Religious views on abortion

[thomas t]

But what if the 11th does not want to be a slave? If majority wins, and the majority has a relationship with God, then, for what I understand from previous posts, then democratic God will allow that.

ciao

- viole

nowadays it would just stir up confusion about Christianity. So this is a no-go.
We want to win followers, not confusion.
Please read the edited version of my last post.

 

[viole]

nowadays it would just stir up confusion about Christianity. So this is a no-go.
We want to win followers, not confusion.
Please read the edited version of my last post.

Nowadays? That entails that in the past was different.
Is God given morality time or culture dependent?

ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

Nowadays? That entails that in the past was different.
Is God given morality time or culture dependent?

ciao

- viole

Slavery is better than death, for example. God knows this.
Prisoners of war for example would have been dead otherwise, I'm afraid,

 

[McBell]

Slavery is better than death, for example. God knows this.
Prisoners of war for example would have been dead otherwise, I'm afraid,

So god is saying that war prisoners have to choose between slavery or death?

 

[thomas t]

So god is saying that war prisoners have to choose between slavery or death?

no. If the choice is death or slavery, slavery is better.

 

[McBell]

Slavery is better than death, for example. God knows this.
Prisoners of war for example would have been dead otherwise, I'm afraid,

I notice you did not address the question the was flat out asked...

 

[McBell]

no. If the choice is death or slavery, slavery is better.

Except you said that prisoners who did not choose slavery would be dead...

 

[Kooky]

I understand, so to be consistent, if we want to give murderers a chance for realignment, we should also not abort children, and let them fulfill their destiny. Love avoids murder.

Fortunately, children generally cannot be aborted, as they tend to exist outside their mother's wombs.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Fortunately, children generally cannot be aborted, as they tend to exist outside their mother's wombs.

So if a woman is eight months pregnant, we can kill the foetus and it's not a child, but if she gives birth one month early, we cannot kill the baby. That's an odd standard you have.

 

[Kooky]

So if a woman is eight months pregnant, we can kill the foetus and it's not a child, but if she gives birth one month early, we cannot kill the baby. That's an odd standard you have.

Actually, according to my standards, it doesn't matter whether the fetus is killed or not. What matters to me are the wishes of the woman in whose womb that fetus is growing.

I find it irreconcilable with the notion of liberty and bodily autonomy to force a pregnancy on a woman against her wish.

Your standards may differ, but in the end, it comes down to that question: Is it okay to force a pregnancy on a woman despite her wishes, or is it not?

 

[McBell]

So if a woman is eight months pregnant, we can kill the foetus and it's not a child, but if she gives birth one month early, we cannot kill the baby. That's an odd standard you have.

What is odd about it?
How does informing you what the law says on the matter reveal the informers "standards"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, according to my standards, it doesn't matter whether the fetus is killed or not. What matters to me are the wishes of the woman in whose womb that fetus is growing.

I find it irreconcilable with the notion of liberty and bodily autonomy to force a pregnancy on a woman against her wish.

Your standards may differ, but in the end, it comes down to that question: Is it okay to force a pregnancy on a woman despite her wishes, or is it not?

So we have a unique right or liberty that is established by taking the life of another. We deny the child the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By the way, I did say an eight-month-fetus, perfect viable as a baby via natural birth or C-section. How long should we ask the woman to patiently wait before killing the child inside? Can she please wait two hours for a C-section? Autonomy means "selfishness" and that we cannot be inconvenienced even in a minor way for any reason, yes?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is odd about it?
How does informing you what the law says on the matter reveal the informers "standards"?

What is "odd" about slaughtering an eight month old gestated baby? I see your (lack of) standards.

 

[Kooky]

So we have a unique right or liberty that is established by taking the life of another. We deny the child the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No, bodily autonomy is a general right that applies to all human beings. But unborn children are, crucially, not fully human beings - not even to the same extent as born children, let alone adult humans. In this case, a woman's basic human rights trump a fetus's not-quite-human rights.

By the way, I did say an eight-month-fetus, perfect viable as a baby via natural birth or C-section.

If an eight month fetus is "perfect viable as a baby via natural birth or C-section" then there would be no sensible reason to keep it attached to its mother any longer, don't you think?

How long should we ask the woman to patiently wait before killing the child inside? Can she please wait two hours for a C-section? Autonomy means "selfishness" and that we cannot be inconvenienced even in a minor way for any reason, yes?

If you want to make an argument that it is reconcilable with basic human rights to force a C-section on a woman against her will, then be my guest!

