• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You must have missed my entire point. Both you and I believe that to kill a child one second after birth is murder. Now from that point backwards tell me exactly when that child becomes a biological mass (BTW comparing a human life to cancer is abhorrent). No matter where you draw that arbitrary line it is based in ambiguous ignorance. Since no one can possibly know where the line between murder and permitted should be drawn my side is erring on the side of life, and your side on death. One side is selfishly arrogant and the other admits their ignorance and does not kill a human life as a result of it. If Women do not wish to breed I know of an absolutely certain method of contraception, and it will never require the death of the innocent for the guilt of another, and the lifelong depression and mental problems abortion produce in tens of thousands of cases. BTW I am all for contraception but that is another topic. It is a sad commentary on secularism when the destruction of human like is not considered immoral but even a sacred right. I hope that big spaceship the nation of Islam believes in or Calgon, comes soon.

Anyone who took your position and applied it consistently would never try to have a baby at all.

Any pregnancy carries with it a huge chance of miscarriage. What responsible person would take a course of action that had a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance of ending in a child's death unless they absolutely had to?

If personhood begins at conception, then trying to conceive is dangerously reckless.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
There is no clear line and no exact point. Only religious people operate in absolutes.
That is not true thought even if it was is it anything but a compliment. Truth is exclusive therefor religious views should be as well. Is not the intentional killing of a 1 day old infinite (as even secular people believe, at least for now) also an absolute. That is just two of the many ways your claim here is inaccurate. Baha'i for example is a religion that believes all religions are true. Anyway my side is the one that admits the ignorance inherent to the issue and errs for life. Your side is the one that either claims to know what it can't, establishes life and death lines based on that which it can't know, and declares murder before that arbitrary unknown point ok,, and errs on the side of death. Until someone knows where this imaginary boundary is that is indefensible.

Just as there is no exact point in the evolution of human beings when you could say that "THERE! Now they are homo sapiens and a different species than they were yesterday", there is no clear line in the development of a fetus.
Whatever took place in evolution at the time the first human appeared is also unknown as you admit. If we had to make life and death decision based on that point then I would also err on the side of life and not omnisciently claim I know where any line is. Your side must know where the line is and can't, mine allows for that ignorance. On a side note Adam is believed to be the first primate with a soul even if humans lived before him.

This is what makes it a difficult moral and ethical judgment. 1 day before birth it would of course be child murder to abort it, 1 day after conception it would of course not be murder to abort it. And between those two points there's just a lot of gray shades and not a clear line.
That is not true. One day before would be murder however one day after conception is no less murder unless you redefine the term by some arbitrary means. It is the taking of human life even at that point. However we are discussing lines as they exist and they exist a long time after conception. Why? Who redefined murder to be that exact time? Why is it only murder if pain can be felt? Why is it only murder if consciousness exists? Redefining murder by arbitrary means makes nothing less or more moral. I could say it isn't murder until puberty if I wished but that has no effect on whether it actually is. This is why untethering morality from it's transcendent foundations is so dangerous as it then can be tethered to anywhere a fallible, corrupt, and finite wishes to for convenience. It is no longer moral at that point.

I do see your point that one should then play it safe and forbid abortion at any stage, but the problem with this approach is that people will find other ways to terminate the pregnancy if it is really not a wanted child at that point.And that may be less humane and less controlled and we're back to visiting the old hag in the forest for a secret remedy against this unwanted pregnancy.
That is like saying that if you do not declare bestiality legal those that practice it might rob someone. There are tens of thousands (probably tens of millions) of women who had an abortion who regret it and are suffering for their decision so there is a far greater cost by allowing it than not, however we do not legalize cocaine because they will make it by other means if we do. This is a rationalization not an argument.


It's like alcohol. If you draw an absolute zero-tolerance line, people will find ways to do it anyway, but then you have no control at all. It is better to have moderate control and allow some of it, than to lose control over the issue altogether.
Your rationalizing again. That was not the reason alcohol was made illegal or made legal again. By your rationale we could not make anything illegal if even the potential for it being done in other ways existed. Maybe we should legalize murder because a few of them might burn down a forest instead. Things are wrong or right regardless of their solutions.



