• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
One could claim that.
But one would be wrong.
Survey atheists to see that they oppose murder & stealing too.

It's useful to recognize which values, prescriptions, & proscriptions
transcend religious orientation, & which don't. Ya canna reasonably
claim that all morality is from religion.

Consider that so many anti-abortion types consider
the fetus a human being with the same full rights as
one born. They speak of a soul determining this.
That's a religious orientation.
If you are going to do a comparative religious analysis on the Georgia law, my opinion is that it more closely resembles the ancient Egyptian religion than Christianity. The Georgia law declares personhood on an embryo at the moment of cardiac activity, which would correspond to the Ib (heart) of ancient Egypt.
Test of Georgia LIFE bill:
snippet from Bill GA HB481:

SECTION 3.
Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to persons and their rights, is amended by revising Code Section 1-2-1, relating to classes of persons generally, corporations deemed artificial persons, and nature of corporations generally, as follows:


"1-2-1. (a) There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial. (b) 'Natural person' means any human being including an unborn child. (b)(c) Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator. (d) Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based determinations. (e) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) 'Detectable human heartbeat' means embryonic or fetal cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the heart within the gestational sac. (2) 'Unborn child' means a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb."
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If you are going to do a comparative religious analysis on the Georgia law....
No.
.....my opinion is that it more closely resembles the ancient Egyptian religion than Christianity. The Georgia law declares personhood on an embryo at the moment of cardiac activity, which would correspond to the Ib (heart) of ancient Egypt.
Christianity & Christians are diverse.
It appears they can believe almost anything,
& justify it with Bible quotes. But I stand by
my posts on the matter of abortion.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
No.

Christianity & Christians are diverse.
It appears they can believe almost anything,
& justify it with Bible quotes. But I stand by
my posts on the matter of abortion.
Now for the zinger: is the state of Georgia establishing a religion by using heartbeat as a means by which to confer personhood?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
By sacrifice I meant abstinence from sex. ;)
That is a sacrifice that few make.
Especially Catholics.
I say that because my now estranged former brother
married into a large family of devout Catholics.
All the girls got knocked up as unwed teens.

BTW, on the heathen side of my family, babies
arrived only after marriage. Atheists are often
better Christians than are avowed Christians.
Could it be that we've no "forbidden fruit" that
tempts us?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
That is a sacrifice that few make.
Especially Catholics.
I say that because my now estranged former brother
married into a large family of devout Catholics.
All the girls got knocked up as unwed teens.
Catholiland, that is my country, has the lowest birth rate in Europe.
And people have lots of sex. Lots of sex.
But use excellent contraceptives produced in Switzerland and Germany. :)
Import those, America.
BTW, on the heathen side of my family, babies
arrived only after marriage. Atheists are often
better Christians than are avowed Christians.
Could it be that we've no "forbidden fruit" that
tempts us?
Again...then why does Italy have the lowest birth rates? :)
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
That is a sacrifice that few make.
Especially Catholics.
I say that because my now estranged former brother
married into a large family of devout Catholics.
All the girls got knocked up as unwed teens.

BTW, on the heathen side of my family, babies
arrived only after marriage. Atheists are often
better Christians than are avowed Christians.
Could it be that we've no "forbidden fruit" that
tempts us?
And by the way, I am a leftist authoritarian, so if I were in charge, I would implement a law imposing a license to become parents.
So...I am for abortion...for those who have not such a license. Abortion paid for by the Government, of course.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Catholiland, that is my country, has the lowest birth rate in Europe.
And people have lots of sex. Lots of sex.
But use excellent contraceptives produced in Switzerland and Germany. :)
Import those, America.
Contraceptives are available & cheap here.
But the Pope looks down on those.
Hence the proliferation of "love child" events.
Again...then why does Italy have the lowest birth rates? :)
They're lazy?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And by the way, I am a leftist authoritarian, so if I were in charge, I would implement a law imposing a license to become parents.
So...I am for abortion...for those who have not such a license. Abortion paid for by the Government, of course.
Forced abortions, eh.
Mussolini would be proud.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
No… Amber had fetal tissue, the aftermath of an abortion in another state.

1) The hospital is at fault
2) She should have had a different type of abortion
3) If she did have the one she did have, she should have had a D&C


I don't know all of the details of this sad case and have not read all of the posts in this thread. Anyway, wanted to point this out:

"Some news reports blamed pro-life limits on abortion for Thurman’s death, but Georgia state law explicitly allows abortions when the mother’s life or physical health is at risk. Thurman had a chemical abortion in South Carolina prior to her arrival in the emergency room, and when she arrived, her unborn twins had no heart activity."

..,.

 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I don't know all of the details of this sad case and have not read all of the posts in this thread. Anyway, wanted to point this out:

"Some news reports blamed pro-life limits on abortion for Thurman’s death, but Georgia state law explicitly allows abortions when the mother’s life or physical health is at risk. Thurman had a chemical abortion in South Carolina prior to her arrival in the emergency room, and when she arrived, her unborn twins had no heart activity."

..,.

It is nice to argue that immediate treatment would have been better, but that is exactly the problem, the decision has been taken away from doctors and put into the hands of the hospital lawyers and their insurance suppliers. This leaves doctors in the position that they either need to seek approval from the legal bureaucracy of risk their livelihood to practice medicine as they have been taught.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
It is nice to argue that immediate treatment would have been better, but that is exactly the problem, the decision has been taken away from doctors and put into the hands of the hospital lawyers and their insurance suppliers. This leaves doctors in the position that they either need to seek approval from the legal bureaucracy of risk their livelihood to practice medicine as they have been taught.

