal Tests Have High Failure Rate, Triggering Abortions
An investigation found that “likely hundreds” of women are aborting fetuses based on a new generation of prenatal testing with a high failure rate.
www.nbcnews.com
Btw, there is almost no "health of the mother" abortions.
thanks, I think it’s definitely easier to legislatively make a sweeping rule of a certain week gestationally that says no abortions over xx weeks, but when you start adding exemptions by rule and under the advisement of doctors is when everything goes from objective to subjective. Med school isn’t for subjective thought, but if you leave it up to the doctors to determine viability or risk of life to mother, then all of that is subjective and will change from dr to dr. Then you could have misdiagnosis and terminate a perfectly healthy baby.
there will never be an easy answer to this, unfortunately that everyone wins.
Silly me, I paid good money for Marshall University to lie to me, turns out I am actually a CoB graduate.
Now seems like a good idea to revisit my plan for all working people to ante up that $1300 per year payment to pay for all the unwanted pregnancies women are forced to deliver.
Sign up here:....
Sign up here:....
First of all let me say I am sorry to hear of your loss. This is a deep ethical question and i will attempt to give you a simple answer to a complex issue. This is one of those rare, agonizing situations in which there are no simple or easy answers. There are situations that have no easy choice here is one to consider.
The mother is told that if she carries the baby to term such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy she will risk death. This dilemma really involves is a conscious choice between two equally precious lives. If the baby lives, the mother dies, and vice versa. In some situations, such as a tubal ectopic pregnancy, both will die if the pregnancy progresses and no one intervenes. Is it our place to say that this woman – a woman who may be someone else’s mother, wife or daughter – must die in this situation?
I would add a crucial distinction here between therapeutic treatment and abortion: While a preborn baby may not survive treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, the intent and goal is to save the mom’s life, not to end the life of the child. Such action is never done simply to take the preborn child’s life – the same cannot be said for an elective abortion. Indeed, the often-used term “therapeutic abortion” is a misnomer since ending the life of a child is not a therapeutic act and is never, in itself, necessary and sufficient to save the mother’s life.
The ethical principle governing this, and similar cases, is a long-standing one called the principle of double-effect. It is explained in this way: an action which terminates in two effects, one good and one evil, may be undertaken if the action, by its nature, is not evil, and if the good end is primarily intended and the first to be executed, and if the good effect is at least equal to the evil effect, and if the action is necessary and is the least harmful means for attaining the good effect. The excision of the diseased uterus is immediately necessary and is the minimum that is required to save the life of the mother. The good and evil effects are equal in magnitude, since both mother and child, as human beings, have identical rights to life. In such instances there is said to be a conflict of rights, but not a denial of the rights of either party.
As to your question about term this is best decided by consulting with several health care professionals, family and possibly spiritual leaders and even asking for an Ethics consult for additional viewpoints.
I've never tried the stuff.
Every single thing I said is considered right by some sect (I might post in the style of a smartass, but I always research before I start my crap). And they each have versions of you, well educated and of expertise. Someone is right, or wrong, or maybe both are wrong. This isn't to criticize you (I have the highest level of respect for you, as you probably know), it's to criticize lawmaking via theology. It's one reason I am adamant government should be secular.
We in the West have a core set of morals that we generally agree on. After that, it gets weird. Should divorce be legal? Should adultery be a crime? It wasn't long ago that interracial marriage was illegal partially based on religious reasoning. Does life really begin at conception? And there's a ton of legal issues wrapped up in that, not just abortion. I'd say leave it up to science, but science also gets used for bad stuff (hello, eugenics).
There's no common sense. Supporting abortions of choice at the last minute is not common sense. Banning all abortion is not common sense. Throwing out Roe while blabbering about unenumerated rights is not common sense....it's downright alarming if you believe in natural rights.
It's so hilarious watching Leftists disfranchise the Trans for Abortion.
