User Tag List

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910
Results 136 to 148 of 148

Thread: Planned Parenthood butchers reject federal funding offer proposed by Trump

  1. #136
    Over 3000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 678 Times in 552 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162902
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    The state has a "compelling interest" in the welfare of both mother and fetus by this point of development.
    That's not an argument. It's just a declaration.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to glassjester For Your Post:

    ok doser (March 14th, 2017)

  3. #137
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 587 Times in 487 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    500063
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    That's not an argument. It's just a declaration.
    It's an aspect of SCOTUS' Roe/Wade ruling.

    But if you know better....
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  4. #138
    Over 3000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 678 Times in 552 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162902
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    It's an aspect of SCOTUS' Roe/Wade ruling.

    But if you know better....
    I don't understand why you believe the law should allow for the killing of a human fetus, but at the same time should protect a human fetus from suffering.

    It's an inconsistency in the law, and an inconsistency in your views. Both are worth examining. But you seem to be content with this dissonance.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  5. #139
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 587 Times in 487 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    500063
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    I don't understand why you believe the law should allow for the killing of a human fetus, but at the same time should protect a human fetus from suffering.

    It's an inconsistency in the law, and an inconsistency in your views. Both are worth examining. But you seem to be content with this dissonance.
    It's only dissonant because you fail to discern between a viable fetus and an inchoate one.
    It's all the same to pro-life ideology.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  6. #140
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    15,375
    Thanks
    577
    Thanked 2,920 Times in 2,262 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1517364
    a fetus isn't viable at 20 weeks

  7. #141
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 587 Times in 487 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    500063
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    a fetus isn't viable at 20 weeks
    Didn't say it was.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  8. #142
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,127
    Thanks
    3,562
    Thanked 5,097 Times in 2,849 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147684
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Didn't say it was.
    It isn't long after that, though. I know someone personally whose baby was born at 26 weeks. 1 lb. 15 oz.

    He's about 7 years old now, happy and healthy.
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  9. #143
    Over 3000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 678 Times in 552 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162902
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    It's only dissonant because you fail to discern between a viable fetus and an inchoate one.
    It's all the same to pro-life ideology.
    "Viable" is only a comment on the current state of medical technology, not really a characteristic of the fetus, per se.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  10. #144
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 587 Times in 487 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    500063
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    "Viable" is only a comment on the current state of medical technology, not really a characteristic of the fetus, per se.
    Ok.
    It's all we have to work with currently.
    Things could indeed change both medically and subsequently legally....if that's what you're implying.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  11. #145
    Over 3000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 678 Times in 552 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162902
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Ok.
    It's all we have to work with currently.
    Things could indeed change both medically and subsequently legally....if that's what you're implying.
    Yes, that's a possibility - but not what I meant to point out.

    I don't think the current state of medical technology (which defines viability) can determine whether someone has the right to life.

    So if you're arguing that viability dictates the unborn child's right to be alive, I have to ask: why?

    Why should a doctor's ability to save your life determine whether the law should protect your life? Does that hold true in any other situation?


    If someone's shot by a mugger, and the doctor can't save him, do the police call off the case? "Well chief, the hospital didn't have the technology to keep the victim alive, so it wasn't murder."
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  12. #146
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 587 Times in 487 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    500063
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    Yes, that's a possibility - but not what I meant to point out.

    I don't think the current state of medical technology (which defines viability) can determine whether someone has the right to life.

    So if you're arguing that viability dictates the unborn child's right to be alive, I have to ask: why?

    Why should a doctor's ability to save your life determine whether the law should protect your life? Does that hold true in any other situation?


    If someone's shot by a mugger, and the doctor can't save him, do the police call off the case? "Well chief, the hospital didn't have the technology to keep the victim alive, so it wasn't murder."
    First of all, we were arguing my personal, moral exceptions to a women's right to an abortion.

    Second, SCOTUS didn't elaborate on what it considered to be the state's "compelling interest"...though I dont beleive this confers any "right to life" on behalf of the unborn.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  13. #147
    Over 3000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 678 Times in 552 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162902
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    ...though I dont beleive this confers any "right to life" on behalf of the unborn.
    What would?
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  14. #148
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 587 Times in 487 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    500063
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    What would?
    The states' compelling interest, which imparts viability.

    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    What would?
    Nothing...it has no legal right to life until birth.

    (I could read your quote two different ways.)
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us