KW
Well-Known Member
Not all constitutional rights are mentioned. They do not need to be.
It is not alleged. It is not hinted at.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not all constitutional rights are mentioned. They do not need to be.
Well there are instances where a pregnancy will threaten the life of the mother. Even in scenarios where it was a planned baby/pregnancy. That’s just how biology works.A life saving abortion?
How does that work?
I notice that you make all sorts of statements that bear a burden of proof but never support them.The life belongs to the unborn human being.
No it is much more than hinted at. You are just refusing to read the Bill of Rights properly.It is not alleged. It is not hinted at.
I'm reading that as do you advocate preventing cells from developing into persons that would have a tragic life?Do you advocating everyone in the world who might have a bad life?
God doesn't intervene in the material realm, so intervening in the material realm would not be playing God.Isn't that playing God?
My sister in law had one of those. She did not want to lose her fetus, but she had no choice.Well there are instances where a pregnancy will threaten the life of the mother. Even in scenarios where it was a planned baby/pregnancy. That’s just how biology works.
Off the top of my head there’s what’s called a “hedgehog baby” or ectopic pregnancy. Meaning the fetus is quite literally a ball of limbs and nothing else. If this is not surgically removed the mother will likely die and there is literally no baby to speak of either way. Meaning you literally killed a sister, daughter and potentially someone’s mother. Very moral. /s
That’s a more extreme scenario but there are other things that can occur.
The stance of “Preventing abortions” imagines a utopia that is nothing but perfect pregnancies. Something that simply does not exist in reality. Biology is far more complicated as a general rule
And I’m sure she had a very unfortunate emotional turmoil due to that. Which I don’t wish upon anyoneMy sister in law had one of those. She did not want to lose her fetus, but she had no choice.
You save a human life.
Does anyone disagree?
No, I'm calling for honesty in the question, foetuses are not babiesYou are avoiding the question.
Ah, but there is no guarantee of it becoming a fully functioning human, this brings us back to post #26 which essentially asks whether it is altruistic to save such non-sentient life.If you don't abort the fetus and it becomes a fully functioning human, then you have saved a life by preventing the abortion.
Yes.You save a human life.
Does anyone disagree?
Neither is a private individual's right to buy and own guns.It is not alleged. It is not hinted at.
I was referring to the rule of law, contained in the Constitution.Abortion is not a constitutional right. It is not even mentioned.
So, it's an ownership philosophy.The life belongs to the unborn human being.
Do you think fertilized cells are babies?How is it misleading?
If you kill the baby it won't live.
If you prevent the killing of the baby it lives.
You save a life.
What if the baby is a Putin equivalent or worse, destined to kill billions?You save a human life.
Does anyone disagree?
I missed that one, but it sure sounds like the dingbat right.And one republican's response to women in abortion ban states is to criminalize any women who travels to another state for a procedure if she resides in the ban state. So these women would not even have the freedom anywhere in the USA from the long arm of the state they live in.
God is the great aborter. Miscarriages occur all day every day. Nor is that confined to humans.If you don't kill the fetus it can live a full life.
If you preven the killing, you save the life.
If you "save" a person from drowning and they still drown in that same incident, then you never really saved them from drowning.