Abortion is evil

[JudgeRightly]

Yes that's the point. You cannot remove an invited passenger on your ship unless there is another place of safety.

Outside of a mother's womb is not safe for a still developing child. Thus, no removal is allowed.

You can set a stow away adrift in a life raft.

You can, but you shouldn't, for the same reason you just gave. The open water is not a safe place for someone on a life raft.

You can throw off an invited guest who suddenly decides to try to sink the ship.

No.

The ONLY time you are allowed to kill someone legally is when there is imminent threat to the life of yourself or someone else. If you are able to control someone to the point where you're able to maneuver them off the ship, then you shouldn't be throwing them off the ship. You should be tying them up and putting them in a secure location, to hand off to the authorities when you dock.

As for the above being an analogy, the baby in the womb isn't intentionally trying to kill the mother, and is completely innocent. It would be wrong to kill the baby, for he has done no wrong. However, if the location of the baby inside the mother's body is putting the mother's health at risk, then you move or remove the baby, but you don't stop to kill the baby. The baby will die, which is a tragedy, but your intent is to save mom, not kill the baby.

Anything inside the woman could well be considered part of the woman.

False.

The baby is a genetically unique individual, made with DNA from both the mother AND the father.

The baby

I'm glad you recognize that it's a baby.

will eventually take on unique characteristics

The baby is already unique at the moment of conception.

How do you not know this already?

and become viable while inside.

A baby is dependent on his mother for survival long after he leaves the womb. So what's your point?

Individual rights of the infant emerge

Human rights are endowed upon an individual at the moment of conception, not at some arbitrary point afterwards. That means it's wrong to intentionally kill the baby.

and must be balanced with the mothers rights at some point.

No.

You NEVER have to murder someone in order to save someone else's life.

There's no balancing to be done here. You don't have the authority to say that one person's life is less valuable than another's.

In the case of rape, the mother has an edge for the first half of pregnancy. Her rights supercede the infants.

Nope.

Again, YOU do not have the authority to make that decision, nor does any government. That right belongs SOLELY to God. HE has said "YOU SHALL NOT MURDER." Killing the innocent is murder.

You readily agree to exceptions.

No, we don't.

A strange guy barges into your living room unwilling to obey your command to leave. He's looking around wildly and makes a move toward the entrance to your little daughter's bedroom. You take the opportunity to shoot him dead.

If you could see that he had no weapon on him, it would be murder, despite him having entered your home uninvited. If he had a gun and was pointing it at your daughter's room, sure, it wouldn't be murder. If it was at night, and the lights were off, so that you couldn't see if he had a weapon, it wouldn't be murder. But you have an obligation to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend an intruder, and only when the intruder escalates his use of force are you allowed to do the same. Now, that being said: You MAY shoot him, say, in the leg, with the intention of wounding him, to prevent him reaching your daughter's room, but you do NOT have the authority, even within your own home, to intentionally kill someone who is not an imminent threat to your life, or someone else's life.

And even if the situation were such that the man WOULD be an inmminent threat, to you or your daughter's life, shooting the man wouldn't be murder, it would be considered self defence, or defence of the innocent.

That's not an exception. That's a VALID use of force in the defence of the innocent, and thus, is not murder.

Even if he was totally innocent and someone poisoned him making him confused, you would expect to not be charged with a crime.

Yes, you would, if there was no imminent threat to someone's life, and it could be shown that lethal force was not the only option available.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Outside of a mother's womb is not safe for a still developing child. Thus, no removal is allowed.



You can, but you shouldn't, for the same reason you just gave. The open water is not a safe place for someone on a life raft.





No.

The ONLY time you are allowed to kill someone legally is when there is imminent threat to the life of yourself or someone else. If you are able to control someone to the point where you're able to maneuver them off the ship, then you shouldn't be throwing them off the ship. You should be tying them up and putting them in a secure location, to hand off to the authorities when you dock.

