TX abortion ban causes more women to nearly bleed to death during miscarriage

What is interesting about your decision to bring CONTROL into this discussion (with all capital letters I might add) is that is actually one of the underlying personality traits and driving motives of many murderers. Many murderers are people who want CONTROL and they are willing to go to great lengths to obtain it. I definitely think that is the case with this issue. And CONTROLLING people do not like it when they are not in CONTROL. That is when they often murder. And they really really don’t like the people who stand between them and the control they desire.

This is slander. Christians were granted the power to vote when the Constitution was written. That is not the unbiblical anti-Christian act you make it out to be. If Jesus was the political ruler of this country He would outlaw abortion. There is no question about that, and Christians do nothing unbiblical by casting their votes to end abortion.

Also the Bible says nothing about independence being the key characteristic that makes abortion intolerable. In fact sins that prey on the weak and defenseless increase the severity of the evil involved in the act. What the Bible cares about, specifically when it comes to the subject of murder, is being made in God’s image, which all human beings are including the unborn.

Let it be noted that this is an argument that appeals to CONTROL, which you have accused Christians of sinfully seeking. Seeking the approval of man over the approval of God is sin, so this argument does not do anything for me or concern me in the least because what is relevant or popular is not always right.

God is in control not us. God commands, and we do what He commands. Then we trust God with the results. Christianity will survive. It seems to spread most when it sees the fiercest opposition. I am not at all worried about Christianity’s decline. In fact God and those who obey Him cannot lose, not in eternity, and all things work for the good of those who love God. And the reverse is true as well. Those who stiffen their necks in pride and rebellion against God cannot win, not in eternity because God is in control.

Nope…you need to go back and study the history of the separation of church and state. You have wildly distorted the concept, which prevents the establishment of a state religion. Banning murder does not establish a state religion any more than banning theft does. Islam does not get a murder exception and neither does western moral nihilism.

I am sympathetic to this critique of a Trump 2.0 Presidency. I would prefer Trump use the legislative branch more to accomplish his agenda.

Religion is constrained by fundamental human morality. Religions that teach things like murder and theft should be prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows.

I am not trying to overturn anything. Birthright citizenship is not a staple moral issue, though. It is a constitutional issue, and I’ll let the Constitutional experts hammer that one out.

You clearly reject the Bible as a source of moral truth. That is what binds the rest of this incoherence together. And yes it is incoherent because you can’t deny God, then also argue on the basis of God’s standards of morality simultaneously. That is having your cake and eating it too. So it needs to be asked…If you reject the Bible as your standard of moral truth, then by what standard do you know any one of these things you find morally reprehensible are wrong?

 

3 May the Lord cut off all flattering lips,
the tongue that makes great boasts,
4 those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail,
our lips are with us; who is master over us?”

-Psalms 12:3-4​

 

Tell us more about your personal journey becoming an Al-Qaeda.

 

You are the one that is picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible without knowing why. But instead because it is what you want. Which is the definition of a “lazy mind” as you put it ironically.

It is hard to debate when one refuses to offer their thoughts. And civil law is based off of moral law. There really is no debate on that. But if you are a true atheist. You certainly have more faith than I. And have no reason to follow civil law.

 

God’s revealed Word is the standard by which murder is defined. If you reject God’s revealed Word, though, then by what standard do you know murder to be wrong?

 

I had to take some time to read that bill. Whenever you put any restraints on a medical professional who has to make a split second decision what action to take to save a patient's life, you interrupt and delay that decision. Add to that the section where anyone can sue anyone else for even helping a patient receive a needed abortion, you add more situations where the doctor could be held liable.

To muddy the waters even more, section 171.207 goes on and on offering examples of non viable defenses for performing, allowing, or helping a patient receive an abortion, including the patient themselves giving consent.

I see that one section you keep referring to that states that if a woman's health is at risk, it is allowed. It then goes on to a bit vague about what the doctor has to do by law to not be held in violation of the law.

I can see why doctors are hesitant to perform an abortion util a woman is in distress. The problem is that in many of those situations, waiting is too late. The numbers don't lie, Tx has more women bleeding to death because of this law.

 

It is extremely ignorant.

You don't believe in gay marriage? Don't be in a gay marriage. It's ignorant to believe and expect everyone to live your life.

Some facts:

Gay is not a lifestyle
Gay is not an ideology

Stay out of everyone else's bedrooms.

 

171.205 clearly gives a doctor every ability to perform an abortion without question if the mothers life is at risk. It is clear!

There is a reason we only get stories. Doctors saying they are confused do not want to go to court and have to admit they did not provide care they were allowed to provide.

