Abortion, the Pro-Life Stance, and God's Law. Abortion is Never Okay.

Stuu

New member
Stuart, since God created man to live his life in two stages, stage one in this world, and stage two in the afterlife, He has the right to bring his creation from stage one, to stage two. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. He even gets to choose how to bring them from stage one to stage two.

And, were the people killed really innocent? Or were they wicked, His enemies?
So that makes it Ok for your god to tell other people not to kill. Or to tell them to kill, whichever applies at the time.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
What you said to the question of when is it "necessary" for a woman to have an abortion is found in post #20:

So your stated position is that an abortion is "necessary" when a woman decides "she would like to" have one.
Yes, obviously it is. Not sure what is inconsistent about that.

Stuart
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So that makes it Ok for your god to tell other people not to kill. Or to tell them to kill, whichever applies at the time.

Stuart
God commands "thou shall not murder" because murder is inherently wrong, it's the shedding of innocent blood. God does not murder, nor does He command people to murder.

Again, I ask, were the people killed innocent? Or were they God's enemies?
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
...almost any patient.

Stuart

Yup. And that was over 50 years ago. With the advances in modern medicine, it is probably even more rare today.

So you are still many, many light years away from any kind of defense of your position that abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman feels like she wants to have one.

It is simply not necessary to directly kill an innocent human baby.
 

Stuu

New member
God commands "thou shall not murder" because murder is inherently wrong, it's the shedding of innocent blood. God does not murder, nor does He command people to murder.

Again, I ask, were the people killed innocent? Or were they God's enemies?
So when your god ordered the killings that resulted in the death of Amalekite foetuses, those 'unborn children' were enemies of your god.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Yup. And that was over 50 years ago. With the advances in modern medicine, it is probably even more rare today.

So you are still many, many light years away from any kind of defense of your position that abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman feels like she wants to have one.

It is simply not necessary to directly kill an innocent human baby.
I recommend you read the Wikipedia page on ectopic pregnancy, then get back to us on exactly what is wrong with the information contained in it.

Stuart
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
Not sure what 'innocent' has to do with it. What does it have to do with it?

Innocence is a characteristic of some people. It is one thing that can distinguish them from non-innocent people such as rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. That could lead to a discussion about how to punish people who commit such crimes but I don't think we need to do that now.

An innocent person doesn't deserve to be punished in any way is the point. Unborn children are innocent.

No, that would be murder, obviously.

But why? What is different about the situation? If a mom is struggling with raising a 1 year old, has mental illness and might commit suicide...why do you say she can't kill the child but she could if the child was still in her womb?

What's the difference?
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
[MENTION=17965]Bard_the_Bowman[/MENTION]

Let's clarify something so this argument makes more sense.

The verse in Exodus does not say "thou shall not kill," it says "thou shall not murder." (yes, some versions say "kill" instead of "murder," but the hebrew word used means "murder."

Killing is not inherently wrong, murder is.

If "killing" were inherently wrong, then it would contradict the commands where God says for the government to kill the criminal guilty of committing a capital crime.

Thanks for the clarification Judge. And I agree. I just used both terms because I know that depending on the translation, both terms can be found.

A good point to clarify, though.

Peace.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So when your god ordered the killings that resulted in the death of Amalekite foetuses, those 'unborn children' were enemies of your god.

Stuart
No. God is not only just, He is merciful.

The innocent children who died were spared from the influence of those who would prevent them from ever knowing their Creator, and given an opportunity to choose to accept or reject Him outside of His enemies' influence. If he had not, then they most likely would have been taught to hate Him, or worse, never even learn about Him.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You haven't even read the Wikipedia page on ectopic pregnancy, have you.

When ectopic pregnancies are treated, the prognosis for the mother is very good in Western countries; maternal death is rare, but most fetuses die or are aborted. For instance, in the UK, between 2003 and 2005 there were 32,100 ectopic pregnancies resulting in 10 maternal deaths (meaning that 1 in 3,210 women with an ectopic pregnancy died). In the developing world, however, especially in Africa, the death rate is very high, and ectopic pregnancies are a major cause of death among women of childbearing age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy#Prognosis



Please link to the specific page, not to a whole page of links. That's just lazy on your part. You might also care to establish that the website you are linking to has reliable information. It looks to me like it is very unreliable.