As for the above being an analogy, the baby in the womb isn't intentionally trying to kill the mother, and is completely innocent. It would be wrong to kill the baby, for he has done no wrong. However, if the location of the baby inside the mother's body is putting the mother's health at risk, then you move or remove the baby, but you don't stop to kill the baby. The baby will die, which is a tragedy, but your intent is to save mom, not kill the baby.



False.

The baby is a genetically unique individual, made with DNA from both the mother AND the father.



I'm glad you recognize that it's a baby.



The baby is already unique at the moment of conception.

How do you not know this already?



A baby is dependent on his mother for survival long after he leaves the womb. So what's your point?



Human rights are endowed upon an individual at the moment of conception, not at some arbitrary point afterwards. That means it's wrong to intentionally kill the baby.



No.

You NEVER have to murder someone in order to save someone else's life.

There's no balancing to be done here. You don't have the authority to say that one person's life is less valuable than another's.



Nope.

Again, YOU do not have the authority to make that decision, nor does any government. That right belongs SOLELY to God. HE has said "YOU SHALL NOT MURDER." Killing the innocent is murder.



No, we don't.



If you could see that he had no weapon on him, it would be murder, despite him having entered your home uninvited. If he had a gun and was pointing it at your daughter's room, sure, it wouldn't be murder. If it was at night, and the lights were off, so that you couldn't see if he had a weapon, it wouldn't be murder. But you have an obligation to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend an intruder, and only when the intruder escalates his use of force are you allowed to do the same. Now, that being said: You MAY shoot him, say, in the leg, with the intention of wounding him, to prevent him reaching your daughter's room, but you do NOT have the authority, even within your own home, to intentionally kill someone who is not an imminent threat to your life, or someone else's life.

And even if the situation were such that the man WOULD be an inmminent threat, to you or your daughter's life, shooting the man wouldn't be murder, it would be considered self defence, or defence of the innocent.

That's not an exception. That's a VALID use of force in the defence of the innocent, and thus, is not murder.



Yes, you would, if there was no imminent threat to someone's life, and it could be shown that lethal force was not the only option available.

Castle doctrine gives people more opportunity for lethal defense inside ones home which is very different when out in public. Similarly, inside ones body affords more latitude.

Everything you said is true outside the home in liberal states. Stand your ground states allow more defensive aggression. It is based on if you reasonably feared for your life not on the minimally necessary force.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Castle doctrine gives people more opportunity for lethal defense inside ones home which is very different when out in public.

Which does absolutely nothing to go against what I just said.

If someone invades your home, yes, you have the right to use lethal force, ONLY if someone's life is in imminent danger, or if it's dark and you cannot clearly see the intruder (which isn't as likely these days, considering modern homes can be sufficiently lit with just the flick of a switch).

If no one's life is in imminent danger, then lethal force is not authorized, and your obligation is to subdue the intruder. Killing the intruder in such a circumstance would be murder.

Similarly, inside ones body affords more latitude.

Nope. It is NEVER OK to intentionally kill an innocent baby, for the baby is not an intruder, nor has the baby done any wrong to deserve such punishment.

Everything you said is true outside the home in liberal states.

So what?

Stand your ground states allow more defensive aggression.

So what?

It is based on if you reasonably feared for your life not on the minimally necessary force.

Supra.

 

[TomO]

Do you need a lawyer to declare moral bankruptcy? Just wonderin'.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Do you need a lawyer to declare moral bankruptcy? Just wonderin'.

How bout this big guy?:

Allowing the two exceptions makes laws banning abortion palatable to the public. A majority of people are against a complete ban. Allowing women to choose the course of action when rape has occurred sends a message of respect. More people will get on board a ban on abortion as casual birth control if flexibility is allowed elsewhere. Women can still be encouraged to bring their babies to term in all cases except dire health risks.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Which does absolutely nothing to go against what I just said.

If someone invades your home, yes, you have the right to use lethal force, ONLY if someone's life is in imminent danger, or if it's dark and you cannot clearly see the intruder (which isn't as likely these days, considering modern homes can be sufficiently lit with just the flick of a switch).

