The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[stevil]

So again, if you can get away with it, it’s okay.

That's not what I said. I'm trying to get you to think, but it is difficult, 'cause you keep coming back with smart aleck comments, rather than showing you understand or even showing that you are at least trying to understand my view.

Government and police, need to keep the peace. It is their obligation. They exist to serve society. To have a society we need certain laws otherwise we won't have a society anymore. People in society need to be safe. We don't want to all be carrying guns and feuding with people, we don't want to belong to gangs for protection. We don't want to have to hunt down and kill people that are a threat to us, We don't want to have to take revenge on people that have harmed our loved ones.

If there was no law against murder and someone murdered your wife, or your children, don't you think you might have a strong desire to get them back?


Well, apparently we aren't in danger of dying or being harmed when women are allowed to terminate their own pregnancies. Apparently the friends and family of the foetus don't seek to take out revenge on the woman after she has terminated her pregnancy. We dont' get social disharmony. Therefore it is not a threat to society and it is not a threat to any civilians or any visitors to society.

Its not about "getting away with it" that's a pretty loaded and meaningless term. I get away with eating apples, I get away with having showers, see how silly that term is.
It's about putting boundaries on the power of government, and allowing the people autonomy without the threat of government interferring in their lives. We don't want the moral police, we don't want a nanny state. We don't want the government being intrusive. When a woman misses her period, it is none of the government's business. If she gets her period back, we don't want the government imposing an investigation on her.

It’s a biblical term.

I don't read the bible. The bible doesn't apply to me. Feel free to use those terms when you talk to Christians, it will make sense to them and they will understand you and find relevance in it. But I do not. I don't use biblical definitions of words. I don't understand the bible, I don't know what the biblican definition of words are.

Actually, they are all murder. Some are justified.

None of them are murder. Not if you don't use biblical definitions of words. As an Atheist, I don't think I'm even allowed to debate such things here. So please respect that I'm not a person that has read or has an interest in anything that is in the bible.

You said “it doesn't lead to retaliation”. If it did, would you change your mind? Let’s say the father didn’t want his unborn child killed and went after the mother. How does that affect your stance?

If it was widespread, yes absolutely, we would then need a law against it.
If it is isolated cases then no, those isolated people should be locked up as their retalliation is likely illegal.

Because it is so isolated, it isn't seen as a rational, normal response. It isn't deemed a part of normal human nature.

If a person comes up to your wife and kills her, and the law doesn't do anything about it. It is seen as pretty normal and rational and understandable that you may want to retaliate in kind. But if your wife terminates her pregnancy, it is not seen as rational that you or someone else would retaliate in kind. Do you understand?

 

[RileyG]

Correct and we don’t murder them either.

Abortion isn’t a medical treatment, either.

 

[stevil]

Abortion isn’t a medical treatment, either.

Yes it is, they do it in medical clinics, with doctors and medical equipment etc, it's regulated, there are safety rules and such.

If you outlaw it, then it will be done in back alleys with untrained people and not so sterile equipment. Much less safe, much more complications.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you have any scientific evidence to support your claim? I think not.

It can easily be rejected by any scientific evidence that talks about 'little people' being formed after conception. That a zygote is a 'tiny person'. I thought this sort of thinking went awol in the 17th century. From wiki:

'Nicolas Hartsoeker postulated the existence of animalcules in the sperm of humans and other animals. This was the beginning of spermists' theory, which held that the sperm was in fact a "little man" that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child'

 

[RileyG]

Yes it is, they do it in medical clinics, with doctors and medical equipment etc, it's regulated, there are safety rules and such.

If you outlaw it, then it will be done in back alleys with untrained people and not so sterile equipment. Much less safe, much more complications.

Nope. I don’t accept that.

That’s like saying rape and robbing banks should be legal because they still happen.

Empty assertion is empty.

 

[Bradskii]

Once again, I have to remind you that we are only arguing about the rationality of having abortions for convenience.

But you're arguing that abortions should stop. Period. No time limit. No consideration of viability. No concept of personhood. As far as you are concerned (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you don't want abortions from the point of conception.

We have nothing to argue about because you don't accept the basis on why people have no problem with early term abortions.

 

[stevil]

Nope. I don’t accept that.

That’s like saying rape and robbing banks should be legal because they still happen.

Empty assertion is empty.

Well, no, I'd argue that rape and robbing banks should be illegal because they are disruptive to society and it woud be very hard, if not impossible to have a safe, stable and thriving society where rape and robbing banks are legal.

On the other hand, a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy does not make society unstable or unsafe, and doesn't hinder a thriving society.

 

[RileyG]

Well, no, I'd argue that rape and robbing banks should be illegal because they are disruptive to society and it woud be very hard, if not impossible to have a safe, stable and thriving society where rape and robbing banks are legal.

