toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[MaryContrary]

Well, I did ask YOU first . . . didn't I?

You don't have to answer the question. That you won't says it all.

What does it say exactly, bonehead?

And what does it say that you won't answer what other living human beings you're willing to kill?

I'm willing to consider any living human being to be a person. Now, you're turn. What other living human beings would you deny personhood in order to kill?

 

[Silent Hunter]

What does it say exactly, bonehead?

And what does it say that you won't answer what other living human beings you're willing to kill?

In my case . . . nothing . . . that is to say that until you define "person" I can't answer your question.

 

[MaryContrary]

In my case . . . nothing . . . that is to say that until you define "person" I can't answer your question.

Oh, no. We're talking about who you define as "persons" because that's the basis you've fronted for determining who we can and cannot kill. It'd doesn't matter what I think is a person.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I'm willing to consider any living human being to be a person.

You need to give an answer that isn't an opinion . . . particularly one that is YOUR opinion and one that I am also willing to agree to. See also here.

Now, you're turn. What other living human beings would you deny personhood in order to kill?

Same as before . . . the Irish and Auburn fans . . . although I'm willing to include Ohio State fans in the mix as well.

 

[MaryContrary]

You need to give an answer that isn't an opinion . . . especially one that is YOUR opinion as to what "person" and/or "personhood" means.

You don't need my answer so it hardly matters if it's opinion. We're working from your answer. What other living human beings do you consider non-persons?

Same as before . . . the Irish and Auburn fans . . . although I'm willing to include Ohio State fans in the mix as well.

Again, you deflect. Unless you're going to explain how these people can be killed with impunity, as they're nothing more than cells in puddles and whatnot.

See also here.

That's not a list of people you don't consider persons and, thus, can be killed with impunity.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Oh, no. We're talking about who you define as "persons" because that's the basis you've fronted for determining who we can and cannot kill. It'd doesn't matter what I think is a person.

Unless you've been asleep throughout the discussion we EACH have a definition of "person". Therein lies the difficulty.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You don't need my answer so it hardly matters if it's opinion. We're working from your answer. What other living human beings do you consider non-persons?

None. The unborn are not "persons" in my opinion and therefore cannot be considered to have been murdered by abortion.

Again, you deflect. Unless you're going to explain how these people can be killed with impunity, as they're nothing more than cells in puddles and whatnot.

Obviously, you can dish it out but you can't take it MC . . . :sigh:.

That's not a list of people you don't consider persons and, thus, can be killed with impunity.

No, it's a definition of "person" for reference.

 

[MaryContrary]

You're not going to answer. You've been given plenty of opportunity. :wave2:

 

[Silent Hunter]

:liberals:

 

[Silent Hunter]

You're not going to answer. You've been given plenty of opportunity.

I did answer your query. That you didn't like the answer isn't my problem.

What other living human beings do you consider non-persons? None. The unborn are not "persons" in my opinion and therefore cannot be considered to have been murdered by abortion.​

What part of "None." did you not understand?

 

[alwight]

A person? :think:

A person for me starts to emerge only when the nervous system is capable of functioning with some human like properties, a grey area perhaps.
If there is no nervous system at all yet then in a case of rape (say) then abortion would be my obvious no brainer choice, a zygote is no more a person than is a car.
If someone parks their car in my garage I'm not obliged to leave it there.

 

[Butterfly]

You stated:

No children being killed by God for their parent's sins.

I responded with Scripture and totally proved your statement/position to be wrong:

2 Samuel 12:14-18 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.18 On the seventh day the child died. "


You then ignored the fact that you were proven wrong.

Therefore it is a waste of time dealing with you because your mind is made up. You chose to follow man's philosophy and deny what Scripture teaches. That is your downfall. Continue debating atheists and unbelievers because you are not well-versed in the Bible and you're better off debating those who never read the Bible.

:cheers:

 

[MaryContrary]

You stated:

I responded with Scripture and totally proved your statement/position to be wrong:

2 Samuel 12:14-18 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.18 On the seventh day the child died. "


You then ignored the fact that you were proven wrong.

Therefore it is a waste of time dealing with you because your mind is made up. You chose to follow man's philosophy and deny what Scripture teaches. That is your downfall. Continue debating atheists and unbelievers because you are not well-versed in the Bible and you're better off debating those who never read the Bible.

:cheers:

Is the child killed because it is guilty of the parent's sin?

No?

Then you lie. :idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Is the child killed because it is guilty of the parent's sin?

Isn't the killing of a child always wrong?

:think:

 

[MaryContrary]

Isn't the killing of a child always wrong?

