Heartbreaking Video Shows Father Begging Girlfriend Not to Have Abortion: Please Don’t Kill Our Baby

redleghunter said:

Pro-life is based on all humans of any stage of development or age are morally equal.

Click to expand...

Human personhood of embyros and fetuses is not a scientific fact. It is a religious or philosophical notion.

FireDragon76 said:

Human personhood of embyros and fetuses is not a scientific fact. It is a religious or philosophical notion.

Click to expand...

The scientific fact is we are human beings at fertilization.

Now if you want to argue that it be left up to totalitarian rule or mob rule who defines human and sub-human with regards to rights, moral value or 'worth', I think history has examples for us to examine.

redleghunter said:

The scientific fact is we are human beings at fertilization.

Click to expand...

A heart or a lung is also human and has being, but it isn't a person. Personhood is really a philosophical or legal concept.

Now if you want to argue that it be left up to totalitarian rule or mob rule who defines human and sub-human with regards to rights, moral value or 'worth', I think history has examples for us to examine.

Click to expand...

Of course... but if we are delving into history, I don't think the history of the debate about abortion is nearly as morally unambiguous as you presume.

We see a video of an adult being murdered with a gun and very few would agree that the choice for all to have a gun should be taken away.

We see a video of a woman trying to end the pregnancy against the fathers will and we say that is enough to agree to take away this choice/option from all women.

Both situations kill....we view them both on tv often.....yet we desire to hold on the choice of one (which takes away the choice of men and women) and take away the choice of the other.

What is the difference? Why is it ok to have the choice to bare arms when many use this choice to kill unnecessarily.....but it is not ok to have the choice to abort because many use that choice to kill unnecessarily?

FireDragon76 said:

A heart or a lung is also human and has being, but it isn't a person.

Click to expand...

Human organs have 'being?' I'd like to see the evidence of that.

FireDragon76 said:

Personhood is really a philosophical or legal concept.

Click to expand...

This is true as it is a subjective term. So let's test it. When did Jesus of Nazareth reach 'personhood?'

FireDragon76 said:

Of course... but if we are delving into history, I don't think the history of the debate about abortion is nearly as morally unambiguous as you presume.

Click to expand...

Exodus 20:3 is as unambiguous as one can get.

RaymondG said:

We see a video of an adult being murdered with a gun and very few would agree that the choice for all to have a gun should be taken away.

Click to expand...

The problem with moral equivalencies are most don't work. The above is an example of one.

In your proposed moral equivalency, the murderer on video would be charged, convicted and in most states executed for killing another human being. The person's gun is not only taken away, but their liberty, and life.

redleghunter said:

The problem with moral equivalencies are most don't work. The above is an example of one.

In your proposed moral equivalency, the murderer on video would be charged, convicted and in most states executed for killing another human being. The person's gun is not only taken away, but their liberty, and life.

Click to expand...

I see......so if the women were charged and convicted for the murder of the child, then you would be ok with the choice to have abortions?

RaymondG said:

I see......so if the women were charged and convicted for the murder of the child, then you would be ok with the choice to have abortions?

Click to expand...

That's just compounding the error of the proposed moral equivalency.

Here's why: The child is perceived as some evil or wrong doer who deserves the death penalty.

Shall we stick to the actual moral proposition? Which is...in the majority of abortions it is a premeditated termination of human life in the womb.

A valid equivalency would be to try someone for a crime with no evidence, with no legal representation, be their judge, jury and executioner with no hope of appeal.

redleghunter said:

That's just compounding the error of the proposed moral equivalency.

Here's why: The child is perceived as some evil or wrong doer who deserves the death penalty.

Click to expand...

Even if the child was perceived as a good doer, the fact remains that they are terminated by means of abortion...and this is wrong, isnt it?

Same for the adult who is murdered with the gun....Maybe the murderer felt the murdered was a good or bad person....matters not....and it is still wrong to kill them....isnt it?

redleghunter said:

Shall we stick to the actual moral proposition? Which is...in the majority of abortions it is a premeditated termination of human life in the womb.

Click to expand...

Please let us not forget your thread comparing the fate of boiling lobster to aborted child. I did not like your equivalency.....maybe you should treat mine as you would like yours treated.

In a majority of gun violence, the act is also premeditated.... Why not call for the removal of the choice to own a gun?

redleghunter said:

A valid equivalency would be to try someone for a crime with no evidence, with no legal representation, be their judge, jury and executioner with no hope of appeal.

Click to expand...

You are comparing the muderer to the aborted infant.....This is not what I did. It should be easy for you to understand.....dont you call mothers who abort, murderers?

The murderer is the mother, and the child and adult are the ones murdered. If you desire to take away the Choice from all women......why not also take away the choice to own guns from all men as well? Is the murdered man lesser than the murdered embryo?

