Originally posted by @romans1009What do you think of stoning a woman (and only the woman) who is guilty of adultery? Do you think that's ok?
What do you think of a couple who aborts female babies in the first trimester because they want a son? Do you think that’s Ok?
What do you think of a couple who aborts female babies in the first trimester because they want a son? Do you think that’s Ok?So they are both wrong?
Originally posted by @suzianne
What do you think of stoning a woman (and only the woman) who is guilty of adultery? Do you think that's ok?
Aborting female babies in the first trimester because a son is wanted, and stoning a woman (and only the woman) who is guilty of adultery?
Both wrong, or only one of them wrong?
Originally posted by @fmfThe compromise is already in place.
So what would you propose as the number of weeks of pregnancy ~ after which abortion should be illegal ~ that you think would be a reasonable compromise in the circumstances?
Roe v. Wade says that it is not unconstitutional for a woman to get an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. It does, however, allow states to decide on limits to abortions in the second and third trimester.
Originally posted by @fmfI'm not going to cast the "first stone" on either of these women. It's not my business.
So they are both wrong?
Aborting female babies in the first trimester because a son is wanted, and stoning a woman (and only the woman) who is guilty of adultery?
Both wrong, or only one of them wrong?
Originally posted by @suzianneDo you believe that Roe vs Wade should be immune from democratic and political - constitutional - consideration and scrutiny, even if deemed necessary or desired by way of democratic mechanisms, amendment or change?
The compromise is already in place.
Roe v. Wade says that it is not unconstitutional for a woman to get an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. It does, however, allow states to decide on limits to abortions in the second and third trimester.
Originally posted by @suzianneIsn't this analogy - or the parallel you seek to draw - a bit of a reach?
I'm not going to cast the "first stone" on either of these women. It's not my business.
A woman having sex and then getting pregnant and taking responsibility for that act and its natural consequence by carrying the foetus full term and giving birth to the baby ~ is to be likened to stoning her to death for adultery?
Originally posted by @fmfIf you're going to judge me for creating an "analogy", or for "drawing a parallel", the least you could do is be sure that that is what I'm doing, instead of lazily assuming that I'm doing something to fulfill your pre-ordained judgement. The two situations are not the same, so I'm not pre-supposing to be "likening" anything to anything. But this is what you do. You pre-judge people you don't like by assuming the most fantastic notions made up only in your own mind. I'm not going to bother telling you that's wrong, because you know it is; you just hope people won't catch on to what you're doing until they've made a snap judgement of their own, based on your created version of what you are falsely presenting as fact.
Isn't this analogy - or the parallel you seek to draw - a bit of a reach?
A woman having sex and then getting pregnant and taking responsibility for that act and its natural consequence by carrying the foetus full term and giving birth to the baby ~ is to be likened to stoning her to death for adultery?
Not playing your reindeer games, sorry.
Originally posted by @suzianneI responded to what you posted that's all.
If you're going to judge me for creating an "analogy", or for "drawing a parallel", the least you could do is be sure that that is what I'm doing, instead of lazily assuming that I'm doing something to fulfill your pre-ordained judgement. The two situations are not the same, so I'm not pre-supposing to be "likening" anything to anything. But this is what ...[text shortened]... d version of what you are falsely presenting as fact.
Not playing your reindeer games, sorry.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @suzianneDo you think abortions should be legal in the third trimester if a woman’s health or life is not at risk? In other words, say a woman had planned to keep the baby and raise the baby with her boyfriend, but, when she was seven months into her pregnancy, she found out her boyfriend was cheating on her and she no longer wanted the baby. Would you be Ok with her aborting the baby in the third trimester based on that reason?
The compromise is already in place.
Roe v. Wade says that it is not unconstitutional for a woman to get an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. It does, however, allow states to decide on limits to abortions in the second and third trimester.
Any thoughts on when life begins?
Former President Ronald Reagan said he was pro-life because he wasn’t sure when life began and decided to err on the side of caution. Is that so unreasonable?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @suzianneBy using that “cast the first stone” phrase for gender-based abortion, you’re implying the couple who does that is sinning. I’d definitely agree with you on that implication.
I'm not going to cast the "first stone" on either of these women. It's not my business.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
An interesting blog from Rick Lowery, Ph.D.
'Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. Injuries to the woman prompt the normal penalties for harming another human being: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Killing the woman is murder, a capital crime.
The miscarriage is treated differently, however — as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it’s not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is.
My impression is that most Americans have a more nuanced and conservative view than the Bible does on this, though we’re getting at the same idea: an important moral and legal line is crossed when the fetus can survive outside the womb.
For the Bible, that’s when a child is born and starts breathing. For many of us today, it’s when a fetus becomes “viable” — somewhere between 21 and 27 weeks into the pregnancy, thanks to our amazing medical technology.
If something goes wrong late in the pregnancy and the fetus dies, we call it “still birth” and, by law, issue a death certificate.
If the pregnancy ends early on, we call it “miscarriage.” It’s traumatic, a terrible loss, but most of us think of it differently than we think of a still birth. We don’t require death certificates for miscarriages.
Recognizing this difference, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade created the “trimester” system to sort through the legal implications of the constitutional “right to privacy” they said we all have as Americans.
The justices ruled that the early and late stages of pregnancy are morally and legally distinct.
Early on, in the “first trimester,” the embryo undeniably is human life, but it’s not “a human being” in the normal sense of the term. At this stage of pregnancy, a woman’s right to privacy trumps any responsibility the state might have to protect the embryo by interfering with the woman’s decision to terminate the pregnancy.
Late in the pregnancy, certainly by the “third trimester,” however, the child has reached a stage of development that changes its moral and legal status. To protect the rights of the viable fetus, states can put serious limits on a woman’s right to abortion, though they must continue to respect her right to self-defense, to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life or prevent serious injury.
In the ambiguous middle of the pregnancy, the “second trimester,” the state has to balance the right to life of the unborn with the right to privacy of the woman, a balance that continues to tip toward the fetus as the pregnancy progresses. In this stage, our constantly improving medical technology plays an important role in the moral-legal equation.
Roe doesn’t require “abortion on demand” until the moment of birth. Rather, abortion is illegal in most states once the fetus is viable (normally 24 weeks into the pregnancy), unless it’s necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent serious physical or mental harm.
I think the moral reasoning of Roe and subsequent Supreme Court decisions reflects what many of us actually think: the moral status of the fetus changes over the course of the pregnancy.'
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeHere are the verses from Exodus. Not sure how Lowery draws his conclusion.
An interesting blog from Rick Lowery, Ph.D.
'Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. Injuries to the woman prompt the normal penalties for harming another human being: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. K ...[text shortened]... y of us actually think: the moral status of the fetus changes over the course of the pregnancy.'
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
(Exodus 21:22-25)
Originally posted by @fmfI think a reasonable compromise is banning third-trimester abortions, except in cases involving rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.
How many weeks would be a reasonable compromise?
Currently science indicates that the fetus has developed both a mind (rudimentary consciousness) and the ability to suffer going into the third trimester. I believe that is the point it should get the right to life (again, with exceptions as noted above).
This is the best compromise I can see between letting a woman govern her own body as much as possible, yet not allowing an innocent human person to have their life snuffed out.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemUp to 26 weeks is OK?
I think a reasonable compromise is banning third-trimester abortions,
No way.
I believe 20 weeks is practical and ethical.
Prem babies have survived at 24 weeks.