Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services

[goodwithagun]

@goodwithagun

I'm going to step this discussion up a few steps with the statement that women should be the sole decision makers on having an abortion or not when they reach the point where they can get pregnant by themselves. If the father of the future child wants that baby and is willing to sign legal papers that frees her from any obligations AS WELL AS TO ANY DOMINION OVER the child once it is born,she should be,as a matter of law,REQUIRED to carry the child to term or face prison time for causing an unlawful death of some sort.

Everybody wants to talk about the rights of a woman,but what about the  rights of the man that impregnated her?

When it comes to child support, @Jazzhead 's beloved "state" forces men to pay child support. After all, it takes two to make a child. So likewise, shouldn't the father get a say in whether or not the child is aborted?

As a side note, Rachel's Vinyard is a world wide org that treats and supports all who've been affected by abortion. Yes, even men.

[Jazzhead]

Then we agree the government does have the right for a woman be denied the ability to decide for herself the direction her life, because it impacts the life of another.

We just disagree on when that time starts.

Well, yes, simplistically, that's true.   But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy.   It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks),  but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state. 

When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?   

[TomSea]

Well, yes, simplistically, that's true.   But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy.   It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks),  but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state. 

When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?

But the fetus has rights too; and should be protected from encroachment and coercion of the state as well as irresponsible parents. The fetus is a human being, it is truly disgusting to read these feminist and planned parenthood arguments here. As far as I'm concerned those arguments totally lack integrity.

[Jazzhead]

When it comes to child support, @Jazzhead 's beloved "state" forces men to pay child support. After all, it takes two to make a child. So likewise, shouldn't the father get a say in whether or not the child is aborted?

I gotta say that I don't have much sympathy for men in these circumstances.   Sure, it takes two to tango.  But the man's work is done in the first 30 seconds; the woman's burden lasts for nine months. 

I know there are exceptions, but I think most of the time the man is the true culprit behind an abortion.   The man abandons his partner, leaving her alone in the world with the prospect of bearing and raising a child.   Or, perhaps worse,  the man threatens his partner to have the abortion,  to spare him the trouble of having to help raise it.   

The scenario of a man sticking by his partner is not the scenario behind most abortions.   As the man goes, so goes the abortion.

In a perverse way, the responsibility that the community imposes on the man to financially support his progeny could lie behind some abortions.  As noted above, the man's desire to escape such responsibility can lead to his pressuring the woman to abort.  He may, for example, threaten to stay with her only if she makes their little problem go away. 

No, I don't have much sympathy for men in these circumstances.   And if a man wants to avoid his financial responsibility,  then what the hell, he should have kept his pants zipped.   My fiercest critics on this thread have, unanimously, been blaming the woman,  hectoring her to keep her legs shut, to recognize the consequences of sex.  And then outrageously claiming that most women abort for "convenience".  It's disgraceful, the unrepentant slut-shaming I've encountered on this thread.  And from folks who wear their religion on their sleeve!

 I say that's insensitive and cruel, but perfectly understandable coming from a "Bible-believing Christian",  still in thrall to the patriarchy.   No, I don't have much respect for men in these circumstances.   

As the man goes, so goes the abortion.   

[thackney]

Well, yes, simplistically, that's true.   But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy.   It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks),  but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state. 

When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?

I think the couple have the time to make those decisions prior to the act that started the pregnancy.  Legal abortion is the justification too many men use to walk away from their responsibilities and the acceptance of others in society for them to do so.

My wife would likely never had been born in today's society.  She was the result of an affair between a young woman and a man married to another.  Their embarrassment and inconvenience should not comdem her to death.  It should not be legal for them to kill her.

[TomSea]

These arguments embrace the culture of death, really similar to the way the Nazis saw some humans as not being worthy of having life.  Truly morally depraved.

[TomSea]

This thread has run it's course, and is probably about 5 days old. We can concentrate on more current news as well.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Compassion is helping and supporting a woman to understand and do the right thing.  Your attitude of belittling women as seeking free illicit sex without consequences just drives them to Planned Parenthood.   

Attitudes like yours promote abortion, and drive decent people from the church.   You should be ashamed of yourself.   

Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead

[Jazzhead]

I think the couple have the time to make those decisions prior to the act that started the pregnancy.  Legal abortion is the justification too many men use to walk away from their responsibilities and the acceptance of others in society for them to do so.

My wife would likely never had been born in today's society.  She was the result of an affair between a young woman and a man married to another.  Their embarrassment and inconvenience should not comdem her to death.  It should not be legal for them to kill her.

Thanks for acknowledging that men are often the true force behind abortions.   But I don't see why the legality of abortion plays a role.  At least nowadays when a man forces his partner to abort, the deed is done without also butchering the mother.   

The problem lies with the culture, not the laws.   Women in today's world have demanded and earned their autonomy.   But that doesn't mean they are absolved from the responsibility to do the right thing.  That's where the pro-life movement can and should play its most important role.   My intent on this thread is not to denigrate the pro-life movement, but to suggest that its priorities are askew.   Tilting at legal windmills doesn't save lives.   The cat's been out of the bag regarding the abortion right for over 40 years now.   There's no going back.  The patriarchy is dead for most of us outside the Bible belt.   Women have the same right as men to self-determination.

And so, IMO, the pro-life movement should emphasize saving lives, changing hearts and minds, not the Constitution.       

