• 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!

New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president

We Never Know

No Slack
I've been trying to find an example of an established medical procedure that is limited by laws, regulations, or medical ethics guidelines as to when or under what circumstances it may be performed. There are loads of laws and regulations, but they tend to be about money in some way, patient confidentiality, and so on.

Can anyone provide an example? It should be specific to medicine, not laws we all have to obey.
Being the topic seems to be about life/taking life, try assisted suicide.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Then how about we just remove the fetus and give it to you to care for?

Well, you are (tacitly) just as dismissive of women, who you equate to murderers for not wanting (for whatever reason, it's their choice) to continue a pregnancy. You just don't mention them -- as if they don't even count as a party to the question.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
Well, you are (tacitly) just as dismissive of women, who you equate to murderers for not wanting (for whatever reason, it's their choice) to continue a pregnancy. You just don't mention them -- as if they don't even count as a party to the question.

You are a funny man. I don't see you mention the unborn babies. You are apparently dismissive of them.

This is why I said in an earlier post that we keep talking past one another. To you, it is simply a question of 'choice' for the mother. Others ask, who speaks for the unborn?

I get it - I thought the way you do for a long time - you think the unborn should have no rights and are just a lump of tissue to be discarded if so desired, yes? I disagree, so...?
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who asked me to do that? All I asked was about Kamala's restrictions. I was never making an argument against abortion.
You were told by several people including me what her restrictions were and you were given links to boot. It would be back to the standards of Roe v Wade. Regulations were allowed, but they were largely paper tigers. Not because they could not be enforced, but rather because there was no need to enforce them.

Seriously, women do not just go out and have abortions at the drop of a hat. There are usually very good reasons for them.

And here is the ultimate hypocrisy test, if you do not support planned parenthood then one is not really antiabortion. It appears in that case that people are trying to immorally control the behavior of others.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
You are a funny man. I don't see you mention the unborn babies. You are apparently dismissive of them.

This is why I said in an earlier post that we keep if talking past one another. To you, it is simply a question of 'choice' for the mother. Others ask, who speaks for the unborn?

I get it - I thought the way you do for a long time - you think the unborn should have no rights and are just a lump of tissue to be discarded if so desired, yes? I disagree, so...?
So a brain tumor has rights? If you are arguing that a clump of cells have rights then it should apply to all forms.

Let’s note that zygotes and fetuses before viability have no guaranteed rights in constitutions. And there’s a limited assignment of rights to fetuses after viability.

Again your absolutist, idealistic ideology doesn’t really work in reality. That’s why your beliefs should not apply to any citizens whose beliefs differ.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
So a brain tumor has rights? If you are arguing that a clump of cells have rights then it should apply to all forms.

Let’s note that zygotes and fetuses before viability have no guaranteed rights in constitutions. And there’s a limited assignment of rights to fetuses after viability.

Again your absolutist, idealistic ideology doesn’t really work in reality. That’s why your beliefs should not apply to any citizens whose beliefs differ.

I was not talking to you.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
we have fundamental differences on the value of human life and morality.
Yes, I know. The difference is that I would like people who disagree with you to be able to live according to their own consciouses as women who would never choose abortion are free to do, whereas you want them to live as you would force them to.
I think abortion is murder...
OK, but that doesn't matter to me or to a pregnant woman who sees the procedure as a moral option that is right for her. You can't seem to get past that YOUR feelings are for YOU. You think that what you judge to be murder or immoral should be imposed on others who disagree. An analogous situation would be one where a woman is forced to get an abortion to satisfy somebody else's moral inclinations. Maybe they don't approve of mixed-race babies and think that they should be aborted in utero because they believe that their god thinks that. How would you feel about them imposing their religious beliefs on your wife or daughter?

If you bristle at the idea - if you think that that is nobody's business including the government's - you can understand what pro-choicers are telling you.

