It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, so the person claim was just you interpretation, not something that Bible says. But, that scripture is interesting, because I understand it means, if one causes miscarriage, he should be punished.

God causes miscarriage, so He should be punished.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By what I know, many who lose baby that they wanted get upset. But, I can believe you would not. It is interesting that pro death group don't seem to understand that all arguments they use against the young children could be used as well against them.

Naughty. It can easily be shown that the antichoice people are more prodeath than those for abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so the person claim was just you interpretation, not something that Bible says. But, that scripture is interesting, because I understand it means, if one causes miscarriage, he should be punished.

No, it was a general change in. translations. That is why there was a general challenge to find pre-1970 translations. I remembered that my old Bible had that sort of translation but could not find it. But when the very antichoice Catholics had that translation we know I was not making things up.

 

[viole]

I would support forced sterilization for both the mother and the father after two unwanted pregnancies, live births, or abortions, since they and their parents aren’t taking any responsibility on their own.

That sounds a bit extreme. And irreversible. It could be that people, as they grow older and more mature, might get into having a child. So, either they will, or they will not. If they will not, you are doing them a favor by sterilization, if they will, then you are blocking the manufacturing of new immortal souls. And, I mean, what is the problem in terminating a human embryo that hasn’t developed a nervous system, yet?

and there are other scenarios, too.

my friend, for instance, aborted a few times because the embryo has been screened for genetic defects. Why would you deprive her from having a healthy child?

or do you think she should have allow the birth of a baby with severe genetic problems? I hope not, because that would be morally problematic. Actually, it would be utterly cruel. It would involve hopelessly physical suffering for a child with a nervous system to feel it, vs, its termination before if it even know it exists.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Pro-life doesn't mean we don't take a woman's health into consideration. On the contrary, are are also Pro-health. If there is a complication and an abortion is necessary - we choose life even when a death needs to happen in the process. If both can be saved, all the better but there are situations that doesn't make it possible.

What about the baby health? Suppose, a screening tell you that child will be born with half a brain. A demented vegetable until its short life terminates naturally, possibly with a lot of pointless suffering associated. In general: with genetic diseases that guarantee a very short and painful life.

Would you allow termination, while the embryo cannot possibly feel it even started to exist, in those cases? Or would you rather allow it to go through a very painful and short life? Short, if it is lucky.

What about pregnancy induced by rape? Would you force the girl to go through that additional ordeal, too?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

God gave the wicked in Noah’s days a few hundred years to change their ways or be destroyed, but they did not. How many years does a pro-abortion/pro-killing mother-to-be give her innocent unborn baby to live before destroying it? Don’t even try to compare God and the flood to women who have abortions, it won’t work.

Of course it does. It shows God’s killed virtually all people, women, children, the elderly, pets, for nothing worth of mention. A sort of Metaphysical Putin.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Your point was that God in purpose caused the dead of unborn children with the flood.

Your point is invalid since people received a 120 years warning.

An offer they could not refuse.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The angel and God never referred a pregnancy as an "it" or

I think it is obvious that children, and single cellular humans, are two completely different things. Anti abortionists like to call them both child, in the pathetic attempt to make us believe they are subject to the same moral considerations. They are not.

and it is easy to see that. Let’s make a small gedanken experiment. What follows is two different renditions from an imaginary TV show of the same event involving children, as you call them.

1) the criminal is surrounded by the police, in a desperate attempt to escape, he grabs a three years old girl, points a gun to her head and screams: “either you bring me a car, or I will shoot the child!!!”

2) the criminal is surrounded by the police, in a desperate attempt to escape, he grabs a petri dish from the fridge, containing a viable human embryo consisting of a few cells, points a gun to the dish and screams: “either you bring me a car, or I will shoot the child!!!”

now, do you think the police would be terrified in both cases, or would you find it surprising if it is terrified in the first case, and just laugh out loud in the second?

ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

What about the baby health? Suppose, a screening tell you that child will be born with half a brain. A demented vegetable until its short life terminates naturally, possibly with a lot of pointless suffering associated. In general: with genetic diseases that guarantee a very short and painful life.

Would you allow termination, while the embryo cannot possibly feel it even started to exist, in those cases? Or would you rather allow it to go through a very painful and short life? Short, if it is lucky.

What about pregnancy induced by rape? Would you force the girl to go through that additional ordeal, too?

ciao

- viole

Trying to create a scenario to validate a position and then to use it as a broad brush to let it be applied to everyone isn't a correct process.

For the record, half a brain won't keep a body alive.

 

[Kenny]

I think it is obvious that children, and single cellular humans, are two completely different things. Anti abortionists like to call them both child, in the pathetic attempt to make us believe they are subject to the same moral considerations. They are not.

and it is easy to see that. Let’s make a small gedanken experiment. What follows is two different renditions from an imaginary TV show of the same event involving children, as you call them.

1) the criminal is surrounded by the police, in a desperate attempt to escape, he grabs a three years old girl, points a gun to her head and screams: “either you bring me a car, or I will shoot the child!!!”

2) the criminal is surrounded by the police, in a desperate attempt to escape, he grabs a petri dish from the fridge, containing a viable human embryo consisting of a few cells, points a gun to the dish and screams: “either you bring me a car, or I will shoot the child!!!”

now, do you think the police would be terrified in both cases, or would you find it surprising if it is terrified in the first case, and just laugh out loud in the second?

ciao

- viole

The problem here is that you are making a decision based on lack of knowledge.

A bigger question is when does the soul actually enter into a child.

Is there such a thing as a SINGULAR cell human?

And why are people playing with a human in a petri dish? Next thing you will be doing is experimenting on 6 months gestation of children.

 

[1213]

God causes miscarriage, so He should be punished.

