"Women's reproductive rights" or a Child's right to be born? It's all about choiceS.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How do you feel about if the woman gets an abortion then she could be fired from her job?

Would that not be illegal?

Nevermind why?

Also, how would their employer find out?

Does not seem like something most people would choose to bring up outside their own relationship and/or possibly family to be honest.

What is fair is fair, right?

A woman's choice being her own concern sounds about right.

As to what's fair, well life is not fair.

That does not mean a person's choice should not be their own.

And women are people after all.

a reply to: andy06shake

Her choice is to go to a hospital and take a pill. Not to murder a viable human

And would result in an abortion if the doctor does indeed subscribe to the do no harm part of his Hippocratic oath.

The point is its his oath to do no harm. And in this situation many doctors would choose to remove the child and try to save the child. Not dismember it.

So there are circumstances where abortion is a necessary, check.

If there is no viable human then there is no abortion.

Do you require me to point out the holes in your logic?

There is none

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Here's a story which, although the gentleman involved doesn't frame it as an experience involving Christ, actually speaks in a powerful, incredible way regarding the ineffable love which God has for each one of us, and I have no doubt that He met with an expression of God as the Father whom he had never known before, having been raised in a very abusive home and finally having attempted suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills at the age of fifteen years old.

His experience speaks profoundly about the way in which God not only has no need to forgive a child in such circumstances, but indeed grieves with that child over the trauma and pain they have experienced in their short lives. The way this man, forty years later, describes his experience, it is plain to see that God 'downloaded' miraculous healing into his body, soul & spirit that day, in a way that He often does when we receive prayer from fellow church friends, for example. He was briefly taken outside of time & space, into a realm of love & bright wonder where he was made to feel truly loved & accepted in a powerful way, for the first time in those fifteen years of life.

Teen commits suicide but is taken by God and feels pure love before being returned to his body

I have often tried to explain on this forum the way in which God has communicated to me the magnitude of His love, His grace, His peace, His truth & the infinitely wondrous power of His life bringing life to all. I have explained it often by saying that "God is far more forgiving than most Christians will give Him credit for".

And indeed, the man who wrote this post on the IANDS website affirms that sentiment, in words more elegant than I can muster because I myself haven't yet had a fully immersive encounter with God in the way that occurs after we physically pass from this earth. Sometimes people are blessed to have such power encounters while still living, but it is rare. Instead, I have experienced what we refer to as the 'Shekinah' presence of God, the abiding presence of the glory of God's Holy Spirit (the Person of the Lord's triune nature which dwells with us while we are here on Earth, often referred to as 'the comforter', for He comforts us in our distress, and brings the peace of 'shalom' blessings upon us). I have experienced the encouragement & blessing of God's presence in worship, I have experienced the 'sound' of His voice when reading the scriptures, when His Spirit flows through the words on the page so it comes alive.. I have been blessed with some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I have experienced encounters with the Lord Jesus in many prophetic & spiritual dreams over the years.

I still get awed by imagining what it will be like to die and be brought into the immanent presence of God in Heaven - it very much brings meaning to the phrase 'god-fearing'.. How can any of us be prepared? I often find myself wondering whether I will have been 'good enough', though I understand theologically that it's not about that, it never was. We're all equal, and we all need forgiveness as we get older and make our mistakes, violating our consciences in ways small or large, producing sin. But God would never condemn a soul in torment such as the man who attempted to take his own life at a very young age as described in the story above - I highly recommend you read the man's testimony, it is very moving.

Also as an aside, from prior experience with the IANDS website, I have absolute confidence that the data made available on there, despite much of it being extremely valuable for people looking for answers, is to quite a large extent 'salted' with fake stories posted by atheist trolls of varying intellect (some are very devious & craft a good 'narrative' for their chicanery) who are intent on undoing all the potentially good work that an organisation such as theirs could potentially accomplish, if it bothered to protect the integrity of its data by assigning the NDEs into categories demarcated by measures of credulity - such as assigning them a confidence score based on how many of the most typical NDE features were present in each particular report. Currently 'any report is a good report' is the operative editorial line, and there's no way to filter out the salted crap from the good data. The IANDS site is thus being corrupted by fake stories written by spiritual wolves in sheep's clothing, in the same way as Wikipedia is assiduously managed by fanatical editorial trolls, many linked to the intelligence community, who ensure that a certain narrative line is played out for any potentially sensitive subjects, so that unsuspecting souls who want to access real knowledge are drowned in an overwhelming ocean of sludge & thereby find themselves deceived to some extent by all the bad data.

