Alabama Abortion Ban:

[firstfloor]

That sort of confusion is NECESSARY for abortionists to be able to kill a human life.

What doctors want politicians to know about abortion:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...PpTToN61SrrOMA

[Cow Poke]

What doctors want politicians to know about abortion:

Thanks, ff, but I'm a whole lot more concerned with what God wants doctors to know about abortion.

[Mountain Man]

In that case, your argument is no longer with me but with the facts of science and the law.

[firstfloor]

Thanks, ff, but I'm a whole lot more concerned with what God wants doctors to know about abortion.

[Cow Poke]

Why would you think that?

Because all doctors one day will answer to God for their deeds.

Surely, that is between God and the doctors.

Well, supposedly, abortion is between a woman and her doctor, but that doesn't keep YOU from chiming in.

Besides, I'm commissioned to speak on God's behalf.

As a Pastor, I kinda am.

The right to autonomy overrides any such concern.

Yet, here you are voicing YOUR concern.

[Mountain Man]

What doctors want politicians to know about abortion:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...PpTToN61SrrOMA

When you said this was from a doctor, I was hoping for a clinical, fact based discussion about the reality of abortion from the medical perspective. Instead, it's just another liberal screed presenting the same appeals to emotion that could have been written by my Hillary supporting next door neighbor. I mean, I would have at least expected a physician to tackle the thorny issue of when human life begins,, and at what stage of development it ought to be immoral to kill that human life.

[Cow Poke]

When you said this was from a doctor, I was hoping for a clinical, fact based discussion about the reality of abortion from the medical perspective. Instead, it's just another liberal screed presenting the same appeals to emotion that could have been written by my Hillary supporting next door neighbor. I mean, I would have at least expected a physician to tackle the thorny issue of when human life begins,, and at what stage of development it ought to be immoral to kill that human life.

I saw it was Huffpo, and smiled, especially when I got the warning...

"Before you continue...

HuffPost is part of Oath. Oath and our partners need your consent to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. Oath will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products....

No thanks.

[firstfloor]

When you said this was from a doctor, I was hoping for a clinical, fact based discussion about the reality of abortion from the medical perspective. Instead, it's just another liberal screed presenting the same appeals to emotion that could have been written by my Hillary supporting next door neighbor. I mean, I would have at least expected a physician to tackle the thorny issue of when human life begins,, and at what stage of development it ought to be immoral to kill that human life.

Anyone who eats meat reared for food production, or hunts for wild animals with a rifle, or catches fish in a river and maybe does some of these things for his personal entertainment is not in the least bothered by killing. If you have ever supported a war or the death penalty, you are not bothered, much, about killing human beings.

What remains to explain your position is a foetus fetish combined with a strong desire to dominate women, keep them in line and punish them for transgressions, and have the same control over their reproductive lives as a farmer would have over his sheep.

[tabibito]

There is a palpable difference between killing in war, and executing a criminal (in which cases deliberate aggressors are being dealt with) and abortion - which overwhelmingly is a matter of killing for the sake of convenience. Likewise - killing for food isn't the same as killing for the sake of convenience.

[Cow Poke]

Anyone who eats meat reared for food production, or hunts for wild animals with a rifle, or catches fish in a river and maybe does some of these things for his personal entertainment is not in the least bothered by killing.

That's just beyond silly. Ignorant, even. Killing animals is not on a par with killing humans.

If you have ever supported a war or the death penalty, you are not bothered, much, about killing human beings.

I'm thinking you're simply making goofy statements today. Even somebody who supports the death penalty can be quite bothered by it, and somebody who has gone to war often has deep emotional trouble over it.

What remains to explain your position

So far, your foolishness has done nothing to affect my position...

is a foetus fetish

so, you're doubling down on stupidity....

combined with a strong desire to dominate women, keep them in line and punish them for transgressions,

...or perhaps you're just saying really stupid things for effect...

and have the same control over their reproductive lives as a farmer would have over his sheep.

An unborn sheep would never ever become a human being, though it might eventually make a tasty meal.

I really don't think you're this stupid, so I'm going to have to assume you're deeply disturbed and need help.

[Cow Poke]

What remains to explain your position is a foetus fetish....

Interesting you should use that goofy term, then I stumble upon this article...

Democrats are in love with abortion. Everyone has their fetishes. For them, it is the termination of human life in the womb. They celebrate it, they cheer it, and now they want you to pay for it.

The Democrats seem absolutely fascinated with the killing of the unborn - having gone from "safe, legal and rare" to no limitation whatsoever. So, yes, with the liberals, abortion seems to be their latest fetish.

[firstfloor]

Interesting you should use that goofy term, then I stumble upon this article...

Democrats are in love with abortion. Everyone has their fetishes. For them, it is the termination of human life in the womb. They celebrate it, they cheer it, and now they want you to pay for it.

The Democrats seem absolutely fascinated with the killing of the unborn - having gone from "safe, legal and rare" to no limitation whatsoever. So, yes, with the liberals, abortion seems to be their latest fetish.

Well, the debate has gone manically hyperbolic, and one extreme position is met with another. Perhaps the voters will decide what they want.

[Mountain Man]

That's just beyond silly. Ignorant, even. Killing animals is not on a par with killing humans.

To an atheist there is no difference, because according to their worldview, there's nothing inherently special about us. We're just another random branch on the evolutionary tree. But with that comes the inescapable conclusion that man killing man is no more morally abhorrent than a lion killing a gazelle.

[Terraceth]

The Democrats seem absolutely fascinated with the killing of the unborn - having gone from "safe, legal and rare" to no limitation whatsoever. So, yes, with the liberals, abortion seems to be their latest fetish.

What I find noticeable is the difference in rhetoric from the past.

I've recommended John Hart Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" article before, because it's such a great explanation as to why Roe v. Wade "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be", especially strong when you consider he was pro-choice. But look at his attitude towards the pro-choice position:

"Were I a legislator I would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ends up drafting. I hope this reaction reflects more than the psychological phenomenon that keeps bombardiers sane-the fact that it is somehow easier to "terminate" those you cannot see- and am inclined to think it does: that the mother, unlike the unborn child, has begun to imagine a future for herself strikes me as morally quite significant. But God knows I'm not happy with that resolution. Abortion is too much like infanticide on the one hand, and too much like contraception on the other, to leave one comfortable with any answer; and the moral issue it poses is as fiendish as any philosopher's hypothetical."

and

"Some of us who fought for the right to abortion did so with a divided spirit. We have always felt that the decision to abort was a human tragedy to be accepted only because an unwanted pregnancy was even more tragic."

Maybe you disagree with him, but that attitude expressed in 1973 is sure a far cry from what you hear now from pro-choice people.

[Sparko]

But having the mother murder the child instead is OK?