Argument from verbosity. Throw out enough issues and your opponent has no means of presenting answers to them due to time constraints. Leaves the atheist feeling safe that he has a lot of questions that were not answered.
toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Argument from verbosity. Throw out enough issues and your opponent has no means of presenting answers to them due to time constraints. Leaves the atheist feeling safe that he has a lot of questions that were not answered.
Butterfly
New member
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT #2
Numbers 5:27 states that if the woman was unfaithful then she would be barren, unable to have children, where as if she were innocent (no sexual relations) then nothing would happen and she would still be able to have children.
The word "thigh" is translated from the Hebrew word "yarek" which often refers to the sexual organs. This swelling due to inflammation, would be a wasting away of the sexual organs, in the medical field this is known as "prolapse of the uterus".
Now during that time there was no birth control as we have today. Adultery or per-marital relations usually ended in pregnancy. Statistically speaking, the probability of at least one of the accused being pregnant is 100%. Then the drinking of the bitter water by the accused resulted in an abortion. As it would cause the accused female and her reproductive organs and fetus to die off.
Numbers 5:11-31 does seem to outline a test for unfaithfulness by administering an abortifacient of "bitter water" that would show if a woman had conceived.
Sounds like you're convinced. :idunno:
Selaphiel
Well-known member
PureX said:
Begging the question. I said that it is not oppression if the cause is moral, you are assuming that it isn't possible that it is.
Which are based on normative ethics and a very specific philosophical outlook. Do you think that the US ideals of individual freedom and absolute autonomy are not based on ideology?
This is simply rephrasing to make it avoid sound like a moral imperative. Why are you protecting other individuals from theft and murder? You can reduce everything in your statement here to normative ethics, and anthropology hence they are moral imperatives. As if protecting the rights of the individuals wasn't a moral imperative. The question in this thread is whether the unborn have rights.
You assume that the current state of affairs regarding this issue are correct. The question is whether the fetus has rights, if it does, then its rights to live trumps the right to convenience.
You are not? Seems to me that you are arguing that absolute individualistic autonomy trumps any rights the fetus may or may not have (which is the discussion of this topic).
And the righteousness of your cause (that individual freedom necessarily trumps the rights of a fetus) is not presumed, right?
Moral conviction is not malice. Was the moral conviction of early Christians against infanticide malicious self-righteousness as well? Roman law stated that deformed children should be exposed to the wilderness.
Of course the case of rape is extreme and very difficult. I am simply insisting that we base that decision on a rational debate.
Whether they are morally righteous in their cause is not depends on the issue being discussed in this thread. You seem to exclude the possibility that they are.
What a simple and yet profound statement. :up:
So it would seem.
PureX
Well-known member
What you or I or anyone else thinks is "moral' has no bearing on what is or is not oppression. When the desires of one group of people are forced on another group of people it is oppression. It makes no difference whether the oppressive ideology is "moral" in the eyes of the oppressors or not.
Everything is based on "ideology" to some degree, but when we define it this loosely, it becomes a meaningless term.
The founders of the United States told the whole world why they were creating their own nation. They were being oppressed by England, and had decided that they must end this oppression by declaring and defending their own autonomy. They declared this:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
They went on to disclose a long list of grievances regarding the oppression of England. And not one of those grievances was about religious ideology. They were mostly economic, or about the denial of social self-determination. And you can see this reflected in their opening declaration.
The United States was not created because the Colonies were feeling religiously oppressed. And it was not created to support, promote, or otherwise express any religious ideology or moral imperatives. It was created because the people in the Colonies were being politically and economically oppressed, and needed to establish their own system of social government to establish their right to economic, political, and social self-determination.
The desire for autonomy (self-determination) is not a 'moral imperative'. It is a 'natural condition' or desire, bestowed by God through the act of creation. I understand that you may view such natural conditions as perhaps some divine moral absolute, but that's really just a matter of semantics.
