Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Fallen Prophet]

It is very relevant in a world where women are forced to give birth to more children.

Again - not allowing women to murder their children isn't "forcing" them to do anything.

And also again - you literally don't care about how many "unwanted children" there are in the world - that number - be it 1 to 1 billion - wouldn't change your stance on "abortion".

And also again - there is a long list of couples waiting for newborns - so a woman giving up her newborn for adoption isn't adding to any list of "unwanted children".

This is a "double-whammy" irrelevant point - because the number of "unwanted children" has no effect on your position and newborns aren't being added to the list of "unwanted children" in the first place.

Lastly - it's just not a good look - "Kill the baby because it is "unwanted" - we have enough of those already" - not a good look.

Margaret Sanger would applaud you if she weren't currently burning in Hell.

No, I wouldn't.

Called it.

Because nothing trumps bodily autonomy.

I agree - the body of the not-yet-born child shouldn't be touched let alone pulled apart by forceps.

But I'm also not the one making the argument that we should force women to carry pregnancies to term and just put them up for adoption and everything will be fine.

No - you misunderstand.

The "argument" is not "just put them up for adoption and everything will be fine".

The actual argument is murder is wrong and we should stop people from murdering other people.

The only reason "pro-life" advocates even bring up adoption is because amoral "pro-choice" activists demand justification for the claim that murder is wrong and that we should stop people from murdering other people.

I don't know who told you that "everything will be fine" - because that is just a stupid claim to make in general since no one knows the future - but I consider it psychotic that you would need some kind of guarantee that "everything will be fine" for the potential victim in order to justify saving their life.

I mean - can you imagine a firefighter saying, "I know that there is a child in that burning building - but before I save her - I need a guarantee that she will have a perfect life - or else I just don't think it would be worth the effort saving her."

You're like a captured Nazi soldier critiquing the Allied troops for how they distribute relief to the Jewish survivors of concentration camps.

We all know you don't actually care about how these people are being treated - because you wanted them dead in the first place - and no one cares what you have to say on the matter.

There are no guarantees in life - no one has any - but we can at least give the not-yet-born a chance at life.

It's very relevant to the argument I am arguing against.

Adoption is not an "argument" - it is an option - the argument is that murder is wrong and you can't overcome it.

Your God shouldn't have made us sexual beings, and I guess he also shouldn't have made sex feel so good.

If God hadn't - there would be no human race.

This is such a stupid thing to say - because there is nothing inherently wrong with sex - I am not "anti-sex" - God is not "anti-sex" - we are against irresponsible behavior and murder.

This is like a morbidly obese person with an eating disorder saying, "If God didn't want me to get so fat - why did He make food taste so good?"

No one is forcing anyone to eat only cheeseburgers their whole lives and balloon out to 500 pounds just like no one is forcing anyone to have irresponsible sex.

I am not surprised by this comment though because the entire "pro-choice" activist movement is about absolving women of personal accountability and responsibility.

Blame everyone and everything but themselves for their irresponsible behavior and bad life choices they make.

Honestly - you're acting like children.

How did you know whether or not you'd be sexually compatible?

What is "sexual compatibility"?

I am male and she is female, and we are attracted to and love each other.

Good for you. Not everyone wants or can support five children.

Yes - it is very good for me - children are a joy and a blessing.

But I'm going to let you in on a little secret - I don't mean to "toot my own horn" - but I have had a lot of sex over the years - and I mean a lot.

Yet - I have had only the five children - how could that be so?

I know you are thinking that I must have murdered a bunch of my own children while they were still in the womb - but that's the thing - I didn't.

I murdered none of them.

It turns out that in this day and age - it is incredibly easy to determine when a woman gets pregnant.

All you need to do is be responsible and practice safe sex. It is very simple.

Perhaps that comes from the fact that you seem to blame women for getting pregnant.

In all cases of consensual sex - yes - all responsibility lies on the woman.

She decides who has sex with her and when and how.

Yep. Their body, their choice.

Except when it comes to the not-yet-born child - right?

Even though it is their body that is the object of destruction - they don't get a choice - do they?

Women can have as much irresponsible sex as they want - but that does not justify them murdering their children.

Let's say a man slips an "abortion pill" into a pregnant woman's food - without her knowledge - killing the not-yet-born child within her - is that murder?

The men allow it as well.

I'm not saying that there aren't beta males out there playing a more passive role - there sure are.

However - in every instance of heterosexual sexual activity - the man "gives" and the woman "receives".

Fisherman can't blame the fish for when they lose their haul or if their net breaks.

Since the woman is "receiving" - all the responsibility falls on her - she should be prepared.

I do.

Why - that makes no sense to me.

I mean - I obviously don't agree with it either because I believe that marriage and sex are about more than reproduction - but if two people consensually marry and mate with the sole goal of creating offspring - more power to them.

I hope their relationship blossoms into something more - but what they are doing is not inherently wrong.

Could'ves and should'ves are great, but they aren't reality.

What an irresponsible and immature thing to say. It makes no sense frankly.

We should always curtail the risks associated with risky behavior - either through education, technology, proper equipment, etc.

What if we had been talking about another risky activity - like climbing Mount Everest - and I said something like, "You should only make the attempt if you are fully educated on all the risks and fully prepare for every eventuality."