By what standard are we better off in 2010 than in just 1965?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Anyone who took your position and applied it consistently would never try to have a baby at all.

Any pregnancy carries with it a huge chance of miscarriage. What responsible person would take a course of action that had a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance of ending in a child's death unless they absolutely had to?
Oh come off it. I told the other poster that they were rationalizing but you are off the chart. The accidental death of a fetus is not the moral responsibility of the Mother. The intentional taking on innocent human life is.

If personhood begins at conception, then trying to conceive is dangerously reckless.
The logic or lack there of in your reasoning baffles me. If you practiced my view the human race would be added to by a billion lives, if we did what you have for some strange reason linked with that the human race would no longer exist. Nice equality you got there. I do not think a single equivalent aspect between the two exists even in theory. When your side finally takes over, up will mean down and left will mean hot dog. 1984^2
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Pretty words to say absolutely nothing. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide.
How hypocritical. It is up to the individual unless that individual is the one being killed. I can't imagine a clearer or more diabolical case of hypocrisy even theoretically possible.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Oh come off it. I told the other poster that they were rationalizing but you are off the chart. The accidental death of a fetus is not the moral responsibility of the Mother. The intentional taking on innocent human life is.
It's just as much the moral responsibility of the parents as any other foreseeable circumstance.

If I had something in my home that killed one out of every four kids who visited, what woukd you think of me inviting kids into my home? Keep in mind that I'm not killing them myself; I just know they would be in peril. Would that be okay?

The logic or lack there of in your reasoning baffles me. If you practiced my view the human race would be added to by a billion lives, if we did what you have for some strange reason linked with that the human race would no longer exist.
Why would that be bad, in your view?

Nice equality you got there. I do not think a single equivalent aspect between the two exists even in theory. When your side finally takes over, up will mean down and left will mean hot dog. 1984^2
No, ideas will just be applied consistently. If you care about the well-being of fetuses, then you would want to prevent the thing that puts them in the most danger: pregnancy.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Yes it would make a difference. One would just be a mass in a woman's body; like cancer.

However it is my opinion that it is just wrong to force women to be broodmares.

If people really want to stop most abortion - they should pump tons of money into the contraceptive industry - in search of a 100% reliable contraceptive.

You must have missed my entire point. Both you and I believe that to kill a child one second after birth is murder. Now from that point backwards tell me exactly when that child becomes a biological mass (BTW comparing a human life to cancer is abhorrent). No matter where you draw that arbitrary line it is based in ambiguous ignorance. Since no one can possibly know where the line between murder and permitted should be drawn my side is erring on the side of life, and your side on death. One side is selfishly arrogant and the other admits their ignorance and does not kill a human life as a result of it.

And you missed my point. The difference is an autonomous breathing being - or just a part of me that I have the right to remove.

If Women do not wish to breed I know of an absolutely certain method of contraception, and it will never require the death of the innocent for the guilt of another, and the lifelong depression and mental problems abortion produce in tens of thousands of cases. BTW I am all for contraception but that is another topic.

I have heard this crap so often by patriarchal men that it has become funny. Women get to be monks unless they spread their legs and pop out the offspring of the male sperm donor.

Meanwhile most men have sex with everything in sight before and during marriage - abandoning that offspring in the majority of the cases - including marriage.

All because they can't get personally pregnant and go through nine months of pregnancy problems - followed by 18 years of having to care for that offspring.

We need a magic wand waved - so that men carried fetuses - and these ridiculous patriarchal ideas of women having to become monks - or be condemned to 18 + years of hard labor - for (outside the patriarchal ownership role = traditional marriage) DARING to have sex - would vanish - really-really quick! LOL!

It is a sad commentary on secularism when the destruction of human like is not considered immoral but even a sacred right. I hope that big spaceship the nation of Islam believes in or Calgon, comes soon.