I even had an encounter with an official editor of the IANDS site who wrote a surprising & truly poisonous email in reply when I raised a genteel concern that this seemed to be happening. This occurred after I read a ridiculously fake story in which the person 'reporting' their NDE had said that the creator of the universe was a cartoon version of a giant silverback gorilla. Apparently, the gorilla high-fived & congratulated him (the guy reporting the story) and hailed him as "truly an incredible, amazing, awesome guy". The gorilla continued by saying that all religions were literally fake and that only hedonism was a valid path. After expressing that worries that the data was being distorted by fake stories of this nature, she really went for the jugular vein with an acerbic and lengthy email full of typical ultra left screeching hysterical lunacy, claiming that I wasn't "..being tolerant enough, that I clearly had a closed mind, and an agenda, and that lots of people think religion is fake, so how dare I utter even a note of caution in the face of this wonderful man's NDE encounter with a cartoon gorilla, which he had the bravery to report honestly." Her position was that 'any report is a valid report', no matter how ridiculous, how tainted by biases or how clearly designed to deliberately portray both God & the Christian faith in a ridiculous & mocking way. She claimed "You aren't spiritually enlightened enough to validate this man's story", which was just as valid as any other.

AND SO - a note of caution. Read the reports in the context that some of them are brazenly & very deliberately fake, and even some of the editors are in on the game.

Thanks,


FITO.

All this to say, autonomy ends where gestation begins. You welcome and celebrate the nanny state and any misgivings have effectively been waived for the sake of the fetus.

Legally speaking, that's not a decision anyone makes for anyone but their own home and their own pregnancy. Ethically speaking, I'm a firm believer in license to parent. DHS hands out certificates to babysitters so the next step up is a certificate of child safety and welfare to the hopeful couple. It sounds fascist on the face of it, but think of the kids!

a reply to: Another_Nut

Her choice is to go to a hospital and take a pill. To to murder a viable human

If she is raped or involved in an incestuous relationship why do you imagine she would have the choice to go to a hospital or gain access to morning-after pills?

The point is its his oath to do no harm. And in this situation many doctors would choose to remove the child and try to save the child. Not dismember it.

To save the mother that's exactly what would be required as unfortunate as the case may be.

If there is no viable human then there is no abortion.

Well, that's convenient.

There is none

Yes there is.

a reply to: andy06shake

If she is raped or involved in an incestuous relationship why do you imagine she would have the choice to go to a hospital or gain access to morning-after pills?

Because she has access to abortion

To save the mother that's exactly what would be required as unfortunate as the case may be.

Any doctor would try to save both. There is never a reason to NOT try and save a child.

Well, that's convenient.

No, thats science and biology

Yes there is.

Nope

a reply to: Another_Nut

Because she has access to abortion

How so, please explain why you imagine people in such relationships, that involve rape and incest, would have access to abortion, contraception, or trips to the hospital?

Any doctor would try to save both. There is never a reason to NOT try and save a child.

That's simply not always possible, and if the mother cannot carry the child until term the choice to abort the fetus is self-evident really, if its going to endanger her life, especially so if as you say a Hippocratic oath is involved.

No, thats science and biology

Which I'm sure you will be able to elaborate upon.

Nope

I'm afraid the hole in your logic is clear.

a reply to: andy06shake

How so, please explain why you imagine people in such relationships, that involve rape and incest, would have access to abortion, contraception, or trips to the hospital?

Are you ok? I mean, if true, then whats the point of even talking about abortion in the case or rape or incest ... Those victims dont have access to abortion anyways...

This is a true hole in logic . Lol

That's simply not always possible, and if the mother cannot carry the child until term the choice to abort the fetus is self-evident really, if its going to endanger her life, especially so if as you say a Hippocratic oath is involved

If you had to remove the child anyways then why wouldnt a doctor try to save the child? Are you saying that there are just some reasons why a child would have to de dismembered before they could be removed? I call bs and dare you to fond me one example of a reason why a child must be destroyed to save a mother.

Which I'm sure you will be able to elaborate upon.

I have in many threads but , if you want a quick recap...
human without a head is not viable... Would you disagree?

I'm afraid the hole in your logic is clear.

...you also think a woman who has access to abortions doesnt have access to abortions or hospitals ...

So yeah...

originally posted by: andy06shake
Would that not be illegal?

Does not seem like something most people would choose to bring up outside their own relationship and/or possibly family to be honest.

A woman's choice being her own concern sounds about right.

That all seemed to be the liberal stance on this until they made a medical procedure mandatory, and so the idea of it's your choice, your body is out the window now. That can no longer be used as a reason, so now it is what the State sees as the right thing to do and if people don't like it then vote in people who will change it.

Feelings and what one likes are not part of the conversation anymore. A person who says no abortion also has feelings and what they want to see happen.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Are you ok?

Im fine Another_Nut.

Wee bit of a hangover.

You on the other hand seem to wish to be able to tell woman what they can and cannot grow in their own bodies.

If you had to remove the child anyways then why wouldnt a doctor try to save the child?

They would if its possible.

Cant put words in my mouth little bit try as you might.

As to what I'm saying, thats perfectly clear and amounts to a woman body being her own choice, no two ways about it really.

I have in many threads but , if you want a quick recap...
human without a head is not viable... Would you disagree?

Pregnancy is not viable for a woman who cannot carry a baby to term, especially so if it going to put her life in danger.

Following your logic a headless baby is still a baby, viable or otherwise.

.you also think a woman who has access to abortions doesnt have access to abortions or hospitals ...

Say what now? LoL

So yeah...

If you say so, but its certainly not sensical.

a reply to: Xtrozero

All that aside for the moment Xtrozero.

