In a case receiving national attention, a Texas woman trying to terminate a doomed pregnancy has made the decision to leave Texas to have the procedure done.
Late last month, 31-year-old Dallas woman Kate Cox learned that her fetus was unlikely to survive. At 20 weeks, the child was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a rare chromosomal disorder in which 90-95% of babies do not survive beyond the first year. Many are stillborn.
But despite this medical reality, Cox was barred from terminating the pregnancy due to Texas's strict abortion laws, which prevent the procedure except in cases where the mother's life is explicitly at risk.
Murky Laws Leave Women at Risk
What exactly that means isn't terribly clear, though.
Because Cox had had two cesarean sections, doctors warned her that carrying the fetus to term could make it harder – or even impossible – to have children in the future.
And the longer she remained pregnant, the more she was at risk for dangerous complications like gestational diabetes and hypertension.
Under that logic, Cox sued the state, seeking the right to have the procedure.
Although a lower court initially sided with her, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton decided to fight the case and the state Supreme Court overturned the earlier ruling.
With the clock ticking and facing the medical risks (not to mention the emotional trauma) Cox chose to leave the state for the procedure.
Nevertheless, her case has helped to shine a spotlight on Texas's controversial abortion policies – some of the strictest in the nation.
Texas Laws Under Scrutiny
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion is all but banned in Texas. It is currently only available if the mother is "in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function."
Any doctor who performs the procedure outside this narrow category can face felony charges and fines up to $100,000.
The state’s so-called "bounty hunter law," even allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids and abets a woman receiving an abortion. They do not have to be related to the woman in any way, and do not even have to live in Texas.
Families, doctors, and lawyers have all sought definition on what “serious risk” to the mother’s life entails, but the state’s refused to define it further, arguing that the language is clear. Nevertheless, Cox and her lawyers believe that she qualifies for an abortion even under the state’s extremely narrow definition of who can receive one.
The state, clearly, disagrees.
In a public post, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton clarified that Cox’s would-be abortion does not meet those murky standards, and that any physician who performs the procedure would be subject to prosecution.
Religious Motivations
Texas leaders did not hide their religious motivations when passing the abortion bills.
When signing one of the bills into law, Gov. Abbott declared that “our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion.”
And the state senator who introduced the six-week abortion ban also introduced a bill mandating “In God We Trust” be posted in every public school across the state, a law which critics say is a blatant attempt to inject Christianity into public schools.
Evangelicals were quick to champion the bills as well. Franklin Graham tweeted “God bless Texas!” after the state’s initial abortion ban went into effect in 2021.
Is the Law Fair?
It depends on who you ask.
Pro-life advocates say that if Cox’s medical situation becomes truly life-threatening, and a doctor can prove that, then she will be allowed an abortion to save her life. Until then, the life of a fetus is sacred and should be protected by the law.
Meanwhile, critics argue that these laws were passed with clear religious motivations that make Texas look more like a theocracy than a bastion of freedom.
Pro-choice advocates say that Texas’ strict abortion laws leave medical decisions in the hands of judges and politicians, not women and their physicians.
And while Kate Cox had the resources to leave the state for the procedure, they ask: what happens to the next woman who does not?
What do you make of the whole situation?
267 comments
-
Christine Gladhill
Prove it! I don't believe for a minute that you have a 70 some odd year old sister since 90% of your posts seem juvenile as all get out! You demand that everybody else prove what they post so, prove it!
-
Daniel Gray
And considering how many time you have been proved wrong with fact and law. nobody cares what you think or say
-
-
Ellie_Loves
The ignorance and prejudice amongst these comments is staggering and disgusting on a multitude of levels. You call yourself pro-life but if a mother dies due to an unviable fetus that has complications you call it god's will. It is ignorant, it is barbaric and it is judgmental and shows a lack of empathy for a family that were probably happy at one point that they were having another child but are now devastated due to complications that will inevitably end that child's life and possibly the mothers.
As for those stating 'well move' you clearly have no concept of the monumental task and the financial ramifications it takes to move to a state that is not governed by lunacy and a sky daddy. This country is not now, nor was it ever a christian nation and our forefathers made it a point to separate church and state. If you want to continue to be pro-life that is you prerogative but keep your beliefs out of women's wombs who don't subscribe to your back woods beliefs.
-
Russel A. Kester
Ellie Love, your statements were highly emotional and not grounded in the facts of the situation. You kind of went off on a few tangents there. But sky daddy and backwoods thinking? LOL. You characterize those who disagree with you, who you call pro-lifers, as being ignorant, prejudiced, and barbaric. Who could possibly be offended by such characterizations? Your statement that society debating this and other issues is tat amount to putting our beliefs in a woman's womb is supercilious. We are a society and must wrestle with these issues as a society exactly because there is no consensus on such difficult matters. So this is exactly where our opinions and beliefs should be heard and discussed. Your statement is, basically, a reiteration of the position that it's a woman's body and thus a woman's choice which is, at heart, the debated we're having here and without doubt will do so again in the future. Being pro-life does not make one a woman hater and being pro-choice does not make one a baby hater. They are sincerely held positions based on one's beliefs. And who better to discuss these issues than a group of people who feel sincere enough about their religious beliefs to become ministers and delve into these important issues of life.
-
Christine Gladhill
No one can force a man to give up as much as a drop of blood to save the life of another. The my body, my choice, is the woman deciding whether or not she wants to risk her life for the sake of another because all pregnancies come with inherent risk or how much risk she is willing to endure. You take that choice away from her and you might as well strip her down, strap her to a platter because you have taken her humanity away and turned her into nothing more than an incubator and fetus food. How much risk should she be forced to endure? Why do you think that should be up to you? Continuing a pregnancy could cost you your life and the risk is 10%, 20%, 50%... Women in this country are being forced to carry dead and dying babies until the sepsis that has developed is making them so sick they are near death. How is this okay? This is barbaric! And the sick part is that y'all think you are being so terribly noble!
-
Daniel Gray
Oh total Bull. The government CAN make you, man or woman or child; give blood for medical reasons, take shots you dont want to take and so on. you really need to stop with your illogical and bigoted hyperbole as it places you in the same area as the other tinfoil hat wearers.
-
Christine Gladhill
Troll someone else, I am done with you. Willful ignorance, deliberately obtuse.
-
Christine Gladhill
You demand everybody else answer your questions but when people post questions to you you dodge completely and just attack. Again, where is your concern for the well-being of the woman? Mentally, physically, emotionally, this entire situation has to be traumatizing to the women being put through it. Maternal and infant death rates are up in every state we're banning has been implemented. I hear no concern from you or your ilk for any of this. Don't claim to be compassionate and advocate for this crap.
-
Daniel Gray
And everything I have said I have backed up with law and fact, unlike you
-
Michael Hunt
Narrator: "No, it's not."
-
Daniel Gray
Um sorry yes it has. No skin off my nose if you dont want to accept it as it would destroy your world view of things.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Paul Edward Nunis
In all of those pro-life states, they leave a loophole for the elite to get rid of their inconvenient pregnancies... by going to an expensive private plastic surgery clinic where a D&C gets billed as 'a cosmetic procedure'.
-
Tom Herman
The Texas GOP is infected with Christian Nationalism contrary to the US Constitution. That cancer is spreading and needs cured. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so enshrined. No one should impose their will on a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her family. We're seeing attacks on the bill of rights everyday. What's next, your right to assemble, your freedom of speech? I have all the support for Choice. Conversely, I have no objection of those who are pro-life as long as they do not impose their belief on others.
-
Daniel Gray
Ok then what about the babys right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You constantly seem to ignore that 1000 ton gorilla in the room
-
Michael Hunt
It's not born yet so it doesn't have those rights. You seem to be constantly ignoring that 1000 ton gorilla in the room. They're called 'birthrights" not "conception-rights" and we celebrate birthdays not conception-days.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Mike, but I have posted in here more times then you care to count that there is already a law in EVERY state in the Union and a federal law that says if you cause an accident an a pregnant woman is caused to miscarry and lose the baby, you CAN and WILL be charged with infanticide. And that means that the fetus DOES have rights and is considered a human being no matter if you cant accept that or not.
-
-
-
-
David Michael Bolden
If you support abortion, you cannot call yourself a Christian. PERIOD! Abortion is always murder.
-
Michael Hunt
So is forced birth murder too when it causes the death of the mother?
-
Daniel Gray
The doctor never said it would kill her. Nice smoke screen.
-
-
Lionheart
I bet you’ve never used a fly spray, or bug spray in your life for fear of killing your gods creations….right, Sir David?
🦁❤️
-
Christine Gladhill
The absolute lack of compassion or empathy for women who are facing insanely difficult decisions and life-threatening situations to me seems very unlike Jesus teachings. The infant and maternal mortality rates have increased in every state where banning has been implemented. Women are being forced to carry non-viable pregnancies right up through and including sepsis developing because they are carrying a dead fetus. Radically deformed fetuses that have zero chance of survival are being tortured and forced to continue until they have dyed a torturous death. This does not seem compatible with my beliefs regarding the teachings of Jesus. I cannot identify with the current, fundamentalist version of Christianity. Growing up Catholic, I thought being Christian meant you were kind, compassionate, generous, etc but went people today tell me that they are Christian, my instant feeling is that they are judgmental, hateful, and using religion as an excuse for their bigotry and misogyny.
-
-
Shane Michael Westerbur
Here is a beautiful example of what I have been saying all along. If an abortion is so important to you move to a state that allows them. This goes with all of your beliefs as well. There are 50 states to choose from. Don't expect the people to bend to your beliefs. Why would you want to be surrounded by people who you don't align with anyway?
-
Michael Hunt
You're greatly underestimating the cost required to move to a different state. For many people it's a financially impossible task.
-
-
Christine Gladhill
If this god of yours is so concerned about the life of babies, why did it consider it okay to hurl babies against rocks, take out the entire firstborn of Egypt with lots of innocent babies included in that, or tell Abraham to take his son and go murder him only to stop him at the last second and go psych just kidding wanted to see if you loved me. I'm sorry but the God of the man-made Christian Bible was not all that concerned about the life of babies. If a baby was killed in the womb, a stipend was paid to the father but if the woman was killed it was an eye for an eye. Bitter waters were used to terminate pregnancies for things as trifling as you thought your wife cheated on you.
