Do You Support A Woman's Right To Choose?

[Concerned American]

You missed the point. God is evidently not that interested in our judicial system.

You missed the point when you tried to hijack the thread and make it about law. The point was made that the OP could find no place in the bible that condemned abortion. That is when I reminded you that there was a commandment for the Lord himself that "Thou shall not Murder." It says nothing about your cockamamie contention of whether man makes it legal or not. Please keep up or let up on the sauce.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You missed the point when you tried to hijack the thread and make it about law. The point was made that the OP could find no place in the bible that condemned abortion. That is when I reminded you that there was a commandment for the Lord himself that "Thou shall not Murder." It says nothing about your cockamamie contention of whether man makes it legal or not. Please keep up or let up on the sauce.

Murder is an unlawful taking of life.

 

[Blues Man]

I respect your opinion

But its the same person at any age with its own unique DNA that never changes

Then you could argue that every cell in your body is a person because it has your DNA.

 

[Faun]

Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Because the MURDER is the planned ending of the life of an innocent, defenseless person it most certainly is MURDER.

Dumbfuck, it's not unlawful.

 

[Faun]

You can twist in the wind and play semantics any way you want, the fact remains, ABORTION IS MURDER. You'll be judged by the only one who really counts soon enough.

You already showed abortion is not murder; so now you're calling yourself an idiot for claiming it is.

 

[Mac-7]

Then you could argue that every cell in your body is a person because it has your DNA.

No, but its the cell of a living human being

 

[Blues Man]

No, but its the cell of a living human being

Semantics.

If a 4 cell embryo is a human being then why isn't every cell with human DNA a human being?

 

[Meriweather]

If a 4 cell embryo is a human being then why isn't every cell with human DNA a human being?

If every cell is left alone to develop naturally, my skin cells would not produce a baby--it produce more skin cells.

If a four-cell embryo is left to develop naturally it produces a human being.

Distinguishing the difference between cells and their purpose is not that difficult.

 

[Blues Man]

If every cell is left alone to develop naturally, my skin cells would not produce a baby--it produce more skin cells.

If a four-cell embryo is left to develop naturally it produces a human being.

Distinguishing the difference between cells and their purpose is not that difficult.

At what point do the cells produce a human being?.

Is it when the nervous system in completely developed? Is it when the lungs are sufficiently developed ? Is it when the baby can survive outside of the womb?

There is along list of things that can prevent a 4 cell embryo from developing into a human being.

My stance is that a 4 cell embryo is a potential human being and you seem to agree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You missed the point. God is evidently not that interested in our judicial system.

No, YOU missed the point, because you're now repeating the point made to you as though you just "brilliantly" came up with it yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, but its the cell of a living human being

For leftists to understand the concept of "organisms", it would require a functioning school system that actually teaches facts, and leftists have worked hard to make that not possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Murder is an unlawful taking of life.

In English terminology, yes. The Bible wasn't written in English, and when God dictated it to the authors, He wasn't concerned about legal definitions of words in a language that didn't even exist at that time.

The word actually used in the Sixth Commandment in the original language is translated into the English word "murder" - or the more vague word "kill" in the incredibly imprecise King James translation - but it in fact has a much more complex and nuanced meaning. In other places in the Bible, it is used specifically to refer to "killing that is inherently evil".

You should also consider that laws and legal definition flow from pre-existing moral standards, not the other way around. And God was speaking to establish the moral standards which men then codified into law.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In English terminology, yes. The Bible wasn't written in English, and when God dictated it to the authors, He wasn't concerned about legal definitions of words in a language that didn't even exist at that time.

The word actually used in the Sixth Commandment in the original language is translated into the English word "murder" - or the more vague word "kill" in the incredibly imprecise King James translation - but it in fact has a much more complex and nuanced meaning. In other places in the Bible, it is used specifically to refer to "killing that is inherently evil".

You should also consider that laws and legal definition flow from pre-existing moral standards, not the other way around. And God was speaking to establish the moral standards which men then codified into law.

