How to stop abortions

[Always in His Presence]

Why would a Christian be opposed to that on a Christian Forum?

That is an interesting observation.

 

[Paidiske]

You see, I think this is all about community. The government says depend on s to do it...and they always fail in the worst way. We dont need them. No one would be homelss on welfare or anything of the sort because we take care of our own. Not even a welfare system is needed. When we take personal responsiblity.

So what's stopping you now? Why are local communities not able to care for their own, house, feed, clothe, educate, provide healthcare and support for their vulnerable folks (and, by extension, alleviate the conditions which might encourage desperate women to choose abortion) now?

 

[Pommer]

So what's stopping you now? Why are local communities not able to care for their own, house, feed, clothe, educate, provide healthcare and support for their vulnerable folks (and, by extension, alleviate the conditions which might encourage desperate women to choose abortion) now?

We’re in America.
Fend-for-yourself-or-starve-istan

 

[JSRG]

But you are allowed to remove that person from your property. For those who propose granting embryos "equal" rights, they would grant the embryo the right to not be removed.

Are you legally allowed to remove them from your property if (1) doing so would kill them if it's done in the next several months, (2) they were not there by their own choice, and (3) you are aware of both #1 and #2? I have my doubts on that. (and if the answer is yes, does it remain yes if we add a fourth case in which you were the one who put them in your house to begin with, even if unintentionally?)

Zygotes and embryos (the stage at which the vast majority of abortions are performed) cannot survive outside of the womb, so there is no possibility of surviving. None. There is no option for them to live anywhere else. (We'll leave the fetal stage out of this, since no one is advocating for late-term, third trimester abortions post fetal viability.) So, yeah, the analogy has limits to a real-world comparison.

Do you mean in this topic, or in general? Because there are absolutely those that advocate for elective abortion up to the point of birth.

But the point remains: an embryo would not be given "equal" rights by prohibiting abortions outright. It would be granted rights no born person has ever had, and would restrict the rights of pregnant women considerably. That is not equal.

-- A2SG, which is the point I was going for, if you recall....

As noted above, I do not believe you have the right to simply throw someone out of your house if doing so would kill them unless they have stayed in your house for several months, they didn't enter your house on purpose, and you were the one who (intentionally or not) put them into the situation to begin with. Can you provide evidence that this "right" exists, that in such a circumstance no crime would be committed? It is, admittedly, a highly unlikely situation to occur, but unless there is a specific exception for such a situation I do not think it would somehow not count as a homicide.

In such an unusual situation, I expect it would be a crime to throw them out by yourself, and I suspect the police (if they knew all of the applicable information, which they would in this analogy) would be hesitant to do so also. Most likely the whole thing would have to be litigated out in court in front of a judge, who I expect most likely would rule that given the circumstances, you'd have to keep them in your house for the next several months until they can leave without dying, but they'd give you some kind of compensation for the trouble.

If you feel the above descriptions are inaccurate and that you would absolutely be legally allowed to kill someone by throwing them out of your house even though you know they are not there on purpose and you may have even been the one to put them in your house, could you cite some laws or precedent for your position? Unless you have evidence that such acts would be legal, I think your entire argument collapses. Because I do not think it is likely that in the scenario described, someone would be free to kill them by evicting them.

 

[friend of]

Like, would you kill your own flesh and blood child for "trespassing" on your "property"?

Is that what passes off as "normal" for some of you?

 

[A2SG]

Again, it’s an idiotic point.

You called for "equal" rights for embryos. I pointed out how the rights you wish for won't be equal.

Nothing idiotic about that.

All you're doing is avoiding the point. And it's obvious why.

-- A2SG, but keep on spinnin', dude....

 

[A2SG]

Are you legally allowed to remove them from your property if (1) doing so would kill them if it's done in the next several months, (2) they were not there by their own choice, and (3) you are aware of both #1 and #2? I have my doubts on that. (and if the answer is yes, does it remain yes if we add a fourth case in which you were the one who put them in your house to begin with, even if unintentionally?)

Yeah, no analogy is perfect. Kinda the point, though, that "equal" rights for embryos won't be equal. The embryos would have to be granted rights that no one else has ever had.

Do you mean in this topic, or in general? Because there are absolutely those that advocate for elective abortion up to the point of birth.

So take the point up with them. I haven't done that, and I'm not going to even try.

As noted above, I do not believe you have the right to simply throw someone out of your house if doing so would kill them unless they have stayed in your house for several months, they didn't enter your house on purpose, and you were the one who (intentionally or not) put them into the situation to begin with. Can you provide evidence that this "right" exists, that in such a circumstance no crime would be committed? It is, admittedly, a highly unlikely situation to occur, but unless there is a specific exception for such a situation I do not think it would somehow not count as a homicide.

In such an unusual situation, I expect it would be a crime to throw them out by yourself, and I suspect the police (if they knew all of the applicable information, which they would in this analogy) would be hesitant to do so also. Most likely the whole thing would have to be litigated out in court in front of a judge, who I expect most likely would rule that given the circumstances, you'd have to keep them in your house for the next several months until they can leave without dying, but they'd give you some kind of compensation for the trouble.

If you feel the above descriptions are inaccurate and that you would absolutely be legally allowed to kill someone by throwing them out of your house even though you know they are not there on purpose and you may have even been the one to put them in your house, could you cite some laws or precedent for your position? Unless you have evidence that such acts would be legal, I think your entire argument collapses. Because I do not think it is likely that in the scenario described, someone would be free to kill them by evicting them.

All of which illustrates the point that embryos and born persons are not the same, so any rights granted to embryos would supersede those of born persons, and be in direct conflict with the existing rights of pregnant women.

-- A2SG, but anti-abortion advocates never seem to care much about those people, do they?

 

[Hammster]

You called for "equal" rights for embryos. I pointed out how the rights you wish for won't be equal.

Nothing idiotic about that.

All you're doing is avoiding the point. And it's obvious why.

-- A2SG, but keep on spinnin', dude....

You pointed out that the unborn are trespassers. That’s what’s idiotic. Don’t try to pretend that you didn’t.

 

[A2SG]

You pointed out that the unborn are trespassers. That’s what’s idiotic. Don’t try to pretend that you didn’t.

Yeah, I know. Some people call that an "analogy." It's where a comparison is made between one thing or situation and another, to compare the two, or demonstrate their similarities.

Like, for example, if a woman who does not want to have a child becomes pregnant, she could view the zygote (later embryo) in her womb as a trespasser, because she does not want it there. I didn't say one was the same as the other, I compared the two situations, to show their similarities.

That's an "analogy." You may want to write that word down, it could come up in the future. I've seen people use them here on these forums from time to time.

Now...do you see the point I was going for? Want to try addressing it this time?

-- A2SG, my money's on you avoiding it again, but hope springs eternal....

 

[Hammster]

Yeah, I know. Some people call that an "analogy." It's where a comparison is made between one thing or situation and another, to compare the two, or demonstrate their similarities.

Like, for example, if a woman who does not want to have a child becomes pregnant, she could view the zygote (later embryo) in her womb as a trespasser, because she does not want it there. I didn't say one was the same as the other, I compared the two situations, to show their similarities.

That's an "analogy." You may want to write that word down, it could come up in the future. I've seen people use them here on these forums from time to time.

Now...do you see the point I was going for? Want to try addressing it this time?

-- A2SG, my money's on you avoiding it again, but hope springs eternal....

It was an idiotic analogy that was so bad it wasn’t worth addressing, even with the goading.

 

[A2SG]

It was an idiotic analogy that was so bad it wasn’t worth addressing.

Yeah, that's how I figured you'd respond.

Still, your idea, "equal" rights for embryos, is inherently unworkable...and probably unconstitutional to boot.

-- A2SG, so, yeah....

 

[Hammster]

Yeah, that's how I figured you'd respond.

Still, your idea, "equal" rights for embryos, is inherently unworkable...and probably unconstitutional to boot.

-- A2SG, so, yeah....

