cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Definitions

So, you are OK with just sticking with the legal definition of 'marriage'?

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Because of abortion, woman dies

The question is, are they both 'human'?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: 3020 and Neb

I understand you do not want any abortion.

Fine make all the laws you want but it will not stop those who have the resources from getting one if they want one.

It will not stop those who do not have the resources from trying cheaper methods.

 

Without the proper methods and care there will be more women die or suffer injuries.

 

With the law in favour of NO abortion you get what happened to this woman in Ireland.

 

Leave the choice to the woman, educate her in your 'beliefs' if you want but skip the law to force your belief on her.

 

As for the law and marriage in Canada same sex people can get married, if they choose. No one says they have to OR refuses them the right if they make that choice.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: 3020 and Neb

You want the right to kill an unborn child any time for any reason.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Actually

I can remember him defending a woman who even killed her baby shortly after it was born, because it caused her stress or distress.

 

Canuk, you ask us about the 'one' life of the mother, that was lost.   What about the thousands, or even millions of lives that were lost because of medically un-necessary abortions.  Do those lives, not have any value?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: 3020 and Neb


@r3020 wrote:

You want the right to kill an unborn child any time for any reason.


No I do not want any 'right' to abort any fetus.

i would however leave it to the woman carrying that fetus to make that decision, with restrictions.

I certainly do not think it is up to the state, backed by religious belief, to take the right to save a woman's life away from the medical system.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: 3020 and Neb


@Canuck_2 wrote:

@r3020 wrote:

You want the right to kill an unborn child any time for any reason.


No I do not want any 'right' to abort any fetus.

i would however leave it to the woman carrying that fetus to make that decision, with restrictions.

I certainly do not think it is up to the state, backed by religious belief, to take the right to save a woman's life away from the medical system.


What restrictions?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Actually


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

I can remember him defending a woman who even killed her baby shortly after it was born, because it caused her stress or distress.

 

Canuk, you ask us about the 'one' life of the mother, that was lost.   What about the thousands, or even millions of lives that were lost because of medically un-necessary abortions.  Do those lives, not have any value?


If I was 'defending' a woman who had killed her baby it was probably that I was defending the sentence that she should not be punished in the sense of jailing her but be provided help with her mental health.

It is a known fact that the act of giving birth sends some women into mental distress after birthing.

Just like what happens in the rest of the animal world when an individual kills their newborn.

 

Talking about the 'thousands or millions' lost to abortions does not have any traction in the case in Ireland.

The woman there was aborting the fetus naturally. A 'miscarriage' but the law tied the hands of the medical people to give timely help and resulted in the death of the woman as well as losing the fetus.

The death of that woman falls entirley on those who imposed restrictions on giving good medical care alll in the name of a religious 'belief' instead of based on medical knowledge.

 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Actually

I believe I said many times, I belive in saving whatever life you can.  If they are both doomed to die, you save the one you can.

 

However, the conversation keeps going to the 'religion' in Ireland, which did not allow it, but it is a LAW that is on the books, that prevented the hospital from doing it.

Could it perhaps be a problem of the GOVERNMENT telling too many people what it can, and cannot do?  If there wasn't a LAW against someone building a non-Catholic hospital, someone could start construction tomorrow.

That is why, in the USA, I think we should keep the Church out of government, and government out of the Church.  However, we are starting to get government encroaching on the Church, which is just as bad, as the other way around.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Actually


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

I believe I said many times, I belive in saving whatever life you can.  If they are both doomed to die, you save the one you can.

 

However, the conversation keeps going to the 'religion' in Ireland, which did not allow it, but it is a LAW that is on the books, that prevented the hospital from doing it.

Could it perhaps be a problem of the GOVERNMENT telling too many people what it can, and cannot do?  If there wasn't a LAW against someone building a non-Catholic hospital, someone could start construction tomorrow.

That is why, in the USA, I think we should keep the Church out of government, and government out of the Church.  However, we are starting to get government encroaching on the Church, which is just as bad, as the other way around.


So is it just 'perception' of what drives which?

Why is there a law in Ireland that prevents acceptable medical care because there is still a fetal heartbeat? Ireland is a very CAtholic country so do you suppose it was the wishes of the Hindus or atheists that creatd this law which prevented the timely care?

 

What came first the religious 'belief' or the law?

 

It would make no difference if it was a Catholic hospital or not it was the law that became the problem.