Abortion is evil

[Arthur Brain]

By definition, you do.



Yes, it is, by definition.



Then stop saying you don't condone murder, because you do.



LIAR. I do say the child has rights, and from the moment of conception, not just from birth!

But what YOU assert are "rights" are not rights at all, but socialist ideals.



I'll let RD speak for himself.



Which aren't rights at all, but socialist laws.



I understand you perfectly.

You, however, don't understand what God said at all, or if you do, you outright reject it in favor of your own beliefs, which makes you wrong.



"Preventing a life from coming about" is a completely different topic than "ending an already existing life." We're talking about the latter. You're trying to equivocate it with the former. See the problem yet?



If a condom breaks, more likely than not, a child will be conceived.

The "morning-after pill" was DESIGNED to KILL the life that is conceived when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell.

In other words, it is the MURDER of an innocent child.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



The answer lies in the nuclear family. When you have both a father and a mother present, they are responsible for providing the necessary essentials to sustain a baby's life.

By having the government provide those things, instead of requiring the parents to provide them, you lessen the responsibility that God INTENTIONALLY placed upon the parents to provide for their child. God instituted marriage (and therefore sex as well) to between ONE man and ONE woman, so that the resulting children would have a solid foundation on which to grow, one that provides for them when they cannot provide for themselves, and that serves as a stepping stone for when they start their own family. And so, by having the government provide "the essentials," you make it so that parents do not have to follow God's design, which only harms the child.



No, they don't.

Don't confuse laws requiring things with rights.



If that were the case, then the same child you would have murdered by taking a pill also has those rights, yet you would deny the child those rights?

Hypocrite.



Saying it doesn't make it so.

No, I don't and no, it isn't. Your repeatedly asserting something doesn't 'make it so' either.

You deny children rights to essentials once born. You've even asserted that any assistance from outside bodies such as child protection services that have the power to remove children from abusive environments is tantamount to kidnapping which is absolutely bonkers. Ideally all parents would be responsible, nurturing and loving, catering for their child's needs but unfortunately this is far from always the case. Lawfully, children do have essential rights and that's how it should be. You can call me a hypocrite all ya want, doesn't make it so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is if there's a baby that's killed as a result.



Don't confuse your socialist programs for rights.



The parents are.

Even if they're not up for the job, then they are still responsible for their children.

You take away their responsibility by taking away their responsibilities, and in doing so, you encourage other parents to be worse parents, because they know that the government will pick up the slack.



A child has the right to life, which all other actual God-given rights stem from.



It's not juvenile, hypocrite.

It's the truth. You are an arrogant humanist who thinks he's nicer than God.

Lawfully, children have rights. You can confuse that with socialism all ya want, it isn't.

Frankly, people like you just don't seem to be that clued up in actual life and view it through some fundamentalist lens that has little bearing on reality. If you leave a child in an abusive environment then the reality is that said child/children are going to suffer until they're removed from it. Them's the facts more's the pity. In an ideal world there'd be no need for outlets like child protection services but it isn't.

It is juvenile and acknowledging that children should have rights is not being "nicer than God". It is kinda funny to be called arrogant by the likes of you & RD though.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A child has the right to have parents who take care of their child, so that the government doesn't have to step in for abusing their child.



Your laws make it easier for parents to be irresponsible.



It is if there is a child killed as the result of using it.

A child has the right to essentials and if the parents can't/won't provide them (and worse) then said child has the right to have his/her needs met elsewhere and to be free from abuse.

Simple as.

 

[Idolater]

Okay, I'm no fan of any sex ed in schools but that wasn't really my question. Do you consider it unethical for any adult to support contraception methods?

Yes with the proviso that "ethics" is a wax nose ambiguous word. My definition which I use for "ethics" is basically the art and science of pursuing happiness----in contrast to the term "morality," by which I mean things that people can be punished criminally for violating----and artificial contraception is unethical in this sense, according to me (and Catholicism). It does not lead to happiness.

To illustrate, if a married couple for some reason cannot risk conception because it would threaten the life of the mother, then it is ethical to abstain basically permanently from marital relations rather than use artificial contraception in order to engage in marital relations safely.

And to clarify, I do not consider artificial conception to be criminal, just unethical, so it is unethical for adults to promote it, just not criminal (as long as the adults aren't exposing youngsters to this practice without prior clear consent from the kids' parents).

The day after drug is not murder.

We disagree. New critter and all.

Well, irresponsible and abusive parents, guardians and caregivers can certainly be prosecuted and jailed for offences but the primary concern is for the welfare of the child when those rights aren't being met.

Wherever rights exist it is always defending those rights that is the primary concern.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I don't

Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent.

You support the intentional killing of the innocent through the "morning-after" pill.

