A Consistently Pro-Life Message

[Alate_One]

Alate_One, as is so often the case with social liberals, you are simply confusing action (i.e., doing) with passion (suffering or having something done to one). You are confusing acting with not acting.

Do you understand the point and see the application, or need I go into further explanation?

I'm afraid you're about as clear as mud especially since you didn't quote exactly which of my points you're referencing.

This is like saying that a prohibition against theft only becomes credible and acceptable if everyone is provided for to their satisfaction.

Not at all.

Here's the problem with the abortion debate. There are always at least three individuals involved. (Mom, Dad, offspring)

Now the pro-choice movement believes there's only one individual with standing or in some cases that there is only one individual at all.

What the pro-life movement fails to understand is the offspring, by it's very existence, is imposing on the woman's life and health.

So I think it's a complex interplay of rights of several individuals (this is why abortion is a debate and not obvious as stealing). And when we're talking about conception via rape, I think the balance is clearly tipped in the favor of the woman's choice.

The ultimate issue is how to make public policy that is workable and acceptable and including support for people so that they have other options will make the policy more acceptable to the public.

Do you understand that Trad or are you still hung up on your moral absolutes?

 

[Stripe]

A woman has an absolute right to decide what happens to her own body.

Her baby is not her body.

And, no she doesn't.

Now the pro-choice movement believes there's only one individual with standing or in some cases that there is only one individual at all.

Liar. Name one person who thinks the parents have no "standing."

What the pro-life movement fails to understand is the offspring, by it's very existence, is imposing on the woman's life and health.

Which is a nonsense argument you use to justify the murder of children.

When we're talking about conception via rape, I think the balance is clearly tipped in the favor of the woman's choice.

Because you think a person is not a person if his father is a criminal.

The ultimate issue is how to make public policy that is workable and acceptable and including support for people so that they have other options will make the policy more acceptable to the public.

Thou shall not murder.

 

[Alate_One]

Her baby is not her body.

But the baby uses her body as a home for 9 months, causing permanent changes to it.

And, no she doesn't.
Liar. Name one person who thinks the parents have no "standing."

"My Body my choice" ring a bell? Or did you have amnesia between your previous phrase and this one?

Which is a nonsense argument you use to justify the murder of children.

Not a nonsense argument. Pregnancy is a medical condition that can be life threatening. Pretending it isn't doesn't change that fact.

Because you think a person is not a person if his father is a criminal.

The person was placed in a very intimate location in a woman's body by an act of violence. At the very leas a woman should be allowed the choice as to whether it should remain there.

Thou shall not murder.

Except the OT refers to paying a fine if woman loses a child after being hit. Plus there is such a thing as extenuating circumstances to killing another human being.

 

[Stripe]

But...

What follows is you providing cover for a fellow pro-murder pervert.

Stuu said the mother has rights over her body. The baby is not her body. He was wrong, yet you think it useful to argue with me when I am correct.

The baby uses her body as a home for 9 months, causing permanent changes to it.

And it is on these grounds that you attempt to justify his murder.

"My Body my choice" ring a bell? Or did you have amnesia between your previous phrase and this one?

Name one pro-lifer who says the parents have no standing.

Pregnancy is a medical condition that can be life threatening.

And abortion is murder. We do not justify murder because something might be dangerous.

The person was placed in a very intimate location in a woman's body by an act of violence. At the very leas a woman should be allowed the choice as to whether [he] should remain there.

He won't remain there. She will have to wait nine months, then he can leave. The bonus being, she won't become a murderer.

However, because you willingly admit to condoning murder because of the crimes of another, nothing you say has any authority.

Except the OT refers to paying a fine if woman loses a child after being hit.

No, it doesn't. However, it does say: Do not murder.

And don't bother posting the passage. We know you will hunt around for the version that says what you think you can twist to support your perversion while ignoring the facts that have been explained to you many times.

We know you just say these things to make sure the conversation drifts away from the fact that you condone murder.

Plus there is such a thing as extenuating circumstances to killing another human being.

