Right To Life Historic Measure (that includes protection of every person from the time of fertilizat

alot of this would naturally resolve, if the popular press would quit glamorizing sex, quit putting pressure on females to be sex toys, and start warning them instead about the implications of sex with an individual that can impregnate them. encourage males to be more responsible. if they know they are a spontaneous person and won't bring condoms, for the sake of the female they are about to endanger, they could at least make some preliminary preparations like a temporay but safe form of sterilization. something that shows they have some concern about the entire issue.

as it stands, women have almost all the risk

1. they can get pregnant.
2. they can end up with nine months of morning sickness and the entire gamut of ills that come along with pregnancy, including the inability to work in some cases, loss of income, loss of schooling, and so on. it can literally ruin their lives
3. they can end up dead if something goes wrong during the pregnancy. alot of women/girls have died during delivery, many during c-sections. go look at the statistics. it ain't pretty
4. they can end up permanently disabled and disfigured.
5. if they deliver the child, they can end up in abject poverty and God knows what else. women have had to do some pretty horrid things to survive over the millenia.

all this and the guy can't take any precautions?


[edit on 1-6-2008 by undo]

post above i think. ^

If all life is sacred, why did god murder every first born in Egypt, as documented in Exodus ? He/she/it obviously does not see the issue the same way.

Heres a scenario.

A woman gets raped, and becomes pregnant.

State law says she can't abort, even though she wants to.

She then dies in childbirth due to complications, and so does the baby.

Who had the right to life?

What "right" does anyone have to dictate to the woman a possible death sentence because some monster raped her?

The argument against abortion is just as much an argument for potential murder as saying that aborting an unborn foetus is murder.

Pregnancy is a massively complicated issue, and a huge strain on the mothers body.

That is why there always has to be a choice for the woman, because this is happening inside her as an individual, and not in the minds of those who seek to impose their interpretations of writing in a book, especially one that has no problems endorsing killing for its own purposes.

well the premise is that the firstborn were always the offspring of the royals and were hybrids of hybrids. thus why they were always targetted in ancient texts by this king or that god or what have you.

if a woman is raped the ownus is on the rapist if the woman has an abortion. if the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy, the one who is already independently surviving should be saved, unless the mother decides otherwise.
otherwise, nothing can solve the riddle faster than just not
letting it get anywhere near home plate unless it's unloaded or
married to ya.

Trust me, when the Rev has a heart that starts failing he'll be first in-line for the new fetal stem cell treatments to rebuild it. Then he'll go to confession and weep that he has sinned blah blah. I've never met a christian yet that wasn't an outrageous hypocrite and I never will. It just goes hand in hand.

reply to post by black_suburbans



interesting. may I ask what
your religion/non-religion is?

you do realize don't you, that the people who are christians now, were not christians before? how does the act of becoming a christian suddenly qualify you as a representative for every other person's bad choices?



[edit on 1-6-2008 by undo]

[edit on 1-6-2008 by undo]

Has anyone yet noticed that the article in the OP came from an organized religion? To try to sway either the US Constitution or any State Constitution to conform law to a religious issue is a violation on the concept of "separation of Church & State" that is an intrinsic part of the Supreme Law of the Land. This is another reason why it should never become an Amendment.


The separation of Church & State became a part of the Supreme Law for the protection of one against the other. In other words, the Church cannot make any religious doctrine as a part of Law & the Law cannot exert control over Church doctrines either...That's why there are a number of clauses within the Constitution to separate the authority of both from each other. One such clause is included in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And even in the selection of Government Officers...Article 6, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Yes - MidnightDStroyer

But if the Christian extremists would accept that - we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Christian extremists want to change the constitution and make this a Christian based government.

(Every belief has its extremists - - I am not referring to those Christians - who truly understand what Jesus' message is - and with love and grace walk in His footsteps. I am however - by choice not Christian)

reply to post by Annee


it's a survival response. you should read some of the literature that's out there.
like christian book store owner is forced to hire an overtly gay man who then comes to work dressed for the purpose of insulting the store owner's customers. the other option is, he can refuse to hire the overtly gay individual and lose his business as a result.

christian group of young adults on college campus is stripped of the perks and benefits given to similar groups from other religions, and their pamplets confiscated and REWRITTEN by people who aren't christians, so that they aren't "inflammatory" (this is also how china deals with religion. it rewrites the religious texts and hands them back, making them look like a version of top secret documents released under FOIA with big strips of white out/black out, everwhere. ) kids take it to court and it takes 5 years to conclude that the original action was unlawful and/or unconstitutional but by then, the kids are already all graduated and clearly aware that they are being severly prejudiced against in almost every level of society, from the TV, to the work place, to school, in academia, and pretty much world wide.

this CREATES radicals and fundamentalists. it's a survival mechanism.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by undo]

You can try and pry this coat hanger from my cold dead hands..

And since you cant murder me .. You can just wait around...


Btw .. Will this abolish the death penalty?

Also . Wouldn't this make organ donation mandatory?

Since everyone would have a right to life .(Even lifers in prison)
And by denying it . Couldn't you then be changed ? I mean if someone dies cause of say no kidneys . And you have 2 and didn't offer one . Isn't that the same as an abortion ? Just very late term . .