-
Edward Hamilton Calhoun
Texas seems (my strong opinion) to have become an EVIL state of (sorta) Christians who are over the line on reality and care not for the life of a woman who chooses to end a threat to her life by abortion. Is there view of god EVIL - - YES
-
James Riggle-Johnson
The Texas AG would not let this woman have an abortion stating that the fetus has a right to live, and that the mother’s life didn’t matter. In another case where a prison guard who was pregnant and having pains, her bosses told her to suck it up and stay at work. She lost her baby and is now suing the Department of Corrections. The Texas AG is now saying that the fetus has no rights, so they are not responsible. Does anyone see a problem here?
-
William Waugh
You know. You might imagine that intelligent men would make the exceptions for these kinds of cases. Shhhhhhh. Flooding the heath care system with infirm little ones might crash obamacare. Long game anyone?
-
Robert Hauck, MD, FAAP
This foregoing discussion highlights one side of an unbelievable contradiction by our conservative far-right. On the one hand the far-right goes all in opposing abortion, even when medically necessary. Their Pro-Life stance is immutable. On the other hand, death by firearms is now the leading cause of death in the U.S. today for children through 17 years of ago. And what is the position of Pro-Lifers on those lost lives?? They are absolutely opposed to any gun control. [Be clear here, I speak of gun control and not gun removal.] Should not a Pro-Lifer be advocating to prevent firearms deaths in our nation's children? How does one live with such contradictory beliefs? rch
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I believe in abortion for situations like this. The woman should've been allowed the procedure under a medical exemption.
HOWEVER. The liberals have created this mess. When you go to such extreme to allow murder for convenience, then this is what you get. TX Governor has gone nuclear, and that;s what it takes to stop murder in America. Killing children is murder. Period. One would think a forum fill of self proclaimed "preachers" would be able to see that plain fact.
When the nation stops murdering it's unborn under the disguise of "medical care" then extremities like this will stop.
Isn't it odd? When a robber shoots or stabs a pregnant victim on the street he's charged with two counts of murder: One count for killing the victim and one count of killing her fetus. Yet when a doctor does it, it's a "medical procedure". Apparently in this F'd up nation we live in, murder is dependent on whether the killer has a medical license.
When this country stop murdering unborn for convenience or for the purpose of selling baby body parts like a vehicle savage yard, then maybe when an actual medical emergency exists it will be honored.
-
Chris
If killing children were the problem, you'd think the GOP would support reasonable gun control that would make it more difficult to have so many school shootings. You'd think they'd fund social programs to help children. You'd think they would provide better medical access, better food sources, better living conditions for children and their parents and caregivers.
However, it's not about protecting children. It's about controlling others, and especially in the case of Texas, making their professed religion into law.
It has nothing to do with children and everything to do with power.
-
Daniel Gray
Cant. The Haller decision clearly stated by SCOTUS that if you couldnt ban them in 1776, you cant ban them now.
So only you know why you put such nonsense into your post.
-
-
Michael Hunt
You've just fallen for the conservative propaganda that perpetuates the lies and untruths you're repeating. Abortion is not murder. A fetus has not been born; it is not a living person. If a woman wants to stop something from growing inside of her, she should be able to do so, full stop, because it is her body.
There's a huge difference between a shooter killing a pregnant woman and the fetus she was intending to birth and a doctor stopping a fetus from continuing to grow inside her. Your comparison is very disingenuous because of the false equivalency you are making.
-
Daniel Gray
And you seem to be unable to prove it, look it up and you will see that EVERY state has a law against causing the death of a fetus by accidental means. Now how can you make the claim that the fetus isnt human or alive when the law is clearly saying you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
-
Amber Fry
It isn't strictly up to liberals to decide that. Conservatives have had a pretty hard say about a lot of it as well. Spend more time understanding how the congress works these days. Since fiddling with that idiotic idea of a filibuster it's been all sorts of wrong about making laws. And conservatives regularly try to insert unrelated issues into some of those bills. No bill should be held hostage by an unrelated issue. Ever. That's on both sides, not just liberals.
-
-
Lisa Ann Apynys
Btw, servant of judgement, your identity on this thread says it all - you live in judgement of others and that is truly a sin. Until you're able to empathize and walk in the shoes of those you judge, for whatever reasons you deem them to be targets of your judgement, then your soul will never evolve and you WILL have to come back over and over again to learn your lessons. Ever heard that life is a classroom?
-
Daniel Gray
And what exactly do you think YOU are doing right now except judging others? Ever heard of the word Hypocrite?
-
ServantOfJudgement
Lisa,
My name, my actual real name means Servant Of Judgement. The meaning of my full actual name is way way cooler. Didn't find out till after Jesus pulled me from the pig pen. Very cool indeed. Thanks for noticing.
I don't actually judge anyone, they usually judge themselves by judging me. I will repeat what the Bible says when we're talking about Bible stuff. Many people think Jesus was wishy-washy lovey dovey. If you think me repeating him is judgement, take it up with Jesus, he's the one who said it. Or don't believe the Bible is the word of God, nobody has to ya know.
We'll all find out in the end which way is up.
-
-
Lisa Ann Apynys
Sorry, I meant to say 3-dimensional existence.
-
Lisa Ann Apynys
I really wish that the uber conservative contingent of this country would get a clue about spirituality and how and when a soul actually enters into the body. We all have a soul contract that we agree to before we re-incarnate into another life in this 3-dimenaional existence. We're so fixated with the physical form but what if we could look at this from a spiritual angle? Maybe the soul in that broken fetus agreed to an experiment that called into question the nature of our existence and why we choose to reincarnate over and over and over. What lessons can we draw from this? However, I will say this as a woman: we can NOT allow these dick-waving men the opportunity to decide our fate. And it is between our higher source and the individual soul to determine if the timing to reincarnate into a body was simply a case of ill timing.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
AWe choose to reincarnate to experience and learn for God and perfect our souls in some way. As to that woman's chart or that of the form she carried, that is between them and God. The souls intended to be reincarnated again do not enter the form right away. To be stuck inside a tiny bundle of cells is not everyone's choice of a way to spend 9 months. They do choose when to enter. It is the quickening.
-
ServantOfJudgement
I hung out with a chic for a while who somehow figured out I was reincarnated 9 times so far. She really was excited for me and said she knew I'd been reincarnated many times based on my personality. I later had an old janitor at work who had nicknames for everyone, most were insulting names. He called me Old Timer even though I was young and way way younger than he was. I thought, maybe that chic was right, dunno.
She was a cool gal that was really fun to think around with.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry it has already been decided The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a) And by the law this means that if you cause the death of a fetus by accident then you can and will be charged under federal law for vehicular homicide or at the very least manslaughter.
Deal with it and so sorry that this busted your bubble.
-
-
Jimmy Moon
GOD created that child, no matter what is wrong with the child. She will still be the mother of a dead baby. Baby murder is sinful. Look at all the babys murdered who possibly had the cure for cancer, colds, diabetes or any other diseases man has now. GOD will hold those who are for baby murder accountable.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Jimmy Moon ... Judgment and biggotry are more "sinful". Jesus told Mary Magdalene that there is nothing sinful unto itself. It is the intent in the heart of the person that decides that. I think all the judgment and hate that you and others spew should send you all running to ask forgiveness. Worry for yourself and leave others alone.
-
Jimmy Moon
" Jesus told Mary Magdalene that there is nothing sinful unto itself. It is the intent in the heart of the person that decides that." What scripture were you refering to? I want to reread that and make sure of what you are saying. Thank you for your time.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
It is in a gnostic gospel. The book of Mary Magdalene. Just because the men who published the book with their own agendas and picked and chose what they thought fit those agendas does not make it any less a gospel.
-
Jimmy Moon
I did glance through the book. I don't agree with you. But, you have freewill to believe what you want. As for spewing judgement and hate, I would rather have to answer to GOD about telling mankind about JESUS than having to tell HIM why I did'nt try to warn people about eternity. If a house was on fire, should I warn someone or hope the next person warns them before it's too late. I will rest on these two verses. Philippians 2:10-11 - That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (Read More...)
Romans 14:11 - For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
-
Lionheart
Here’s another fictional quote, Sir James, this one is from Dumbledore.
Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
-
Christine
Well, god killed this one so god will hold itself accountable? Yeah no it never does that. Your god is a baby murderer and deserves death; that is, if it were real. This baby that it killed could've cured cancer but we'll never know because of its blood lust.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Christine,
The baby in the article was driven to another state so the mother could kill it. Interesting that when you think the baby died in the womb you say God killed it but when a woman does the same you call it health care. As you say, the baby could have cured cancer but the mother killed it.
-
Michael Hunt
The fetus was non-viable and was going to die if born and at significant risk to the health of the mother. Did you even read the whole article?
-
ServantOfJudgement
If you're talking to me Michael, yea I read the article all the way through but already knew the details before this was posted. The baby was given a percentage chance to live, not definitive like you said. Maybe you didn't read it all.
Anyway, I just updated the story to current. I made sure Christine knew what she accused God of and deserved to die for was actually conducted by the mother which I assume Catherine would think deserves to die instead of God. I like to keep things square.
It's not nice to blame someone for something they didn't do.
-
Christine Gladhill
If this god of yours is so concerned about the life of babies, why did it consider it okay to hurl babies against rocks, take out the entire firstborn of Egypt with lots of innocent babies included in that, or tell Abraham to take his son and go murder him only to stop him at the last second and go psych just kidding wanted to see if you loved me. I'm sorry but the God of the man-made Christian Bible was not all that concerned about the life of babies. If a baby was killed in the womb, a stipend was paid to the father but if the woman was killed it was an eye for an eye. Bitter waters were used to terminate pregnancies for things as trifling as you thought your wife cheated on you.
-
Lionheart
You are so right, Lady Christine, and let’s not forget all those babies, infants, toddlers, children, and pregnant mothers that would have been drowned during the flood.
Amazingly, people still worship this monster of a deity.
🦁❤️
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
RF - You writing the last two lines about blaming others should gave had your phone bursting into flames. Lol
-
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
RF(Right Fighter as you shall be known in the future. Formerly sj) Do you think God so inept that infusion of knowledge leading to advancements isn't given those who will not use it? Your god maybe. But my real God has been at this long enough to know what He is doing.
-
Michael Hunt
The baby also could have been the next Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy but the anti-abortion crowd never wants to consider that the aborted fetus could have been a monster.
-
-
Jimmy Moon
Where does it say GOD killed the baby? I must have missed that part.
-
Amber Fry
He ordered them killed in several books. Any natural disaster is his responsibility and he killed not just babies but everyone regardless of age or gender. Those are also all over the place. Try actually thinking about what you read, really think about each portion as you read it. It's in there.
-
Jimmy Moon
The lost are blinded to the TRUTH. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Only then can you understand.
