The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The latest US anti-abortion laws are a response to judicial activism > Comments

The latest US anti-abortion laws are a response to judicial activism : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 24/5/2019

In my opinion judicial activism is not that much different to a (limited) bloodless coup d'état, except that there is no penalty potentially applying to offending judges.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
There is not much point in banning abortion if the abortee is "not to be held "criminally culpable or civilly liable". Alabaman politicians are even sillier than lot
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 24 May 2019 8:30:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Folk like judges and politicians who are unquestionably quarantined fro the consequences of their decisions. Energy policy, tax reform, social justice, affordable housing, SSM "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" etc etc. Often make the worst possible decisions for the worst possible reasons or even worse!?

Thus here in Oz, we see some politicians trying to conflate the recent election results as a backlash against SSM. And the alleged loss of religious freedom! WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK!

A woman's body is hers. Not those deciding who can penetrate and impregnate it and often even in so-called marriage, against her will and or, without informed consent!

Yet in some circumstances, complete strangers as elected officials charged with their care, decide that so-called Christian care includes forcing the unwilling incubator to go full term!

And to add injury to insult, expect her with rare calloused indifference only comparable in Nazi-controlled Germany, to foot all the medical care cost and child raising financial burdens!

The newly elected government could put a few essential Senators so far offside if they try to reverse SSM and it's consequences of formerly allowed discrimination and persecution, to create for them a hostile senate.

Those now attending Christiaan churches and like SM, claiming to know the mind of God, are less than 10% of the population and in the SSM debate have been and remain a very (mentally) disturbed tail trying to wag the dog!

And thanks to an inept and arrogant Labor front bench and campaign, now have their backstabbing champion now ensconced in the lodge!

WELL DONE THOU GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANTS!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 24 May 2019 10:14:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wow it appears in America that the younger generation have far more courage than those of us over the last 50 years. They actually care about then unborn babies and mental state of women unlike the butchers ensuring their quotas for planned parenthood. The fools talk about it being a womens body. It is actually the babies body that is butchered.
Posted by runner, Friday, 24 May 2019 4:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The death toll in less advantaged communities in women is as a consequence of labour and giving birth. And aftermath consequences, bleeding to death!.

All to often the result of pregnancy when they are still children! And as such has no element of informed consent. runner seems to think that the rights of the undeveloped fetus outweigh those of the coscripted incubator. And patently not so in incest, rape or the victim of clerical child sex abuse!

At no time in any of his postings has this religious fanatic expressed even the slightest concern for the welfare of the pregnant mum nor wether her financial circumstances allow anything other than a life of deprivation and misery for the unwanted child. And his church possibly is the same church that until recently, forbade contraceptives!

As heartless every which way as the Nazi war criminals with self-evident lack of compassion to everyone except the unborn child.

And that then includes unwanted deprived kids sentenced to a virtual lifetime of misery to then become the largest cohort in our prison system!

In my view, demonstrates an IQ roughly equal to the ambient temperature. Plus, rare calloused indifference!

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 25 May 2019 10:03:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There must be a rigorous separation of Church and State, to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens (including their rights to reasonable privacy and to self-determination), and thereby to ensure non-discrimination, inclusiveness, tolerance and equality.

This separation must necessarily include the separation of Church and Judiciary. Judicial findings and rulings should only be made on the basis of merit - free from bias, but not free from universal strictures of conscience, morality and integrity.

"There is a right way and a wrong way to determine legal solutions to controversial moral issues."

Neither Church nor 'Religion' can or ought be permitted or enabled to dictate universal social mores - as, Churches are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable in this determination.

Morality, ethics, integrity, honesty, virtue and justice may only be determined reliably by the clear and unbiased application of logic to the question of what constitutes the best interests of the citizenry and of the State, the Nation and the World.

We see all too clearly around the world what can be the resultants of an inordinate influence by 'Religion' in affairs of State, affairs of the Judiciary, and in the affairs of the citizenry. (Child brides, FGM, Honour Killing, discrimination, war, conflict, terrorism, forced migration, despotism, outlandish judicial inconsistency and bias, and so much more.)

Why should the rights of an unborn foetus outweigh the rights of a woman to choose whether or not she may be advantaged or seriously disadvantaged by giving birth?

How can any honest moral code determine that contraception is bad?

How can any honest moral code determine that Men have greater rights than Women?

Justice is everyone's responsibility - in clear honest conscience, unbiased by adherence to dogma.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 25 May 2019 3:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I look forward to the day when men can have children as well as women: perhaps some sort of implants.

If some men are so concerned about embryos, they can go through the nine months, and then the labour, and then the eighteen years of child-care. And then try to catch up on their careers.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 25 May 2019 4:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear, hear Saltpetre, Joe and well said. Joe, it is technically possible for an embryo to be implanted in a man's stomach and feed by a surgically attached artery. And delivered via Cesar,

One can just see runner first in the queue taking on this challenge. Except in his case, he'd be allowed to deliver via the annus sphincter. Can just imagine how different that incorrigible reprobate's attitude would be if he had to pass something the size of a bowling ball. Followed by all that Joe suggested!

It'd be poetic justice if he were reincarnated as a woman in some poverty riddled third world country where "she" would be little more than property and a child bride to boot.

So as you sow and all that!!

To reach unto the kingdom of heaven, ye must be born again.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 25 May 2019 6:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre and his courtier:

So it's ok to pull an unborn child from the womb in bits and pieces.
You sick puppies!

Dan.
Posted by diver dan, Sunday, 26 May 2019 6:31:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan,

I don't think doctors use coat-hangers any more - of course, they might have to revert to such primitive techniques if abortions are ever made completely illegal. What, did you think they would stop just because they'd become illegal ?