Would you just tell people to "wing it" - that "'should'ves' are great - but they aren't reality"?

I don't understand why people argue for being prepared and safe when it comes to other life-altering activities - but they are all "willy-nilly" about sex.

And aren't you the RF member I was talking to on another thread who argued that men can be women and vice versa?

So - in your mind - that is reality - yet people being ready for the possibility of children before having sex is fantasy?

I lost track of that other thread - I'm going to have to find it after this.

Oh we do?

Yes.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't think you've really thought through how many actually people make up that 2% number.

Doesn't matter. The condom label and box tells you that it is only 98% effective. No "surprises" or "gotchas".

Just like how a smoker should not be surprised when they get lung cancer - no one should assume that the possibility of pregnancy doesn't exist.

If the two people having sex aren't married to each other and prepared for the possibility of children - that is "irresponsible sex" in my opinion.

Same for the "rape only happens 5% of the time" claim that actually amounts to millions of people just in the US alone.

I don't know what statistic you are quoting - but today anything can be constituted as "rape" so I wouldn't be surprised.

Condoms break. Sometimes people don't put them on properly. Some people use other means of birth control.

All examples of unprotected sex.

The woman should be responsible - do proper research - check her equipment before using it - make sure everything is squared away before engaging in risky behavior.

Getting an abortion is taking responsibility, as it terminates a pregnancy.

Explain how murdering your child because his/her existence is inconvenient to you is "taking responsibility"?

But I think by "responsibility" you, like so many others, actually mean "punishment."

Explain how not allowing a mother to murder her child is a "punishment"?

That is completely unrealistic, as already pointed out.

Millions - possibly billions - of people do this all over the world.

I personally did this - along with my wife - so I don't understand how you can claim that it is "unrealistic".

As "unrealistic" as a man becoming a woman?

You do know what a question mark means, right?

Do you know what stupidity is?

Yeah, no kidding. But that doesn't change the fact that women are abused, everywhere across the world, on a daily basis.

This is unfortunate - of course - but it is also a pivot away from the discussion.

No amount of abuse a woman suffers from a man would justify her murdering her own children.

It sounds to me like it's not a woman problem, but a man problem.

Again - you are pivoting - but women are just as abusive toward men.

No amount of abuse a man suffers from a woman would justify him murdering his own children.

Maybe we should teach men to stop being so abusive and rapey towards women.

Wow - you are really looking for that pivot.

There will always be crazy selfish people willing to break laws and hurt others.

That goes for men and women.

It is impossible for anyone to "force" people to act a certain way. We have no control over others.

What we do have control over is what we can do for ourselves.

The world over already knows that it is not right to hurt or rape other people - "teaching" them not to do it isn't going to change anything.

What we should focus on is teaching people how to recognize destructive behavior in others - to not tolerate it - and how to find help.

See this is what I mean when I say your point of view infantilizes and blames women. Just stop being abused! You say. You focus on the woman who is being abused, rather than on the men who are doing the abusing.

No - I'm sorry - but the exact opposite is true.

What I want to do is make sure women - and men - know that they have all the power and authority over their own lives - that they do not need to be victims - that they can rise above these challenges by making good choices and staying strong.

I have a cousin who I grew up with - she is so pretty and sweet - but she always chooses the wrong guy - they become abusive.

She tends to stick around for a bit - come to the family for support - and eventually leaves them - sometimes it takes some "convincing" from her big cousins and uncle to get the guy to leave.

However - the next guy she dates is just like the last - every time.

She started dating this Christian guy - I don't know the denomination - but she broke it off only after a few dates.

She admitted that he was nice and that she found him attractive - and he had money - but she said that the "something" wasn't there - and that she was turned off from him when he opened up to her about his dreams and life goals.

She tends to blame others for her choices - especially her mother - who was a real piece of work - but she is the one making the choices and the one with all power over her life.

No - I am not "infantilizing" these women - you and people like you are.

Those people who tell them to just "live in the moment" - not to think about the future or consequences - to blame everything and everyone else for the problems she has - to never be accountable.

Well, I say, men need to stop abusing women already!

Women need to realize that there will always be people out there waiting to abuse or take advantage - and they should be prepared to repel those people and take hold of their own lives.

Unless they were raped. Or abused.

Again - stupid.

I already made it clear a couple posts ago that my comments were about consensual sexual activity.

And isn't "sexual abuse" rape? Why the distinction?

But that's their fault too.

Of course women cannot be blamed for being raped - but they need to realize that they most likely put themselves in a compromising situation.

Just stop having sex with abusers, women!

Exactly - it is so easy not to have sex.

Don't have sex with anyone until they have proven that they are good and honest people who will cherish you and they have married you.

Why wouldn't they? Sex is a natural part of life.

So is breathing - that doesn't mean you have to huff paint thinner.

So is eating - that doesn't mean you eat whatever you want - regardless of what it is or what it does to your body.

Sex is a natural part of life - but life tends to be filled with risks - so why are you so against people mitigating risk?

No, they aren't. They are blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses.

So a toddler cannot also be designated a "child"?

A child is a person who has been born.

That is one definition out of many.

Child Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The two I will point out are "a son or daughter of human parents" and "an unborn or recently born person".