-
Lionheart
The truth lies in demonstrable evidence, Sir James, of which there isn't any to prove your deity is real. Even the deity you worship seems to lack the omnipotent ability to prove it’s real.
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
The woman was forced to go to another state to have her emergency procedure. Now, according to some commentary, she is at risk of being arrested and charged for Murder when she gets back home to Texas. Why? Because she had the abortion.
THIS despite the fact the fetus was non-viable, the pregnancy itself was non-viable, and her very life was in danger. So, apparently, when a woman aborts a fetus that is dead / dying, and she, herself, is at risk of being killed by her pregnancy, if she does something to save her own life, she is a "murderer" and may face the death penalty in texas for it.
Texas - the state where only good woman is a dead one, apparently.
-
Daniel Gray
nice hyperbole.
-
Amber Fry
Needing four trips to the emergency room in a month over the pregnancy, the fact that the doctors were very clear about the state of her pregnancy and supported her health history, that the fetus would die either before or very shortly after its birth and that she had conditions that would very likely make her incapable of having any more or kill her doesn't seem all that hyperbolic to me. These are supported facts. You don't have to like them or believe it but it is all there.
-
Daniel Gray
And the doctors are correct each time? My sister was a very difficult baby and my poor mother had a very bad pregnancy with her. The Doctors said she would be stillborn or would not live more then a few moments after her birth. and yet, She just turned 72 here this year and is a great grandmother herself. So explain that.
-
Michael Hunt
Congrats on your sister being the lucky exception! I guess since one doc was wrong one time we just need to ignore the rest! Great thinking, Daniel!
-
Daniel Gray
No I just proved how ignorant you are when you try and imply that the doctor is always correct.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nicholas J Page
No Man should dictate to a woman about her pregnancy her body her choice.Im sick of all these men saying you can't do this you can't do that.For Christ's sake the child will not survive and what happens if the mother suddenly requires emergency treatment.And I'm not being nasty to her are you going to step in and perform or are you refusing to.No delivery is safe without complications Texas laws Suck
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You missed.
It's not "HER BODY"....she survived the murder.
SCIENTIFIC FACT UNDISPUTED: You can take a DNA sample of the woman allowing the murder, and you can take a DNA sample of the murdered baby. THE DNA WILL NOT BE THE SAME! You will have to sets of clearly different and seperate DNA.
Therefore, your "her body" argument that the baby killers love to quote over and over and over and over until it's tiresome is plainly WRONG. Just shows how stupid the baby killer ideology is.
The person the Dr murdered was not the mother. Therefore, IT IS NOT "her body". They murdered a separate unborn human with clearly separate DNA.
TWO humans existed. The younger one was murdered.
By the way, ya know Cain and Able had different DNA as well yet came from the sam womb. Yet GOD called that a murder. BAM!!!!!!
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Approximately half the DNA will be from the mother. That's pretty close to HER body.
-
Russel A. Kester
Tecla, according to your above way of reasoning, then half the DNA is from the Father who should also have the right to terminate the pregnancy because that's pretty close to his body.
-
-
Christine Gladhill
No human being has the right to take blood, organs, or anything else from another human being without their permission. So if you want to argue that the fetus is a separate viable human being, it shouldn't have the right to take anything from another human being without its permission. No person should have the right to decide for another person how far they need to go risking their life to save another, even if it's a fetus. Pregnancy comes with inherent risk and at a certain point a woman should be allowed to claim self-defense! If you are threatening my life I I have the right to defend myself.
-
Russel A. Kester
Christine, think about your comments above. Young men can be drafted, and only young men can be drafted, to serve any war to protect you and every other American. So clearly others have the authority to decide how far a human being or a citizen in America will have to go in order to protect one's fellow citizens. You also claimed that if there was a problem with the pregnancy that was equivalent to someone attacking the woman which would clearly undermine the argument that the woman and the growing baby are one entity. Your statement clearly shows that they are two separate entities. And I think the use of the word to threaten one's life when describing a fetus within a womb is perhaps not the best wording that want to come up with. To threaten someone seems to indicate intention, and I don't think anyone here is going to argue that a developing child could intentionally endanger its mother.
-
Christine Gladhill
Men can decline to serve in the military by being a conscientious objector and if all else fails going AWOL. Y'all are the ones treating it like it's a separate entity and a human being all on its own. I am just playing along. My personal beliefs are that until it can survive outside of the mother it is a part of her. I do not believe that one person should decide for another how far they need to go risking their life for the sake of another regardless of whether or not it's a fetus. Y'all seem to place way more emphasis on the fetus than you do the woman and what the entire situation is doing to her. You have a potentially life-threatening situation and a more than likely non-viable fetus and you think that nothing is far enough when it comes to risking your life for something that has very very little chance of survival. It's baffling to me...
-
Daniel Gray
And to be an objector you MUST show that your religion or beliefs are recognized by the US Government or you are denied. And if you go AWOL then you are caught and punished with a jail term. So your pitiful anology does not work. But since you want to go there...ok lets. You do know that the US Navy has shown that a major amount of the women who are placed upon a ship of the Navy intentionally get pregnant so they can be rotated back to stateside. US Department of the Navy Reediness report to the Joint Chiefs, 2019.
And I bet you are going to go ballistic when you find out that if the Defense Budget is signed, that ALL women between the ages of 18 and 35 WILL be required to go and sign up in the case of a draft, just like men do. And having children is not going to be an excuse to get out of serving if called up. Source? Army Times/Navy Times/Air Force Times/Military Times/Stars and Stripes/US Department of Defense. Deal with that.
-
Christine Gladhill
Equating pregnancy to military service is beyond ridiculous! If the women in the Navy choose to get pregnant, that is their choice. No one has been drafted since 1973 and the fact that you have to sign up just in case is a big fat so what. This whole military analogy is just stupid though and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I don't hear one of you supposedly loving, compassionate people who claim to be Christians giving one iota of care to what any of this is doing to the woman. Mentally, physically, emotionally... None of you have any concern for her condition and feel that it is absolutely acceptable to force her to carry a dead or dying fetus until the sepsis is so bad that taking it out is now a life-saving measure. You torture the fetus and the parents and think you are being noble.
-
Daniel Gray
not equating anything, just stating the facts as put out by the US navy. You have a problem with them then go to the Pentagon and tell them they are wrong and see how far that gets you
-
-
-
-
-
Amber Fry
Sorry but false. It's connected to her while she's caring it. Her body is directly affected by carrying it. Until it's out, it's part of her. Anyone who knows even a little about how pregnancy works and how a fetus develops knows this. It's a literal medical fact.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh really? Ok then explain why EVERY state in the US has laws that clearly state that if a woman is pregnant and is in an accident that causes her or her baby to lose their life, then the person who caused it is now charged with the homicide of the baby as well as the mother?
-
-
-
-
Clay Serenbetz
In my experience, most anti-abortion zealots, like Ken Paxton, oppose gun restrictions, especially high capacity magazines that mutilate children's bodies and they want to repeal Obamacare, child hunger programs and put the life of an unborn child above the life of a mother with children, who would undoubtedly experience severe trauma at the unnecessary loss of their morher's life. Their policies would rather have a young life suffer abject poverty or pain, than protect the family unit.
-
Daniel Gray
You DO know that the Supreme Court has ruled in the Haller Case and in the Bruin case that if you didnt have the authority to ban guns in 1776 then you dont have the authority to do it now....right?
As for poverty, they made that choice together when he couldnt keep it in his pants and she couldnt keep her legs crossed.
-
Christine Gladhill
Abortion was not banned in 1776 either. Benjamin Franklin actually wrote a book explaining how to create an abortificant and do a safe abortion. In the Bible, it was bitter waters that were used to terminate pregnancies. If your God requires that fetuses be tortured, women and families traumatized by being forced to continue non-viable pregnancies that endanger the life of the woman then I want nothing to do with your God. The maternal and infant mortality rates are up in every state where banning has been implemented.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry stop listening to NPR as after doing a check on Franklin's papers and articles in the US Library of Congress, not one mention is made of abortion in anything that Franklin wrote.So if you are so sure, then name the book-page.
-
Christine Gladhill
Poor Man's physician, every man his own doctor
-
Daniel Gray
was not written by Franklin. Nice try
-
-
Christine Gladhill
All you have to do to find the abortificant recipe from Benjamin Franklin is Google, Benjamin Franklin abortificent recipe! It will take you right to the information on the book in which this was written. You keep claiming that you have done research to discredit my posts but simple Google searches will take you right to the things that I have stated. Keyword searches for you to use: Bitter waters Bible. Benjamin Franklin abortificant recipe. Jewish law abortion Florida lawsuit.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh no...YOU claimed that it existed so its up to YOU to show where and when. And I bet you cannot do so as NOTHING in the Franklin Museum nor his papers in the US Library of Congress say anything about abortion. Nice try but massive fail.
-
Christine Gladhill
Oh for Pete sake, the name of the book is, poor Man's physician every man his own doctor which I have repeatedly given you. I have read enough of your comments through this thread to realize that you are willfully ignorant, deliberately obtuse, and apparently not more than just a troll. I have answered your questions and given you the information you need to hunt it down yourself. You claim to do research but fail to ever find anything in simple Google searches will deliver it right to your face.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh for Petes sake, there is NO such book listed under Franklins name in the US Library of Congress. and doing a simple search with Google, the name of the book you gave was not even written by Franklin, The poor man's physician by John Moncrief of Tippermalloch
If you are going to lie like this at the very least make sure that you cant be proved wrong.
-
Daniel Gray
And since you were wrong on that, I checked the Florida cae s for Jewish-Abortion-religion and not shockingly not one word came up nor case about any jewish group in Florida suing to claim that abortion is part of their religion. Again you really need to stop listening to NPR before posting their nonsense here.
-
Christine Gladhill
Dude you really need to learn how to do research. Congregation LaDor Va-Dor among others is suing the state of Florida. Is your pablum spoon fed to you as well? I do not know what has hurt you so badly that you feel the need to put others down to try to make yourself look smart or feel better or whatever is going on with you but I will continue to pray for your healing. The clarification regarding Benjamin Franklin's book and the Florida lawsuit or for people who actually are interested in information not those who just seek to beat on others to try to make themselves feel better.
-
Daniel Gray
Dude you really need top be able to use a search engine as nothing you claim has ever some up
-
Michael Hunt
Says the guy who can't find what everyone else can...