Of course, the embryo would be removed using sensible surgical techniques, with no harm to the woman or damage to the embryo, which would 'die' painlessly and quickly, since it would not be viable outside the womb. After all, it would not have an independent life. Then the woman could get pregnant again, at the time and circumstances of her choosing.

And if the bloke objected and wanted the product of his pleasure carried to term, then perhaps in the future, the fertilised ovum/embryo could be transferred to his body and he can go through all the pleasure of pregnancy, demand feeding, and teenage temper-tantrums.

Interested, Dan ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 26 May 2019 9:02:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Dan

the heartless coots think they can ease their seared consiences by calling an unborn baby a fetus. They also think that somehow demonising anyone pointing out the truth justifies their sick deranged arguements lacking any biological backup. Then of course they make it a women's right issues and pretend they are on the 'right' side of history. The human heart is certainly totally decietful as the old prophet Jeremiah says.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 26 May 2019 9:48:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

Do you mean 'embryo' ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 26 May 2019 10:41:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Diver and runner, you have with rare skill, underlined and made my case for me and that of a vastly more intelligent Joe and Saltpetre.

What the diabolically dumb refuse to even acknowledge or understand is, their, I'll die in a ditch first Sargent Schulz syndrome, recalcitrant stand, if successful?

Will in no way stop fetuses from being aborted, but simply driven underground where backyard butchers and their primitive methods will not only kill the unwanted baby but oft times the mother and or her ability to bear any other children!

With the abortion rate undiminished! Just the death toll among pregnant women massively increased!

Prohibition has never ever been successful! Just exacerbated the alleged problem! e.g., the war on drugs now a century-long? Hasn't reduced drug use or drug crime but has filled prisons to overflowing and created a death toll that has vastly exceeded the US losses in WW11!

WELL DONE THOU GOOD AND FAITHFULL SERVANTS!

And the only predictable outcome when the lunatics (Satan's servants) have taken over and are running the asylum!?

You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 26 May 2019 10:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A girl or woman suffering horrendously from rape or incest finds herself pregnant.

Is the ongoing suffering from such an attack, such violation, to be unconscionably magnified and multiplied by forcing this individual to take such a pregnancy to full term?

Who in God's universe is so lacking in compassion, so bereft of 'humanity' as to force such an imposition, such torture on another?

And face it, even if the child is whipped away upon its birth, the 'mother' will have carried the reminder of her misfortune day in and day out for months, and will still be left with the knowledge that, though unwillingly, she has enabled the progeny of a criminal, an animal, to be brought into the world - to do who knows what.

For shame!

There are those who revere human birth as something just so special - because the product is a 'human being', a product of God.
But, if God is taken out of the equation, then the worship of birth is the worship of one's procreation, of one's 'genes'. Self love!

A meaningful birth should be the result of love, and not self-love, but the love of one's chosen partner, in a life bond, accompanied by assurance and determination to ensure the wellbeing of the child.
Selfless, humanitarian, virtuous.

Take God out of the equation and human birth is commonplace. All manner of creatures have been successfully perpetuating their species for eons - pigs have been doing it, and frogs, dragon flies and even apes.

Getting a girl pregnant to boost one's self esteem, or because it is 'the done thing', is bestial and utterly devoid of merit or virtue.

Should girls and women be demeaned, even 'sacrificed', by being forced to carry an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
I think not.

Who do 'men' think they are? Disciples of 'truth' or 'wisdom'?

Take a pill and get over yourself.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 26 May 2019 1:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Runner,

Do you mean 'embryo' ?'

use whatever words you like Joe. You have a very sick narrative in redefining or calling unborn babies a different name and makes no difference to the barbaric act of butchering human life.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 26 May 2019 7:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pope Francis' proclamation of the 'evil' of abortion seals it for me, and I imagine for very many others.

Call this humanity? Placing the worth of an embryo or foetus above the worth and value of a female human, and above her wellbeing and very life, is not only narrow-minded in the extreme but is so lacking in compassion and love for the woman as to be diametrically opposed to the recorded values of the originator of Christianity.

The banning of contraceptives - ill advised at the least.

The banning of the termination of an unwanted or ill-advised pregnancy, irrespective of 'circumstance', is an outright slap in the face.

Bad enough that some supposed 'holy' men have not been able to keep it in their pants, but now the treatment of women as mere 'vessels' can only lead to a conclusion that men, including the Pope, are the real problem, not only with the Church and with Religion, but with humankind at large.

Could this be 'the straw', the final nail, which reveals the full scope of the removal of 'faith' from realistic relevance to the lives of ordinary people.

Doctrines of love for one's 'fellow man' may have continued relevance in pursuit of commendable social mores, as ethics, integrity, virtue, honour and universal morality, but any claimed 'aura' of any fundamental 'wisdom', regarding the best interests of humankind, is now so tarnished, so worn and disheveled as to no longer have any value or merit.

Man against Man is bad enough; Man against Woman is death.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 26 May 2019 7:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Runner,

.

A baby does not remain a baby all its life. As it develops, we usually say it’s a little boy or a little girl or, simply, a child. As it develops further, we might say it’s a youngster. When it reaches puberty, we tend to call it a teenager. At the age of majority, we say it’s a young man or a young woman. After that, it may become a mother or a father or a middle-aged bachelor or spinster, before becoming a senior. Then, perhaps, a grandfather or grandmother, a great grandfather or great grandmother … a very elderly person, and, finally, … an ancestor.

A baby is no longer a baby when it can stand on its own two feet and begins to speak coherently. We do not usually continue to refer to it as a baby after that. It’s a bit silly to do so as it gets older.

