Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They don't have to. It's not a sentence. The abortion isn't being forced. It's just an option if that's what the woman wants.Why must a new human life, innocent of the evil done to the mother suffer death when the offender male committed the crime?
That's just rhetoric. You don't kill the innocent child for the crimes of another. And the "offspring" is the woman's as well. Furthermore, we have testimony from adult humans who were conceived in rape and they are very much happy with the fact that their mother's didn't kill them.Because it is based off the criminal violation of the woman's body. If it is the result of a crime then the woman has no obligation to go through with the pregnancy and carry the offspring of her attacker.
None, whatsoever because that's not something she ever decided to be a part of. The fact that the product of such a crime is alive and cannot be carried by anyone else is just too bad for that baby. The woman still has no obligation to carry the sperm of a person who forced it into her.
And to force the woman to carry the fetus to term punishes her.The crime does not spawn as a child. The offender is the rapist. The only justified response is to punish the offender. The conceived life is not the offender anymore than the civilians in the hospital the terrorists.
Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.One of the most unintelligent things I've ever read.
No actually you are being unintelligent. From a scientific view, it's a life. A sperm is a life. So you're simply wrong on the way you're stating it. You likely mean something else. Any embryology textbook will tell you that even a zygote is a human life. Not just alive. But a life. Your view rests on a philosophical position and is unscientific.Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.
No, it's a fact. I know because the law is on my side of the argument and not yours.That's just rhetoric.
There is no child involved. It is a fetus and has no right over the mother's life (that is a legal fact that you cannot just ignore), especially since it is the result of a criminal violation against the woman's body. Because it was a criminal act, she is under no obligation to go through with anything that results from that act. If she wants to, and can muster the strength to go through with the pregnancy, and risk hers and her potential baby's life, and commit her body to nine long, physically, financially and emotionally taxing months, then I am all for it. That is her decision. But if she doesn't want to go through that after having been violated by some lowlife scum and had him [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into her against her will, then I thank God we don't live in a country where she would not have that choice. I thank God she has the legal right to kill that baby growing inside her.You don't kill the innocent child for the crimes of another.
Yeah... So? Was she planning on having a baby conceived in a criminal act against her body? If not, then I don't see how you can force her to go through with it.And the "offspring" is the woman's as well.
That's great for them. I'm not saying that every woman who has ever been raped should end the pregnancy. If a woman elects to go through with it then more power to her. If she doesn't want to go through with raising the offspring of her attacker, then I would never fault her for that or force her to go through with something so demanding like pregnancy, completely against her will.Furthermore, we have testimony from adult humans who were conceived in rape and they are very much happy with the fact that their mother's didn't kill them.
Hey, thanks for the biology lesson... We are talking about law. Two different things.And no woman on the planet in the history of ever carried the sperm of another person. So present your facts correctly. There is no such thing scientifically as a fertilized egg even though you will read such language. A fertilized egg doesn't exist. Neither does a sperm exist once fertilization has taken place. The egg only exists before fertilization, not after. After it is no longer an egg. The same is true with the sperm. It no longer exists.
Yes, that's right. Genetically it is half and half. What is your point?So if a woman is raped, and conception takes place, she is carrying a human being that is genetically 1/2 the product of her and 1/2 the product of the man.
The point isn't changing the fact that he's a rapist. It is about not further subjecting the victim to a secondary violation of her body.That the man was a rapist is certainly a horrible thing. That won't be changed by killing the unborn human being the woman is carrying.
I would agree that elective abortions go into a moral grey area that medically required ones generally don't, depending on your own moral convictions. But still, I would side with the woman, her spouse and their doctor in making the decision for themselves since they know better than I do what they can or cannot do for their potential baby.But let's take this argument in another direction. If you are granted the right to abort in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (as in she will die if she continues the pregnancy) then you are left with a huge percentage of pregnancies that do not fall into those categories. Would you then concede abortion should be illegal in those remaining cases?
No, it's a fact. I know because the law is on my side of the argument and not yours.
There is no child involved. It is a fetus and has no right over the mother's life (that is a legal fact that you cannot just ignore), especially since it is the result of a criminal violation against the woman's body. Because it was a criminal act, she is under no obligation to go through with anything that results from that act. If she wants to, and can muster the strength to go through with the pregnancy, and risk hers and her potential baby's life, and commit her body to nine long, physically, financially and emotionally taxing months, then I am all for it. That is her decision. But if she doesn't want to go through that after having been violated by some lowlife scum and had him [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into her against her will, then I thank God we don't live in a country where she would not have that choice. I thank God she has the legal right to kill that baby growing inside her.
Yeah... So? Was she planning on having a baby conceived in a criminal act against her body? If not, then I don't see how you can force her to go through with it.