-
Daniel Gray
Says the guy who has shown nothing she has said is accurate and most likely made up
-
-
-
-
-
Amber Fry
Which is stupid because advancement in the technology of weapons has made it necessary to revisit those laws and decisions. At the time we didn't have the weapons to take out so many at once with the squeeze of a trigger like we do now. If murder really is illegal than weapons of mass killing should not be available to the public, period. Keeping a shotgun or basic rifle, sure, even a hand piece for protection if a person feels the need. But a weapon of mass murder? Sorry, but no. Tightening up the laws to at least strongly monitor and licensing regulations shouldn't be out of the question. Militia members can keep them at whatever base they train at all locked up properly to be brought out in practice at the facilities. They don't belong in homes and they don't belong on the streets.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope its not stupid its fact. And sorry if you dont like it as you would have to get over 3/4ths of BOTH Houses of Congress to overturn these decisions by SCOTUS. Or get a constitutional amendment to change the Constitution, neither of which you are going to do so all you can do is complain and admit that this is your OPINION and not based on fact or logic or law.
-
-
-
-
Joy
R v W was never just about abortion. It was about being able to have [medical] control over your own body. NO ONE, especially a man, has any business controlling what a woman, or anyone, really, does to her own body.
And give me a break about your “purity” and chastity crap. Again, it is all about control!! Open your eyes, Christian folk. You are all being controlled by men.
Why don’t we make a law mandating vasectomies for new born baby boys, then? It is completely reversible. Oh, what was that? You don’t want a law mandating what you can or can’t do to your body or your baby? Can you see your own hypocrisy?
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
These same people would be the first to condemn any child that groes up to be gay or transgender.
-
Daniel Gray
so why bring them into this unless its YOU that do the condemning?
-
-
Reverend Andrew
These same people that calm to be good christians also forget that the bible also says a woman must be silent in public and can only speak when spoken to and that she shall be sober and obedient to their own husbands, and must teach their daughters to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Ohh but that's right the so called good christians have never really read the bible only the parts that they were told to spew out to others
-
Chris
Which just goes to join the argument that religion has absolutely no place in politics. Laws should not be made based on professed beliefs, especially when those claiming to follow this religion pick and choose so much of what they decide to do.
Religion has absolutely no place in government.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
They fail to acknowledge that the texts were written by men in a patriarchal society. They were men of their time. That is why I have aiways said read it if you want. But read more than that abd read with an open and inquisitive mind.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
If someone believes that part of the (cherry-picked) Bible, then being a "spinster" looks pretty damn good.
-
Daniel Gray
And where exactly does it say this? How about the chapters and verses?
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Wow, Joy, that seems like a lot of misandry and anger.
-
Ivee
Mx. Kester,
I fail to see where she is wrong. Historical evidence has already called into question the influence of power hungry people that made decisions throughout history to erase various scripts that contradicted the doctrine in the Bible. The Spanish Inquisition is renowned for such actions.
Additionally, the Bible itself has been translated, modified, and translated again. As a linguist, I can easily tell you that the translation of one language to another is most often going to be flawed because even the cultural differences will affect genuine true translations.
Further, the influence of humans on humans cannot be overlooked. “History is written by the victors (Unknown)”, is a perfect phrase in this case. Even in the Bible it shows that humans persecuted and killed their Jesus. Perhaps the translation of “for our sins,” is wrong, and the actual translation is “because of our sins.” Especially if remembering that the original translation of the word sin was wrongs.
Finally, even going by the accepted current translations the sixth commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill/murder” (Ex 20:13). This being in the Old Testament is part of the Torah as well as the Bible. Yet, there has been constant wars throughout history that have been waged in the name of their religions. Cherry picking the Bible and personal translations have led to persecutions, murders, and other even more vile acts. Therefore, at what point will it be accepted that these are not wrote laws created by God, but at a minimum are the translations, allegories, and parables that have been interpreted multiple times throughout history. The extreme possibility is that the good book was written by Man for Men, and edited by multiple corrupt leaders to promote their own interests. Best example would be the allowance of divorce by King Henry VII because his adulterous ways were of his own personal interest.
A closed mind is incapable of growth. Which is the whole purpose of existence. As shown in every religion ad nauseum.
-
Takaya Kovani Sweeney
You’re wasting your breath on this guy.
Most bible thumping men cannot understand what you’re saying and will choose to only focus on their perceived “anger” in yours or any other woman's words that are opposing the tired old male conventions.
He proved my point with his response.
I don’t want anyone running my life or speaking on my behalf, regardless of what’s between their legs…but definitely no man will dictate my body and shouldn’t be speaking on or dictating any other woman’s.
-
Russel A. Kester
Takaya, I've been accused of many things, but Bible something? Where on earth do you see me thumping the Bible? In fact, when have you seen me actually quote scripture in my comments? I might from time to time summarize a particular point because I think it is relevant to the topic. But I don't think anyone can call me a Bible thumper. That was an assumption on your part. And it was incorrect.
-
Russel A. Kester
That should have read Bible thumping not something.
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Ivee, you went into a lot of subjects in your response to my comment to Joy, but the one thing you did not touch on was the misandry and hate that I perceived in Joy's comment. As far as your thoughts about translations and their difficulties, I understand. I too speak more than one language. However, whatever you thought about power structures etc and so on is no excuse for misandry or hatred. The use of Mx. is so over the top woke, but clarified why you see the world through the Marxist perspective of oppressor and oppressed. Life is much more nuanced than that.
-
-
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
“ Texas leaders did not hide their religious motivations when passing the abortion bills.”
And this, ladies and germs, is one of the two main reasons I am so militant in my atheism…religiously delusional individuals constantly trying to legislate their Bronze Age hokum into the lives of others.
The other is that they just won’t keep their inane delusions to themselves, just have to yammer on about it every chance they get.
-
Rev Mark D
So she has to carry a dead fetus around until it comes out.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Naw, it's in the landfill, she drove the baby to another state to kill it. The story is a little out of date.
-
-
Rev Mark D
Texas Supreme Court ruling against the woman, in case any of you aren't up to date it happened Wednesday, is a watershed moment. For those of you who don't know, Texas Supreme Court ruled positively against the woman. That means they accepted Paxton's petition and ruled in Paxton's favor.
-
Larry Michael Damato
BANISH ANY POLITICIAN THAT THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT ANY WOMEN CHOOSES TO DO WITH HER BODY....KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF POLITICS AND STOP POLITISIZING RELIGION.....IF YOU HAVE SUCH STRONG RELIGIOUS, BELIEFS BECOME A MINISTER
-
Rev Mark D
Hey Larry, here's what they think of your comment and of you: the Texas Supreme Court has already ruled against the woman, affirmatively ruling for Paxton's petition. You want to keep up with the news.
-
Russel A. Kester
Larry, I don't think the issue is whether or not a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, I believe it's more a question of whether or not she has the right to decide the life or death of another person's body. Namely, that of the growing human within her. Therefore, it seems you are perfectly all right with a parent deciding whether or not it's child has the right to live or die. Funny, that was always the thing my mother told me whenever she wasn't happy with something. She would tell me that she gave me life and she could take me out. Of course, I knew she was only being dramatic. And I never did fear that she would actually take my life. Unfortunately, a fetus, does face the real threat of its life being ended by its mother.
-
Michael Hunt
A fetus isn't alive until it leaves the mother's womb. Until then, it is a part of the mother and she should have the right to stop something growing inside of her, especially if it threatens her short or long term health.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, of course a fetus is alive. It takes in oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord and continues to grow and developed. If a single celled ameba is alive, then certainly a muli-celled fetus is alive. If I had a tape worm in my intestines, it would still be alive. As to whose life is more important, that's why society has religion, ethics, and legislation.
-
Chris
And your religion does not dictate what I can or cannot do. It does not dictate what anyone other than yourself can do.
Since this fetus (not baby, fetus) was determined to not be viable there was no reason to force the woman to carry it to term. And since the Texas GOP made it perfectly clear this law was based on a religion they only claim to follow but have proven time and again they don't, it should not exist. Thus, the Texas GOP don't care about women. They don't care about religion. They only care about control.
-
Russel A. Kester
Chris, the word fetus is simply an unborn baby. Semantics aside, I read that she simply went to another state to abort the continued development of her child. So knowing the Texas laws, why didn't she simply do so from the start? Did she want a public display? I would have liked to know, other than her doctor who is not an ethicist, did she consult? Other than not being expected to live long after birth, would the baby have experienced any pain before dying. If the fetus experienced pain during the abortion procedure but would not have experienced any pain dying naturally after birth would that change your thinking in any meaningful way?
-
Chris
She wanted to bring national attention to the horrible laws of Texas. Yes, she ended up having to go to another state to terminate the pregnancy because Texas didn't care about her health, they only wanted to have another birth.
As for how I would feel regarding the situation, it doesn't matter. It wasn't my choice to make. That's the whole issue here. Whether I agree with her or not doesn't matter. Whether you agree with her or not doesn't matter. It's not our choice. It's her choice. Forcing religion into the issue is a distraction. It's nobody's choice to make but the pregnant woman. Not the state government, not the federal government. It's one person's choice ultimately. End of story.
-
Russel A. Kester
Chris, we disagreed that it's only one person's choice. We are a society. That means many factors come in to such things. Also by your statement you forget about the husband and what the husband felt. It might be the choice of a mother to kill her a 3-year-old son, but I think the state and most people would disagree with such an action. The analogy is clearly overstated, but it gets the idea across. We don't allow people to do whatever they want just because they want to do so in a civil society. We have laws. And we all get to contribute to those laws I thinking and having morality and ethics form our thinking. That is the crux of this issue. What ethics should be employed in such situations?
-
Michael Hunt
Your 3-year-old son example is a false equivalency to a fetus. The 3-year-old is their own independent person now that they have been birthed while a fetus is still part of the woman until it is birthed.
Your argument is that her husband, or the state, should have control over what the woman does with her body once she becomes pregnant. That's simply cruel. Is it ethical to take a persons bodily autonomy away from them if they are of sane mind and body? We have to consider the rights of the woman first and foremost.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, my analogy of the 3-year-old and a fetus, which is a child just like the 3-year-old, is not a false analogy. They are both independent biological beings from the mother. The idea that the mother has to carry it to term is no different than a man in a coma being sustained by a life support system. Both are dependent upon a system other than their own body to sustain them. As to your comment about people having autonomy over their own bodies, you're also wrong on that. Here's an example, men can be conscripted into the military where they have no say over their bodies whatsoever. So the man had no choice over being conscripted and they had no choice what the military does with their body once they are conscripted. I was in the army and they could inject me with whatever they wanted before they sent me anywhere to serve. They can order me to take that hill knowing that I will most likely die. There are many instances in which we do not have autonomy over our own bodies. Also, I will remind you that my full statement included the fact that that is why we have religion, politics, and a society in which we can use ethics and other resources to determine just such issues.