If no one's life is in imminent danger, then lethal force is not authorized, and your obligation is to subdue the intruder. Killing the intruder in such a circumstance would be murder.



Nope. It is NEVER OK to intentionally kill an innocent baby, for the baby is not an intruder, nor has the baby done any wrong to deserve such punishment.

Except cases of extreme absurdity, you can kill a house invader in the United States. If there is any plausible reason that you feared for your life, then you are excused. The person need not be armed. If you are armed and the intruder steps towards you, you can protect yourself from your own gun and shoot. Any gun owner knows you never shoot to disable, only to kill. A wounded person is dangerous and in your own home you do not have to tolerate such risks.

The legal definition of INTENT includes being substantially certain that a death will occur by your actions even when in your heart you do not wish it to be so or are indifferent. In light of this you have contradicted yourself.

 

[TomO]

How bout this big guy?:

Allowing the two exceptions makes laws banning abortion palatable to the public. A majority of people are against a complete ban. Allowing women to choose the course of action when rape has occurred sends a message of respect. More people will get on board a ban on abortion as casual birth control if flexibility is allowed elsewhere. Women can still be encouraged to bring their babies to term in all cases except dire health risks.

No they won't...It won't have any effect...And it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

It's just a smokescreen to keep the division going. The goal-post always changing. I can remember a time when ending ectopic "pregnancies' wasn't even considered and "abortion" because neither the mother nor fetus had any chance of surviving...NOT acting was/is the death sentence. Now, silly "health care professionals" wring their hands and threaten withholding care because they are sooooo afraid they will get caught up in the "anti-abortion laws" in protest.

Bull

How about this?....Sure, fine by me... Let's do it tomorrow... This is such a stupidly low percentage of abortions if that's all it will take to stop the mass murder...Fine.

BTW....Rape becomes a death penalty offense and proven false accusations receive the same.



Hey, I've got another idea....

I'll even go one farther...Legal until the 20th week. Nothing has changed about the fact a murder is being committed but at least the victims do not have a functional cerebral cortex before that to have a seat of consciousness. You see....In the end it doesn't matter....We as a people bomb weddings and children's parties and claim that they deserved it because they shouldn't have had those guests. Quite legal, those bombings.

Do I really consider a people with the hardness of heart of this entitled & perverse generation to put a human life above their "best life"?

(And that, damn sure, is the reality for the vast majority of todays abortions.)

Hell, no. I don't.

You're sitting here playing "let's make a deal" to white-wash the most unspeakable form of murder conceivable.

You think OUR LORD will stay Judgement forever?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

No they won't...It won't have any effect...And it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

It's just a smokescreen to keep the division going. The goal-post always changing. I can remember a time when ending ectopic "pregnancies' wasn't even considered and "abortion" because neither the mother nor fetus had any chance of surviving...NOT acting was/is the death sentence. Now, silly "health care professionals" wring their hands and threaten withholding care because they are sooooo afraid they will get caught up in the "anti-abortion laws" in protest.

Bull

How about this?....Sure, fine by me... Let's do it tomorrow... This is such a stupidly low percentage of abortions if that's all it will take to stop the mass murder...Fine.

BTW....Rape becomes a death penalty offense and proven false accusations receive the same.



Hey, I've got another idea....

I'll even go one farther...Legal until the 20th week. Nothing has changed about the fact a murder is being committed but at least the victims do not have a functional cerebral cortex before that to have a seat of consciousness. You see....In the end it doesn't matter....We as a people bomb weddings and children's parties and claim that they deserved it because they shouldn't have had those guests. Quite legal, those bombings.

Do I really consider a people with the hardness of heart of this entitled & perverse generation to put a human life above their "best life"?

(And that, damn sure, is the reality for the vast majority of todays abortions.)

Hell, no. I don't.

You're sitting here playing "let's make a deal" to white-wash the most unspeakable form of murder conceivable.

You think OUR LORD will stay Judgement forever?

