Sounds like confirmation bias to me. :think:
Perhaps you should be more objective.
Hypocrite.
Pro-life and Democrat
- Thread starter A-Scholten
- Start date
Perhaps you should be more objective.
Hypocrite.
Illustrate your exception.
If one of your loved ones where to choose abortion, would you demonize them? Perhaps you would but at the very least in doing so you'd be forced to recognize her dilemma thus, in doing so you'd demonize her at great personal expense.
Practicalities tend to expose the weaknesses of overwrought abstraction.
There are no exceptions. It's ALWAYS a baby, a human being, a person. The evidence in this thread and in the Bible points
By the way, the onus is on you to argue your side, not me.
I would tell them that they are about to become an accomplice to murder, the murder of their innocent little baby.
This is called question begging. You are assuming that she has the right to an abortion.
She does not.
All human beings have a right to life. She does not have the right to take the life of her child.
Whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.
Legally and morally she does have the right to do so. You can't deny it, that's what fuels your indignation!
Being legal does not make it morally right.
God, being the ultimate authority on morality, says NO, because it's a baby, made in HIS image and HIS likeness. He calls it murder to take that life. Who are you to say otherwise?
See, Quip, I'm on God's side, not the government's side.
God says it, that settles it.
My indignation has nothing to do with it.
My indignation is a result of society breaking God's law, which says DO NOT MURDER.
That's as objective as someone can get.
You, however, admittedly are biased in your position. I care for both the mother AND the baby.
You only care about the mother, and don't care about the life you destroy in her womb.
On the contrary. It's my desire that every choice chooses life. I'm simply not arrogant enough to presume that choice for her.
See, I don't want a woman to become a criminal just because she's inconvenienced by being pregnant.
Murderers should be put to death. I want to prevent the mother from becoming a murderer, just as I would want to prevent you from becoming a murderer if you were a demolition man.
You can't get people to always choose life if the option to choose death is more appealing than the option to choose life.
If it's a capital crime to kill a baby in the womb, and the punishment is death, then the alternative, carrying the baby to term and delivering instantly becomes more appealing.
As it stands now, it's far more appealing to kill one's child and just keep living. But there are consequences to those actions.
One of the more devastating is breast cancer, many cases of which are caused by the woman having had an abortion. Forcibly stopping something that the body is doing naturally causes problems.
That's something I want to spare women from, abortion related breast cancer.
That's akin to me holding a gun to your head and convincing you that giving me all your hard earned cash is more appealing than a bullet in your head.
On the basic self-preservation level that's undeniably correct yet, it somehow rings a dishonest manipulative tone.
What say you?
No, that's called equivocation. Your example is a criminal act. Mine is the government dealing justice to a criminal.
Executing someone who has committed murder is just. Holding a gun to someone's head and demanding they give you their money is a crime.
Deterring people from becoming criminals is a good thing to do. Doing evil that good may come of it is wrong.
That seems to beg the very question.
I guess the irony of that latter statement depends on your vantage point. I would say unceremoniously creating criminality by way of a Draconian moral injunction is an evil unto itself.
That's where we seem to differ.
Then you clearly haven't read the Bible, which says just that.
Murderers should be executed:
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV
“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.“But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. - Exodus 21:12-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:12-14&version=NKJV
‘Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. . . . And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death. - Leviticus 24:17,21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus24:17,21&version=NKJV
‘But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies,or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. - Numbers 35:16-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers35:16-21&version=NKJV
“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities,then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. - Deuteronomy 19:11-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:11-13&version=NKJV
Theft is a crime (punishable by restitution):
And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. - Romans 3:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:8&version=NKJV
It would be wrong to give in to the demands of a criminal, that good might come of it.
God's law is not a "draconian moral injunction."
God's law is righteous and just and perfect.
God says Do not murder, Do not take the life of the innocent.
Not everyone ascribes to the tenets and attributes of your particular God ...nor (for those that do) to the degree from which your accustomed.
This is called moving the goalposts.
You have yet to provide evidence for your side of the argument, Quip. All you have done so far is complain, bellyache, and spout off opinion and gobbledygook.
Time to put some meat in your sandwich and man up.
Put forth your case, along with supporting evidence, or quit complaining about us wanting to protect the life of the innocent.
You brought up the subject of God. It isn't my goalpost to move.:idunno:
My standard is and always has been the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. That God. His standard is that abortion is murder, murderers should pay with their life.
You saying "well some people don't 'subscribe' to that version of God" is moving the goalposts away from the standard I have put forth.