How would a woman's employer find out she had an abortion and thus be able to fire her?

In this day of age, there is apt to be a lawsuit in there somewhere I should imagine if indeed an employer were to fire a person for having an abortion.

a reply to: andy06shake

..i love how you ignore your lack of logic ...

..then try to put nonsensical logic of yours.. On me

You just skip the whole thing...

Amazing.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Yeah, it's just circles with you now.

Im bored with your nonsense, draconian antiquated views, regarding women, and reality in general.

Nevermind your lack of understanding where logical reasoning is concerned

Have the last word if you want.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I still maintain it should be the private decision of the parents, the doctor AND NO ONE ELSES DAMN BUSINESS.

Given how many people on this site are so offended at the overreach of private parties and Governmental Agencies into their own personal liberties and privacies, they sure are hypocrites on the issue of abortion.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I still maintain it should be the private decision of the parents, the doctor AND NO ONE ELSES DAMN BUSINESS.

Given how many people on this site are so offended at the overreach of private parties and Governmental Agencies into their own personal liberties and privacies, they sure are hypocrites on the issue of abortion.

I agree it should be a personal matter between the mother, the doctor, and God. But none of that make it not be murder in my eyes. It's taking a life. it's not in the Constitution, so the ruling was the correct one. And it appears the majority wants to keep it as an option. Each state will vote on their choices, and the will of the people in that state will be the law. Just as some complain about the restrictive choices of some states, the inverse will the true of others. As with most things, people can also vote with their feet and move to states that align better to their wishes and beliefs. How important this issue is, should be the driving force in that choice.

originally posted by: andy06shake

In this day of age, there is apt to be a lawsuit in there somewhere I should imagine if indeed an employer were to fire a person for having an abortion.

How did a company find out a person didn't get a vaccine? As I said once something is mandated then processes are put into place to manage it.

My point is that "my body, my choice" is not a viable response anymore. If the population drops we could see mandatory birthing requirements.

I'm glad you like a book, I really am.

But just because you like something in a book, doesn't mean you can have the thing in real life.

I can't go to the White House with a bunch of Green Lantern comics and say, "I want a Green Lantern ring, I saw it in a book I like, make the thing in the book I like be here, now!"

That's not how law making works.

Since you are based in the UK, you have an advantage over America in terms of pro-life because you don't have a death penalty. There is a baseline precedent of no killing on that end of the spectrum that helps your case.

Now when it comes to abortion itself. I think celebrating the fact that one had or can have an abortion is irresponsible as well.

Abortion should be held in the same regards as bankruptcy, something that everyone should strive to avoid.

a reply to: Xtrozero

1. Have Congress set a date such as 14 weeks, end of story, and that is something they should have done 30 years ago to replace Roe vs Wade.

Why 15 weeks? What is the medical/scientific reasoning behind that "date"?

50 years ago, SCOTUS "set a date", that date was when the fetus was viable, able to survive outside of the womb.

Why is your "date" 14 weeks better than what SCOTUS decided 50 years ago?

And would your 14 weeks ban remove all the roadblocks and hoops that states put up to make it harder for women to access a safe and legal abortion? In the EU abortions are part of their health system and covered by the government. Will the USA do that? No, they wouldn't.

Would a 14 week ban of have exceptions for the health of the woman, or would she have to be dying hard enough for the likes of Texas and Alabama to care?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: andy06shake

Yes, a Woman's choice, certainly not the states.

Religious sensibility aside to assume or think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

How do you feel about if the woman gets an abortion then she could be fired from her job? What is fair is fair, right?

True story, I was fired from my job for being pregnant in the State of California, and denied unemployment, because being pregnant was my choice. I could have opted for an abortion and kept my job. That was before they passed a law outlawing that practice.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: andy06shake

Yes, a Woman's choice, certainly not the states.

Religious sensibility aside to assume or think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

How do you feel about if the woman gets an abortion then she could be fired from her job? What is fair is fair, right?

True story, I was fired from my job for being pregnant in the State of California, and denied unemployment, because being pregnant was my choice. I could have opted for an abortion and kept my job. That was before they passed a law outlawing that practice.

How long ago was this? You are that old?
I thought they passed laws against that in the 1960s?

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: andy06shake

Yes, a Woman's choice, certainly not the states.

Religious sensibility aside to assume or think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

How do you feel about if the woman gets an abortion then she could be fired from her job? What is fair is fair, right?

True story, I was fired from my job for being pregnant in the State of California, and denied unemployment, because being pregnant was my choice. I could have opted for an abortion and kept my job. That was before they passed a law outlawing that practice.

How long ago was this? You are that old?
I thought they passed laws against that in the 1960s?

No, they didn't pass a law in California, protecting pregnant woman untill well after Roe V Wade was the law of the land. This was in 1974, and yeah, I'm that old! LOL

Women’s rights groups, along with labor unions and civil rights organizations, urged Congress to push back on the Court. In response, Congress enacted the landmark Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978.

The PDA amended Title VII to explicitly prohibit employment discrimination based on “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The amendment mandates that workers cannot be fired or treated as inferior based on their pregnancies.

onlabor.org...