And our belief is that we are not killing a human, but removing a part of ourselves, a mass of cells.

A fetus just has the potential of becoming an autonomous being, and as a part of me, I am the only one that should have any rights.

*
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
It's just as much the moral responsibility of the parents as any other foreseeable circumstance.
Hello 9-10ths. You are normally in my opinion, wrong but fairly rational however this issue seems to have warped your thinking. There is no moral liability for medical issues outside a parents control. No one come to arrest the parents if they miscarry unless proof of intentionally causing it exists.

If I had something in my home that killed one out of every four kids who visited, what would you think of me inviting kids into my home? Keep in mind that I'm not killing them myself; I just know they would be in peril. Would that be okay?
Are you trying to say that once a few miscarriages occur it is immoral to attempt to have a baby? I have not the slightest idea what your trying so hard to say here.

Why would that be bad, in your view?
It went from bad to worse which is quite remarkable. Are you saying that an act to stifle or attempt to stifle God's grand plan should not be viewed as bad in my view? So now the non-theist who suggests they should be allowed to participate in the world wide moral debate not only can't conclude that a billion human lives ended in the womb is not wrong but is asking what is so wrong with the human race committing genetic suicide? I rest my case.

No, ideas will just be applied consistently. If you care about the well-being of fetuses, then you would want to prevent the thing that puts them in the most danger: pregnancy.
Since pregnancy results in well over 90% success rates apart from what abortion advocates introduce into the equation and the human race depends on them, we have more than enough justification to continue to allow them. Have you got to the point that to prove a very very bad point you will claim that the extinction of the human race is better than less than 5% miscarriages. That a billion future babies should be negated so that no deaths in the womb occur and to top that off it is coming from a person that supports abortion. There must be a half dozen self contradicting issue in all that.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
And you missed my point. The difference is an autonomous breathing being - or just a part of me that I have the right to remove.
Are you simply arbitrarily declaring autonomy to be what makes the difference between murder and not-murder? Why? A human life is a life regardless of where it is at. The baby didn't place it's self there.


I have heard this crap so often by patriarchal men that it has become funny. Women get to be monks unless they spread their legs and pop out the offspring of the male sperm donor.
What the heck are you talking about? I will not have a conversation that is consistently this crude but have no idea what your talking about anyway.


Meanwhile most men have sex with everything in sight before and during marriage - abandoning that offspring in the majority of the cases - including marriage.
All because they can't get personally pregnant and go through nine months of pregnancy problems - followed by 18 years of having to care for that offspring.

We need a magic wand waved - so that men carried fetuses - and these ridiculous patriarchal ideas of women having to become monks - or be condemned to 18 + years of hard labor - for (outside the patriarchal ownership role = traditional marriage) DARING to have sex - would vanish - really-really quick! LOL!
You are having a different conversation than I am (it seems to be more of an emotional rant than a debate) but I do agree that men are just as wrong (or more so as they are the aggressors normally) when it comes to irresponsible sexual conduct and if legislation existed that made their cost for irresponsibility higher I would vote for it. Maybe you can answer something I have wondered. Since women bear the overwhelming cost of unwanted pregnancies why are there so many willing to have sex so easily. It is easy to see (though no more excusable) that the man who can run off is less cautious, but the women are no more cautious even though they may be stuck with all kinds of burdens. Since you had already taken an intellectual off ramp I thought I could at least ask that question but I do not intend to stay in the slums you off ramp led to.


And our belief is that we are not killing a human, but removing a part of ourselves, a mass of cells.
You can't redefine terms to make the life your taking any less valuable than any other persons. Like I said maybe your right but maybe your wrong. My view is to err for life.

