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.

[Hammster]

I did, but apparently not to your satisfaction. What specifically did I not address?

-- A2SG, can't help you if you're not gonna be specific....

Okay, you did respond. But you didn’t address the point. That was evident with “Maybe not”, and then trying to redirect the conversation.

 

[Hammster]

I didn't say I was "ok" with the death of a child in the case of rape. Sure, it bothers me. But there's a bona-fide moral dilemma in the case of a rape victim. Do you somehow think that one commandment displaces other commands, or that the Bible is so clear that it's unmistakable as to what it means in all cases across the board, at all times, everywhere? I'm going to say no. And what's more, I already gave you some reasons for my position, and you haven't addressed those. But I notice that you just sort of do the ol' sweep-it-under-the-rug-and-pretend-nothing-was-said-routine. Unfortunately, I very well notice that rhetorical tactic when people use it, and I don't tend to let it pass.




And so is "Do not Lord it over each other..." What part of that is hard to understand?

Furthermore, since we're nit-picking about biblical minutiae, I get the sense that you don't perceive the contextual, social contours, or the conceptual boundaries, of a single command such as "You shall not murder" when it's placed in juxtaposition to a fact such as, "This woman has been raped and impregnated by a perpetrator." And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when people handle the Bible without Hermeneutical and Exegetical awareness or acumen, remaining oblivious to additional historical, cultural and/or social facts that contextualize the ancient remnants of the literature that we call "the Bible" and then forcefully move to instantiate their misunderstanding into today's situations. In fact, when I see people ignore all of that, whether they're Christian or Atheists, it's rather sickening to me. ...... I would hate to think that in the case of your wife, or your sister, or daughter being raped and impregnated, you'd overtly insist that she carry on the pregnancy even if she's not only not willing to do so, but even emotionally dysfunctionalized through trauma and unable to bear it each day. Surely, you wouldn't be that callous to do so in that situation.

Now, with that said, and with everything else I've cumulatively said in this thread, I think it's safe to say that I'm against approximately ~99% of what transpires today in relation to decisions among men and women to advocate for, or to pursue, abortion. And, let me remind you, I've already stated that, in line with your OP, it's wrong for democrats to push for acculturating men to take a "step up" in support of abortions as a normative option.

Blah, blah, blah, nuance, nuance, nuance. You think it’s acceptable for a woman to kill her child if conceived by rape.

 

[A2SG]

Okay, you did respond. But you didn’t address the point. That was evident with “Maybe not”, and then trying to redirect the conversation.

So what was the point you think I didn't address?

-- A2SG, kinda regret not going to dental school now....

 

[Hammster]

So what was the point you think I didn't address?

-- A2SG, kinda regret not going to dental school now....

You can go back and find it.

Kinda regret that dodgeball isn’t real sport?

 

[RileyG]

Nah.

-- A2SG, you'd have to ask her if you want the details....

Fair enough.

Take care.

 

[RileyG]

Hey, look, poisoning the well.

He's not "poisoning the well." You literally did not respond to him.

Good grief.

 

[tall73]

Ethics and morals is the realm of the church.

The church didn't invent morality. But they do teach it.

And it is not just the church that recognizes basic morality, not killing, not stealing, etc. Many recognize such principles.

So you won't escape "shoulds", and you even acknowledged one, that parents should have to provide for their born child. Where do you get it from?

Why should the parents provide?

Now unless you want to make the church redundant, think of a more important reason for having a government.

No, there is not redundancy. The government does not determine morality.

Rather they carry out the task of punishing the wrongdoer and commending those who do well--in addition to the roads, etc. you referenced.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

​

When you engage in an act that can lead to life, you do have responsibility. This applies even if you did not desire pregnancy, or used contraception, because there are known failure rates of all methods.​

​

And we see this reflected in current law. A man who has sex with a woman who becomes pregnant is required to pay child support, and often expenses for pregnancy, whether they wanted a child or not, because the man made the choice to engage in an activity that could lead to life and responsibility.​

tall73 said:​

​

Which then means you do in fact recognize that responsibility can stem from the sexual act. You just want to limit it to avoid the implications.​

As do people who oppose laws which might force parents to donate organs to their children. Or require them to give each a car when they reach driving age. Or pay for a trip to Europe during a gap year after high school.

So there's obviously agreement that people who have sex aren't on the hook for an infinite set of consequences imposed on them by external actors or big government. The question is instead opinions about where that line is drawn.

