This is ridiculous. #4 forces the mother to lose a body component. That has never been part of seedtime and harvest.
She knew full well that allowing a male to plant his seed could result in harvesting a baby. In doing so she implicitly agrees by contract to lease access to her body for 9 months to support a baby.
I don’t think it is ridiculous to compare the negatives on the body from pregnancy to a kidney donation. Personally, I’d go with the kidney donation if I had to choose one to go through myself.
That is your opinion. It can’t be shown to be.
It is also the response I’ve gotten several times when I pose this thought experiment. There is no contract to carry a baby to birth that is formed when having sex. This artificial contract is a way of righting inconsistent thinking, but it’s just asserted without proof.
All my comments are Bible based. Be sure, I strongly believe the woman has accepted the rules of the contract when she engages in sex with the opposite sex. PERIOD.
I will accept any secular apology as your opinion. And you are entitled to have your own opinion.
BTW, after the woman has donated the first kidney to the baby in need, the next donation will be her last.
Uhhhh I would disagree there.
Were any of them politicians?
It’s okay to have this belief, but it is a belief not fact. I don’t agree that there is any sort of contract. I guess my default is to not believe there is a contract until shown it. Maybe there is a way to do that which is sound. I don’t think it’s been done yet though.
I do have a caveat in my points that the mother isn’t killed in the process.
You nailed how I feel here. In the US we have the right to freedom of religions, we do not have the right to impose our religion on others.
On that note, I have studied the Bible a lot and have not seen anything that indicates that a soul enters a body at the moment of conception (as some claim).
Again, donating a kidney is an action. Merely NOT killing the kid is NOT an action. No one is forced to commit an action. Mothers ARE barred from killing their kids now in some states.
As science progresses the viability of a fetus outside the womb becomes earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. As these scientific facts become known the legal case for a contract becomes more likely possible. At some point in time the mother might be required to carry the fetus until viability outside the womb is possible and have it removed at that time. Will that also be considered an unreasonable contract request?
But there is a political struggle between two unyielding sides. Resolution to satisfy all is highly unlikely.
I don’t know about you guys, but does anyone notice a difference in the demeanor, appearance, and physiognomy in the pro-lifers versus the pro-abortionists?
You mean all states. They also can’t kill other people’s kids.
But the Bible does condone things that are misogynistic and sexist, slavery, war, genocide, torture and the death penalty.
I am trying to get my hands on a hebrew to English Old Testament and an Aramaic to English direct New Testament translation. Changes a lot of the text.
It’s not perfect and it’s why I have been questioning my Christianity lately (that and other reasons).
My state just brought back firing squad.
You can easily purchase a Greek Interlinear and a Hebrew Interlinear Bible.
Have fun reading the Hebrew from right to left.
While your at it purchase an 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary. It is best to use when trying to interpret the Constitution.
The decision simply means that a right to abortion has been ruled to not exist in the constitution. That doesn’t generalize yo any other right.
Absolutely not. Just like I don’t notice the difference in everyday life. I presume nothing about some fat pig with blue or purple hair.
This specific reference was to the linked decision on the border patrol case.
Can someone give me a brief recap of the facts that are behind this decision, or even link me to an unbiased article to get an understanding of it?
I’m not concerned with the morality of abortion, or opinions on pro/anti-abortion. My beliefs on the matter will remain unchanged. I just want an understanding of the legal reasons for the decision and don’t have the means to sift through this thread or opinion pieces Google turns up.
Appreciate it in advance for anyone who takes the time.
TBH, I’m not too opposed to something like that. I think a lot of people confuse the term always mean killing the unborn. It is terminating the pregnancy, not necessarily the child. I would be interested if that can be done safely, and that would have some bearing on my thoughts.
Fwiw, I think after viability an abortion procedure should involve removing the unborn without killing it, if it is to be done. I think the viability restrictions are something the courts got right at the time (in a practical sense, not many are actually interested in removing the unborn early, so if it was available people probably wouldn’t do it).
I’m not sure if it will be possible to find an unbiased source. I’m also not sure what level of context you have coming into this.
However, in order to understand the decision, you need to keep in mind that the court is not banning abortion. The court is simply ruling that the Constitution does not prevent states from banning abortion. The SCOTUS is supposed to overturn laws that violate the protections laid out in the Constitution. The ruling basically states that the Constitution does not specify an explicit right to abortion and that historically common law has not held that there is a right to abortion. Therefore, such a Constitutional right doesn’t exist and state governments are free to make whatever laws on the subject that the elected legislatures deem appropriate.
Of course, the ruling does in practice make abortion illegal in around half of the states in the US since their legislatures have already acted or will quickly act to outlaw abortion in the absence of a constitutional prohibition on such a ban.