A fetus just has the potential of becoming an autonomous being, and as a part of me, I am the only one that should have any rights.
You complain that men get away without having a burden then in the next breath pronounce a death sentence on the life created by the women's actions without consulting the person being killed. That is inconsistent. You nor I can possibly know the actual nature and status of the taking of human life in the womb but I am erring for life and you for death based on convenience and the avoiding of the consequences for a couples actions. Redefining terms changes nothing. The wreck-less arrogance to do so anyway and claim it does is chilling. Women do not suffer trauma, life long depression, and terrible regret from having a tumor removed but thousand upon thousands do after planned parenthood talks 90% of them into having abortions so they may continue to get their government subsidies. It is very easy to prevent the issue from occurring at all and countless women manage it every day. Getting past your emotionally based protests there exists no rational argument for taking almost a billion human lives so far, as a form of contraception. For the women's health I am more than in favor of it and yes men get away with irresponsibility in this case but that, unlike abortion is not under discussion.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
How hypocritical. It is up to the individual unless that individual is the one being killed. I can't imagine a clearer or more diabolical case of hypocrisy even theoretically possible.

The "person" being "killed" doesn't even have a brain to think with, let alone reasoning power...
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Hello 9-10ths. You are normally in my opinion, wrong but fairly rational however this issue seems to have warped your thinking. There is no moral liability for medical issues outside a parents control. No one come to arrest the parents if they miscarry unless proof of intentionally causing it exists.
Actually, they wouldn't even be arrested for an intentional miscarriage, since (in your country and mine, at least), the law presumes that a fetus is not a person.

However, we're not talking about the real world here: we're talking about a hypothetical world where fetuses are considered to be people.

Are you trying to say that once a few miscarriages occur it is immoral to attempt to have a baby? I have not the slightest idea what your trying so hard to say here.
I'm saying that every pregnancy carries a significant risk of miscarriage, so if a fetus is a person, then trying to conceive is unethical by any normal standard.

It went from bad to worse which is quite remarkable. Are you saying that an act to stifle or attempt to stifle God's grand plan should not be viewed as bad in my view?
Wait... are you saying that you have a duty to God to have children yourself? Exactly how many children has God commanded you to have?

So now the non-theist who suggests they should be allowed to participate in the world wide moral debate not only can't conclude that a billion human lives ended in the womb is not wrong but is asking what is so wrong with the human race committing genetic suicide? I rest my case.
What I'm saying is that if you were really interested in preventing dead fetuses, then you'd avoid the leading causes of dead fetuses: pregnancy itself.

Since pregnancy results in well over 90% success rates apart from what abortion advocates introduce into the equation and the human race depends on them, we have more than enough justification to continue to allow them. Have you got to the point that to prove a very very bad point you will claim that the extinction of the human race is better than less than 5% miscarriages.
I think your numbers are off by close to an order of magnitude, but regardless: when there's a 1 in 20 chance that a child will die in the course of something that nobody needs to do, this is an acceptable risk.

If that's the case, then I sincerely hope there aren't any children in your house.

That a billion future babies should be negated so that no deaths in the womb occur and to top that off it is coming from a person that supports abortion. There must be a half dozen self contradicting issue in all that.
I'm not advocating an anti-abortion position; I'm saying that it's inconsistent.

And I find your moral relativism interesting (and surprising): you're arguing that the foreseeable, avoidable death of children is acceptable as long as enough good comes from it.
 

McBell

Unbound
For the purposes of my argument here, 1robin can define it however he likes as long as he's consistent. I'm arguing that he's not consistent.
Fair enough.
But I was actually wondering about for the whole of everything.
I mean, the one getting an abortion most likely finds the abortion acceptable for a greater good, though I bet that Robin would disagree.
So who gets the final word on what is good and what is not.
Which I actually find to be a different subject than it being acceptable.

I suspect that the proposed answer will be "God", but that is seriously problematic because there are not only so many different gods, but so many different opinions of what god does and does not say, think, approve of, disapprove of, etc.

So I fail to see how the whole thing is anything more than tail chasing.

My apologies.
I am side tracking your conversation with my ramblings.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Actually, they wouldn't even be arrested for an intentional miscarriage, since (in your country and mine, at least), the law presumes that a fetus is not a person.
I was discussing morality and not legality, nor are intentional miscarriages popular or even the subject.

