It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your context was in the scriptural quote.

Yes. Where the subject is a third party attacking a pregnant person with miscarriage as a direct result.

So, are you saying the person birthed through rape is not valuable and should be discarded?

No.

I'm saying there is a difference between being attacked resulting in miscarriage against one's will as a result on the one hand and a personal conscious decision on the other.

Just like there is a difference between being raped and having sex with mutual consent.

Sheesh dude............................................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman.

He's talking about objective facts (ie: things that are true regardless of what people believe)

You keep insisting on countering that by pointing at subjective personal beliefs.

So it's actually you who's engaging in the strawman.

 

[Sheldon]

Nice strawman.

Straw man, what straw man? I asked you a question, which you have now ignored twice, shall we try a third time then.

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? You seem determined to dodge this question, I wonder why?

KenS said: ↑
When does reality conform to what you think is objective?

What I think is objective? that seems like a carefully crafted oxymoron. Objective fact is the opposite of subjective opinion. I don't choose what is objective fact, the objective evidence determines this.

 

[Sheldon]

You say "exactly", but it directly contradicts what you said.

Exactly....what I saw as well.

 

[Kenny]

You say "exactly", but it directly contradicts what you said.

really?

 

[Kenny]

Not a strawman.

He's talking about objective facts (ie: things that are true regardless of what people believe)

You keep insisting on countering that by pointing at subjective personal beliefs.

So it's actually you who's engaging in the strawman.

Really?

 

[Kenny]

Straw man, what straw man? I asked you a question, which you have now ignored twice, shall we try a third time then.

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? You seem determined to dodge this question, I wonder why?



What I think is objective? that seems like a carefully crafted oxymoron. Objective fact is the opposite of subjective opinion. I don't choose what is objective fact, the objective evidence determines this.

Sheldon,

I just don't put too much mental efforts in what you say.

I realize that no matter what I say, your philosophical world view is going to trump whatever is said. It makes you... non-objective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

really?

Yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exodus 21:22, 23
22 “If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely*a but no fatality* results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges.b 23 But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life,*

The principle here is that we choose life and not abortion... hardly hypocritical

That seems to be a very different translation from most that I've seen.

Usually, that passage gets rendered as:

- causing a miscarriage: punishable by a fine.
- causing the death of the pregnant woman: punishable by execution.

... but since this doesn't support your anti-choice position, I understand why you'd shop around for a translation that fits your views.

 

[sojourner]

The principle here is that we choose life and not abortion... hardly hypocritical.

The principle is that we know desperate women will abort, whether safe and legally or unsafe and illegal. We cannot dictate to women what to do with their bodies. Abortion must remain safe and legal.

 

[sojourner]

God gave the wicked in Noah’s days a few hundred years to change their ways or be destroyed, but they did not. How many years does a pro-abortion/pro-killing mother-to-be give her innocent unborn baby to live before destroying it? Don’t even try to compare God and the flood to women who have abortions, it won’t work.

Let’s be clear and factual. It’s not an “unborn baby.” It’s a fetus. Up to 24 weeks it’s incapable of discerning pain. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t have developed lungs. It’s neither culpable nor innocent. You’re assigning things to it that just physically aren’t there.

 

[Kenny]

The principle is that we know desperate women will abort, whether safe and legally or unsafe and illegal. We cannot dictate to women what to do with their bodies. Abortion must remain safe and legal.

But we are back to square one as to if the baby in the womb is the mother's body or another body.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But we are back to square one as to if the baby in the womb is the mother's body or another body.

- if it's her own body, then the fetus has no rights of its own and there's no basis for outlawing abortion.

- if it's another body, then that body has no right to occupy another person's body without their consent and there's no basis for outlawing abortion.

 

[sojourner]

- if it's her own body, then the fetus has no rights of its own and there's no basis for outlawing abortion.

- if it's another body, then that body has no right to occupy another person's body without their consent and there's no basis for outlawing abortion.

You beat me to it.

 

[sojourner]

But we are back to square one as to if the baby in the womb is the mother's body or another body.

See below. Penguin beat me to it.

 

[Viker]

There is no clear indication of God's or the Bible's stance on abortion, just out of context opinion either way.

 

[Sheldon]

But we are back to square one as to if the baby in the womb is the mother's body or another body.

It's not a baby, and the biological facts indicate it is part of the woman's body. You also ignored what @sojourner said.

The choices are either legal abortions, or illegal abortions, either way women will seek terminations, the latter will enslave or criminalise women, and cause untold suffering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But we are back to square one as to if the baby in the womb is the mother's body or another body.

No one, well except for perhaps you, is proposing taking a baby and trying to stuff it back into the uterus.

 

[Kenny]

- if it's her own body, then the fetus has no rights of its own and there's no basis for outlawing abortion.

- if it's another body, then that body has no right to occupy another person's body without their consent and there's no basis for outlawing abortion.

hmmm... can you give me scientific support? And did the baby force his/her way into the body?

 

[Kenny]

See below. Penguin beat me to it.

#259