"Could" haha.And you trust Trump? What about all his well documented lies? He could be lying about his feelings on abortion too. And considering he lies about pretty much everything, that statement of his you put up earlier probably IS a lie.
Why is there an obvious obligation? The woman choosing an abortion isn't choosing to kill the fetus, she is choosing to no longer offer her body to the fetus, exactly the same as a person unwilling to offer their body to someone in need of a kidney transplant. If there was a person who only had a single match for a kidney in the entire world, would that single match suddenly become obligated to provide the kidney since it is now a unique? Or investigating further into the analogy, what if a parent of a child is the only match for a kidney for their child, should the government be able to forcibly require that parent to donate the kidney?To put it in other words, a women choosing to abort her child is choosing to kill it, deprive it of the right to live. Or, murder, if you prefer. There is no obligation on the part of a person with kidney disease to expect a kidney be given by one specific person. The receiver of this kidney has no right to expect generosity from another person (though it is laudable to do so). There is an obvious obligation on the part of a fetus to 'expect' to receive care from one specific person, it's mother. I don't understand how this is not self evident to you. Our increased understanding of the biology of reproduction makes this even more clear than it ever has been in our history.
This is my understanding of human nature and human dignity, and yes it is dominated by the teachings of Christ and His church. The early church fathers had the benefit of being familiar with the writings of the great Greek philosophers concerning such things as virtues - something modern society is sorely lacking. The development of many of these teachings aren't just pulled out of the air, they have been carefully thought out and reflected on for two millennia. Somehow, all that knowledge is cast asunder by modern mankind, as, apparently, modern mankind is better in every way that the great teachers who have come before us.
Anyway, that's what I believe, even if it remains in opposition to your beliefs. Hence the battle that is being fought today.
Exactly. She isn't choosing to kill the fetus, she's just evicting it. From there, nature (or God) takes over.Why is there an obvious obligation? The woman choosing an abortion isn't choosing to kill the fetus, she is choosing to no longer offer her body to the fetus, exactly the same as a person unwilling to offer their body to someone in need of a kidney transplant. If there was a person who only had a single match for a kidney in the entire world, would that single match suddenly become obligated to provide the kidney since it is now a unique? Or investigating further into the analogy, what if a parent of a child is the only match for a kidney for their child, should the government be able to forcibly require that parent to donate the kidney?
You continue to make meaningless rationalizations that continue to indicate that you really just don't care about the bodily autonomy of women. I agree, the world today is deeply lacking in virtue, and that lack stems from people that make appeals to their personal religious beliefs in order to subjugate others under their dogma. I'm fine with what you believe. You don't have to get an abortion. You don't even have to personally support women getting abortions. My problem is when you use your beliefs to push legislation leading to the government controlling what women do with their own bodies.
The first republican who proposes that has my vote, but you'll never see it happen because again they only want to ban other people's sins and not their own.If we're going to start banning sins, we should probably start with greed. That'll fix a lot more problems.
Of course I trust Trump, he loves this nation and wants to preserve it. His people don't hate him whatsoever. So that opinion is way out in left field. Just seeing it here means you have no idea who Trump really is.And you trust Trump? What about all his well documented lies? He could be lying about his feelings on abortion too. And considering he lies about pretty much everything, that statement of his you put up earlier probably IS a lie.
The abortion equivalent would be like killing your tenant and then moving them outside to the dumpster to rot, after dismembering them to remove their internal organs to sell on the black market. You cool with that?Exactly. She isn't choosing to kill the fetus, she's just evicting it. From there, nature (or God) takes over.
Plenty of sins are banned including murder. Don't think you really need to worry about man's punishment here. And I freely admit I struggle with my faith from time to time. It is not an easy walk. Im not perfect nor is Trump, but you don't have to be.The first republican who proposes that has my vote, but you'll never see it happen because again they only want to ban other people's sins and not their own.
It's not murder at that point. That's the whole point, it's exception, because there are mitigating circumstances. And it's the choice of the mother. Would you really force her to raise a child that was the product of a violent rape by some random criminal for the rest of her life? She did NOT consent to have the child (but she does CONSENT to having an abortion) And raise that as a victim for 20 years? It may cause even more emotional turmoil. While a natural birth from consensual sex may also case turmoil (lol) and while I believe this option/exeption should be available, I also personally think that all children should be saved and then if in this case, raised in an orphanage. That's my opinion but still, some women never recover from a rape, so to put them through this every day for the rest of their life, from an event they did not consent to should be looked at with great care taken for the mother.So to be clear you're saying it is okay to murder an innocent child if that child came into this world without the consent of the mother?
Why should your opinion be foisted upon others?It's not murder at that point. That's the whole point, it's exception, because there are mitigating circumstances. And it's the choice of the mother. Would you really force her to raise a child that was the product of a violent rape by some random criminal for the rest of her life? She did NOT consent to have the child (but she does CONSENT to having an abortion) And raise that as a victim for 20 years? It may cause even more emotional turmoil. While a natural birth from consensual sex may also case turmoil (lol) and while I believe this option/exeption should be available, I also personally think that all children should be saved and then if in this case, raised in an orphanage. That's my opinion but still, some women never recover from a rape, so to put them through this every day for the rest of their life, from an event they did not consent to should be looked at with great care taken for the mother.