If an eldery person can be described as a "child" - because they are the "son or daughter of human parents" - then a zygote is a "child" as well.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's still a blastocyst/zygote/fetus.

As well as a child.

That child exists the moment those gametes meet.

A mother and father are created at the moment of conception.

I'll consider responding to this if you could learn how not to turn my words into things I did say or imply.

Usually someone who accuses another person of mischaracterizing what they have said quotes what the other person said - or at least points out where and how the mischaracterization occurred.

That fact that you did not do this makes me feel like your case is weak.

I will point out that abstinence-only education has been a dismal and utter failure in the United States that has resulted in more unwanted pregnancies (and STI's), not less.

Why are you "pointing out" things that no one has talked about?

Yes, you are. I pointed out exactly where again, in my last post to you.

No - you made an unsupported and rather illogical claim.

 

[Sheldon]

However - there are Federal laws against murder - of which "abortion" definitely qualifies.

If it is legal to terminate a pregnancy, then by definition it is not murder.

noun

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

I also don't believe that this:

Can reasonably be called a human being.

 

[Sheldon]

Again - not allowing women to murder their children isn't "forcing" them to do anything.

It's not murder if it is lawful, and abortion does not involve children ever, and creating a law that takes away a woman's bodily autonomy would force them to carry a pregnancy through to child birth, that is axiomatic.

 

[Sheldon]

Except when it comes to the not-yet-born child - right?

What child? This is not a child, and this is wat the vast number of abortions involve. I'm all for women have access to early terminations if that is what they want.

 

[Sheldon]

Just like how a smoker should not be surprised when they get lung cancer

Actually statistically a smoker has a greater chance of not developing a cancer. The rate of lung cancer in smokers, for example is around 13%, so perhaps a poor analogy. Since smokers have an 87% chance of not getting lung cancer.

Though obviously the rate of lung cancer among non-smokers is substantially lower than 13%.

 

[Sheldon]

but today anything can be constituted as "rape"

What a spectacularly stupid claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again - not allowing women to murder their children isn't "forcing" them to do anything.

Not allowing women to control what happens with their own bodies is forcing them to do something against their will.

And also again - you literally don't care about how many "unwanted children" there are in the world - that number - be it 1 to 1 billion - wouldn't change your stance on "abortion".

Actually, I do care about unwanted children. Hence my stance against bringing even more of them into the world. Not sure how you missed that.

And also again - there is a long list of couples waiting for newborns - so a woman giving up her newborn for adoption isn't adding to any list of "unwanted children".

And? That doesn't take care of the hundreds of thousands of children that already exist in the system, that nobody seems to want.

This is a "double-whammy" irrelevant point - because the number of "unwanted children" has no effect on your position and newborns aren't being added to the list of "unwanted children" in the first place.

Of course it does, as explained.

Lastly - it's just not a good look - "Kill the baby because it is "unwanted" - we have enough of those already" - not a good look.

Nobody is killing babies when terminating a pregnancy. And as you should not by now, that is not actually my stance on abortion. That was simply my response to the argument that everybody should just have babies they don't want and put them up for adoption and everything will be just fine.

And all along the way you have completely ignored my point that abortions are medically necessary in many cases where people actually want to carry a fetus to term. That is one of my main reasons for leaving such decisions up to the individual involved. Because stuff happens. Pregnancy completely changes a person's body, and so many complications can occur that most of us couldn't even dream of, that it's best left to the individual, based on their own situation. Neither you nor I have any right to tell someone else what they need to be doing with their own body.

Margaret Sanger would applaud you if she weren't currently burning in Hell.

Margaret Sanger believed that people should have control over their own bodies, and I agree with her on that.

Called it.

I agree - the body of the not-yet-born child shouldn't be touched let alone pulled apart by forceps.

Oh, so then you should be happy to know that most abortions that take place these days are done with a pill and no forceps.

The ones that are generally done with forceps are the ones where something has gone horribly wrong. Like the fetus is no longer viable.

So you want to afford a fetus more rights than a fully grown and developed, sentient human being with social connections and a full life.

No - you misunderstand.

The "argument" is not "just put them up for adoption and everything will be fine".

The actual argument is murder is wrong and we should stop people from murdering other people.

Well, good thing abortion isn’t defined as murder. I agree that we should stop murdering people. All of these mass shootings are getting rather ridiculous.

The problem I have been trying to point out with this is that people who are stridently anti-abortion don’t stop to think about the long-term consequences of taking away bodily autonomy from human beings and forcing them to have children in a country with no maternity leave, where healthcare is paid out of pocket and can be difficult to access and afford, where childcare is not provided, and where the politicians keep cutting and reducing social support systems and on top of that, hundreds of thousands of unwanted children already in the system.

The only reason "pro-life" advocates even bring up adoption is because amoral "pro-choice" activists demand justification for the claim that murder is wrong and that we should stop people from murdering other people.

You’re not using a definition of murder that is recognized by any legislative body.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know who told you that "everything will be fine" - because that is just a stupid claim to make in general since no one knows the future - but I consider it psychotic that you would need some kind of guarantee that "everything will be fine" for the potential victim in order to justify saving their life.

See my above response.