Not at all, unless you don’t think all humans are equal. That was the issue with those who supported slavery, too.

 

[A2SG]

Not at all, unless you don’t think all humans are equal. That was the issue with those who supported slavery, too.

That isn't the problem.

The problem is born persons and embryos are not equal.

-- A2SG, and it's pretty easy to tell the difference between them.....

 

[Divide]

So what's stopping you now? Why are local communities not able to care for their own, house, feed, clothe, educate, provide healthcare and support for their vulnerable folks (and, by extension, alleviate the conditions which might encourage desperate women to choose abortion) now?

Anxious about it are you? What makes you think anything is stopping me? Or that I do not take personal responsibility? From the tone of your post it sounds like you think I have no responsibility or maybe that I should be doing more? Good for you, I can't do it alone. Do you think we should call a community meeting to discuss what we all could do more to help the situation?

I am just one man. So I don't have all the answers for you, but as a community we can come up with all the answers! WHat is your suggestion?

 

[Hammster]

That isn't the problem.

The problem is born persons and embryos are not equal.

-- A2SG, and it's pretty easy to tell the difference between them.....

Yeah they are, just like white folks and black folks.

 

[Paidiske]

What makes you think anything is stopping me? Or that I do not take personal responsibility? From the tone of your post it sounds like you think I have no responsibility or maybe that I should be doing more? Good for you, I can't do it alone. Do you think we should call a community meeting to discuss what we all could do more to help the situation?

Your claim was that "we take care of our own," that we don't need a welfare system. So, my question is why this has not proven to be an adequate answer so far. Why have you (plural, collective you) not actually managed to provide a safety net such that abortion is not needed except in extreme medical situations?

Perhaps a community meeting would be constructive; but what I am trying to understand is, if you say we already have what we need to make this possible, why is it not actually happening?

WHat is your suggestion?

I believe I made my suggestion upthread; deal with coercion, deal with poverty and privation, and the abortion rate will drop dramatically.

 

[Divide]

I believe I made my suggestion upthread; deal with coercion, deal with poverty and privation, and the abortion rate will drop dramatically.

I think you made an excellant point. But dealing withthe coercion would entail armed guards at the schools. Probably made up by the Students parents on a rotatiing basis, We can't let them get to the kids. From birth to 7 years old they are on autopilot and will absorb everything the see. This is the sub conscious. It's programming them. Yep, the parents of the students should have a more frequent presence in the school.

But the problem why it hasnt happened in a good way like you say is because everyone is self centered and dependant on someone else to do that for them.

 

[Paidiske]

I think you made an excellant point. But dealing withthe coercion would entail armed guards at the schools.

That's not the kind of coercion I mean; I mean coercion from parents and/or partners to abort. Which is extremely common, in my pastoral experience.

 

[JustOneWay]

I think you made an excellant point. But dealing withthe coercion would entail armed guards at the schools. Probably made up by the Students parents on a rotatiing basis, We can't let them get to the kids.From birth to 7 years old they are on autopilot and will absorb everything the see. This is the sub conscious. It's programming them. Yep, the parents of the students should have a more frequent presence in the school.

But the problem why it hasnt happened in a good way like you say is because everyone is self centered and dependant on someone else to do that for them.

Children don't usually enter school until they are at least four or five years old, so for the first four or five years of their little lives they are 'programmed' by their their parents. Armed guards to prevent 'programming' at schools? Absurd.

 

[A2SG]

Yeah they are, just like white folks and black folks.

Nope. Not even close.

Legally, they're different: check out the 14th Amendment sometime, embryos aren't US citizens. Also, any rights granted to an embryo come at the expense of, and are in direct opposition to and in conflict with, those of the pregnant woman without her specific consent. Further, these would be rights no adult person has, or has ever had.

Biologically, they're different: born persons are independent life forms. Embryos are entirely dependent on another person's body for every function of life.

Neither of these things are true for people with different skin colors.

-- A2SG, in fact, other than the fact that they belong to the same species, there are very, very few ways in which born persons and embryos are the same.....