:think:

Not for God.

I did answer your query. That you didn't like the answer isn't my problem.

What other living human beings do you consider non-persons?

None. The unborn are not "persons" in my opinion and therefore cannot be considered to have been murdered by abortion.​

What part of "None." did you not understand?

So your answer is that you don't consider any other living human beings non-persons? You're only willing to kill the unborn on the basis that they're non-persons?

Well, that's very lucky for the rest of the human race, I suppose.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Isn't the killing of a child always wrong?

Not for God.

And yet you still wonder why I reject your theology as :kookoo: . . .

So your answer is that you don't consider any other living human beings non-persons? You're only willing to kill the unborn on the basis that they're non-persons?

That takes my position an extreme I do not subscribe . . . but . . . yes.

Well, that's very lucky for the rest of the human race, I suppose.

. . . and convenient for your idealized version of deity that he/she/it is willing to kill the innocent on a whim.

 

[Rusha]

Isn't the killing of a child always wrong?

:think:

Not for God.

:think: What ever happened to those *absolute standards of morality*?

Either intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong or it isn't. Which is it?

 

[MaryContrary]

And yet you still wonder why I reject your theology as :kookoo: . . .

Says the guy who comfortably admits to supporting the killing of certain particular living human beings by simply denying that they're people.

That takes my position an extreme I do not subscribe . . .

What are you talking about? :AMR:

You've plainly said you support killing certain living human beings because you deny they're people. How is it going to extremes asking what other living human beings you deny the personhood of?

That's kind of an important question to ask of someone who justifies killing in that manner. Maybe you deny the personhood of redheads or women. I should probably know that in case you and I ever meet. Maybe you deny the personhood of Negroes. I'd have friends that I should probably keep away from you. Jews maybe? Some folks around here might want to know you don't consider them persons and that you're comfortable with killing them, since they're nothing but cells and water or whatever. And not, you know, persons.

Kind of an important question.

but . . . yes.

So only unborn babies.

I see.

. . . and convenient for your idealized version of deity that he/she/it is willing to kill the innocent on a whim.

Who said anything about killing "on a whim"? That you added that betrays you're aware you have no reasonable accusation. So you had to make one up and hope no one noticed. Are you that desperate to accuse God of something?

 

[MaryContrary]

:think: What ever happened to those *absolute standards of morality*?

Either intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong or it isn't. Which is it?

When is killing wrong and why, Rusha?

If you're going to ask this question then you'll need to acknowledge, if only as hypothetically as the question, that God exists. And if you're going to ask me, then you have to acknowledge that God as my God.

So. Why is it wrong for you or I to kill someone but not for God to? Because that person belongs to God, not you or I. They are His, not ours, so unless we're granted the authority to make that decision in some way, then we just don't have it.

Consider further, if you care to, from God's perspective. Whether He, you or I kill an innocent child, that child dies in innocence and will be in paradise forever. So the wrong here is taking into our hands the determination of the child's existence, where we don't have that right.

God is capable of determining these things. We are not, so we can't be trusted with it beyond those rare few instances where such authority is granted (criminal law, war, self-defense, etc.)

 

[Silent Hunter]

Says the guy who comfortably admits to supporting the killing of certain particular living human beings by simply denying that they're people.

I support a woman's right to choose . . . I never said it was something I would personally do.

What are you talking about?

You've plainly said you support killing certain living human beings because you deny they're people. How is it going to extremes asking what other living human beings you deny the personhood of?

Personhood has always been the issue. That none of us can reach a consensus on what that is and when it begins has been the bone of contention throughout this discussion. I say it begins at birth. Others set that time at conception. Still others (the Jews for instance) set that time at one year of age. Personally, were I a woman, I would not have an abortion beyond the first trimester . . . but that's me . . . each woman is different.

That's kind of an important question to ask of someone who justifies killing in that manner. Maybe you deny the personhood of redheads or women. I should probably know that in case you and I ever meet. Maybe you deny the personhood of Negroes. I'd have friends that I should probably keep away from you. Jews maybe? Some folks around here might want to know you don't consider them persons and that you're comfortable with killing them, since they're nothing but cells and water or whatever. And not, you know, persons.

Strawman.

Kind of an important question.

So only unborn babies.

Exactly.

I see.

In my opinion . . . no . . . you don't.

Who said anything about killing "on a whim"? That you added that betrays you're aware you have no reasonable accusation. So you had to make one up and hope no one noticed. Are you that desperate to accuse God of something?

:think: What ever happened to those *absolute standards of morality*?

Either intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong or it isn't. Which is it? - Rusha