1. This Board Rocks has been moved to a new domain: CarolinaPanthersForum.com

    All member accounts remain the same.

    Most of the content is here, as well. Except that the Preps Forum has been split off to its own board at: http://www.prepsforum.com

    Welcome to the new Carolina Panthers Forum!

    Dismiss Notice

How can you be Christian and be Pro Choice?

Discussion in 'Religion & Spirituality Forum' started by Savio, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,030
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    the question is when that "other party" materializes. your religious book says at conception. the supreme court says it's later (like 3-6 months).
     
  2. The Brain

    The Brain Defiler of Cornflakes

    Posts:
    32,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    Over There ---->
    where is it written that it begins at conception? To accept the kind James version based in an older style of English dialect is a mistake. Being with her in this sixth month could merely mean she was six months pregnant, in no way does this indicate that the embryo had developed to a state that one would assume to be a living being.

    What I find odd is that some people will argue that Life begins at a cellular level, yet they are also generally the same to argue that there is no way that a human could evolve from a a 1 celled organism.
     
  3. slydevl

    slydevl Asshole for the People!

    Age:
    52
    Posts:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Location:
    Madagascar
    How many babies have you seen evolve from just a sperm or just an egg?????
     
  4. Thelt

    Thelt Full Access Member

    Age:
    53
    Posts:
    29,797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Location:
    To the right
    I am not aware of a definitive ruling on when life begins by the supreme court. RvW was based on a woman's right to privacy. While I believe it begins at conception I would certainly welcome a ruling that says it begins in the second trimester. The law we have now certainly allows for the murder of babies that are alive. Partial birth abortion for example certain takes a life. A woman where I work has a grandchild who was born early at only 24 weeks. He was born at 1 pound and 8 ounces. He is alive today and has gained up to about four pounds. It is still iffy but it looks like he will make it. Current law allows babies to be killed at 24 weeks. Certainly once a baby reaches the level of development to be able to live outside its mother then it is "alive" and deserves legal protection.
     
  5. curly

    curly Full Access Member

    Posts:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003

    Read whatever translation you want it will say that Elizabeth conceived a son, not an embryo.


    And for the record I'm not saying that I personnally believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, I'm not sure. But I know that it starts when the fertilized egg implants into the uterus. Having just gone through an IVF treatment with my wife I understand alot more than I used to about how life begins. Once the egg is fertilized and passes through the fallopian tubes into the uterus there is no guarantee that it will implant and if it doesn't it passes on through and out without developing into a pregnancy.
     
  6. Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,030
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    rvw is based on the right to privacy, yes. but the rationale is that it's purely the woman -- there is no other party involved yet -- so she should not be proscribed from having a medical procedure that doesn't affect anybody else and addresses a specific medical need.

    you say you want rvw overturned, but what you really want is the federal government enforcing an abortion ban. for years the republicans have spouted that they want rvw overturned so the decision would be given back to the states. but the decision is pretty much still the states'. they can outlaw abortions that occur past the point of viability. you can't blame rvw for kansas' abortion laws.

    roe v wade clearly states:

    For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
     
  7. Thelt

    Thelt Full Access Member

    Age:
    53
    Posts:
    29,797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Location:
    To the right

    Regardless of whether it is from a supreme court ruling or a state law or whatever there needs to be a change. The idea that you can either save a baby that is 24 weeks into development or you can kill it up to 40 weeks is simply wrong. A clear definition of when life begins and when legal protection is bestowed is what we need. The de facto rule now is that it begins at birth but we need to have a full discourse on the issue and some unbiased science showing when life begins. Certainly almost no one can argue that there are not some innocent lives lost due to our current abortion laws.

    As regards to the state verses federal issue, some things need to be federally mandated. You can not make murder legal in any state, or atleast you should not be able to.
     
  8. Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,030
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    i don't believe the federal gov't can make murder illegal except in certain circumstances (interfering with trade, killing a federal officer, on the high seas, on federal land, etc.) in general, a person killing another person is left to the states to try.

    all states have murder laws, so it's not an issue. but if they didn't -- or if they did and excluded unborn babies explicitly -- are you saying there's a "right to life" in the constitution?
     
  9. Thelt

    Thelt Full Access Member

    Age:
    53
    Posts:
    29,797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Location:
    To the right
    Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
     
  10. Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,030
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    that's the declaration of independence, not the constitution.
     

Share This Page