Unless you think that this was also the justification from the Holocaust, this is a sidetrack from what I was trying to find out from @allright .That everyone is entitled to irresponsible sex, not just men.
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unless you think that this was also the justification from the Holocaust, this is a sidetrack from what I was trying to find out from @allright .That everyone is entitled to irresponsible sex, not just men.
Tom
Yeah actually it really is.No, it really isnt.
You asked a question and I answered it.Unless you think that this was also the justification from the Holocaust, this is a sidetrack from what I was trying to find out from @allright .
You gotta be super precise with baby killers, or they'll drag you down a semantic rabbit hole.I said once conception starts, I disagree with abortion.
My post was a year old. Time flies.
I said once conception starts, I disagree with abortion.
It is subjective. Abortion argumente are usually based on peoples morals of right snd wrong. For example, some consider late abortions alright but not early ones. Its like you have to wait for you to "see" life before using morality such as when to apply the law ln whether and when an child should live.
If someone killed someone else as an adult, they still killed and the other is dead. It doesnt matter why, who, when, and where. Doesnt matter if its a child, adult, senior. The point of when someone is growing at conception to their last breathe is all life.
Morally, what do you based life on?
If science says that killing is alright in self defense does it still make right regardless of how the method of death is defined?
I agree with a lot of things with the church based on its reasoning not my own.
Let me ask. Is murder okay if it were a child, adult, senior, rapist, priest, a judge, trump, and so forth?
Which taking a life is more justified morally? (Not legally. That depends on country)
Both are life. Goes back to my question above. Rape doesn't justify the death of a person.
Even if death can be justified, there is no "eye for an eye" scenario. Foetus gets free pass.
You gotta be super precise with baby killers, or they'll drag you down a semantic rabbit hole.
You answered a question not directed to you without understanding the context.You asked a question and I answered it.
Like I saidTechnically a foetus isn't a baby until it's born
You should go through a few more posts before you commit., I'm nominating this for the 'Most Loaded Post of the Year' award.
I answered the question you actually asked.ou answered a question not directed to you without understanding the context.
Still drinking that strawman Kool-Aid.You really don't see how you failed epically here?
Let me rephrase your question a bit.
"Until you prove that it is a 'human' life the burden of proof is upon those who oppose slavery."
Now do you get it?
Tom
The depth of your understanding and the power of your logic is an inspiration to us all.Still drinking that strawman Kool-Aid.
Is that an ad hominem and an equivocation rolled into one?You asked a question and I answered it.
I do think that is the main reason for feticide rights. So that women can walk away from, and sweep under the rug, the results of irresponsible sex the way men are accustomed to doing.
Tom
No.Is that an ad hominem and an equivocation rolled into one?
I would like to see it done differently as well. It's a complex problem, not well served by the numskulls who run the government.The main argument for "feticide rights" is that it is not something that should be regulated by the government.
How is this a reason to not allow abortion?
The presence of certain biochemical functions & reactions. Which means a sperm cell & egg cell are alive so not sure why you think 'life begins at conception'.
Considering science doesn't deal with moral questions this is never likely to come up.
Is that supposed to make your position sound more reasonable? Because it has precisely the opposite affect.
The only killing I'd do is by automatic self-defense. That doesn't change my morals. It's still wrong. Our body has a fight or flight response that supersedes our morals until we can either stop it in its tracks or moralize it after the act. Many women who have abortions (say my mother) have harsh reactions after taking their child's life. Why would they if they were comfortable with taking a child just as you throw something away when you found its not useful anymore or can't return it.It would really depend on the context. Dealing in absolutes is very simplistic. If I were about to be raped and you had the power to end the rapist's life before they committed the act (there's no other way to stop the rape) you'd be committing an immoral act either way:
- If you kill my would-be rapist you'd be ending a life but sparing me from further physical & mental harm;
- If you don't kill my rapist you're allowing him to commit an immoral act and also committing one yourself by refusing to save me from physical & mental harm;
How would you act here since you consider both my life and the life of this rapist to be of equal value in this hypothetical scenario?
A foetus isn't a person though. It has to be born first.
And so you're willing to subject the mother to months if not years of physical & mental trauma dealing not only with the pregnancy but with potentially raising the child and being reminded of rape every time she sees, hears or thinks of the child. This assumes, of course, that the mother survives both pregnancy & birth. Savita Halappanavar's doctors took the reasoning that 'both mother and foetus have an equal right to life' and she died an entirely preventable death because of it.
If you believe life begins at conception why will you defend the foetus' life but not the mother's? The 'pro-life' position results in a surprisingly large amount of preventable deaths and displays a surprisingly large amount of contempt for living, breathing people.
Technically a foetus isn't a baby until it's born
Seriously though, I'm nominating this for the 'Most Loaded Post of the Year' award.
You gotta be super precise with baby killers, or they'll drag you down a semantic rabbit hole.
Conception is very brief, the merging of two haploid cells to form a new human being. It's the pregnancy that takes most of the time.
Tom
Hmmm, except irresponsible is very much a value judgment that was not substantiated. Really what you are suggesting is that it is irresponsible to choose abortion. Perhaps if you actually articulated your full argument you could see where the equivocation and ad hominem are.No.
It's an answer to the question, exactly as asked. Followed up with my explanation for why feticide rights people don't get simple things like elementary biology.
I would like to see it done differently as well. It's a complex problem, not well served by the numskulls who run the government.
But frankly, I am not too impressed with the people who don't understand the science either.
I have actually had posters on RF question whether a fetus is alive.
Tom
It's not all that complex.You conceived. You grow. You born. You live. You age. You die.
It's rather like driving a car.m, except irresponsible is very much a value judgment that was not substantiated.
The depth of your understanding and the power of your logic is an inspiration to us all.
Doubtless.
Tom
Good., I do understand elementary biology a
It's rather like driving a car.
If you can't take responsibility for the possible outcome of causing harm, then driving is irresponsible.
Same with sex. If having potentially fertile sex, while in a situation where you'd rather kill your offspring than provide the most basic needs, you are behaving irresponsibly.
Tom