Again, I'll accept your inability to reply as you not being able to argue against the FACT that abortion DOES have to be justified after 23 weeks!
I have continuously replied. You have not. You can't grapple with the 23 week cut off. Until next time then!
Repealing R v W will NOT stop abortions. The rich can fly to countries where it is legal, and the poor will suffer, because Repealing it will increase the maiming and increase deaths of young women, mostly those who live in poverty, who suffer from botched incompetent abortions. I am old enough to remember what life was like when abortion was illegal. My mom got a call from the ER because my sister tried to abort her fetus, and she didn't tell mom and dad she was pregnant. She almost died. This type of thingi will happen by the 10s of thousands if R v W is repealed. With, or without R v W, Either way, you have blood on your hands. I find abortion as repugnant as you, but R v W is a necessary evil. If abortion is 'murder', as you imply, then you must be willing to apply the same sentence to a woman who has an abortion as you would a murderer, that would be 25 years to life, so are you willing to do that? I assume you will say 'no'. If the answer is no, and the answer should most definitely should be no, then abortion CANNOT be murder. Dont' use the Bible to justify your opinion. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178933/ Exodus 21:22-25. This part of the Covenant Code legislates the case of a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between 2 men and has a miscarriage. A distinction is then made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges. However, if the woman is injured or dies, "lex talionis" is applied -- life for life, eye for eye, etc. The story has somewhat limited application to the current abortion debate since it deals with accidental and not willful pregnancy termination. Even so, the distinction made between the woman and the fetus is important. The woman is valued as a person under the convenant; the fetus is valued as property. Its status is certainly inferior to that of the woman. This passage gives no support to the parity argument that gives equal religious and moral worth to woman and fetus.
Even if we attributed some kind of personhood to the zygote - this may help us from a moral perspective but - this still does not win the day from a legal perspective. As intimated by your post - the personhood of the woman is highly valued - enshrined in law - and so on. When it comes to valuing personhood of the zygote - things get complicated. There is no consensus among subject matter experts w/r to the value of the personhood of the zygote. The fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree" - and this is the best place the anti- aborts can get to. This is then basically "we don't know otherwise" - as an argument. Unfortunately for the anti side - "we don't know otherwise" is a ridiculously silly legal argument which fails horribly. When the rights of two individuals comes into conflict - the rights of each are then weighed on the scales of justice. Clearly on the side of the woman there is a heavy weight. How on earth to we ascribe a value to the zygote. How on earth do we value "We don't know / We don't know otherwise" ? The woman wins by default. The rights of the zygote can never approach the rights of the woman from a legal perspective.
Why kill the innocent? Good question. Why not apply it to war, where almost everyone victimized is innocent. Why don't we see the same concerns for lives lost in needless conflict as we see here for unviable fetuses? I don't understand.
I agree with you in part. I would change your statement thusly: "God had a plan for each individual before they were born, & values them highly." I have many discomforts with the general attitude of Pro-Lifers, but for this post, I'll discuss only one. Pro-Lifers talk as though the end of a fetus is the end of a potential mother/child relationship. But it isn't. Many aborted fetuses simply return later to the same mother in a subsequent pregnancy. The agreement between parent & child is made in the Astral--in spirit form, & nothing that happens to a fetus has the power to sever that relationship from happening. It simply changes the timing. I wish more Pro-Lifers would do their research & include this important aspect of our spiritual/physical lives into their consciousness before they jump to conclusions based on incomplete information.
Never heard this premise. From my own opinion..... "It is appointed to everyone once to die and then the "judgement". That, in my opinion rules out reincarnation, or, in this case, substitution. The unborn are innocent. Death for the saved is improvement over life on this earth. Fear of the "unknown is understandable.....but the spirit knows.
There is growing evidence supporting my assertion that reincarnation is a reality. The fact that you don't currently believe in reincarnation changes nothing. In "fact", you are a participant. There are now many records of small children telling their parents that they (the child) chose them (the parents) before they (the child) was born. In the Astral, we are all mature souls, & we make decisions about our upcoming reincarnation before we go to Earth to be born. After physical death, we return to the Astral, review our lives just ending, learn from those reviews, then plan our next foray on Earth. Earth is like a university, where we come to learn. Each incarnation is like a college class. We can fail that particular class (incarnation), but we're not judged or punished for that failure. Rather, we're given the opportunity to return to Earth in a new body--in a new environment--to try again. It takes many incarnations to accrue enough credits to graduate. Knowing these things gives me a very different perspective on motherhood & abortion.
