u/Mikeality

I made this comment in a thread, but I've wanted to make it its own post to get a larger discussion going.

I've been struggling with this topic lately. That is, finding where exactly the line of enough risk to allow abortion. It seems most pro life people understand there comes a point where an abortion is reasonable. That was always my view, but it's easy enough to just say "when the mother's life is in danger," but apparently, the actual details of that are far more complex than I first thought.

To summarize a lot of what I've been hearing, accurate predictions in terms of percentages in medicine seem very arbitrary. This makes it practically impossible to put thresholds into law. It ends up setting up a lot of red tape, which causes hesitation and cause complications. It gets even trickier if you're factoring in pre emptive care. A woman may show symptoms that have a slight chance of escalating, but if they do, both her and her child would be at extreme risk very quickly. At what point can you say a scenario is dangerous enough to warrant an abortion? Especially if the signs were there before any danger, but once the danger is there, some degree of damage which could have been avoided will take place, even in the best case by that point.

Then, I thought a general symptoms based solution could work. That is, any degree of symptoms is considered reasonable enough. The only problem is that with this broad of criteria, just about any pregnancy could qualify for abortion. It would solve allowing for healthcare when needed, but we'd basically have total unrestricted abortion which is too much for most of us pro life to accept.

I'm honestly not sure how this can be resolved, legally. Assuming doctors and pregnant women are operating in good faith, I want to just trust a doctor's word when that point is reached, case by case. But we all know that in practice, some doctors wouldn't care about pro life incentives and offer abortions to anyone who wants one for any arbitrary reason. It seems like an all-out ban would be the only way to satisfy pro life in any capacity, but that's way too extreme.

I've come to equate abortion to killing, not necessarily murder. It will always be tragic to a degree, given that the baby will always be innocent. The only way it truly wouldn't be murder is if, in the hearts of the mother and doctor, they truly believe it's medically necessary. If that's not the case, it's between them and God. I want to be able to do more, somehow. But it's not always our place to take extreme measures. It would not be reasonable to slaughter everyone who vaguely resembles a suspected murderer on the loose. At the end of the day, how can "healthy enough to safely have go through pregnancy" actually be expressed in law without doing just as much harm in another way?

Thomas got Ramah killed. As a crowd devolved into a riot, he grabbed her by the hand and walked right in front of the crazy Roman swinging a sword around. There's no way he didn't see him and could have easily walked literally in any other direction.

While Kafni's overall reaction was overboard, he did have a point. Thomas had a degree of responsibility to protect Ramah, and he completed whiffed it when it mattered. Especially given that this wasn't him vaguely lowering his guard. No, his actions directly made the situation more dangerous for her. It was so bad it's at the level rolling a nat 1 in DnD.

For the sake of the discussion, let's forget existing laws and definitions for a moment. The goal here is to start fresh and talk about how things should be, not how they are.

One of the big reasons for pro choice is for situations where there's a medical emergency and the mother needs treatment, but anti abortion laws could potentially cause doctors to hesitate and risk the life of the mother and even the ZEF.

I believe a simple solution would be to explicitly remove these scenarios from abortion entirely. That way, even the harshest anti abortion laws in a local area would not apply.

I wanted to ask this here because the way I see it, this could be a win-win for both sides. For PC, it directly addresses this common scenario, which is often brought up. For PL, all but the most extreme will concede that this is a reasonable scenario where termination can make sense. By making this exception clear, it could allow for the exception clearly without opening the door to abortion entirely.

Now, I understand a lot of this would come down to the details of the legalese used in the law, at what level it applies (federal vs local) etc. I am not a lawyer, so personally, I don't want to get into the weeds of that. But anyone more knowledgeable can chime in, of course.

What I want to focus on is the spirit of the law. The general goal is clear by now. Exceptions for medical emergencies. As a PL, what I'd also like to see is that any medical scenario is not a ticket for an abortion. Only that if the mother requires treatment, which may endanger the ZEF, that she is allowed to receive it, and all care is given to save the ZEF if possible. But if nothing can be done to save it, and not taking action would result in death or extreme harm, then the doctor and mother wouldn't have to face any punishment for the treatment needed.

What do you all think?

This has to be the intention of naming him, Judd, right? I keep giggling everytime I hear it hahaha

I just heard about this app. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are. I did search for existing threads, and there are plenty. Most seem to be asking from a position of getting their 608. But my case is a bit different.

I already have my 608, and I've got about 3 years of experience. I work with my dad, and we have a small residential company, so most certs don't really matter for me in terms of pure career growth. I'd be approaching this in terms of pure knowledge growth. Is this worth doing over just watching AC service tech on YouTube?

I'm talking Luke 3:23, Mathew 1:1, Genesis 5:1, etc.

I won't lie. My mind goes kind of numb during these parts. I understand this information can be relevant for deeper research. I'm just simply reading through, though.

Out of respect, I want to grind through and read it anyway. But I'm honestly tempted to just skip these. I know many people often say that simply reading the Bible is a way for God to talk to us. I understand that, I believe I feel it when reading some parts.

This all has me wondering if anyone has gotten this, or even anything, really, when reading these long lists of old names. For anyone falling short of multiple hours of theological research a day, are these parts just not relevant for us? I don't think they need to be, this may simply be the domain of monks. I'm honestly just curious if anyone felt something personal or knows of someone who did.