You think it’s psychotic that I think people need to think through the long-term consequences of their beliefs and how it will affect others. I disagree.

I mean - can you imagine a firefighter saying, "I know that there is a child in that burning building - but before I save her - I need a guarantee that she will have a perfect life - or else I just don't think it would be worth the effort saving her."

False equivalence.

You're like a captured Nazi soldier critiquing the Allied troops for how they distribute relief to the Jewish survivors of concentration camps.

LOL nope.

We all know you don't actually care about how these people are being treated - because you wanted them dead in the first place - and no one cares what you have to say on the matter.

Now I don’t care about how people are treated. That’s after I’ve gone on and on about how women will be treated if your beliefs are put into law. That’s rich.

There are no guarantees in life - no one has any - but we can at least give the not-yet-born a chance at life.

It’s not up to me to dictate to others what they do with their own bodies and what kinds of medical decisions they choose to make. You seem to think it’s your business.

Adoption is not an "argument" - it is an option - the argument is that murder is wrong and you can't overcome it.

Your argument doesn’t fly because there is no murder. Murder involves human beings that have been born into the world.

If God hadn't - there would be no human race.

You mean the same God that allows countless spontaneous abortions to occur? That God? Gimme a break.

This is such a stupid thing to say - because there is nothing inherently wrong with sex - I am not "anti-sex" - God is not "anti-sex" - we are against irresponsible behavior and murder.

Stupid thing to say? You’re the one going on about what some God wants that you can’t show to exist in the first place. The same God that supposedly allows for countless spontaneous abortions to occur every single day. The same God that supposedly created our genitals organs to experience pleasure in a multitude of different ways.

This is like a morbidly obese person with an eating disorder saying, "If God didn't want me to get so fat - why did He make food taste so good?"

No one is forcing anyone to eat only cheeseburgers their whole lives and balloon out to 500 pounds just like no one is forcing anyone to have irresponsible sex.

That would be stupid because God didn’t prepare the foods they are eating.

I am not surprised by this comment though because the entire "pro-choice" activist movement is about absolving women of personal accountability and responsibility.

Nope. It’s about allowing people the right to bodily autonomy. As explained several times now.

Blame everyone and everything but themselves for their irresponsible behavior and bad life choices they make.

Honestly - you're acting like children.

No, that’s you judging them as irresponsible based on knowing absolutely nothing about their lives.

You seem to think having sex for non-reproductive purposes is irresponsible so, yeah.

What is "sexual compatibility"?

Chemistry, similar desires, preferences and needs, emotional connection, to name a few.

I am male and she is female, and we are attracted to and love each other.

I’d say there is more to it than that.

Yes - it is very good for me - children are a joy and a blessing.

It’s great that you can afford it financially and mentally, but not every is in that position.

But I'm going to let you in on a little secret - I don't mean to "toot my own horn" - but I have had a lot of sex over the years - and I mean a lot.

Yet - I have had only the five children - how could that be so?

I know you are thinking that I must have murdered a bunch of my own children while they were still in the womb - but that's the thing - I didn't.

I murdered none of them.

That definition of murder is not one that I recognize, or most governing bodies, for that matter.

It turns out that in this day and age - it is incredibly easy to determine when a woman gets pregnant.

No it isn’t.

All you need to do is be responsible and practice safe sex. It is very simple.

Oh, that’s it, is it? So people who practice safe sex never get pregnant, is that it? People never get pregnant after being raped, is that it? People like my friend, who have had two vasectomies never manage to impregnate their wife (twice!), is that it? People who want to actually carry their pregnancy to term never run into complications that make that impossible, is that it?

Nah.

In all cases of consensual sex - yes - all responsibility lies on the woman.

She decides who has sex with her and when and how.

Cool so maybe we should have all men get vasectomies when they turn 18 and then they can just reverse it when they are ready to have kids. Boy, that would solve a lot of problems!

Except when it comes to the not-yet-born child - right?[/quote]

Yep. Because fetuses don’t have rights to bodily autonomy that born, full grown and developed sentient human beings with full life and social connections have.

Even though it is their body that is the object of destruction - they don't get a choice - do they?

Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses can't make choices.

Women can have as much irresponsible sex as they want - but that does not justify them murdering their children.

If a woman murders her children, she should be locked up.

Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren’t children.

Let's say a man slips an "abortion pill" into a pregnant woman's food - without her knowledge - killing the not-yet-born child within her - is that murder?

It depends on a ton of things. But again, it takes the choice away from the person who’s choice it is to make.

I'm not saying that there aren't beta males out there playing a more passive role - there sure are.

Oh yay, we’re adding misogyny\misandry to the mix.

However - in every instance of heterosexual sexual activity - the man "gives" and the woman "receives".

Fisherman can't blame the fish for when they lose their haul or if their net breaks.

I guess you’ve never heard of pegging.

Since the woman is "receiving" - all the responsibility falls on her - she should be prepared.

Hence the reason I say, her body, her choice.

Why - that makes no sense to me.

It doesn’t make sense to you that I think that I disagree that sex and marriage should be is just for sex and reproduction? I think marriage can be a lot of things, far beyond those things.

I mean - I obviously don't agree with it either because I believe that marriage and sex are about more than reproduction - but if two people consensually marry and mate with the sole goal of creating offspring - more power to them.