-
Michael Hunt
The fetus is by no means independent of the woman since it's literally attached to her and growing inside of her, unlike the 3-year-old child, hence the false equivalency.
The idea of a woman carrying a child to term is also very different than a man in a coma being supported by life support. To start, a woman is a human being, not a machine. Frankly, your desire to equate a woman to a machine is very telling of your views towards women.
About bodily autonomy, I asked if it was ethical to take that autonomy away from someone. Your example of conscription is actually a perfect example of why I strongly believe it is unethical to take someone's bodily autonomy away from them. There are many instances in which autonomy can be taken away from us, true, but that doesn't mean they are ethical instances.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, many parasites attach themselves to their hosts, which is what a fertilized egg does in a uterus. It attaches ITSELF. I did not compare a woman to a machine, you did. I compared being dependent on someone or something other than oneself to sustain life doesn't equate to being one entity. I agree that we can discuss the ethics of being drafted or permitted to have an abortion. However, none of your statements as far as I can recall made any ethical claims. You stated your false beliefs that the mother and the fetus were one entity which I have disputed and you stated your belief that a woman has a right to abort her baby which I also disputed. I used a couple of analogies to show that things can be attached or dependent on other things which does not make them one unit or thing. Finally, your statement that my comments showed what I think of woman with the unstated premise that I must believe woman are nothing more than baby makers is clearly wrong because I didn't for the reasons stated above, it was underhanded to not clearly state your premise, and it was an ad hominem attack which is a fallacy one uses hoping to discredit an opponent and this his statement. But it's a fallacy because the worst person in the world could make a correct statement which is no less correct because of who said it. Perhaps in future dialogs you will be able to put forth true states, logically connected to a true conclusion.
-
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
Not what science says. A fetus is considered alive when you can detect a heartbeat or brainwave activity. Sorry but you need to keep up with the laws of the country
-
Ivee
A law is not always based in scientific fact. This is another example of cherry picking facts. Because if you believe that science should determine law then evolution is a proven scientific fact as well. Yet, there is continued controversy about it waged by religious figures.
Humans as a whole in societies throughout history have promoted what is in their best interests. This is no exception. Further example would be the Salem witch trials where the law was that a “witch” would be tried by local law influenced by fear, paranoia, and the agendas of humans. Then tortured until they “confessed” thereby an admittance under duress, and this is an act now prevented by law I might add (Geneva Convention).
Humans cannot be trusted in any way ever to be impartial, as each human is interested in promoting their own self interests. There is not even the possibility of altruism, a good deed done without reward, because even the hit of dopamine from the happiness of doing what is perceived as good by the person is still a reward. Thereby even altruism is promoting their own personal interests of happiness.
Your lifestyle is not my lifestyle and that’s ok (YLNMLATO) & YMMV
-
Daniel Gray
Not cherry picking anything but stating fact. medical science uses a heartbeat and or brainwave activity to determine if a person is alive when they cant respond. And sorry for you THAT IS A FACT
-
Michael Hunt
Yes, it is a fact that detection of a heartbeat and brainwave activity are used to determine if a person is alive but they aren't used to determine if a fetus has been born yet. If you weren't so obtuse maybe you could understand the nuance in their response.
-
Daniel Gray
Um yes they are when they do a sonagram and show the parents the baby. Again you really need to keep up with medical Science. And if the woman is involved in an accident and the fetus is killed, then please name me why EVERY state in the US has a charge of fetalcide. Under FEDERAL law it says as well "A person who unlawfully kills an unborn child by any injury to the mother which would be manslaughter if it resulted in the mother's death commits manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided" Now please tell us if a fetus isnt considered a human being, why then are there laws against killing one in an accident?
-
-
-
Amber Fry
Actually no, that isn't what science says. It says viability, the point in which it's possible for it to survive outside the body, is when it's considered alive. That's somewhere around 22-24 weeks at the minimum, providing there isn't a health defect. That so called heartbeat isn't even a heart at 6 weeks but a clump of cells that will develop into one, and it isn't fully formed and functioning until months later. The brain waves are general energy surges that happen throughout the cells, not just the brian, which also takes several more weeks to develop into functioning. You are mixing up science,religion and laws.
-
Russel A. Kester
Amber, it seems you might be mixing things up a bit. From the moment of conception the developing child is alive the question of liability is a different issue entirely. I don't know of any scientists that would deny that the cells themselves are living cells.
-
Russel A. Kester
That should have referred to the viability not the liability.
-
Daniel Gray
Actually no its YOU who are mixing things up. Federal law says the following "A person who unlawfully kills an unborn child by any injury to the mother which would be manslaughter if it resulted in the mother's death commits manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided"
And to show your ignorance of the law even more: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a) So how does it feel to she your complete ignorance of the law?
-
-
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
And most of the people in this thread responding to you ARE calling themselves ministers. So whats your point?
-
-
Rev Mark D
I just couldn't believe the Texas Supreme Court's decision yesterday... Just completely barbaric. The whole state is nuts. We should give it back to Mexico.
-
Christine Gladhill
No, we don't need to give it back to Mexico, we need to turn it blue! I am hoping that this insanity that has ensued here will be enough to motivate people to get out and vote!
-
Daniel Gray
it isnt and Texas will never be blue
-
Christine Gladhill
We did quite well under Ann Richards and I think we need to return to Blue! I'm not a Democrat and I don't love them but they are way better than what we got going on now!
-
Daniel Gray
And Ann Richards was thrown out on her behind with a major loss of the majority of Texans. Do try again with your myths
-
-
-
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Oh, no! Mexico already has more problems than it can handle!!
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Give texas back to Jexico and evacuate rveryone exceptvtrump fyom Florida, then give that back to the gators.
-
Daniel Gray
How about we Native Americans just send you back to Europe if you feel this way.
-
Michael Hunt
Sounds great! It's about time!
-
Christine Gladhill
Ya'at eh
-
Daniel Gray
Siyo OsDa Guadugi
-
-
Christine Gladhill
Prove it! I don't believe for a minute that you have a 70 some odd year old sister since 90% of your posts seem juvenile as all get out! You demand that everybody else prove what they post so, prove it!
-
Daniel Gray
And nobody believes for a second that anything you say is based on fact and law.
-
-
-
-
-
Ravi R Maharaj
I believe that woman in Texas and all states has the right to have a abortion no one shouldn't stop them.
-
ServantOfJudgement
The mother drove her baby to another to have it killed. The baby has been sold for parts or is in the landfill by now. No worries.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
SOJ - change your name to Right Fighter for Hippocritial Judgment. Worry about the state of your own soul and ieave women alone. You and all government should be kicked out of government and people's private lives.
-
Daniel Gray
I find that very hypocritical of you to say that. Because its the GOVERNMENT that made it legal for you to get an abortion in the first place.
-
Christine Gladhill
The government granted us the right to an abortion only after having taken that right away from us. Bitter waters were used in biblical times to terminate pregnancies. Ben Franklin wrote a book that even gave a recipe for an abortificant. The government has no business being in the middle of women's health care decisions.
-
Daniel Gray
Really? Ok then name the law that you seemingly think granted you the right to an abortion. And as for you claiming that abortions were done during Biblical times, ok PROVE IT. And again after checking Franklin's papers and articles and books he wrote in the US Library of Congress, I was not able to find even one mention of abortion in his papers so if you want to continue to use that myth then name the page and the book. bet you cant.
-
Christine Gladhill
Roe v Wade gave us the right to abortion which was just recently taken away. As far as your Bible searching, Google bitter waters Bible and see what comes up. Regarding Benjamin Franklin, poor Man's physician every man his own doctor Google that.
-
Daniel Gray
I did, no such mention comes up.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but Roe didnt take anything aaway and the recent decision didnt take anything from you either. You can still get an abortion, just under the same strict set of guidelines that Roe set. Oh you didnt know about these did you?
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The Casey Supreme court kept three finding made in the Roe decision: Women have the right to abort pre-viability without undue interference from the state. (and with medical advances a fetus can be kept alive after 10 to 12 weeks. Not to mention that The FDA has given approval for the state of Pennsylvania to start human trials on an artificial womb which means the fetus can survive from 8 weeks on if this works as well as it has in the animal testing. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/health/artificial-womb-human-trial-fda/index.html
The state may restrict abortion post-viability. Which means after the fetus can be shown to survive outside the mother, then the state can restrict abortions from that time on.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting woman's health and life of the fetus. Notice it clearly states AND the life of the fetus. Thus even Roe is saying that a fetus is alive and since a woman does not give birth to anything other then a human child, that also means logically that even Roe was saying a fetus is a human
So you are becoming hysterical for no reason.
-
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Lori,
I never condemned or judged the poor woman but you did. When you brought up worrying about souls, you must have thought this woman's soul is in danger. Didn't come from me, I'll tell ya that. I just said what happened, that's all. Aborted fetuses have two destinations, the market or the landfill. If that's too hard to know, I get it but it is what it is.
My avatar name is the meaning of my actual god given name, I was literally born with it. It wasn't until after I became a Christian that I discovered my name's meaning.
Ain't it cool?-
Lori-Ann Neeb
You misunderstand my gnostic christain beliefs. We all write charts for our lives before we reincarnate again according to what we want to learn or experience to continue perfecting our souls. When we pass, we judge ourselves as to how well or not we brlive we fulfilldd those charts. Then we resume our real lives there.
So everyone returns Home. Only dark entities, not demons as they do not dxist, do not enter Home. But God loves even them. When this earth can support life no more the dark entities are lifted up also and returned to the uncreated mass where all souls come from. We choose our paths according yo whatrver we charted. Everyone's path is their own.
So I would never question the state of anyone's soul. I believe we all came from and return there.
I have no disrespect of your beliefs although I disagree with them. I disapprove of the negative judgment and presumptuous way of spouting murder accusations and such. Just as you have your path, so does that woman and hers is between herself and God. We do not have the right to judge. And the talk of body parts has no place. I will tell you what I understand. My colon was removed due to chrons several years ago. I imagine that ended up in some medical waste bag. I look at a piece of my own intestine everytime I change the pouch that I must wear. So I do believe that was another false judgment you made of me. I would not wish on you some of what I have seen or dealt with. I, personally, would not want a name that meant judgment. As a gnostic christain, I do not judge. But your path is your own for your reasons. It is not "christian" to judge. It is a shame that so many have ruined the meaning of that word by ignoring the spiritual core of what it should be. Someday I imagine we both will be back at Home with all the knowledge and memories from all our lives. But for now, stop picking on other people just trying to live their lives and live your own life. You will feel better for it.-
ServantOfJudgement
Lori,
That's an interesting and somewhat unique cosmic view. I'd had a similar thought when I first thought there must be a God. That we choose our lives here on earth. It could be true, don't know. It does negate the vast majority of the entire Bible though. Still in my mind it's still possible. It's very interesting.
We all judge. You've judged me have you not? Perhaps fairly , perhaps unfairly. We all do whether we realize it or not.
I've told so many people in so many threads I can't keep track but my name is a magnet for opposition. People assume I chose the name as a righteous bible thumping, Jesus on the dashboard, sinner stomping statement. Its the meaning of my real name. Depending on translation, my full name means Gods gracious and precious servant of judgement or God lives in his precious servant of judgement. My parents weren't bible thumpers, I don't think they were Christian but mom might have been. I just don't know.
My name is not a statement. It's my name. If I chose this life as you intriguingly suggested, then I suppose I chose my name before I ever took a breath.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Or maybe your parents chose it for whatever reasons they had. And it is your choice in how to embrace it or not. I suppose you can ask them when you see them if you really wdnt to know. I have a pen name that has no other meaning than I liked how it sounded.
As to charts.. I of course have no clue what is in yours or why. That is between you and God. It may be as simple as in another life you were persecuted for a faith by those who judged and this time chose to try to understand the mind and ways of the otherside. Or you are the vessel used to help another deal with current judgement or persecution. It could be many options.
Gnostic Christianity does tend to follow paths that believe the bible to be inaccurate in many places as it was written by the men in the corrupt church of the time. That Jesus lived but had a human and divine side. His mother had him the old fashioned way and was not a virgin. He had his human father. He was also a mission life entity sent to bring in the covenant with the all loving God. The old testament god who was jealous and spiteful was a perception of the people of that time and God was never that being. Things like jealousy, spitefulness, and judgemental are human weaknesses which He has never had. That life mission was his divine side and he was infused with knowledge and abilities to carry out that mission. Personally, I agree with others that the whole virgin birth story was added to give Jesus more of an otherworldly quality and downplay the human side to his existence. The church wanted to erase the human side of him in the people's minds because it suited their purposes at the time. The same with the nativity story. For families as high born and rich as his there was always room at the inn. Money talked then as it does now. But it was a good story that reinforced this otherworldly quality they were going for. Somehow, his mother giving birth in a nice inn with people coming and going to meet the baby with gifts didn't sound the same. Some people just knew his human family and some knew what his mission was to be but the result was the same. A sort of biblical version of a highborn family baby shower.
I get a lot of flack from some that have been raised in the bible writings as total fact. I always wonder why they are so afraid that they lash out at anyone who thinks differently than them. I have no problems with them. I may disagree but other than that do not really care. The fact that Jesus had a human side does not lessen the mission he had. His true teachings are just as valid. And if putting up a nativity display at Christmas is what inspires someone to be a better person, then more power to them. I care only about the end result and the person's heart and behavior. So your bible verses as such really did not impress me very much but that is fine. Which is what I mean when I do not condone judgmental behaviors or insults claiming murder, etc. No one knows whether or not the quickening even happened yet which is when the soul meant for that form actually entered it yet. Our bodies are just bags of bones we have here to carry our souls around. There is freedom in trying to get above the judgmental and jealous vengeful ways of our human sides.
-
-
-
-
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
SOL,
I doubt that anyone would want this poor little fetus' parts. Damaged beyond repair with the congenital abnormality. How do you feel about a fetus with exposed brain? Or half a brain? Or other deformities that are detrimental to survival? Are you setting up funds to pay for medical expenses for such children assuming they live past birth? Perhaps that would be a better use of your concern.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Tecla,
Serious medical conditions of the fetus that end in abortion is terrible but understandable in my mind. I'm not sure how my wife and I would handle such a challenge. I just don't know. I can't fault this woman, not really. That said, serious is variable and usually gets watered down to fit the need at hand.
If a healthy baby can be born then it should be born. That's my stance on abortion.
As far as paying for the health of babies in trouble, that option seems more honorable than buying healthcare and cell phones for illegal aliens and citizen parasites that get too nervous from working. Let's take away all the free handouts to liars and thieves and put it where it counts.
-
-
Amber Fry
Dude, seriously, it was dead anyway. It would either not survive to the birth or would die very shortly after. This was very well established. The issue was about her ability to have more, which she wouldn't if she tried to carry it to term, or even the loss of her own life. She already had two kids and wanted this one. She wants more. She would have lost that ability or even her life if forced to try to carry it to term. Again, there wouldn't be a baby no matter what.
-
Daniel Gray
Said WHO? Doctors are not always correct. Again they told my mother the same thing about my oldest sister and my mother refused to listen. My sister is now a great grandmother and is in her 70's.
-
Christine Gladhill
Prove it! I don't believe for a minute that you have a 70 some odd year old sister since 90% of your posts seem juvenile as all get out! You demand that everybody else prove what they post so, prove it!
-
Daniel Gray
And why should I? YOU swore you would not respond to me and yet here you are doing the same thing you said you wouldnt do. So since you cant keep your word why would you think anyone should to you. Oh and just to show you that I am not kidding or making things up like you do, My sisters last name is Gifford and she lives in Ohio. She has a boy and a girl, the Girl lives in Columbus and has two children and her daughter just gave birth, which make My sister a great grandmother. Her other granddaughter lives in Michigan by Lansing and she has three boys and a girl. And the Girl will grace our family with a set of twins in Feb.
And no I only demand people who make stupid statements like you usually do to back it up. And if you look I ALWAYS back up what I say. Unlike you
-
Christine Gladhill
I will pray for you to find healing from whatever caused you to be so angry and antagonistic. And no sir You do not back up anything that you say You make claims and statements and can't seem to find anything when you do research. Trying to have a discussion with you is futile. Praying for you is the only solution. Please, be blessed.
-
Daniel Gray
No need for you to pray for anything as since you cant keep your word nobody cares what you say or think
-
Daniel Gray
And I will pray in the future that you use common sense and law and science when you try and make a post, but what do your want to bet that wont happen?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev Ned
In Texas, you may not be able to read The Handmaid’s Tale, but you can live it!
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
I enjoyed that.
-
Daniel Gray
How? women can still get an abortion, just along a strict set of guidelines. Just like in every other state in the US
-
Amber Fry
Not according to what the judges are saying but please, do keep misunderstanding the issues. It's funny.
-
Daniel Gray
Its clearly you who misunderstand, abortion is completely legal in Texas under a strict set of guidelines. But then nobody ever said you and reality had any relations
-
Michael Hunt
By guidelines so strict that the woman could have already missed the deadline to receive an abortion before she even realized she was pregnant. Guidelines so strict that legal abortion is nearly impossible to obtain. You're just being intentionally obtuse so as to be a troll. You suck, Daniel.
-
Daniel Gray
And this is what the Court decided, so argue with them. And until you get it changed that is the law and you will abide by it.
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
It’s legal, but it’s not accessible to the dying and those in need of it. That’s what you’re missing out on Grey. Stop badgering people.
-
Daniel Gray
Yes it is available for those who "need" it, they just cant expect the taxpayer to pay for it. And if the woman is dying already, then why have the abortion in the first place? And if you claim its the fetus that is dying, then prove it. Dont just make up stuff to have the abortion.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
A woman dying from a botched pregnancy needs an abortion. She’s dying because of the pregnancy. They’d proven that it was life threatening.
My gods Grey, you’re a monster who has no empathy or compassion for anyone. Not very Christ like at all. The only one making stuff up about abortion is you. Get some therapy about it already.
-
Daniel Gray
My God dude. you make a claim and nothing the doctor has said validates what you are whining about. You really need to make sure what you are saying is factually correct.
-
Daniel Gray
get over yourself. Not even her own doctor has said she would die if she took the pregnancy to term. Why do you think that your hyperbole is going to make a difference when even her own doctor says you are a liar?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parson Golden
In the name of the Bible (which has no problem with abortion) Texas “Christians” have no problem watching a woman die or watch a fatally deformed fetus born, only to die an agonizing death.
But it’s OK ‘cause they have “God” on their side…
-
ServantOfJudgement
Parson,
I mean this very kindly. You should avoid instructing or teaching a document you don't believe to be true. The Bible says you can't understand it unless you believe it. We know we can't teach something we can't understand.
I could be wrong but I've not found anything in the document that leaves me feeling like the bible supports the killing of a baby in its mother's womb, rather the opposite.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Remember the supposed murder of children by angels in the moses story. And before you continue to use the bible and accuse others of not understanding it, you need to read all other texts not included and make an honest comparison. Not parrot the tripe you most likely were force fed since birth without any defense. Just accusing others does not prove you right. You must also prove them wrong with evidense that does not start and end with the bible says . . Remember that David Karesh had the bible memorized. You always post your judgment and conveniently ignore the questions posed to you about proof of your correctness or proof others are wrong. Put up or shut up.
-
Parson Golden
It seems that I did and it triggered you.
I made no accusations, yet you feel threatened.
Interesting.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Comment removed by user.
-
-
-
Reverend Andrew
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT ABORTION Absolutely nothing! The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible.
Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:
-
Christine Gladhill
Bitter waters can be used to terminate a pregnancy if you think your wife cheated on you among other reasons. Jewish law allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy if it is believed to be harmful to her mentally physically or emotionally. No one should decide for somebody else what they can handle or how far they have to go risking their life for the sake of another, even a fetus.
-
Daniel Gray
we have had this claim before and after checking with the local Rabbi in Toledo, he clearly says you do not understand anything as Jewish law says NO such thing
-
Christine Gladhill
Tell that to the Jewish people in Florida who are suing the state over the band because it violates Jewish law that requires abortion if the pregnancy is endangering the health or well-being of the woman among other reasons.
-
Daniel Gray
Tell that to the courts since they asked these "jewish" group in Florida to show WHERE in their religion that its acceptable to have an abortion or that it accepts it and yet they have not been able to provide even ONE iota of proof of their claim, so the decision from the Judge will be that this case has absolutely no merit, just like what was decided when the Satanists tried the same thing and the case was tossed out for lack of standing and no judicial merit.
-
-
-
-
Parson Golden
ServantOfJudgement
Perhaps you should pass judgement elsewhere. That is in fact not what I wrote.
-
Christine Gladhill
Comment removed by user.
-
-
-
Colleen McAllister
No man has the right to yell any woman how to make decisions for her own body. To survive a fetus must be close to 6 months of development. At 8 weeks it resembles a pig fetus as much as a human. I have held one. Don't try to convince me that the little cluster of cells should take precedence over a living women's life.