However, there are no extenuating circumstances to murder. Murder is always wrong. You advocate murder — declaring that people can be killed if their father is a rapist — so it is little wonder that you will try to muddy the waters.

Why do you think it is OK to murder a baby because his father is a rapist?

 

[Stuu]

Her baby is not her body.

It is taking nutrients and oxygen from her body, and at least for the first couple of trimesters is unable to survive outside it. Even a liver can survive for a short time outside a body before being transplanted. The foetus is entirely reliant on a placenta attached to the uterus wall. You can't seriously divorce the two.

Hmmm. "Stripe" and "seriously"...

And, no she doesn't..

Maybe I could sell your kidneys.

You could have a cut of the profit. I promise I will anaesthatise you before removing them, er I mean one.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Thou shall not murder.

Would you try the foetus in a case where it caused the death of its mother?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

[He] is taking nutrients and oxygen from her body.

Yep. His body. Her body. Two bodies. Declaring the baby to be the mother's body is a fallacy that has enabled liberals to justify murder for 50 years. The end of that fallacy points to the truth: That you condone murder.

 

[Stuu]

Yep. His body. Her body. Two bodies. Declaring the baby to be the mother's body is a fallacy that has enabled liberals to justify murder for 50 years. The end of that fallacy points to the truth: That you condone murder.

If you want to call it that, then fine.

I also condone the murder that is euthanasia for the terminally ill in unbearable pain.

To lump abortion in with criminal homicide while ignoring the rights of the fully living, breathing, loving adult in possibly an insidious situation, highlights the highest level of discrimination your analysis seems to be able to manage.

Had you considered reading and learning?

Stuart

 

[Alate_One]

What follows is you providing cover for a fellow pro-murder pervert.

Stuu said the mother has rights over her body. The baby is not her body. He was wrong, yet you think it useful to argue with me when I am correct.

And it is on these grounds that you attempt to justify his murder.

I'm not justifying it. I'm saying it is a unique situation and you might understand why people would feel justified.

But hey, I'm sure you'll spout some kind of silliness.

Name one pro-lifer who says the parents have no standing.

You said "nobody" not "no pro-lifer". Unless you think people that are pro-choice are aren't people.

And abortion is murder. We do not justify murder because something might be dangerous.

If someone will die due to being pregnant which would take the baby with her, why would you deny abortion in that case?

However, because you willingly admit to condoning murder because of the crimes of another, nothing you say has any authority.

And don't bother posting the passage. We know you will hunt around for the version that says what you think you can twist to support your perversion while ignoring the facts that have been explained to you many times.

You can also look at Jewish tradition as a reflection of those passages.

The mishna is the "Oral Torah".

A core text in rabbinic law crystallizes the status of the fetus. The Mishna explicitly indicates that one must abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the woman. If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.

Today, of course this would never be done because we have technology, Caesarian section to deal with those kinds of situations. But pregnancy can still be life threatening.

However, there are no extenuating circumstances to murder. Murder is always wrong. You advocate murder — declaring that people can be killed if their father is a rapist — so it is little wonder that you will try to muddy the waters.

Why do you think it is OK to murder a baby because his father is a rapist?

Why do you think it's okay to force a woman to carry a child even if continuing the pregnancy means both die? You put the baby's life above even the mother's life. It is nonsensical.

I don't believe the rapist's will should continue to be forced on a woman. If anyone should be allowed to choose it should be a raped woman.

But I guess you want to create some kind of Christian Saudi Arabia. Good luck with that.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not justifying it. I'm saying it is a unique situation and you might understand why people would feel justified.

Which is just you prepared to say anything to side with the pro-abortion pagan over a Christian. Stuu said the mother has rights over her own body. The baby is not her body. He was wrong, I am right; yet you are arguing with me.

You said "nobody" not "no pro-lifer". Unless you think people that are pro-choice are aren't people.

Show us a pro-lifer who denies the parents have standing. That is the accusation you made, now back it up with names.

We know why you're dodging.

If someone will die due to being pregnant which would take the baby with her, why would you deny abortion in that case?

For the same reason as has been explained to you thousands of times.

I don't believe the rapist's will should continue to be forced on a woman.

