Abortion Discussion

[GoldenBoy89]

The human life in the woman's womb is the rapist?

If it is the product of a rape, why should it determine the rest of the woman's life?

The entire act was a criminal violation and as a victim, she should not be responsible for anything that comes of it.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Really? I have never seen a "prominent abortionist" cmake that claim. You made the claim, let's see your evidence. Or is this just more unsupported nonsense of yours that will simply lead to your side continuing to lose.

And please, you don't understand one bit of how to use logical arguments. I would suggest that you study up before trying to do so again.

Thankyou subzone that you have made it clear that your arguments revolve around you. "I have never seen" suggests that you judge everything by "I" and that your worldview is "Me, Myself and I." I pay little attention to "Me, Myself and I" as the evidence from that source tends to be a bit flimsy. if you can prove from a reliable source that I am wrong do let me know.

 

[redleghunter]

But then the Bible is vague enough that it can be used to argue almost any point.

That's because you think exegesis is nonsense.

Which is why when you comment on the Bible it sounds like a bumper sticker or tagline.

You do realize scholars who write history books employ the same form of exegesis as theologians.

This may help a bit:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

 

[tiglathpileser]

If it is the product of a rape, why should it determine the rest of the woman's life?

The entire act was a criminal violation and as a victim, she should not be responsible for anything that comes of it.

Well, very interesting. We are told ad infinitum that it is a woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body and here is a pro abortionist advocating that the woman should have an abortion. What about a woman's right to NOT have an abortion if she doesn't want to?

 

[redleghunter]

If it is the product of a rape, why should it determine the rest of the woman's life?

The entire act was a criminal violation and as a victim, she should not be responsible for anything that comes of it.

We should eliminate a human life who did nothing wrong based on another person's transgression?

How do you justify this?

 

[tiglathpileser]

Calling it a fetus just makes people feel better about killing babies.

So true, so true and...if you did a search of the claims of the pro abortionists you would find that they have a red herring for almost every fact and truth about abortion. When you try to deny reality you have to introduce red herrings when you can't counter the truth.

 

[redleghunter]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
You need to show that this is a full "human being" if you want to stop others from killing it. Again, the burden of proof is upon those that are telling others what they have to do with their body.



"Subduction" is NOT talking about "fully human."

What "full 'human being'" means is an actual human being, an actual animal being of the human species, in other words a baby born. No one should ever kill a real baby, of course.

You have taken three different views on this thread from pro life to pro choice to a middle ground.

Or are you conducting unsolicited facilitation of the thread?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

if one is dispassionate about this, any intelligent person would say that you don't solve a person's problem by the taking of innocent life. No one I would suggest except rapists, are enamoured by the incident and outcomes of rape, but is killing the baby going to solve the problem?

it is bad enough the trauma experienced caused by the rape and then to subject the victim to more trauma caused by abortion is callow to say the least and not really giving a damn about the woman's wellbeing.

The people who say they are pro-choice do not it seems to me want to give the woman who has been raped any choice. In their eyes there is only one solution and that is abortion. The fact is I have read many stories of women who conceived as a result of rape and refused to abort the baby, gave birth to it and loved it as their own.

If that is the woman's wish, I would say that is a far better outcome than having the baby killed physically and the woman killed emotionally. it seems to me that pro-aborts want to operate on the basis that one size fits all so no discussion is necessary.

What part of "leaving the choice to abort or not to the woman", don't you understand?

 

[PapaZoom]

View attachment 171225

All these ......were aborted. They look like babies to me.

They are. Sad that a doc could make a living doing this

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thankyou subzone that you have made it clear that your arguments revolve around you. "I have never seen" suggests that you judge everything by "I" and that your worldview is "Me, Myself and I." I pay little attention to "Me, Myself and I" as the evidence from that source tends to be a bit flimsy. if you can prove from a reliable source that I am wrong do let me know.

You need to strive to be a bit more honest. In a debate when you make a claim as you just did you place the burden of proof upon you. If your claim was correct you should have been able to find a valid source that supports you. That you could not indicates that I was correct. I usually spend my time debating science here since there I can support my claims clearly. Here it would simple be a game of finding verses. And then there are those that will not interpret verses honestly because the clear translation disagrees with their beliefs. I am not really a fan of using the Bible in debates for those purposes.

Meanwhile I have been here pointing out errors in the arguments of people on your side and telling them what they would have to do to change the laws on abortion. If you are satisfied with simply looking down your noses at those poor women that felt the need to go through with this process then have fun. But that is neither a productive or Christian way to look at things.

 

[redleghunter]

You need to strive to be a bit more honest. In a debate when you make a claim as you just did you place the burden of proof upon you. If your claim was correct you should have been able to find a valid source that supports you. That you could not indicates that I was correct. I usually spend my time debating science here since there I can support my claims clearly. Here it would simple be a game of finding verses. And then there are those that will not interpret verses honestly because the clear translation disagrees with their beliefs. I am not really a fan of using the Bible in debates for those purposes.

Meanwhile I have been here pointing out errors in the arguments of people on your side and telling them what they would have to do to change the laws on abortion. If you are satisfied with simply looking down your noses at those poor women that felt the need to go through with this process then have fun. But that is neither a productive or Christian way to look at things.

You should strive not to call into question someone's integrity.

Such nonsense gets these threads shutdown.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's because you think exegesis is nonsense.

It almost always is. It is a concept that is abused by believers in the Bible.

Which is why when you comment on the Bible it sounds like a bumper sticker or tagline.

No, that is simply because you disagree with a clear reading of the Bible at times.

You do realize scholars who write history books employ the same form of exegesis as theologians.

This may help a bit:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

I seriously doubt that claim. To support it you need something much better than a site written by Kool-Aid drinkers. It is all but impossible to take apologists seriously. The y may use some of the methods in that article, but to claim that they use the same methods goes to far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should strive not to call into question someone's integrity.

Such nonsense gets these threads shutdown.

Then people should support their claims that they make. That is a standard in debates. Otherwise we could all make crazy unsupported claims and that gets threads shut down too.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

What about a woman's right to NOT have an abortion if she doesn't want to?

That is perfectly fine with me.

What did you think I was going to say?

 

[redleghunter]

It almost always is. It is a concept that is abused by believers in the Bible.



No, that is simply because you disagree with a clear reading of the Bible at times.



I seriously doubt that claim. To support it you need something much better than a site written by Kool-Aid drinkers. It is all but impossible to take apologists seriously. The y may use some of the methods in that article, but to claim that they use the same methods goes to far.

[/QUOTE]

If you can fix the quote above I would appreciate it.

 

[tiglathpileser]

We are animals. But I only used that general term because the same medical terms apply to certain other animal species. I didn't want to make it sound like it's limited to homo sapiens.

As I understand it, God made the animals and then he made man in his image. He did not make the animals in his image. Therefore man is not an animal, although the actions of abortionists makes me think that some humans are animals. That is my worldview so that is what I operate by.

And....I notice that animals do not have their babies aborted so just maybe we are the animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can fix the quote above I would appreciate it.

I fixed it before you posted this. But just barely. You could have still read it by hitting "click to expand".

 

[redleghunter]

It almost always is. It is a concept that is abused by believers in the Bible.



No, that is simply because you disagree with a clear reading of the Bible at times.



I seriously doubt that claim. To support it you need something much better than a site written by Kool-Aid drinkers. It is all but impossible to take apologists seriously. The y may use some of the methods in that article, but to claim that they use the same methods goes to far.

This should help.

http://www.christianbook.com/apps/p...nt=ESRCP|M&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&Ntt=227759

 

[tiglathpileser]

That is perfectly fine with me.

What did you think I was going to say?

It didn't sound perfectly fine in your previoius post.

 

[redleghunter]

If you can fix the quote above I would appreciate it.

I fixed it before you posted this. But just barely. You could have still read it by hitting "click to expand".[/QUOTE]

Still shows your posts with my comments in the quote.