Abortion is evil

[Arthur Brain]

OK. I underscored that the rights of children impose obligations on the parents. Criminal charges brought against parents for abuse and or negligence, prove that a society believes children have rights, that's the justification for those criminal charges. Your children have rights, and if you their parent violate those rights then you're going to jail. That's how moral society functions.

Pretty much. A child is reliant on someone to cater to his/her needs as they're incapable of fending for themselves. Ideally, of course, that would be the parents remit but some children are unlucky enough to be lumbered with irresponsible/abusive ones. This is where it's right and moral for a child in such a situation to be removed from a neglectful/abusive environment and taken into care. The primary concern is for the child's well being. Parents who are abusive should face penalty, sure but as you've probably read on here, some folk consider it to be kidnapping if a child is removed from their parents no matter what.

 

[Right Divider]

I didn't say that he or she didn't. There's laws here where once a pregnancy has developed beyond a certain stage then it's illegal to abort except in exceptional circumstances.

Since the child is a child at conception, why the arbitrary "stage of development" limit? That's evil.

Children have legal rights to all the aforementioned. Don't pretend that you care about children if you deny them any rights once outside of the womb.

Nobody has those rights, but they do have the right to LIFE!

 

[Idolater]

Pretty much. A child is reliant on someone to cater to his/her needs as they're incapable of fending for themselves. Ideally, of course, that would be the parents remit but some children are unlucky enough to be lumbered with irresponsible/abusive ones. This is where it's right and moral for a child in such a situation to be removed from a neglectful/abusive environment and taken into care. The primary concern is for the child's well being. Parents who are abusive should face penalty, sure but as you've probably read on here, some folk consider it to be kidnapping if a child is removed from their parents no matter what.

I bolded where the problem comes in. I have claimed that there is no moral problem with providing government services to provide for children in such situations. But you and in our country usually Democrats, promote the perfectly moral idea of voluntarily (legally and democratically) providing government services, to a moral imperative, and that's where we can't agree. The reason we can't agree is because if every child has a right which imposes moral obligation on anyone but the child's parents, then we aren't arresting enough people, because there are kids in America and elsewhere who don't have parents, and they are many times taken care of by people who aren't their relatives, even though you would think that if a kid didn't have parents then the moral obligation to take care of the kid's essentials would first fall on the parents' relatives, rather than immediately spill out to the general public.

There are private orphanages. Instead we should arrest all the relatives of the child's parents until one of them agrees to take care of the kids' essentials. Then you don't need orphanages, private or public.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Since the child is a child at conception, why the arbitrary "stage of development" limit? That's evil.

Nobody has those rights, but they do have the right to LIFE!

Talking about 'evil' when you deny a child any rights post birth is bitterly ironic.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I bolded where the problem comes in. I have claimed that there is no moral problem with providing government services to provide for children in such situations. But you and in our country usually Democrats, promote the perfectly moral idea of voluntarily (legally and democratically) providing government services, to a moral imperative, and that's where we can't agree. The reason we can't agree is because if every child has a right which imposes moral obligation on anyone but the child's parents, then we aren't arresting enough people, because there are kids in America and elsewhere who don't have parents, and they are many times taken care of by people who aren't their relatives, even though you would think that if a kid didn't have parents then the moral obligation to take care of the kid's essentials would first fall on the parents' relatives, rather than immediately spill out to the general public.

There are private orphanages. Instead we should arrest all the relatives of the child's parents until one of them agrees to take care of the kids' essentials. Then you don't need orphanages, private or public.

There's often times where family relatives do step in to take care of the child and not always through the child being abused or neglected. Absolutely fine if they're up to the job but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's not viable and you can hardly force a relative into the role of parenthood either. Ideally there'd be no need for orphanages or child protection services but it's not an ideal world and sometimes the only way a child's rights can be ensured are for them to be taken into care. The alternative is to deny them any sorts of rights and let the chips fall where they may...

 

[Right Divider]

Talking about 'evil' when you deny a child any rights post birth is bitterly ironic.

Again, no right matters if they are murdered in the womb.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Again, no right matters if they are murdered in the womb.

If there is any attraction between man and woman and it is never consummated, is that murder as well?

 

[Right Divider]

If there is any attraction between man and woman and it is never consummated, is that murder as well?