Property rights are not particularly "ethical". What they are is functional. Ethically speaking, we should probably all be sharing what we have with each other. But when we try to apply such an ethical approach, it doesn't work. Because functionally, we are too selfish for it to work. Our laws are about keeping the peace and social order among individuals with different ethical priorities. They are about what works for us in pursuit of our individual goals. They are not about making us behave "ethically". Communism was about trying to make people behave ethically, and it was a dismal failure because God has already determined that we human beings be free to determine our own ethical and moral imperatives. And we will do so regardless of any governmental moral or ethical commandments. That's why few governments on the Earth waste their time trying to force moral and ethical imperatives on people, anymore. History has shown that it just doesn't work very well. Instead, they either try to enforce the selfish desires of the rulers, pander to the moral preferences of the majority, or they try to simply keep the peace and let people otherwise do as they will. And most of us prefer the latter.
You seem to be intellectually/emotionally incapable of grasping the idea that this is about social function, and not about who is morally "right".
Everyone agrees that human beings have a right to live at least until they try to deny other human beings of that same right. But in this case, we don't know when human beings become human beings. The determination made on this question by the courts was not based on "morality" or "ethics". It was based on social functionality, as most law in this country is. And what functions best is self-determination. Moral autonomy. People get to make their own decisions as long as their decisions do not deny other people their right to self-determination, too. THAT'S why killing people is illegal. That's why stealing their property is illegal. And that's why killing a human being even in the womb is illegal. That's been the court's determination all along.
BUT, the question remains, when does a human being become a human being, in the womb or not? How can the court identify what a "human being" is? And that, too, has been determined based on function and autonomy, not on 'morality". A human being is a human being when it can survive without the biological dependence upon the mother's body. And that occurs typically between the 22nd and 24th weeks of development. It's at that point that the courts have determined that the biological entity could exist on it's own, apart from the mother's body, and so it's at that point that it can be recognized as an autonomous human being.
Functionally speaking, the fetus is a part of the mother until such time as it would be capable of surviving apart from the mother's body. So this is the criteria the courts used. No one said anything about absolutes. When autonomy is possible, autonomy is awarded to the fetus, and protected by law.
It's not a decision based on moral righteousness. It' a decision based on functional observation.
The circumstances of conception don't really have anything to do with any of this. It remains the mother's decision until the 22nd-24th week. At that point the courts have observed that the fetus could survive as an autonomous human being, and so it's at that point that the law considers it one, and protects it as such.
The law is not debating moral righteousness. It's simply trying to establish a functional social precident.
Last edited:
Alate_One
Well-known member
But you're giving him the right to have his child born and live.
You can't judge something purely by what it *may* become. Smashing an acorn is not the same as cutting down an oak tree. The question is, what should be done with it, as it is at the moment of decision.
One generation is not evolution, moron. It's entirely possible, if the rapist's actions are caused by a genetic tendency that the child could inherit those tendencies. Children take after their parents. This should be obvious, even to you. The child was conceived in an evil act by an evil person. Are you really so stupid as to not see the possibility of a poor outcome from that?
I'm not saying every rapist out there is broken in that way, but some are and the woman might be able to distinguish between those possibilities since most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows.
And now you kill the child's father that you insist must be born. What do you think this child is going to think when they're told "your father was so evil we had to kill him"?
:darwinsm:
Seriously? This is your argument?
Irrelevant. You advocate for the choice of mothers to murder their children. Arguing with you about when personhood begins is irrelevant.
And your answer is to murder that child.
I may be stupid, but you're evil incarnate.
:dizzy:
Arguments from consequence won't help you.
You advocate for the choice to murder children.
Butterfly
New member
POINT#5
It wasn't an argument from "verbosity". As a student of Scripture, I know for a fact that Scripture shows that God called for the killing of children, both born and unborn, throughout Israel's history. This included the killing of children, pregnant women, and everything in between. Israel was told at times to decimate entire cities and people. This included running a sword through little children and pregnant women, as the Bible called for a complete and utter annihilation of the entire population of its people. Or in others, a genocide.
Most Christians are uncomfortable with those Scriptures and simply will either ignore them or find a way to dismiss them. Unfortunately they are the there and must be dealt with.
