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

[DogmaHunter]

Since donating bone marrow is not a legal requirement, a person wouldn't be sent to jail for not donating it to one in need of it to live. But it is still a morals-based decision. If you see someone in need of something you could give them, and you allow them to die, then you've decided that the other person's life wasn't worth your time.

People die every day because of a lack of donors.

Since you are so moral and selfless, please find your way to the nearest hospital and have everything removed that you can survive without.

You'll save plenty of people.

Let's see you walk the talk.

 

[Chany]

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.

Naturalistic fallacy. Something being natural has no bearing on the rightness of wrongness of it. Just because pregnancy naturally follows from sex does not make abortion wrong.

Also, the whole "you consented to sex, therefore, you consented to pregnancy" argument does not account for rape or threats to the health of the woman.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It's a free market.
We'll get water elsewhere.

Also: the point here is about bodily autonomy. Try to understand the point.
Denying people access to water is not really the same as denying people access to your body parts...

Pregnancy doesn't just happen. It requires a set of choices be made.

The victim of a rape didn't really have a choice in the matter...

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.

I disagree. I think that matters a lot.

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.

Irrelevant.

My daughter can't force me to hand over a kidney either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Also, the whole "you consented to sex, therefore, you consented to pregnancy" argument does not account for rape

I previously pointed this out to Chriliman.
He danced around it, but the core of his reply was something like "it's her fault for hanging out with rapists".

It was quite disturbing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd love to see someone try this defense in court.

"Yes, your honor, I did forcefully hold this man's head underwater until he drowned, but I didn't do any harm to him. I merely moved him to a different environment, that he couldn't survive in it was just an unfortunate side effect".

Try understanding the argument of bodily autonomy before responding.

It's more like being sued by a widow with the accusation of "he didn't provide his bone marrow while he was the only match and now my husband is dead - therefor he killed him".

 

[Dave-W]

It's more like being sued by a widow with the accusation of "he didn't provide his bone marrow while he was the only match and now my husband is dead - therefor he killed him".

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

And in this case the sin would be murder.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Therefor, a rape victim must be forced to give up her bodily autonomy - because a third party made a "poor choice".

Yep, makes perfect sense!!!

About as much sense as stoning a rape victim to death for having sex out of wedlock!

So disturbing..... seriously.

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.

Give me a break. You don't REALLY consider a fetus to be a human (with all the rights that comes with that). Otherwise, you'ld support criminal investigations for every miscarriage.

 

[Chriliman]

Naturalistic fallacy. Something being natural has no bearing on the rightness of wrongness of it. Just because pregnancy naturally follows from sex does not make abortion wrong.

Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad.

Also, the whole "you consented to sex, therefore, you consented to pregnancy" argument does not account for rape or threats to the health of the woman.

This is why I said "We have a brain, I wish men and woman would use it rationally to make good decisions more often" Meaning if a man chooses to not rape, then the problem of pregnancy from rape goes away. I understand this is impossible if the man does not have the correct idea of right and wrong. Who's better to teach him right from wrong? Someone who thinks killing innocent humans is ok or someone who thinks killing innocent humans is wrong? Again, lets think rationally here.

 

[Chriliman]

Therefor, a rape victim must be forced to give up her bodily autonomy - because a third party made a "poor choice".

Yep, makes perfect sense!!!

About as much sense as stoning a rape victim to death for having sex out of wedlock!

So disturbing..... seriously.



Give me a break. You don't REALLY consider a fetus to be a human (with all the rights that comes with that). Otherwise, you'ld support criminal investigations for every miscarriage.

I'd even argue that men might be more inclined to rape women if they realize that even if the women gets pregnant she can just kill the baby, no problem. All the sudden we realize that solving evil with evil will only get us more evil.

 

[Chany]

Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad.

I apologize. I confused the naturalistic fallacy with an appeal to nature. Does this mean genetically modified foods, in vitro fertilization, clothes, cars, and anything else unnatural is wrong?

This is why I said "We have a brain, I wish men and woman would use it rationally to make good decisions more often" Meaning if a man chooses to not rape, then the problem of pregnancy from rape goes away. I understand this is impossible if the man does not have the correct idea of right and wrong. Who's better to teach him right from wrong? Someone who thinks killing innocent humans is ok or someone who thinks killing innocent humans is wrong? Again, lets think rationally here.

You didn't answer the question. Your claim: "Woman consented to sex, therefore consented to pregnancy" does not account for rape. Rape does happen and, sometimes, pregnancy does result. The woman never consented to sex. Why should she carry the pregnancy based on your argument?

 

[DogmaHunter]

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

And in this case the sin would be murder.

So not donating body parts = committing murder?
For realz?

Also: a free secular society doesn't care about your religious beliefs.
You require an actual argument. Not a religious assertion of authority.

Your religious beliefs don't matter. At all.

To illustrate: let's pretend that I'm not atheist. Only my religion says that abortion is not a problem at all. I could quote my hypothetical book saying "And I, who is the alpha and the omega, say unto you: if you are pregnant against your will, by all means - terminate the pregnancy".

Would you care about my religious beliefs?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad.

Marijuana, tobacco, opium, hallucinogenic mushrooms, lust, greed, jealousy, ...

All "good" cause "natural".

This is why I said "We have a brain, I wish men and woman would use it rationally to make good decisions more often"

And I wish for a million dollars.
Try to live in reality instead of an utopian imaginary version of it.

