You don't have to say it. It just sits there like big lump .
Again you don't have to.
That's true. It doesn't. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice advocates are required to change their basic philosophy that abortion should be legal, safe, accessible, private and that women know when is the right time to add a child to the family.
Well, almost all your arguments against women and abortion seem to mirror the Church's philosophy on women, reproduction, abortion, sex and family.
You really don't believe in least harm or that women and families living at or below the poverty line ( that's the 75% of all women who get abortions) know what they are doing when they abort an unplanned pregnancy when the family conditions would be devastated by adding a child or another child to an unstable, emotionally fragile family that knows it cannot care for a child at this time.
Vote for your morality; it trumps the common sense, statistics and poverty of the women and families you vote against and vote for the non-sentient fetuses that will almost certainly face deep poverty and the difficulties, damage, and bad outcomes that come with it. Wrap your sanctimony in the certain knowledge that a few,very few, escape that future and thus validate your vote against legal safe accessible and private abortion. The only explanation for your vote is your statement you "feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you". You should also add or vote for laws that cost you nothing but help women and families needing, respect, clinics, health insurance, counseling and access to abortion when needed.
You are assuming that an embryo or fetus has its own life. My view is: if that's what you think and the woman consents, get it out of the woman's body immediately and prove that its life doesn't depend biologically on hers. If you can't do that, you can't make that claim.
Actually, I remember reading about a case in Texas that really proved this. A woman was happily pregnant with twins until she learned that one twin was fatally deformed and threatening the life of the other, healthy twin and would eventually cause its death and then threaten her own life. But she was way passed the point at which she could get an abortion before six weeks and it wasn't yet seriously threatening her life, so she couldn't get an abortion for that reason. The law had completely ignored the possibility of one twin threatening another, and in order to save the healthy twin fetus, she had to go to Colorado to abort the fatally deformed twin.
The fetus doesn't have rights as a person at the federal level for that reason, and the same reason governs the laws of almost every state. Alabama is an abominable anomaly.
Even Alabama doesn't go full in on fetal personhood. Only as far in enough to restrict abortion but not far enough to establish full personhood & rights.
No, in those states, it is assumed that an embryo or fetus has its own biological life independent of the woman's and it has a right to use her body against her will and without her consent for its own purpose even though it may irreparably injure and disable her.
The states cannot even provide an explanation why they have interest in a woman's gestation or why abortion should be restricted at all. For that matter, neither can anti-abortionists.
This is not Christian thought. It is a particular brand of Christian thought. In Luke, the Holy Spirit doesn't make Mary pregnant until she clearly objectively consents to a particular pregnancy, and throughout the OT and elsewhere in the Gospels, God never takes credit for any other pregnancy where the woman is unmarried and has not prayed to have a child.
If God were responsible for all the trials in life, He'd have to take responsibility for committing acts of permanent injury, rape, theft, and more instead of telling people not to commit them. If He did that, he'd be self-contradictory and thus self-defeating and not eternal. You are simply imposing a faulty human interpretation of the Bible and God on what is higher than your own understanding.
They're spending all their time thinking about controlling somebody else's sex organs. I don't think that sounds very Christian.
I don't think it sounds very rational. It just sounds weird.
That wasn't all that long ago if I remember correctly?
No, that is simply not true.And I just nailed it, didnt I? Look at your response, all I did was forget you accepted it in cases of rape. Otherwise, 100% ban on abortions.
Do you not vote your morality?
You are absolutely correct. A fetus posses no rights under federal law.
I suggest you avoid those states.
You do not know my position on abortion.
That is not my full position on abortion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="64px" width="64px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)