But, as you know, life does not begin at birth, when it becomes a baby.

Life is not a single event. It is a process. It began on earth about 4.28 billion years ago. It has constantly been relayed from generation to generation since then through the process of fertilization produced by the fusion of a male sperm with a female ovum.

The fusion of sperm and ovum produces an entirely new cell called a zygote (a fertilized egg) which develops into an embryo that later becomes a fetus before ultimately being ejected from the womb as a baby.

I suppose you could say we are all zygotes or fertilized eggs if you like, but we are only that at the commencement of our existence as individuals – the initial phase of our development as human beings. Or you could say we are all babies. But that too is just another phase of our development. A baby is not a zygote anymore than it is a teenager or a grandfather or a grandmother.

We change our appellation according to the stage of our development – before the cradle and after the grave !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 26 May 2019 10:23:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'A baby does not remain a baby all its life. As it develops, we usually say it’s a little boy or a little girl or, simply, a child. '

yes Banjo if its fortunate enough not to be butchered.

'Life is not a single event. It is a process. It began on earth about 4.28 billion years ago. ' sure Banjo. You can believe your little fairytales.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 26 May 2019 10:51:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Saltpetre, and Alan B.

Do either of you know how an abortion procedure takes place? There's enough philosophizing to defend abortions, but do either of you know how it's done? It really is barbaric.

Regarding the article. It makes a good point about judicial activism. In Australia you can say that abortion was voted on. Perhaps the laws for abortion and when it is and isn't allowed can also be up to the people, instead of removed from your legislative process. That's not the case in the US.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 26 May 2019 10:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Observation use to be an essential part of science. Baby killers put blindfolds on. Looking through a microscope can easily confirm an unborn baby as being human. Instead we get weasel words in order to deny the obvious.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 26 May 2019 11:10:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Saltpetre and Alan B (again),

If you want to know how it's done here's a link that has videos explaining the process in modern medicine.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k&list=PLRCroccSjXWR9HVr_ooA3ErEAR0SifdwY&index=1

Although Planed Parenthood doesn't go into the detail of the procedures for abortions it does agree by the names and brief descriptions of the procedures.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion.

If you don't think you can stomach the video description of abortion, then I still recommend watching the second videos in that list. The doctor is interviewed and explains among other things why he stopped doing abortions. Or if you want to read his testimony outside of an interview layout, you can read it here, it covers several of the same things in the interviews but both speech recorded and the video interview highlight a few different details that add to his decision to never to perform abortions again.

https://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/1127-testimony-of-dr-anthony-levatino---former-abortion-provider
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 26 May 2019 11:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS,

I have said my piece, and I understand that we could never agree, for you are fixated on the life of the unborn, where I am bound to give due consideration to the life and worth of the woman whose life could be so damaged, so unimaginable, that she sees no option but to go through the certain distress and trauma of an abortion, a termination to the life she is fully aware she carries, and whose future she must weigh carefully and caringly in view of her circumstances, present and projected.

As for the surgery involved, how might this compare with a heart-lung transplant - both of which are embarked upon with full comprehension of the potential outcome for the patient, physically and emotionally.

Of course I care about the unborn, but I also may not close my eyes to the needs and interests of the woman bearing an ill-conceived and unwanted pregnancy. Nor may I disregard her determination of the likely or potential circumstances of the life she carries.
This can only be her decision - without fear, subjugation, interference or coercion.

Due to nature's imperatives, women must endure considerably more in this life than could reasonably be regarded as a fair share, and on this basis alone deserve far better consideration than we generally see being offered.

It is past time that society and religion gave women their rightful due, and recognized their fundamental (and God given, if you like) right to the control of their bodies and their sexuality.

God's children on this Earth have much to answer for, and by far the major perpetrators of evil are, and have been, men.

In a truly enlightened world, the constructs of 'Religion', as declared and delivered almost exclusively by men, would surely be subject to clear and detailed review - preferably by a council of learned women.

I wish you all well, and don't forget, God created Man and Woman, and, as God is infallible, all the myriad variant forms of such construction must be held to be intentional, beautiful, and of equal worth.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 27 May 2019 2:10:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Saltpetre,

You're likely right that we won't agree. However hear my peace as well. My fixation is not just on the unborn, it's on life in general. That includes many of the struggles that abortion is used as a solution for because a baby is placed into the equation, and it also includes the struggles that suicide is used as a solution because of the struggle, the pain, or the raw emotions that run quick and deep, or long and bleed a person dry. In the same way that I do not view suicide as an option, I also do not think that abortion should be an option. The issues that cause an abortion to be considered don't go away when the baby is gone. All that happens is that the baby is gone. The difference here is that I don't think death should be the first option pushed, or ever an option pushed unless there was a great crime committed that deserves a death penalty. We should seek out how to resolve the issues that face women with having to kill an unborn child.

As for the difference between an abortion procedure, and a heart bypass, surgically removing cancer, or donating and receiving an organ, I'll give two differences.

1) the patient is told what will be happening on the other procedures. They are informed of the risks even if the doctor recommends it. Abortion isn't described in detail unless you find the information from pro life sources.

2) the child in the womb is not part of the woman's body and is not an organ.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 27 May 2019 3:22:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Saltpetre,

You also challenge me and those in my demographic based on being a man and being a Christian. I'll do you one more. I'm also white. Must mean I'm a horrible person. Watch your tone and the narrative you are drawing from for the challenges based on those demographics. I've grown up with the push that because of at least one of those three demographics that my opinion doesn't matter, and my voice should be silenced. (Unless I actually agree with a woman, a different religious or political position, or if I agree with a different race. Then my opinion is opportunistic in how it doesn't matter, then all of the sudden it's hailed as coming from a "real man"). This is a double standard and full of hypocrisy.

