Why do 'pro lifers' only care about life inside the womb?

Consequences to actions, right?

So the woman that is too afraid, scared, or whatever, to make a formal report of rape to the police, she would be penalised here, under your totalitarian state regime, because she would HAVE to have the baby.

You clearly have no idea about rape victims, esp those twice punished, by then falling pregnant.

As I have said, over and over, even in your fantasy world of abortion bans, the facts are that they would still take place, I have showed you example after example to support that fact, but you would sooner that they had dangerous terminations, rather than safe one's.

What a good human being you really are, yes, you have convinced me.

Jack

 

'Moral law' is unreliable, and best left to living in a theocracy, besides, whose to say your morals are better than the moral of someone with a different view to you?

You strike me as very self righteous, and a bit of a know it all, when by your comments about rape victims, you are more like a know feck all.

And if 'morals and life' concern you that much, does it merely concern you when the life is in the womb, or do you apply morals and value to life, all human life, all the way through their life?

In which case, I fully expect you to be anti war, anti poverty, and anti capital punishment.

Are you?

 

And that is already the case, which is why there is a cut off point for a termination.

This point varies from country to country.

 

Since you claimed that what I said was what you said, your statement is REALLY ODD.

Don't you think?

Of course, but the fact that people discover something after the fact doesn't change that it was murder before the fact as well. People know the gravity of the topic, and those who choose to abort regardless this gravity are still murderers, in my view.

Whether society chooses to punish them or not.

 

You know the problem with Moral Relativists? They are unaware that they're being morally relative, and require outside assistance to point it out - so here I am.

"Murder" is not 'a point which varies from country to country'. All that varies is whether some choose to punish it or not.

Whatever the exact point is that life actually should be defended at virtually all cost, it is a point, and an exact one. Beyond that point, intentionally ending that life is some level of murder, dependent upon the circumstance.

Whether it's recognized, or punished, or not.

 

Moral Relativism again.

All laws are based upon morality, Jack. You are unable to escape that. All laws.

Baseless ad hominem rant. Anyone who disagrees with you can say the same thing, if they have nothing left but to get personal. I do not agree with you, and I am intellectually defending my position, while you're throwing a temper tantrum and getting personal.

Of course. But I'm afraid you do not understand my morality, as it isn't merely about life, but about purpose and innocence.

And - of course - you prove that you do not understand.

I am anti-war, but understand its necessity.

I am anti-poverty, but I understand that poverty itself is strictly a condition, and can be temporary for those who will it, and permanent for those who need help (which is why I give to charities that believe as I do, and work to help the needy).

I am pro-capital punishment, because the right to that life ends when that life takes the life of another innocent life.

But - as I said - these things do not compute with you, though you seem to think you have it figured out. But of course you're the one who said I'm self-righteous, and I'm the know-it-all.



Add hypocrisy to the features of your posts.

 

Why is this hard for you to grasp.

Unless you live in a country where abortion is illegal, then abortion is not murder. If you desire for a change in the law, to make abortion illegal, then go lobby for that, but in reality, I don't think you will get enough support to deny a women the right to have a termination.

But knock yourself out trying.

The point at which a women can get a termination does differ from nation to nation. There is no one fixed universal cut off point, AFAIK.

You are really arguing for no good reason, as the other member suggested.

I have told you why an outright ban on the right to terminate would be a bad idea, not only told you, but supported my concerns, with examples from other countries.

Can you show me an example of a country where abortion is banned, and there are no large scale reports of women risking their lives, by having the procedure done anyway, but by someone not properly trained or equipped?

Thanks

 

I see.

So kinda like the OT 'tooth for a tooth', is that what you mean?

Show that killing is morally and legally wrong, by performing a state killing?

Moreover, what if you get the wrong man, a mistake happens, or he is fitted up.

It does happen. What if it happened to you, or your son, or father?

They would then have taken an innocent life, and committed a sin that would see them fry.

The same could be said of those that routinely kill the innocent, and not only escape punishment for it, but are praised for doing it, often by so called Christians.

The Abrahamic faiths love death, blood, and war.

They, more than any other, have more collective blood on their hands.