Sure, but that article expicitly says that under the law in that state the mother is entitled to immedate care since the siruation was critical. Hence their main argument is that this is mainly a case of medical negligence, not the law.

I understand that those who support abortion are on the lookout for any (objectively heartbreaking) case to bolster their argument. That does not mean their argument has any merit.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Sure, but that article expicitly says that under the law in that state the mother is entitled to immedate care since the siruation was critical. Hence their main argument is that this is mainly a case of medical negligence, not the law.

I understand that those who support abortion are on the lookout for any (objectively heartbreaking) case to bolster their argument. That does not mean their argument has any merit.
Yup, but what is critical, this is not an isolated case, the new state laws have thrown all of this into a quandry and this is just another forewarned example of the problem of legislating medical treatment. Maybe it is not the best test case to take to the SC, but these situations did not occur at 9 weeks or so unless there was serious malpractice in the last 50 years or so.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Some news reports blamed pro-life limits on abortion for Thurman’s death, but Georgia state law explicitly allows abortions when the mother’s life or physical health is at risk ... that article expicitly says that under the law in that state the mother is entitled to immedate care since the siruation was critical. Hence their main argument is that this is mainly a case of medical negligence, not the law.
You don't think that the anti-choice theocrats are responsible for that death, but rather, the physicians they terrified with their threat to revoke a medical license and incarcerate the physician for ten years are guilty of negligent homicide?
I understand that those who support abortion are on the lookout for any (objectively heartbreaking) case to bolster their argument. That does not mean their argument has any merit.
No argument has merit to theocratic, anti-choice Christians, which was a point I suggested in my post preceding this one. Look at how you framed this. The most heartbreaking of cases don't faze you at all. You exhibit zero interest in any aspect of this but to keep abortion criminalized, to blame the physicians for what the Christians have done to intimidate them, that no number of horrible outcomes matter to you, that pro-choice advocates are merely tugging at heartstrings with stories that don't touch your heart at all, and that none of that has any merit to you.

There are good Christians, but they're the ones who reject most of the dogma other than a god belief, and who don't really accept the Christian god's bigotries or the church's instructions on who to hate and who to disempower using the force of government.
I have already said that in the long run the laws must change in Georgia. But in the short run a little bit of sacrifice is needed. By sacrifice I meant abstinence from sex ... If a woman wants to have unprotected sex because she only thinks of the maximization of pleasure, I cannot condone her choice.
More than that. This young woman lost her life.

My humanist values tell me that how those women choose to live is their business, not yours or mine, and not the Christian church's. They don't need to be abstinent to please you or anybody else, and seeking sexual pleasure with a consenting adult is not immoral nor does it deserve to result in an unwanted pregnancy to please Christian and Muslim theocrats.

These women don't ask you to have sex the way they do, which might be outside of marriage, which might involve a series of partners, which might result in an unwanted pregnancy, and might result in an abortion (hopefully, a safe, legal, and accessible one, but maybe an unsafe and illegal one if the other is not available to them), but you insist that they live according to your Christian beliefs.
out of 100 unwanted pregnancies, how many are the result of unprotected sex and how many are the result of rape.
All pregnancies wanted or unwanted are the result in inadequate contraception.

But let's see if we can get an answer to your question:

The following is a 2021 American statistic from Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women - PubMed : "among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year."

I had trouble finding recent data on pregnancy and birth rates, the rates of each falling considerably since this 2003 report at Pregnancy rates for U.S. women continue to drop - PubMed: "The estimated number of pregnancies dropped to 6,369,000 (4,131,000 live births, 1,152,000 induced abortions, and 1,087,000 fetal losses)."

This comes from the first link, and doesn't include fertile women 25 and older: "In 2017, pregnancy rates for women aged 24 or younger reached their lowest recorded levels. These rates continue a longstanding decline in pregnancy rates among people aged 24 or younger, which started in the late 1980s. In 2017, there were 14 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–17 (down from a peak of 75 in 1989), 57 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 18–19 (from a peak of 175 in 1991) and 111 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 20–24 (from a peak of 202 in 1990)."

So how do we combine these numbers to get you an answer? Let's go with 32,000 pregnancies from rape out of fewer than 6.4 million pregnancies - let's use 2/3 of that second number, since it's 2003 data, and it looks like these numbers fell about 50% between 1990 and now, 2003 coming at about 1/3 of that that time with 2/3 of it yet to come, or about total annual 4.3 million pregnancies.

32000 / 4600000 = about 0.007 or 0.7 percent, which is about 1 in 140.
Catholiland, that is my country, has the lowest birth rate in Europe. And people have lots of sex. Lots of sex. But use excellent contraceptives produced in Switzerland and Germany.
Then they're ignoring the church, aren't they? The Catholic Churches rules are designed to keep every fertile womb busy from menarche to menopause. Look at them altogether: The Catholic church forbids abortion, contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, and divorce, and encourages girls to marry when fertile and forbids them to withhold sex.

My position is that the church is a net harm to society, and that the more of its dogma one assimilates, the worse it is for him/her and his/her neighbors. Hundreds of millions of people are exposed to its teachings, and they are affected to varying degrees by it, but the ones that make the best neighbors and fellow citizens are the ones who reject the most of it such as your Italian neighbors that are apparently having sex for "the maximization of pleasure," which you say you don't condone. Neither does the church. But fortunately, they ignore it.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Please show me where you found that the Roman Catholic church forbids women to withhold sex. Thanks.
 
Top