Therefore in the face of hypocrisy, I challenge you as well. You say that you care about the unborn, but you are ok with killing them. Can you really say you care if that is the case? You also speak of equality among the sexes but can you really believe that when so much of your reply was about the evils and harms men have done, and that learned women should be in charge? I give you this critism and these challenges becase the position that I'm a man so my opinion should be silenced unless it agrees leaves a bitter tast in my mouth. But I also want to give you these challenges and critism because it's likely that you don't know how they are a double standard. How can you do better if you are never confronted with how it is wrong.

If you haven't watched the videos, I would recommend it. They are hard, but you can do it. Be educated on the procedures that you are supporting. Don't support it out of ignorance. It's bad enough that the abortion clinics do this to the women they advise and feed into their fears. Don't you do it too.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 27 May 2019 3:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Runner,

.

In reply to my comment “A baby does not remain a baby all its life …”, you wrote :

« yes Banjo if its fortunate enough not to be butchered »

That could apply to all babies, but I’m sure that’s not what you had in mind. You obviously refer to abortion, the interruption of pregnancy.

As I pointed out in my previous post, a baby is not a baby until the fetus is ejected from the mother’s womb. A baby cannot be aborted because it has already been born. Otherwise, it is not a baby, only a fetus.

By the same token, a baby is not called an adult until it’s at least 18-years-old. Each phase of the life of a human being has its particular appellation. I should be more than a little surprised, for example, if you considered yourself a baby. Though, logically, if you don’t mind calling a fetus a baby why should you mind calling an adult a baby ?

I think most people would find that a bit silly to say the least.

On the other hand, I quite understand that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women who really want to have a baby imagine they already have one in their womb at the first sign of pregnancy. Psychologically, it’s a baby right from the start – even though it might be only a single-cell zygote in their ovary.

It takes about two weeks for the zygote to divide and move to the uterus where it attaches itself as an embryo. It then takes about another six weeks to become a fetus which continues to develop for the remainder of the gestational period until it is rejected from the womb as a baby.

So when is a baby a baby ? When it emerges from the womb and breathes its first breath of fresh air into its lungs and emits its first cry !

Believe me, Runner, you are not a baby. Nor do you have the psychology of a pregnant woman who really wants to have one.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 27 May 2019 8:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS,
I know better than to try to influence you on this issue, but there is no need to get hot under the collar. This is a discussion, and my interest is only to explain my position, perhaps in hope that you may better understand it.

I believe I am fair and reasonable, and I think I understand your position - that all human life is sacred, and therefore to be protected by all means available - with particular reference to the unborn, 'innocent' potential human (child of God).

In your view, the interests of the unborn outweigh many other erstwhile legitimate interests.

However, does your concern apply to all humanity, or only certain populations?
How do you feel, for example, about children living their whole lives on a rubbish dump?
Or societies with extremely high rates of child mortality and deaths in childbirth?
And, what may be your view on overall world population?
Could you possibly consider that Western Developed cultures must endeavour to out-breed ‘other cultures’, lest ‘we’ be overwhelmed?

Not all humans turn out to be wonderful constructive contributors to society, and, even in the best societies there continue to be retrograde individuals and divergent social and cultural viewpoints.

You discount 'circumstance', as you contend that adoption can take care of this (following only the slight inconvenience of gestation and labour for the 'mother') - and of course irrespective of her situation, for better or worse, during this period of relatively ‘minor’ incapacity.

Surely that is a harsh approach, significantly lacking in empathy?

I was mistaken in my previous post, when I stated in closing, 'all the myriad variant forms of such (life) construction must be held to be intentional, beautiful, and of equal worth.'
This was really a shot at those who reject all non-straight, nonbelievers.

NNS, you posted on another thread on this issue:

>>Instead what I see for abortion is blind support in spite of what is accurate information. There is a cultural push for abortion that blindly accepts and supports it.<<

Surely this is rather ‘calling the kettle black'.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 27 May 2019 4:28:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

Yuo write;

"You're likely right that we won't agree. However hear my peace as well. My fixation is not just on the unborn, it's on life in general."

I am interested to hear your take on capital punishment.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 27 May 2019 8:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Believe me, Runner, you are not a baby.'

Believe me Banjo your thinking is very much childish. Your atrocious attempts to justify butchering unborn babies fails miserably.
Posted by runner, Monday, 27 May 2019 8:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many antiabortionists remember being a 3 month old foetus, which I think would be a more realistic stretch of time to allow for abortion.

Nobody on earth has any memory of being in the womb, so they wouldn’t ever know they had been aborted.

Without vaccination, antibiotics and Penicillion. Human life expectancy would go back
to what it used to be in the natural world about 100 years ago.
The old cemeteries are filled with the graves of young babies and children and adults who never made it much past twenty or thirty.
A scratch could become infected, and the resulting blood poisoning would have killed many before penicillin and antibiotics were discovered.

Human life doesn’t seem so special when left to the natural laws of the universe.
I don’t like abortion, but I think a compromise of allowing more time like 3months, 4months in special circumstances, is a better law than 6 weeks.

The right to life side need to compromise a little, by allowing a few weeks longer or this ruling will always be fiercely fought.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 27 May 2019 9:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You indicate that you would prefer women to give birth to unwanted babies and adopt them out rather than have an abortion.

Theoretically, that would seem to be a valid option. It may be in some cases, but if it were practiced on a large scale, it would probably not be the panacea you imagine.

The idea is not new. For a long period spanning many centuries, there was a cosy, consensual relationship between Church and State that outlawed abortions because of religious dogma. It resulted in a number of major scandals of which I am sure you are aware.