 

I believe that murder cases should be held to a higher standard than any other court ruling, and the accused should be beyond ANY reasonable doubt proven absolutely guilty before the family of the victim is allowed to torture and kill him.

Eye for an eye indeed. An eye for an eye lets the moron know if he screws up again, he'll be completely blind.

 

I consider arguments for government to forward a pro-choice or pro-life stance illegitimate. The truly legitimate argument on matters of abortion is from a Constitutional perspective. Defining life, and determining matters on abortion are powers respectively granted to the states. Therefore, they should remain under the jurisdiction of state legislatures, executives, and courts. At those levels, we the people will be able to decide how we want government to handle those matters, if handle them at all.

However, if we are to forward a stance on abortion on a federal level, frame it within the full faith and credit clause.

 

You and I are having different conversations. You are unable to process the fact that there are absolutes, and they do not go away simply because you refuse to acknowledge them.

You seem to value what is written in the above what is written in nature, or what is inculcated into morality. That is the danger of the moral relativist, who thinks that nothing resides above Man.

Even an atheist should be able to understand that simply because the Mayan culture engaged in human sacrifice, it was murder, even if they didn't punish it as such.

You continue to miss the point. I'm not contending otherwise. I'm contending that Natural Law trumps what some addled third world tinpot dictator chooses to regard as murder. There is a universal point at which it IS, because there is a universal truth yet to be discovered.

And this is the core of your confusion, as I'm claiming that there IS. We just don't know what it is. Yet. I have put forth my hypothesis, and I'm defending it as more logical and workable than any other arbitrary point I've heard.

Another difference. I happen to find this topic extremely important, as millions of lives have been at stake.

But there is an outright ban on murdering children, right? Universally? I have explained the reasons why my position makes more sense than yours.

Again, your claim of "personal responsibility" is really just hollow. I'm talking about not allowing abortions beyond the period during which personal responsibility allows the pregnant woman to make whatever decision she wants. You pay lipservice to personal responsibility, but the moment someone shirks it, we're supposed to be more concerned with the life of the woman looking to kill a child than we are the child itself?

You're welcome.

 

Iran sounds just like the country for you, or some other theocracy.

 

Okay.

So you are not against giving the right to a women to have a termination, the issue for you, it is more one of the period during pregnancy, that she can have one, yes?

If that is the case, then sure, that already happens, there already are legal restrictions in place, after which it would be illegal to have a termination.

And as I have said, that period varies, nation to nation.

 

From my studies God of the OT sees no value in the lives of those who do not accept him and this is generational.

Deu 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Take it to REV. and he destroys those who do not believe.

We should as Christians be against Abortion but do realize these are non-believers doing these things and God has made clear that non believers shall be cast into the lake of fire.

Side note: I do not understand how a person can begrudge the poor yet want to cause more pain by saying that YOU CAN NOT ABORT. Again every pro-lifer should adopt every non aborted child.

 

No they are not...

Pot is illegal because it interferes in the profits of drug, oil, and clothing companies, and not for any moral reasons

 

No, it is the core of your confusion.

Let me state some facts, and tell me which are NOT factual.

You can legally have an abortion in the US?

You can legally have an abortion in Britain?

In neither country would someone having an abortion be commiting murder, in the legal sense of the word, and as our law stands?

That there is a legal cut off point at which the women cannot have a termination?

That this varies, nation to nation, up to about 20 weeks, sometimes it is less.

These are statements of fact.

That is the confusion.

Somehow you are taking statements of fact, and arguing as if they were not statements of fact.

 

I never said that at all. Another indication that you're losing this debate is that you have to construct false claims in order to defeat something.

Uh..no, that's a non sequitur. One is willful killing of an innocent - that's called murder - and one is an execution of a guilty person: an execution undertaken after due process, and only after the burden of proving true guilt is met. That's called justice.

These concepts are foreign to the Moral Relativist.

Someone convicted of 1st degree murder should be removed from society ASAP (meaning, as soon as the evidence is definitive), both as an example to others and for protection and maximum operability of that society.

That society refuses to live up to its obligations in this regard is manifest with the terrible logistic problems with prison overcrowding, and with the recidivism of released felons guilty of murder.