Thus, you support murder.

and no, it isn't.

It is, by definition.

Your repeatedly asserting something doesn't 'make it so' either.

I'm not just "saying it." I'm telling you WHY it is, "by definition."

BY DEFINITION, you support murder. You may not consider it to be murder, but your opinions don't trump the definition of murder.

Also, I quoted GOD VERBATIM, from Scripture.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV
“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV
Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. - Exodus 23:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus23:7&version=NKJV

You deny children rights to essentials once born.

There is no such thing as a "right to essentials."

Such "essentials" must needs be provided by the parents.

You've even asserted that any assistance from outside bodies such as child protection services that have the power to remove children from abusive environments is tantamount to kidnapping which is absolutely bonkers.

Appeal to the stone.

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children, NOT by the government, because the government has other responsibilities that do not include taking care of children, that if it tried to do so, would prevent it from fulfilling it's actual responsibilities.

Ideally all parents would be responsible, nurturing and loving, catering for their child's needs but unfortunately this is far from always the case.

And yet, even so, the government does not have the right to provide for children.

Lawfully,

Any laws that legitimize (make legally valid) socialism are unjust, by definition, because they violate God's enduring command:

“You shall not steal. - Exodus 20:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:15&version=NKJV

children do have essential rights

Children do not have the rights to what you say they do, based upon what God says.

and that's how it should be.

Nope.

You can call me a hypocrite all ya want, doesn't make it so.

You are a hypocrite by saying parents have the right to kill their child in the womb yet simultaneously assert that children have "rights to essentials." If they're actually rights, then NO ONE has the right to take them away, not even the parents by killing their child in the womb.

Maybe you don't realize the contradiction in your position... but now you do, because I just showed it to you.

Lawfully, children have rights.

Rights don't come from laws, they come from God. Any law that gives a person a "right" 1) is an unjust law to begin with (because of the above and 2) the "right" given isn't.

You can confuse that with socialism all ya want,

I'm not confusing anything.

Your laws promote socialism.

it isn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Frankly, people like you just don't seem to be that clued up in actual life

Ad hominem.

And view it through some fundamentalist lens that has little bearing on reality.

Wrong.

We're viewing the world through the lens of reality.

YOU are the one who views reality through the lens of leftist ideologies.

If you leave a child in an abusive environment then the reality is that said child/children are going to suffer until they're removed from it.

Why is your gut reaction "to remove the child from the parents"?

Why isn't it "punish the one abusing the child, to deter them from abusing the child further"?

In an ideal world there'd be no need for outlets like child protection services but it isn't.

"The world isn't ideal, so let's abandon striving for the ideal and implement whatever policies make me feel good" is what I read from you here.

It is juvenile and acknowledging that children should have rights is not being "nicer than God".

Yes, it is, because God said marriage is between one man and one woman, and you want to make it so that isn't necessary.

It is kinda funny to be called arrogant by the likes of you & RD though.

You won't be laughing come judgement day when God asks you why you supported stealing from others to pay for socialist programs, after he condemns you for supporting the murder of innocent children.

A child has the right to essentials

Saying it doesn't make it so, for the reasons given above.

and if the parents can't/won't provide them (and worse) then said child has the right to have his/her needs met elsewhere and to be free from abuse.

Wrong.

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children

 

[Right Divider]

Who's to provide all the care that they need if the parent's aren't up to the job and you consider a child once born to have no rights?

The immediate family is the next logical resource. Governments are notoriously bad at providing "care".

Your juvenile little name calling is noted and filed appropriately.

Just calling it like it is. You consistently reject God's Word and prefer your humanist opinions.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The immediate family is the next logical resource. Governments are notoriously bad at providing "care".

Just calling it like it is. You consistently reject God's Word and prefer your humanist opinions.

If there is any and if they're responsible. Your next is little more than a soundbite in want of support. Care services don't always get it right but they often do and better to remove a child from an abusive background and meet their needs than leave them in it.

Nah, you're just being juvenile but hey, crack on with it.

 

[Right Divider]

If there is any and if they're responsible.

You think that the government is "responsible".

Your next is little more than a soundbite in want of support. Care services don't always get it right but they often do and better to remove a child from an abusive background and meet their needs than leave them in it.

Nah, you're just being juvenile but hey, crack on with it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent.

You support the intentional killing of the innocent through the "morning-after" pill.

Thus, you support murder.



It is, by definition.



I'm not just "saying it." I'm telling you WHY it is, "by definition."

BY DEFINITION, you support murder. You may not consider it to be murder, but your opinions don't trump the definition of murder.

Also, I quoted GOD VERBATIM, from Scripture.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV
“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV
Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. - Exodus 23:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus23:7&version=NKJV



There is no such thing as a "right to essentials."