On the other hand, a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy does not make society unstable or unsafe, and doesn't hinder a thriving society.

It makes violence look ok which isn’t helpful for society, either.

Besides this is about peoples right to life. Without life, there will be nothing else.

 

[stevil]

It makes violence look ok which isn’t helpful for society, either.

I find this slippery slope argument a bit hyperbolic. People aren't going around being violent as a consequence of abortion being allowed.

Besides this is about peoples right to life. Without life, there will be nothing else.

Taking things to the extreme here. Just because some pregnancies are terminated, that doesn't mean all pregnancies will be terminated. People are still having kids.
You could argue about a fertilised egg's right to life, but we could also argue about a woman's right to autonomy and to decide what she does with her own womb.
For example, with IVF they fertilise eggs in a laboratory. Do those fertilised eggs not have a right to life? Whose womb are you going to stick them into? Are you going to force a woman to undergo a procedure to then implant those into her womb?

 

[RileyG]

I find this slippery slope argument a bit hyperbolic. People aren't going around being violent as a consequence of abortion being allowed.

Taking things to the extreme here. Just because some pregnancies are terminated, that doesn't mean all pregnancies will be terminated. People are still having kids.
You could argue about a fertilised egg's right to life, but we could also argue about a woman's right to autonomy and to decide what she does with her own womb.
For example, with IVF they fertilise eggs in a laboratory. Do those fertilised eggs not have a right to life? Whose womb are you going to stick them into? Are you going to force a woman to undergo a procedure to then implant those into her womb?

It still promotes violence, regardless.

One healthy pregnancy being terminated is one too many. This isn’t about bodily autonomy. It’s about the right to life.

Also, I don’t support IVF and see it as wrong for that very reason.

 

[stevil]

Also, I don’t support IVF and see it as wrong for that very reason.

When you talk about things being "wrong" that is a moral judgment. And wanting to outlaw things based on them being "morally wrong" means that you are wanting to force your moral beliefs onto everyone else.

 

[RileyG]

When you talk about things being "wrong" that is a moral judgment. And wanting to outlaw things based on them being "morally wrong" means that you are wanting to force your moral beliefs onto everyone else.

So? Wanting to force others NOT to kill their own offspring isn’t a bad thing.

 

[RileyG]

Very odd wanting to protect life is considered an extreme here. Very odd indeed.

 

[stevil]

So? Wanting to force others NOT to kill their own offspring isn’t a bad thing.

I'm not making moral judgements on you. I'm by no means the authority on what is morally right or morally wrong.
I just don't want a government to have in their power the right to decide for people what is morally right or morally wrong.
I want govt power to be limited to keeping society safe, stable and thriving.

If we give the government the ability to make laws based on the president or the prime minister's moral beliefs then we the people are in trouble.
We stop being an inclusive country that supports diversity and respects freedom from religion, and instead become a theocracy where the president or the prime minister also gets the title of "pope" and gets to use the police force and the justice system to force us to comply to their moral beliefs.

 

[stevil]

Very odd wanting to protect life is considered an extreme here. Very odd indeed.

It especially gets extreme when you want to lock up people who have had abortions because they were child raped or because the pregnancy was killing them, etc, and if you want to lock them up because they couldn't have children naturally so they "illegally" sought out IVF treatment.

 

[NxNW]

Consequences.

Meaningless single-word sentence.

But maybe you’re another one who doesn’t think we are responsible for our actions.

I never stated nor implied that. Jamb sex sec is not agreeing to become an incubator.

That’s correct. But we are talking about humans.

No we're not, as I demonstrated already.

 

[NxNW]

Correct and we don’t murder them either.

Non sequitur. Your reasoning denies medical treatment to anyone injured in a car accident. Prove me wrong.

 

[A2SG]

I got it right.

No, you did not.

-- A2SG, and I would know....

 

[RileyG]

It especially gets extreme when you want to lock up people who have had abortions because they were child raped or because the pregnancy was killing them, etc, and if you want to lock them up because they couldn't have children naturally so they "illegally" sought out IVF treatment.

I never stated any of that.

 

[RileyG]

I'm not making moral judgements on you. I'm by no means the authority on what is morally right or morally wrong.
I just don't want a government to have in their power the right to decide for people what is morally right or morally wrong.
I want govt power to be limited to keeping society safe, stable and thriving.

If we give the government the ability to make laws based on the president or the prime minister's moral beliefs then we the people are in trouble.
We stop being an inclusive country that supports diversity and respects freedom from religion, and instead become a theocracy where the president or the prime minister also gets the title of "pope" and gets to use the police force and the justice system to force us to comply to their moral beliefs.

This isn’t about moral beliefs. It’s about protecting people. Especially those most vulnerable.

Point blank period