That’s their choice.

I hope their relationship blossoms into something more - but what they are doing is not inherently wrong.

What an irresponsible and immature thing to say. It makes no sense frankly.[/quote]

Your position is the irresponsible and immature one. My position is the realistic one. There’s nothing immature about recognizing the realities of human nature.

We should always curtail the risks associated with risky behavior - either through education, technology, proper equipment, etc.

Yes, of course. This is a recognition of the fact of reality that human beings are sexual creatures. The fact that you just called irresponsible and immature.

What if we had been talking about another risky activity - like climbing Mount Everest - and I said something like, "You should only make the attempt if you are fully educated on all the risks and fully prepare for every eventuality."

Would you just tell people to "wing it" - that "'should'ves' are great - but they aren't reality"?

Nope. But then again, I’m not the one pushing for sexual creatures to remain abstinent.

I don't understand why people argue for being prepared and safe when it comes to other life-altering activities - but they are all "willy-nilly" about sex.

You’re arguing against something I didn’t say.

And aren't you the RF member I was talking to on another thread who argued that men can be women and vice versa?

So - in your mind - that is reality - yet people being ready for the possibility of children before having sex is fantasy?

I don’t see what one has to do with the other.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Doesn't matter. The condom label and box tells you that it is only 98% effective. No "surprises" or "gotchas".

Just like how a smoker should not be surprised when they get lung cancer - no one should assume that the possibility of pregnancy doesn't exist.

And yet there are surprises and gotchas.

If the two people having sex aren't married to each other and prepared for the possibility of children - that is "irresponsible sex" in my opinion.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I don't know what statistic you are quoting - but today anything can be constituted as "rape" so I wouldn't be surprised.

Well that's a disgusting thing to say. And it completely avoids the point.

All examples of unprotected sex.

Huh? Condoms and birth control are not examples of unprotected sex.

The woman should be responsible - do proper research - check her equipment before using it - make sure everything is squared away before engaging in risky behavior.

Explain how murdering your child because his/her existence is inconvenient to you is "taking responsibility"?
Explain how not allowing a mother to murder her child is a "punishment"?

Explain how the actual definition of murder has anything to do with blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses.

Millions - possibly billions - of people do this all over the world.

Suuure.

I personally did this - along with my wife - so I don't understand how you can claim that it is "unrealistic".

I say it's unrealistic because it doesn't match with how things play out in reality.

As "unrealistic" as a man becoming a woman?

Why you keep bringing this up is beyond me. But man oh man, you really seem to be obsessed with these types of culture war issues.

Do you know what stupidity is?

Then you are stupid.

And with that, we're done. When you're able to converse maturely and civilly, let me know. And then I'll just ignore you as not worth my time. Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident.

Bye!

This is unfortunate - of course - but it is also a pivot away from the discussion.

No amount of abuse a woman suffers from a man would justify her murdering her own children.

Again - you are pivoting - but women are just as abusive toward men.

No amount of abuse a man suffers from a woman would justify him murdering his own children.

Wow - you are really looking for that pivot.

There will always be crazy selfish people willing to break laws and hurt others.

That goes for men and women.

It is impossible for anyone to "force" people to act a certain way. We have no control over others.

What we do have control over is what we can do for ourselves.

The world over already knows that it is not right to hurt or rape other people - "teaching" them not to do it isn't going to change anything.

What we should focus on is teaching people how to recognize destructive behavior in others - to not tolerate it - and how to find help.

No - I'm sorry - but the exact opposite is true.

What I want to do is make sure women - and men - know that they have all the power and authority over their own lives - that they do not need to be victims - that they can rise above these challenges by making good choices and staying strong.

I have a cousin who I grew up with - she is so pretty and sweet - but she always chooses the wrong guy - they become abusive.

She tends to stick around for a bit - come to the family for support - and eventually leaves them - sometimes it takes some "convincing" from her big cousins and uncle to get the guy to leave.

However - the next guy she dates is just like the last - every time.

She started dating this Christian guy - I don't know the denomination - but she broke it off only after a few dates.

She admitted that he was nice and that she found him attractive - and he had money - but she said that the "something" wasn't there - and that she was turned off from him when he opened up to her about his dreams and life goals.

She tends to blame others for her choices - especially her mother - who was a real piece of work - but she is the one making the choices and the one with all power over her life.

No - I am not "infantilizing" these women - you and people like you are.

Those people who tell them to just "live in the moment" - not to think about the future or consequences - to blame everything and everyone else for the problems she has - to never be accountable.

Women need to realize that there will always be people out there waiting to abuse or take advantage - and they should be prepared to repel those people and take hold of their own lives.

Again - stupid.

I already made it clear a couple posts ago that my comments were about consensual sexual activity.

And isn't "sexual abuse" rape? Why the distinction?

Of course women cannot be blamed for being raped - but they need to realize that they most likely put themselves in a compromising situation.

Exactly - it is so easy not to have sex.

Don't have sex with anyone until they have proven that they are good and honest people who will cherish you and they have married you.

So is breathing - that doesn't mean you have to huff paint thinner.

So is eating - that doesn't mean you eat whatever you want - regardless of what it is or what it does to your body.