Compromise is the best way to keep divisiveness going? Mmkay.

I can think of murder scenarios much more evil.

I have no problem at all with executing rapists. And severe penalties for bearing false witness.

 

[Right Divider]

Allowing the two exceptions makes laws banning abortion palatable to the public.

This is the standard that we should use? What is "palatable to the public"?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

This is the standard what we should use... what is "palatable to the public"?

One consideration, yes. For personal decisions of course what God said reigns. Most of you are a bit off about what God says.

 

[Right Divider]

One consideration, yes.

Poor choice.

For personal decisions of course what God said reigns.

Everyone should be that way.

Most of you are a bit off about what God says.

Why are you lying?

 

[ok doser]

Most of you are a bit off about what God says.

οὐ φονεύσεις

 

[JudgeRightly]

Allowing the two exceptions makes laws banning abortion palatable to the public.

What the public thinks is palatable is irrelevant.

What matters, especially to God, is what is right and what is wrong.

Abortion is wrong, because it's murder. Therefore, since God said "Do not murder," abortion should be outlawed completely.

A majority of people are against a complete ban.

Jesus said the majority is wicked.

Allowing women to choose the course of action when rape has occurred sends a message of respect.

No, it doesn't. It just allows them to be selfish, and shows no respect to the baby inside their bodies.

More people will get on board a ban on abortion as casual birth control if flexibility is allowed elsewhere.

Why should we care?

Abortion is wrong and needs to be OUTLAWED, not regulated.

Women can still be encouraged to bring their babies to term in all cases except dire health risks.

Women should be encouraged to love their babies, even if their child was conceived in rape. Part of loving someone is not murdering them.

Except cases of extreme absurdity, you can kill a house invader in the United States.

The laws in the United States do not align with God's laws.

I'm basing my morality on what God said, not what the US Government says.

If there is any plausible reason that you feared for your life, then you are excused. The person need not be armed. If you are armed and the intruder steps towards you, you can protect yourself from your own gun and shoot. Any gun owner knows you never shoot to disable, only to kill. A wounded person is dangerous and in your own home you do not have to tolerate such risks.

I recommend you read what God said, and base your morality on that, rather than what some legislature says.

The legal definition of INTENT includes being substantially certain that a death will occur by your actions even when in your heart you do not wish it to be so or are indifferent. In light of this you have contradicted yourself.

Supra.

Compromise is the best way to keep divisiveness going?

Yes. When you compromise on what is good, and what is evil, you allow the evil to remain, and it will continue to divide.

I can think of murder scenarios much more evil.

We'd rather you didn't.

I have no problem at all with executing rapists.

Good. Then you should have no problem with executing murderers.

And severe penalties for bearing false witness.

The penalty for bearing false witness should be.... what, in your opinion?

One consideration, yes. For personal decisions of course what God said reigns.

Then why do you not allow what God said to reign? Much of what you've said in this thread contradicts Him and His word.

Most of you are a bit off about what God says.

False.

 

[Yorzhik]

No analogy is perfect. When you change your mind about an invitee you have to expell them without life threatening force.

Also, consider the fact that when you start to rescue someone, you cannot stop unless the one in danger is delivered to a safe harbor.

When it is impossible to save the tresspasser anyway, then removal might be best accomplished by trying to minimize pain also factoring in methods that reduce risk to the landowner.

I don't think you realize that what you claim here undermines your compromise.

Going back to the airplane over the Pacific, the unconscious person is neither invited nor being rescued. So why is it wrong to throw them off? According to your compromise it isn't. But the reasons why it's wrong is hidden in the same reasons you can not justly throw someone off your plane over the Pacific who you've invited or who you are rescuing.

Of course the property we are referring to is a woman's body, the most personal of possessions.

Granted, as you'd agree the beginning of understanding reality is "I exist" and thus all humans most personal possession is their own self. And after we establish our God-given reality, we must live together in wisdom, which begins with the fear of God. And wisdom says we must respect the God-given life of every human. We merely have to determine when a human begins.

