Nope.
Why Stop At Birth?
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
Nope.
What sort of inexplicable nonsense was that
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
every morning when i wake up :idunno:
Kit the Coyote
New member
This is being "POLITE". Seriously?
An error on my part. I felt a loaded question was being put to me and jokingly replied with the classic example of a loaded question. Looking back at it I think I was in error in both cases and I apologize to the board. I do endeavor to be polite in discussions and humorous as well when the mood strikes me but I am not perfect.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It was a gentle reminder that it's stupid to get upset about the rules in New York when every state allows childkilling up till birth (at least).
As far as I can tell.
I asked numerous times for an example of a state that does not allow abortion up till birth. The only response I got — Oklahoma? Ohio? Can't remember :noid: — did just that.
Internationally it is the same. New Zealand for one.
Kit the Coyote
New member
Most states allow it because the court cases have made clear that you cannot impose a blanket ban that does not allow for an exemption when the life and/or health of the mother is at risk. To the best of my knowledge, nearly all states impose restrictions on late-term abortions with those exemptions in mind.
And they shouldn't allow abortion or infanticide at all.
The law isn't decided by court cases.
If we're just talking about the US Legal system, the law is decided by legislators, not judges. Judges can give their opinions, but that does not make their opinions law.
Moral law, however, says that killing the innocent is a capital crime. A baby, in the womb or out, from the moment of conception, is innocent.
Life of the mother is an excuse to kill one's child. There is never a valid reason to kill an innocent person to save someone else.
Which is basically just another way of saying that not a single child is saved from being slaughtered.
Kit the Coyote
New member
That would be the ideal, yes.
So if it comes down to a choice between the life of a mother and her unborn child the mother is automatically the one to die by government mandate? Shouldn't that be a choice of the family, not some unrelated lawmaker?
What about a case where only the mother could live?
That's the goal, not just an ideal.
No.
The goal is to save as many lives as possible.
If it is not possible to save one of the lives, then you don't kill the person, nor do you stop caring for them.
No one has the right to tell an innocent person they must die so that someone else can live. That goes for babies too.
Care to provide an example?
Kit the Coyote
New member
Agreed
Agreed
Ideally, but that may not always be possible.
A question best asked of the medical experts debating the issue. I am not a doctor and only play a healer in RPGs. The best I can provide off the top of my head is what the NY law was calling a non-viable child. A child that may not be dead in the womb but will not live once it is born.
Separate kids from their families.
Reduce the budget allotment for low-income children.
Get rid of WIC.
Help more people to ignore emergency heart surgery for infants and children.
As Christians, focus on Psalm 137:9:
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!”
Put more children in prison.
Be pro-life, but say nothing about war, genocide, capital punishment, or violence in general.
And so does New York.
The point was, the New York law is nothing different from what happens elsewhere. Babies being murdered is routine, wherever you go.
But thanks for muddying the waters again.
Last edited:
Which has nothing to do with what you were asked about.
Kit the Coyote
New member
Agreed
Kit the Coyote
New member
It is the best answer I can give, I am not a doctor nor am I going to pretend that I know the circumstances where such a decision would be necessary. I find it rather doubtful that they do not exist but would be greatly pleased to be wrong in that.
In an emergency situation, sometimes the best course of action is to deliver the baby. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.
Abortion is never necessary for the life of the mother. Delivery might be the best bet. It is never necessary to stop delivering the baby in order to murder her.
Abortion is never necessary.
Kit the Coyote
New member
You seem to be narrowing the situation to justify the answer. My understanding is you are right, you would not stop a delivery in progress to perform an abortion, that would actually be more dangerous. That does not mean that a situation outside those bounds might exist that makes it necessary. But you are welcome to provide your medical expertise to the lawmakers involved.