Meaning if a man chooses to not rape, then the problem of pregnancy from rape goes away.

Therefor, rape victims must be punished and forced to give carry out a pregnancy against their will!!

Once more, extremely disturbing.

I understand this is impossible if the man does not have the correct idea of right and wrong. Who's better to teach him right from wrong? Someone who thinks killing innocent humans is ok or someone who thinks killing innocent humans is wrong? Again, lets think rationally here.

Yes, let's! PLEASE let's think rationally here!!!!

The idea that rapists will stop raping because "abortion is bad, mmkay" is the very opposite of rational.


FYI: none of the "pro-choicers" here think it is okay to kill innocent humans. The fact that you keep repeating it just demonstrates that you INSIST on not understanding our point of view and instead insist on arguing a strawman.

Please, indeed, let's think rationally.

 

[Dave-W]

So not donating body parts = committing murder?
For realz?

Also: a free secular society doesn't care about your religious beliefs.
You require an actual argument. Not a religious assertion of authority.

Your religious beliefs don't matter. At all.

Well - I am someone who lives by my faith. For real.

I take it very seriously - more seriously than the physical world around me.

 

[Chriliman]

I apologize. I confused the naturalistic fallacy with an appeal to nature. Does this mean genetically modified foods, in vitro fertilization, clothes, cars, and anything else unnatural is wrong?

This is a completely new subject.

You didn't answer the question. Your claim: "Woman consented to sex, therefore consented to pregnancy" does not account for rape. Rape does happen and, sometimes, pregnancy does result. The woman never consented to sex. Why should she carry the pregnancy based on your argument?

Are we shifting the argument from why abortion is wrong to why rape is wrong? Rape is wrong for completely different reasons than for why abortion is wrong.

Again, I'd argue that a man who knows abortion is possible might be more inclined to rape women because they think even if she gets pregnant she can just kill the baby, no problem. Can you begin to see how using evil to solve evil only causes more evil?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd even argue that men might be more inclined to rape women if they realize that even if the women gets pregnant she can just kill the baby, no problem. All the sudden we realize that solving evil with evil will only get us more evil.

You think you are making an argument, but instead you are simply making it worse.

I'm lost for words here. Your posts on this topic are that disturbing.

You seem to have no idea how much you sound like the primitive tribesmen in Pakistan who put rape-victims on trial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well - I am someone who lives by my faith. For real.

Good for you. I guess.
The rest of the free secular society you live in, doesn't care.
And you have no business shoving your "faith" down their throat.

I take it very seriously - more seriously than the physical world around me.

Honestly, in my eyes, that makes you a dangerous person.

 

[Chriliman]

You seem to have no idea how much you sound like the primitive tribesmen in Pakistan who put rape-victims on trial.

Obviously we disagree on these issues, but I don't see how that makes this comment justifiable.

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

You're being pro-choice here, especially by implying that the death of the baby is just a side effect of her choice. Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: The baby isn't the one hurting her. Why does she have the right to kill her own innocent child to save her life? What mother would do such a thing? And who gets to decide that the risk is great enough for her to do this?

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

No, we really can't. Your particular spot on the spectrum of views is not automatically the objective and logical spot. But perhaps that's the problem. You think that you alone are constructing your views on abortion without bias.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are we shifting the argument from why abortion is wrong to why rape is wrong? Rape is wrong for completely different reasons than for why abortion is wrong.

No. Rather, you aren't comprehending the point being made.

That point being that someone who gets raped did not consent to sex.
If this rape resulted in pregnancy, it means that the victim (yes, VICTIM) did not consent to the possibility of being pregnant.

Meaning that the victim (yes, VICTIM) had no choice in the matter.

Which is a direct refutation of your very own argument - that one should live with their choices - good or bad.

So, clearly, your real objections to abortion are not being shared here.
If your real objection was about "taking responsability for ones decisions", then you should have no problem with abortion if the pregnancy was the result of being raped.

But you DO have a problem with that.
So there are 3 options:
1. you are not sharing the real reasons for why you object to abortion
2. you don't consider rape victims to be victims, and (much like Pakistani tribesmen) you put the responsability of being raped on the victim
3. rape destroys your argument and you are unwilling to concede it.

Based on your extremely disturbing comments about rape, my money is on option number 2.

Again, I'd argue that a man who knows abortion is possible might be more inclined to rape women because they think even if she gets pregnant she can just kill the baby, no problem.

Can you support his extremely bizarre and outlandish claim with actual evidence instead of just your disturbing opinions?

Can you begin to see how using evil to solve evil only causes more evil?

No, I don't see at all how outlawing abortion and punishing rape victims is going to change a rapist's motivations.

Then again, I don't think like Pakistani tribesmen.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Obviously we disagree on these issues, but I don't see how that makes this comment justifiable.

Perhaps you don't want to see it.

Do you realise that you have actually consistently maintained that rape victims are somehow responsible for being raped?

That's literally what you are saying with all this "live with your choices" nonsense.

You even literally stated once that rape-victims made the "poor choice of hanging out with rapists".

It's incredible. I am actually shocked at this conversation.

We have had some encounters in the past and I don't expect us to agree any time soon on most topics... But for the most part we were always able to have a somewhat decent conversation.

I would have never expected you to hold such barbaric, twisted and downright cruel opinions on this subject.

Really, I was under the impression that such views were only seen in the dark corners of the world - far away from civilised society.


I really, really, really advice you to take a step back at this point and reflect on the things you have said on this subject.