Texas needs to back off and stop trying to play God.
-
Russel A. Kester
Colleen, in your comments you said that no man has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body So I assume you're perfectly all right with other women telling women what they can do with their body. So if a group of pro-life women tells her that she should not be able to get the abortion, I assume you will be perfectly all right with that.
-
Colleen McAllister
Obviously not. But the majority of people pushing for this are men. I would at least listen to another woman.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
They might get 30 seconds of my time.
-
Russel A. Kester
Colleen, do you see by your very comments that this is the reason men wish to enshrine in law the ability for them to be able to have their child grow until it is able to survive outside the womb so that they can raise their child even if the woman does not wish to have any thing to do with it. I have personally known friends who were in this situation. They had agreed before engaging in any type of sexual conduct that they would in fact carry any child conceived to completion. But once the woman got pregnant she decided to abort it even though the man made it clear that he would take sole responsibility for it. The loss of his child truly depressed him for a very long time. Two parties have an interest in the child not just one.
-
Rev. Rory
So these men you speak of decided to make a full commitment, marry a woman, had a conversation about having children and then the women changed their minds - and had an abortion? Not likely. Two parties do have an interest and although I have no problem with couples deciding to not marry, it is a way to show commitment. If the male is not willing to take that step, it's just talk. Sorry, men.
-
Russel A. Kester
Rory, the friends to which I referred and knew personally (a man and a woman) had agreed prior to engaging in sex that if a child was concerned it would be carried to term (their marital status is irrelevant, their joint understanding is). Once she got pregnant she changed her mind, and he couldn't do anything about it. It is hypocritical to say that only the woman can carry to term and demand financial support from the man, but the man doesn't have the right to have the pregnancy carried to term, take responsibility, and then demand financial support from the woman. If he has no rights, then there is no equality. That is his child too. Feminists are all talk about equality until it comes to men's equality. Be consistent. And thank you for acknowledging that men do have an interest in the developing child as well as women. That was heartening to read. I would quibble with you on the requirements you placed those interests within. But applaud the acknowledgement.
-
-
Amber Fry
When the man has to go through the year of wicked body changes, health threats and then spend their life actually being the one to change diapers, feed it, clean up after it and teach it to be a decent human being then they can have a say. They can barely keep it in their pants for the most part so no, they shouldn't have a say. Until it is detached from the woman's body it is still part of her body. She should have the say. Why is that so hard to understand?
-
Russel A. Kester
Amber, why is it so hard to understand that men also have an interest in the child? The fact that women go through the birthing process from inception to the actual birth is something you will have to take up with your God, nature, or whoever else you think is in charge. That is not a man's fault. And it should be clear by now that the developing child is not a part of the mother. It is more analogous to a parasite than it is to a part of the mother. He or she has his or her own DNA and soul. Very distinct from the mother. In your comment, you also assumed that men are unwilling to take care of a child after it is born. That is very sexist. I know of many good fathers.
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
Ok so I would bet that when a woman wants a child and the man does not, then you are ok with forcing the man to support the child for 18 years? Yet you seemingly are ok with if the man wants the child and the woman does not she can go and kill it and the man has no say? Remember that it takes TWO to make that child so BOTH should have a say in it.
-
Amber Fry
Of course. When the woman has to go through all the body changes and health dangers that go along with a pregnancy then she should get that say. If a man doesn't want a part of that he shouldn't be doing what it takes to be in the position of providing. He's got the easy part of it. She doesn't.
-
Daniel Gray
Yea right, you are just trying to justify a position that is not justifiable.
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Is that the real reason you are so angry all this time? You knocked up some woman and pay support? If it is, keep the anger where it belongs. Lol. If not, remember this, any faith system based in negative emotions or ideas, inspiring anger like yours, hatred, judgment, etc. if not of or from God. Those are human weaknesses which He has never suffered from. He loves all his children the same.
-
Daniel Gray
Sounds like you are just trying to push your past life problems onto someone else
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
If that is the logic, then both assume equallresponsibility, although, I believe the woman should he granted more leeway since it is she who will bear all physical responsibilities. No man would have enough power or control to make any decisions on his own at all.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope sorry. Since the one who made her pregnant is supposed to do the supporting, then they both have the equal say. your logic does not pass muster.
And as for no man would have the authority to make the decisions on their own, it seems that that exact premise worked very well for over 200,000 years of human history.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Mr Gray As I suspected, you dropped out of the sky from the 1700's. Women can drive, vote, earn equal pay, speak before spoken to and tell some lazy b. To order take out if she doesn't feel like cooking and everything these days. The one with the sperm doesn't have control over her decisions if she doesn't want him to or need him to do so. In an ideal situation two people chose to have a child and are both involved in the child's life but that is not always possible or healthy for the woman and child if the man is an abuser or other form of jerk. As for your ideas about history. Your system did not work well for all those years. During those years, women had no rights. They were property that could not read, write or earn their own incone unless it was to service the male bastards who had gotten the male heir and spare out of the wife so had no use for her anymore. I suppose you still support burning innocent women at stakes if you even think they might be witches and keep a jar of leeches on the shelf to treat whatever ails you like all the other doctors from your time in the 17 or 18 hundreds. You really need to open your eyes and join the people in this century.
-
Daniel Gray
And just as I suspected, you want all this new age stuff to be the law of the land and when it cant be then you get upset.
-
-
-
-
-
Reverend Andrew
So by your statement than do you think that the part in the Constriction say's"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that means woman have no rights if you are going to be a good so called christian then Does the bible not say that a woman may not speak until spoken to and that shall not be in public or in church for women are forbode to speak in the house of god and does it not also say t"keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children"
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
The Constitution like the bible was written by men in patriarchal cultures. As men of their time and culture, they did what they could to maintain the status quo they enjoyed. Also, both documents were written at times in history that had no way of knowing what changes and advances would take place. The society we live in is not like anything they could have imagined or thought to take into consideration.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Rev, Andrew, Your argument and comparison do not work. Both were written in patriarchal times, that is correct, but the major difference is, that when times and cultures change, the Constitution has a provision to update itself to through the amendment process. Women now have full rights, including the right to vote, and African American people are now a full human being (rather than just the 3/4 the Constitution provides.) The Bible has no such process to update itself to the times. One has to look at the text and place it in the approrpriate time and place, and figure out how it might have evolved with the times. You can't compare the two. Plus they were written 1700 years apart.
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
They do it all the time. You get told what shots you need to have before going to school or joining the military or going overseas. You get told how many kids you can have (think Octomom) if you have a disease, you get told if you can have sex and with who (think Aides). If you have cancer, you get told what is to be done to you and how.
Sorry but your point is not rational at best and completely foolish at worst.
-
Pastor Xal
Daniel Gray. The 1 man show of righteousness. How many UL Ministers have stopped participating on this blog because of your lack of willingness for discussion? Being on attack and correct mode 24/7 doesn't benefit anyone/thing except fuel your anger and obvious resentment. Too bad because this blog used to be lively, thought provoking and relevant. What are YOU doing on here?
-
Daniel Gray
whats wrong? you get upset when you cant prove me wrong with law and science?
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
What's it like on your planet? Lol Again, what logic you think makes those remarks true or have meaning connected to the current topic escapes me. For what it may be worth, if medical advancements have made vaccines and medications that keep us healty and extend our lifespans, just that God for the infusion that was sent to the people who made those things possible for us. And you proved yourself behind the times. People now have medications that fight their hiv virus to undetectable levels which makes those patients no threat to anyone. And as long as those who need it and stay undetectable, they can have normal life spans and are just positive. Those patients do not have or get Aides.
-
Daniel Gray
Have to ask you the same question. But sorry you have to live in THIS reality, not in the one you want to.
-
-
-
-
Keith
I think the government needs to stay out of people's bedrooms and their sex lives, and they need to stay out of any decisions a woman makes regarding her body. Our medical history is supposed to be between the patient and their physicians. Isn't that why we sign a HIPPA form? The MAGA Republicans and the right-wing conservatives have severely damaged the two-party political system. They have changed policies and laws that have set us back 50 years on human and civil liberties rights. It appears that the Republican Party wants complete control over everything. They want control over women, the law, the government, the military, race relations, and sexual and gender identities. Is this a definition of a democratic government?
Rev. Keith
-
Rev. Rory
You forgot to mention education. The founder of PragerU, now used across the country as they take in billions of taxpayer dollars, said that he wants to bring education back to the 1930's.
-
Daniel Gray
Fine then that means they should refuse same sex marriage and multiple spouse marriages and not pay welfare to anyone who has children and does not have a spouse, or even stop paying it completely as it was their decision to have the child not the governments.
But I bet you will have a cow if this is done...understand using your statement then if they are to stay out of peoples sex lives that also means we have to allow children to be used as sexual items and on and on.
Did you even think about this before you opened your mouth Keith?
-
Keith
Your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. I never stated that the government should refuse any of the things you mentioned. Just the opposite they should stay out of all the things you mentioned. People worked hard to obtain the rights they currently have. What I'm saying if the Republican government has their way. They will make same-sex marriages illegal. They should not take welfare away from a single mother who can't make ends meet. She needs it for food and medical care for her children. If they wish to be tough on someone, then why not go after the deadbeat dad? If those fathers were accountable then maybe some of these single mothers can come off welfare. The mothers who choose to have the baby may need welfare help because once again no father to help. What I'm saying is they want to stop abortions and force women to have babies that they don't feel the can support without government help. Then the government wants to reduce or eliminate welfare benefits. So, they want women to have babies that the government jas forced them to have but reduce or eliminate welfare benefits. What's right with this? Absolutely nothing. The only people who are, to put it bluntly are getting screwed are the women. The only cow I will have is if these Republicans have their way and take away the same sex marriage. Take away a single mothers welfare because they can't make the father take accountability. Take away the womems right to abortion and force her to have a baby and then reduce and or eliminate welfare benefits. Shame on them for forcing them to have a baby they don't want to help support through government assistance.
I'm not sure where you are getting the information about children being used as sexual items. I agree that some children are sexually abused by a family member and this is not acceptable. However, the majority of children are not being used as sexual items. Therefore, there is no reason why the government should be in any ones bedroom. It is a fact that some children who are kidnapped maybe sold into sexual trade, where they would be used as sexual items. This happens usually by a stranger not someone the Childs family. The government should take down these groups and prosecute at the highest level.So yes, I think about what I want to say before I open my mouth. If I not sure about what I want to say I research first to make sure my facts are correct, So next time don't assume anything unless you have confirmed what you are replying to is true.