However, we're not talking about the real world here: we're talking about a hypothetical world where fetuses are considered to be people.
That is an unnecessary distinction. I do not care at what point anything is declared a fetus. My claims concern that Birth is not the line and wherever the line is drawn by arbitrary means as it exists today is no based on anything binding. So the safe and moral course is not to wager the life on the innocent on a line defined by arbitrary means.

I'm saying that every pregnancy carries a significant risk of miscarriage, so if a fetus is a person, then trying to conceive is unethical by any normal standard.
Give me an example of one of those "normal" standards. An actually good standard is not to take an action that would potentially cause great harm or loss of life that does not have compensating good benefits to justify it. The risk of miscarriage has that compensating benefit, abortion does not in more than 95% of cases. Where it does (as in the risk to a women's life) I am consistent and for it. The lengths that a proponent will go to in order to defend killing human life is only exceeded by the lack of justifying motivation to attempt it. Are we really at that point where death is now good? Some progress.


Wait... are you saying that you have a duty to God to have children yourself? Exactly how many children has God commanded you to have?
No, I thought the fact I never mentioned me or any individual would have prevented this statement you made. I said that God intends for humanity to reach a natural (or supernatural) terminus. Off course a reasonable case can be made that arguments for killing human life in the womb is part of the darkness that precedes the end.

What I'm saying is that if you were really interested in preventing dead fetuses, then you'd avoid the leading causes of dead fetuses: pregnancy itself.
That is an absurd argument. The 95% chance (or whatever the stats are) of successful births are more than justifying compensation for risking the 5% that do not. The one thing that has no justification is either terminating the human race or terminating a significant portion (it's most innocent portion) of it without even a hint of compensating gain.


I think your numbers are off by close to an order of magnitude, but regardless: when there's a 1 in 20 chance that a child will die in the course of something that nobody needs to do, this is an acceptable risk.
I guess your are now arguing that continuing the human race is not needed. I tell you what if we have reached that point maybe it isn't. There are bad arguments and then way below that is this thing.


If that's the case, then I sincerely hope there aren't any children in your house.
Given then adoption of your argument and no children would exist anywhere. Your side would finally have done the entire race in and went into oblivion singing their own praises for rationalizing racial suicide I guess.

I'm not advocating an anti-abortion position; I'm saying that it's inconsistent.
I am lost here. Are you under the impression I thought we were on the same side?

And I find your moral relativism interesting (and surprising): you're arguing that the foreseeable, avoidable death of children is acceptable as long as enough good comes from it.
Even if you could find a flaw in my reasoning (and you yet to have done so) it would be dwarfed by the fact your reasoning kills off the entire race. Good night nurse. Let me add a little detail.

You are supporting an action that results in virtual certain death in every case.
Yet your argument is to condemn a practice that has a greater than 90% success rate for life and which is needed to sustain the most advanced race of life in known history. What is next? Maybe nuclear holocaust is the most benevolent action the secularists or tomorrow can produce or maybe the incarceration of moral people by condemned felons? This is a new low here.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Two possibilities. Either God or every human on Earth can have an equally valid opinion without the slightest way to determine who is right.

Actually, in practice, that first option is more like every human on Earth can have an equally valid opinion about what God thinks morality should be.

Pick pretty much any moral position you like and you'll be able to find someone, somewhere in history arguing that their god approved of it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I was discussing morality and not legality, nor are intentional miscarriages popular or even the subject.
When you talk about arresting people, you're talking about the law.

That is an unnecessary distinction. I do not care at what point anything is declared a fetus. My claims concern that Birth is not the line and wherever the line is drawn by arbitrary means as it exists today is no based on anything binding. So the safe and moral course is not to wager the life on the innocent on a line defined by arbitrary means.
Setting the line at birth is not arbitrary. Setting the line at conception is.

Give me an example of one of those "normal" standards.
That it's bad to put children's lives at risk unnecessarily.