God is just and at times He called for the killing of children and unborn babies. It is a hard pill to swallow, that I will always admit, but it did happen. I believe this shows us that children, including the unborn, were guilty in the eyes of God and suffered death due to the sins of their parents. There is no other way to reconcile those verses but to come to a theological position that all are guilty of sin and death, including the unborn. In addition, that children paid for the sins of their parents and this payment at times included running a sword through them.
Hosea 13:16 "Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
1 Samuel 15:3 "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished."
2 Kings 8:12 "Dash their children, and rip up their women with child."
Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."
Isaiah 13:18 "They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones."
God has the authority and the right to take life as He will. We do not. What's so difficult to understand about that?
This is not relevant to the issue of abortion.
Cruciform
New member
I'll be as clear as possible:
The deliberate and willful killing of a pre-born human being for any reason whatsoever is always objectively evil.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm sorry you have issues with genetics and heredity. The product of a rape is as much the rapist's child as it is the woman's.
It should be the woman's choice whether she wants to mingle her genes with someone else or not.
To have the choice to either prevent a pregnancy resulting from a rape or end one from a rape is not the radical position you make it out to be. If you want to call stopping a zygote from implanting murder, so be it.
I think it is important to give deference to women rather than assume every stage of human development is equivalent to an adult human being who has been severely wronged.
Nothing I say is going to sway you. Your mind is already made up.
At least you admit stupidity.
Says the guy wanting to force women to bear a rapist's child.No argument sways you. You're a waste of time.
Dena
New member
I think it should be legal. In most cases I think it's wrong to have an abortion but in this case I could not judge a woman harshly if that is what she wants to do. I can't imagine continuing with a pregnant in those circumstances. I would be absolutely completely and totally berserk. I do think the morning after pill right away would be a good idea. Then testing can start two weeks later. I honestly have no issue with a woman having an abortion a few weeks after her assault. Is it life? Yes. Is it a person? No. If the morning after pill is administered every time (she doesn't even have to tell anyone she was raped), in addition to the fact that 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, perhaps not too many women would have to make this choice.
Last edited:
Dena
New member
Until you've been raped and impregnated you have absolutely no idea how you would actually feel. Sexual assault and abuse can have all sorts of affects on a person. You think you are somehow beyond normal human response to trauma? Probably not. At any rate, obviously this scenario isn't something you'll ever have to live.
Butterfly
New member
Isaiah 13:18 "They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
Hosea 13:16 "Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
1 Samuel 15:3 "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
God did not take their lives, human beings/Israelite's are the ones who ran swords through them and killed them, you really need to go back and read those Bible passages. They were commanded to kill everyone, including children and pregnant women. The people did the killing and they had God's blessing to do so.
This has EVERYTHING to do with abortion. One cannot argue from a Biblical perspective that children were not punished for the sins of the parents (rape, adultery, incest, etc) because the Bible has dozens upon dozens of examples of where children were punished for the sins of their parents, that punishment was death. That punishment was dealt out by mans hand & sword.
Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished."
2 Kings 8:12 "Dash their children, and rip up their women with child."
Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."
Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones."
Dena
New member
I'm going to agree with Mary in that these haven't got much to do with this topic.
Don't be stupid.
We don't have the authority or the right to do any of those things. Hence people don't run around doing them all the time. In all those cases these actions were commanded by God, who does have the authority and the right.
God once flooded the whole world. So would you suggest that, if I came into possession of a magic button that would flood the world, I'd have the right or authority to use it? Or would that be, you know, mass murder?
You are arguing for the right to murder our babies. This is why you're making dumb arguments. Because that's insane.
I wonder if there are enough female posters around here that it would be worth a poll over this issue? :think:
For me, I'd be devastated, sure. And won't pretend I wouldn't want that baby out of me. But there's no way in hell I'd ever murder it. Especially when it's still inside me! I wouldn't be able to think that (and I would think it, of course) without being horrified at myself. Especially after being victimized and violated in that way.
Dena, do you recognize that it would be a person you'd be pregnant with? I ask because I can't help but think that's the dividing point. I can't imagine any rape victim who recognized it as a child would ever think to have an abortion. I mean, there may be some who would but they'd have to be pretty insanely cold blooded.