Government Vows to Defend New Abortion Law

[ATLcenter]

Science can't really explain hell.... that's my opinion. Science can't explain heaven either, and I am sure scientists are more confident in the absense of heaven than hell, due to the fact that a utopia on clouds is hard to miss with today's tech. Unless it is not in our minds way of thinking about location...

You're right, Science cannot explain Hell, but that is because Science cannot work on something where there is a complete vacuum of evidence! It's an analytical subject, not a philosophical one!

Whoa!!! Few things in science can be proven for sure. Science is BUILT on theories. There's no solid proof that things called atoms and protons and the like exist. There's just a theory. I know there are pictures of atoms, but it still cannot be provel SURE. I doubt there is much in science that is not of theory. Theories - which lead to a Theology of Science. LIke it or not, Science can be easily argued to be a religion as well....

[Katamarino]

A good scientist would FIND the evidence....

No, a good scientist would find what evidence is there No good scientist would make evidence up just to please the masses

[Aeronautics]

:Thinking: “God some people are dense”

If a woman is raped, then it is highly unlikely that she will not know she is pregnant until 9 months later. Also, I would imagine that most rape victims take pregnancy tests shortly afterwards to find out if they are pregnant or not.

In other words, get it done before it is necessary to suck out the child’s brain as is done with PBA. I oppose abortion regardless of when it is done but for now it is legal so if you must do it, don’t wait 8 or 9 months into the pregnancy to murder the child that could easily survive on its own.

Now this is all I'm going to say on this. I really do not need to clarify what I wrote since most people understood it.

Ok, now I understand your opinion. No offense, really.

[wj_737_200]

I'm not talking about things like downs syndrome and others like that but birth defects that can harm the child AS WELL as the mother. Also in the case of rape, the mother wouldn't know what diseases the rapist is crawling with, and the risk of having that passed to the kid. I can't really say what I would do because i'm not in that situation but i'm sure the mother would rather abort the baby then have it crawling with disease and having it live it's life with AIDS, or something else that the rapist might have been infested with. I was wondering can a doctor sort of "perscribe" an abortion to someone that was mentally unstable and at risk of hurting both the child and themselves??(thats just something that popped into my head, don't know why )
Although illegal abortions on the other hand i'm totally against being that something MORE then likely will go wrong and the mother will die because of complications.

There is no "right" or "wrong" answer with something like this. It's all based on personal opinion and morality of today's society but just because someone supports abortion doesn't mean they have no morals.
Sorry if I repeated some other points I made i'm tired I'm not against anyone that is pro-life and against abortion I accept everyone has different views on things and more power to them to speak up for what they belive in


On a lighter note: One abortion that should have happened was Damien(I think that was his name) in Rosmary's Baby. Well he was the anti-christ.

[Eagle_Driver]

They may not admit or even know to being pregnent until later (say 4 or 6 months) and thats when she decides to get an abortion, is it wrong for her to take into account the memories that child may bring back? knowing that it is the result of pure evil (the rapist)
Another exception I feel is that if there is a birth defect detected at maybe 5 months pregnant. Say the birth defect has something that could hurt or even kill both the mother and child, would the abortion be right then? In my honest opinion yes it would.

That's still no reason for murder. If the child has defects, such as retardedness, so be it. There are around 8 or 9 kids at my high school that have down syndrome and it whenever I walk past their small group it moves me as they always have a smile on their faces and are as happy as ever. Why give up a child that has a defect when you know that the fact is, is that they can have a perfectly normal life and always be happy. If it is the case that the mother may also die, then she should still hang on to the baby. Otherwise she's just plain stupid and thinking of herself. To me, being a mother with or without mutual consent should still love a child, a living being that has a chance in life. True love for a child is when a mother is willing to risk her own life to save her baby's life.

I feel that if the baby is in risk of living in poverty, having a birth defect, being the result of incest or rape, there may be other circumstances that have been overlooked but I feel that these all are grounds for an abortion.
All around I it's the woman's decision.

If it's the result of rape, why not just give the child do the adoption agency. If you were a small baby, an embryo, a fetis, or whatever you call the living being in a mothers stomach, wouldn't you rather take the chance of living rather than to just die? I mean give the baby a chance. If you don't want it, it's better to give it up for adoption than to just out right murder it. In my opinion, if the mother calls for an abortion on her own child, her own flesh and blood, she should be in prison for life. If mothers can kill their own flesh and blood and get away with it, why then can serial killers kill there own mothers and fathers and be punished for it when the mother did the same thing and got away with it?