 

Only get stories of actual people suffering or dying. That's not enough for you? What more evidence do you need?

 

Not ignorant at all. It is actually a compelling argument for Christianity. With some deep stuff to think about and learn.

 

You don't need a deity to have morals. The same lessons you can find in the Bible still make sense without the supernatural. Just like Thomas Jefferson did when he wrote his "Bible", using sound reasoning and logic, man can come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and society as a whole is better for all if and when murder is outlawed. The alternative is potential anarchy, and you don't need a deity to see what man can accomplish within the boundaries of a society with laws versus what gets destroyed when then are no laws.

Back to the topic at hand. If we were to examine the issue of rising maternal mortality in rates with no bias, we would see a few, cold, hard truths. One, maternal mortality rates in Texas were in line with the rest of the industrialized world before the law change. Two, maternal morality rates in Texas rose exponentially after the law changed in Texas. Three, no other areas in the industrialized world saw maternal mortality rates rise like it did in Texas. If you were an investigator looking into the cause of maternal mortality rates rising in Texas, what is the first thing you would look at? The law.

To further the point, we have "stories" of actual women in distress who cannot get an abortion in Texas. I know they are only "stories," but these are real people, with real stories to tell. Like Ms. Cox, who couldn't get a medically necessary abortion in Texas, so she traveled to New Mexico to get the procedure. And the law and Texas Supreme Court ruling stopped her from getting the abortion in Texas. Or the story of Josseli Barnica, from Houston, who the doctors told her husband they had to wait before they could do anything because of the fetal heartbeat. And in the end, she died from complications because the doctors waited...because of the law.

 

I don't recall God revealing that its Christian to kill people in a war or in self-defense (or what instances its ok to kill or take life period), seems like these things were rationalized or refined as Christianity became entwined with social norms, governments and state ideologies. Cant have a state religion that says you cant have an army or use violence to keep order! No reason abortion couldn't be similarly rationalized by Christians like they have so many other things. Plenty of Christians have taken the commandments and "turn the other cheek" to mean even violent self-defense is against God's teachings. There is no universal standard at all for what constitutes murder or acceptable violence in Christianity.

Seems absurd to me that God would countenance dropping a nuclear bomb on a city full of people, but a woman having abortion is a murder. That would be frankly ridiculous and self-serving for someone to believe IMO.

 

Gay is most definitely a lifestyle.

Not necessarily an ideology, but to the militant pro-homo in your face proponent activist, it pretty much is.

....and it becomes particularly radioactive and toxic, when they demand the right--as a fundamental right-- to seek to market their perverted ideology, to innocent kids...

...even more so still, when they seek to circumvent the parents, and their natural rights v/v theie own kids.

 

So in turn that would mean being straight is also a lifestyle and pseudo-ideology, and militant Christian activists make it radioactive and toxic, and demand their right to pervert their religion to control people, and indoctrinate their children? Afraid of the competition?

 

On one level I agree with your first sentence in the sense that people can believe in morals without believing in a deity. However, on another level, I find the statement problematic because not all beliefs are necessarily true and grounded in reality. You could have morals, but how do you know if those morals are real or if they are just delusions created by chemical reactions in your brain? For morality to functionally operate in the way you need it to, it must possess certain properties. Morality must be real. It also must be universal. It also must be not based on cultural relativism because you obviously are critiquing a culture in the state of Texas that has autonomously decided to enforce its societal morals. So how do you explain the existence of a real universal non-physical moral law that is not grounded in culture without God?

 

Religious morality is based on cultural relativism. Slavery was once moral in the eyes of Christians, and the Bible even gives advice on how Christians should treat their slaves. Today, slavery would be denounced by just about every Christian out there. What changed?

Abortion was also once acceptable to Christians. The first anti-abortion laws in the US weren't written until the mid-1800s, and before that point, it was legal and acceptable to have an abortion before the "quickening," which is generally when a woman feels the first fetal movement. What changed to make abortion in any/all conditions to be considered immoral?

Racism is yet another topic that was once considered moral, and the mixing of races to be immoral to Christians. Yet today, only a small minority feel this way. Again, I ask, what changed?

Morality has always been relative. Even with religion involved.

 

Seriously? You didn't see the correlation?

I am curious, what made you choose heterosexuality over homosexuality. That is as your lifestyle.

 

All this pearl clutching over law abiding contributing citizens makes me laugh. I know a couple who are swingers. A man married to a woman. I think sexuality is more fluid than you straight laced "christians" think it is.

 

But there is much more to that bill than just that one section. So you agree that being sued or worse is making these doctors hesitant.

 

It has nothing to do with the Texas Law. It is clear!