Abortion Discussion

[civilwarbuff]

Which is irrelevant to the law.

It is a christian forum; we believe in a higher law.

 

[KCfromNC]

Rape harms the victim, but it does not take the life of the victim. When threatened with a gun or knife, most women will choose being the victim of rape instead of loosing their life.

I conclude that abortion is more harmful than rape. How come society punishes rape but does not punish the more harmful crime of killing?

Because most of society disagrees with your conclusion on the matter. If it were me, I'd ask myself what it is about my arguments leading up to that conclusion are so unconvincing to the general public.

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong! The choice should remain with the baby!

There isn't a baby there in the first place, and there's no mental processes in the fetus which anyone would think are capable of making something we'd consider a choice. You might as well wish that we could ask the all-might Invisible Pink Unicorn for the correct answer - that would have as much relevance to reality as your idea.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Bible does not condemn genocide, polygamy, or slavery. Does this mean that I can marry several women, can get a few slaves, and start killing people?

Are human laws morally superior to God's Law?

From the examples you've provided, I'd say yes.

 

[KCfromNC]

The drop out rate is telling regardless of the touted original sampling.

Why? Because later drop outs may provide evidence for later regret.

And rocks might stop falling when we turn our backs on them. That's not a particular convincing reason to think that our studies of gravity are incorrect.

 

[Archivist]

Society lets the rapist live and condemns the innocent unborn baby to death. Is not this equivalent to punishing a child for the sin of the father?

So lets just punish the rape victim twice.

 

[Archivist]

No, I believe they're equal. Nobody has more or less rights than anyone else.

So a fetus that was a product of rape has equal rights to the rape victim's body, without her consent. If I need a kidney, does that mean I have an equal right to one of yours if you are a match?

I actually believe in voluntary servitude. I serve God and His will. At my own choice. The world would be a different place if everyone thought of God first, others next, themselves last. I do lots of things that inconvenience me, for the good of someone else. Even a rape victim can see that the fetus inside her deserves a chance at life.

But we aren't talking about voluntary servitude. If a rape victim does not want to carry the fetus to term and the government forces her to do so against her will by not allowing her to have an abortion that is involuntary servitude. If a pregnant rape victim wants to carry the fetus to term that is wonderful--I have said that before. But we are talking about forcing someone who has already been victimized once to do something against her will.

Parents make all sorts of sacrifices, some of them unwilling, for the sake of their children.

Yes, but those children aren't forced upon them through sexual assault.

 

[Archivist]

Rape harms the victim, but it does not take the life of the victim. When threatened with a gun or knife, most women will choose being the victim of rape instead of loosing their life.

I conclude that abortion is more harmful than rape. How come society punishes rape but does not punish the more harmful crime of killing?

So you believe in involuntary servitude. Do you believe taht it should be allowed in other cases or just in cases involving rape victims?

 

[Archivist]

Wrong! The choice should remain with the baby!

A baby has been born. We are not talking about killing babies. Can a fetus make a choice?

 

[Archivist]

She wasn't there are two distinct examples in that post, 1 unprotected consensual sex, and the other rape, rape being the one about killing the other victim

It wasn't clear, and apparently I wasn't the only one who misread it.

 

[Archivist]

So far it just seems like you're redefining terms. You define baby as being by definition outside the womb, I don't because there's very little developmental difference whether inside or outside after a certain point in pregnancy so it seems irrational to treat he/she as a precious little human life one minute and something less than human just prior to that moment based only on their location.

That would be a third term abortion which are illegal in almost all states except to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman.

 

[Archivist]

It is a christian forum; we believe in a higher law.

Very true. However abortion is not an issue upon which all Christians agree. There is no one "Christian" position on the subject.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Very true. However abortion is not an issue upon which all Christians agree. There is no one "Christian" position on the subject.

But there is God's position.....

 

[AirPo]

Are human laws morally superior to God's Law?

No, they are legally superior.

 

[Archivist]

But there is God's position.....

And Christians disagree on exactly what that is.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

Oh, not mine. That was the opinion of one of those "founders" you've been misrepresenting.

Actually, it is not.
It is attributed to Joel Barlow who negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli. It is in Article 11. Joel Barlow, in no sense of the word, was a "founder".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11
However, from SCOTUS:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States
Your research is slipping.....

 

[Radrook]

We used nuclear weapons to end WWII.

Would a similar approach be reasonable if it meant ending abortion once and for all?

Purposeful malicious, incineration of civilians is considered a crime against humanity today and isn't employed as a war tactic any longer.

 

[AirPo]

You haven't read it have you? You are completely ignorant of the methodology employed, yet feel qualified to criticise.

Honesty? Integrity?

Please.

Well, you have to admit. Pointing out something that might happen is a really strong criticism.

 

[civilwarbuff]

edit

Yes, the Consitution. Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of the U.S. separation of church and state is up for debate?

You must be referring to the establishment clause. This only prevents the federal government from establishing a "national" religion and interfering with the free exercise of religious beliefs.....not separating church and state. You find that statement no where in the Constitution.

 

[Archivist]

Actually, it is not. It is attributed to Joel Barlow who negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli. It is in Article 11. Joel Barlow, in no sense of the word, was a "founder".

Yes, Joel Barlow negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli. Yes, he is not considered a Founding Father. He was an American diplomat who had served as a military chaplin during the Revolution. However, the Treaty--including Article 11--was ratified by the United States Senate. Once a treaty is ratified it is given the weight of law.

However, from SCOTUS: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States. Your research is slipping.....

Yes, Justice Brewer, who authored the opinion, did write that the United States is a "Christian nation." However, his statement is considered to be dicta and is given no precidential value. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, a great conservative, criticized the the Holy Trinity case as "nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking."