Are they Pro-life Christians or just Pro-birth Christians?

[NatMorton]

Yeah and I gave one reason why it wont fly. So...feel free to admit that it is most likely that fetal rights will not supersede women's rights in that balancing or present an argument (examples) why it's not.

That depends on the law in the given jurisdiction, which you should know.

Good. Then I really want to see what you feel would work in the balancing test...like in the examples you'll provide.

That is not my purpose here.

Skip the runaround please, put up or...?

I've made no claim or assertion other than a legal definition of human life being the salient point in the abortion debate.

Now, it's clear you want to have an abortion policy debate with me, but you're going to have to keep on wanting.

 

[Lursa]

That depends on the law in the given jurisdiction, which you should know.


That is not my purpose here.


I've made no claim or assertion other than a legal definition of human life being the salient point in the abortion debate.

Now, it's clear you want to have an abortion policy debate with me, but you're going to have to keep on wanting.

Nope...you brought up fetal personhood legislation. Paint that legal picture...or admit you cant.

 

[NatMorton]

Nope...you brought up fetal personhood legislation. Paint that legal picture...or admit you cant.

We've had this debate before, as you well know. There are states that have established legal personhood for the fetus. In those states, fetal life trumps the woman's right to privacy. If you want to be reminded of those discussions, search for posts with "Human Life Protection Act" authored by me. I won't be repeating those arguments here.

 

[Lursa]

We've had this debate before, as you well know. There are states that have established legal personhood for the fetus. In those states, fetal life trumps the woman's right to privacy. If you want to be reminded of those discussions, search for posts with "Human Life Protection Act" authored by me. I won't be repeating those arguments here.

None of that has been tested in federal court, so pretty meaningless so far. And women can still kill their own unborn or go to another state to have them killed, so that is NOT the same legal rights protection that born Homo sapiens have as persons under the Constitution. Even in AL there's no criminal charge for the woman.

And you wrote "It's about coming to agreement on what is and what is not a working defintion of human life (with basic human rights)." A state doesnt need to do that. Dont lie to backpedal.

Come on, put up or...? Paint that legal picture...or admit you cant.

 

[Gordy327]

We don’t need to because you just acknowledged I’m right. When the “balancing test” is done, someone loses the battle of whose right wins.

Since a fetus has no rights, it's already lost.

That depends on the law in the given jurisdiction, which you should know

Which laws establish fetal rights?

I've made no claim or assertion other than a legal definition of human life being the salient point in the abortion debate.

"Human life" is not a legal definition. Legality and rights applies to persons, which the unborn do not qualify as.

Now, it's clear you want to have an abortion policy debate with me, but you're going to have to keep on wanting.

You haven't even made an argument as to why abortion should be illegal or restricted even a little.

We've had this debate before, as you well know. There are states that have established legal personhood for the fetus. In those states, fetal life trumps the woman's right to privacy.

False! In certain states, "fetal rights" only apply within the context of abortion. In other words, its nothing more than an excuse to restrict abortion. But no actual rights are legally defined or enumerated for a fetus. And women can still have an abortion without due process, if not in a restrictive state, then in another with less restrictions.

If you want to be reminded of those discussions, search for posts with "Human Life Protection Act" authored by me. I won't be repeating those arguments here.

The Act does not establish fetal rights. Fail!

 

[NatMorton]

None of that has been tested in federal court

If I thought it would do any good, I'd recommend you read a summary of the Dobb's decision.

 

[Lursa]

If I thought it would do any good, I'd recommend you read a summary of the Dobb's decision.

I have and if you had a point, you'd have quoted the section you think matters.

Dobbs does leave it to the states, so then why do you insist there should be "agreement on it?"

If Dobbs considered the unborn persons, it could never have enabled states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn without due process. And yet, it does. Right? Yes or no?

So...what's the "agreement" you are thinking of?

 

[NatMorton]

I have and if you had a point, you'd have quoted the section you think matters.

Dobbs does leave it to the states, so then why do you insist there should be "agreement on it?"

If Dobbs considered the unborn persons, it could never have enabled states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn without due process. And yet, it does. Right? Yes or no?

So...what's the "agreement" you are thinking of?

I haven’t insisted the states agree on a single legal definition of human life and never asserted Dobbs creates a legal definition of human life. You really need to read more carefully.

Where I said agreement I meant within a jurisdiction.

 

[Lursa]

I haven’t insisted the states agree on a single legal definition of human life and never asserted Dobbs creates a legal definition of human life. You really need to read more carefully.

I didnt say you did. I was clarifying and I asked you a question that you still dodged.

Where I said agreement I meant within a jurisdiction.

Like counties within a state? That seems complicated. What kind of "agreements" do the individual states need?