All we can concern ourselves with is present day English terminology. What the Bible meant has absolutely on bearing on whether or not women will be able to get an abortion. I really don't care what definition flows from preexisting moral standards. We deal with the law as it is, not established moral standards. I guarantee you that no one either side of the abortion presentations in Congress or any state legislature will be mentioning the nuanced King James Bible.

 

[danielpalos]

...yes. I support women's right to choose to inform me to wear a condom before they insist i put out.

Equality in modern times. It is moral if you do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

[rightnow909]

I suppose you could add a little complexity to the question and say if she's not vaccinated then she could, potentially, do harm to others too if she get's Covid and passes it on - but I'm working on the assumption everyone else (or the majority) will be vaccinated anyway, therefore protected.

no, people are not getting the vax

many refuse no matter what.. We don't even know what's in it.. foods are labeled with everything in them listed... why not the vax? We are being lied to...

(which is not anything new in any case)

 

[rightnow909]

I don't think so.

I think people like you want to pick and choose what a woman can and cannot do with her own body.

it is NOT her body

the baby has a completely different gene combination, a totally unique human being. If she doesn't want a baby, she should think carefully before engaging in unprotected sex.

the time to plan for a baby is BEFORE you have one

murder is murder... You can't change that by talking about "choice"

choice to murder is still choice to murder. A civilized society does not give a person such a choice.

 

[Faun]

it is NOT her body

the baby has a completely different gene combination, a totally unique human being. If she doesn't want a baby, she should think carefully before engaging in unprotected sex.

the time to plan for a baby is BEFORE you have one

murder is murder... You can't change that by talking about "choice"

choice to murder is still choice to murder. A civilized society does not give a person such a choice.

True, it's not her body. Doesn't mean you can force her to carry it against her will.

 

[JoeB131]

If every cell is left alone to develop naturally, my skin cells would not produce a baby--it produce more skin cells.

If a four-cell embryo is left to develop naturally it produces a human being.

Distinguishing the difference between cells and their purpose is not that difficult.

Except half of fertilized zygotes never attach to the Uterine Wall...

Of those that do, 15 percent end in miscarriage. 18% end in abortion.

So of all the four cell embryos that you think your Imaginary Sky Pixie has given life to (and presumably souls), 66% of them never become "babies". They become bloody smears in tampons or medical waste containers.

And frankly, this is progress. For most of human history, child mortality was something like 50%. (By contrast, it's 0.6% now in the US, which has a terrible number for an industrialized country, because Conservatives don't give a **** about poor kids when they aren't in fetus form).

People didn't get terribly attached to their children because you never knew when they were going to die. While we have "Gender Reveal" parties today... the big deal in Victorian times was to have a "Breeching" party. That's when your boy lived long enough where you could buy him pants instead of just recycling girls dresses.
So here's a crazy idea. How about we all just mind our own ******* business about what women do with their own bodies.

 

[JoeB131]

it is NOT her body

the baby has a completely different gene combination, a totally unique human being. If she doesn't want a baby, she should think carefully before engaging in unprotected sex.

the time to plan for a baby is BEFORE you have one

murder is murder... You can't change that by talking about "choice"

choice to murder is still choice to murder. A civilized society does not give a person such a choice.

As stated above, 63% of "Different gene combinations" never become babies...

Even when Abortion was "illegal" (kind of like prostitution is illegal now, but you can still find a hooker if you want one) women were never arrested for having them and providers were only prosecuted if they fucked up and injured the patient.

The kind of police state you would need to make an abortion ban meaningful isn't one most of us would want to live in.

 

[Meriweather]

about what women do with their own bodies.

Your argument seems to be since not all babies survive, the ones who dare to survive still have no right to life unless their mother says so. What you are saying is since natural abortion occurs, it is right to force its occurrence. However, is it right to conclude since adults are killed, it is right to force its occurrence--or does that only apply to babies.

The unborn cannot speak for themselves and some greatly resent that some speak up in their behalf.

By the way, no need to mock baby boys in "girls" dresses. Elastic, zippers, snaps were not invented roughly until the mid 1800s, so gowns were the most practical way to dress a baby whose diapers needed frequent changing. (No Pampers in those days, either.)