Abortion

[Tahuyaman]

I am not for unbridled death penalty and I am for a very lightly applied death sentence for those that were either caught in the act or confessed so there are no doubts...and committed heinous crimes

I oppose a death penalty all together. A death penalty is applied arbitrarily. There seems to be a floating scale as to what constitues a death penalty offense. It is also often based on the class of the offender.



A death penalty is not a deterrent either.

[Jen]

I understand why it might be necessary for abortion to be legal up to a point.... and that point might vary with events that happen during a pregnancy.

My personal opinion of abortion is that it is always wrong. Miscarriage is not abortion. Surgery of a tubal pregnancy is not an abortion. At 20 plus weeks if the mother has sudden pre-eclampsia or some other life threatening event, it is safer to remove the baby by C-Section (and save it) than to abort it. So abortion - always morally wrong.

The law doesn't have to be moral, but there should be some effort to align the two.

All of that other stuff that Leftists have made up about gender and sex........is just stupid.

[Chris]

I used to be pro-choice, back when I was more libertarian than now. It was the science that turned me pro-life: life begins at conception, it is a living human being. I argue an absolutist position though allowing for exceptions for rape, incest, and health; but am willing to compromise at 12 weeks with reasonable arguers.

I'd like to amend this. After reading about the Democrat's abortion bill that would permit abortion right up to birth for health reasons, not just physical health, but mental and emotional, I would want to see a list of permissible health conditions that according to a wide range of medical professionals truly present health risks. I believe a number of states have included this in their regulation of abortion.

[Thfan132]

I am not for unbridled death penalty and I am for a very lightly applied death sentence for those that were either caught in the act or confessed so there are no doubts...and committed heinous crimes

Caught red handed, trial then taken out back and shot. Saving tons of tax money. Confessions can be coerced.

[Chris]

This was an interesting article on abortion and popular opinion: Abortion and the great American middle

Not one American in a hundred has read Roe v. Wade, and perhaps no more of us really understand how a Supreme Court majority of seven justices barred — or, if you prefer, relieved — everyone else from coming to political terms on abortion....

Europe has set the example. It’s where the US seems headed — into years of political fights in one jurisdiction after another, but in states rather than countries. Only with time has most of Europe managed to settle into norms usually established by legislatures reaching compromise aside from any creed, whether that of the Catholic Church or Planned Parenthood.

Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark — what do these countries have in common? They limit abortion on demand to fifteen weeks’ gestation or earlier, albeit with exceptions, some stinting, some elastic. Yes, fifteen weeks is the restriction in the Mississippi law, excepting a “medical emergency” or a “severe fetal abnormality,” which is currently before the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson.

In Europe, limitations as to when abortion becomes illegal generally range from ten weeks (Portugal) to eighteen weeks (Sweden). Among large countries, Poland is alone in banning abortion save few exceptions such as to protect the life of the woman. Britain and the Netherlands are alone in having abortion regimes comparable to what prevails in America, where under Roe restrictions aren’t imposed until approximately twenty-four weeks.

So Europe, after turbulent years and trade-offs, has reached something like a middle way, though one still prone to change in one country or another. Where’s the middle in America?
In six separate polls from 1996 to 2018, Gallup found majorities supporting a general right to abortion in the first trimester and opposing that right in the second. Yet over that same period, Gallup also found — incongruously — support for mandating the states to keep second-trimester abortion legal — that is, support for Roe.

The confusion is hardly surprising. Roe has become older than the median age of the population, and what Roe is alleged to say appears more often on protest placards than in law reviews. Pollsters, in any event, are hardly needed to see that much of America, like Europe, would likely to try to find its way to something in the middle, albeit with certain states — e.g. New York and Georgia — to one side or the other.....

If Mississippi's 15 weeks is the middle ground it is ironic that Mississippi's case before the court could bring about the demise of Roe.

[MisterVeritis]

Well...


The real end goal, as I and many other pro-lifers have argued, is for federal protection of all unborn human life: for constitutional personhood.

The legal argument for this is straightforward. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which forbids any state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” was understood to include both born and unborn “person[s].” The upshot is that, while a state legislature can make reasonable distinctions in its criminal code’s homicide statutes, a state’s criminal code cannot effectuate a discriminatory regime that solely protects those who are born but not those who are unborn. Put another way, if a state bans homicide, then it has to generally ban abortion.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/why...is-too-normie/

If a state bans homicide it has to ban abortion.

Now what?

[MisterVeritis]

I think this is interesting.

As Abraham Lincoln famously argued in his 1854 Peoria speech, the relevant question is “whether a $#@! is not or is a man.” So, too, is the relevant question in the abortion debate whether the unborn child is not or is a person. We happen to know the answer to that question.

The relevant question is "whether the unborn child is not or is a person."

[stephenpe]

280951860_5083868501667624_4825901030536136834_n.jpg

[Chris]

Attachment 49042

Do you know did he consult these guys?

Meet the Early Church’s Pro-Life Movement

...Christianity’s earliest writers universally condemned the practice of abortion. The late first century Didache set the tone: “You shall not abort a child or commit infanticide” (2.2). Likewise, the Epistle of Barnabas (AD 70–135) commands, “You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor again, shall you destroy it after it is born” (19).

Again and again, early Christian writers declare that abortion is murder:

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder. (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians)

The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. (Basil, Letters, 188.2)

[By abortion] life is snatched away from them before it has been given. (Ambrose, Hexameron, 5.18.58)

Some go so far as to take potions that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and . . . (as often happens) they die with their offspring. (Jerome, Select Letters, 22.13)

No woman should take drugs for purposes of abortion, nor should she kill her children that have been conceived or are already born. (Caesarius, Sermons, sermon 44)

Chrysostom (AD 349–407) took it a step further by arguing that abortion is “even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, homily 24).

...Tertullian rejected Plato’s view that eternal souls are inhaled at birth and exhaled at death (On the Soul, 25). His contended that this view denied life in the womb. Tertullian asked mothers, “Tell us, then, whether you feel in the embryo within you any vital force other than your own, with which your bowels tremble, your sides shake, your entire womb throbs, and the burden which oppresses you constantly changes its position?” (On the Soul, 25). The same evidence remains true today. Many women find they can no longer deny the life of an unborn child once they hear the heartbeat, the child begins to turn, or they feel his first kick.

As he went on to describe in his Apology, a seed is planted at conception that grows into a full fruit-bearing person. To dig out the seed is tantamount to chopping down the tree. So just as slaying a full-grown adult is condemned, annihilating its seed should be condemned as well.

[stephenpe]

281386771_1905752592954459_4262510393937948424_n.jpg