An actually good standard is not to take an action that would potentially cause great harm or loss of life that does not have compensating good benefits to justify it. The risk of miscarriage has that compensating benefit, abortion does not in more than 95% of cases. Where it does (as in the risk to a women's life) I am consistent and for it. The lengths that a proponent will go to in order to defend killing human life is only exceeded by the lack of justifying motivation to attempt it. Are we really at that point where death is now good? Some progress.
Actually, I think your position is the one that devalues life.

No, I thought the fact I never mentioned me or any individual would have prevented this statement you made.
Okay - so you don't have an obligation to have kids. That's fine - so we're back where we started: if we assume that the fetus/embryo is a person from the moment of conception, then pregnancy creates a needless risk of the death of a child.

That is an absurd argument. The 95% chance (or whatever the stats are) of successful births are more than justifying compensation for risking the 5% that do not.
It's quite a bit higher than 5%. Here are one set of stats:

For women younger than 35, it’s 10 to 12 percent; for 35- to 39-year-olds, it’s 18 percent. (It does rise to 34 percent for women 40 to 44 years old.) But a great many pregnancies are lost so early that a woman never even realizes that she conceived.
The Truth About Your Top 10 Pregnancy Worries - Fit Pregnancy

Also, keep in mind that failure of a fertilized egg to implant wouldn't be considered "conception" medically (and therefore wouldn't be included in those stats), but would still count if we're assuming that the embryo is a person from the moment the sperm meets the egg. When these are included, the likelihood that a fertilized egg won't result in a live birth is around 1 in 3 to 1 in 4, just like I said.

The one thing that has no justification is either terminating the human race or terminating a significant portion (it's most innocent portion) of it without even a hint of compensating gain.
So you don't consider avoiding the needless deaths of children to be a "compensating gain"?

Also, we're not talking about terminating the human race. I didn't say that everyone would (or should) stop having kids; I only said that it's inconsistent for anti-choicers to try to get pregnant. This still leaves a number of large groups procreating:

- pro-choice people
- inconsistent anti-choicers
- people who get pregnant accidentally

I guess your are now arguing that continuing the human race is not needed.
I like the human race fine; I just question whether it would be worth continuing if the cost was billions of innocent children's lives. Now... I don't believe that fetuses are children, but if you do, then this is something you need to think long and hard about.

Also, as I pointed out, we're not talking about the end of the human race. Whether or not you decide to be consistent, lots and lots of people will continue to have children.

Given then adoption of your argument and no children would exist anywhere. Your side would finally have done the entire race in and went into oblivion singing their own praises for rationalizing racial suicide I guess.
Again, you're misunderstanding. I don't want to end the human race. First off, even if all the anti-choicers stopped breeding, there would be plenty of people to keep having kids. Second, what I'm doing is presenting a conflict in your position; there are actually two ways to resolve it:

- accept it as a good thing not to try to have kids, or
- reject the anti-choice position and have as many kids as you were planning to have anyhow.

Personally, I'd rather you took the second approach.

I am lost here.
Not surprising.

Are you under the impression I thought we were on the same side?
No, but your arguments seemed to suggest that you thought I was actually arguing that anti-choicers not breed. I thought I should clarify that my actual position is different: that the fact that they do breed shows them to not be as "pro-life" as they claim to be, if they really do believe what they say they do.

Even if you could find a flaw in my reasoning (and you yet to have done so)
What reasoning?

it would be dwarfed by the fact your reasoning kills off the entire race. Good night nurse.
Well, no. Again:

- no matter how many anti-choicers decided not to breed for the sake of the embryos that would inevitably die, other people (as well as inconsistent anti-choicers) will continue to have kids.

- the dilemma doesn't have to be resolved by not breeding. It can also be resolved by rejecting the anti-choice position.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
And you missed my point. The difference is an autonomous breathing being - or just a part of me that I have the right to remove.

Are you simply arbitrarily declaring autonomy to be what makes the difference between murder and not-murder? Why? A human life is a life regardless of where it is at. The baby didn't place it's self there.

Yes, in reality I am. Autonomy from being an actual part of a woman's body. At birth, a totally autonomous new being.

