Amy Gorin · Oct 23 Here's your real problem Daniel. You don't understand the difference between trespassing and rape.
Women aren't buildings or cars. Women are people. And using a *person’s body* without their consent is rape, not trespassing.
Every time you use the trespassing analogy, you are admitting that you don't see women as people.
Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Here's real problem here in your attempted deflection, Amy. you still don't understand the difference between unlawful trespassing versus some lost vulnerable child innocently ending up on your property, and thus how they are not to be killed, nor btwn rape victims (which approx 1% I never mentioned), versus a child being in your body DUE to your choices/actions of consensual sexual relation - despite knowing the risks! (
And who you justify killing.
And rather than me admitting that you don't see women as people (due to your limited idea of analogy ), it remains that it is You who refuses to see the unborn as people, which you desperately attempt to justify murdering.
Again, I think it is best to just give this up. The more you attempt to defend your infanticide here, then the more it becomes an argument against it.
However, let me say that I am not angry at you, though I do contend against your arguments. And may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” ()
Profile photo for Amy Gorin Amy Gorin · Oct 23 It doesn’t matter if the entry is “unlawful” or if it’s a “ lost vulnerable child.” Women are still people, not buildings, and I still don’t have to “justify” a person’s right to not have their body used without their consent. Even if she had consensual sex. Even if someone will die.
You’re responding to the arguments you’ve memorized, not to the things I’m actually saying.
I ask you for photos of your foster children and organ donation scars, and instead you give me quotes from your bible. That really says it all.
Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Now this is becoming irrational. How can you compare a child living within her body, due to her choices - and without the consent of the occupant - knowing of the risk of pregnancy, with someone who uses her body without her consent, as if this was like a case of being bought as a slave? “Property rights?”
Her “consent” was that of engaging in an activity knowing the risk, and she has no justification for making herself out to be a victim and murdering the actual “victim.”
I ask you for photos of your foster children and organ donation scars, and instead you give me quotes from your bible. That really says it all.
I never knew what photos you referred to, but I no longer have receipts toward the support of foster children, though I provide free repair work for bikes, and dispense food (pregnant women may go first) , and I at 71 I am willing to risk my life today to save my neighbors, But I would not murder my organs which are to be used for good.
Yet even if your attempted deflection of assigning a hypocrite label to me worked, for that also fails to prevail as justification for murdering the child in a mother's wombs, which is due to her consent to couple with another person, who was once in a womb himself, and shares responsibility of support.
Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide. And which responses I am saving, perhaps to post elsewhere, properly attributed. Thanks.
But I would still fix your bike, etc.
Profile photo for Amy Gorin Amy Gorin · Oct 23 People have the right to not be pregnant without consent. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Even if someone will die. But you are certainly to be lauded for providing food to the needy.
“Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide”
I have no idea what this means.
Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Which is the same old refuted polemic you tried before, which is no more valid than it was then.
People do not have the right to not realize consequences of actions they consented to. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the risk of pregnancy. and moral responsibility to such is to be consented to. . Especially if someone will die. For no one has the right to escape responsibility for the consequences of actions they chose, which risk they choose to take.
And when the consequences involve life, then responsibility does not mean taking innocent life, but caring for it.
And thus it remains that the one quote from the Bible is more (in number) than any justification for murder that you have or can provide.
In conclusion, while I affirm both the unborn and the mother as human persons, and who thus are to be respected, cared for, etc. and with rights to such.
But as such, then insomuch as they are morally cognizant and capable, then such are responsible for consequences of their volitional actions.
And since the unborn are not morally responsible for their conception, location, nor needs, but are (in the cases at issue) the result of persons choosing to engage in actions, knowing of the risks, then they are not victims, but perpetrators, which are morally responsible for the care of the unborn, which is the “victim” party.
In addition, even though you do not like analogies which works against you via correspondence of principles, just as in the case of a lost vulnerable innocent child who seeks finds shelter in your house the door being opened, then you are obliged to provide care for such until another can. Even if you did not invite them.
For children of any age are not cars.
But again, may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Good bye.
Ping for pro-life praise the Author of life.
They don’t care about the science. They want to kill their babies and that’s it.
Ask them the question “At what point is it okay to kill a baby in the womb?”
They can’t escape the scientific fact that it’s a human life at conception, and to kill the baby is murder.
Let see...
Abortion = murder
End of argument for me.
To “My Body, My Choice”, Reagan said it very well: “Your choice ends at the beginning of you baby’s body.”
Try again...
“Your choice ends at the beginning of your baby’s body.”
Talking about abortion is a distraction. It’s a losing issue. We have other things to worry about.
