Georgia Abortion Bill

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
This the same Georgia that flips the # out when anyone mentions introducing any type of sex education?

Welcome to Georgia.

This is not a good issue for the Repubs. As if they already don't have enough problems with women voters. The overall public is not in favor of these type of encroachments on Roe v. Wade. Do you actually think this will help in the next election?

Additionally it's always interesting to see the weird angle from conservatives that having a baby is some sort of punishment (another display of fine 'morals') for just doing what your body wants to do as a biological creature and accidentally getting pregnant. Everything in your body wants to have sex much younger than conservatives want it to be true. Much younger than allows for consistent rational decisions. All the while stifling sex education and access to birth control. How many times have I read on here "if you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to deal with the responsibility of a child". No, you're not. Having a baby born into a terrible situation is not some sort of just punishment. If anything has been shown since Trump took office, it's that the conservatives concern is most definitely not "all life matters". It's just gotten to be an even stronger and sadder chant of "Our lives matter, screw y'all".

And then there's the issue of a bunch of old dudes telling women how to run their bodies. That has never been a good aspect of this issue as well.

Also, this is not the mud pit yet without surprise some comments that shouldn't even be in the mud pit are still up here. It's really too bad what kind of talk has become the norm at ole ATS.

originally posted by: okrian
This is not a good issue for the Repubs. As if they already don't have enough problems with women voters. The overall public is not in favor of these type of encroachments on Roe v. Wade. Do you actually think this will help in the next election?

Additionally it's always interesting to see the weird angle from conservatives that having a baby is some sort of punishment (another display of fine 'morals') for just doing what your body wants to do as a biological creature and accidentally getting pregnant. Everything in your body wants to have sex much younger than conservatives want it to be true. Much younger than allows for consistent rational decisions. All the while stifling sex education and access to birth control. How many times have I read on here "if you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to deal with the responsibility of a child". No, you're not. Having a baby born into a terrible situation is not some sort of just punishment. If anything has been shown since Trump took office, it's that the conservatives concern is most definitely not "all life matters". It's just gotten to be an even stronger and sadder chant of "Our lives matter, screw y'all".

And then there's the issue of a bunch of old dudes telling women how to run their bodies. That has never been a good aspect of this issue as well.

Also, this is not the mud pit yet without surprise some comments that shouldn't even be in the mud pit are still up here. It's really too bad what kind of talk has become the norm at ole ATS.

You are full of it. What public school anywhere in the United States does not have sex education classes?

I guess you want them in preschool or kindergarten. Are you one of those people?

a reply to: okrian

That's not true at all, repubs don't have any issues with female voters.

Infact, a vast majority of females are responsible for Trumps massive monetary gains when stacked up against all the Dem opponents.

amp.dailycaller.com...

So no, all you really did was reveal the same tired echo chamber we all know, pfff 🙄

Also, it's true. If you do, do the deed, better be prepared to deal with the fallout. It's called taking responsibility, something that is learned easily by some and harder for others.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

there's nothing in the Bible to support any of those claims.

You know, before you become a Biblical Scholar, you might want to read the book once anyway. Or at least a snippet, like the Ten Commandments? Maybe the books of Exodus or Deuteronomy?

Exodus 20:13:

Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 5:17:

Thou shalt not kill.

Both phrases (the 6th of the Ten Commandments, and the first of them to address physical issues) are translations of the Hebrew ratsach, which is listed in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Entry H7523) as meaning:

a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).

Yes, killing others is in forbidden in the Bible.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Going all Old Testament, are ya? You sure you want to go there?

Isn't there a lot of righteous killing in there?

a reply to: Phage

Going all Old Testament, are ya? You sure you want to go there?

I don't pick and choose what verses I want to follow.

And in this case, Jesus Himself seemed quite satisfied that killing was a sin. Matthew 5:21-22:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Seems even wanting to kill is a problem.

You're really trying to argue that the Bible does not condemn murder? Are you sure you want to go there?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're really trying to argue that the Bible does not condemn murder? Are you sure you want to go there?

No, that is not my argument.

Are you arguing that adulterers should be righteously put to death? Or are you arguing that killing anything is murder

Or are you saying, let God sort it out?

a reply to: Phage

Are you arguing that adulterers should be righteously put to death?

I assume you are speaking of Leviticus 20:10:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Read on, down to Leviticus 20:26:

And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

That part of the Law of Moses was specifically for the Hebrews, being God's Chosen.

Jesus said it best, I think, in Matthew 5:17:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The Law is fulfilled, as in, it has served its purpose. So no, adulterers do not deserve death today.

Or are you arguing that killing anything is murder?

I am not saying that, nor is the Bible... it is saying that killing of another human is wrong. I personally extend that to animals as well, unless used for proper reasons: food or self-defense. But I don't think that is Biblically specified.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah. I know Jesus said (paraphrasing), "never mind some of that stuff, it doesn't count now because I'm here."

I personally extend that to animals as well, unless used for proper reasons: food or self-defense. But I don't think that is Biblically specified.