As such even greater reverence should be granted.

Greater than what? What are you comparing here? One is the greatest possession of a pregnant female, and the other is... the baby?... other humans in society?... the father specifically?

Further a fetus is using DNA to develop. People have a say over their likeness ... Ie how images of them may be used for profit. Don't you think someone has a right to stop use of their own DNA when no permission is granted.

This is just another example of why IP does not exist. If this were a reason to kill someone, the father would have a claim to the contrary! It would even have to be argued in court even if the father were a rapist. Are you sure you want to make this a part of your argument?

 

[Yorzhik]

How bout this big guy?:

Allowing the two exceptions makes laws banning abortion palatable to the public. A majority of people are against a complete ban.

Ah, so you understand the weakness of your compromise, but you are making political calculations to get what you consider a better outcome. Unfortunately, evil has gravity on its side and the only way for good people to fight against this kind of gravity is by standing on the principles of God.

Here is an example. When a bill to codify killing children before they are born in Colorado came up before the state Senate there was a massive number of people testifying against the bill. They didn't just testify against it but in every way, pragmatically, historically, and logically, they obliterated the arguments of the few Witnesses testifying in support of the bill. Did the Senators listen to reason? Did they listen to which side was more passionate? No, they had the gravity of evil on their side and their reason to support the bill could be summed up with the sentence "It won't change things very much." And did that reason stand to pass the law in the Senate? It sure did just as sure as the weak arguments of Stalin Mao and the Khmer Rouge were able to stand Rock Solid in their own political systems.

If you've ever wondered why the saying "don't compromise with evil" Rings true, this is it.

 

[TomO]

I don't think you realize that what you claim here undermines your compromise.

Only when compromise is actual compromise...Not a shell game.

 

[TomO]

Compromise is the best way to keep divisiveness going? Mmkay.

You spelled Shell-Game wrong.

I can think of murder scenarios much more evil.

Perhaps you can...I don't have much experience plumbing how deep the depths of others depravity is so I won't attempt to call you out.

I have no problem at all with executing rapists. And severe penalties for bearing false witness.

Of course not...Hell, if you'll kill babies who won't you whack?

 

[TomO]

Mary...I'm going to toss something out here to you.

The fact is that the whole exception for rape thing is nothing but shell game laid out to undermine the fact that you are murdering an innocent and helpless human being...And if it's after the 20th week there is a pretty good chance they know it's happening. Oh, they don't understand the why or how but they are getting the what in no uncertain terms.

So...That leaves us with a single question. Does the circumstances of our conception and the relationship (however warped) between our parents dictate if we as individuals ourselves are worthy of life?

Wanna think up some scenarios with that as a positive world view?

If the child of the rapist is disposable then our humanity is based on something other than who we are before our Creator.

Don't expect me to play games with that.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

I don't think you realize that what you claim here undermines your compromise.

Going back to the airplane over the Pacific, the unconscious person is neither invited nor being rescued. So why is it wrong to throw them off? According to your compromise it isn't. But the reasons why it's wrong is hidden in the same reasons you can not justly throw someone off your plane over the Pacific who you've invited or who you are rescuing.

Granted, as you'd agree the beginning of understanding reality is "I exist" and thus all humans most personal possession is their own self. And after we establish our God-given reality, we must live together in wisdom, which begins with the fear of God. And wisdom says we must respect the God-given life of every human. We merely have to determine when a human begin.

1) If you knew for a fact the stowaway was never conscious, does not have memories, a name, a history, an identity, or loved ones AND he was draining resources of the flight which made successful landing 5% less likely and he possessed your dna mixed with DNA from the vilest person you ever knew, would that make any difference at all in your likelihood of tolerating his ejection from the plane?

2) if someone left live sperm on your steering wheel would you do everything in your power to help the sperm to ultimately achieve it's ultimate purpose?

 

[Idolater]

... if someone left live sperm on your steering wheel would you do everything in your power to help the sperm to ultimately achieve it's ultimate purpose?

?