If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[Chriliman]

You couldn't possibly be further from actually understanding what he's saying. Hopefully you're able to see the difference between actively drowning someone and allowing someone to die by refusing to donate your body parts. The latter is, in fact, a 100% tight defense in court. There are no laws that force us to give of our body (literally) to maintain the lives of others.

Obviously, someone is not going to shove a human fetus into your body and force you to maintain its life. However, becoming pregnant by natural causes forces someone to maintain the life of another. Its a natural law by definition. You can't change the nature of sex. However, a person could easily choose to not have sex and not risk getting pregnant when they're not ready to. We have a brain, I wish men and woman would use it rationally to make good decisions more often. It would solve an enormous amount of problems.

 

[pat34lee]

The mother doesn't do any harm to the unborn's body. She has it removed from her body. That it can't survive outside of it is an unfortunate side effect.

So, if I own the water in an area and have it turned off, too bad for those who need it to live? Unfortunate side effect.

Just like it is an unfortunate side effect that you would die without my kidney. That doesn't mean that I can be forced to give it to you.

What about my rights when you need my kidney?

Pregnancy doesn't just happen. It requires a set of choices be made. Just as you lose certain rights when you rob or kill, you lose others when you choose to behave in such a way as to become pregnant. It doesn't matter if you mean to get pregnant or not. As for responsibilities, the other party involved is closer than any relative, other than an identical twin. It is the child of the woman, with half her DNA.

 

[Cearbhall]

It's unjust because the unborn child has done nothing worthy of death.

And it's immoral because killing a human being without justification is wrong.

You're saying the same things that you said before. You're wrongly assuming that these claims go without saying. They don't. I disagree in certain cases. Try to present an argument about why I should change my mind instead of telling me what you believe.

I know a lot of drafted Vietnam Vets who would disagree with that assertion.

I said "are," which is present tense. Now, you could argue Selective Service, and that's fair, but I propose that organ/tissue donation is a much more logical comparison.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You're saying the same things that you said before. You're wrongly assuming that these claims go without saying. They don't. I disagree in certain cases. Try to present an argument about why I should change my mind instead of telling me what you believe.

So, do you belive it is okay to kill a human being without justification?

And, do you support the death penalty?

 

[Hetta]

It was simply a question I was asking of someone else in the course of a discussion--with someone else.

Internet = public.

 

[Hetta]

It will never happen to me because I am a man. How is that a choice?

Not knowing about the risks is a choice. You don't have to be a woman to educate yourself.

 

[Cearbhall]

So, do you belive it is okay to kill a human being without justification?

No, but I consider the right to bodily autonomy to be a justification.

And, do you support the death penalty?

I do not believe that the death penalty is immoral. However, I'm not a big fan of it in practice because it wastes money. Even those who are too dangerous to put to work would eat up fewer tax dollars sitting in a cell for the rest of their lives. There are a couple other problems that come up when you actually implement the death penalty, but that's the main one for me.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, but I consider the right to bodily autonomy to be a justification.

I do not believe that the death penalty is immoral. However, I'm not a big fan of it in practice because it wastes money. Even those who are too dangerous to put to work would eat up fewer tax dollars sitting in a cell for the rest of their lives. There are a couple other problems that come up when you actually implement the death penalty, but that's the main one for me.

So, you believe bodily autonomy over rules the killing of a defenceless human being.

 

[Cearbhall]

So, you believe bodily autonomy over rules the killing of a defenceless human being.

Definitely.

Allow me to change the analogy slightly. What if a man was drowning and yelling for help, and you are on the beach or in a nearby boat, able to swim, and you just sit there and say, "That's your problem! Good luck to you!". You could say that the man ends up drowning due to circumstances he was in rather than anything you did. However, you could have saved his life, and you didn't. He died because of your inaction.

Note that this isn't illegal. This is a perfect example of my point. I'm much more concerned with whether or not abortion is legal than whether or not I personally feel that a particular case is justified.

Obviously, someone is not going to shove a human fetus into your body and force you to maintain its life.

In the hypothetical world that certain people in this thread are creating, this isn't obvious to me at all. Several people have told me that rape is not a reason for abortion to be legal, and there are many more like them.

 

[bhsmte]

So, you believe bodily autonomy over rules the killing of a defenceless human being.

Do you know when a fetus becomes a human being?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Do you know when a fetus becomes a human being?

Yes, at conception.

 

[Chriliman]

Definitely.

Note that this isn't illegal. This is a perfect example of my point. I'm much more concerned with whether or not abortion is legal than whether or not I personally feel that a particular case is justified.

In the hypothetical world that certain people in this thread are creating, this isn't obvious to me at all. Several people have told me that rape is not a reason for abortion to be legal, and there are many more like them.

