Abortion Pill & Morning After Pill Contraception

[SPF]

Well, you will never become pregnant as a result of a rape, and will never be in a position of having to carry your attacker’s fetus to term.

And I’m specifically talking about a moral discussion. Morality stems from the immutable character of God. Nobody’s gender influences their ability to discuss moral issues.

 

[Archivist]

Same could be said of slaves in the 1800s. You realize the obvious parallels in such an argument? You literally can take the word fetus and replace it with slave and it fit perfectly into the defense of slavery in the 1840s prior to the Dred Scott decision.

Man's law should not be the compass of morality. It is obviously broken.

Did slaves live inside their master’s bodies?

 

[GodLovesCats]

If I'm not mistaken there are both men and women in the House and Senate who are involved in making our laws - not just men.

But only men voted for the abortion law in the Senate. The women involved were just trying to prevent men from voting for it. The article I posted claims there are only 6 women total - not just 6 women who voted for it - so there was very little female lawmaker involvement.

 

[Archivist]

And I’m specifically talking about a moral discussion. Morality stems from the immutable character of God. Nobody’s gender influences their ability to discuss moral issues.

Isn’t it nice to try to force someone else to do something against their will that you will never have to do. Don’t tell me that is somehow moral.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I wonder why every topic on abortion gets front page news.

Every topic on abortion this year is based on the retirement and replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy that gave red states an opportunity to overturn his majority opinion in 1973.

 

[98cwitr]

Did slaves live inside their master’s bodies?

Might as well have...they were completely dependent on them. Did a slave master have a right to murder a slave for whatever reason under the law because slaves were viewed as property?

 

[Archivist]

Might as well have...they were completely dependent on them. Did a slave master have a right to murder a slave for whatever reason under the law because slaves were viewed as property?

Actually slaves were often not completely dependent on their masters. In some cases they could earn money and buy their freedom. As to the ability of masters to murder their slaves, that depended on state law.

 

[GodLovesCats]

In addition, age was never mentioned as a factor in whether slaves could be freed or not.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

You are absolutely correct. But the secular law has no impact at all upon the morality of abortion. The fact that it is legal doesn't make it morally acceptable.

And your opinion means nothing under the law or in canon or scripture on abortion: it is merely your opinion. As is mine, for that matter.

What is real is that the federal courts will squash the law.

 

[PaulCyp1]

The sperm fertilizes the ovum within a couple of hours of intercourse. At that moment, a new genetically complete human being has come into existence. Killing the child before you are certain you are pregnant is no different from killing the child after you know you are pregnant.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Same could be said of slaves in the 1800s. You realize the obvious parallels in such an argument? You literally can take the word fetus and replace it with slave and it fit perfectly into the defense of slavery in the 1840s prior to the Dred Scott decision.

Man's law should not be the compass of morality. It is obviously broken.

There are no obvious parallels, and the argument is a strained fallacy of false equivalency.

Slaves were humans and the unborn were fetuses.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

The sperm fertilizes the ovum within a couple of hours of intercourse. At that moment, a new genetically complete human being has come into existence. Killing the child before you are certain you are pregnant is no different from killing the child after you know you are pregnant.

That is your opinion, and you know that the law and science disagree with you.

 

[Halbhh]

And I’m specifically talking about a moral discussion. Morality stems from the immutable character of God. Nobody’s gender influences their ability to discuss moral issues.

Is contraception ok in your view?

 

[SPF]

Isn’t it nice to try to force someone else to do something against their will that you will never have to do. Don’t tell me that is somehow moral.

It doesn't matter whether or not I will carry a child. When discussing morality, I don't have to be subject to the topic in order to discuss the morality of it. Right and wrong stem from the immutable character of God. I don't have to be able to carry a baby to talk about whether or not it's morally acceptable to kill the baby. I thought you were educated enough to recognize that.

That is your opinion, and you know that the law and science disagree with you.

Science absolutely agrees with the position that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. The science is there. What happens is that in order to combat the science, people fabricate and makeup distinctions between a human being and a human person. They'll acknowledge the factual science that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, but then they'll say being a human being doesn't matter, being a human person is what matters.

They'll then fabricate and subjectively create the line where the distinction between a human being and a human person is for the sole reason of permitted an action against the human being that would otherwise be considered immoral.

 

[98cwitr]

There are no obvious parallels, and the argument is a strained fallacy of false equivalency.

Slaves were humans and the unborn were fetuses.

So a fetus isn't a living human?

 

[SPF]

Is contraception ok in your view?

Well, after my wife almost died after our last child I had a vasectomy.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

So a fetus isn't a living human?

No, it is not a baby or toddler.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Contraception is morally ok.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, after my wife almost died after our last child I had a vasectomy.

Seems perfectly fine to me.

Perhaps we might agree on the answers to these also --

Is it wrong for a woman to try to resist and prevent a rape?

If it becomes clear to the woman it is impossible to resist, would it be immoral, a wrong, to try to convince the rapist to wear a condom?


A condom is contraception of course.

To me, the clear moral answer is that it is perfectly moral for a woman to try to prevent a pregnancy from rape.

Do you agree our bodies are God's design?

Pregnancy seems to only begin after a still living fertilized egg implants successfully in the uterus.

Many fertilized eggs do not implant -- naturally fail -- by the nature of our bodies, which is God's design.

Right?

 

[Archivist]

It doesn't matter whether or not I will carry a child. When discussing morality, I don't have to be subject to the topic in order to discuss the morality of it. Right and wrong stem from the immutable character of God. I don't have to be able to carry a baby to talk about whether or not it's morally acceptable to kill the baby. I thought you were educated enough to recognize that.

Absolute nonsense. Don’t tell me that is somehow moral on you part to force a rape victim to carry a fetus to term against her will. You will never have to do that, how is it moral to force someone else to do it. As to your attack on my education, I will match my two masters and one doctorate against anything that you have earned.