Such "essentials" must needs be provided by the parents.



Appeal to the stone.

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children, NOT by the government, because the government has other responsibilities that do not include taking care of children, that if it tried to do so, would prevent it from fulfilling it's actual responsibilities.



And yet, even so, the government does not have the right to provide for children.



Any laws that legitimize (make legally valid) socialism are unjust, by definition, because they violate God's enduring command:

“You shall not steal. - Exodus 20:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:15&version=NKJV



Children do not have the rights to what you say they do, based upon what God says.



Nope.



You are a hypocrite by saying parents have the right to kill their child in the womb yet simultaneously assert that children have "rights to essentials." If they're actually rights, then NO ONE has the right to take them away, not even the parents by killing their child in the womb.

Maybe you don't realize the contradiction in your position... but now you do, because I just showed it to you.



Rights don't come from laws, they come from God. Any law that gives a person a "right" 1) is an unjust law to begin with (because of the above and 2) the "right" given isn't.



I'm not confusing anything.

Your laws promote socialism.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Ad hominem.



Wrong.

We're viewing the world through the lens of reality.

YOU are the one who views reality through the lens of leftist ideologies.



Why is your gut reaction "to remove the child from the parents"?

Why isn't it "punish the one abusing the child, to deter them from abusing the child further"?



"The world isn't ideal, so let's abandon striving for the ideal and implement whatever policies make me feel good" is what I read from you here.



Yes, it is, because God said marriage is between one man and one woman, and you want to make it so that isn't necessary.



You won't be laughing come judgement day when God asks you why you supported stealing from others to pay for socialist programs, after he condemns you for supporting the murder of innocent children.



Saying it doesn't make it so, for the reasons given above.



Wrong.

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children

No, I don't and you continue with that as you will. You can bang on about socialism all you want, call me a humanist all you want, waffle on about 'stealing from others' and judgement day all ya want. Big whoop. You might wanna be concerned about some of the things you promote before thinking you'd be exempt from stuff.

You simply aren't viewing the world through the lens of reality. Heck, you consider it "kidnapping" if protection services intervene to remove children from abusive environments so you are not in the actual world at all. If you think it makes me "feel good" to acknowledge there are times where such measures need to be enacted then you ain't reading me right at all but hardly a surprise.

Having laws that acknowledge that children have the rights to essentials once born is not "socialism" but again, it's not surprising that far right wingers confuse such things. Heck, anything seems to be "socialism" with some of you lot if you disagree with it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You think that the government is "responsible".

No, but the protection services that are on hand to investigate and take care of abused children are in the main.

Cute smiley, how I'm feeling too.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If there is any and if they're responsible.

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children.

The government has no reason to be involved at all, except when a crime occurs.

Care services don't always get it right but they often do

Whether they do or not is a moot point.

Such services take away the God-given responsibility of the parents to A) be present in the life of their child and B) to provide and care for their child.

and better to remove a child from an abusive background and meet their needs than leave them in it.

Again, why is your first thought "remove the child from his parents' care" and not "punish the one abusing the child to deter them from doing so again"?

Nah, you're just being juvenile but hey, crack on with it.

The only juvenile one here is you.

No, I don't

By promoting the use of the "morning-after" pill, you do, BY DEFINITION of the word murder.

and you continue with that as you will.

I will continue to beat you over the head with it until you admit that you're wrong and repent before God.

You can bang on about socialism all you want,

I will continue to beat you over the head with it until you admit that you're wrong and repent before God.

call me a humanist all you want,

I call you a humanist because you ARE a humanist, by definition.

waffle on about 'stealing from others'

Yes, that's what socialism is.

and judgement day all ya want.

Yes, judgement day is real, and you need to repent, or you WILL stand before God at that time.

Big whoop.

You should be more concerned about your eternal future.

You might wanna be concerned about some of the things you promote before thinking you'd be exempt from stuff.

My destination is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. I have nothing to worry about.

You, on the other hand, promote wickedness and perversion. You need to repent, before it's too late.

You simply aren't viewing the world through the lens of reality.

Yes, I am.

Heck, you consider it "kidnapping" if protection services intervene to remove children from abusive environments so you are not in the actual world at all.

By definition, that's exactly what it is.

If you think it makes me "feel good" to acknowledge there are times where such measures need to be enacted then you ain't reading me right at all but hardly a surprise.

I'm reading you perfectly.

Having laws that acknowledge that children have the rights to essentials once born is not "socialism"

Yes, it is, because where do you think the money comes from?

People who have nothing to do with the family who receives it.

but again, it's not surprising that far right wingers confuse such things.

The only confused one here is you.

Heck, anything seems to be "socialism" with some of you lot if you disagree with it.

