V
Vonsalza
Guest
No. People that like to cite Hitler are typically lower IQ, in my experience.
- Status
S
Sbee0
Guest
There’s nothing “supposed” about it. And yes of course a mother has the right to control her body. Except the fetus/unborn child is not “her body” anymore.
There is absolutely no such species as a “proto human”.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
Yes you are probably right that he was steeped in tradition but I wouldn’t use the label “Conservative” and certainly not to compare to today’s conservatives. That term as we know it today in the Western world wasn’t around till about the 15-16th century. It isn’t an indication that to be conservative is to horde your money for your own selfish purpose either instead of helping others.Sbee0:
Yes there is. Read again.
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
He was a devout Jew. It would be difficult to envision someone more conservative.
Sure. Most wealthy folks tend to be republican.
But when you get into the super-wealthy, there is much more focus on philanthropy since the personal microeconomic “joy” they feel by grinding out another million is very small. In those echelons of wealth you see about as many dems as you do reps. So you’re right.
It might, then, appear that the primary divide you should be concerned about is class rather than party. But that’s a separate discussion.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Regardless where you draw the line - the argument still endures:Vonsalza:
There’s nothing “supposed” about it. And yes of course a mother has the right to control her body. Except the fetus/unborn child is not “her body” anymore.
Having a baby is almost certainly damaging and possibly perilous to the mother’s body. As she is master of her own being, she gets full choice over whether or not her body must endure that.
Especially in the United States where maternal mortality is on the rise, no one has the right to force anyone into possible peril. No one. Ever.
Never said there was. What I’m alluding to there is that in the eyes of most folks, a fetus is not yet a person. It is a person-in-development. It has no agency, autonomy. There is no capacity for self determination.Vonsalza:
There is absolutely no such species as a “proto human”.
Now does this describe the woman involved? Not at all - she displays these attributes quite obviously. Ergo she has the right to self-determine her course in a way that is greater than a fetus’ supposed right to live.
Since we oppose slavery, the only ethical course is to be pro-choice as a matter of law and then do everything we can to make life the attractive option for the mother.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Dependency or being part of her body because those are two separate issues. You also mentioned the ability of self determination, so which is it?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Directly to you for the second or third time;Vonsalza:
Dependency or being part of her body because those are two separate issues. You also mentioned the ability of self determination, so which is it?
Self determination is one of the tests used to determine whether it’s separate from her body.
I’m guessing you’re not actually reading any of this…
For the rest of us, it’s pretty obvious that a fetus is part of, or at the very least, uses the woman’s body in a way that is almost certainly damaging and possibly perilous. And since a woman has absolute control over her body, she gets to choose whether she wants to go through with such a process as pregnancy.
G
goout
Guest
How do you get out of the bed in the morning without being offended?Sbee0:
Regardless where you draw the line - the argument still endures:Vonsalza:
There’s nothing “supposed” about it. And yes of course a mother has the right to control her body. Except the fetus/unborn child is not “her body” anymore.
Having a baby is almost certainly damaging and possibly perilous to the mother’s body. As she is master of her own being, she gets full choice over whether or not her body must endure that.
Especially in the United States where maternal mortality is on the rise, no one has the right to force anyone into possible peril. No one. Ever.
Be careful! Life is terrible.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
??? I’m not offended by your position. I just disagree with it and I’m doing a decent job of providing why…Vonsalza:
How do you get out of the bed in the morning without being offended?Sbee0:
Regardless where you draw the line - the argument still endures:Vonsalza:
There’s nothing “supposed” about it. And yes of course a mother has the right to control her body. Except the fetus/unborn child is not “her body” anymore.
Having a baby is almost certainly damaging and possibly perilous to the mother’s body. As she is master of her own being, she gets full choice over whether or not her body must endure that.
Especially in the United States where maternal mortality is on the rise, no one has the right to force anyone into possible peril. No one. Ever.
Be careful! Life is terrible.
I understand that it may be frustrating to occasionally admit that your opposition might have a decent point… I’ve personally experienced this many times - like when I used to be ardently pro-life.
