Ohio bans doctors from performing Down Syndrome abortions

[RoadRunner79]

I'd love to post in utero/post birth photo's of other genetic defects but that would be to graphic. Posting a picture of a phenotypically normal appearing defect does not support an anti abortion agenda.

For sure, its very manipulative, and reveals once again an utter lack of empathy for women who need legal access to these services.

I don't think that this represents most peoples positions who are against abortion.

I do have empathy for women in this situation.  And I do think that we need to help and support them.  

However, I don't think that the reasons given, justify the intentional killing of a person.

[Mister Agenda]

However if you are going to define life, by breathing through the lungs, I did get a funny picture of some disgruntled atheists wife, waiting from some poor husbands sleep apnia to make him stop breathing long enough, that she can stab him and it wouldn't be murder!

It was the beginning of human life being defined based on what the Bible has to say about it. Presumably the Bible is what's relevant in how Christians define the beginning of human life. The funny pictures you get in your head are irrelevant.

[GrandizerII]

CL, what do you want? Make abortion illegal all over the world? And if so, do you think this would make things better for your fellow women?

Enough with this false dichotomy already.  You are starting to sound like the nutty, “they’re trying to take all of our guns!” NRA folk.  I don’t recall a single participant in this discussion advocating for blanket banning of abortions all over the world.  Maybe...just maybe...the subject is a bit more nuanced than that.  I brought up a few points for discussion in my previous post but people don’t seem interested in discussing them.

I didnt ask you. I asked her. Also, I asked, not forced a dichotomy.

Whats with the attitude? I know your position and answer to the question. I want to know hers, or RRs and the likes.

[Catholic_Lady]

CL, what do you want? Make abortion illegal all over the world? And if so, do you think this would make things better for your fellow women?

Enough with this false dichotomy already.  You are starting to sound like the nutty, “they’re trying to take all of our guns!” NRA folk.  I don’t recall a single participant in this discussion advocating for blanket banning of abortions all over the world.  Maybe...just maybe...the subject is a bit more nuanced than that.  I brought up a few points for discussion in my previous post but people don’t seem interested in discussing them.

What he's asking is something I've already addressed earlier on in the thread. Also, considering his tendency to strawman and not listen, I prefer not to discuss this extremely sensitive, personal issue with him.

[pocaracas]

For sure, its very manipulative, and reveals once again an utter lack of empathy for women who need legal access to these services.

I don't think that this represents most peoples positions who are against abortion.

I do have empathy for women in this situation.  And I do think that we need to help and support them.  

However, I don't think that the reasons given, justify the intentional killing of a person.

Perhaps it doesn't justify the killing... But the need to help and support the women with their children is not there, not even in the socialist European countries... Maybe except France...

Throughout the ages and to this day, women have felt the need to abort pregnancies. When illegal to do so, they have resorted to clandestine situations with all the risks inherent to such a practice.
Women have chosen the risk of doing something illegal with the possibility of death, over having a child. To these women, making abortion illegal is telling them that their lives are worth less than the life of the unborn.
Is it?
Is an adult human worth less than an unborn that she can have again?

[GrandizerII]

For sure, its very manipulative, and reveals once again an utter lack of empathy for women who need legal access to these services.

I don't think that this represents most peoples positions who are against abortion.

I do have empathy for women in this situation.  And I do think that we need to help and support them.  

However, I don't think that the reasons given, justify the intentional killing of a person.

CL has chosen to ignore my question. Can you answer what I asked her on previous page or so? What is it you want accomplished?

[RoadRunner79]

However if you are going to define life, by breathing through the lungs, I did get a funny picture of some disgruntled atheists wife, waiting from some poor husbands sleep apnia to make him stop breathing long enough, that she can stab him and it wouldn't be murder!

It was the beginning of human life being defined based on what the Bible has to say about it. Presumably the Bible is what's relevant in how Christians define the beginning of human life. The funny pictures you get in your head are irrelevant.

Yes, but just because it was the initial cause, doesn't mean that it is all the rest.  I don't think that what was described, represents most Christians, or that most I know, would equate a baby taking it's first breath, with God breathing life into Adam.

[GrandizerII]

Enough with this false dichotomy already.  You are starting to sound like the nutty, “they’re trying to take all of our guns!” NRA folk.  I don’t recall a single participant in this discussion advocating for blanket banning of abortions all over the world.  Maybe...just maybe...the subject is a bit more nuanced than that.  I brought up a few points for discussion in my previous post but people don’t seem interested in discussing them.

What he's asking is something I've already addressed earlier on in the thread. Also, considering his tendency to strawman and not listen, I prefer not to discuss this extremely sensitive, personal issue with him.

I just went back through the first 11 pages and did not see you address what I asked at all. Why this tactic, CL? Just ignore or say you dont want to answer. More honest this way.

[Angrboda]

It was the beginning of human life being defined based on what the Bible has to say about it. Presumably the Bible is what's relevant in how Christians define the beginning of human life. The funny pictures you get in your head are irrelevant.

Yes, but just because it was the initial cause, doesn't mean that it is all the rest.  I don't think that what was described, represents most Christians, or that most I know, would equate a baby taking it's first breath, with God breathing life into Adam.

I quoted two other bible verses which support the position that the breath is the beginning of life, as well as the law from Exodus in which prenatal life is not accorded the same status as that of life that has taken a breath. Just like you ignore evidence contrary to your opinion on abortion, Christians ignore what their own scriptures tell them. If a Christian claims to live by the word of God, yet then ignores it and comes to a contrary position, what are we to make of it? Personally I find such people hypocritical and their moral opinions of little value.

[Catholic_Lady]

What he's asking is something I've already addressed earlier on in the thread. Also, considering his tendency to strawman and not listen, I prefer not to discuss this extremely sensitive, personal issue with him.

I just went back through the first 11 pages and did not see you address what I asked at all. Why this tactic, CL? Just ignore or say you dont want to answer. More honest this way.

No tactic. I just prefer not to have this discussion with you. Couldn't find it? Not my prob.