Please explain exactly what you mean by autotransfusion, and what it does.

Your description of marriage as a punishment is noted.



<SNIPPED> the rest of your spectacularly bigoted rant. Your difficulties with reality are noted also.

Stuart

Use your "Holy Wikipedia" :mock: to find out what autotransfusion is. You seem to rely on it, why not now?
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
I have no idea what any of that has with a woman making a decision about what happens to her own body, based on her wishes.

She can. But her rights end when she infringes upon the rights of another. A baby in the womb is not her body. Different genetic code and I'm pretty sure that even you would agree that if a woman is carrying a boy that her body doesn't have 4 eyes, 4 legs, 4 arms, and male genitalia. Right?

Well, I cannot know what it is like to go through an abortion, so I have to trust the word of the brave women who have spoken out about the experience.

Stuart

Well, why do you think it is "harrowing" or "not an easy option"? What have those women told you?

I'm curious because we can get a sense of "harrowing" experiences without having experienced them ourselves. Plane crashes, sinking ships, natural disasters, etc. for example. We don't have to experience those ourselves to get an idea of what makes them so "harrowing".

So, even though you cannot have an abortion, you should be able to explain to me why you think it is "harrowing" and "not an easy option" anyways.

So what is it about an abortion that makes it so?
 

Stuu

New member
Innocence is a characteristic of some people.
In your judgment...
It is one thing that can distinguish them from non-innocent people such as rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. That could lead to a discussion about how to punish people who commit such crimes but I don't think we need to do that now. An innocent person doesn't deserve to be punished in any way is the point. Unborn children are innocent.
And those who steal food because they are made completely destitute by events beyond their control, they are not innocent.

Not convinced, sorry. Innocence is such a hypocritical claim by a christian. What happened to the doctrine of original sin? You don't believe in that, I guess. Those Amalekite foetuses that were ordered killed by your god, they weren't innocent, presumably. All the foetuses whose deaths resulted from your god flooding the whole planet, not innocent?
But why? What is different about the situation? If a mom is struggling with raising a 1 year old, has mental illness and might commit suicide...why do you say she can't kill the child but she could if the child was still in her womb?

What's the difference?
Medical consent is the difference. The 1 year old is not part of the mother's right to decide what happens to her body, but the foetus is. So she has the right to decide, which has to go higher that some other idiot deciding that the foetus has the right to decide.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
But her rights end when she infringes upon the rights of another. A baby in the womb is not her body. Different genetic code and I'm pretty sure that even you would agree that if a woman is carrying a boy that her body doesn't have 4 eyes, 4 legs, 4 arms, and male genitalia. Right?
Your attempt at asserting rights for the foetus infringe on the woman's right to medical consent. Sorry, but the foetus isn't capable of deciding anything, and you don't know that if it was it might choose to be terminated rather than kill its potential mother, or live the kind of life it will get under the woman's present circumstances.

Once you get past the woman's right to medical consent, you must agree that the claim of a foetus's rights are absurd, no matter how you state them.

The principle is simple: inside the woman's body, entirely the woman's decision. It can't be any other way, or else you can't be allowed to make decisions about your body, either. Your future heart surgery, or whatever, should be open to debate on ToL, with some people quite happy to ignore your wishes for your own body.
So, even though you cannot have an abortion, you should be able to explain to me why you think it is "harrowing" and "not an easy option" anyways.
Why, do you want to gloat?

Stuart
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I know exactly what autotransfusion is. You haven't explained how it is relevant.

Stuart
Think ectopic pregnancy. You'll figure it out. Then again, maybe you won't...
 

Stuu

New member
No. God is not only just, He is merciful.

The innocent children who died were spared from the influence of those who would prevent them from ever knowing their Creator, and given an opportunity to choose to accept or reject Him outside of His enemies' influence. If he had not, then they most likely would have been taught to hate Him, or worse, never even learn about Him.
So, killing foetuses is ok in those circumstances then.

I acknowledge your fantastically hypocritical exegetical gymnastics routine.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Think ectopic pregnancy. You'll figure it out. Then again, maybe you won't...
You're called on this one, JudgeRightly. Put up or shut up, as science always demands, in its usual blunt manner.

The exact relationship between autotransfusion and ectopic pregnancy is...?

Stuart
 
Top