Why would you trust someone that lies so much (and there's plenty documented)? I was talking about your quote from him on abortion. He lies so much that that quote is probably a lie...he doesn't actually believe it...he just needs your votes to stay in power.Of course I trust Trump, he loves this nation and wants to preserve it. His people don't hate him whatsoever. So that opinion is way out in left field. Just seeing it here means you have no idea who Trump really is.
Oh, come on, it's not like the Bible says anything about love of money being a problem, right?The first republican who proposes that has my vote, but you'll never see it happen because again they only want to ban other people's sins and not their own.
How is it not murder? What did the innocent unborn child do to deserve being killed?It's not murder at that point. That's the whole point, it's exception, because there are mitigating circumstances.
I wouldn't do that, no! But since a fetus isn't a human being there is no inconsistency there. Your position is that abortion of a fetus is the murder of an innocent child, but that the exact same killing of a child of the exact same innocence is fine if someone committed a crime against that innocent child's mother.And it's the choice of the mother. Would you really force her to raise a child that was the product of a violent rape by some random criminal for the rest of her life? She did NOT consent to have the child (but she does CONSENT to having an abortion) And raise that as a victim for 20 years? It may cause even more emotional turmoil. While a natural birth from consensual sex may also case turmoil (lol) and while I believe this option/exeption should be available, I also personally think that all children should be saved and then if in this case, raised in an orphanage. That's my opinion but still, some women never recover from a rape, so to put them through this every day for the rest of their life, from an event they did not consent to should be looked at with great care taken for the mother.
Having sex is not consent to carry a baby to term. If men were the ones who had to do it there would be drive thru abortion clinics on every street corner.It's not murder at that point. That's the whole point, it's exception, because there are mitigating circumstances. And it's the choice of the mother. Would you really force her to raise a child that was the product of a violent rape by some random criminal for the rest of her life? She did NOT consent to have the child (but she does CONSENT to having an abortion) And raise that as a victim for 20 years? It may cause even more emotional turmoil. While a natural birth from consensual sex may also case turmoil (lol) and while I believe this option/exeption should be available, I also personally think that all children should be saved and then if in this case, raised in an orphanage. That's my opinion but still, some women never recover from a rape, so to put them through this every day for the rest of their life, from an event they did not consent to should be looked at with great care taken for the mother.
'Aborting a fetus is the murder of an innocent child, unless it wasn't the woman's fault she got pregnant, in which case by all means go to town on that thing' is a pretty incredible take I have to say.I wasn't sure anyone could be dumber than the poster that believes people in large cities only ride the bus and don't pay gas taxes. Looking at the latest responses we have a new "winner".
Because a nation that kills the unborn is a nation without hope.Why should your opinion be foisted upon others?
Don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
I don't think you will get that poster or any poster of a religious conviction to admit the 2 scenarios are equivalent. To them they are different, even if logically they are the same. But as Ajay hinted at, when it comes to this kind of thing, a purely scientific, biological viewpoint is insufficient (for a religious person).'Aborting a fetus is the murder of an innocent child, unless it wasn't the woman's fault she got pregnant, in which case by all means go to town on that thing' is a pretty incredible take I have to say.
That’s the thing though, this argument involves zero science, it is entirely moral. He has put forth the idea that it is morally acceptable to kill an innocent third party if someone commits the crime of rape against you, which is monstrous.I don't think you will get that poster or any poster of a religious conviction to admit the 2 scenarios are equivalent. To them they are different, even if logically they are the same. But as Ajay hinted at, when it comes to this kind of thing, a purely scientific, biological viewpoint is insufficient (for a religious person).
I think a nation that doesn't behead everyone that drinks even a single drop of alcohol is a nation without hope. Buckle up for Sharia Law, buttercup.Because a nation that kills the unborn is a nation without hope.
Abortion is genocide, plain and simple. It's ironic that none of you know the real purpose of planned parenthood.
Right, if you kill someone in self defense you get away with murder, isn't that your logic?'Aborting a fetus is the murder of an innocent child, unless it wasn't the woman's fault she got pregnant, in which case by all means go to town on that thing' is a pretty incredible take I have to say.
and killing the born is a nation with hope? To quote avid right winger so called prolife Lt Gov Dan Patrick when commenting on the elderly sacrificing their lives to COVID...Because a nation that kills the unborn is a nation without hope.
Abortion is genocide, plain and simple. It's ironic that none of you know the real purpose of planned parenthood.
"There are more important things than living "
The fetus is not threatening the mom. As we have established it is 100% innocent of any wrongdoing. So no, not even remotely equivalent.Right, if you kill someone in self defense you get away with murder, isn't that your logic?
*facepalm*
Actually I think the only and BEST thing to do is let the mother have the baby. If she want's to keep it, great. If not, dont kill it, send it to an orphanige. This is a win win situation and no need to kill the baby that doesnt fallow suit with what I believe. All children SHOULD be born, with the exception of the anti-christ. But it's too late for that! On both counts!That’s the thing though, this argument involves zero science, it is entirely moral. He has put forth the idea that it is morally acceptable to kill an innocent third party if someone commits the crime of rape against you, which is monstrous.
Maybe you're the anti-christ?Actually I think the only and BEST thing to do is let the mother have the baby. If she want's to keep it, great. If not, dont kill it, send it to an orphanige. This is a win win situation and no need to kill the baby that doesnt fallow suit with what I believe. All children SHOULD be born, with the exception of the anti-christ. But it's too late for that! On both counts!