How would we enforce new abortion laws?

[NM505StKate]

The King James Bible was assembled sometime in the early 1600s, I believe. The first gospel was written around 70 AD (so 1500 years before King James). The Old Testament was written much earlier than that.

My bible scholarship is a little rusty, so I’ll defer to others for specific dates or for correction if I’m wrong.

Sounds about right.

 

[NM505StKate]

Yes, we think the laws wrong, if the law allowed rape would it be OK?

It wouldn’t be okay. You may not agree with the ruling, which isn’t a law. Maybe that is where things get muddled. The RvW ruling made it to so a woman has bodily autonomy, meaning that a woman has a right to what her body does… It was seen as being a part of the 14th amendment.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

It wouldn’t be okay. You may not agree with the ruling, which isn’t a law. Maybe that is where things get muddled. The RvW ruling made it to so a woman has bodily autonomy, meaning that a woman has a right to what her body does… It was seen as being a part of the 14th amendment.

I understand that, I just partially disagree

 

[NM505StKate]

I understand that, I just partially disagree

Fair enough.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

My argument against abortion is not religious:

1 It is wrong to deliberately take a human life (this may be religious, but most secular people would also accept this premise)
2 A human life begins at conception.
3 Abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life (by premise 2) and therefore wrong (by premise 1)

Why do you think that the majority of pro-lifers are religious. Why are the marches composed of prayer times? Because abortion is a moral issue, and Christians have morals that cause them to believe these things.

Many people do not see an unborn child as having rights equal to the mother. But because God emphasizes that he knew each of us before being in the womb, the majority of Christians vehemently deny the claim that their rights are not equal.

None of you would be fighting so hard for this if there were no Bible verses emphasizing your point, and that’s why it is religious and holds little weight in society.

 

[nodito]

Why do you think that the majority of pro-lifers are religious. Why are the marches composed of prayer times? Because abortion is a moral issue, and Christians have morals that cause them to believe these things.

Many people do not see an unborn child as having rights equal to the mother. But because God emphasizes that he knew each of us before being in the womb, the majority of Christians vehemently deny the claim that their rights are not equal.

None of you would be fighting so hard for this if there were no Bible verses emphasizing your point, and that’s why it is religious and holds little weight in society.

Although it is true that the majority of pro-life people appear to be religious and a large number of religious people are also pro-life, it does not follow that there are no secular arguments against abortion or no secular people in the pro-life movement. See: secularprolife.org/

The argument advanced by Elf01 can indeed be secular. Most abortion advocates I know would dispute his second premise; ie., they’d argue that life (by which I think they mean “meaningful/personhood” life) begins at conception. Judith Jarvis Thompson and others who subscribe to her violinist theory would agree that life begins at conception but argue it is not always wrong to take human life, for example, when it competes with the rights of the mother.

I think we will make progress in secular society when people become more aware of embryonic development and how specific abortion procedures are performed and when we can offer better alternatives to women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies.

 

[steve_b]

An article in The Catholic Thing discusses the possible problems of enforcing any new abortion laws. The fact that laws are passed does not mean that they enforce themselves. Many states already have laws in place which restrict abortion, and those are enforceable through regulation of abortion facilities and abortionists. For those who are in favor of prohibiting all abortion, however, the problems of enforcement are worth considering. The author has some interesting thoughts in this regard. But one part of his essay which struck me particularly was this:“Enforcement challenges, however, are not the biggest problem. Behind the scenes, but pervasive, and all but unnoticed by president, pope, or pundit, is the specter of contraception. The almost universal acceptance of contraception implies the right to sex without procreation. A legal injunction prohibiting abortion would be the most conspicuous denial of this “absolute” right. Abortion is the ultimate backup for contraception.” What pro-abortion people are really protecting is this—the right to sex without procreation. If such a right is demanded, abortion will always be demanded as the ultimate backup. Not only that, but the “right to sex without procreation” leads to more non-marital sex, more contraceptive failure and more abortion.


How would we enforce new abortion laws?

Taking the long view,

For all people who continue to show no fear of God, by continually going against the laws He already has in place, which are crystal clear, as is to ignore the consequences for disobedience to them which are crystal clear as well, then they will reap the curses in the next life for that disobedience. All those who work tirelessly to support abortion, that abominable practice here on this side of eternity, will meet the judge soon, who didn’t get His position by vote. And His judgement will effect THEIR life in the next, forever.

And He says
**
DT 30**
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days,

 

[steve_b]

Also important to point out is that Protestant denominations mostly do not use Sacred Tradition.

Actually here’s one area where they do

*"Many non-Catholics today claim to base their faith on the Bible alone, a doctrine known as sola scriptura. This was a phrase coined by the Reformation Protestants who broke away from the Church in the 1500s. In addition to rejecting papal authority in all matters, daily governance, teaching authority, et cetera, the Protestants reject Sacred Tradition

But where did the Bible come from? It came from the Church, not vice versa…"*

for context, taken from: catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/sacred-scripture-depends-on-sacred-tradition

 

[WingsOfEagles]

It wouldn’t be okay. You may not agree with the ruling, which isn’t a law. Maybe that is where things get muddled. The RvW ruling made it to so a woman has bodily autonomy, meaning that a woman has a right to what her body does… It was seen as being a part of the 14th amendment.