Sex is a natural part of life - but life tends to be filled with risks - so why are you so against people mitigating risk?

So a toddler cannot also be designated a "child"?

That is one definition out of many.

Child Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The two I will point out are "a son or daughter of human parents" and "an unborn or recently born person".

If an eldery person can be described as a "child" - because they are the "son or daughter of human parents" - then a zygote is a "child" as well.

As well as a child.

That child exists the moment those gametes meet.

A mother and father are created at the moment of conception.

Usually someone who accuses another person of mischaracterizing what they have said quotes what the other person said - or at least points out where and how the mischaracterization occurred.

That fact that you did not do this makes me feel like your case is weak.

Why are you "pointing out" things that no one has talked about?

No - you made an unsupported and rather illogical claim.

The rest of this is ridiculous and filled with equivocation fallacies anyway.

 

[Darkstorn]

Stuff

The idea i got from all your posts is that you're sad and angry that you don't get to control women, whom you also hate, so you would want everyone to do what you tell them, so you would no longer feel like having a tantrum.

There there. It'll be okay.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The idea i got from all your posts is that you're sad and angry that you don't get to control women, whom you also hate, so you would want everyone to do what you tell them, so you would no longer feel like having a tantrum.

There there. It'll be okay.

Your ad hominem is not surprising considering that you support ideologies that intend to convince people to absolve themselves of all personal accountability.

Any and all inconvenient truths should be placed on the sacrificial altar dedicated to the worship of the self.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your ad hominem is not surprising considering that you support ideologies that intend to convince people to absolve themselves of all personal accountability.

Any and all inconvenient truths should be placed on the sacrificial altar dedicated to the worship of the self.

Those who live in glass insult houses probably shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Darkstorn]

Your ad hominem is not surprising considering that you support ideologies that intend to convince people to absolve themselves of all personal accountability.

Any and all inconvenient truths should be placed on the sacrificial altar dedicated to the worship of the self.

You're inventing stuff about me whereas i'm just observing your actual behavior based on what you've written. I haven't told you what ideologies i follow. For all intents and purposes this is what happened:

I'm a random person to this debate: I'm making an observation of the written content of your posts. I still think you're having a tantrum. Perhaps even more so than previously.

Maybe mommy needs to kiss it to make it better.

 

[Sheldon]

Encouraging emotive responses and being willfully ignorant are what infantilize women

Indeed, like describing abortion as murder, when it is legal, and describing a clump of insentient cells as babies or children. Also there are only three l's in wilfully.

all while claiming they should never be held responsible for their actions.

Not true, it's the anti-choicers who insist women should not be responsible for their own actions, a throwback to misogynistic religious bigotry, from bronze and iron age superstition. Those who are pro choice, accept women are more than capable of being responsible for their own bodies.

Yeah - I'm the one infantilizing them.

On this at least we can agree.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Hey - I remember you from that other thread - the guy who didn't know what a woman was.

What did you say when I asked you, "What is a woman?"?

Wasn't it something like, "Something we call certain people."?

Man oh man - did that tank your credibility or what?

Indeed, like describing abortion as murder, when it is legal, and describing a clump of insentient cells as babies or children.

I never understood the whole "It's legal so its okay" argument.

I mean - have you never looked into history?

Loads of completely horrible and immoral things were once "legal".

For example - it was completely "legal" for a slaveowner to kill a recaptured runaway slave to "set an example" for his other "property"?

Completely legal - and so - according to you - not murder - right?

I'm sure you are fine with people owning other people too - because that was "legal" once as well.

I can imagine your conversation with an abolitionist at the time,

"You can say that kidnapping, enslaving, raping and murdering people that look different than I do is "bad" - but it's legal buddy."

History is full of stories of people righting injustices by changing what is considered "legal".

You can ignore history and biology all you want - like you do about how men are not women - but all facts point to human life beginning at conception.

Once those gametes meet - a whole new DNA sequence is created - which includes the biological sex - so a son or daughter - i.e. "a child" - is created.

Also there are only three l's in wilfully.

Very good - here's your Gold Star sticker.

Unfortunately - I used the word "willfully" - not "wilfully" - which are two different words.

"Willfully" (with four I's) means to do something intentionally or deliberately - while "wilfully" means to so something willingly, of one's free will.

Both are adverbs - but they do not mean the same thing.

I wanted to say that "pro-choice" activists are "intentionally or deliberately" being ignorant - as well as trying to keep women ignorant - so "willfully ignorant" was used.

Gosh - isn't it embarrassing when you say something thinking that you know what you are talking about - but you really don't - and then someone calls you out on it - and you just look really dumb?

Kinda like when someone asked you, "What is a woman?" and you said, "Something we call certain people".

Like I said - you are ignoring history and biology.

Not true, it's the anti-choicers who insist women should not be responsible for their own actions, a throwback to misogynistic religious bigotry, from bronze and iron age superstition.

"Anti-choicers"? Really? When you and others like you are the ones pushing just the one choice - murdering children?

That's kinda weird.

Now - I know you guys like using a lot of words and appeals to this new-age hating of "traditional norms" (which means history and science) - but it's all meaningless.

In no world is murdering your child because his/her existence is inconvenient to you "taking responsibility".

Did you know that more women are pro-life than "pro-choice"?