Blessings, Rev. Keith
-
Daniel Gray
You Kieth said that the Government should stay out of the bedroom. Again then that means they dont have to condone any marriages, they dont have to help people who want welfare and so on. You cannot be surprised at the logical conclusion of your intentions in your post.
-
Pastor Xal
Daniel Gray. The 1 man show of righteousness. How many UL Ministers have stopped participating on this blog because of your lack of willingness for discussion? Too bad because this blog used to be lively, thought provoking and relevant.
-
Daniel Gray
Whhaaaaaa, I see you are upset when you cant refute me. And name me one that has stopped because of me. You cant so this is your opinion nothing more. And if they actually did stop then thats there problem for trying to put something here that is their beliefs and not based on fact.
-
-
Pastor Xal
Comment removed by user.
-
-
-
-
-
Diane Minna LaFave
I am pro choice - Period.
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
I am PRO-CHOICE so that every one of the hundreds of thousands of woman in our country, and other countries, whom I have no knowledge of, can say YES or NO to abortion. That’s what PRO-CHOICE is.
-
Reverend Andrew
PRO-CHOICE meaning that everyone has the right to choose what is ring for them !
-
Chris
Sure, it gives people a choice to choose what's wrong for them. Happens every day with so many things. Drinking, smoking, being an ***hole, people choose every day things that are wrong for them. This just shows that the Texas GOP in particular don't care about women's health. They only care about controlling women.
I don't agree with abortion, but I fully support a woman's right to choose. And in cases like this, I have no problem whatsoever with her terminating her pregnancy early. Forcing her not to is draconian.
-
-
-
Lionheart
If she’s eventually forced to go full term, the AG, Ken Paxton, should be forced to adopt the child to take care of its life challenging medical needs. That just might change his views for future decisions. 🤷🏼
🦁❤️
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
I understand your point but why punish the born baby?
He should keep his nose out of Kate’s uterus because its contests are not his business.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Here's the thing, the fetus would NOT survive until birth, or if it did, would NOT survive more than a day to two days after, and in the mean time, her very life is in danger of being ended by this pregnancy. But they don't give a damn because "pro-life" right?
-
Daniel Gray
Heres the thing...what would you do if your mother felt the same way about having you?
-
Amber Fry
It wouldn't matter. The fetus was going to die anyway. It would be a matter of the life and health of the mother and anyone with a conscience and a heart would understand that as difficult as the whole situation is, it would be up to her and her doctor if her ability to bear more children later or even own life was important enough to let go of something that was dead anyway and likely to take her out with it.
-
Daniel Gray
Yes it would matter. And no the Doctors never said that the baby would kill her nor that it would die before birth. Seems like you are just trying anything to justify this.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
She’s already in a place where the pregnancy is killing bee grey. Once more you open your mouth to justify anything your tradition has been dictated to you.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope sorry, your whining isnt cutting it. I am going by what is classified as medical and scientific fact. Too bad you cant see that
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Yeah Lion, but if you've been following the accounts, multiple sources have said that this baby is expected to die inside her or be born dead in the first place, it's that kind of a known case and disease, and perhaps kill and most likely sterilize mother in a way which really challenges the law. Hello also if you read the accounts Texas Supreme Court has already ruled against the mother... Plus the calls from me and some others that really now Texas just needs to be given back to Mexico.
Hello now I have had time to think it through and would like to modify my statement: this is the United States of America, after all...so we SELL Texas back to Mexico.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Rev Mark, Thank you for the belly laugh this morning. What you describe is the type of justice that Texas is used to. As one was born there and then spent 30 years there, I can claim being a Native Texan. I would agree with you if that wouldn't also make me a citizen of Mexico instead of the United States.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
The baby was driven to a neighboring state where the mother had it killed. This story is a little out of date.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
She did what she was forced to do. I wonder how men would react if it became law that men must have vasectomies under some list of offenses committed? All bible thumpers are the biggest hippocrits in the world. They would just as quickly turn on any baby born that grew up to be gay or transgender. They should bf forced out of government.
-
Daniel Gray
No the hypocrite is you. If you hate religion so much then why are you even here?
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Religion is manmade. Spirituality comes from the heart. There is a very big difference. Organized religions exist to give misguided or confused people vehicles to attempt to justify their hate and judgement of others. Even you have to acknowledge all the atrocities throughout history done in "God's" name. It is true that some spiritual people do belong to churches and genuinely try to follow real teachings of Jesus by loving all people as God loves them without judgment. But, sadly, most just use the church to try to justify their own hate and judgement.
The difference between us is I do not care whether a person sits in a pew on Sundays or not. I do not care about their gender or lifestyle. I care about what kind of person they are as they are.
The only true dogma is love God, do good deeds, go Home. So if having a Bible or going to a church on Sunday is what inspires a person to be a better person, then the book or church building has done its job for them. More power to them. But hipocrits or those who bible thump or brag about their church then go home to be hateful, bigots are the ones who need to worry about their own souls and leave other people alone.-
Daniel Gray
Again this is a religious blog, so if you hate religion so much why are you even here?
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Yes, conservative manmade religions would like to believe they control all forms of media and try to ride rough shot over anything that disagrees with their views, like spirituality and gnostic christain beliefs. And, unfortunately politics has interwoven itself into human religions and convinced the gullable that to be supposedly "politically correct" as you have been made to believe means thr conservative way or nothing. You seem to suggest that you believe yourself and those who think like you should control the blog. You deliberately ignored thr concept of spirituality verses manmade religion. I understand that deflection in the face of not having an answer or nothing to say is the conservatíve way but answer the questions regarding spirituality first fefore any other divisionary requests please.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but no. Using your reasoning, then ALL religions are man made and as such since you are so anti religion, again why are you even here?
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Comment has been removed.
-
Daniel Gray
No I am stating a fact. You seem so anti religious in your postings and yet here you are posting in a religious Blog. So again answer the question and stop him hawing around. If you dislike religion that much, then WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE IN A RELIGIOUS BLOG???? Bet you wont answer or try yet another smoke screen to keep from answering
-
Michael Hunt
Yes Daniel, all religions are man-made and when did you become the gatekeeper of the blog? This is a forum for anyone to discuss these topics, regardless of their feelings about religion.
-
Daniel Gray
So the same question is to you. Then WHY are you here in a religious blog if you dont believe they are real?
-
Michael Hunt
I never said religions aren't real, I said they are man-made. And just because I don't practice a religious belief doesn't mean I'm not spiritual. I'm here because I strongly support the ULC's message of religious inclusiveness.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but your smoke screen isnt going to work
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more re·li·gion /rəˈlij(ə)n/ noun noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
Now if they are a belief in a higher power, then explain how they are man made? On second thought I would rather you didnt as you will damage your brain in trying to come up with a response that is believable.
-
-
-
Michelle Marie Balogun
It’s called Freedom of speech! You sound like an angry person, maybe you’re from Texas ??
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Michelle , Thank you I think.lol if you were referring to my remark. If not thats ok too. Trying to attack or belittle others is the typical strategy of those who have no defense or anything useful to say. It is their way of trying to build thenselves up at the dxpense of others.
-
Daniel Gray
No its being called a hypocrite
-
-
-
-
Rev. Rory
That is between the woman and her God. Politicians are not Gods.
-
Amber Fry
The fetus was dying anyway. She wanted it but it would not survive either way. It would either die before it was born or very shortly after. This was very well established by actual medical doctors. The issue was her own life and ability to have more later, This shouldn't be up to politicians. What is up to politicians is to protect the right of people to decide their health needs with their doctor without being persecuted for it.
-
Michael Hunt
The article does say that she left the state to receive the abortion...
-
-
Rev Mark D
Yeah Lion, but if you've been following the accounts, multiple sources have said that this baby is expected to die inside her or be born dead in the first place, it's that kind of a known case and disease, and perhaps kill and most likely sterilize mother in a way which really challenges the law. Hello also if you read the accounts Texas Supreme Court has already ruled against the mother... Plus the calls from me and some others that really now Texas just needs to be given back to Mexico.
Hello now I have had time to think it through and would like to modify my statement: this is the United States of America, after all...so we SELL Texas back to Mexico.
-
The book in which Benjamin Franklin was involved, was originally written by George Fisher which was a pseudonym. I did have the title backward a little bit. The Instructor, was the original book from which he created an updated version and included a London medical book called every Man his own doctor: poor planters physician. While he did not originally write the book The updated version that he created and circulated was definitely from Benjamin Franklin and comes up easily when you search, Benjamin Franklin abortion.
yea right try and cover your rear as the book you claim was written by Franklin was not and nothing shows that he used a different name to write the book. meaning that you lied.
George Fisher was a pseudonym I did not say it was one used by Benjamin Franklin. You are on constant attack dog mode I do not understand that. You have attacked me and numerous other people not just on this post but others that I have seen and that's just bizarre to me. We are total strangers to you. None of us had done a thing to you except possibly post something with which you disagree. Do hostility is over the top. Sending love and light to heal whatever is broken and causing this mess.
Um sorry no he was a real person and it wasnt George Fisher that wrote the book. Franklin was the PRINTER of the book and the publisher of the book, NOT the writer as you have tried to claim
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-8111161-bk
The actual writer of the book
And yes you DID claim that Ben Franklin wrote the book and never claimed that he used any name but his own. IN fact here is what you claimed "Regarding Benjamin Franklin, poor Man's physician every man his own doctor was written by JOHN Tennant 1710-1748 and Franklin didnt have a thing to do with it for three years!
My GOD you cant seem to use even factual history correctly. And lets see Christine, today is January 5th 2024, and YOU SWORE you were not going to respond to me back on December 26th 2023. So just HOW can anyone believe a thing you say when you have lied and now are trying to cover your rear doing the same thing you swore you wouldnt do. So if you cant keep your own word, then why should anyone listen to or believe anything you say?
It is a woman's prerogative to change her mind! Lol you finally did some actual research! George Fisher was the pseudonym used for the instructor not the other book. And you are nitpicking minutia which seems to be what you do best. The fact that there is a booklet that was put out and Franklin had a heavy hand in its publication that does exactly what I say it does and gives you the formula for a safe home abortion. That is the point of my post and the fact that I may have gotten some details mixed up because I hadn't looked into it in quite a while doesn't mean I'm a liar. You claimed that abortion was illegal in 1776 and I pointed out that it was not and Franklin even had a hand in helping people with home abortions. That is the main point and the rest of it is minutia! Why are you so hostile toward everybody in this thread and every other thread where I've seen you post? You can disagree with somebody and not be quite such a jerk!
Not when it comes to breaking the law, and since you said you were not going to respond and still are, that means nothing you say is worth much now dont it?