- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not speaking the "desire" of the unborn. I premised my comment with "how do we know..."
Upvote
0
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.
I'm not speaking the "desire" of the unborn. I premised my comment with "how do we know..."Really? Now you are speaking the "desire" of the unborn? That is weak......
Could you enlighten me?You need to learn your history.
You said that "9 old men" said that abortion was legal. Wrong. Justices Whizzer White and William Rehnquist dissented in the Roe decision.Could you enlighten me?
If that was directed at me I was not "making an argument." I was correcting a misstatement on your part. If you are going to make a statement about what the Court did or did not do, get it right. As I said, learn your history! BTW, the fact that two justices dissented does not change the opinion. Two justices--Cushing and Moore--took no part in the Marbury v. Madison decision, but it remains one of the Supreme Court's most important decisions.LOLOLOL.....your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker.
I was including life in liberty. Without the right to life, the right to liberty does not exist.Where did I judge liberty vs liberty?
I didn't.
I presented a liberty vs a life.
Ah. If it was a joke, that's fine then. It's hard to tell over the Internet.Yeah, I am a really funny guy. Stops me taking life so seriously and having to put everyone right if they haven't got evidence for this that and the other.
What was the court ruling?....Is it not law? You need to brush up on SCOTUS.....If taht was directed at me I was not "making an argument." I was correcting a misstatement on your part. If you are going to make a statement about what the Court did or did not do, get it right.
You are missing the point--you incorrectly stated that "9 old men" voted to legalize abortion. That is wrong. The vote was 7-2, so two voted to keep abortion under state law. Again, you need to learn your history.What was the court ruling?....Is it not law? You need to brush up on SCOTUS.....
I think you're the one who's misreading here. I know you weren't referring to yourself. I read your whole post, and I was objecting to you calling non-Christian members "intruders" (I don't even know what kind of lame accusation it would be to say that you called yourself an intruder). What did you think I was accusing you of?I did not say I am the intruder which you would be clear about if you bothered to read what I said instead of trying to accuse me of saying what you want me to say.
Lots of people can claim victimhood, but can also emerge from that. It's a double-whammy, actually, if a woman traumatizes herself by aborting the child.But we are talking about a woman who has already been a victim.
The Supreme Court, regardless of the numbers, legalized abortion. Nine men did it, whether their actual opinion was for or against.If that was directed at me I was not "making an argument." I was correcting a misstatement on your part. If you are going to make a statement about what the Court did or did not do, get it right. As I said, learn your history! BTW, the fact that two justices dissented does not change the opinion. Two justices--Cushing and Moore--took no part in the Marbury v. Madison decision, but it remains one of the Supreme Court's most important decisions.
A weak argument always falls back on semantics. And go check my statement.....no mention of "legalize abortion". And while you are at maybe answer the questions I posed.You are missing the point--you incorrectly stated that "9 old men" voted to legalize abortion. That is wrong. The vote was 7-2, so two voted to keep abortion under state law. Again, you need to learn your history.
If God has a purpose each one, how do we know abortion wasn't part of that plan all along?A fetus is not a potential human being, it is a human being with potential. Considering that every embryo is unique in the history of the world, and that God has a purpose for each one, why is it EVER OK to subvert God's will, even if it occurs through an evil act of rape. For those who did carry their rape children to term, have you ever seen one who said that they wished they hadn't done that?
Please read what I wrote. The statement that I am correcting was that "9 old men" decided to legalize abortion. I'm not arguing the outcome of the case, I'm merely poi9nting out that the decision was by seven justices. Actually Roe really did not "legalize abortion" so much as it took that decision away from the states. Abortion was already legal in a number iof states prior to the Roe decision.The Supreme Court, regardless of the numbers, legalized abortion. Nine men did it, whether their actual opinion was for or against.
Yes, in some cases. In other cases, nine months of pregnancy (carrying the rapist's child), excruciating childbirth (particularly at a young age), and having to give up the child are much more traumatic. That's why I'd like to leave it up to the woman. No one knows her better than she knows herself.Lots of people can claim victimhood, but can also emerge from that. It's a double-whammy, actually, if a woman traumatizes herself by aborting the child.
Your exact words were "And we should deny the opportunity to survive? We have that right? Because 9 old men said we do?" I'm just correcting your numbers--seven voted in favor of the decision, not nine. You need to learn your history. I'm not trying to argue anything--you're the one turning it into an argument. Why not just admit that it was seven men not nine?A weak argument always falls back on semantics. And go check my statement.....no mention of "legalize abortion". And while you are at maybe answer the questions I posed.
And I quoted you correctly before. I only put quotation marks around "9 old men." The remainder was not quoted.Thank you.....at least you quoted me correctly this time.....
It has life, but is not a life in the sense of being a human being. A living breathing human being. The life that is in the fetus comes from the sperm and the egg - it is that SAME LIFE that is sustained by the mother, including her breathing of course which never takes place in the fetus.
Personally, I have no interest in dehumanizing a fetus. I'm pro-choice regardless. For me, it's more about the fact that the life is dependent on another. I group it with organ donation.The pro-abortion crowd often addresses embryological issues as if some magical process is occurring within the womb as opposed to a biological process. That the "fetus" doesn't breathe its own air until post birth is irrelevant in determining its status as a human offspring. The baby utilizes oxygen and exudes carbon dioxide just as its mother. It simply does so via transmission through the placenta and umbilical cord. Any attempt to use the fact a baby in the womb doesn't utilize its own lungs to breathe until post-birth in order to dehumanize the child in the womb is farcical, at best.
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?