New law allows doctors to withhold information that may lead to abortions

He was an advocate of abortion.

 

FORCED abortion for some, BANNED abortion for others. That means the government made reproductive decisions for all women, just as you advocate.

 

Cricket just wants protection for the unborn something you don't want. The woman took the risk…she should take responsibility to give that child life.

 

"Protection for the unborn" means forced pregnancy and childbirth. You want "protection for the unborn" at the expense of the woman. We all take risks every day. In no case does taking those risks preclude medical intervention for the consequences.

 

The act of sexual intercourse allows for the natural result known as pregnancy. The term "medical intervention," a code word for "state sponsored and approved execution?"

 

The act of sunbathing allows for the natural result known as skin cancer.

If you can prove that an embryo/fetus has a right to parasitically occupy the body of a woman at the expense of her health and even her life...

 

So if the ends justify the means, would you support people going around and murdering every doctor that perfoms abortions?

I didnt think so.

 

Legal protection for the unborn is fine. I doubt anyone would argue with that.

To me it simply comes down to the right to control your OWN BODY.

The womb belongs to the mother. Not the fetus. It should be the womans right to control the functions goin on within her own body. If she doesnt want a baby in her uterus, then she should have the right to not have a baby in her uterus. Priod. Its really just that simple.

Womans body = her right to control. Otherqwise you are giving more rights to an unborn fetus than you are the mother. Thats simply wrong.

 

So then, is an acorn also an oak tree? I dont think so.

 

I will tell you one thing….its not and its not a human being. You want to talk trees…do to the environmental section of the website.

At conception a new human life starts….it is not an inanimate object. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this. We are not talking acorns but humans lives.

Who is the nut here? LOL

 

So let me understand your position…you are pro-abortion even in the ninth month? yes or no

 

Well that is why you support killing a child in the ninth month….how immoral…how sick.

 

A possibility indeed.

Can we agree that a woman's body is designed to bear children? The womb is paramount to the child's welfare. Could the proof be in the design?

Perhaps your unrecognized beef is with nature's Creator for designing womankind with the physical and emotional structure for motherhood?

 

Dix…I think she is an atheist which might explain everything.

 

Does the design of a woman's body require her to be perpetually pregnant? Is a woman's brain designed to make decisions, including those decisions regarding the use of her own body?

A woman's design doesn't obligate her to motherhood, and some women are unable to bear children, regardless of their design.

 

Yes, just as my brain's designed to make decicions, such as using my own body to murder an innocent life, a decision which should be disallowed.

Which is why they are capable of making the decision to use contraception, or abstain from sex, their choices.

 

I agree.

Or aborting in case of contraception failure, another choice.

 

A choice to be punished by murder charges and prison time, yes.

 

For women in third world countries.

 

No, in progressive European countries, Ireland, Malta, etc.

3rd world primitive cultures such as ancient Sparta promoted abortion and forced abortion/infanticide. Such much for abortion being "progress", it's dark-aged barbarism.

 

Lets not lower ourselves to naturalistic fallacy, or even worse, arguments based on theism.

 

No a deliberate act is needed for pregnancy.

I've always understood that the brain is the body's CPU. But critical thinking is usually an acquired tool.

Well, if we are entrusted with a responsibility that we worked towards (during the reproductive act) or for, wouldn't that obligate us to embrace the conclusion to our choices and see that through? For women who cannot bear children (this happens to all women at some point in their life) pregnancy is most likely not a consideration. But you don't disagree that the female form is designed to carry the developing child for individual bloodlines and humankind's posterity?

 

Not my intent at all. Would rather elevate or at least give props where due. We all know that skyscapers, surgery, computers, air and spacecraft etc. are natural phenomenon and due to evolution...certainly not evidence of creative thinking/critical timing design in any of that, so obviously our presence, the universe and our biosphere just happened too.

Some say that our screen name reveal something about us. Yours is one often associated with disrespect towards God and faith, thank you for such a civil correction. I'm a fan of the First Amendment too. You as I are welcome to practice and comment on our individual faith openly...how blessed we are to be included in the protection of the 1stA.

 

Durp durp durp.

I could just as easily say "Churchmouse must be religious which would explain everything about her views" and provide a basis for understanding her irrationality.

 

I think what she was getting at though, is that arguments based on a theist view of the world are disconnected from the reality we actually live in. There's no common ground here, especially when the discussion is between someone who believes in the bible and someone who does not. In order for a baseline to exist, it has to be irrefutable, based on reality. You can't do that with theoretical religious views.

It doesn't even have to be a religious view of the world, it can be anything theoretical, like Scientology for example.

I just don't see how you argue a question based entirely on the reality we live in(abortion) by using principles and ideas from a completely theoretical belief system based on unverifiable accounts that supposedly occurred thousands of years ago. I can understand and respect a person's belief in a deity and the bible, but I think you have to leave that at the door when you're going to be arguing about something that exists entirely in the tangible real world. Otherwise, it's not unlike me saying we don't need to use gasoline in our cars, we'll power em by prayer and goodness. I'm taking a realistic thing(a car), and trying to extend abstract theoretical ideas to it, and obviously, it doesn't work. Trying to power a car with prayer and goodness will only get you an expensive rather large lawn ornament.