Arbitrarily saying that laws against abortions are on the acceptable side therefore laws against abortions are OK is just asserting the conclusion.

No, I am not just asserting the conclusion. I am consistently applying the responsibility inherent in the act. The notion that you owe a child a car, or trip, does not follow from engaging in an act that leads to life. You don't have to travel to Europe, or have a new car to have life.

And even in the case of the organ donation, you are drawing a line quite different than what I referenced in regards to the responsibility owed by the man and woman engaging in sex.

The person that engages in an act that can lead to life takes the chance that this will occur. This potential--life--is an inherent reality to the act.

And to argue that parents should feed the child they gave life to, but only if they don't kill it outright, is non-sense. If they owe food to sustain life, based on the responsibility of engaging in sex--and you indicate the man does, because of participation in the sexual act--then they certainly have no right to terminate the life they created, or else they are just dodging that responsibility which you already acknowledged they have, to care for the child.

And as noted, in some jurisdictions in the US the man can be held responsible to pay for prenatal care of the woman and the new life.

And you have introduced a false equivalency in the case of organ donation.

Supporting the new life in the womb is the natural act of that organ, and an understood process, and responsibility, that can come into play when you engage in sex. You have to use technology to overcome that natural progression--killing the life you have the responsibility to protect.

On the other hand, the notion that you would have to use technology to remove an organ to donate in the unforseen eventuality of a child needing it, is not not a forseeable duty when engaging in sex. They are not parallel.

One is the natural use of an organ, in a forseeable consequence of sex.

The other is the removal of an organ in an extreme eventuality that is not anticipated. And even then, the parent would have to be a compatible donor. It is a great act of love if the parent donates.

I am not assuming the conclusion. I am pointing out that those who say the man and woman have an obligation to feed a new life that they created, obviously should not try to circumvent that responsibility by actively killing it. They should take responsibility for their action, and support the new life.

 

[RileyG]

tall73 said:​

​

When you engage in an act that can lead to life, you do have responsibility. This applies even if you did not desire pregnancy, or used contraception, because there are known failure rates of all methods.​

​

And we see this reflected in current law. A man who has sex with a woman who becomes pregnant is required to pay child support, and often expenses for pregnancy, whether they wanted a child or not, because the man made the choice to engage in an activity that could lead to life and responsibility.​

tall73 said:​

​

Which then means you do in fact recognize that responsibility can stem from the sexual act. You just want to limit it to avoid the implications.​

No, in fact I have explained why. The notion that you owe a child a car, or trip, does not follow from engaging in an act that leads to life. You don't have to travel to Europe, or have a new car to have life.

And even in the case of the organ donation, you are drawing a line quite different than what I referenced in regards to the responsibility owed by the man and woman engaging in sex.

The person that engages in an act that can lead to life takes the chance that this will occur. This potential--life, is an inherent reality to the act.

And to argue that parents should feed the child they gave life to--but only if they don't kill it outright, is non-sense. If they owe food to sustain life, based on the responsibility of engaging in sex--and you indicate the man does, because of participation in the sexual act--then they certainly have no right to terminate the life they created, or else they are just dodging that responsibility which you already acknowledged they have, to care for the child.

And as noted, in some jurisdictions in the US where the man can be held responsible to pay for care of the woman and the new life, even while that new life is in the womb.

And you have introduced a false equivalency in the case of organ donation.

Supporting the new life in the womb is the natural act of that organ, and an understood process, and responsibility, that can come into play when you engage in sex. You have to use technology to overcome that natural progression--killing the life you have the responsibility to protect.

On the other hand, the notion that you would have to use technology to remove an organ to donate in the unforseen eventuality of a child needing it, is not not a forseeable duty when engaging in sex. They are not parallel.

One is the natural use of an organ, in a forseeable consequence of sex.

The other is the removal of an organ in an extreme eventuality that is not anticipated. And even then, the parent would have to be a compatible donor. It is a great act of love if the parent donates.

I am not assuming the conclusion. I am pointing out that those who say the man and woman have an obligation to feed a new life that they created, obviously should not try to circumvent that responsibility by actively killing it. They should take responsibility for their action, and support the new life.

EXACTLY! Children should be supported and cherished, not terminated just because they’re unwanted.

Abortion is such a cowardly action.

 

[A2SG]

You can go back and find it.

Kinda regret that dodgeball isn’t real sport?

I responded to your posts. If you think I missed something, you're free to clarify. If you choose not to, then I'll simply let my comments stand as they are, and go on with my life.