Those who are pro choice, accept women are more than capable of being responsible for their own bodies.

I guess you and I are on different pages - because I don't care about women's bodies - only the bodies of the children they have created.

On this at least we can agree.

Shocker - the guy that doesn't know what a woman is doesn't understand sarcasm.

 

[Darkstorn]

Hey - I remember you from that other thread - the guy who didn't know what a woman was.

What did you say when I asked you, "What is a woman?"?

Wasn't it something like, "Something we call certain people."?

Man oh man - did that tank your credibility or what?

I never understood the whole "It's legal so its okay" argument.

I mean - have you never looked into history?

Loads of completely horrible and immoral things were once "legal".

For example - it was completely "legal" for a slaveowner to kill a recaptured runaway slave to "set an example" for his other "property"?

Completely legal - and so - according to you - not murder - right?

I'm sure you are fine with people owning other people too - because that was "legal" once as well.

I can imagine your conversation with an abolitionist at the time,

"You can say that kidnapping, enslaving, raping and murdering people that look different than I do is "bad" - but it's legal buddy."

History is full of stories of people righting injustices by changing what is considered "legal".

You can ignore history and biology all you want - like you do about how men are not women - but all facts point to human life beginning at conception.

Once those gametes meet - a whole new DNA sequence is created - which includes the biological sex - so a son or daughter - i.e. "a child" - is created.

Very good - here's your Gold Star sticker.

Unfortunately - I used the word "willfully" - not "wilfully" - which are two different words.

"Willfully" (with four I's) means to do something intentionally or deliberately - while "wilfully" means to so something willingly, of one's free will.

Both are adverbs - but they do not mean the same thing.

I wanted to say that "pro-choice" activists are "intentionally or deliberately" being ignorant - as well as trying to keep women ignorant - so "willfully ignorant" was used.

Gosh - isn't it embarrassing when you say something thinking that you know what you are talking about - but you really don't - and then someone calls you out on it - and you just look really dumb?

Kinda like when someone asked you, "What is a woman?" and you said, "Something we call certain people".

Like I said - you are ignoring history and biology.

"Anti-choicers"? Really? When you and others like you are the ones pushing just the one choice - murdering children?

That's kinda weird.

Now - I know you guys like using a lot of words and appeals to this new-age hating of "traditional norms" (which means history and science) - but it's all meaningless.

In no world is murdering your child because his/her existence is inconvenient to you "taking responsibility".

Did you know that more women are pro-life than "pro-choice"?

I guess you and I are on different pages - because I don't care about women's bodies - only the bodies of the children they have created.

Shocker - the guy that doesn't know what a woman is doesn't understand sarcasm.

Somebody really needs to give you a lollipop.

You're still acting like a sexually immature man child who's having a tantrum.

I guess you and I are on different pages - because I don't care about women's bodies - only the bodies of the children they have created.

I think everyone knows. Your bitterness toward women is palpable.

 

[Sheldon]

Hey - I remember you from that other thread - the guy who didn't know what a woman was.

What did you say when I asked you, "What is a woman?"?

Wasn't it something like, "Something we call certain people."?

Man oh man - did that tank your credibility or what?

No, that's not me, you seem unable to resist stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you, so it's not surprising.

I never understood the whole "It's legal so its okay" argument.

I never made the argument, so this straw man suggests you don't understand a great deal. Murder is defined as the the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thus if an abortion is legal, it is not murder, by definition. You are wrongly equating what it is with what you want it to be.

"Anti-choicers"? Really? When you and others like you are the ones pushing just the one choice - murdering children?

You want to deny women bodily autonomy, so yes anti-choicers. Abortions are not murder if they are legal, and they never involve children, lets try pictures and see if this can help you understand:

This:

is a blastocyst.

This:

is an infant child or baby, see the difference?

Did you know that more women are pro-life than "pro-choice"?

I still don't, as I find such sweeping unevidenced generalisations, especially used without any context, to be utterly risible. Though Even were this ludicrous assertion true, it makes no difference, as it is you and not me who is trying to take away a woman's right to choose. How or what they choose is up to them. I'm guessing the irony of this risible made up claim is lost on you, but citing women's opinions, while trying to deny them the right to exercise a choice based on those opinions is pretty hilarious irony.

I guess you and I are on different pages - because I don't care about women's bodies

Again we can certainly agree on this much.

Shocker - the guy that doesn't know what a woman is doesn't understand sarcasm.

The irony of you repeating this inaccurate claim, in order to shift the goal posts, suggests it is you, and not me that is irony impaired.
If you're struggling the word woman is defined in any dictionary, and you can Google that definition.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No, that's not me, you seem unable to resist stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you, so it's not surprising.

Yes - it was you - in Post #95 of this thread here,

In fairness, it should be asked: What is the definition of... | Page 5 | Religious Forums

I never made the argument, so this straw man suggests you don't understand a great deal. Murder is defined as the the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thus if an abortion is legal, it is not murder, by definition. You are wrongly equating what it is with what you want it to be.

Ok - then that answers my questions about the killing of runaway slaves (that you ignored) - since it was "legal" for slaveholders to kill them at the time - you would not consider them to be victims of murder.

Gotcha.

Hey - you also ignored my correcting you about "willfully" and "wilfully" and a bunch of other stuff.