So far, no anti-abortion advocate has even dared come forward to make such an argument, let alone make a well-reasoned argument for their core demand of forcing unwanted pregnancies on women. It's always just God this or babies that. Be confident in your own position! If you think God told us to force pregnancies on women, then at least have the honesty to come out and argue the case! I am getting mighty irritated by these weasly, mealy-mouthed half-arguments.

 

[McBell]

What is "odd" about slaughtering an eight month old gestated baby? I see your (lack of) standards.

I see you are not interested in actually addressing the point.
I also see you are more interested in judging others than actually discussing the topic.

So you fly on home and claim your 'victory'.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, bodily autonomy is a general right that applies to all human beings. But unborn children are, crucially, not fully human beings - not even to the same extent as born children, let alone adult humans. In this case, a woman's basic human rights trump a fetus's not-quite-human rights.


If an eight month fetus is "perfect viable as a baby via natural birth or C-section" then there would be no sensible reason to keep it attached to its mother any longer, don't you think?



If you want to make an argument that it is reconcilable with basic human rights to force a C-section on a woman against her will, then be my guest!

So far, no anti-abortion advocate has even dared come forward to make such an argument, let alone make a well-reasoned argument for their core demand of forcing unwanted pregnancies on women. It's always just God this or babies that. Be confident in your own position! If you think God told us to force pregnancies on women, then at least have the honesty to come out and argue the case! I am getting mighty irritated by these weasly, mealy-mouthed half-arguments.

Huh? A woman can be induced at eight months and the baby is as healthy and as much a baby as it was INSIDE the mother. The longer the gestation (until it is overlong) the better the outcome for the baby.

It's not a weasly argument to ask you (again) if ANY length of time SHOULD be forced, for example, if a person (like most at RF including skeptics) are against abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, they are therefore FOR "forcing" responsibility to carry to term for the 25th and 26th week, etc.

I haven't said GOD yet so don't put that added bias on me or on our argument. What I did say was RESPONSIBILITY which all humans have, even secular humans FEEL, in addition to freedom and autonomy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we have a unique right or liberty that is established by taking the life of another. We deny the child the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By the way, I did say an eight-month-fetus, perfect viable as a baby via natural birth or C-section. How long should we ask the woman to patiently wait before killing the child inside? Can she please wait two hours for a C-section? Autonomy means "selfishness" and that we cannot be inconvenienced even in a minor way for any reason, yes?

You keep using poor terminology to invoke an argument from emotions. You also are strawmanning what actually happens.

A couple of questions. First do you realize that late term abortions are very rare?

Second do you realize that almost all late term abortions are done for medical reasons and not for birth control?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see you are not interested in actually addressing the point.
I also see you are more interested in judging others than actually discussing the topic.

So you fly on home and claim your 'victory'.

What I do see is that you used specific word choice to challenge me, and I questioned you Socratically, and being unwilling to be questioned at all, you made the situation a win-lose and Pyhrric victory.

However, if you are responding in anger and hurt because you feel guilt at your former "odd" idea that an eight-month-old fetus isn't a LIVING BABY WITH A SOUL, PRAISE JESUS, that's good.

 

[Kooky]

Huh? A woman can be induced at eight months and the baby is as healthy and as much a baby as it was INSIDE the mother. The longer the gestation (until it is overlong) the better the outcome for the baby.

Then your argument falls apart, since there is a tangible health cost attached to your suggestion of forcing C-sections on unwilling mothers, and the issue becomes moot.

It's not a weasly argument to ask you (again) if ANY length of time SHOULD be forced, for example, if a person (like most at RF including skeptics) are against abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, they are therefore FOR "forcing" responsibility to carry to term for the 25th and 26th week, etc.

I think that should be left to the woman affected by said pregnancy, not a bunch of old men whose investment in the issue stops and ends with their personal conception of abstract ethics. I am not carrying a child to term nor am I involved with a woman who does, so my opinion on the matter of should not be relevant.

My position solely concerns the principal question of whether a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, and I've come down firmly on the side of rejecting such a demand based on principles of personal liberty.

Whether a child should be carried to term or not is a decision to be made by the person whose body and child is on the line, and nobody else. in my opinion.

I haven't said GOD yet so don't put that added bias on me or on our argument. What I did say was RESPONSIBILITY which all humans have, even secular humans FEEL, in addition to freedom and autonomy.

I do not believe that it is my responsibility to force pregnancies on women.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You keep using poor terminology to invoke an argument from emotions. You also are strawmanning what actually happens.

A couple of questions. First do you realize that late term abortions are very rare?

Second do you realize that almost all late term abortions are done for medical reasons and not for birth control?

How about one later term abortion a decade. Is that "okay" for you or not? If not, why not?