Abortion///cont.

[Danoh]

It is not in the actually Bible based Believer's hands to determine what pregnancy should or should not be terminated.

At the same time; it is expected by said actually Bible based Believer that those who do not believe and or live by the Scripture, might or not abide by that - their decisions; actions; and its' consequences being that of their own will; not Scriptures'.

In this, I am often reminded of what Christ said to one of His own, when He encountered them looking to how and what the secular world views as "right."

"Let the dead bury the dead" He'd said "follow me."

Thus, to attempt to moralize the non Bible based and or non Christ believing individual into the Bible's morality is nothing more than the mark of an incompetent.

The balance of this post continues in the following...

Spoiler

Those of the secular world are said by Scripture to be spiritually dead to the things of God, and thus alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, to begin with.

Even the often Scripturally clueless Obama had this one right.

He often more or less asserted that he himself is Pro-Life, but that it was not his responsibility to force his personal belief on this issue on what on what is basically a secular world.

For that matter; a secular country.

That Trump's consistently horrendous un Scriptural values, attitudes, beliefs, and actions, throughout his life; and both during and after his campaign, had and continue to have so many so strongly supporting his hypocrisy only shows his very base is anything but a base that actually holds to the Christian values it claims to hold to.

Add to that, much of Hillary's support base also, and what you have is the other side of this very obvious:

That the U.S. is not "a Christian nation."

Personally, I have no problem with that.

It is what Scripture expects the world to be - on its' own course.

Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

In this, the actually Bible based Believer is said to be neither of this world, nor outside of it.

He is sole responsibility as to addressing the various issues the secular world presents being the following passages below...

They are why one does not see the Apostle Paul - who had been one heck of a busy individual in his extensive cross-country evangelizing of the following - not saying much against that spiritually corrupt like few in history, Roman Empire that he himself had been under, back then

Instead, his and his fellow laborer's focus had been the following perspective as the only hope as answer to it all these issues...

2 Corinthians 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Stripe]

There's no legal precedent that a fetus entertains the same level of protection to that of birthed individuals.

Sure there is.

"You shall not murder."

 

[eider]

Such folly.

I never said charity was a bad thing.

You mentioned charity. And I told you that Pro-Life support should extend from conception to adulthood and NOT be dependant upon charity but paid for by taxation through full State legislation...... everything.
I also mentioned that where a person is born disabled that full on healthcare would need to be provided .... not just Pro-Life to birth, but FULL-LIFE!
Those are the only possible tenets for a true Pro-Life tenet.

I never even said that universal healthcare was a bad thing. I did say (and continue to say) that my right to be alive should not be contingent upon "free" healthcare or charity.

Do you agree or disagree?

Good..... so you would support a full package of healthcare, including dentistry, eyesight..... the wehole medicare package, for all children and Whole-Life for anybody born disabled. Now we're getting somewhere.

But there is more...... much more in the full pro-life package, and then you can promote ity in your State, maybe?

And if free healthcare is not provided by the government, then those children have no right to live.

...that is what you're saying, right?

I'm saying that when you promote a Full Pro-life packlage to the politicians the people will vote for it, so don't hgo negative on me now. But tghere is more.

You're going to have to support women in pregnancy, because obviously a career woman is going to need Maternity leave without risking the loss of her job or funds, so government support kis going to be required there as well, also there has to be post natal maternity leave for both mother and even some for the father, as is offered in many countries already, maybe yours?

So don't try to reverse this positive step towards a true pro-life package for the people. This is your mission surely? Don't tell me about consequences of your failure in your State.

I just need your post which shows total support for full pro-life care for all the children in your State, and full Whole-life care for those born disabled. I'm looking forward to that!

 

[ok doser]

Because she's not simply "taking the life of" in relation to the fetus...rather she's refusing to sustain the fetus via her body; there's no legal precedent that a fetus entertains the same level of protection to that of birthed individuals....

the mother of an 11 day old isn't responsible for sustaining the life of her infant?

 

[quip]

the mother of an 11 day old isn't responsible for sustaining the life of her infant?

Sure, once she gives birth to it, else give it up for adoption. Why the stupid inquiry?

 

[glassjester]

I'm saying that when you promote a Full Pro-life packlage to the politicians the people will vote for it, so don't hgo negative on me now.

My right to be alive should not be contingent upon my government providing "free" healthcare. Agree or disagree?

 

[glassjester]

Sure, once she gives birth to it, else give it up for adoption. Why the stupid inquiry?

Well why can't she just kill the baby? She wants to not be a parent right now! Why should she have to wait for a lengthy adoption process to take place?

Heck, that might even take... 9 months or more!

 

[quip]

Well why can't she just kill the baby? She wants to not be a parent right now! Why should she have to wait for a lengthy adoption process to take place?

Heck, that might even take... 9 months or more!

I suppose that's a third option...though the consequence would be more than 9 months.

 

[glassjester]

I suppose that's a third option...though the consequence would be more than 9 months.

So you'd either force her to continue sustaining her infant's life, or jail her?

 

[quip]

So you'd either force her to continue sustaining her infant's life, or jail her?

No..you forgot the adoption option.

 

[glassjester]

No..you forgot the adoption option.

I did not forget. I meant - you'd force her to continue sustaining her infant's life (until the infant can be sustained by other means), or else jail her.

Is that right?

 

[quip]

I did not forget. I meant - you'd force her to continue sustaining her infant's life (until the infant can be sustained by other means), or else jail her.

Is that right?

If she refused to be a parent the state would surely step in, take the child, perhaps press charges. Is this going somewhere?

 

[glassjester]

If she refused to be a parent the state would surely step in, take the child, perhaps press charges. Is this going somewhere?

Sure.

The point is that she cannot (legally or morally) simply allow the child to die. She could eventually bring about a situation in which the child will be cared for by another person (this may take weeks or months), but until then, she must (legally and morally) continue to sustain the life of the child - whether she wants to or not.

Is this a just situation?
I say yes. Do you?

 

[ok doser]

Sure, once she gives birth to it, else give it up for adoption. Why the stupid inquiry?

that seems like a lot of work

why shouldn't she be able to just abandon it, or kill it?


what's your justification for infringing on her rights?

 

[quip]

Sure.

The point is that she cannot (legally or morally) simply allow the child to die. She could eventually bring about a situation in which the child will be cared for by another person (this may take weeks or months), but until then, she must (legally and morally) continue to sustain the life of the child - whether she wants to or not.

Is this a just situation?
I say yes. Do you?

Sure.

 

[quip]

that seems like a lot of work

why shouldn't she be able to just abandon it, or kill it?


what's your justification for infringing on her rights?

To use a THism...the child's rights are fully vested by this point.

 

[ok doser]

If she refused to be a parent the state would surely step in, take the child, perhaps press charges.

how is that not an infringement on her right to "Privacy... from government intrusion/obtrusion" :freak:

 

[quip]

how is that not an infringement on her right to "Privacy... from government intrusion/obtrusion" :freak:

Read above.

 

[ok doser]

To use a THism...the child's rights are fully vested by this point.

you're quoting the current state of the law - i'm not asking about that


i'm asking you - what's your justification for infringing on her rights?

 

[quip]

you're quoting the current state of the law - i'm not asking about that


i'm asking you - what's your justification for infringing on her rights?

The rights of the infant.