A matter of choice then. I gave up hunting entirely about 40 years ago.

But let's take God's law (however someone interprets it) into our own hands. Why bother Him with it?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah. I know Jesus said (paraphrasing), "never mind some of that stuff, it doesn't count now because I'm here."

A very rough translation, but essentially, yes. The purpose of the Law was to bring Jesus into the world... He then did the same thing the Law does by offering salvation. the Law is still in effect; it was not destroyed. It's purpose was clarified.

Damn, not sure that's any less rough a translation...

A matter of choice then. I gave up hunting, but not for moral reasons.

I gave up hunting because I saw no need in it and got little pleasure from it. I can get the meat from other hunters who hunt for sport, and I have no pressing desire to have an animal's dead scalp on my wall. To each his own.

But let's take God's law (however someone interprets it) into our own hands. Why bother Him with it?

I do not oppose legalized abortion, especially in the first trimester. Making it strictly illegal would harm (and likely kill) some women who were distraught enough to harm themselves to get to the baby. I don't want that. I simply want balance... the baby is alive as well. It has a right to live, as the mother has a right to her own decision.

I do oppose abortion on moral grounds. But my morality and legality are two separate issues.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I do not oppose legalized abortion, especially in the first trimester. Making it strictly illegal would harm (and likely kill) some women who were distraught enough to harm themselves to get to the baby.

Same page. The Georgia law is dreadful, as it its intent. To attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.

a reply to: Phage

Same page. The Georgia law is dreadful, as it its intent. To attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.

Quite probable.

I do find it interesting that HB481 does not make abortion a criminal offense; only a civil offense. A woman or abortion provider cannot be incarcerated, only sued for wrongful death.

I also think the 20 week limitation for rape is insufficient. 26 (second trimester) would be preferable to me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

A woman or abortion provider cannot be incarcerated, only sued for wrongful death.

Swell, the grandparents can sue the mother for having an abortion and/or the doctor for performing it. That's just great. As far as I know, there was nothing to prevent them from doing so prior to this.

I also think the 20 week limitation for rape is insufficient.

I think the "heartbeat" stipulation is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, killing others is in forbidden in the Bible.

It is not. And, abortion and the murder of pregnant women and innocent children is prescribed in the Bible too.

The Biblical God loves death. Created a system that requires death in order for life to survive. Massive deaths must occur before a society can thrive.

The Biblical God requires for life to be needlessly sacrificed to him to appease him. The Biblical God even had his own son murdered to appease his murderous and self loathing wrath on humanity.

So, before you go all righteous indignity on me, with your filthy body wrapped in a flag, and you waving a Bible in one hand and a cross in the other, come at me with your f#ing hypocritical moral superior, you might wanna check yourself!

The God of the Bible is just fine and dandy with rape and abortion and the murder of pregnant women and innocent children.

a reply to: Phage

Swell, the grandparents can sue the mother for having an abortion and/or the doctor for performing it. That's just great. As far as I know, there was nothing to prevent them from doing so prior to this.

Or the father.

One cannot sue for something that is legal. If they could, fools would be trying to sue folks for driving a noisy car down the road and scaring their chickens. Driving is not illegal, and if there's no noise laws, it just is what it is. What this law is doing is setting up for future lawsuits when (and if) abortion is no longer specifically legal.

I think the "heartbeat" stipulation is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade.

I'm not sure; the limitation to civil action may be enough to prevent a direct conflict. That's something the courts will have to hash out.

My concern with the heartbeat detection being specified is that it introduces a standard that is not fixed. As technology advances (and you can bet it will with this incentive), the ability to detect a fetal heartbeat will advance. We know that an actual contraction occurs almost immediately after a heart is formed, even before it is capable of pumping blood. Even before this occurs, the individual cells undergo spontaneous contraction; the heartbeat starts to occur as soon as enough neural activity is present to synchronize them. At the present time, it is simply not possible to detect the heartbeat at that early stage using equipment normally available.

It is quite possible that abortions would then be civilly illegal at a point before a woman even realized she was pregnant. I find that ridiculous.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Auditioning to be the next level replacement for Pat Robertson?

At least he read the book.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Just stop citing your Bible and your biblical God as the source of your proclaimed moral high ground...okay?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'll cite what I want.

As for my views on abortion, they are not based on anything Biblical. They are based on a respect for all human life. You need to quit making assumptions and start listening; I just posted that above in a reply to Phage.

I just find it offensive that you come on here and give us all a book review on a book that you obviously have never read, in direct contradiction to the words in it, in direct contradiction to the accepted interpretations of it by those who study it, and based on nothing more than other book reviews from others who have never read it.

Now, "Reverend," why don't you go find a clue? God knows, you need one.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'll cite what I want.

Then be prepared to get called out for your personal brand of hypocrisy.

As for my views on abortion, they are not based on anything Biblical.

Your posting history betrays you. You don't even seem to be self aware of how your dependency on the 10 Commandments, for example, informs your argument of civil liability. As if a woman's body is chattel, owned by the man who plants his seed inside of her.