 

[upsideguy]

Today it seems that many Christians who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-birth. It can be seen in how Michael Johnson, who calls himself a Christain, is leading the way in cutting programs that hurt the very people Jesus said we should help, the poor. He like most of the other so called Christian GOPers in our legislature are hell bent on cutting those programs so they can give tax cuts for the very wealthy who have no need of them. And those cuts will lead to hunger and homelessness among the very people Jesus walked with when here on earth. So, I see many Christians who call themselves pro-life as just being pro-birth and as soon as those children are out of the womb, they do not give a shit about them.

I question whether most of them are even Christians.... Far too many "leaders" of the evangelical movement hijacked the Bible, held Jesus hostage, while they turned the "church" into a political movement. They rallied their congregations around the abortion issue, turning them into their useful idiots, as most of whom do not know the Bible themselves, they are very malleable. The abortion issue became the evangelicals Trojan horse, a vehicle to wield political power while enriching themselves.

The Baptist church was pro-choice in the 1970's until these "leaders" learned how they could leverage this into their personal glory.

It is actually all quite sick.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Often, in debate over abortion, I often see the right side use the point that states have the right to determine abortion policies in their arguments.

But if you call yourself pro-life/pro-birth then you shouldn't be supporting that. You should be fighting tooth and nail for a federal policy that bans abortion outright. You should be upset at Trump for being ok for just letting individual states decide.

 

[Lursa]

Often, in debate over abortion, I often see the right side use the point that states have the right to determine abortion policies in their arguments.

But if you call yourself pro-life/pro-birth then you shouldn't be supporting that. You should be fighting tooth and nail for a federal policy that bans abortion outright. You should be upset at Trump for being ok for just letting individual states decide.

And they all have different "acceptable" limits on abortion. If it's murder, it should never be legal except if the mother's life is in immediate danger, right?

But it's all over the place with no explanations, ever. Rape, incest, 6 weeks, 8, 12, 16, 20? They're all arbitrary...no one explains why. At least viability isnt random but they had that during RvW.

This is why IMO they are not truthful when they say that they consider the unborn the same as born people. That's BS and they have no explanations for it.

 

[weaver2]

You have to understand that in Christian thought, the gift of life is God's gift. Without God, there is no Life. Based on that logic, if you abort your child, you are essentially rejecting God's gift, and by extension rejecting God.

But what about after the child is born, you ask? Well, according to Christian thought, life is also God's trial, and so whatever misfortunes that child goes through after birth is also as God wills it.

Just from that reasoning alone, you can see where the anti-abortion stance comes from. It's less to do with the philosophical debate about when life begins and more about them burning in Hell for rejecting their God.

And you think the anti-abortion males that post here and claim women are just aborting for convenience because it interferes with their lifestyle or tell women that the child is punishment for their immorality , or play the aggrieved male that deserves an opt out after they've fathered a child or tell women birth control is their job and then vote to restrict contraceptives and whine about paying child support after they've refused to wear a condom really think their mental processing is as sophisticated and philosophical as you have described?
Bwahahahah!!!

 

[weaver2]

It does seem the left will argue any facet of the abortion debate other than the actual point.

For example, I don't know you. I also think it would be wrong for someone to end your life, yet that concern is in no way less credible because I feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you.

The abortion debate is not about privacy. It's not about social welfare programs. It's not about religion. It's about coming to agreement on what is and what is not a working defintion of human life (with basic human rights). Anything else is noise.

You've made it abundantly clear how much you understand or respect women when you call their efforts to keep abortion legal, safe and accessible is just noise.

For you that argument is about legally defining a fertilized egg a human being. For women the issue is most certainly about privacy, support, a right to manage one's life, access to birth control and the prevention of state control over their pregnancy.

 

[Operative13]

And you think the anti-abortion males that post here and claim women are just aborting for convenience because it interferes with their lifestyle or tell women that the child is punishment for their immorality , or play the aggrieved male that deserves an opt out after they've fathered a child or tell women birth control is their job and then vote to restrict contraceptives and whine about paying child support after they've refused to wear a condom really think their mental processing is as sophisticated and philosophical as you have described?
Bwahahahah!!!

Humans are intelligent. Nothing was ever said about in what way. It is a miracle in itself that we've yet to end our existence over someone's dick-measuring contest.

 

[NatMorton]

I didnt say you did. I was clarifying and I asked you a question that you still dodged.



Like counties within a state? That seems complicated. What kind of "agreements" do the individual states need?

They need law.

 

[NatMorton]

But it's all over the place with no explanations, ever. Rape, incest, 6 weeks, 8, 12, 16, 20? They're all arbitrary...no one explains why. At least viability isnt random but they had that during RvW.

Why is viability less "random" than, say, birth? Or conception? Or brainwave activity? Or a heartbeat?

 

[NatMorton]

You've made it abundantly clear how much you understand or respect women when you call their efforts to keep abortion legal, safe and accessible is just noise.

