Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?

[MedfordMan]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

 

[Natural Citizen]

When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients.

I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.

 

[gtopa1]

Life begins at conception. If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority. If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.

That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.

Birth control is abortion? What about "no"?

Greg

 

[Lakhota]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

Yeah, choice is nice.

 

[Conservative65]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

The left believes you, I, and other taxpayers should be forced to support children we didn't produce. Their argument can be summed up as the woman should have the choice but if she can't afford it, taxpayers that were told to butt out of what she did with her body should be forced to support the result.

 

[Conservative65]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

Yeah, choice is nice.

Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?

 

[Moonglow]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

Yeah, choice is nice.

Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?

Have you gone broke yet?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances. In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

I'm going to say the left has totally abandoned "viability" as the fig leaf it always was, with the advent of state bills proposing abortion up to and even beyond delivery.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

"We can't stop killing babies until you give us money! You'll never be taken seriously by baby-killers you view with disgust anyway!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances. In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.

So what's your position on NY's new law?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think if you support abortion in any way, you're arrogantly deluded to think you have ANYTHING to say to me about morality, much less to think I'm going to listen to you and value your opinion.

At some point, you amoral leftist animals need to abandon the fantasy that people respect you or in any way look to you for approval. YOU need to justify your existence to the rest of us, not hand down lofty pronouncements and condemnations and demand that we justify ourselves to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients.

I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.

Anyone who tells you that the law can't be expected to conform to scientific fact is completely out of his/her mind.

 

[Conservative65]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

Yeah, choice is nice.

Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?

Have you gone broke yet?

Irrelevant.

 

[Lakhota]

We must protect women from pro-birth fanatics! Women come first.

 

[Lakhota]

Pregnant women have rights. Choice is one of them.

 

[keepitreal]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

Yeah, choice is nice.

Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?

Have you gone broke yet?

Have you gone broke yet?

Seriously?

There is no such thing as free,
except to the one getting something for nothing

The only reason people were forced to buy health insurance
is because the government can not keep up paying for it

That’s why programs and funding get cut or eliminated

Here in Chicago, the CPS bought every Catholic school
that closed its doors and added annexes to existing schools,
in addition to building multiple new schools...why?

To handle the influx of Hispanics in the city

That costs money

Where is this money coming from?
New taxes, service fees, property taxes and cuts

That’s what Trump should be talking about...
What immigrants are costing this country

 

[Chuz Life]

I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?

Yeah, choice is nice.

Do you favor choice for all child molesters or only those who molest with abortions?

 

[MedfordMan]

This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances. In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.

So what's your position on NY's new law?

Morally, it is offensive and wrong, under any standard of human behavior, which is ironic as there are numerous threads on this forum where atheists and agnostics argue they are more moral than Christians.

Spiritually, it's clearly ungodly. It's not a unheard of situation to bible believing Christians or their ancestors as the Caananites sacrificed children to Moloch back in Jesus' day, so the Bible does weigh in on the issue of killing children.

Legally, it goes beyond Roe v. Wade and thus it is ripe for challenge. I don't such a law could survive a challenge based upon current legal precedent with the current court.

Ironically, the laws ability to withstand legal challenge is stronger if the precedent represented by Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Politically, it highlights the way those on the left lie to advance their agenda.

During the recent hearing for justice Brett Kavanaugh I kept reading how if the supreme court (with his help) overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion would once again be illegal in the US.

On a more than likely basis, Roe would be overturned on the basis that the constitution simply does not guarantee a woman's right to end the life of an unborn child. This will free each state to write it's own law. Since NY (and other states) already have abortion statutes, in place, abortions can continue there unabated regardless of Roe.

With Roe gone challenging abortions rights will get much more difficult as a Conservative leaning court is unlikely to grant rights to children enabling them to challenge their parents.

Prophetically, it is a sign to me that the end times are at hand.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances. In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.

So what's your position on NY's new law?

Morally, it is offensive and wrong, under any standard of human behavior, which is ironic as there are numerous threads on this forum where atheists and agnostics argue they are more moral than Christians.

Spiritually, it's clearly ungodly. It's not a unheard of situation to bible believing Christians or their ancestors as the Caananites sacrificed children to Moloch back in Jesus' day, so the Bible does weigh in on the issue of killing children.

Legally, it goes beyond Roe v. Wade and thus it is ripe for challenge. I don't such a law could survive a challenge based upon current legal precedent with the current court.

Ironically, the laws ability to withstand legal challenge is stronger if the precedent represented by Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Politically, it highlights the way those on the left lie to advance their agenda.

During the recent hearing for justice Brett Kavanaugh I kept reading how if the supreme court (with his help) overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion would once again be illegal in the US.

On a more than likely basis, Roe would be overturned on the basis that the constitution simply does not guarantee a woman's right to end the life of an unborn child. This will free each state to write it's own law. Since NY (and other states) already have abortion statutes, in place, abortions can continue there unabated regardless of Roe.

With Roe gone challenging abortions rights will get much more difficult as a Conservative leaning court is unlikely to grant rights to children enabling them to challenge their parents.

Prophetically, it is a sign to me that the end times are at hand.

Did I miss anything?

No, I don't think so. That was a very complete, thoughtful, and coherent response. Thank you.

 

[Lakhota]

Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal

Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple

Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.

More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal

Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion. Great for women's rights.