But you do think the rapist should have his food and accommodation paid for by the woman for a few years before he is released into the general population again.

Meanwhile, you advocate the death penalty for an innocent party.

If anyone should be allowed to choose...

Murder is never an acceptable choice.

You want to create some kind of Christian Saudi Arabia.

And you advocate murder of people as a right.

My accusation has the advantage of being exactly what you said, while you just make yours up out of frustration.

 

[Alate_One]

Which is just you prepared to say anything to side with the pro-abortion pagan over a Christian. Stuu said the mother has rights over her own body. The baby is not her body. He was wrong, I am right; yet you are arguing with me.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm trying to get you to maybe try and see it from another perspective, even if you don't agree with it.

I know, never going to happen with you.

Show us a pro-lifer who denies the parents have standing. That is the accusation you made, now back it up with names. We know why you're dodging.

Um that wasn't at all what I said. I was comparing the pro-life vs. pro-choice positions and I was talking about the pro-choice position. How you got it this confused is beyond me.

But you do think the rapist should have his food and accommodation paid for by the woman for a few years before he is released into the general population again.

I must have missed where I said that. How about a link?

Meanwhile, you advocate the death penalty for an innocent party.

No, I just said the woman should have a CHOICE about it when it's rape. I'm not advocating which choice a woman should make.

Murder is never an acceptable choice.

And you can believe that and feel completely justified. Most of the USA and the western world will not agree with you.

 

[Stuu]

Stuu said the mother has rights over her own body. The baby is not her body.

It's not clear to me whether you believe a woman has rights over her own body. Do you?

If you do, then you should be happy if a woman said that as far as her body was concerned she wasn't having another body inside it.

But maybe you don't believe in autonomy over your body.

I may well be calling to collect your lungs from you in the future, if you believe that people don't have medical consent rights. Or maybe you would only deny consent to women and not to men.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Then tell Stuu he is wrong. The mother's body is not the baby's body.

Um that wasn't at all what I said. I was comparing the pro-life vs. pro-choice positions and I was talking about the pro-choice position. How you got it this confused is beyond me.

I probably got confused by your words:

"The pro-choice movement believes there's only one individual with standing."

Name someone who denies that the parents have standing.

I must have missed where I said that. How about a link?

You're anti-death penalty, except for innocent babies.

No, I just said the woman should have a CHOICE about it when it's rape. I'm not advocating which choice a woman should make.

That's the stupidest thing you've ever said. You cannot argue for the right to choose without condoning both choices.

And you can believe that and feel completely justified. Most of the USA and the western world will not agree with you.

Ah, the argument from popularity. The wail of defeat of the evolutionist.

It's not clear to me whether you believe a woman has rights over her own body. Do you? If you do, then you should be happy if a woman said that as far as her body was concerned she wasn't having another body inside it. But maybe you don't believe in autonomy over your body. I may well be calling to collect your lungs from you in the future, if you believe that people don't have medical consent rights. Or maybe you would only deny consent to women and not to men. Stuart

Are you still here? :troll:

 

[Stuu]

Are you still here?

I'll take your lack of answers as you having a lack of answers.

Stuart

 

[OCTOBER23]

NORTH AMERICA IS UNDER A CURSE BECAUSE THEIR LEADERS ARE SINNERS

AGAINST GOD'S WORD.

The End is near.

 

[ok doser]

mr pidd is back? :noway:


:doh:

 

[Stripe]

mr pidd is back?

Not for long.

 

[Stuu]

NORTH AMERICA IS UNDER A CURSE BECAUSE THEIR LEADERS ARE SINNERS

AGAINST GOD'S WORD.

The End is near.

And indeed your post ended.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Not for long.

Would you try the foetus in a case where it caused the death of its mother?

It's not clear to me whether you believe a woman has rights over her own body. Do you?

Stuart

 

[ok doser]

Would you try the foetus in a case where it caused the death of its mother?

of course

and in texas it would be tried as an adult

It's not clear to me whether you believe a woman has rights over her own body. Do you?

Stuart

what rights are you referring to?