Or maybe you already understand that but just don't care. I've mentioned it to you a few times and you keep coming back to YOUR preferences as if you don't seem to care that other people feel differently than you do and want to live their lives according to their consciences, not YOURS.
I was not talking to you.
So what? He expressed his opinion anyway, and it's one I share. Was that a problem for you? It sems so.
the government has an interest in protecting the unborn.
Not from abortion. The government exists to optimize the lives of its citizens, which means its duty is to protect reproductive rights, not limit them. First and second trimester concepti are entitled to no protection that the pregnant woman doesn't provide or choose unless that is the will of the people. It's not. It's the will of the theocrats on the Supreme Court who lied about their intentions and the church whose anti-choice agenda they are there to impose on the will of unwilling people.
Trump said he will not sign a national abortion ban, that means to you whatever you want it to mean.
He's a liar. I know exactly what Trump means on his coherent days. You still haven't figured out who and what he is.
We don't allow doctors to make decisions free from government laws.
That's news to me. When I think about all of the decisions I made practicing medicine unaware that the government had laws I was expected to know and obey. Thanks for the heads up.

I actually used to decide when a patient needed to return for follow-up, or how often I wanted them checking their blood pressure or glucose at home. I chose whether a chest X-ray was necessary and which if any antibiotic to prescribe. And there were laws for those all along? I guess that I was lucky to avoid sanctioning and prosecution all those years.
There are secular reasons to be anti abortion
Ok, but what are your reasons for imposing them on people who disagree, assuming that you prefer criminalizing abortion?

This is the bottom line for people like me. It's not about what you feel is immoral for you to do. We don't mind you considering abortion murder or embryos children with rights. Feel free to live your life that way and make arguments in support of your position.

It's that you keep deflecting back to that as if it should matter to others when the discussion turns to who should make those decisions - the mother or the government. Anti-choicers seem uninterested in what these women want for their lives - just what they want to forbid them from doing.

And the rest of us are uninterested in their opinions.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You are a funny man. I don't see you mention the unborn babies. You are apparently dismissive of them.

This is why I said in an earlier post that we keep talking past one another. To you, it is simply a question of 'choice' for the mother. Others ask, who speaks for the unborn?

I get it - I thought the way you do for a long time - you think the unborn should have no rights and are just a lump of tissue to be discarded if so desired, yes? I disagree, so...?
I don't mention "unborn babies" because what is inside the womb is, progressively, a zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus. It becomes a baby when it is born, and not before.

For the sake of clarity, I do not like abortion after viability (third trimester), except in the case of health or death risk. However, I cannot be inflexible on that because there may be reasons I can't anticipate for why the woman waited so long. She may, for instance, have been a hostage and victim of rape, only able to seek help after fetal viability. Or even reasons unknown to me, but pertinent to the woman anyway.

I'm less antagonistic, though not completely, to abortion in the second trimester, and over all -- as I've said in these forums for the past 11 years, I'm not even a fan of abortion as a sloppy means of contraception. I much prefer solid sex education, which alas too many people are frightened of.

But whether I'm a fan or not, my likes and dislikes cannot be dictates that others have to follow. That is where you and I differ. I cannot and will not take it upon myself to force another person to obey my preferences. A girl or woman is a sentient being, fully human in every way. Neither zygote, morula, blastocyst nor embryo can be classified as such, and the fetus only minimally so. I must give way to the sentient human on such matters.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
I don't mention "unborn babies" because what is inside the womb is, progressively, a zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus. It becomes a baby when it is born, and not before.

Thanks. This illustrates what I have been trying to say, about talking past each other.

To you, the human being does not exist until 'it' is birthed.

To me, it is a child, made in the image and likeness of God. That is why there is a huge disconnect between us after just your first two sentences.

I know I cannot change your view on this and there is certainly no way you can change mine. So?

Peace
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
That's what most people are asking her but she just won't answer that part of the question. And people stupidly think she's the the ultimate queen of problem solving and finding solutions as a leader.

Who does think that? I can't speak for anyone else, but here's why I support her.

1. She's not Trump.
2. She seems a nice person. Unlike Trump.
3. The rest will emerge, but I remember that the Presidency is not one person, and she seems ready to take advice from those more qualified on a given subject. Unlike Trump.
4. And no matter what, it has to be better than Trump.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
Who does think that? I can't speak for anyone else, but here's why I support her.

1. She's not Trump.
2. She seems a nice person. Unlike Trump.
3. The rest will emerge, but I remember that the Presidency is not one person, and she seems ready to take advice from those more qualified on a given subject. Unlike Trump.
4. And no matter what, it has to be better than Trump.

I disagree with Harris on many issues, but you nicely summarized why one should vote for her and not The One Who is Orange (been reading a lot of western fiction lately and so was thinking what a good Indian name would be for Trump). :cool:

I would add that if one cares about environmental conservation, Harris is (by far!), the lesser of two evils.
 
Top