My goodness! You take these mistakes so seriously, but so cavalierly dismiss parallel concerns wrt an early human life! I can tell, because you refuse to support an early enough point in gestation which HAS to keep society safe from actually killing a kid! The best you could muster was the flaccid statement "abortion is happening later than I'd like", or somesuch milquetoast objection.

Be still, my heart. Your conviction on these matters overwhelms me.



You have a double standard! Moral Relativists can always be demonstrated to be guilty of that.

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. What if the next Ghandi was aborted because of your cavalier cowardice in taking a logical moral stand?

See? Two can play your game.

In direct response to your fallacy, however: society cannot operate laws with the presumption of perfection, as perfection is not possible on this plane. All that we can do is be as careful as we can, and continue to abide by laws which we understand exist for the maximum benefit of society, while simultaneously understanding that living life has inherent risk.

Do you know how hard it is to be committed of a 1st degree capital crime while being utterly and totally innocent of any illicit involvement whatsoever?

Translated: if you do not want to be found guilty of something that serious, don't put yourself in stupid circumstances where you're already doing something bad.

Fallacy of Generalization. Be specific, or retract.

Ditto, with an additional non-sequitur, as Atheists have killed millions under the banner of Communism, the quintessential ideology of the Moral Relativist/Secular Humanist.

Wrong. Atheists have killed millions. You shouldn't need to see the body counts of despots like Stalin and Pol Pot to cede that point.

 

You continue to miss the point. I'm more impressed by the truth than I am what is codified into law.

And so should you - or you would be forever conscripted by bad law, merely because some dolt wrote it.

 

True to the bolded, but understand that we as Christians have to be concerned more about the innocent life being aborted, as that life has yet to be allowed to make the choice whether they will accept God. We attempt to save the mother as well, but codify protections for innocent life as we do with the law as it is at present already.

 

Do you not have an opinion on your own on the subject matter?

 

"No they are not"...what? Pot is not what we're discussing. If you're saying that marijuana laws have no component of them that involves morality, we're going to have a problem, as it's obvious that most citizens who oppose legalizing weed are not doing it for the reasons you state (however valid or invalid they are), but because of personal moral reasons.

Hence, the law stands based upon the morality of the people. Still don't believe me? Then please explain how these "7 Reasons Pot is Banned" are nearly exclusively moral rationalizations.

 

Well considering we have lost the moral high ground with all the infighting and utter spitting on the Bible by some denominations. It is getting harder and harder to find that one time easily attainable high ground. Hell I will say the majority out ther fighting for religous reasons are doing it without ever really studying the Bible at any time in their lives.

I do understand your concerns but in the OT (yeah I know this is not the book we live by) many precedents were set and those were not really changes or addressed in the NT.

God has commanded that all be killed and I don't need to quote scripture but I will do a one liner.

Leviticus 26:22
King James Version (KJV)
22I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.

God wants us all to follow but make no mistake he has no use for wicked blood lines and it is made clear.

 

I've been arguing with you for several pages now, and you JUST GOT THIS NOW?

WTF have you been reading, Jack?

I have explained - in detail - that I believe that aborting a mass of cells up to the point that it forms blood "and it moves" is acceptable. Beyond that point, it is not.

That point is easily verified via scan, and should be mandated before an abortion is performed.

It is the least we can do to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

sigh. I know that. I'm contesting the logical and moral consistency of the present limitations, which are arbitrary and not well-enforced - including allowing partial-birth abortions, which should make any reasonable person recoil in horror.

And 'round and 'round you go.

 

I disagree. Everyone sins. If we precluded sinners from leadership, we would have no leadership. In many ways, the worst sinners can morph into the best leaders and advisors of caution.

They were. The NT declares the OT "passed away, for a New Covenant".

Leviticus is Old Testament. I believe Old Testament is a historical teaching tool, and little else. What do you believe that scripture teaches?

Of course, but I do not see how this is germane to the topic here, as God gives offspring of sinners the offering of a covenant through which the omission of sins is granted.

 

Yall are screwing logic up, yall just keep repeating the same thing, over and over.