toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[Rusha]

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.

Actually I don't ... which is the whole point, Mary (which you well know). Human beings (that would be us) live by our inner conscience as well as what we are taught in our living environment.

I have no problem whatsoever sticking to my POV that ALL babies (born and unborn) are innocent and deserving of life. My position against ALL abortions and the killing of unborn babies as well as born children is consistent.

The only reason to be against abortion is because it is the intentional killing of innocent, unborn babies. Either it is always wrong or it a neutral action. Which is it?

 

[MaryContrary]

Actually I don't ... which is the whole point, Mary (which you well know). Human beings (that would be us) live by our inner conscience as well as what we are taught in our living environment.

I have no problem whatsoever sticking to my POV that ALL babies (born and unborn) are innocent and deserving of life. My position against ALL abortions and the killing of unborn babies as well as born children is consistent.

The only reason to be against abortion is because it is the intentional killing of innocent, unborn babies. Either it is always wrong or it a neutral action. Which is it?

I'm sorry, Rusha, but you're questioning God while refusing to recognize that He's God. That just doesn't make any sense. :idunno:

You and I could agree, for example, that Silent Hunter shouldn't run around shooting random people but disagree that a police officer is right or wrong to come along and shoot him in turn for doing that. That's because the same rules don't apply to Silent Hunter than to the police officer in those instances.

Try explaining exactly why it's wrong to kill babies and you'll start running into the reasons why God can do this. If you acknowledge that He's God rather than pretend He's a human being.

 

[MaryContrary]

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

That makes a huge difference. lain:

So you won't personally kill all the people you meet that don't qualify as persons in your estimations...you just support other people doing so. Whew.

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.

Is consensus important or not? Apparently not since you toss it out the window and decide yourself. So why mention it?

Besides all that...your argument is "who knows, so I say kill babies because whatever".

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.

So there you go. "Who knows? So I say kill whoever you want as long as I'm not sure if they're people or not. Or something."

Strawman.

What are you talking about? :AMR:

I was explaining why the question your worked so hard not to answer was an important question. As well as illustrating what this bizarre criteria of yours for who is and isn't a person leads to.

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

Not complicated. You support other people killing living human beings, so long as you don't recognize them as persons.

Pretty pathetic and evil, but not complicated.

: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

I'll answer Rusha on this but you're asking, even as you argue in favor of murdering unborn babies...by other people of course...and only when you don't recognize them as people...well, that's pretty funny. In a sick and disgusting kinda way.

 

[PureX]

The real problem here is that the anti-abortion side sees only the "killing of innocent babies". Their eyes and minds are clamped tightly shut on that idea and image and nothing else. So they can't imagine how such an idea could possibly be considered acceptable, by anyone.

But the pro-choice side is not arguing for the "killing of innocent babies" at all. They are arguing for the right of each of us to decide for ourselves if abortion before the 22nd week is the "killing of innocent babies", or not. Because it may not be. It may be just the ending of a biological process that will eventually result in an "innocent baby".

But the anti-abortion people can't even envision such a possibility and will not hear of it, because they have already closed their minds to any other idea or image except that abortion is the deliberate murder of innocent babies.

When the mind closes, the "debate" ends. This is true of the abortion debate, the evolution debate, the gun debate, the political debates, and any other debate. The two sides will just talk at each other, but there is no meaningful interaction or communication, and so no hope of resolution.

 

[Rusha]

I'm sorry, Rusha, but you're questioning God while refusing to recognize that He's God. That just doesn't make any sense. :idunno:

No Mary, I was questioning *you* ... the person who responded to this thread.

You and I could agree, for example, that Silent Hunter shouldn't run around shooting random people but disagree that a police officer is right or wrong to come along and shoot him in turn for doing that. That's because the same rules don't apply to Silent Hunter than to the police officer in those instances.

WRONG. I would agree on the basis that SH would be running around shooting people and that police officers OR your average day Good Samaritan have the right to intercede in order to save the lives of innocents.

On the other hand, if a police officer with bad eye sight happens to shoot SH for wildly waving a banana in the air, the police officer is wrong and should be treated no differently than the rest of us.

Try explaining exactly why it's wrong to kill babies and you'll start running into the reasons why God can do this. If you acknowledge that He's God rather than pretend He's a human being.

No, I will not. This thread is not "Is abortion a religious issue" but rather "What about abortion in the case of rape"?

The reason I am against abortion in cases of rape is because it is harming/intentionally killing another human being because of the circumstances of the conception. I am against abortion because I see the unborn as innocent human beings who should be protected from intentional harm.

