Roe vs Wade Overturned

#2,027
#2,027
MG1968 said:
It’s also morally wrong to condemn an unwanted child to a life of abuse and misery. It doesn’t matter if it’s with biological parents/relatives or as an adoptee or foster child. The religious right attempts to occupy a moral high ground here but it can’t. “All life is precious” as long as your tax dollars aren’t being used to help provide a better life.
Click to expand...
Who have you heard express their displeasure with their tax dollars going to help less fortunate children? I’ve never heard that in my life. That would never come from an actual Christian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper, InVOLuntary and UT_Dutchman
#2,028
#2,028
ClearwaterVol said:
Think I'd rather see a federal law on the subject to keep it uniform.
Click to expand...

Yet opinions are not uniform. Forcing uniformity in law where uniformity in opinion doesn’t exist, is how this entire problem was created.

Which is essentially the verbatim opinion of RBG on the matter. That by creating a national standard (which isn’t their job) they only created more division and resentment
 
#2,029
#2,029
ACvol3 said:
Do pro abortion people admit that if something can move on it’s own, it’s alive?
Click to expand...

When it can survive outside the womb is where I draw the line.

Also, pro abortion is such a stupid thing to say. Nobody is pro abortion. There is a majority of people that are prochoice.
 
#2,031
#2,031
Vol8188 said:
Yet opinions are not uniform. Forcing uniformity in law where uniformity in opinion doesn’t exist, is how this entire problem was created.

Which is essentially the verbatim opinion of RBG on the matter. That by creating a national standard (which isn’t their job) they only created more division and resentment
Click to expand...

No, that is not what she said. She said the RVW changed the law too quickly. She would have the same issues with this opinion.
 
#2,032
#2,032
ACvol3 said:
Do pro abortion people admit that if something can move on it’s own, it’s alive?
Click to expand...
I've asked similar in past discussions. Never got an answer which I found to be rooted in logic. There exists criteria to distinguish living and non living things. Those criteria are established, tested, and universally adopted. There also exists a hierarchy of classification of living things which is also an established "gold standard". Lastly, organizational parameters are established for organisms which distinguishes between elements of cells, cells, ....all the way up to a biosphere.
At some point the developing embryo meets every determined classification of a human. I'm afraid it meets those parameters much sooner than would make people comfortable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, InVOLuntary, MemphisVol77 and 1 other person
#2,033
#2,033
ClearwaterVol said:
When it can survive outside the womb is where I draw the line.

Also, pro abortion is such a stupid thing to say. Nobody is pro abortion. There is a majority of people that are prochoice.
Click to expand...
It’s stupid? So you’re not for abortion? Tough to swallow when worded a certain way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#2,034
#2,034
volkyries said:
Just curious what your idea/definition of "on it's own" is?
Click to expand...
Believe the answer was established under the Covid movement of vaccinations to trust science. If the baby is moving on their own or assisted through the mothers body it’s deemed science. And we should trust it.
 
#2,035
#2,035
Rifleman said:
Some in my church would probably point out that I am not a Christian, despite my disagreement.

And as Christ really does belabor the whole forgiveness thing, I do prefer to cast my allegiance with the OG Old Testament God when reading comments on the internet.

View attachment 468237
Click to expand...
I don’t know you but I’m guessing you’re being rejected based on some minor things.
I have major Dogma differences.

-there is no eternal torture for the lost
-there is no trinity only father and son
-the soul isn’t immortal.
Ect.
 
#2,036
#2,036
I am curious... How many on here believe that woman should not be able to have an abortion (in places where it's legal) over the objections of the man?
 
#2,037
#2,037
ClearwaterVol said:
I believe that up to a point the rights of the woman (the realized life) trump that of the fetus. I don't believe that a woman should be required to undergo dangers of pregnancy without her consent.
Click to expand...
Assuming that she wasn't raped, she didn't consent to a potential pregnancy when she had sex?
 
#2,040
#2,040
ClearwaterVol said:
No, that is not what she said. She said the RVW changed the law too quickly. She would have the same issues with this opinion.
Click to expand...

She 100% saw the ruling as creating division and descent. She thought the states were moving in the right direction and should have been permitted to continue to do so. So I don’t disagree that she thought it was too quick (because she thought states were naturally moving that way)

But she also saw the decision it’s self as creating dissent/resentment.
 
#2,043
#2,043
ClearwaterVol said:
When it can survive outside the womb is where I draw the line.

Also, pro abortion is such a stupid thing to say. Nobody is pro abortion. There is a majority of people that are prochoice.
Click to expand...
If isn't a human being, why not? Why is there any sort of aversion to it? Who cares if a woman gets one or not if the entity in question isn't a life that is entitled to rights?

This is another one I've never understood. "I abhor abortion, but support a woman's right to one." If it isn't murder, or it is not the termination of something that is entitled to rights, why exactly do you abhor it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper and InVOLuntary
#2,045
#2,045
05_never_again said:
If isn't a human being, why not? Why is there any sort of aversion to it? Who cares if a woman gets one or not if the entity in question isn't a life that is entitled to rights?
Click to expand...

AT A CERTAIN POINT

I believe the already born deserve greater deference when talking about rights than the unborn.
 
#2,046
#2,046
ClearwaterVol said:
When it can survive outside the womb is where I draw the line.

Also, pro abortion is such a stupid thing to say. Nobody is pro abortion. There is a majority of people that are prochoice.
Click to expand...


I have a 13 month old boy. If we left him alone for 3-4 days he would not be able to survive, should we kill him too?


Is self-sufficiency the measure of a persons worth to live? If so, we got alot of Bernie Bros out there on the chopping block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper, NurseGoodVol and InVOLuntary
#2,048
#2,048
VOLS INC. said:
I have a 13 month old boy. If we left him alone for 3-4 days he would not be able to survive, should we kill him too?


Is self-sufficiency the measure of a persons worth to live? If so, we got alot of Bernie Bros out there on the chopping block.
Click to expand...

No, I would say that you neglected a responsibility that consented to assuming and that neglect led to the death of your child and you belong in prison.

What you want to do is to force a woman against her will to accept a responsibility she does not want. And by so doing you want to expose her to risks she does not consent to assuming.
 
#2,049
#2,049
ClearwaterVol said:
I am curious... How many on here believe that woman should not be able to have an abortion (in places where it's legal) over the objections of the man?
Click to expand...

Good question and I don't have a good answer for you. I think the decision is 100% up to the woman whether to abort or not but part of me thinks the man should be excused from financial support if the woman chooses to have the kid over his objections. I know that is probably not workable and would open a can of worms full of unintended consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, 0nelilreb, MemphisVol77 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top