You're one of those people that just ignores the things you don't like - aren't you?

Ignore all the science proving that human life begins at conception and that men cannot become women and vice versa.

Just ignore it - cover your ears - and you can never be "proven" wrong - amirite?

You want to deny women bodily autonomy, so yes anti-choicers.

I don't care what women do with their own bodies.

I'm arguing that they should not be allowed to destroy the bodies of their children (i.e. "murder").

Abortions are not murder if they are legal

"Killing runaway slaves is not murder because it was legal" - this is you.

and they never involve children

A "child" can be defined as "someone's son or daughter" - so since biological sex is determined at the moment of conception - a child is created - as well as a mother and father.

lets try pictures and see if this can help you understand:

This:

is a blastocyst.

This:

is an infant child or baby, see the difference?

Both are children - one is more developed than the other.

Are you arguing that a human being is more valuable - or worthy of life - the more developed they are?

So - if I were to put the picture of a full-grown man next to that baby - the man would be more valuable or "worthy of life" than the baby?

Cute kid - btw. I'm glad his mother wanted him.

I still don't, as I find such sweeping unevidenced generalisations, especially used without any context, to be utterly risible. Though Even were this ludicrous assertion true, it makes no difference, as it is you and not me who is trying to take away a woman's right to choose.

Can't take away what was never there.

No one has the right to arbitrarily choose which of their children gets to live or die based on how convenient their existence is.

How or what they choose is up to them.

Not when it is killing children - no - no - they don't get a choice.

I'm guessing the irony of this risible made up claim is lost on you, but citing women's opinions, while trying to deny them the right to exercise a choice based on those opinions is pretty hilarious irony.

Even if every woman in the world was "pro-choice" - they still wouldn't have the right to murder their children - and I would still be speaking out against them.

Again we can certainly agree on this much.

Correct - you keep trying to argue that I care about what women do with their bodies - when I don't - I care about their children.

The irony of you repeating this inaccurate claim, in order to shift the goal posts, suggests it is you, and not me that is irony impaired.

My claim was completely accurate. I supplied the evidence above.

What providing that evidence does is tank your credibility.

You don't know the first thing about biology or even "women's rights" - since you have argued that men are women - so how does that compute?

If you're struggling the word woman is defined in any dictionary, and you can Google that definition.

Evidently - you are the one who struggles to define that word - not me.

However - you can redeem yourself here.

Tell me - what is a woman?

 

[Heyo]

Because - from what it looks like - you are comparing a man who is told that he is the father of a child (with a 99% accuracy rate) to an indisputable case of a product of rape/incest.

I'm not understanding the question.

The question was if @Wildswanderer would be willing to apply the same rules to men in an analogous case. No answer is also an answer.
It is not relevant to our discussion as you have made it clear that you wouldn't.

So - I understand that it may seem irrelevant and that you may not agree with all "appendages" of that ideological "body" - but you do agree with this one - so I felt it appropriate.

I very rarely agree with any ideology, I have my own.
Also in the case we are discussing here. My position is "moderate", as I don't agree with any of the radical sides. I don't know the full extend of your position but from what I've read so far, you seem to agree with the radical anti abortion ideology.

What do you mean by "rent-free apartment" - are there uteruses that charge rental fees?

There are owners of uteri who "charge rent" in the form of surrogate parenting. If it were true that there are more people who want to adopt a newborn than there are newborn free for adoption, then, in a capitalistic society with people who are against abortion, there should be a way to find a solution that satisfies all parties. E.g. the anti abortionists could pay for a fund that helps expecting adoptive parents who can't afford the usual procedure.

What "time period" are your referring to here and what metrics did you use to select that "time period"?

The time period in which a woman can legally abort a fetus. I'd prefer something between 13 and 20 month as a maximum for elective abortions. As I said, I'm no radical.

Also - why do you believe a man should only be able to abandon during that "time period".

Because I'm for equal rights.

And - "abort a fetus" obfuscates the issue - so let's say "murder a child" - because the man isn't abandoning "a fetus" is he?

He is when he can only abandon in the same time period a woman can abort.
And "murder a child" is not only factually wrong, it is pathetic.

Rather than a "tax" - it's more like a refusal to "bailing them" - even though what we are really talking about here is a refusal to let them murder people.
[...]
A woman who screws up should not be "bailed out" - but should be allowed to "fail" (even though protecting the not-yet-born is hardly a "failure") - then she can give her child up for adoption - because there are many couples waiting years to adopt newborns.

So, you want to force women to carry a fetus to term but you don't want it so much that you would give a dime for it to happen?

I never claimed that the U.S. Constitution granted an "inalienable right to life".

You didn't, I did. And since there is no right to life, you can't construct a right to life for fetuses.

You mentioned "women's rights" as if "abortion" should be counted among them - when it is not a right by any sense of the word.

The U.S. Constitution lists no right to "bodily autonomy" or "to murder those who are inconvenient to you" - so there is no reason to list "abortion" as a "woman's right".

Not in the US. But while there is no constitutional right for abortion, there is also no constitutional right to life. Neither side has a backing here.

However - there are Federal laws against murder - of which "abortion" definitely qualifies.

Nope. Other have already explained why.