In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

[MPat]

I didn’t say that.

Yes, you did not answer that part.

We have no means to keep a 6 week old embryo alive.

Keeping the embryo alive is hard. But trying is easy.

So, how comes it is not done?

And, of course, “6 weeks old” is misleading. According to Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2012, embryos that are more than 21 weeks old are still aborted.

 

[Dan123]

I was using a more representative sample. The chart you just linked shows more than 90% happen in the first 12 weeks. Around 1% happen after 21 weeks. They’re extremely rare and almost are always an emergency situation.

If ‘trying is easy’ perhaps you could outline a protocol for keeping a 13 week (to be more representative of the average timing) embryo alive? Certainly you don’t expect doctors to use protocols they KNOW won’t work right? That would be horribly unethical, it would be like treating cancer with saline when you know it will have no effect.

There’s also the sad matter of funding, which is where you could really help out. A premature child born within the range of viability (around 0% likelihood of survival at 21 weeks rising to around 50% by week 25) costs around $50,000. You’re talking about trying at any stage so it’s probably going to be a lot more than that.

So find some doctors who share your passion, setup a clinic that offers women an alternative to existing abortion services, fund it with charitable donations or however else you can do so, and make this happen.

 

[MPat]

I was using a more representative sample.

You do not know what “representative sample” means or what?

I guess you wanted to say you were talking about more common cases. But my point does not depend on cases being common.

If ‘trying is easy’ perhaps you could outline a protocol for keeping a 13 week (to be more representative of the average timing) embryo alive? Certainly you don’t expect doctors to use protocols they KNOW won’t work right? That would be horribly unethical, it would be like treating cancer with saline when you know it will have no effect.

First, “doesn’t work” is relative. Eventually every single patient does die. “Gets extra ten seconds to every tenth patient.” can be seen as working.

And second, somehow, when the alternative is dismembering the patient, something that merely “doesn’t work” starts to look pretty ethical to me.

Not to mention that, getting closer to the subject, don’t you think you might be “imposing your views” about ethics here?

There’s also the sad matter of funding, which is where you could really help out. A premature child born within the range of viability (around 0% likelihood of survival at 21 weeks rising to around 50% by week 25) costs around $50,000. You’re talking about trying at any stage so it’s probably going to be a lot more than that.

I suspect that in this case you really do not have a representative sample. That is, the ones who ended up kept alive might significantly differ from the ones who ended up aborted.

But then, the price, whatever it is, is irrelevant. If that’s what it costs, then why isn’t that included in the price? Or do you imagine that abortionists don’t get paid?

 

[IWantGod]

Is America a representative democracy?

Let me answer that for you, It is a representative democracy.

 

[deMontfort]

Is America a representative democracy?

Let me answer that for you, It is a representative democracy.

You were already answered with >>>>>

deMontfort:

The United States is NOT a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. Please educate yourself to the difference.

Perhaps still more precisely, the word “democracy” has several commonly used meanings.

In fact, the position of “IWantGod” and “Erikaspirit16” seems to rely on mixing up those meanings.

One meaning is simply “a form of government where majority rules and that’s that”. In that sense USA is not a democracy. In fact, it is not so easy to find something good about such democracy.

Another meaning is more or less that same “constitutional republic”, when “majority rule” is almost unnoticeable through separation of powers, rule of law etc. It is easier to like it.

And that’s why they are so evasive about the definitions: it is easy to claim that passing unpopular laws is incompatible with democracy, when the first meaning is used, but one needs the same word to be taken in the second meaning to make democracy seem to be unquestionably good.

I don’t really know what ‘determining its own growth’ means honestly. We’d normally attach ‘determination’ to a capacity for self-aware thought processes which wouldn’t exist until at least some time after the brain began forming.

There are realities of pregnancy that we can’t get away from, so while I appreciate the idea that all life deserves equal respect, most people’s lives aren’t contingent on the ongoing availability of another person’s body. I gave this example either here or in another thread, but imagine a prematurely born child with a failing liver that needs a partial organ transplant from a compatible donor, with the only likely donor to be found in time being the mother.

Perhaps she has good reason or perhaps not, the risks are too high, or she has children already who count on her and the risk of leaving them without a mother is too much, but if she doesn’t risk her life and well-being to give that part of herself, would we call that murder the way abortion is?

That would be relevant for a discussion about morality of removing an embryo, putting it in some sort of an incubator and trying to keep it alive.

But, as you know, abortion does not look like that in the least.

If you don’t understand this, you wouldn’t pass a freshman civics class. Educate yourself instead of talking out of your posterior.

Conversation over.

 

[IWantGod]

If you don’t understand this, you wouldn’t pass a freshman civics class. Educate yourself instead of talking out of your posterior.

Conversation over.

It is a representative democracy. It is not a direct democracy, but it certainly is a democracy. And i was not wrong to call it that.

 

[deMontfort]

I told you the conversation was over. If you continue to address posts to me I will report them for harassment.

 

[IWantGod]

The prediction that follows from my guess is that you are not going to explain what you exactly mean by “democracy”.

What do you think American democracy is?

 

[buffalo]

Christianity is a proposition not an imposition. America was built on this foundation and the question is do we want to continue with it.

I vote yes.

 

[IWantGod]

Christianity is a proposition not an imposition. America was built on this foundation and the question is do we want to continue with it.

I vote yes.

So continue with the split between religion and the state, yes?

 

[neophyte]

In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe? That is, do we have the right ,by force of law, to force others to act according to Christian principles.

Those are two entirely different questions. The answer to the first one is no. The answer to the second is yes.

 

[MPat]

What do you think American democracy is?

Something you do not want to define?

Now a simple way to define “American democracy” is “the form of government USA has, whatever it is”.

The problem is that in that case no legal action of American government can ever be “undemocratic”. And thus it is silly for you to complain about any real or potential law as “undemocratic”.

Which kinda nullifies all your arguments here.

Of course, only to the extent that you were actually making arguments and not “evasive action”…

 

[IWantGod]

What are you talking about? What argument do you think i have made?

 

[IWantGod]

The problem is that in that case no legal action of American government can ever be “undemocratic”. And thus it is silly for you to complain about any real or potential law as “undemocratic”.

The main point i have argued throughout this thread is that the American legal system cannot create laws based only on what we hold by faith. For example, it cannot criminalize people who have abortions based on the belief that we have a personal soul from the moment of conception. There is a reason for that. You have a secular legal system.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The United States is NOT a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. Please educate yourself to the difference.

VERY IMPORTANT to repeat over and over.

 

[MonteRCMS]

It is a representative democracy. It is not a direct democracy, but it certainly is a democracy. And i was not wrong to call it that. Now if you want to resort to pathetic attempts to make your opponent look like an idiot, that’s your problem. It is evident that you cannot refute the argument that i made.

So yes i would prefer not to converse with you any longer.

NO, it is no such thing!

 

[MonteRCMS]

What do you think American democracy is?

Doesn’t exist.

We are a republic.

 

[IWantGod]

Actually you are representative democracy. I have never said that America is not a constitutional republic.

 

[MonteRCMS]

So you are not a representative democracy?

Look up “republic”.

 

[IWantGod]

Look up “republic”.

Look up representative democracy.