-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Congratulations on your participation in seminary. So based on those credentials are you declaring I'm wrong in my assessment the group was, for all intents and purposes, a guerrilla terrorist group? Somehow I don't believe you'd be accurate in that declaration, but you won't admit it since you're discussing it with someone who didn't attend seminary. And by the way, a situation that might be "understandable" (your word choice) isn't exactly the same as condoning it, or even choosing that option myself.
Now, back to the original question: When in your opinion does human life begin? Conception? 4 weeks? 12 weeks? Development of a particular organ?
Now, back to the original question: When in your opinion does human life begin? Conception? 4 weeks? 12 weeks? Development of a particular organ?
-
1
- Show all
This will be interesting. 54% of abortions in recent yrs have been from prescriptions. These happen prior to 10 weeks and 93% of all abortions happen before 16 weeks.
I can see states like OK moving to criminalize the taking of these medications. Especially if you can get a script and mailer from overseas. At the very least they will prosecute anyone providing resources or counseling to pregnant women that point them this direction. There of course will be lawsuits.
I can see states like OK moving to criminalize the taking of these medications. Especially if you can get a script and mailer from overseas. At the very least they will prosecute anyone providing resources or counseling to pregnant women that point them this direction. There of course will be lawsuits.
It's intrusive government at the state level. Intrusive is intrusive, whether the decisions over our body autonomy is being debated by federal or state representatives, the problem is that the choice is being taken from the pregnant people and put in the hands of politicians.
Polling shows a slight majority of oklahomans say abortion should be legal in Oklahoma. But the abortion bill passed with a 73-16 vote. This is not what oklahomans want. But what we want we doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is what the party in power wants.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/20/abortion-attitudes-in-oklahoma/
Polling shows a slight majority of oklahomans say abortion should be legal in Oklahoma. But the abortion bill passed with a 73-16 vote. This is not what oklahomans want. But what we want we doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is what the party in power wants.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/20/abortion-attitudes-in-oklahoma/
Last edited:
-
4
- Show all
Which has what to do with my comment? I didn't say it was/wasn't constitutional. I said it being given back to the states which were chomping at the bit to ban it with trigger laws in place was intrusive. "Intrusive" isn't limited to federal government. Any level of government saying "you can't make your own bodily decision regarding this" is being intrusive, whether state, federal or local. No?
-
3
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I gotta say, you really dont have any shame.
I went with your definition, not mine, for the sake of the argument. Based on your initial challenge, I knew you thought they were asking for it/deserved genocide, because people dont say what you said otherwise.
Its honestly abhorrent that you would even think like that. Which again, casts serious doubts on your judgement and ability to understand what valuing life really looks like.
The amalekites were a people that the author of 1 Samuel felt was an existential threat amd evil--deserving of genocide. Based on what we know (which isnt much), they were a people in the area vying for the same resources that the israelites were vying for.
Human life begins in the womb, but there isnt anything really notable until the 13th week or so, when natural miscarriage risks go way down. Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs dont even attach to the uterus, and 40 to 50% of those that do nauturally miscarry.
I went with your definition, not mine, for the sake of the argument. Based on your initial challenge, I knew you thought they were asking for it/deserved genocide, because people dont say what you said otherwise.
Its honestly abhorrent that you would even think like that. Which again, casts serious doubts on your judgement and ability to understand what valuing life really looks like.
The amalekites were a people that the author of 1 Samuel felt was an existential threat amd evil--deserving of genocide. Based on what we know (which isnt much), they were a people in the area vying for the same resources that the israelites were vying for.
Human life begins in the womb, but there isnt anything really notable until the 13th week or so, when natural miscarriage risks go way down. Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs dont even attach to the uterus, and 40 to 50% of those that do nauturally miscarry.
Before the decision was overturned they were already advocating for suing people for doing it. Which is a loophole around what they can do here. So we know that the sentiment behind criminalizing interstate travel for abortions is very strong.
So it feels like the next natural step in the process. perhaps they can be charged with conspiracy.
I'd be curious to see people get charged for getting an abortion in state, and push it all the way to trial. Wonder what a jury would do here. They may be obliged to abide by the words of the law, but doesnt mean it'll be easy to convince all 12 to vote guilty.
Of course, given a scenario when the republicans win the presidency and both houses of congress, I could see that they would pave the way for the criminalization of interstate travel for abortions.