Church institutions were set-up to receive babies born out of wedlock. They received thousands every year. It resulted in the creation of a baby market, baby trafficking, child abuse, atrociously high mortality rates for childbirths in religious institutions, as well as the ostracism and severe, lifetime traumatism of “fallen women” who had become pregnant outside of marriage.

News of those scandals has ushered-in a change of attitude to forced adoption in the West but, as we have witnessed recently in the United States, the pro-life movement remains strong and will inevitably have adverse consequences on the current safe, professional, medically-performed abortions – which does not augur well for the future.

There is abundant literature on child adoption scandals on the internet. Here is a brief selection :

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/27/forced-adoption-mother-and-child-reunited

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mass-grave-of-babies-found-at-former-irish-orphanage-20170304-guqlok.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_adoption_scandals

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 1:16:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« Your atrocious attempts to justify butchering unborn babies fails miserably »

Whatever the subject, if there is one thing I’m sure we both agree on, Runner, it’s that that is of no importance whatsoever.

Another thing I am sure of – and look forward to – is discussing the same subject with you, whatever it may be (or not be), as long as we are both willing and able.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 2:22:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Paterson.

Thankyou for the four links. The two that speak about forced abortions seem to be just as real an issue today on a culture that forces mothers to abort, instead of seeing if this is the right choice for the women they persuade. The factors back then about the hardships and the shame of having a baby out of marriage and at a young age still exists. It's just that the persuasive force to force mothers to give up their babies has been moved to abortion instead of adoption.

The link about the mass graves of church adoption and orphanages and the link on a short list of adoption related scandals internationally were both eye opening. These point to a need to reform adoption when it's needed. The solution is not to replace it with abortion. Adoption is likely the last option a mother wants to take because of the heartache. If the mother wishes to keep the child and raise them up, I support that wholeheartedly. (I would look for solutions to make this a more supported option so that the parent isn't alone after they make this decision).

Even with the scandals to fix, adoption is a better option then abortion is. Neither should be forced on women who want to keep their children.

SteelRedux.

Start a topic on OLO. Three point to address is that capital punishment can't be fairly looked at without looking at the crimes that the punishment is called for; the chances of an innocent person being killed; and the cost of capital punishment. Each of those are worth balancing to see if there are situations that are of value for the practice, or if it's off balance and unfit as a whole. The only way to really judge it is by looking at as a whole instead of sidelining one issue and ignoring the rest.

Regardless, I lean more so against capital punishment. But when I hear about serial murderers and serial rapists, I don't lean against capital punishment at all. Start another topic and we can discuss the matter more.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 4:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To CHEERFUL,

Regarding abortion due to not remembering, that logic can be applied to those born as well. For instance I don't remember anything at one year old or earlier. One problem with many abortion rationalizations is that they can just as easily be applied to newborns or young babies. This is one of those rationalizations. A rule of thumb is that if the rationalization can be applied to a newborn which should not be killed (I hope most of us agree on that), then the rationalization is without merit and should be applied neither to babies newly born, nor to those still in the womb.

As for the right to abort or the right to life. Consider this. Do you ever compromise on your beliefs of right and wrong? If and when you have, were those justified compromises, or were they points where you just didn't live up to your standards, not that those standards are wrong? Here's my point, if a person's view of something being right or wrong is in error, then it should be changed, given rational reason, or experience without understanding the reasons to say "that standard was wrong." Then change and strive to not compromise your values still. Hope that makes sense.

As for the history trip a hundred years ago (or more) I would say that losing a life then was just as tragic as it is today. That it happened more often does not remove the harshness of it to the people and the families that lost someone due to injury or infection.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 4:20:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Saltpetre.

You are explaining your position, and I am explaining mine. It's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I don't agree with it. I explained why on the issues I gave. Both for being against abortion, as well as a side topic that often comes up in abortion discussions, that men have no right to speak in the conversation (unless they agree that abortion is good, then let them speak). I can go into more detail if you want. But it is my opinion that the kind of rationalizations that tell one demographic or another to be silent actively fuels sexism, racism and any other prejudice. Both by adding resentment by the ones told to be quiet, as well as polarizing more those who in the vacuumed of silence make even more brash and unrealistic slander on the population that don't speak up and defend their case.

In the arguments for abortion, and that "it's a woman's body, it's her choice" the counter arguments that it isn't her body it's the baby's body, and the woman already made her choice when she had sex. A choice that the baby now suffers the consequence for if the mother deicides to kill him or her. If any of these counter arguments are made by a man, then those arguments are often left alone and instead focused on that it was a dirty man who has no business to say anything on abortion. Or it was a (insert insulting term here) Christian.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 4:28:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Adoption isn't the answer to an over sexed culture that no longer care to keep it in their pants or even tries to any more. But it is a solution to abortion. Namely because there are plenty of couples that want to have children and can't. More of that population then there are of willing mothers who would be willing to let their newborn be adopted. With that in mind (at least for now) adoption is always a solution because there is a surplus of people wanting and willing to be adoptive parents. If no other alternative come about where a child is adopted by a family member and the mother still gets to have contact with the child they gave birth to, then there is still the option of adoption agencies finding a suitable parent and the mother that gave birth loses contact with them. It's still a solution because it doesn't involve killing the baby.

Finding more solutions involve dealing with the underlying problems that are there before someone gets pregnant, and are likely problems still there after someone decides to abort. Abortion should not be a solution to poverty, to domestic abuse, to adultery, to teenagers with no restraint, and to any and all the issues that are faced in the world and ignored .... Until someone gets pregnant. I hope that helps understand my position. Abortion is a crime against the young that is sold as a solution to all issues ignored in the world. It's not just that all life is sacred, it's that abortion is just wrong.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 4:30:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS,

" .... the woman already made her choice when she had sex."