Are you retarded? Only a LIFE can be murdered!

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Oh my bad!

By all means continue with your own musings, which includes that you think it is OK to kill this woman, just so long as it was early enough in her timeline!

Rebecca Kiessling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I struggle with thoughts about you never having been born. I need to pray about it.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

I struggle with thoughts about you never having been born. I need to pray about it.

I thought you strongly made the point that stopping potential life is murder as well.

 

[Right Divider]

I thought you strongly made the point that stopping potential life is murder as well.

If you are talking to me, you would be incorrect.

 

[Idolater]

I thought you strongly made the point that stopping potential life is murder as well.

Nope, not even close to that.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

What about the doctrine against coitus interuptus? Is preventing completion of the act once started, murder?

 

[Idolater]

What about the doctrine against coitus interuptus? Is preventing completion of the act once started, murder?

No!

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

No!

But it is a sin? Like self-abuse.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is not practical to treat a fertilized egg the same as we do a baby.

Practicality of something doesn't make something right or wrong.

It is wrong to murder the innocent. That includes the innocent baby in the womb, the moment he or she comes into existence.

And we don't --

We?

You have a mouse in your pocket or something?

Anyways, you might not, but a fertilized human egg is a baby, a human being, by definition, and should be treated as such.

except when someone like you wants to accuse someone of murder.

This coming from someone who clearly wants to murder children in the womb.

No one is charged for neglect because of a miscarriage.

Duh, because a miscarriage isn't intentional.

It's a completely different story when you intentionally kill a child.

Pregnant women cannot ride the carpool lane unless someone else is on the car.

That's a matter of governmental infrastructure policy, aka code of use, not morality, and as such, does nothing to justify killing the child in the womb.

You are a liar.

Says the murderer-at-heart.

Catch a rape induced pregnancy early enough then there is no baby.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen you say so far.

Pregnancy by definition means there's a baby.

If the woman is pregnant, then there's a baby inside her.

If there's no baby, then she's not pregnant, by definition!

The definition of pregnant, as it pertains to this discussion:

pregnant - having a child or young developing in the uterus

Thanks for conceding the entire discussion!

The rapist is the wrong doer

So punish him by executing him.

Don't punish the child for the crime of the father. The child is innocent.

who set up the terrible situation,

Part of the blame (at least in today's society) lies on the government for not punishing criminals harshly enough.

not the woman.

Nor the child in her womb.

It is terrible because of the potential we can imagine.

Potential? Are you referring to the child? Because even children not conceived in rape can be terrible people later in their lives, yet that still doesn't give anyone the right to kill them in the womb, long before they ever consider doing evil things.

A fertilized egg has no blood for the first two weeks and pumps the woman's blood after three weeks.

And yet, it's a living human being.

That means, that there is a lifeblood within him, a process that continues to function so long as the baby lives.

But you want to spill that blood.

Like I said before, your bloodlust is showing.

Atomic Biology Featuring Tom Rogers - Part I | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Atomic Biology Featuring Tom Rogers - Part II | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Killing that is righteous isn't murder

Killing the righteous and/or the innocent IS murder.

An egg fertilized by no volitional conduct of a woman is not righteous.

Wrong.

The ACT of fertilizing an egg of a woman without her implicit consent (AKA rape) is not righteous.

The baby is innocent, and therefore, righteous.

The baby conceived through rape is one of the victims OF the rape.

Yes you did.

Grow up, Mary, stop acting like a petulant child.

Playing with semantic origins is futile.

Semantics has nothing to do with this. It's the very definition of the word, yet you use "fetus" rather than "baby" because it's from a different language. It's obfuscation.

Quit obfuscating.

A concept is valid when it hangs together with other exemplars within the concept.

No idea what you're referring to here.

A zygote is more similar to a gamete than it is to an individual.

No, it's not.

An egg or a sperm (gametes) is only half of what is needed to create a new human life.

A zygote is a living human being, created in the image of God.

Completely different!

You are a liar.

Supra.

Self-defense and lethal actions in war are righteous killing as examples.

Not always, but generally speaking, yes. And?

Neither of those justify killing the baby in the womb.

Halting the evil actions of a rapist is righteous when done diligently.