So it feels like the next natural step in the process. perhaps they can be charged with conspiracy.
I'd be curious to see people get charged for getting an abortion in state, and push it all the way to trial. Wonder what a jury would do here. They may be obliged to abide by the words of the law, but doesnt mean it'll be easy to convince all 12 to vote guilty.
Of course, given a scenario when the republicans win the presidency and both houses of congress, I could see that they would pave the way for the criminalization of interstate travel for abortions.
Not sure why you insist I "really dont (sic) have any shame", because once again I neither stated nor inferred "they were asking for it/deserved genocide", unless you'd like to provide the location of my quote in that regard. I noted the context of the situation, including God speaking to them directly, and that through my modern day lense could probably see why they did what they did. I can see you just want to persist in making lying and distorting the comments I do make, so you can try to convince someone else of your spiritual superiority because you attended seminary.
So by your comment, any abortion "in the womb" is the taking of a human life, which I do believe falls within the definition of murder.
So by your comment, any abortion "in the womb" is the taking of a human life, which I do believe falls within the definition of murder.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Then every miscarriage would be called a natural death of a human, yet it isn’t.
You can have your opinion that the abortion of an embryo or zygote is a murder or the death of a human, but no society in the history of the world has defined it that way nor do any religious books. It is nothing but an opinion. A very poorly considered one, in my opinion.
You can have your opinion that the abortion of an embryo or zygote is a murder or the death of a human, but no society in the history of the world has defined it that way nor do any religious books. It is nothing but an opinion. A very poorly considered one, in my opinion.
-
2
- Show all
Good luck which charging someone in one state that criminalizes abortion with conspiracy to perform an abortion in a state where it's legal.
Good luck with one state (that criminalizes abortion) charging someone with transporting someone across state lines to assist in an act that is legal in that other state.
I know what they are advocating for. What I am saying would also apply to lawsuits against someone that transports someone to another state for a purpose that is perfectly legal in that state.
I also know that I've been in the criminal justice field for 30 years now and am fully versed in the law and jurisdiction in these areas.
Jury nullification is real, though a defendant cannot openly advocate for it at trial. That is certainly a possibility. The prosecution has similar issues with cases involving the death penalty.
You last paragraph is accurate. I could see that as well. They could just extend the Mann Act to include for purposes of obtaining an abortion. The really interesting question would then be whether or not that is constitutional in application.
Good luck with one state (that criminalizes abortion) charging someone with transporting someone across state lines to assist in an act that is legal in that other state.
I know what they are advocating for. What I am saying would also apply to lawsuits against someone that transports someone to another state for a purpose that is perfectly legal in that state.
I also know that I've been in the criminal justice field for 30 years now and am fully versed in the law and jurisdiction in these areas.
Jury nullification is real, though a defendant cannot openly advocate for it at trial. That is certainly a possibility. The prosecution has similar issues with cases involving the death penalty.
You last paragraph is accurate. I could see that as well. They could just extend the Mann Act to include for purposes of obtaining an abortion. The really interesting question would then be whether or not that is constitutional in application.
-
2
- Show all
We have already been through that several times. You said what you said.
Based on what was said, I trust the average person's ethical judgement over yours. Its as simple as that. 70% (the average person) thinks that some abortion should be legal.
It might be squeltching human life, but it is not killing a person, because they literally dont exist yet.
By your own definition, pulling the plug on a braindead person is murder in addition to what @steross stated. It makes no sense.
Based on what was said, I trust the average person's ethical judgement over yours. Its as simple as that. 70% (the average person) thinks that some abortion should be legal.
It might be squeltching human life, but it is not killing a person, because they literally dont exist yet.
By your own definition, pulling the plug on a braindead person is murder in addition to what @steross stated. It makes no sense.
Last edited:
I think it would be more likely if all branches are controlled by Republicans that they would just pass a law restricting abortion nationwide than try to pass a law that prohibited travel across state lines to engage in legal activity in the state traveled to.
I'm also near certain the first of those would be upheld by this SCOTUS, and find it pretty unlikely that they would uphold the second one (even giving the make up of the present court).
I'm also near certain the first of those would be upheld by this SCOTUS, and find it pretty unlikely that they would uphold the second one (even giving the make up of the present court).