Wrong.

No, but the protection services that are on hand to investigate and take care of abused children

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children.

are in the main.

Whatever that means...

Cute smiley, how I'm feeling too.

You should repent, and turn to Christ! His yoke is easy, and his burden light! You'll be able to rest in Him.

But as it stands now, there will be no rest for you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children.

The government has no reason to be involved at all, except when a crime occurs.



Whether they do or not is a moot point.

Such services take away the God-given responsibility of the parents to A) be present in the life of their child and B) to provide and care for their child.



Again, why is your first thought "remove the child from his parents' care" and not "punish the one abusing the child to deter them from doing so again"?



The only juvenile one here is you.



By promoting the use of the "morning-after" pill, you do, BY DEFINITION of the word murder.



I will continue to beat you over the head with it until you admit that you're wrong and repent before God.



I will continue to beat you over the head with it until you admit that you're wrong and repent before God.



I call you a humanist because you ARE a humanist, by definition.



Yes, that's what socialism is.



Yes, judgement day is real, and you need to repent, or you WILL stand before God at that time.



You should be more concerned about your eternal future.



My destination is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. I have nothing to worry about.

You, on the other hand, promote wickedness and perversion. You need to repent, before it's too late.



Yes, I am.



By definition, that's exactly what it is.



I'm reading you perfectly.



Yes, it is, because where do you think the money comes from?

People who have nothing to do with the family who receives it.



The only confused one here is you.



Wrong.



Children need to be taken care of, if not by their own parents, by family members, and if not then by friends of the family, and if not then by church members or neighbors, and if not then by private ministries set up to take care of children.



Whatever that means...



You should repent, and turn to Christ! His yoke is easy, and his burden light! You'll be able to rest in Him.

But as it stands now, there will be no rest for you.

Not interested. You can call me anything you want, invent labels up all you want and blather on all you want. Your opinion is one I have absolutely zero respect for and where it comes to judgment day then that will be God's call, it sure ain't yours.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not interested.

Of course you're not, because you know you're in the wrong.

You can call me anything you want, invent labels up all you want and blather on all you want. Your opinion is one I have absolutely zero respect for and where it comes to judgment day then that will be God's call, it sure ain't yours.

God is calling you to repent. How long will you resist Him?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course you're not, because you know you're in the wrong.



God is calling you to repent. How long will you resist Him?

That's absolutely not the case although you're obviously free to believe and convince yourself to the contrary.

 

[7djengo7]

But you're not against artificial methods of birth control that are designed to prevent pregnancy in the first place?

What do you mean by "to prevent pregnancy"? Are you engaged in "preventing pregnancy" right now?

A child has the right to essentials

Your phrase, "the right to essentials," is actually not even the name of any right. Many a phrase of the form, "the right to ________," is not the name of any right. For example, "the right to murder" is not the name of any right. "The right to steal Arthur Brain's patio furniture" is not the name of any right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What do you mean by "to prevent pregnancy"? Are you engaged in "preventing pregnancy" right now?



Your phrase, "the right to essentials," is actually not even the name of any right. Many a phrase of the form, "the right to ________," is not the name of any right. For example, "the right to murder" is not the name of any right. "The right to steal Arthur Brain's patio furniture" is not the name of any right.

Um, you do realize what contraceptives are used for, right? Surely that doesn't need explaining to you...?! Funnily enough I'm not engaged in preventing pregnancy right now but rest assured that anything connected to this will be kept well away from you regardless...

It's pretty easy to understand the essentials for life and not too difficult to google children's rights to said and else.

Oh, and I don't have any patio furniture so good luck to any wannabe robbers on that score...

 

[7djengo7]

Funnily enough I'm not engaged in preventing pregnancy right now

So, you're engaged in impregnating right now? Sorry, stupid, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are impregnating right now, or you are not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So, you're engaged in impregnating right now? Sorry, stupid, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are impregnating right now, or you are not.

So, according to you, one has to be engaged in trying to impregnate someone in order not to be preventing a pregnancy?!

Yeah, you're not weird at all...

 

[7djengo7]

So, according to you, one has to be engaged in trying to impregnate someone in order not to be preventing a pregnancy?!

No, idiot. I did not say anything about trying. One has to be engaged in impregnating someone (or being impregnated by someone) in order to not be preventing a pregnancy. How did you end up being so dreadfully stupid as you demonstrate youself to be?

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, idiot. I did not say anything about trying. One has to be engaged in impregnating someone (or being impregnated by someone) in order to not be preventing a pregnancy. How did you end up being so dreadfully stupid as you demostrate youself to be?

So, with your "logic", someone has to be actually impregnating someone in order not to be preventing a pregnancy. Okaaayyyyyyy then...