Last edited:
That's not moving the goalpost, more like informing you that your goalpost isn't the only one in play...contrary to your wishes and assumptions.
lifeisgood
New member
And how do you, quip, approach pulling a human life piece by piece expecting it not to have any feelings at all about being pulled apart by somebody objectively?
I wish someone would pick one of the ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) commercials and instead of an animal put a unborn 'human' in its place. I am sure many would take offense by that. Many of them have more compassion for an animal than to a unborn 'human' in a woman's womb. Now that is taking your emotions off and using your rationality, according to quip.
Praise God your mom, quip, for before you were a born 'human', she did not permit to let someone pull you piece by piece out of her womb. Thank God for your mom, guip. Thank God for your mom.
lifeisgood
New member
Oh, cool.
Let's just supposed for the fun of it, how would you, quip, use your rationality when you're being pulled out of your mom's womb piece by piece? Could you rationalize it for me please. Thank you.
I wonder how you are going to use your rationality and not thank your mom's emotion for not letting someone pull you out of her belly limb by limb and then permit your parts to be sold for a price, good price if your organs were pulled complete. Not so good if your organs were pulled in pieces so the wonderful abortionists make sure that your organs were pulled whole so they can get a good price for them.
Praise God for your mom, quip, for your mom emotionally loved you too much to let someone pull you out of her womb. I wonder if she thought she was using her rationality or her emotional bond with her unborn 'human' growing in her. Smart woman your mom, quip. Very smart woman your mom, quip. I hope you thank her every day that she used her emotional bond with you, especially before you were born, and not her rationality and gave you life.
I am not pro choice, I am against abortion of any kind. Period. Maybe you think (notice the maybe) like Gosnell.
I just read that some places are pulling the movie Gosnell out because their rationality are taking over and they can't take their emotion when they see the pulling apart of little legs and arms and etc., and the murder of women also. :idunno:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37380/exclusive-gosnell-being-dropped-movie-theaters-paul-bois
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
to recap:
doser asks a specific question:
quip gives a straight answer:
doser asks a bunch of specific questions, but makes it clear that the bolded large one is the key:
quip begins to squirm, evade and deflect (much of which has been clipped):
doser repeats the key question:
quip gives a trivial answer that doen't hold true in all circumstances:
doser demonstrates:
quip attempts another evasion:
doser brings him back on track:
quip attempts another evasion:
doser reels him back in again:
....and this was the point at which quip earned himself a vacation
once again quip, i'll ask you:
if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them
doser asks a specific question:
quip gives a straight answer:
doser asks a bunch of specific questions, but makes it clear that the bolded large one is the key:
quip begins to squirm, evade and deflect (much of which has been clipped):
doser repeats the key question:
quip gives a trivial answer that doen't hold true in all circumstances:
doser demonstrates:
quip attempts another evasion:
doser brings him back on track:
quip attempts another evasion:
doser reels him back in again:
....and this was the point at which quip earned himself a vacation
once again quip, i'll ask you:
if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Your argument is not with me John, it's with Libertarians (this place is overrun with them) that believe the selfish concept of not sacrificing their values for the benefit of others.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others...
https://www.lp.org/platform/
Now if any supposed pro life Libertarians want to step forward (this place is overrun with them) and explain how one can embrace the selfish concept of Libertarianism and yet be anti-abortion at the same time, I look forward to the debate.
Which is a biological fact. The baby wouldn't exist without the mother, and has nothing to with the debate.
Again, your argument is not with me John, it's with the Libertarians running amuck throughout TOL (is one pretending to be many, or is there a little tribe of them?) who embrace Libertarian doctrine which says:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
Going through with an unwanted pregnancy is "sacrificing for the benefit of others" in the Libertarian world.
Hence, you can't be pro life and a Libertarian.
Your argument is not with me John, it's with Libertarians (this place is overrun with them) that believe the selfish concept of not sacrificing their values for the benefit of others.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others...
https://www.lp.org/platform/
Now if any supposed pro life Libertarians want to step forward (this place is overrun with them) and explain how one can embrace the selfish concept of Libertarianism and yet be anti-abortion at the same time, I look forward to the debate.
Which is a biological fact. The baby wouldn't exist without the mother, and has nothing to with the debate.
Again, your argument is not with me John, it's with the Libertarians running amuck throughout TOL (is one pretending to be many, or is there a little tribe of them?) who embrace Libertarian doctrine which says:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
Going through with an unwanted pregnancy is "sacrificing for the benefit of others" in the Libertarian world.
Hence, you can't be pro life and a Libertarian.