I respect them enough to tell them what I believe to be the truth. A right to privacy does not trump someone else's right to live, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

For you that argument is about legally defining a fertilized egg a human being. For women the issue is most certainly about privacy, support, a right to manage one's life, access to birth control and the prevention of state control over their pregnancy.

It could be. Or it could be defining human life (with rights) as requiring that a human be born. The point I'm making isn't for a specific definition of human life, no matter how much you wish me to be making such an argument.

 

[Gordy327]

Why is viability less "random" than, say, birth? Or conception? Or brainwave activity? Or a heartbeat?

Viability is medically determined as when a fetus might be capable of survival outside the womb.

I respect them enough to tell them what I believe to be the truth. A right to privacy does not trump someone else's right to live, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Since the unborn do not have rights, the woman's rights are paramount. But your beliefs are your own.

It could be. Or it could be defining human life (with rights) as requiring that a human be born. The point I'm making isn't for a specific definition of human life, no matter how much you wish me to be making such an argument.

Then what is your point?

They need law.

What law would that be?

 

[Lursa]

Why is viability less "random" than, say, birth? Or conception? Or brainwave activity? Or a heartbeat?

Because with her consent, the unborn could be removed from the woman and given to the govt for them to protect/control. So it can achieve the same legal status as the born (birth) where the govt can protect or act on the human without violating the consent or rights of the woman it's inside.

Now you answer the same question please? Are there meaningful distinctions in any of those things you listed or are they all equally arbitrary? It provides a good foundation for moving the debate forward. "Viability, birth, conception, brainwave activity, heartbeat"

 

[Lursa]

They need law.

What happened to the "agreements?"

What law and why? Many states dont.

 

[weaver2]

I respect them enough to tell them what I believe to be the truth. A right to privacy does not trump someone else's right to live, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It could be. Or it could be defining human life (with rights) as requiring that a human be born. The point I'm making isn't for a specific definition of human life, no matter how much you wish me to be making such an argument.

I'm not asking you to give a specific definition of human life I'm asking and why your definition of human life is the truth and the pro-choice beliefs as lies. Some religions support your belief that conception produces a human being with the same rights and privileges as a living, born human person but the law, the Bible, the US Code and the study of embryology supports the pro-choice position.

I've also asked who gave you the right to manage the pregnancies of women to suit your beliefs?

 

[NatMorton]

I'm not asking you to give a specific definition of human life I'm asking and why your definition of human life is the truth and the pro-choice beliefs as lies. Some religions support your belief that conception produces a human being with the same rights and privileges as a living, born human person but the law, the Bible, the US Code and the study of embryology supports the pro-choice position.

I've also asked who gave you the right to manage the pregnancies of women to suit your beliefs?

Several points:

• I never said pro-choice beliefs are a lie.
• I never said I agree human life begins at conception.
• US law no longer supports the classic "pro-choice" position. Dobbs put the issue beyond the scope of federal law.
• For me, the Bible is irrelevant in this discussion.
• Embryology has its place in this discussion to help form a fact base, but it provides no moral guidance to assess what is right (or what does the least harm).
• Lastly, the US Constitution and the MA Constitution both grant me the right to vote, so if I choose to vote for politicians that support abortion laws I agree with, then that is my right.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

 

[Lursa]

Several points:

• I never said pro-choice beliefs are a lie.
• I never said I agree human life begins at conception.
• US law no longer supports the classic "pro-choice" position. Dobbs put the issue beyond the scope of federal law.
• For me, the Bible is irrelevant in this discussion.
• Embryology has its place in this discussion to help form a fact base, but it provides no moral guidance to assess what is right (or what does the least harm).
• Lastly, the US Constitution and the MA Constitution both grant me the right to vote, so if I choose to vote for politicians that support abortion laws I agree with, then that is my right.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Sure, that you know you cant support the position that you hold and so refuse to post it or commit to it. Odd to be afraid to do that on a discussion forum but

Your position is pro-life and you know the only way you can really get that is thru a fetal personhood amendment. I am curious what, if any, restrictions you'd find acceptable within that (or how they'd be possible) but you never let the argument get that far.

 

[NatMorton]

Sure, that you know you cant support the position that you hold and so refuse to post it or commit to it. Odd to be afraid to do that on a discussion forum but

You don't know what position I hold, and I don't share that position because that is what I wish to do.

Your position is pro-life and you know the only way you can really get that is thru a fetal personhood amendment. I am curious what, if any, restrictions you'd find acceptable within that (or how they'd be possible) but you never let the argument get that far.

Do you ever get anything right?

I have, on this site, gone as far to say that I support abortion when the life of the mother is clearly at risk and in cases of rape. But don't worry, you'll forget I said this and ask this rote question in a few month's time, again.