Where would your wife go if you were uninsured and out of work?
|
Where would your wife go if you were uninsured and out of work?
To the J.O. Wyatt Clinic. Don't tell me Amarillo is the only city in the country that doesn't have health care services for the needy without going to PP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Steve,
Yes, it is interesting, but I think I can explain it in this way.
Unless you replace the word "created" with the word "conception" you have not actually stripped away the theology as the author of the article suggests.
The distinction the author is actually making ( although he don't realize this) is based on the distinction that exists when we try to think of people being the production of CONCEPTION or the product of CREATION. It is a false dichotomy to think you can make a ethical judgement for other people based on this distinction.
Tut
I think the whole concept is false Tut, we are a product of creation and we are the result of conception, there is no dichotomy unless you deny the concept of creation. The ethical judgement here is whether the product of a woman's body is entirely her possession and at what point does it cease to be her possession. If you carry the arguments of the abortion debate to their logical conclusion then the mother is entitled to dispatch the child at any point in its life, this is an absurdity and so is the concept that a woman has sole possession of her body after conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
This is no different to the idea perpetrated the other day that God consents to rape because he regards every child as his own. A totally false premise, however conception as a result of rape is still conception, and the child will not be rejected
Hi Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
As you probably know I am in the pro-life camp. I was pointing out there are some people in this world that don't accept we are the product of creation.
These people tend to fall into the scientific camp so they are more than likely prone to justifying the ethics of abortion on a scientific basis. As to whether this is legitimate undertaking is subject of many pages of debate. However, I will stick to a basic outline of the scientific argument. I actually reject the scientific argument, but I understand that many people accept it.
Science would probably want to say that the difference between a fetus and a child in the womb is the difference between being conscious and not conscious.
Science claims to be able to tell us at what point a fetus becomes conscious. In other words, they claim to be able to give us a figure in months. They base this on the neurological development of the brain and spinal cord.
Again, I have problems with this, but I won't go into it. I will try and stick to the scientific explanation.
At six weeks of development there is probably a reasonable argument for claiming that the developing fetus is not conscious. There is not enough neurological development at this stage. On the other hand ,at six months of development one would have great problems in try to convince someone that a fetus isn't conscious. Obviously it is a sentient being from now on.
The problem for science is pinning down the point at which a fetus becomes conscious. Once consciousness is achieved it would be wrong on all counts to try and abort.
Prior to consciousness there is a belief that getting rid of the fetus is not really a significant act. It is acceptable because the fetus feels no pain, it has no experiences, it is not conscious.
We are probably lead to believe this is similar to having a unwanted hair removed from your body. Hair feels no pain. Again, I find something inherently wrong with this type of thinking. However, I am probably no being fair to the other side because I have neglected to mention the significance of the mother in the argument. I accept the argument that the wishes and feeling of the mother need to be taken into account as well.
So Clete, I guess the possibility of the mother deciding the fate of a child at ANY STAGE of development in the womb is not justified on a scientific basis.
Tut
HI Tut I'm glad you finally got to defining the difference between conscious and sentient otherwise your argument would suggest we are less than human when asleep..
The ethical dilemna is whether to take a life under any circumstances is valid.
We seem to be able to make an argument that any of our actions are valid. Situational ethics, and I see the yield to feminism and the abortion debates as nothing more than situation ethics and pure emotionalism.
Instead of teaching children responsibility and morality we teach them emotional rubbish under a thin veneer of scientific reason and some sort of flawed logic. You speak about the feelings of the mother, which feelings are these the fear of a teenage girl or the feelings of guilt carried over a life time, the resententment of the product of a few moments of fun verses what that viable life might have been
Tut, I read an article yesterday there is a movement to give plants rights. I'm sure those same people cannot possibly find a reason to give an unborn child rights, not even a beating heart, fingers and toes. But because plants "communicate" with each other it's time to afford them protections.
A mother can either legally snuff out their child's life in the womb or criminally snuff out the life and throw it into the dumpster on her way home from the birth clinic. The difference between legal abortion and murder could be the difference in days or even hours .
Or point of development.
Most abortions occur within the first trimester, even early in that trimester.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So would you favor a ban on abortions after the 1st trimester ?
No, I would not be so hubristic to tell anyone when she should have an abortion. I wouldn't have had the problem to solve in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So your point that most abortions occure in the 1st trimester is irrelevant to my point that the difference between a legal killing and murder is the matter of minutes and hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
In Australia we have mobile mammogram clinics. The service is free and readily available to everyone. No referral required and the service is extensively advertised.
Self-examination is important but the early detection through technology is essential. If both sides are not providing the service, or not intending to provide the service then perhaps they should.