This is why I said women and men need to make good rational choices before having sex. A man who rapes someone is not making good rational choices. I'm not sure how you can say good rational choices would not solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

The reality is people make bad choices, but does that mean it's morally acceptable for innocent humans to die because a bad choice was made? No, of course not.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm not sure how you can say good rational choices would not solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

Did you quote the right person? I didn't say anything about this topic.

The reality is people make bad choices, but does that mean it's morally acceptable for innocent humans to die because a bad choice was made? No, of course not.

You'd have to convince me of that. It's not a given, no matter how obvious you may think it is. It's curious that many pro-life individuals in this thread seem to be under the impression that I don't comprehend what I believe, as if I couldn't possibly have different views than them for a reason other than ignorance or stupidity.

 

[Chriliman]

Did you quote the right person? I didn't say anything about this topic.

You'd have to convince me of that. It's not a given, no matter how obvious you may think it is. It's curious that many pro-life individuals in this thread seem to be under the impression that I don't comprehend what I believe, as if I couldn't possibly have different views than them for a reason other than ignorance or stupidity.

You quoted my post and referenced rape in your #270 post.

I'm pro good choices before sex.

The choice to take innocent human life is a bad choice no matter how you look at it.

After conception the only right a woman has to have a forced abortion is if the pregnancy is threatening to kill her.

 

[Cearbhall]

The choice to take innocent human life is a bad choice no matter how you look at it.

You keep making these absolute statements as if they're arguments. I realize you think that this is as undeniable as 1+1=2, but it's not. It's an extremely subjective matter, and we happen to disagree. All you're doing is stating your beliefs. It doesn't affect reality or change what I think.

After conception the only right a woman has to have a forced abortion is if the pregnancy is threatening to kill her.

Interesting. Some would look at this statement and say the same things to you that you've been saying to me. Again, there's nothing objective about this. You'll find people on either side of you on this issue, along a whole spectrum.

 

[pat34lee]

No, but I consider the right to bodily autonomy to be a justification.

I do not believe that the death penalty is immoral. However, I'm not a big fan of it in practice because it wastes money. Even those who are too dangerous to put to work would eat up fewer tax dollars sitting in a cell for the rest of their lives. There are a couple other problems that come up when you actually implement the death penalty, but that's the main one for me.

I agree about the cost, but rather than doing away with the death penalty, the states should streamline the process. There is no excuse for it to take over a year from sentencing to execution. Lawyers who drag out the process or tie up the courts with frivolous lawsuits should be jailed and disbarred after paying very hefty cash penalties.

People or organizations who bring frivolous lawsuits against doctors or companies will pay double damages and court fees for both sides. The lawyers who took the case, see above.

 

[Strathos]

The justice system itself should be reformed first. Far too many innocent people are convicted, and even executed.

 

[ranunculus]

So yes, I believe if anyone was responsible for the death of an unborn should be guilty and punished the same way as being guilty of killing someone born.

No matter how fanciful a situation you can think of it still would not negate the fact that abortion unjustly kills a human being , which is immoral.

Do you think that every miscarriage should be cause for a criminal investigation?

Saying that abortion unjustly kills a human being is saying it's murder.
If an abortion is murder, then every miscarriage that occurs is a potential murder.
Are you not going to investigate that?

 

[Belk]

I agree about the cost, but rather than doing away with the death penalty, the states should streamline the process. There is no excuse for it to take over a year from sentencing to execution. Lawyers who drag out the process or tie up the courts with frivolous lawsuits should be jailed and disbarred after paying very hefty cash penalties.

People or organizations who bring frivolous lawsuits against doctors or companies will pay double damages and court fees for both sides. The lawyers who took the case, see above.

That will sure whittle down the list of people who have been exonerated. Apparently it is OK to kill innocent people as long as they have been born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States

 

[Chriliman]

You keep making these absolute statements as if they're arguments. I realize you think that this is as undeniable as 1+1=2, but it's not. It's an extremely subjective matter, and we happen to disagree. All you're doing is stating your beliefs. It doesn't affect reality or change what I think.

Interesting. Some would look at this statement and say the same things to you that you've been saying to me. Again, there's nothing objective about this. You'll find people on either side of you on this issue, along a whole spectrum.

But if you're objective you'd realize no one has the right to tell a woman that she can't defend her life if it's in danger of ending. Only she can choose to attempt to stay alive or willingly die and by doing so probably kill the baby too. Or she could willingly die so the baby could live, but this means the baby would not have a mother which would give it a major disadvantage in life.

We can be objective about these issues if we just objectively think about all the causes of the problem and effects of the problem.