Religious Atrocity Vol 5: "Your gift from god is miscarriage followed by death"

Screw these Catholic countries with their convictions against abortions.I am for abortions if the right case is presented and there is a reason for the woman to have one in this case there is.These countries have to much influence over women to do what they want to do with their bodies.There is no justification for this at all.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Woman gets admitted to hospital with severe back pain.  Pregnancy is determined to miscarriage soon.  Woman asks for abortion.  Hospital refuses as there is still a heartbeat and it's a "Catholic Country".  Agony for days.  Finally miscarries.  Too late--god gifted an infection that would kill the young woman.  Thank you, Jesus.

 

 

 

 

What's important, though, is that while the diagnosed nonviable pregnancy persisted, the demise of the nonviable fetus, which was soon cease to be, wasn't hastened.  That fetus got 2 more days.  That's definitely worth the life of the mother.  Makes perfect sense.  

 

 

BR, may I ask...what is the point of this thread?  I mean, I don't think there is anyone here who would agree with the hospital's actions in this case.  I can only assume it's another anti-Christian/anti-Catholic tirade...because hey, that's what you do.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

No one would agree?  Really?  Paul Ryan wants to ban abortion WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.  He was running for VICE PRESIDENT.  If he had his way, this woman would have died, here, too.

I don't think that's a fair representation of his position.  He's also stated he would not seek to push further abortion restrictions. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You are full of it, SDW.  Paul Ryan cosponsored the Sanctity of Life Act.  That would make any abortion under any circumstances murder under the eyes of the law.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

If you weren't so polarized and blind in your quest to discredit Ryan, you'd realize you referenced the wrong bill.  You are referring to the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which is not the same as the Sanctity of Life Act.  

Now that we have you on the correct piece of legislation, let's take a look at the actual bill.   

This does not make any abortion "murder in the eyes of the law," BR.  It is an attempt to allow states to pass laws protecting the unborn by conferring  the legal status of "person" upon them.  The bill does not outlaw abortion.  The bill does not direct states or localities to outlaw abortion.  In fact, point #2 is a legally non-binding statement.  It's an affirmation of what states have the right to do.  

As an aside, I do find it somewhat amusing to watch you and yours run around and waste your energies opposing bills like this, calling their sponsors extremist loons, etc.  You'd do better to focus your energies on potential legislation that actually outlaws/restricts abortion.  But you can't do that, because you are the ones that have the true extremist views.  You oppose ANY attempt to protect the unborn, be it personhood, partial-birth, or other measures.  Meanwhile, people like me (the ones at which you're screaming) are actually moderates on the issue.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

My mistake.  I'll admit it when I'm wrong.  I was wrong about that bill.  I wasn't so polarized, but rather in a hurry to go to work and made a mistake while rushing to respond.  

 

And sure, that last section of the actual bill is "nonbinding", but the idea that every fertilized egg is a full human does logically conclude with abortion being murder.  Are you man enough to admit that?

1.  OK.  Fair enough.  

2.  I don't mean the last section.  I mean part 2, which is the heart of the bill:  (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.  

It's a non-binding statement.  And no, every fertilized egg being fully human does not mean an abortion is therefore "murder."   Murder is a legal term and does not apply to the taking of a life in all cases (as you know).   Now, what you seem to be arguing is that the bill makes it easier for states to define all abortion as murder.  In theory, that's true.  But I'm not aware of a state that has a serious movement to do this, are you?  And I'm not sure the bill actually means anything as it's non-binding anyway.  

I will say this:  I think the GOP should stop wasting its time on these things.  I don't think the problem is that the party needs to radically alter it's platform.  But we should leave abortion alone.  The same goes for gay marriage.  It shouldn't be a part of the platform in any sense.  People who oppose it should just say they personally favor traditional marriage but that they are not making it a political issue.  Ditto on "family values" crap.  If I have to watch guys like Rick Santorum tell me their position on the traditional family unit one more time, I may throw up.  And the kicker is I don't even disagree that the traditional family unit is what's best for children, and perhaps society as a whole. I'm just sick of my government telling me that.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

In that last paragraph, I think you have made a significant breakthrough.  This is not classic SDW.  I approve of this change.  I still think it's bigoted to oppose gay marriage for any reason, but the fact that you want to keep those objections personal and not legislate it is a very important step forward.

 

I applaud you.

I think this post shows how much you really don't make an effort to understand what a person is really posting, nor what he actually thinks.  Instead, it seems you prefer to argue with a caricature. The fact is I've never been entrenched on these issues.  

Abortion:  Neither the pro-choice, nor pro-life labels fit me.  I believe that life begins at conception.  I also tend to err on the side of personal choice, responsibility, and liberty. I also think Roe is a poor decision, because it created a federal constitutional right where clearly none existed.  It removed choice at the local and state levels.  If abortion were on the ballot in my state, I would likely vote to keep it legal.  I oppose partial birth abortion except in case of risk to the life of the mother.  I oppose live birth abortion in all cases.  I've never argued that the party should focus on the abortion issue.  

Gay marriage:  I've never been hellbent on preventing it, and have opposed a constitutional amendment banning it.  I don't wish to prevent anyone from living their lives as they choose (or "are"), nor does my position have anything to do with "bigotry."  That said, I've repeatedly expressed my concern about what redefining the institution may end up doing to it in the future.  I don't wish for the term to become effectively meaningless, which I think could happen if the government redefines it.  My problem is that I don't see on what grounds we could prevent any future change, such as being able to marry more than one person.  Then you'd have traditional marriage, gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc.  What would "marriage" even mean at that point?  I'd much rather see civil unions for everyone, including hetero couples.  "Marriage" would then be primarily a religious institution.   If one faith wants to have gay marriage and another one doesn't, fine.  But the entire societal institution wouldn't be redefined by the courts.   Here again, I've never been one to push for action by the GOP.  

I have a number of positions where I differ with many in the GOP.  Drug policy is probably the next best example.  I favor full legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of most other drugs, and a shift in our anti-drug effort funding towards prevention, awareness and treatment (away from enforcement).  A related issue is our drug-related offender/non-violent prison population, which is absolutely absurd in terms of its size.