.
Which then implies that a first trimester abortion is not "legal killing."Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And at what point does it become murder?Quote:
Or point of development.
When does it become murder? It becomes murder when the little bay-bee pops out and get tossed in the trash.Quote:
And at what point does it become murder?
Did you have another legal definition for murder? You really ought to bone up on your terms. Murder only occurs OUTSIDE a woman's body. Back to English 101 for you. Ya got the talk Spineless but I somehow doubt that you have enough stones to walk the walk.
Speedball1
It is always murder, it is just a question of whether it is legalised or not.
Speedwad, you're projecting again. Therapy can help you with that but first you have to admit you have a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
Hi Speedball
You are not quite correct.
What depresses me about the reality of the whole thing is that you are almost correct.
Tut
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Scott Peterson
Quote:
Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California, in 2002.
Got quiet in here after that last post...
Via the Archdiocese of St. Louis:
Yep, it's that simple.
Hello again, Steve:
Why would a woman ask her Catholic employer to pay for her birth control?? Because, in THIS country, employers aren't allowed to discriminate against women..
It's that simple.
excon
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That still trumps your faux outrage.
I was a young mother (on birth control) who had considered applying for a job teaching at the local Catholic school. I would have expected the health insurance plan to cover my prescription, just as the Lutheran health insurance plan did.
Apparently you expected wrong.
Nobody is stopping religions from praticing whatever, but when it comes to personal issues of health and family, keep your nose out of what people have a right to do for themselves that's legal, and lawful.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You cross a line when you tell business what they can sell or what people can buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Your judicial history seems to show that it isn't simple. If anything it seems to be complex. Hence the unfortunate state of affairs you find yourselves in at the moment.
Tut
The only one interfering in anything is the Obama administration.Quote:
Nobody is stopping religions from praticing whatever, but when it comes to personal issues of health and family, keep your nose out of what people have a right to do for themselves that's legal, and lawful.
I swear you're right out of an Orwell novel.Quote:
You cross a line when you tell business what they can sell or what people can buy.
Hello again, Steve,
"No state shall.......... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That still trumps your faux outrage.
I'm not sure which part of the Constitution trumps the other.
Excon
Only in the mind of libs does anyone have a RIGHT to contraceptives. Please show us how contraceptives are a human right.
Hello again, Steve:
Not a HUMAN right.. The Constitution doesn't cover those.. But, I SHOWED you where they have a Constitutional right to them... Let me explain...Quote:
Please show us how contraceptives are a human right.
Contraceptives are an integral part of a woman's health care.. If a company, or church is going to COVER men's health care, then the Constitution says they must COVER women's health care.
It's that simple.
Excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes that's true, but not all rights recognized in you country are human rights.
Tut
As if they don't already?? I can assure you their plan denies contraceptives for both men and women. Doesn't get any more equal than that.
Hello again, Steve:
That would be true, if you pretend that men and women have the same health needs. Fortunately, the Constitution is not so blind.Quote:
Doesn't get any more equal than that
Excon
And I don't believe anyone is complaining about covering contraceptives if medically necessary. But you want to go beyond 'needs' into violating religious freedom.
Hello again, Steve:
That's a good argument. If you didn't need a doctors prescription to get them, and didn't have to purchase them from a pharmacy, I could buy it.Quote:
I don't believe anyone is complaining about covering contraceptives if medically necessary.
Excon
How does it violate YOUR religious freedom to provide for females health needs? That's up to her doctor, and none of your, or the churches, business.
As opposed to the phony arguments used to justify this whole whole sham, expanding access even though access wasn't an issue according to the CDC, and that it cost some idiot $3,000 a year because she'd never heard of Target or generics?Quote:
That's a good argument. If you didn't need a doctors prescription to get them, and didn't have to purchase them from a pharmacy, I could buy it.
Another phony argument we've been over. And over, and over, and over...Quote:
How does it violate YOUR religious freedom to provide for females health needs? That's up to her doctor, and none of your, or the churches, business.
Hello again, Steve:
Don't shoot the messenger.Quote:
and that it cost some idiot $3,000 a year because she'd never heard of Target or generics?
I see you ignored my argument... Since you need a doctors appointment to get them, AND a prescription, AND follow-up examinations, AND you can only buy them from a pharmacy, it LOOKS pretty medically necessary to ME.
Do you OBJECT to the advertisement for drugs on television?? If they were ACTUALLY medically necessary, the ads wouldn't end with, "ask your doctor". I'll betcha THOSE drugs, scooters, catheters, and diabetic testing supplies, ARE covered.
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 PM. |