The protection of the innocent unborn child is the only argument that stands on it's own merit VS the right for a woman to kill whatever (or in this case, whoever) is in her body.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That makes a huge difference.

Quite.

So you won't personally kill all the people you meet that don't qualify as persons in your estimations...you just support other people doing so. Whew.

You just love to build strawmen don't your MC?

Is consensus important or not? Apparently not since you toss it out the window and decide yourself. So why mention it?

Since there is no consensus on when "personhood" begins each of us decides for ourselves. No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person.

Besides all that...your argument is "who knows, so I say kill babies because whatever".

I glad you have the clairvoyance to tell me what I think so often.

So there you go. "Who knows? So I say kill whoever you want as long as I'm not sure if they're people or not. Or something."

See above.

What are you talking about? :AMR:

I was explaining why the question your worked so hard not to answer was an important question. As well as illustrating what this bizarre criteria of yours for who is and isn't a person leads to.

It leads to you deconstructing a strawman and nothing else. See above.

Not complicated. You support other people killing living human beings, so long as you don't recognize them as persons.

Strawman . . . see above.

Pretty, pathetic and evil, but not complicated.

Quite the clever description of your deity in my opinion, MC. Very clever indeed.

I'll answer Rusha on this but you're asking, even as you argue in favor of murdering unborn babies...by other people of course...and only when you don't recognize them as people...well, that's pretty funny. In a sick and disgusting kinda way.

Strawman . . . see above.

 

[MaryContrary]

...strawmen
...clairvoyance...
See above.
...strawman...
Strawman
Strawman

Since there is no consensus on when "personhood" begins each of us decides for ourselves.

Maybe you don't understand what strawman means. Because you just said it again right there.

Feel free to point out how you don't support people killing those living human beings that you don't recognize as people. Because I'm not seeing you say anything else.

Quite the clever description of your deity in my opinion, MC. Very clever indeed.

You know that thing where you're scared to talk about God's character because you can't do it without blaspheming and getting banned?

Yeah, you need to work on that. Try harder. It really isn't that difficult.

 

[TomO]

No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person.

lain:

 

[MaryContrary]

No Mary, I was questioning *you* ... the person who responded to this thread.

You're questioning me about God. What difference does this point make? :idunno:

WRONG. I would agree on the basis that SH would be running around shooting people and that police officers OR your average day Good Samaritan have the right to intercede in order to save the lives of innocents.

...because in such an instance the police officer or the good samaritan have the right to kill.

The point here is that you deny God's right to kill by holding him to human standards. God's not human, nor does He occupy a human position in the universe. You refuse to acknowledge that God is God when you question whether God can kill. That makes no sense.

On the other hand, if a police officer with bad eye sight happens to shoot SH for wildly waving a banana in the air, the police officer is wrong and should be treated no differently than the rest of us.

That's...kind of a wild example. What's this police officer doing in the field with eyesight that bad? :AMR:

Even in that case there's a question of intent. That officer wouldn't be charged with murder, would they? I',m not seeing the relevance here.

No, I will not. This thread is not "Is abortion a religious issue" but rather "What about abortion in the case of rape"?

Excuse me.

Silent Hunter started this line of argument (which I agree is off-topic) to try to deflect from his admission that he supports killing others on the basis of simply not recognizing that they're persons. That in turn to avoid the logical conclusion that he justifies killing anyone at all, so long as there is no consensus on the matter.

You jumped on the bandwagon back at post #377. It's you and he that are pursuing this off-topic point, not me. Should I stop responding to it?

The reason I am against abortion in cases of rape is because it is harming/intentionally killing another human being because of the circumstances of the conception. I am against abortion because I see the unborn as innocent human beings who should be protected from intentional harm.

The protection of the innocent unborn child is the only argument that stands on it's own merit VS the right for a woman to kill whatever (or in this case, whoever) is in her body.

Agreed. :idunno:

 

[Granite]

The real problem here is that the anti-abortion side sees only the "killing of innocent babies". Their eyes and minds are clamped tightly shut on that idea and image and nothing else. So they can't imagine how such an idea could possibly be considered acceptable, by anyone.

But the pro-choice side is not arguing for the "killing of innocent babies" at all. They are arguing for the right of each of us to decide for ourselves if abortion before the 22nd week is the "killing of innocent babies", or not. Because it may not be. It may be just the ending of a biological process that will eventually result in an "innocent baby".

But the anti-abortion people can't even envision such a possibility and will not hear of it, because they have already closed their minds to any other idea or image except that abortion is the deliberate murder of innocent babies.

