[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Oh of course, I thought you already knew. Romans 1:26-27
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

They need support through Jesus, who did not affirm any LGBTQ+-/# sexual immorality. Sinners need to be pointed towards God's renewal and reconciliation through Jesus, not affirmed in their feelings.

I don't see a reason a mother can abort before there is a real risk to her life. Even when there is a real risk to her life, it isn't an abortion if the doctors are trying to save both lives. If death still comes out of that circumstance, then at least we tried to save both lives.

IVF creates human life before they are placed in the mother. How many embryos do they have to make before one can go to the mother? The rest get trashed. IVF creates way more death than it supports life. Yes phased out, then criminalized.

Yep sure is. 817 women died in childbirth in 2022. 930,000 + babies were killed in 2022. Maternal deaths are unfortunate, but the data shows that good healthcare prevents death whereas an abortion guarantees a death.

I have, and that is why I realize I need a savior from my sins. You can come to realize it too if you want.

That doesn't make me wrong about this.

Should every women therefore kill their child? Can a mother in postpartum kill their child? Of course not. You want to say that because there is a .02% chance of dying in childbirth, that every mother should have the right to kill their baby to ensure the baby doesn't kill them?

Great! It is the reason why there are any morals at all in the world. Even the morals you claim to stand on have to have a standard outside humankind. The fact that most of human kind is aligned in these morals points to a moral law giver. Therefore, a god must exist that has a moral standard.

Ahh good point. Two things, there is a potential there life has already begun, therefore, you shouldn't do it, but I understand the gray area here. Second, even if there is no life, there is still the question of motive. Even accidentally killing someone is still 3rd degree murder.

We both know that every human life has a single point in time when it begins. Even if you don't know when that happens, it is still a human life.

I'll be honest, I'm getting lost in some of the threads. You are correct that a woman carries a much more physical burden for child bearing. I watched my wife go through it. I don't see the threatening point though. It seems that every woman should get abortion because her life is threatened.

I think abortions do affect fathers. They are liable to regret and loss as well. Another anology, women don't have to sign up for the draft but they can still have an opinion about it.

I still take the stance that the right of life extends to conception because all humans deserve it regardless of development. Viability doesn't determine rights, but I know we have gone around that road already.

I think we can agree on that one aspect. I wouldn't consider life of the mother or non viability an abortion though as long as you tried to save both lives. So abortions should be banned at least after 22 weeks (I think earlier). However, abortions after that point still happen even though rarely.

Well, we all adhere to the law in this country, and everyone debates what that should be. Why shouldn't we debate and make laws about this? I think that is what this discussion has been doing and i appreciate that very much.

I did know that. I would say in a pregnancy, you have a very high chance of happy mother and child, there is no reason to intentionally kill your baby. Deciding to take someone off life support is different because you are not sure of a good outcome and they die naturally, not intentionally.