-- A2SG, movin' right along....doog-a-doon doog-a-doon...

 

[Hammster]

I responded to your posts. If you think I missed something, you're free to clarify. If you choose not to, then I'll simply let my comments stand as they are, and go on with my life.

-- A2SG, movin' right along....doog-a-doon doog-a-doon...

I know. No need to be responsible to actually address a point when you can just move along.

 

[A2SG]

I know. No need to be responsible to actually address a point when you can just move along.

I'm more than happy to address whatever point you think I missed, but if you're not going to even try to clarify what that point is, then I'm left with what I started with.

As far as I'm concerned, I addressed the point as you presented it. If you don't agree, you can either explain the difference, or be vague and mysterious.

-- A2SG, all the same to me....

 

[Hammster]

I'm more than happy to address whatever point you think I missed, but if you're not going to even try to clarify what that point is, then I'm left with what I started with.

As far as I'm concerned, I addressed the point as you presented it. If you don't agree, you can either explain the difference, or be vague and mysterious.

-- A2SG, all the same to me....

Okay.

 

[A2SG]

Okay.

All right. Vague and mysterious it is.

-- A2SG, have a vague and mysterious day, then.....

 

[Hammster]

All right. Vague and mysterious it is.

-- A2SG, have a vague and mysterious day, then.....

Okay.

 

[KCfromNC]

No. You just don’t want to answer the question because you understand the implications of your answer.

If there were any substantive rebuttal to my post I strongly doubt we'd be reading empty assertions like this.

 

[KCfromNC]

He's not "poisoning the well." You literally did not respond to him.

What is the appropriate response to a question based on false premises?

 

[KCfromNC]

And even in the case of the organ donation, you are drawing a line quite different than what I referenced in regards to the responsibility owed by the man and woman engaging in sex.

No, "I am consistently applying the responsibility inherent in the act. ". See how unconvincing it sounds where it doesn't lead to the desired conclusion?

killing the life you have the responsibility to protect.

Again with the assumption that one possible outcome is the one which becomes a moral responsibility. Shouldn't that be the conclusion rather than an assumption leading to the conclusion that there's a moral responsibility?

On the other hand, the notion that you would have to use technology to remove an organ to donate in the unforseen eventuality of a child needing it, is not not a forseeable duty when engaging in sex. They are not parallel.

Pregnant women also use lots of technology to assure they have a healthy pregnancy, assuming that's the outcome they want.

One is the natural use of an organ, in a forseeable consequence of sex.

Seems like a naturalistic fallacy. Something being part of nature doesn't create a legal or moral responsibility.

 

[Hammster]

If there were any substantive rebuttal to my post I strongly doubt we'd be reading empty assertions like this.

If you would have answered the question, your assertion would have been torpedoed.

But you know that.

 

[tall73]

No, "I am consistently applying the responsibility inherent in the act. ". See how unconvincing it sounds where it doesn't lead to the desired conclusion?

No, I don't see that it sounds unconvincing to point out that one act--sex--often leads to a natural, expected consequence, which is why we assign responsibility to those engaging in it.

New life, pregnancy, is a quite common outcome, a natural outcome, when engaging in sex, and forseeable.

The reason we charge child support is because the man knows that the woman can become pregnant from this act, and is taking on that responsibility. Both his and her actions led to the life being in the womb.

The eventuality of donating an organ to a child who needs it is an eventuality that is responding to a situation not necessarily the result of the parent's actions, and not necessarily forseeable. It is not common.

There is no equivalence.

Meanwhile, you just assert your preferences, even though it goes against the logic that the man must provide for the child, which you also hold to--if the child makes it out of the womb.

The duty is there to take responsibility for one's actions. You are wanting to dodge it.

Pregnant women also use lots of technology to assure they have a healthy pregnancy, assuming that's the outcome they want.

Yes, and men have been required to pay for it, even while the child is in the womb. But the point of noting the technological application, vs. the natural result is that we expect that pregnancy can derive from sex. And we assign responsibility to those who engage in it, because of that understanding.

Seems like a naturalistic fallacy. Something being part of nature doesn't create a legal or moral responsibility.

No, rather it is pointing out that the responsibility stems from choosing to engage in the act, knowing the natural outcome that often derives from that act. The act quite routinely leads to new life, and we recognize the responsibility of those engaging in it.

Pregnancy, new life, is a common, natural outcome of sex. The one engaging in sex takes on responsibility thereby. They should support that new life. They should not take shortcuts to kill it to get out of their responsibility.