That's great for them. I'm not saying that every woman who has ever been raped should end the pregnancy. If a woman elects to go through with it then more power to her. If she doesn't want to go through with raising the offspring of her attacker, then I would never fault her for that or force her to go through with something so demanding like pregnancy, completely against her will.
Hey, thanks for the biology lesson... We are talking about law. Two different things.
Whatever you want to call it, the woman doesn't have to go through with any of it since we are talking about something that is a completely illegal violation of her body.
Even if we were talking about something beneficial to the woman, you still cannot force her to go through with it against her will, like a life saving procedure or medicine for a life threatening illness. Why would you think a criminal act against her would be any exception to that?
Yes, that's right. Genetically it is half and half. What is your point?
The point isn't changing the fact that he's a rapist. It is about not further subjecting the victim to a secondary violation of her body.
Let's say it wasn't a rapist. Let's say we have a man and his child. Could he legally (or illegally) leave the child at someone's house, let's say by breaking and entering, and then have the state force that victim of the crime to raise that child against their will? Of course not.
So why should it be any different for the woman who was raped?
I would agree that elective abortions go into a moral grey area that medically required ones generally don't, depending on your own moral convictions. But still, I would side with the woman, her spouse and their doctor in making the decision for themselves since they know better than I do what they can or cannot do for their potential baby.
I don't make medical decisions for others that have not granted me that right.
You read the first sentence and then ignored the rest.No one I know is making the argument that is isn't lawful to have an abortion. That it's lawful doesn't mean it's moral. Aside from your point that it is lawful, the rest of what you say is simply rhetoric and has little to do with the law.
Wrong.No I read it all. But the main point of your argument is that abortion is lawful. So the rest of what you have to say is pointless.
Second, any discussion of abortion starts with the inevitable fact that every abortion kills a baby. This is not a christian concept. it was admitted to by two prominent abortionists who went on the record.
Third, this being the case, we should ask ourselves why an innocent baby that has done no wrong should be offered up on the altar of convenience for any reason and I say this because the majority of abortions are matters of convenience.
One. Better and more widespread sex education is a failure. I was on a committee that advised the government on sex education in schools. We said the evidence is that sex education will increase teen pregnancy. They ignored our advice and introduced it. Result. An increase in teen pregnancy. Response. More sex education. Result more teen pregnancies. Response. More sex education. Result. More teen pregnancies.
And if you want to affect the lives of others the burden of proof that a fetus is a person with a soul is upon you. Otherwise it is a moral question for the victim to answer.
If we are going to make determinations about abortion from the Jewish perspective, then in all honesty we have to consider all of it. Most Jews are against abortion. They see the fetus as potential life and that they should not interfere with the development of a potential life.Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.
Wrong.
My main point was about subjecting the woman to a further violation against her will.
This will be clear to anyone who reads what I posted. You'd know that if you had read past the first sentence. The very first sentence, that you actually replied to was only a comment on you dismissing my previous post as "rhetoric." That should have been a red flag that I am wasting my time with you.
It wouldn't have taken so many lines of text for me to say we won and you lost, like 40 years ago. If that was the entirety of my point, I would have said only that. And since that seems to be all you want to read into my posts, regardless of what they actually say, then I'll just leave it at that.
We won and you lost this argument about 40 something years ago.
Have a wonderful day.
No, it clearly is not. Biology never confirms when there is any significant difference between a human being and a cat or a dog. If you want to tell other people what they have to do with their bodies the burden of proof is upon you. You know that you can't prove your case so you are dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof.The life in the woman is human life and the burden of proof is on the aborter as biology confirms at conception a new human life is created.
"Personhood" is thrown about these threads often. Can you define person or personhood? I've seen several different definitions and some us the term and never define it.
One poster actually told me a fetus is not a legal person. I should hope not because I would not want a pre born baby managing my stocks or buying property for me.
So these terms are bounced about a lot. Define your version of personhood and we can discuss.
All of which ignores the fact that it is her body. To require her to carry her attackers spawn to term constitutes involuntary servitude, a violation of her constitutional rights. Do you believe on slavery in other cases or just in cases involving rape victims?
What makes someone a "human being"? If you can't justify your definition you can't claim that abortion is the killing of human beings. Right now the burden of proof is upon those that want to change things. It usually is. The problem is that prolife people cannot reasonably support there own claims.This is basically irrelevant to the law. And it's debatable that this is an accurate description of what's going on.
I've read enough of your posts over time and you've said nothing in your previous post that you haven't said before. To comment on your ranting on would be pointless since your bottom line is that abortion is legal.
Just because you write something in a post doesn't mean that a person has to respond to everything you post. And speaking of ignoring what was said, earlier I asked you a specific question and that question was ignore by you.
Not only that but you managed to kill nearly 60 million little human beings with this "win" of yours. Congrats.
you as well
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?