Go ahead and do a DNA test to determine whether the fetus is "part" of the woman's body.
Thank you.
Since many leftists are atheists, I developed a nonreligious way of talking about abortion. I have some pictures of my nieces at 6 months old, 3 months old, and just a day old. As I show each picture, I ask if we can abort her. Of course, they scoff at it. Eventually I get to the day old picture, asking if we can ‘get rid of this person, this life.’ I then ask, so if this person is a life today, what about the day before, the week before, a month before? When does she become a nonperson? They do not have an answer. Some of them get the point. The radicals are rabid killers and could care less.
The baby is NOT part of YOUR body! It has its OWN BODY.
YOU spread your legs!
Even if you were raped, how is that the baby’s fault, punishable by DEATH?
You pro aborts make ZERO sense.
Abortion is EVIL!
Abortion is MURDER!
Every woman who has had an abortion is on a bobsled to hell.
Only Jesus can forgive you. Not likely that you will ask.
Behavior is a result of perspective, it’s all perspective. IMO, abortion is a smaller detail of a bigger issue, so my response is not as scientifically direct.
There are 2 kinds of people. The first perceive they live in a bright world, and because of that environment they believe, have faith and trust people. These people have no question about the future and they have no problem doing everything they can to make sure babies live, no matter the circumstance.
The other kind perceive they live in a dark world. As a result, they fear, they doubt and have a terrible need to control others. Existing in a dark world is their excuse to participate in omnicide.
The world is not dark. The future is not bleak. Tomorrow will be a good day.
A dramatization from Monster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbZKbFBdkqc
A dramatization from Signs: https://youtu.be/-dDl7O48Or8?t=36
“ Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the risk of pregnancy. and moral responsibility to such is to be consented to. ”
Kind of the point of heterosexual procreation/ intercourse when you get right down to it
"As expressed in a comment and somewhat revised here, the premise behind the typical justificatory arguments for abortion (“respecting individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body [??? emphasis added],”"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Not only is the word abortion not found in the Constitution, but the only body found in the Constitution is a reference to government entities.
So the so-called "constitutional" right to have an abortion is corrupt political party propaganda imo.
In fact, note that the now repealed 18th Amendment (18A) shows that the law can prohibit people from doing something with their bodies, 18A effectively prohibiting people from drinking alcoholic beverages.
"18th Amendment, Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was a MAJOR constitutional scandal imo.
even if the form of the thing may change over time and be different, it is still the same thing, Abortion kills a different form of the same thing.
I always love taking on the “respecting individual autonomy” argument, since the fetus is both integral to the mother and simultaneously autonomous. It’s also useful to take them on with their “fetus = tumor” analogies:
The fetus is integral to the mother since he or she (that’ll drive ‘em crazy!) is not an abnormal growth (such as a tumor). Instead, he or she is part of the normal female biological process and integral to it. Thereby, killing the fetus breaks the autonomy of the mother’s designed and normal (as opposed to a tumor) body processes.
The fetus is autonomous, as he or she is entirely human in both immediate (contains the full human DNA) and potential form (unlike a tumor, which is just tumor).
It would be terrible if we found out that human life does indeed start at conception and all of those humans were murdered, sometimes brutally.
There is so little that we understand about nature and our humanity.
“ You’re responding to the arguments you’ve memorized, not to the things I’m actually saying.”
Liberals do that a it.
The slogan "My body my choice" was the result of a paid PR group focus group study, (Per Dr Berenstein co founder of Naral.) It is emotional and resonates with women. The problem is that it is fundamentally untrue. A woman is not aborting herself or removing a part of herself.
We use genetics to establish an individual's identity in legal proceedings. The child is NOT genetically identical to the mother, or the father, it is a combination of both of their genes, it is separate from and Different, another persons body. (Another way to put this is that women do not suddenly grow extra fingers, arms and legs inside of them, or start to run different blood types or have a part of their body that is a different sex.) The abortion is practiced on a person distinct from the woman, so not her body.
To the statement: "And using a *person’s body* without their consent is rape." (very loose leftist definition) The rejoinder is: " And killing a person with or without their consent is still murder.
I hope that God blesses your discussions Daniel!
"Right is right even when no one does it and wrong is wrong even if everyone does it. " Augustine of Hippo
Nothing to save, best burned down and rebuild.
I notice they enumerated “ectopic pregnancy.” Why is this counted as abortion — or am I not understanding it? I thought it was that the embryo attaches inside the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Wouldn’t this kill the fetus if left to grow to a certain point, and wouldn’t it cause potentially lethal rupture or death in the mother?