A baby conceived in the womb after a rape happens is not the actions of the rapist. It's simply what happens naturally when a sperm and egg join. There's even fireworks to celebrate whenever a new human being comes into existence. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, look up "zinc flash" on YouTube, or watch the video I posted earlier.

Just because a baby is conceived as a result of rape doesn't mean that the baby is somehow deserving of death. It's just the opposite, the baby should be loved, and protected by law, from the moment of conception, from people like you who want to murder them simply because their father was a rapist.

There was a saying in Israel, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge."

God got angry at Israel for this saying, because the saying was referring to punishing children for the sins/crimes of their father:

The word of the Lord came to me again, saying,“What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?“ As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right;If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity;If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing;If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man;If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully— He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord God.“If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood, Who does any of these thingsAnd does none of those duties, But has eaten on the mountains Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;If he has oppressed the poor and needy, Robbed by violence, Not restored the pledge, Lifted his eyes to the idols, Or committed abomination;If he has exacted usury Or taken increase— Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him.“ If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise;Who has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;Has not oppressed anyone, Nor withheld a pledge, Nor robbed by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing;Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes— He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live!“ As for his father, Because he cruelly oppressed, Robbed his brother by violence, And did what is not good among his people, Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “ and not that he should turn from his ways and live?“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair?When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive.Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!” - Ezekiel 18:1-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel18:1-32&version=NKJV

 

[Idolater]

But it is a sin?

What exactly is your thread about here.

Like self-abuse.

Sin is self-abuse, sure. Many times it's abusive of others as well, and in as much as we are in community, but especially in the Body of Christ, when one part of the Church is injured or harmed or misused, it affects the whole Body.

 

[Yorzhik]

Why? Spell it out. You jump to a conclusion without supporting it and expect me to fill in the justification?

I didn't jump to a conclusion. Not everything is spelled out because the analogy is well known. What the analogy says is the reason one can disconnect from the patient is because they have bodily autonomy, which is true for the full 9 months they are expected to stay hooked up to the patient.

My compromise fits perfectly. A woman voluntarily hooked up cannot leave unless the fetus is safe. The act of initiating the relationship confers a duty just like when you start CPR. You cannot just stop on a whim. You are liable until someone else is there willing to take over. If you see someone drowning and you try to save them you cannot just give up and leave. You are liable. You must continue to try unless someone else takes over. This is because your actions may have lead others to assume their rescue efforts were not needed, so they did not help.

If you saw someone drowning or in need of CPR and you do nothing, you are not liable. If some one forces you at gun point to give CPR, you can stop without liability because any defrayed safety efforts are the fault of the gunman. Same with the hook up scenario.

You say your compromise fits perfectly and then turn around and show how it doesn't. The issue is the 16 weeks since the analogy is in the context of all-or-nothing.

I should point out that I view an unplanned pregnancy borne of casual sex as a voluntary pregnancy. Engaging in consensual sex is implied consent.

The baby is innocent regardless what the mother or father think or do.

I suggest 16 weeks but it is somewhat arbitrary. I could be convinced that a different time frame is a more rational cut off. It is based on what I considered essential hallmarks of an individual and giving the woman a reasonable but not too lengthy time to realize she is pregnant and make arrangements.

Then the analogy isn't helping you. You'll have to rely on something else to support your compromise. Understand that the baby is a human starting at a single cell. The baby is innocent.

That a baby looks more like an egg than a delivered human at the single cell stage doesn't matter to its humanity or innocence.

Spell out what you mean. Seems very garbled.

A rapist, despite the poor justice system not doing its job, would prefer not getting caught. Especially in the case a female knows her rapist.

I have been infertile for a long time and no one owns my body but me.

I'm speaking in generalities.

What?

I was explaining why one analogy was better than another. The airplane over the Pacific analogy is better.

 

[Yorzhik]

A stowaway is best not allowed off at the destination. Rather he is detained and sent back to the point of origin.

The biological hook up is an infinitely better analogy.

The question is whether a person can be thrown off an airplane in flight if they are a stow away.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

The question is whether a person can be thrown off an airplane in flight if they are a stow away.

Why on earth are you trying to discuss the analogy vaguely referencing how it is usually couched and how it is usually responded to instead of just using the analogy? You haven't kept the question that narrow as you just stated here.