Ah, so Mary wasn't the only one to have an immaculate conception ? It happens all the time ? Or, perhaps, maybe, is it possible that there may have been a man involved who also wanted to have sex ? Slam, bam, thank you ma'am for one, perhaps nine months + labour + eighteen years of caring, for the other ? Plus a bit of social shaming ?

Certainly any man who has been involved in impregnating a particular woman may be entitled to have a say in whether or not the ensuing pregnancy should go to term - IF he is prepared to pay all costs while the woman can't work, until the child is, say, eighteen. I don't think any other man has any right to intrude into those decisions.

Then we get Trump, in his half-witted way, suggesting that women should go to jail if they have an abortion. So ..... it's not any sort of crime if a man has sex with a woman (or many woman) even if he is already married, but it is a crime if a woman seeks to terminate an embryo ? It's a weird world. If I were a woman, I would suspect that it's a bit skewed.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 9:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Believe me, Runner, you are not a baby.'

believe it or not Joe there are multitudes of women that are opposed to butchering unborn babies.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 10:41:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did I say that ?!
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 28 May 2019 10:57:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

No, you didn’t say that, Joe. I, [Ban-jo], did. I think it was meant for me. Runner probably simply forgot to Ban the Joe and drop the e.

As you may have noticed, Runner has been under quite a lot of pressure lately with all this discussion going on about his favourite subject. He’s been running around like a blue-tailed fly trying to keep up with it all and probably didn’t know whether he was coming or going.

I guess he got his wires crossed and had a slight glitch. But he should be OK now.

I’ll send him a message and see …
.
Dear Runner,
.
You wrote :
« believe it or not [Ban]Joe there are multitudes of women that are opposed to butchering unborn babies »

I don’t doubt that for one minute, Runner, and understand exactly how they feel. It sounds terrible. Thank goodness there are laws in the States and Territories of Australia that lay down strict conditions for the termination of pregnancy in the best possible, state of the art, medical conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq8HGr9Hyv0

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 29 May 2019 1:38:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Banjoe :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 29 May 2019 9:18:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS,

You raise many valid points, which, taken in isolation, make a lot of sense. However, we live in a time when overcoming many of your identified contributors, or precursors, to unwanted pregnancies cannot easily be overcome, and may in fact be impossible to overcome – at least in the absence of a ‘second coming’ (which I reject as not only unlikely, but as an absolute impossibility – because I am neither deluded nor insane).

In a previous post you suggested that I must be anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-men. I hate to disappoint you, but I am white, a male (and ‘straight’ at that – not that such status should make any difference), and I am a Christian – or at least an educated one, who was raised as a Catholic but has divested the bulk of dogma in favour of an enlightened approach seeing all humankind as equal and equally worthy, and all life on Earth as our combined responsibility to care for and preserve – as God’s, or Evolution’s, gift to us all.

I cannot see how the Catholic Church can faithfully expect the flock not to use contraception, but still avoid unwanted pregnancies. I am not anti-men, but men can be ruthless when it comes to sex – both within and outside wedlock. And men can use all manner of ‘justification’ for domestic abuse – though abuse against anyone, and particularly against one’s spouse or ‘partner’, is an anathema, a sin, and totally unacceptable.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 29 May 2019 9:25:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:

Taken further, the Church refuses to recognize any ‘female’ as a potential priest, refuses to allow priests to get married, and expects priests to be totally celibate for all time. To remain totally celibate is a physical and psychological impossibility for a man (and probably also for a woman). So, the church must make exception for the occurrence of all spontaneous, unintentional eruptions of sexual expression. However, it would appear that the Church may also discount homosexual expression as being contrary to celibacy – per history.

Further, the Church offers confession as a means to absolve oneself of sin – subject to genuine ‘repentance’, and an intention not to re-offend. A ‘get free card’! Why? To allow priests a ‘way out’? (Including some past Popes.) Or as a means to gather a flock?

In the not too distant past there have been many instances of the Church setting out to punish any female disgusting enough to get pregnant out of wedlock – and parts of the anti-abortion movement appear intent on continuing this approach. The ‘sinful’ must of course be punished!
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 29 May 2019 9:25:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:

To place things in perspective: we kill and eat fish, cows, pigs, etc – even though we know they have a brain and can feel anguish and pain. And, they are alive, sensing and feeling when we kill them. Humankind has taken charge of the Earth and all its inhabitants, as self-appointed ‘rulers’ of all they survey. But, could this really be God’s plan? What God or ‘nature’ intended? The Earth is a gift, and humankind is a miracle. But there have been, and continue to be, some humans who refuse to acknowledge Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Neanderthal, and any other precursors or co-existents to Homo Sapiens – and some who still erroneously and doggedly view some ‘coloured’ peoples as ‘lesser’ than themselves.

Maybe God ‘created’ the Universe and all it contains, by some intervention, but those who refuse to accept the very long existence of the Universe and the evolution of everything can only be regarded by any sane educated person as either totally brainwashed or irretrievably stupid. God may have taken six indeterminate ‘days’, but we live in the 7th, and God is undeniably sleeping. (Else, the heavens would erupt in hell and brimstone.)

The world is overrun by humankind, in various states of existence and belief, and it must be accepted that the Earth cannot sustain, nor should have to sustain, the unconstrained exponential proliferation of humanity. Such can only be a blight, an infestation, at the absolute expense of all other of God’s gifts, which humankind is supposed to appreciate, wonder at, and preserve. On current projections, life is due to get very harsh indeed.

