Pretending that your personal values are "science" is the ideology of a eugenicist.
Congratulations: you managed to make your evil position even more abhorrent.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religious views on abortion
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Congratulations: you managed to make your evil position even more abhorrent.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Huh? So if I say "symbiosis" between two species I'm a scientist, but if I say "symbiosis between mother and child" so that people DON'T kill babies I'm a eugenicist?!
I'm beginning to think you are using personal/ad hom/emotional arguments.
Use logic. There's no need to abandon logic just because you are an (angry) skeptic!
You aren't a eugenicist; you're as immoral as one.
And I say that because you deny the autonomy of human beings.
No, I'm just venting.
And BTW:
"You're wrong BECAUSE you're a horrible person" - ad hom argument.
"You're wrong AND you're a horrible person" - just two claims. No logical fallacy.
I haven't abandoned logic. I'm not arguing against you because your position is so evil and contemptible that it has no place in reasonable debate.
I'm not going to debate you in any way that implies that your position deserves respect, because it doesn't.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I’ve never seen a pro life billboard using a zygote or embryo. In fact I have rarely seen one using a fetus. It’s almost always some cute, smiling newborn.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
You would think God would know.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
So Christianity is just for marketing purposes?
no it's not limited to it.
But one thing is for sure: Christians do want to do marketing. Christians want to share out the bread of life.
Quoting from ESV:
and let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Revelation 22:17b
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Why are there so many who prefer to shove it down everyone's throat?
no idea
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Fair Enough.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
But often it is like a Porsche salesman claiming a Pinto is a Porsche. Why not let God do His own marketing?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I see. It's evil and contemptible, for example, for me to have made the awful suggestion that a woman tiring of pregnancy in her ninth month hang on a bit longer rather than abort her child. Uh-huh. You're making me wonder about your lack of persistence in life (not just pro-life)!
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don't even equate abortion with murder, yet I find your response to be morally abhorrant.
Why's that?
Would you require a parent after the birth of the child to provide their body to sustain the child against the parent's will?
Edit: while of course I fully support providing as many good options as possible to pregnant people (or people who might become pregnant), if people like @BilliardsBall have their way and block proper sex ed, prophylactics, emergency contraceptives, early-term abortion, mid-term abortion, proper supports for new parents and their children that might convince the pregnant person to wait until a live birth, etc. etc., well... I would never force someone to continue a pregnancy against their will.
Edit 2: @BilliardsBall 's comment is an example of that rapist mentality I mentioned earlier. Just as inviting someone into your room isn't consent to sex, and just as consent to sex can be withdrawn even after sex starts, consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy can be withdrawn even after the pregnancy begins.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
because there is nothing magical that happens to alter a viable fetus between the interior and the exterior of a birth canal in the ninth month of pregnancy. Good heavens, enforce Roe v. Wade. Once the fetus becomes viable, the state has certain interests in protecting it. IOW we aren't talking only about one set of chromosomes here. It's not just the woman and her interests at stake. There is also another nacient human life. If in the ninth month the pregnancy is killing her, then by all mean, abort! But if she is just tiring of being pregnant? are you kidding me? You could at least have suggested delivering the baby and either keeping it or placing it up for adoption.
Exactly.
The fetus is no more entitled to the use of the body of its parents than an actual child would be.
Take you: you're unquestionably human and sentient, capable of articulating a desire to live, but if the day ever came that you would die without, say, one of your mother's kidneys, or her bone marrow, or even a pint of her blood, you would not have the right to compel her to provide these things against her will.
Why would a Canadian "enforce" US law?
Sure... but why should this "nacient life" be entitled to more rights than full-fledged life? As you said, there's nothing magical that happens between the interior and exterior of the birth canal.
It's worth pointing out at this point that @BilliardsBall 's fake scenario never actually happens. Someone who's voluntarily gone through 9 months of pregnancy generally wouldn't seek an abortion unless something was horribly wrong.
@BilliardsBall was playing a game to create what he considers to be the absolute worst case he could imagine for abortion. It's a bit odd, though, since if abortion of 9-month-old fetuses was really a cause he actually cared about, it would suggest other positions that he's not taking (e.g. good availability of early-term abortion).
That being said, the reason doesn't matter to their rights... just as the reason doesn't matter when someone refuses to donate an organ or tissue. It would be pretty awful for, say, a father to refuse his bone marrow for his baby with leukemia just because he's tired of changing diapers, but we don't strap him down and take the bone marrow just because we think his reason is bad. He said no, so we respect that.
It's also worth pointing out that the pregnant person's right is to end the pregnancy. In @BilliardsBall 's scenario of someone who somehow gets tired of being pregnant at 9 months, inducing a live birth would also end the pregnancy.
... but since I'm not interested in having a reasonable conversation with @BilliardsBall as if I respect his position, I wasn't going to get into that level of nuance with him.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I'm not confused. I agree with you that autonomy is the most important thing for a person. I simply add on when it is not, for example, if you're a child, parent, doctor, nurse, soldier, government official, farmer, basically a HUMAN who relies on others and is RELIED UPON by others.
It's NOT immoral to say "women should carry babies to term". Thing about what the word "carry" implies!
That's quite a list. Is there anyone left who you think actually deserve basic human rights?
Sure: it's something wonderful when it's freely consented to, but a horrendous crime when it's forced.
It's kind of like sex that way, which is why I compare your position to that of a rapist.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
So as a Canadian, you think US Law (Roe v Wade) is foolish because it grants certain rights to viable fetuses? I'm sorry, my nausea is going to prevent further discussion.