[edit on 1-6-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05



Btw .. Will this abolish the death penalty?

I hope so. I don't believe Jesus was even remotely
for the death penalty. Not even close.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee

 

it's a survival response. you should read some of the literature that's out there.
like christian book store owner is forced to hire an overtly gay man who then comes to work dressed for the purpose of insulting the store owner's customers. the other option is, he can refuse to hire the overtly gay individual and lose his business as a result.

christian group of young adults on college campus is stripped of the perks and benefits given to similar groups from other religions, and their pamplets confiscated and REWRITTEN by people who aren't christians, so that they aren't "inflammatory" (this is also how china deals with religion. it rewrites the religious texts and hands them back, making them look like a version of top secret documents released under FOIA with big strips of white out/black out, everwhere. ) kids take it to court and it takes 5 years to conclude that the original action was unlawful and/or unconstitutional but by then, the kids are already all graduated and clearly aware that they are being severly prejudiced against in almost every level of society, from the TV, to the work place, to school, in academia, and pretty much world wide.

this CREATES radicals and fundamentalists. it's a survival mechanism.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by undo]

undo - you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was raised Christian - - it is by my choice and after witnessing the abuse of Christian Entitlelists - that I have become anti all organized religions.

undo - you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was raised Christian - - it is by my choice and after witnessing the abuse of Christian Entitlelists - that I have become anti all organized religions.

Ah but this is a response on the topic of what is and isn't constitutional as described by Midnight. Goose/Gander. If you have a right to your body, a believer has a right to their beliefs. These rights are not transferable, not abductable, not confiscatable, not remandable, not removable, nor capable of being abolished without destroying the constitution

Originally posted by undo

undo - you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was raised Christian - - it is by my choice and after witnessing the abuse of Christian Entitlelists - that I have become anti all organized religions.

Ah but this is a response on the topic of what is and isn't constitutional as described by Midnight. Goose/Gander. If you have a right to your body, a believer has a right to their beliefs. These rights are not transferable, not abductable, not confiscatable, not remandable, not removable, nor capable of being abolished without destroying the constitution

Yes - everyone has individual rights.

It's pretty pathetic however - - when you have to use law to force equal rights.

Originally posted by Annee

Yes - everyone has individual rights.

It's pretty pathetic however - - when you have to use law to force equal rights.

Unfortunately, the real culprit is not any particular way of life or belief system, but the inability to let others live and pursue their version of life and liberty.
If my version of life and liberty disagrees with yours, neither of us should be silenced or prejudiced against, and both should be afforded the same rights, even if our pamplets clearly outline how we disagree with each other. Those are your rights as clearly outlined in the constitution. I shouldn't be able to come to your store, let's say it's a store that sells atheist materials, books on the topics related to atheism, and I have on a t-shirt that says JESUS DIED FOR YOU and a pic of Jesus on it and demand you hire me or else. Should you be required to hire me under force of law when you know I'm going to deliberately antagonize your customer base?
I don't know but that seems like that would be counterproductive to the pursuit of happiness, life and liberty, etc.



[edit on 1-6-2008 by undo]

It all comes down to one thing...

Governments should not legislate morality...Ever...on any issue...

Peace

reply to post by Rilence


that's um, crazy?
the laws are full of moral codes, moral foundations, moral
concepts. you wouldn't even have a definition for "moral" if
there wasn't.

what you're saying is, you want the definition of what is and isn't
moral, modified to meet your belief system. and so does everyone
else.

it's a matter of maturity that you realize you are not here alone

reply to post by undo


No Beth...

Actually...What I meant was governments should not legislate on matters where there is a clear border between one or more parties as to what is morally "right or "wrong

If a significant majority of the populace agrees that a particular action is deemed "Wrong" and should be legislated against, then fine...Go ahead...

Cases in point include murder, assault, rape and so on...

The issue we have discussed on this thread is not so clear cut, and is no way supported or opposed by a substantial majority of the populace..

Therefore, there should not be legislation controlling said issue...

Peace

If a significant majority of the populace agrees that a particular action is deemed "Wrong" and should be legislated against, then fine...Go ahead...

Erm, not sure this is right either. Why did we establish from the beginning, that there are some things we are given and expected to do, that cannot be changed, regardless of popular opinion? Popular opinion is fickle. Just witness how fast scientists change their minds when someone with enough clout adds new data to an old theory! They agree to go along with it because it's popularly accepted, and not necessarily because it's been proven to them personally.

reply to post by undo


Absolutely

Agreed, "morality" changes often over the course of time...

However, this issue, in my country at least has been well and truly split down the line as far as pro/anti goes, for many a long year...

As I see it has been in your country...

In Australia, it is pretty much illegal in most if not all states...Perhaps US states should adopt such a model...Illegal by statue, but the state turns a blind eye as it does in Victoria...

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way against counseling a woman to consider other options...

My mother is/has been such a counselor for over 25 yrs...

But has she ever denied a woman access to the resources/information to an abortion after all other options have been considered...once ?

The answer is no...

Hence I hold the viewpoint I do...

Peace