The euthanasia of some unborn embryos or foetuses at a very early stage of development has to be accepted as the price so-called ‘developed’ societies have to pay for past and present sins against the planet, against humankind, and against any will to constrain self-indulgence. We may praise, but very many fail to properly appreciate.

I remain in hope that the Church will finally ‘get it’ and ‘get with it’, for the good of us all.

I wish you peace.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 29 May 2019 9:25:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Joe.

Sex is a critical element in the problem of abortion. If a man has sex with a woman and doesn't intent to stay if a baby comes from it, that is a great misdeed. But they justify it because they were just fooling around, weren't in a committed relationship, or just looking for some fun. It is this attitude of sex, held by both men and women that is an issue. The topic of sex and restraint should be something as a culture we look at and look at our own philosophies that lead to an over sexed, lust hungry people.

Really look at it. There are changes that people can make. To change how we approach and deal with relationships as a whole, and with sex specifically. However, even with this in mind, a strong ethic is not enough. Individually people are weak, if we have support from even just a few people outside ourselves that can help a lot. I would say if we had a turn to encourage mentorship in our societies then the younger generations would be better off. If we had a culture from church communities or other local communities that get together and help one another, then that can help too. But a mentorship attitude I think would be a great change in society. See someone younger then you and struggling with something you've dealt with, could be just as easily turn into taking that person under your wing, so they can learn how to make it through, avoid some mistakes, and possibly find real solutions that are easy and practical to put into place.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 30 May 2019 3:39:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

With relationships, a mentor could give the insight of their experiences and observations. As well as hold the person to taking responsibility by a simple, "dude you're doing wrong, take responsibility and fix it."

This is a small change in support that could really help people in the battle over waiting to have sex. (Even just waiting long enough to see if this relationship is worth it would be a start).

Abortion should not be the solution to people not restraining themselves and choosing to have sex. (Both men and women).

Here would be my stance (if I had a choice in the matter). Sex before marriage is wrong, but if it happens it happens. The baby being born should not be punished because of the actions of the parents. Basically the attitude of shame because it is wrong is pushed aside for the practical approach of "ok now what?" This small change can change a parent disappointed in their son or daughter's sex habits from getting in the way of preserving the life of the new baby still in the womb.

Here's my point. There are other solutions. Solutions that are largely not being looked for dealing with surprise pregnancies, because abortion is the pushed solution feeding on the fears, shames, and expectations of society. With this in mind I no longer see abortion as a woman's choice, but as an industry feeding on a society that refuses to deal with sex. But abortion is horribly wrong. There's no other way to see it except to compromise on your values of right and wrong and accept killing an innocent person before their born as a "justified compromise." It isn't justified though. Mit's rationalized away but is still very wrong.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 30 May 2019 3:43:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Saltpetre.

I'm not sure how I'm suppose to react to someone saying they are Christian, but doesn't believe in Jesus coming back. Either way you being Christian or not, is between you and God. If you are Christian I have a reply to something in your last post. You said:

<<those who refuse to accept the very long existence of the Universe and the evolution of everything can only be regarded by any sane educated person as either totally brainwashed or irretrievably stupid.>>

My reply to that comment is 2 bible verses. Mathew 5:22, and 1 John 4:20. (Much of that chapter goes into that point more but that verse draws the point very well). These aren't counterpoints on abortion or on evolution (not part of the discussion so far?) but is are counter points to the attitude shown towards other Christians. It's a point that I hope you can receive, if you are a Christian.

Aside from that, what are the parts that are too difficult, that would stop you from rejecting abortion. What are impossible for us to overcome in the context of abortion?

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 31 May 2019 1:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

In previous posts, on Sunday, 26 May 2019 7:59:44 PM and Sunday, 26 May 2019 1:45:56 PM, you said a few things to match my impression of anti-Christian and anti-man rhetoric, or at least a narrative that borrowed much from those kinds of rhetorics. I did not mean to suggest that you are also anti-white, but I used that to further my point against silencing a demographic as part of silencing any descent and counter arguments to an issue.

The point being that you're opinion doesn't matter, and is only cared about if your in agreement. I've seen this attitude on other matters that demoralize other populations because they are either Christian, male, white, or a combination of those. Hence why I included being white in my reply in an earlier post.

I wanted to expose the hypocrisy of those perspectives that say that men have no right to say anything, and then just after that take opinions from men who agree with them as being "real men." This is a big issue I have with many abortion based perspectives.

Moving on. I agree with you on two parts. Priests and ministers should be allowed to marry. The second thing I agree with is to not have a shame and punish standard coming from the church or from anyone towards a woman who's pregnant. In my opinion this is part of the cause for abortions to hide the act of being pregnant and shove it under the rug. That shame is part of the many reasons that feeds into killing too many babies before they are born.

As for the argument of abortion as a means of population control. Here's my thought. If you shouldn't kill off a newborn, for the sake of population control, then it isn't of merit to do it to an innocent still in the womb. The same argument applies also to a baby born with a disability not being killed because of that disability, nor should they be aborted by a test saying there's a risk of one disability or another.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 31 May 2019 1:53:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr David Van Gend who participated in a public debate at the time of the Vic legislation on abortion stated :

”The truth is that most late abortions, which are 20 weeks of pregnancy, are done to entirely healthy babies of entirely healthy mothers, and by a method so cruel I am reluctant to describe it. “

He further stated : For our generation, late abortion is the test of whether or not our society sinks into savagery, deaf to babies so callously sacrificed to the psycho-social comfort of adults.”

He was reluctant to describe, but allow me to quote from a letter I sent to all State MPs at the time of that debate.