RaymondG said:

Even if the child was perceived as a good doer, the fact remains that they are terminated by means of abortion...and this is wrong, isnt it?

Same for the adult who is murdered with the gun....Maybe the murderer felt the murdered was a good or bad person....matters not....and it is still wrong to kill them....isnt it?

Click to expand...

This is still making a moral equivalency of an innocent life to one who has taken innocent life. Does not jive.

RaymondG said:

Please let us not forget your thread comparing the fate of boiling lobster to aborted child. I did not like your equivalency.....maybe you should treat mine as you would like yours treated.

Click to expand...

Notice in the boiled lobster thread that I issued a challenge for someone to find just one person who supported human life in the womb be protected who also signed the petition to save the lobster from boiling to death. No one could answer that challenge.

I will hold to the same standard. Why? Because I can give millions of examples of Pro-Life advocates who are not only concerned for life in the womb but afterwards as well....and they put their resources towards those lives, which is evidence.

RaymondG said:

You are comparing the muderer to the aborted infant.....This is not what I did. It should be easy for you to understand.....dont you call mothers who abort, murderers?

Click to expand...

No I don't call mother's who in a premeditation decide to kill their infants, murderers. Exodus 20:3 clearly does.

redleghunter said:

This is still making a moral equivalency of an innocent life to one who has taken innocent life. Does not jive.

Click to expand...

Like I stated, the infant is compared to the murdered adult while the mother the murderer who used a different weapon.... The mothers weapon is abortion, the murders weapon the gun. We can find a few good uses for both,,,,to save the mothers life, and self defense. Yet you are willing to remove abortion as a choice for all woman, but not remove guns as a choice for all men. Why is that?

redleghunter said:

Notice in the boiled lobster thread that I issued a challenge for someone to find just one person who supported human life in the womb be protected who also signed the petition to save the lobster from boiling to death. No one could answer that challenge.

Click to expand...

I would be doing dying embryos a disservice if I went out trying to find out if people valued them as much as they valued lobsters. embryos are greater than lobsters....and deserve to be separated in the discussion of survival.

redleghunter said:

No I don't call mother's who in a premeditation decide to kill their infants, murderers. Exodus 20:3 clearly does.

Click to expand...

yes and your solution is to take away the option to abort from women.....why not also take away the option to own a gun from men? Why cant we advocate saving embryos and adults.......instead of embryos and lobsters?

The key word here is "our". The child has half his/her DNA from the mother and half from the father. Yet a mother has the legal right to have THEIR son or daughter brutally slaughtered without any input from the child's father. Sick!

redleghunter said:

Human organs have 'being?' I'd like to see the evidence of that.


This is true as it is a subjective term. So let's test it. When did Jesus of Nazareth reach 'personhood?'.

Click to expand...

You're really going to enforce a view of human personhood upon society based on an interpretation of a religious text that most biblical scholars do not believe has any evidentiary, positive historical value?

FireDragon76 said:

Human personhood of embyros and fetuses is not a scientific fact. It is a religious or philosophical notion.

Click to expand...

How about that little heart beating?
What does that mean?

Nothing to some people.
Everything to others.

What if that would have been you?
Do things change then?

M-Bob

FireDragon76 said:

You're really going to enforce a view of human personhood upon society based on an interpretation of a religious text that most biblical scholars do not believe has any evidentiary, positive historical value?

Click to expand...

Who are these “scholars” which deny the person of Christ Jesus?

Mountainmanbob said:

How about that little heart beating?
What does that mean?

Nothing to some people.
Everything to others.

What if that would have been you?
Do things change then?

M-Bob

Click to expand...

It’s all based on a choice is what I hear.

FireDragon76 said:

Human personhood of embyros and fetuses is not a scientific fact. It is a religious or philosophical notion.

Click to expand...

The human personhood of infants, the elderly, the disabled and infirm is not a scientific fact. It is a religious or philosophical notion.

FireDragon76 said:

You're really going to enforce a view of human personhood upon society based on an interpretation of a religious text that most biblical scholars do not believe has any evidentiary, positive historical value?

Click to expand...

We're going to try because it's the right thing to do. Why should Christians have a problem with trying to impose their views when secularist naturalists who deny all supernatural ideas (like yourself) try to do the exact same thing with their ideology?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The human personhood of infants, the elderly, the disabled and infirm is not a scientific fact. It is a religious or philosophical notion.

Click to expand...

Therefore a Western society bereft of any moral absolutes relies on situational and subjective ethics.

The Faceless said:

Imagine the cruelty this takes, and the blackened heart and soul of this woman.

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/06/19...t-to-have-abortion-please-dont-kill-our-baby/

Click to expand...

Cant see the video due to my network restrictions. However, based on the responses, I hope she is now the ex-girlfriend.