Ingledsva said:
Meanwhile most men have sex with everything in sight before and during marriage - abandoning that offspring in the majority of the cases - including marriage.
All because they can't get personally pregnant and go through nine months of pregnancy problems - followed by 18 years of having to care for that offspring.

We need a magic wand waved - so that men carried fetuses - and these ridiculous patriarchal ideas of women having to become monks - or be condemned to 18 + years of hard labor - for (outside the patriarchal ownership role = traditional marriage) DARING to have sex - would vanish - really-really quick! LOL!

What the heck are you talking about? I will not have a conversation that is consistently this crude but have no idea what your talking about anyway.
You are having a different conversation than I am (it seems to be more of an emotional rant than a debate) but I do agree that men are just as wrong (or more so as they are the aggressors normally) when it comes to irresponsible sexual conduct and if legislation existed that made their cost for irresponsibility higher I would vote for it. Maybe you can answer something I have wondered. Since women bear the overwhelming cost of unwanted pregnancies why are there so many willing to have sex so easily. It is easy to see (though no more excusable) that the man who can run off is less cautious, but the women are no more cautious even though they may be stuck with all kinds of burdens. Since you had already taken an intellectual off ramp I thought I could at least ask that question but I do not intend to stay in the slums you off ramp led to.

Slum off ramp! LOL! A conversation on this subject always includes these ideas because you folks are using your patriarchal religious ideas, - like sex should be in a marriage.

That idea is just bull. Women have the right to have sex whenever, and with whomever, they want. Since they have a womb, PERFECT contraception is NEEDED. Since there is no PERFECT contraceptive at this time - there are going to be unintentional pregnancies. And the right to abort these, needs to be guaranteed. Nobody wants to have an abortion. We need better contraceptives.


You can't redefine terms to make the life your taking any less valuable than any other persons. Like I said maybe your right but maybe your wrong. My view is to err for life.

You complain that men get away without having a burden then in the next breath pronounce a death sentence on the life created by the women's actions without consulting the person being killed. That is inconsistent. You nor I can possibly know the actual nature and status of the taking of human life in the womb but I am erring for life and you for death based on convenience and the avoiding of the consequences for a couples actions. Redefining terms changes nothing. The wreck-less arrogance to do so anyway and claim it does is chilling. Women do not suffer trauma, life long depression, and terrible regret from having a tumor removed but thousand upon thousands do after planned parenthood talks 90% of them into having abortions so they may continue to get their government subsidies. It is very easy to prevent the issue from occurring at all and countless women manage it every day. Getting past your emotionally based protests there exists no rational argument for taking almost a billion human lives so far, as a form of contraception. For the women's health I am more than in favor of it and yes men get away with irresponsibility in this case but that, unlike abortion is not under discussion.

I get a kick how you throw in the RED HERRING= EMOTIONALLY BASED - every time we have a conversation where you don't like what I'm saying - and the FACT that I am telling you HOW it is.

These ideas have obviously been found rational - as we have legal abortion.

Also I was not complaining about men's actions - I was pointing out the double standard - and reasons why men feel they can PLAY PIOUS and order women to continue pregnancies - they personally don't fall into the command to do such - win-win for them. They can continue to have as much sex as they want - while the idea is to force women to play nun until the male is done s****ing around and calls them to be a broodmare in a bound relationship.

I obviously don't agree with your religious ideas, or your ideas about when cells attain legal status.

Women have to have absolute control of their own bodies to be truly equal with men.

*
 

Crazyflight

Antitheist-Open to Ideas!
1robin: "Are you saying that an act to stifle or attempt to stifle God's grand plan should not be viewed as bad in my view?"
Who are you to say that God's grand plan is actually being stifled? If your argument is that life begins before birth sometime, then the baby is "alive" when it is being aborted, right? What if that is the "grand plan" for that bundle of cells? I mean, we all know that God is one sick f***. Unless thousands of youths dying from shaken baby syndrome per year (alone) isn't part of his grand plans for people.
 
Top