U
undead_rat
Guest
I do not agree with this idea. In my opinion it is the world’s massive arsenals of nuclear weapons that are far more threatening to our well being and even survival than abortion.
Voluntary pregnancy termination is, of course, contrary to our Christian tradition and should not be practiced by Christians. But legal abortion does not threaten to exterminate the human race. Nuclear war does. Furthermore, it appears that it is a global nuclear war that is the means of YHWH’s judgement of humanity by fire.
See Isaiah 66:15-16 and Jeremiah 25:32-33.
When YHWH exterminated humanity by means of the Deluge, He said that this action was taken because of man’s unrelenting propensity towards violence. This was at a time when the practice of abortion was unknown. And it is instructive to note that this propensity towards violence is mentioned again in Genesis 8:21 where YHWH promises that He will not be the cause of the next world-wide catastrophe. He decided to leave man’s propensity towards violence unchecked and to let it run its natural course to its conclusion. That conclusion, my friends, is a global nuclear war which will be an even greater world catastrophe than was the Flood of Noah.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Well, equating the giving of a new life to slavery is not a decent point. It’s perverse.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The slavery is in forcing a woman to maintain an always hazardous, occasionally perilous pregnancy against her will.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You changed the terminology and you used to say that infants didn’t have self-determination so I got confused.
You said before that DNA was immaterial and implied it didn’t matter, but you didn’t really explain why.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
She can’t use her bodies to hurt others. And other solutions should be explored before such a drastic action is taken.
Last edited:
G
Gingersnaps4
Guest
What do you think of pregnancies that are far enough along so that the baby could live on its own outside the womb? Where they wouldn’t be “dependent” as you say? Should a woman have the option to end the life of that baby because she doesn’t want to be pregnant? I don’t buy your self determination and autonomy argument. You cited crying as an example. That’s instinctual and fetuses also demonstrate similar behavior. They turn towards light, react to sound, suck and swallow, feel and react to pain, and yes, even cry in the womb!
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’ve not changed terminology. I’ve used the same terms for these few hundred posts.Vonsalza:
You changed the terminology and you used to say that infants didn’t have self-determination so I got confused.
You said before that DNA was immaterial and implied it didn’t matter, but you didn’t really explain why.
I don’t have to make the case of why something doesn’t matter. You have to make the case for why it does. Specifically why DNA destroys a womans right to control her body.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
She can absolutely exercise her agency to prevent harm to her own self. And make no mistake, pregnancy is destructive to the female body. Occasionally it’s lethal, even in the US.Vonsalza:
She can’t use her bodies to hurt others. And other solutions should be explored before such a drastic action is taken.
We don’t have a right to force a reluctant woman to experience that peril.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I read a biologist two weeks ago that made just that argument. Maybe they’re “person enough” at minimal viability - 21 weeks or so.
As slightly more than 98% of abortions occur before this milestone, I wouldn’t oppose it if a compromise became necessary. But I think the door should be left open for exceptional situations.
We really should err on the side of choice.
M
MamaJewel
Guest
But the developing human can’t use its body to hurt the woman either. And the nature of pregnancy creates a situation where the pregnancy (and developing human being) has to interface with the female’s body in such a way that the pregnancy/ developing human doesn’t trigger an immune response. The developing embryo/ fetus is literally a foreign object in the body of the female. The presence of a pregnancy imposes risks to life and bodily injury on the female.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
DNA shows that there is another person involved. It is used to indentify specific people at crime scenes.
As to the mix up, you also said that the infant didn’t have autonomy, but it does have self determination.
As to the mix up, you also said that the infant didn’t have autonomy, but it does have self determination.
Last edited:
G
Gingersnaps4
Guest
“Choice” implies that it isn’t necessary though, so it’s much more prudent to err on the side of the life that’s potentially being put up on the chopping block.
On a side note, i think people would think things through more carefully if everyone didn’t stick to the catch phrase to describe abortion that’s become so popular, and allows so many people’s minds to gloss over the issue. Choice. Maybe it’s just too late at night for me right now but it blows me away that people can say and think and believe that with a viable baby “we really should err on the side of just letting a person make the choice of whether to kill the baby or allow it to live”.
- Status