No, even if God would do that, He has the right, because He is the one who gives the life. He has the right to decide how long life He gives. (Humans don't give life, they give birth, if God allows it).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trying to create a scenario to validate a position and then to use it as a broad brush to let it be applied to everyone isn't a correct process.

For the record, half a brain won't keep a body alive.

Well, there are cases today where you can give a birth to a baby, which if nursed and kept alive can live a long life and die of old age, while apparently being in near constant pain.

So here is how you do it.
You don't consider all fetus alike for all pregnancies and you don't make an universal pro-life or pro-choice.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...2/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_0_0.png?w=640

So I can argue against both cases of universal and indeed my position is not even present in that study.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, even if God would do that, He has the right, because He is the one who gives the life. He has the right to decide how long life He gives. (Humans don't give life, they give birth, if God allows it).

So what happens to that dead unborn baby, which God kills?

 

[Kenny]

Well, there are cases today where you can give a birth to a baby, which if nursed and kept alive can live a long life and die of old age, while apparently being in near constant pain.

So here is how you do it.
You don't consider all fetus alike for all pregnancies and you don't make an universal pro-life or pro-choice.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...2/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_0_0.png?w=640

So I can argue against both cases of universal and indeed my position is not even present in that study.

Probably a very good poll... for me it is a thermometer of the tenderness/hardness of people's hearts.

 

[viole]

The problem here is that you are making a decision based on lack of knowledge.

A bigger question is when does the soul actually enter into a child.

Are you depriving women their right of choose because you are not sure when the soul enters the body? You see, that is why atheists are so vocal about God, even though they do not believe it. Because of theists trying to influence our life on account of things a plausible as Pinocchio, like souls, spirits, and other imaginary things. So, if you want make a case against abortion, try please to use secular arguments. For, I am sure you would also disapprove things like female genital mutilation on the sole account of beliefs in the competition.

Anyway, who cares when the souls enter? And where were those souls. Parked somewhere waiting for a host?

The sooner, the better. By aborting their host you can only make them a favour. For, where will those souls go? Where will they go, basically risk free? I think that aborting their host, is the best thing that can happen to them.

Is there such a thing as a SINGULAR cell human?

Well, a few cells, then. Let's say, a one hour old embryo.

And why are people playing with a human in a petri dish? Next thing you will be doing is experimenting on 6 months gestation of children.

Why not? Are you against that, too? Research, helping barren women to get a child, whatever. Embryonical research is very promising.

So, are those Petri cells subject to the same exact moral considerations as a three years old girl?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Trying to create a scenario to validate a position and then to use it as a broad brush to let it be applied to everyone isn't a correct process.

For the record, half a brain won't keep a body alive.

Ok, then take the smallest brain deformation that can still allow for basic life functions and no more than that. You know what I mean.
Wouldn't you allow aborting that on time, knowing that it would turn like that?

That is just an example. That are plenty of terrible genetic diseases that cause a miserable, painful and short life to whomever is unlucky enough to get them.

I claim it is a moral imperative to terminate those individuals before they become aware of their misery and pain. Wouldn't you agree?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Heyo]

For the record, half a brain won't keep a body alive.

Wrong.

What Happened to People With Half a Brain Removed

 

[Kenny]

Are you depriving women their right of choose because you are not sure when the soul enters the body? You see, that is why atheists are so vocal about God, even though they do not believe it. Because of theists trying to influence our life on account of things a plausible as Pinocchio, like souls, spirits, and other imaginary things. So, if you want make a case against abortion, try please to use secular arguments. For, I am sure you would also disapprove things like female genital mutilation on the sole account of beliefs in the competition.

Anyway, who cares when the souls enter? And where were those souls. Parked somewhere waiting for a host?

The sooner, the better. By aborting their host you can only make them a favour. For, where will those souls go? Where will they go, basically risk free? I think that aborting their host, is the best thing that can happen to them.

First of all, the issue here, and has been, who has the right. Does a baby have the right to live or does the mother have the right to terminate the life. (That being said, God loves both baby and mother and His mercy is for all). In our faith, He paid the price for forgiveness.

As far as "influencing our lives", every law influences life. Usually the issue is "as long as it doesn't influence mine, i'm happy", and that is the approach most people have.

Secular argument... It has a different brain wave length, it has a different blood type, it has a different fingerprint, it has a different heart-beat, ergo a different person. (( have mentioned that before but I know it is hard to keep up with all the posts.

Well, a few cells, then. Let's say, a one hour old embryo.

and?

Why not? Are you against that, too? Research, helping barren women to get a child, whatever. Embryonical research is very promising.

So, are those Petri cells subject to the same exact moral considerations as a three years old girl?

Ciao

- viole

why not experiment with your life?

 

[Kenny]

Ok, then take the smallest brain deformation that can still allow for basic life functions and no more than that. You know what I mean.
Wouldn't you allow aborting that on time, knowing that it would turn like that?

That is just an example. That are plenty of terrible genetic diseases that cause a miserable, painful and short life to whomever is unlucky enough to get them.

I claim it is a moral imperative to terminate those individuals before they become aware of their misery and pain. Wouldn't you agree?

Ciao

- viole

Eugenics?

I have more respect to life than that.

I noticed you didn't add "improve science to make the child whole". Why?
Or ask a mom whose child had a short life and tell her, "you shouldn't have had the baby". I can assure you that historical evidence say they were happy to have the baby even if it was 5 days.
Or tell a mentally handicapped child, "Isn't a shame you weren't aborted?" Or ask him "are you glad you are alive""

As horrible as it may be, let's help those people.

 

[Kenny]

Wrong.

What Happened to People With Half a Brain Removed

OK... then, as you can probably determine, they are happy they are alive