Why not? By your earlier logic, we should accept abortion because Roe v. Wade states that it’s legal. Why wouldn’t it be okay if we had a ruling stating rape was legal? How about this (devil’s advocate)? I don’t believe it’s rape/sexual assault unless a man actually has intercourse with a woman. He can kiss her, remove her clothes, etc. and it’s not sexual assualt/rape because it’s not intercourse yet.

 

[NM505StKate]

Why not? By your earlier logic, we should accept abortion because Roe v. Wade states that it’s legal. Why wouldn’t it be okay if we had a ruling stating rape was legal? How about this (devil’s advocate)? I don’t believe it’s rape/sexual assault unless a man actually has intercourse with a woman. He can kiss her, remove her clothes, etc. and it’s not sexual assualt/rape because it’s not intercourse yet.

Because rape is not involving consent. A woman has a right to her bodily autonomy.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Because rape is not involving consent. A woman has a right to her bodily autonomy.

Really? I don’t think the baby gave consent to die.

 

[NM505StKate]

Really? I don’t think the baby gave consent to die.

If within the first trimester it is a handful of cells incapable of living apart from the host mother. Second trimester it is more capable of living apart but still needs the host mother. Third trimester the host mother is needed but to a much lesser extent and the feotus now baby is capable to living apart.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

If within the first trimester it is a handful of cells incapable of living apart from the host mother. Second trimester it is more capable of living apart but still needs the host mother. Third trimester the host mother is needed but to a much lesser extent and the feotus now baby is capable to living apart.

All of your genetic info is contained in that handful of cells. Can we can just pull the plug on all quadriplegics, coma patients, people with muscular dystrophy, on oxygen, diabetics, children with congenital defects? They can’t live without help either. How about children with Down’s Syndrome? Their cells are imperfect after all.

 

[steve_b]

If within the first trimester it is a handful of cells incapable of living apart from the host mother. Second trimester it is more capable of living apart but still needs the host mother. Third trimester the host mother is needed but to a much lesser extent and the feotus now baby is capable to living apart.

Life begins @ conception. Even science had to come clean on that. They couldn’t hide behind language any longer. From conception, that is a human being. It has a soul given by God from conception.

.

 

[nodito]

If within the first trimester it is a handful of cells incapable of living apart from the host mother. Second trimester it is more capable of living apart but still needs the host mother. Third trimester the host mother is needed but to a much lesser extent and the feotus now baby is capable to living apart.

Not “host mother,” just “mother.” Why is being able to live independently of someone else your criteria for whether someone deserves to live or die? Even infants need their mothers.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

All of your genetic info is contained in that handful of cells. Can we can just pull the plug on all quadriplegics, coma patients, people with muscular dystrophy, on oxygen, diabetics, children with congenital defects? They can’t live without help either. How about children with Down’s Syndrome? Their cells are imperfect after all.

I see this comparison being made all the time and it’s a purely irrational argument attempting to appeal to emotions.

All the people you mentioned are not located within the body of a woman, an important distinction. They need help to live, but they are very obviously their own person because they have been born, they are not in a womb.

 

[NM505StKate]

All of your genetic info is contained in that handful of cells. Can we can just pull the plug on all quadriplegics, coma patients, people with muscular dystrophy, on oxygen, diabetics, children with congenital defects? They can’t live without help either. How about children with Down’s Syndrome? Their cells are imperfect after all.

Coma patients are tricky. If totally brain dead then I am okay with it. The rest, in my humble opinion, are up to the individual. Yes we help children with defects. I never said anything about imperfect cells so non sequitur.

 

[NM505StKate]

Life begins @ conception. Even science had to come clean on that. They couldn’t hide behind language any longer. From conception, that is a human being. It has a soul given by God from conception.

.

Which science. No I am not trying to be difficult but different branches of science say different things on when life begins. RvW is about bodily autonomy. Even if I say that abortion is the last resort I am not one to step on the rights of women whom want one.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I see this comparison being made all the time and it’s a purely irrational argument attempting to appeal to emotions.

All the people you mentioned are not located within the body of a woman, an important distinction. They need help to live, but they are very obviously their own person because they have been born, they are not in a womb.

It’s only irrational because it doesn’t back up your opinion.

My response was to a line of logic that it’s ok to abort in the first trimester because the baby can’t live on its own. Faulty logic.

So, my location determines whether I get to live or die? Am I my own person if I can’t speak for myself? Why is “being born” a distinction? What about children who are “born” by C-Section?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Coma patients are tricky. If totally brain dead then I am okay with it. The rest, in my humble opinion, are up to the individual. Yes we help children with defects. I never said anything about imperfect cells so non sequitur.

What if a parent does not want to get medical help for their child with a defect? Is that their choice too or are they being negligent?