:idunno:
Pro-life and Democrat
- Thread starter A-Scholten
- Start date
:idunno:
This is called moving the goalposts.
God says "Do not murder."
Quip, being the hypocrite that he is, says "it's ok to murder before the baby is born because arbitrary reasons."
It is a fact that the unborn baby is a person, who is innocent of any crime.
It is always wrong to kill a baby, because the baby is innocent.
It is always wrong to kill the innocent.
Therefore Abortion is wrong, because it's the killing of a baby.
Nah, that's just extra stuff.
God, the righteous and just God of the universe, says that murdering babies in the womb is wrong. Who are you to disagree?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
JR - your discussion with quip is whether or not it's ok to kill your child before he is born
my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born and denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born
not sure quip understands that
but there seems to be a lot that quip doesn't understand, such as the difference between facts and emotions
my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born and denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born
not sure quip understands that
but there seems to be a lot that quip doesn't understand, such as the difference between facts and emotions
Commandment #5 says "Thou shall not kill". Isn't that good enough or are you framing it as "murder" to give yourself an "out"? Do you believe it's ok to kill say, an adultress, thief, murderer or homosexual...no less a life borne of woman? If so, are these arbitrary standards justified by God?
Except it doesn't say "kill" there. The word used means to murder. Otherwise God would be a hypocrite when he demands that murderers be put to death for their crime.
“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV
If the word had simply meant to kill, a different word would have been used.
Executing a criminal for their actions is just.
Killing a baby in the womb because it's an inconvenience is a crime, it's called murder, and murderers should be put to death.
This is called equivocation, a logical fallacy.
Killing an innocent person is not the same as killing a guilty person for their crimes.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
quip - can you explain rationally, factually, logically why it seems reasonable to you that:
a woman should be allowed the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
a woman should be denied the choice to kill her child after he is born
try to avoid trivial tautologies like location of the child or current state of the law
you came close with your examination of autonomy of the woman and dependency of the child but let it drop when it was
demonstrated that they were non-starters
and note that this post includes no moralizing or emotional argumentation
You've been given the reasons... as such:
- Bodily autonomy.
- Incipient life's reliance upon mom's body.
- Her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body.
- Bringing unwanted life into a possible world of irresponsible abuse, neglect, violence and poverty.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
which logically, rationally and factually exists before and after delivery
this is the argument about dependency, in which you claimed the newborn was independent and it was pointed out to you that that was untrue, that the newborn was as dependent upon the mother as it was before birth
if you believe the newborn is independent of the mother, then why deny her the right to abandon it if she wishes?
actually, this is a new one
can you explain why these don't apply equally after birth as before birth?
again, can you explain why these considerations would be of importance before birth but not after birth?
Sure. Bodily autonomy exist for everyone. The specifics of pregnancy are germane to the issue of abortion.
As well I pointed out that after birth the child is afforded full protection of the law.
Supra
Because she's not pregnant anymore.
Unnecessary suffering.
So you would cause suffering for the baby in the womb, but not for a newborn?
Talk about weird...
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doser asks: can you explain why these considerations (Bringing unwanted life into a possible world of irresponsible abuse, neglect, violence and poverty) would be of importance before birth but not after birth?
not sure what you mean by that - can you be more clear?
not sure what you mean by that - can you be more clear?
For the same moral right and reason you'd possibly refuse to give one of your kidneys to a dying stranger.
Bodily autonomy is moot. Again, the child enjoys the full protection from the law.
Do you even understand what a tautology is?
How are they non-starters?
Not yet...in 3...2...1...
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The suffering of poverty, sexual abuse, neglect...etc. are self-explanatory. You arguing otherwise?
Suit yourself.
So, as long as she gives birth you care not for the child's prolonged suffering?
Weird indeed. (Actually more like self-righteous arrogance)
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if the result of birth is prolonged suffering, why wouldn't you be in favor of allowing the mother the choice to end it?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the suffering for the mother or the child?
sort this out and give your answer again clearly and fully