[JeffinDEN]

yes, you did make sense. I agree as well.

[wj_737_200]

I'm only 14 but do have opinions on this too. I'm not against abortion within the first trimester but I think that after 3 months is when the morality(sp?) of abortion really comes into play and is "iffy". But in the cases of rape, some woman do not take pregnancy tests after the fact (because some don't even report it) they just want to get the memory of it out of the way and deny it even happened. They may not admit or even know to being pregnent until later (say 4 or 6 months) and thats when she decides to get an abortion, is it wrong for her to take into account the memories that child may bring back? knowing that it is the result of pure evil (the rapist)
Another exception I feel is that if there is a birth defect detected at maybe 5 months pregnant. Say the birth defect has something that could hurt or even kill both the mother and child, would the abortion be right then? In my honest opinion yes it would.
I feel that if the baby is in risk of living in poverty, having a birth defect, being the result of incest or rape, there may be other circumstances that have been overlooked but I feel that these all are grounds for an abortion.
All around I it's the woman's decision.


Did I make sense? I was thinking too hard for that post.......head hurts must go lay down.

[JeffinDEN]

A good scientist would FIND the evidence....

[Katamarino]

Science can't really explain hell.... that's my opinion. Science can't explain heaven either, and I am sure scientists are more confident in the absense of heaven than hell, due to the fact that a utopia on clouds is hard to miss with today's tech. Unless it is not in our minds way of thinking about location...

You're right, Science cannot explain Hell, but that is because Science cannot work on something where there is a complete vacuum of evidence! It's an analytical subject, not a philosophical one!

[ATLcenter]

The Bible says a lot of things that are never followed these days....

But then again, I used the word Hell as meaning a bad place to go after you die, not neccesarily Satanic Hell, but something that is worse than what you are now.

Science can't really explain hell.... that's my opinion. Science can't explain heaven either, and I am sure scientists are more confident in the absense of heaven than hell, due to the fact that a utopia on clouds is hard to miss with today's tech. Unless it is not in our minds way of thinking about location...

[Katamarino]

Whats the question? If its about whether we go to hell, current scientific evidence suggests that there is no such place. It may be a metaphor for something else, who knows. However, given the delapidation in a persons consciousness when even minor brain damage/oxygen starvation occurs, it seems extremely unlikely that a cohesive entity could carry on into some kind of afterlife.

Did I say you went to Church? I did not. My point about the Bible teaching 'Love Thy Neighbour' and the like still stands...

[JeffinDEN]

Don't spin the question, just answer it.

I never said I went to church..... don't make assumptions you cannot back up. It makes you look more foolish then you already do.

[Katamarino]

And if killing living things is a sin, then we are all damned to hell, aren't we?

Why don't we ask Jess that one? Science can explain it....

Science explain Hell? How, it doesn't seem to exist

There seems to be a fundamental difference between Christians here and in the States. Every Christian I have met here, in church or elsewhere, has been polite and courteous, it seemed to go with the faith! I guess things must be different over there, with people like Jeff snapping at people for made up faults going to Church must be a real hoot!

Goodwill to all men? Love thy neighbour? Being a good Christian Jeff, might want to buck your ideas up if you want to head heavenwards

[JeffinDEN]

And if killing living things is a sin, then we are all damned to hell, aren't we?

Why don't we ask Jess that one? Science can explain it....

[ATLcenter]

Very well,

Give me ten things that a baby remembers when it was five minutes old. Just list ten. I sure as hell don't remember anything.... And if killing living things is a sin, then we are all damned to hell, aren't we?

Also, I don't miss mary joe in LA. I don't know her. Sure, what her husband did was wrong, and he should pay for it, but mary is old. She has a life. A life is more than a heartbeat. The people who are on life support and have been for years are in no way alive. They just disentegate on a hospital bed. The kid that was born five minutes ago in no way has friends, memories, experiences, or anything of the sort. If I died five minutes into life, I would simply return back as another creature/go to heaven.

As for the lady who drowned five babies in her tub, that is unethical because it was not performed by some one of the medical field. the babies did not die with.... how do u say it... in a proper manner. I can't explain it. But then again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here...

And the woman who wants a divorce... divorces are just stupid anyway. Divorces are for people who didnt think through their marriage. they marry thinking that hey, life will be the same forever, yadayadaydaa.... they are stupid in taht way. But killing a middle aged woman for it, one who has lived, that is wrong. killing a baby with five minutes of life is not.

But that's my opinion.