When the mind closes, the "debate" ends. This is true of the abortion debate, the evolution debate, the gun debate, the political debates, and any other debate. The two sides will just talk at each other, but there is no meaningful interaction or communication, and so no hope of resolution.

I completely agree. Both sides dig in and ultimately just want to hear themselves talk.

Let's be very blunt: most pro-lifers generally see the child's life as paramount and dismiss the crime victim's considerations as secondary. (And no: the unborn child in this situation, brought to term, is definitely not a victim.) The victim's wishes, if she doesn't want her body to remain violated by a criminal, simply do not matter. I can't think of a comparable situation in any imaginable scenario. That's what makes this topic so loaded and so controversial.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Maybe you don't understand what strawman means. Because you just said it again right there.

I understand quite clearly what a strawman is MC . . . and . . . your whole argument depends on them by making blanket statements outside of the context of my responses.

Feel free to point out how you don't support people killing those living human beings that you don't recognize as people. Because I'm not seeing you say anything else.

Feel free to Google "human being", "person", and "personhood" MC.

You know that thing where you're scared to talk about God's character because you can't do it without blaspheming and getting banned?

Yeah, you need to work on that. Try harder. It really isn't that difficult.

Unless this place is responsive to open and honest communication, that is to say, "opinion", I see no reason for it to exist.

 

[MaryContrary]

Feel free to point out how you don't support people killing those living human beings that you don't recognize as people. Because I'm not seeing you say anything else.

I understand quite clearly what a strawman is MC . . . and . . . your whole argument depends on them by making blanket statements outside of the context of my responses.

Feel free to Google "human being", "person", and "personhood" MC.

Unless this place is responsive to open and honest communication, that is to say, "opinion", I see no reason for it to exist.

:blabla:

:idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

lain:

Yes, Tom, the Terri Schiavo fiasco was a sad case. Even in the profound state of unconsciousness she was in I think she was a person.

 

[Granite]

Yes, Tom, the Terri Schiavo fiasco was a sad case. Even in the profound state of unconsciousness she was in I think she was a person.

Agreed. Lights were off, no one was home, and the autopsy confirmed just that. Tragic case, and even worse for how people exploited it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

:blabla:

:idunno:

:sigh:

:bang:

Oh, well.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Silent Hunter started this line of argument (which I agree is off-topic) to try to deflect from his admission that he supports killing others on the basis of simply not recognizing that they're persons. That in turn to avoid the logical conclusion that he justifies killing anyone at all, so long as there is no consensus on the matter.

What a crock and a total lie MC.

What part of, "No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person", (from Post 386) did you NOT understand?

 

[Granite]

What a crock and a total lie MC.

What part of, "No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person", (from Post 386) did you NOT understand?

She understood it just fine. This is just what she does: live up to her name.

 

[MaryContrary]

What a crock and a total lie MC.

:think:

You're twisting my answer then putting words in that I haven't used. It is absolutely the ending of "life" but it isn't the ending of a person's life. I stand behind my response here.

Murder is the taking of a person's life...

Which part of "it isn't a person" are you having trouble with?

Nope. You're words, right there.

What part of, "No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person", (from Post 386) did you NOT understand?

What part of, "The current price of tea in China is ¥ 90170.4/tsp do you NOT understand?! :IA: :sozo2:

What difference does this make? So you account to those outside the womb personhood. Wonderful. Good for you.

But considering you're free and comfortable denying the personhood of those in the womb based on nothing but consensus, this matters not too very much, does it?

And if consensus on the personhood on those outside the womb changes? Suddenly can't be verified? Is realized to be...inconvenient? :idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Nope. You're words, right there.
What part of, "The current price of tea in China is ¥ 90170.4/tsp do you NOT understand?!

What difference does this make? So you account to those outside the womb personhood. Wonderful. Good for you.

But considering you're free and comfortable denying the personhood of those in the womb based on nothing but consensus, this matters not too very much, does it?

And if consensus on the personhood on those outside the womb changes? Suddenly can't be verified? Is realized to be...inconvenient?

Well, its what I expected at least . . . another strawman.

Let me help you out on what a strawman is Mary . . . you can read about it here.

 

[MaryContrary]

Well, its what I expected at least . . . another strawman.

Let me help you out on what a strawman is Mary . . . you can read about it here.

You could help me out a lot better by listing what other living human beings you're fine with being killed, because you don't see them as persons. Or by explaining how we're supposed to understand that this pitiful justification of yours can't apply to everyone else in the universe other than the unborn.