And when one takes responsibility, so should the other.   If a woman decides to bear and raise a child alone - bless her! - the father should pay his fair share of the financial burden.   I have no objection to the community's laws that compel a father to support his child.   

[Jazzhead]

Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead

 

[bigheadfred]

Well, yes, simplistically, that's true.   But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy.   It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks),  but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state. 

When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?

An interesting question. Because abortion is a complicated matter. In the most simplistic form the state involvement, IMO, should only come when the viability of the "parents" comes in to question. And then the determination  wouldn't be for termination of the new life. Only who gets to pay for it.

[TomSea]

Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead

Not quite, if its Muslims, they are referred to as "Friends and Neighbors", there is never any problem with some in criticizing a religion that feeds millions of hungry every day. If one reads the remarks, Christians are lower on the totem pole than Muslims and it doesn't take much observation to note this.

But of course, many say the left and the Muslims are indeed partners, @Jazzhead bashes Christianity on a daily basis.

[thackney]

Thanks for acknowledging that men are often the true force behind abortions.   But I don't see why the legality of abortion plays a role.  At least nowadays when a man forces his partner to abort, the deed is done without also butchering the mother.

Having a legal, easy and all too common means of killing the infant isn't a part of the decision?  Really?

The problem lies with the culture, not the laws. 

The current laws are only a reflection of the culture. 

Women in today's world have demanded and earned their autonomy.   But that doesn't mean they are absolved from the responsibility to do the right thing.  That's where the pro-life movement can and should play its most important role.   My intent on this thread is not to denigrate the pro-life movement, but to suggest that its priorities are askew.   Tilting at legal windmills doesn't save lives.   The cat's been out of the bag regarding the abortion right for over 40 years now.   There's no going back.  The patriarchy is dead for most of us outside the Bible belt.   Women have the same right as men to self-determination.

And so, IMO, the pro-life movement should emphasize saving lives, changing hearts and minds, not the Constitution.       

And when one takes responsibility, so should the other.   If a woman decides to bear and raise a child alone - bless her! - the father should pay his fair share of the financial burden.   I have no objection to the community's laws that compel a father to support his child.   

The father should have a say as well as the responsibility.  A mother should not be legally allowed to kill his child.

[TomSea]

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead bashes Christianity on a daily basis.

I don't bash Christianity.  I bash (some) Christians who seem to have forgetten Christ's message.   

[TomSea]

Just read a Roy Moore thread, he was called a "religious zealot", it's very easy to find this general slant against Christianity, maybe specifically "Evangelical Christianity" but Muslims and Islam are defended, Christians are much the same thing as trash, the way Hitler viewed them. The way the unborn is seen. A terrible view if you ask me. Christian charities feed millions of hungry a day, you never hear about this or that other religions are limited in doing the same.

[txradioguy]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[musiclady]

I don't bash Christianity.  I bash (some) Christians who seem to have forgetten Christ's message.

Christ's message is not to kill babies and harm women.

Wrong again.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?

When life begins, which you have already said begins at conception. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483035.html#msg1483035

You cannot give a 100% certain, not just a legal one,  definition of viability of a child that causes an abortion to not be called murder; hence, it has to be at conception.

[DCPatriot]

I don't bash Christianity.  I bash (some) Christians who seem to have forgetten Christ's message.

Ignore them, buddy!   Ignore the trolls who get their jollies this morning savaging you while they're sipping coffee.

You serve as an important member here at TBR, @Jazzhead

You keep the haughty 'local'  Christian coalition flummoxed....the ones that find it necessary to preach/condescend everyone with an alternate opinion.

[Jazzhead]

Christ's message is not to kill babies and harm women.

Wrong again.

I'm not suggesting either,  ML.   What's your opinion of INVAR's view that women seek abortions because they seek "free illicit sex without consequences"?   

[Jazzhead]

Ignore them, buddy!   Ignore the trolls who get their jollies this morning savaging you while they're sipping coffee.

You serve as an important member here at TBR, @Jazzhead

You keep the haughty 'local'  Christian coalition flummoxed....the ones that find it necessary to preach/condescend everyone with an alternate opinion.

Thanks, DCP - I appreciate it!  And I'll send the kudos right back at ya!   

[Jazzhead]

The father should have a say as well as the responsibility.  A mother should not be legally allowed to kill his child.

As a matter of law, how do you propose that to work?   

[Jazzhead]

When life begins, which you have already said begins at conception. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483035.html#msg1483035

You cannot give a 100% certain, not just a legal one,  definition of viability of a child that causes an abortion to not be called murder; hence, it has to be at conception.

The legal definition on when an abortion is permitted, and when it is not, is inherently arbitrary.  The intent is to provide the woman with a meaningful opportunity to decide, so it is usually described as a designated period of time following implantation.  My own view is that, morally, the limit should be set at about the time the fetus can feel pain.   

  (BTW, I never said life begins at conception, but rather that it begins at implantation.  That's a significant difference, IMO.   The woman's body must accept the conjoined sperm and egg.  In millions of cases,  implantation of the conjoined sperm and egg fails to occur, and is simply flushed away.   In other words, God doesn't create life - the woman does.)

[musiclady]

I'm not suggesting either,  ML.   What's your opinion of INVAR's view that women seek abortions because they seek "free illicit sex without consequences"?

Out for the day.  I'll respond when I get back this afternoon.