“The methodology of abortion procedures on the living, genetically unique foetus is appalling, especially the late term abortions. Although there has been much debate on the subject, there is no doubt that the foetus experiences pain, some medical research suggests from 8 weeks, but certainly from around 13 weeks. When an induced abortion occurs, depending on what stage of the pregnancy, the unborn child can die a variety of deaths – sucked to pieces, cut to pieces, twisted and dismembered, poisoned, right through to partial birth abortion (just prior to what would be a normal birth, when an induced death would be called infanticide) where after all but head has been delivered, the surgeon jabs the child’s head with scissors and sucks the brain out to collapse the head.”
Posted by Bagsy41, Friday, 31 May 2019 12:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Altogether a good article Brendan. However some minor points.

“Relying on judicial activism is the wrong approach.”
An odd bit of advice. Judicial activism is per se abusing the power of the judges to institute their preferred laws. To advice the judiciary not to engage in judicial activism is like advising a person not to engage in theft. An honest person wouldn’t steal anyway and a dishonest one would not care about the ethics, or effect upon other people, of stealing.

“The only way to combat judicial activism, would be to [insert] clauses into national constitutions”

Another way might be remove the immunity from prosecution for abuse of power judges currently hold. Not an easy prosecution but still possible. If they were asked in examination on the stand to explain what text in the constitution warranted their decision the dishonest ones might find it harder to explain verbally, after all necessary follow up questions, than simply writing pages of obscure text in their judgement.
Posted by Edward Carson, Wednesday, 12 June 2019 3:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS,

Although I expect you have had quite enough of my obstinacy and lack of ‘faith’, I feel obliged to proffer the following suggestion.

I would expect that I hold the credibility of the factual accuracy of many of the offerings in the St James bible (Old and New Testaments) and in the ‘Gospels’ in no greater regard than you would hold in regard to:-
. Albert Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’;
. Charles Darwin’s ‘The Origin of Species’;
. Evidence for this Earth of ours being 4 Billion Years old (and the Universe much, much older);
. Scientific Evidence that Homo Sapiens (us) was preceded by a number of earlier evolutions of ‘Hominids’, evidently ‘evolved’ from even earlier ‘Anthropoid Apes’;
. Scientific Evidence that puts the initial habitation of Australia by our Indigenous tribes of Aboriginals at some 60,000 years ago (as against the ‘belief’ of some ‘true believers’ that the world, universe and everything was ‘created’ by God not more than some 6,000 years ago;
. Scientific Evidence that dinosaurs predated ‘human’ existence on this planet by very many Millions of Years;
. That the larger dinosaurs became extinct due to a global catastrophe some 65 million years ago – but some of the smaller dinosaurs survived to become today’s birds;
. That life on Earth originated in a ‘primordial soup’ of organic (carbon-based) molecules in aqueous solution in a primarily methane atmosphere, giving rise to single-celled bacteria-like lifeforms – the chance collision of two of which gave rise to a multi-celled lifeform which is held to be the forebear of ‘all life on Earth’ (you, me, plants, animals, the whole damn thing);
. That DNA and RNA are the foundation of ALL life on Earth.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 14 June 2019 12:53:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:

My God exists in all I see, and not in any book. (The True God is love – no Hell here.)
The loss of an unborn is shameful - but so many of the ‘sins’ of Man are far more horrendous.
Concern for the existence of (even possibly the necessity for) abortion is understandable, but so many elements of human existence clearly demonstrate the 'unholiness' of humanity's current 'evolution' that I can only conclude that Mankind has yet a long way to go to reach any true figment of God's ultimate reflection (let alone image).

No judge, no court, no man, should have a right to commit 'domestic' or any other violence against woman - and that includes any 'dictation' over her right to sexual, gestational and procreation-al rights and freedoms (over her own body).

Woman is the foundation of humanity, and deserving of due respect.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 14 June 2019 12:53:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To SaltPetre.

So you're not Christian, but a philosopher with a few Christian like ideals. Good to know. Whatever your standard and foundation for God though, make sure it's on solid ground. Otherwise you'll be swept away by sweet sounding philosophies or jarred away by persuasive talk, regardless if it has merit or not.

Many sciences of today is worth looking into and studying. But the science that can't be used or tested to check it's conclusions, that's not science. That's hypothesis without follow through to see if it's right. To pair evolution like theories to the beginning of life on earth is only scientific sounding philosophies. It is not science because it is only hypothesizes with no real way to measure if they are true or not.

Combining Christian like philosophies, and science like philosophies together is not a solid foundation for either. What makes Christianity Christian is the words and acts of Jesus. What make science science is observations and measurements. When you remove Jesus from Christianity you are no longer talking about Christianity. When you remove the ability to measure, observe, or test something in science, then it is no longer science. Evolutionary philosophies have steered away from evolution, a biological study, for some time now. Evolutionary philosophies geared towards the beginning of life on earth is outright philosophy, no science in it.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 17 June 2019 3:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Where I agree with your philosophies is that God is love. And by that, the importance of loving one another is huge. Without love all things, no mater how great, are worthless. Being tolerant of evil in the world though is not love. Nor is abortion a kindness to women. It is justification for ignoring so many wrongs in the world because when a kid gets involved, just kill them before they are born. The unfair treatment of women is not solved by killing a baby before it's born. The over sexed lust in society is not cured by having abortion "cure" the baby problem. Abortion is not a solution, nor is it a kindness. It is an industry built on the fears and desires of society. It is an industry that makes it sound like abortion is the only answer, and without abortion a woman's life is thrown away. ("Don't throw away your life" kind of reasoning).

To put it another way. Killing a baby is never an act of love. Regardless if they are born or unborn, if they die, it's tragic.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 17 June 2019 3:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy