Chick Fil A caves to LGBTQ coercion

[Smellin Coffee]

I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.

So in your "protecting" the 3% of the defenseless from death, you are OK with risking the health and even extended life of the other 97%, ALL of whom were also created in the image of the same God.

Got it.

Yes, absolutely.  In trying to minimize the health risks and to extend the life of the other 90-97% (you left out the range in trying to condemn me), are you OK with murdering the 3-10%?

I am opposed to abortion being used as birth control. For situations involving the physical and/or mental health of the baby or mother, that is a decision that should be made by the mother, her family and her medical counsel. It is NOT my business, NOT my right to interfere in the mother's autonomy to support HER unborn.

So would you support legislation that outlaws abortion except in cases where it was a medical necessity for the mother?

Depends on what the legislation calls for and how much interference it gives the justice system to investigate those choices.

A mother in poverty who HAS to use the PP clinic because of limited healthcare should not be jailed nor fined. I believe that individual medical professionals should have record as to why it was deemed medically necessary, including circumstances that may involve mental health instead of solely physical health. The health professional should be held responsible, whether it be reprimand or even loss of license if he/she knowingly performs the abortion without health reasons.

So yes, I believe there should be consequences but it isn't worth tying up already convoluted court systems over individual cases.

In other countries where abortion is completely outlawed, women who have miscarried are being imprisoned because in domestic disputes, their husbands report them as aborting their children. Or miscarriages happen and police can prosecute the mother for "illegally" aborting their child because of miscarriage. We see that happening now in Republican states where abortion laws are the strictest:

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-30-years-prison-miscarriage-georgia-abortion-2019-5

https://gen.medium.com/anti-abortion-laws-will-put-women-in-jail-86ab8951cdcc?gi=fb418b5d1de5

So in the medium, I do not believe the mother should be prosecuted but medical professionals should lose their license to perform without medical or mental health reason.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....
So yes, I believe there should be consequences but it isn't worth tying up already convoluted court systems over individual cases.

Oh, I'd say that it's worth it to that one little child who gets to live rather than be murdered, and
i'll bet they agree when they're old enough to read this and decide for themselves.

 

[voicecrying]

So would you support legislation that outlaws abortion except in cases where it was a medical necessity for the mother?

Depends on what the legislation calls for and how much interference it gives the justice system to investigate those choices.

A mother in poverty who HAS to use the PP clinic because of limited healthcare should not be jailed nor fined. I believe that individual medical professionals should have record as to why it was deemed medically necessary, including circumstances that may involve mental health instead of solely physical health. The health professional should be held responsible, whether it be reprimand or even loss of license if he/she knowingly performs the abortion without health reasons.

So yes, I believe there should be consequences but it isn't worth tying up already convoluted court systems over individual cases.

In other countries where abortion is completely outlawed, women who have miscarried are being imprisoned because in domestic disputes, their husbands report them as aborting their children. Or miscarriages happen and police can prosecute the mother for "illegally" aborting their child because of miscarriage. We see that happening now in Republican states where abortion laws are the strictest:

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-30-years-prison-miscarriage-georgia-abortion-2019-5

https://gen.medium.com/anti-abortion-laws-will-put-women-in-jail-86ab8951cdcc?gi=fb418b5d1de5

So in the medium, I do not believe the mother should be prosecuted but medical professionals should lose their license to perform without medical or mental health reason.

Obviously, I would expect innocent until proven guilty and that juries should be held to the reasonable doubt standard in the cases where the mother claims miscarriage. My oldest son was in a college class with the girl who was recently charged & tried with killing her newborn and burying the body here in Ohio. I think the jury got the decision right and only found her guilty of abuse of corpse. There was no evidence presented that proved the baby was not stillborn. I think if the case was tried 100 times, the outcome would be the same all 100 times (and we are in a Republican/Conservative dominated area of Ohio).

I agree that health professionals should be held criminally liable when the mother's health is not the factor. Mothers (and fathers or anyone else who is knowingly & willingly complicit) should also be held criminally liable if the  mother's health is not the factor. It's like hiring a hitman - both parties are criminally liable.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So would you support legislation that outlaws abortion except in cases where it was a medical necessity for the mother?

Depends on what the legislation calls for and how much interference it gives the justice system to investigate those choices.

A mother in poverty who HAS to use the PP clinic because of limited healthcare should not be jailed nor fined. I believe that individual medical professionals should have record as to why it was deemed medically necessary, including circumstances that may involve mental health instead of solely physical health. The health professional should be held responsible, whether it be reprimand or even loss of license if he/she knowingly performs the abortion without health reasons.

So yes, I believe there should be consequences but it isn't worth tying up already convoluted court systems over individual cases.

In other countries where abortion is completely outlawed, women who have miscarried are being imprisoned because in domestic disputes, their husbands report them as aborting their children. Or miscarriages happen and police can prosecute the mother for "illegally" aborting their child because of miscarriage. We see that happening now in Republican states where abortion laws are the strictest:

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-30-years-prison-miscarriage-georgia-abortion-2019-5

https://gen.medium.com/anti-abortion-laws-will-put-women-in-jail-86ab8951cdcc?gi=fb418b5d1de5

So in the medium, I do not believe the mother should be prosecuted but medical professionals should lose their license to perform without medical or mental health reason.

Obviously, I would expect innocent until proven guilty and that juries should be held to the reasonable doubt standard in the cases where the mother claims miscarriage. My oldest son was in a college class with the girl who was recently charged & tried with killing her newborn and burying the body here in Ohio. I think the jury got the decision right and only found her guilty of abuse of corpse. There was no evidence presented that proved the baby was not stillborn. I think if the case was tried 100 times, the outcome would be the same all 100 times (and we are in a Republican/Conservative dominated area of Ohio).

I agree that health professionals should be held criminally liable when the mother's health is not the factor. Mothers (and fathers or anyone else who is knowingly & willingly complicit) should also be held criminally liable if the  mother's health is not the factor. It's like hiring a hitman - both parties are criminally liable.

In general, why do women want abortions? What are the circumstances in their lives that bring about that desire? Why shouldn't we give women autonomy over their own bodies even when the child they are carrying does not have legal autonomy and SHOULD NOT have legal autonomy?

I am opposed to a police state and for them to investigate every single miscarriage or stillborn death is time consuming, expensive, invasive and traumatic. That is what abortion laws lead to. And with the prevalent racism in our justice system, with the Black community being affected the most by abortion "needs" (not claiming all are legitimate needs), it gives the police state more motive to keep mass incarceration growing, particularly stronger toward those women of color. So no, I do not believe the woman should be held criminally liable but rather given the resources to help her decide to keep the child, but it should be HER decision, not the law's.

Putting women in prison only breaks up more families, leaves more children parent-less, keeps the women from getting jobs to support themselves when they get out of prison, and extends poverty. I don't think that is fair to a person who made an emotionally-charged "bad" decision that affected nobody else in society.

 

[voicecrying]

In general, why do women want abortions? What are the circumstances in their lives that bring about that desire? Why shouldn't we give women autonomy over their own bodies even when the child they are carrying does not have legal autonomy and SHOULD NOT have legal autonomy?

Why shouldn't the child have legal autonomy?

 

[ALAYMAN]

... So no, I do not believe the woman should be held criminally liable but rather given the resources to help her decide to keep the child, but it should be HER decision, not the law's.

Even you recognize it is A CHILD!  It shouldn't be her, the states, or anybody else's legal right to murder another human being, child, infant, teen, young adult, or elderly human being.

 

[voicecrying]

I am opposed to a police state and for them to investigate every single miscarriage or stillborn death is time consuming, expensive, invasive and traumatic.

I suppose you are opposed to the current impeachment process because it is time-consuming, expensive, invasive, and traumatic?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I am opposed to a police state and for them to investigate every single miscarriage or stillborn death is time consuming, expensive, invasive and traumatic.

I suppose you are opposed to the current impeachment process because it is time-consuming, expensive, invasive, and traumatic?

Only the Benghazi hearings...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

... So no, I do not believe the woman should be held criminally liable but rather given the resources to help her decide to keep the child, but it should be HER decision, not the law's.

Even you recognize it is A CHILD!  It shouldn't be her, the states, or anybody else's legal right to murder another human being, child, infant, teen, young adult, or elderly human being.

If her physical or mental health or the child's health is in danger, IT ISN'T OUR CALL. She is still autonomous.

The idea of where life begins or the child has autonomy is not clear. There is not even a biblical mandate that confirms life begins at conception. So just because you and I believe a fetus is a child, there is no scientific evidence of when life begins nor legal evidence of when autonomy begins. In essence, the personhood of a fetus in the womb is a RELIGIOUS choice and we shouldn't make legislation based on religious practices or belief systems.

Even in Judaism, there is not a consensus as some Jews believe there in the personhood of a fetus and others don't believe so until birth.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/

So what is being suggested is, even if a mother who may be non-religious and does not believe that personhood begins inside her body, we are legally forcing her to practice against her right as a non-believer, simply because WE believe it based on religious opinion.

Again, that is NOT our call to make for someone else.

 

[voicecrying]

... So no, I do not believe the woman should be held criminally liable but rather given the resources to help her decide to keep the child, but it should be HER decision, not the law's.

Even you recognize it is A CHILD!  It shouldn't be her, the states, or anybody else's legal right to murder another human being, child, infant, teen, young adult, or elderly human being.

If her physical or mental health or the child's health is in danger, IT ISN'T OUR CALL. She is still autonomous.

I don't think anyone has proposed we get to decide if the abortion can happen if it is truly a medical necessity. That is usually just a deflection in the abortion debate.

The idea of where life begins or the child has autonomy is not clear.

Science is pretty clear that after fertilization that it is a separate entity.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Re-posting from the late Dr. Cassidy who used to post on this forum:

Ya'll need to think about this a bit more. Let me give you an illustration.

Almost 50 years ago my wife called me and told me she had fallen down in the kitchen and couldn't get up. I left work and went home and lifted her off the floor and discovered she was in severe abdominal pain and was bleeding vaginally.

I carried her to the car and rushed her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a tubal pregnancy that had ruptured her fallopian tube and torn her uterus. The only way to save her life was to remove the baby. If the doctor did not remove the baby my wife would die and, as he was not yet developed enough to live on his own, he would die too.

Our pastor came to the hospital and we prayed together with the surgeon, who was a Christian man. I told him to do whatever he had to do to save my wife. He did. I made the decision to conserve what life I could.

My choice was lose one or lose both. I chose to keep one. We have been married almost 50 years and I have never once regretted that decision.

Later we had a daughter, who is now 44, married to a great guy, and who has given us three wonderful grandsons. God has repaid us 3 fold. And we thank Him for them every day.

Folks, it is not always as black and white as we would like to think.

 

[voicecrying]

Re-posting from the late Dr. Cassidy who used to post on this forum:

Ya'll need to think about this a bit more. Let me give you an illustration.

Almost 50 years ago my wife called me and told me she had fallen down in the kitchen and couldn't get up. I left work and went home and lifted her off the floor and discovered she was in severe abdominal pain and was bleeding vaginally.

I carried her to the car and rushed her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a tubal pregnancy that had ruptured her fallopian tube and torn her uterus. The only way to save her life was to remove the baby. If the doctor did not remove the baby my wife would die and, as he was not yet developed enough to live on his own, he would die too.

Our pastor came to the hospital and we prayed together with the surgeon, who was a Christian man. I told him to do whatever he had to do to save my wife. He did. I made the decision to conserve what life I could.

My choice was lose one or lose both. I chose to keep one. We have been married almost 50 years and I have never once regretted that decision.

Later we had a daughter, who is now 44, married to a great guy, and who has given us three wonderful grandsons. God has repaid us 3 fold. And we thank Him for them every day.

Folks, it is not always as black and white as we would like to think.

No one is arguing against saving the life of the mother.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

... So no, I do not believe the woman should be held criminally liable but rather given the resources to help her decide to keep the child, but it should be HER decision, not the law's.

Even you recognize it is A CHILD!  It shouldn't be her, the states, or anybody else's legal right to murder another human being, child, infant, teen, young adult, or elderly human being.

If her physical or mental health or the child's health is in danger, IT ISN'T OUR CALL. She is still autonomous.

I don't think anyone has proposed we get to decide if the abortion can happen if it is truly a medical necessity. That is usually just a deflection in the abortion debate.

And I am not arguing FOR abortion; I am arguing against criminalizing it (like criminalizing marijuana or prostitution, both of which should be legal, IMHO, but arguments for another thread). I'm also arguing that the demarcation of where life and/or autonomy begins is based primarily on religious belief and that the government should not make laws based on religious beliefs.

Because a vast amount of abortion cases involve extenuating circumstances, let's find a way to deal with those so a mother has a healthy environment where she feels supported in bringing a child into the world, rather than forcing her to go against her fears and create more turmoil and trauma in her life than what she is already experiencing.

There is no criminality as violating another's autonomy such as murder, assault or even theft. So there should be no crime. That doesn't make abortion "right", but it should not make it criminal.

The idea of where life begins or the child has autonomy is not clear.

Science is pretty clear that after fertilization that it is a separate entity.

No blood, no brain waves = no life, no matter how separate eggs are in the fertilization process.

 

[voicecrying]

There is no criminality as violating another's autonomy such as murder, assault or even theft. So there should be no crime. That doesn't make abortion "right", but it should not make it criminal.

Except abortion deprives the child of its right to life.

The idea of where life begins or the child has autonomy is not clear.

Science is pretty clear that after fertilization that it is a separate entity.

No blood, no brain waves = no life, no matter how separate eggs are in the fertilization process.

So is it life when it has blood & brain waves? If the abortion happens after that, is it taking a life?

 

[ALAYMAN]

... So no, I do not believe the woman should be held criminally liable but rather given the resources to help her decide to keep the child, but it should be HER decision, not the law's.

Even you recognize it is A CHILD!  It shouldn't be her, the states, or anybody else's legal right to murder another human being, child, infant, teen, young adult, or elderly human being.

If her physical or mental health or the child's health is in danger, IT ISN'T OUR CALL. She is still autonomous.

The idea of where life begins or the child has autonomy is not clear. There is not even a biblical mandate that confirms life begins at conception. So just because you and I believe a fetus is a child, there is no scientific evidence of when life begins nor legal evidence of when autonomy begins. In essence, the personhood of a fetus in the womb is a RELIGIOUS choice and we shouldn't make legislation based on religious practices or belief systems.

Even in Judaism, there is not a consensus as some Jews believe there in the personhood of a fetus and others don't believe so until birth.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/

So what is being suggested is, even if a mother who may be non-religious and does not believe that personhood begins inside her body, we are legally forcing her to practice against her right as a non-believer, simply because WE believe it based on religious opinion.

Again, that is NOT our call to make for someone else.

VoiceCrying beat me to it.  I can make a theological argument against abortion, but science and ethics informs us enough to deal with it sufficiently to declare the sanctity/dignity of personhood ought to be protected, all persons, even tiny ones.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There is no criminality as violating another's autonomy such as murder, assault or even theft. So there should be no crime. That doesn't make abortion "right", but it should not make it criminal.

Except abortion deprives the child of its right to life.

Legally, there is no right or autonomy for an unborn child.

The idea of where life begins or the child has autonomy is not clear.

Science is pretty clear that after fertilization that it is a separate entity.

No blood, no brain waves = no life, no matter how separate eggs are in the fertilization process.

So is it life when it has blood & brain waves? If the abortion happens after that, is it taking a life?

In my personal and religious opinion, pretty much so (although a beating heart has existed outside the body). But in the legal sense? No, it is not taking of a life. And there are religious opinions that the child is not a child until it exits the birth canal, so for me to criminalize someone who violated my personal opinion and belief should not happen.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

VoiceCrying beat me to it.  I can make a theological argument against abortion, but science and ethics informs us enough to deal with it sufficiently to declare the sanctity/dignity of personhood ought to be protected, all persons, even tiny ones.

Same argument can be made on behalf of those who support fighting the global warming crisis.

That aside, science has no line of demarcation of when life or autonomy occurs, so criminalizing based on theory is nothing more than giving power to the state for the invasion of lives. If the government shouldn't govern our homes concerning weapons, why should we allow them to govern wombs of American women involving their pregnancies?

There are things that are ethically wrong yet should not be criminalized (like I said before, prostitution and non-medical marijuana use, for example). We can still limit careless use of abortion being used as birth control by removing medical licenses of those who perform said abortions without medical reason. Criminalizing the women just wreaks more havoc on their personal lives and the lives of their existing families and they will be imprisoned as "punishment", destroying any futures they might potentially have. So in essence, life is being taken away from more than just the unborn baby.

 

[voicecrying]

Legally, there is no right or autonomy for an unborn child.

If our society did pass a law saying the unborn child did have a right to life and abortion was outlawed except for medically necessary cases, would you argue against that law?

In my personal and religious opinion, pretty much so (although a beating heart has existed outside the body). But in the legal sense? No, it is not taking of a life. And there are religious opinions that the child is not a child until it exits the birth canal, so for me to criminalize someone who violated my personal opinion and belief should not happen.

In your opinion, what basis should be used to determine if something is criminal?

 

[Ransom]

Legally, there is no right or autonomy for an unborn child.

And in 1862, there were no rights or autonomy for black slaves in the South. What's your point?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Legally, there is no right or autonomy for an unborn child.

If our society did pass a law saying the unborn child did have a right to life and abortion was outlawed except for medically necessary cases, would you argue against that law?

I wouldn't argue if such cases were handled as misdemeanors and not felonies. It is treating these women as criminals that will destroy their lives and the lives of others in the future over something that cannot be undone, hurt no autonomous person or their rights and out of a decision that was made probably out of duress.

In my personal and religious opinion, pretty much so (although a beating heart has existed outside the body). But in the legal sense? No, it is not taking of a life. And there are religious opinions that the child is not a child until it exits the birth canal, so for me to criminalize someone who violated my personal opinion and belief should not happen.

In your opinion, what basis should be used to determine if something is criminal?

Depends on the answer to the following question: Does it violate another person's autonomy?

Take for example prostitution. Unless there is pimping involved, which is human trafficking and SHOULD be felonious, a woman trying to feed herself and her kids is so desperate she feels the need to sell sex, or even if she simply finds it profitable as a personal business, that should be her right. Nobody is violating her autonomy as she has control of her body and possessions.

If somebody defaces, say a bridge over a highway, that in essence violates a civil autonomy which the removal of such would cost taxpayers their hard-earned money given in taxes for the benefit of society. Though it shouldn't be a felony (damage directly to another person's autonomy) it should still be regarded as illegal.