Matthew 18:5 And when you welcome one of these children because of me, you welcome me.
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and don't try to stop them! People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom."
Mark 10:16 Then Jesus took the children in his arms and blessed them by placing his hands on them.
John 1:12 Yet some people accepted him and put their faith in him. So he gave them the right to be the children of God.
Such weird thinking and soooooooooo self centred. it would be the most compelling arguement against abortion. Why do you think that the feminists have gone overboard to try and convince us that the baby in the womb is not a baby. It is just a clump of cells or flesh. Immediately you admit it is a real living baby your argument is dead in the water.
The mother's right to kill ends when she decides to have sex because every act of sex has the potential to produce a baby. To say I want sex but not the consequences of it but no worries I can have it killed is totally shallow and selfish.
No, you failed to pay any attention to the argument. You're arguing that a right to life trumps all other rights and I'm saying you're wrong.
Well let's discuss things like adults today mmkay?
And I am saying you are wrong.
You are asking a lot.
Don't look at me... I didn't create the world the way it is.This world is a sad state of affairs when the question even exists "What's wrong with abortion?"
Firstly it is wrong to call a murderess that kills her child a mother! She was a potential mother. Secondly, a person has no more right to kill their neighbor for 'bodily autonomy' than they have a right to snuff their own flesh and blood. The right to having their body protected exists for a young person as much or more than for an old one.You're arguing that a right to life trumps all other rights and I'm saying you're wrong. Even if I were to agree that a fetus has the exact same right to life as you and me and anyone rlse, that right to life fails to trump the mother's rights to bodily autonomy.
No. Because a baby is not hooked up to man's machines generally. They are where God designed them to be. The would be mother/murderess cannot return to Sender any more than she can return anyone else on earth too Sender. Once that happens then they've blasphemed the Creator, and descended into the deepest depravity and sin imaginable.Try this on for size. You wake up one day to find yourself hooked up to a machine that is also hooked up to me, and this machine is keeping me alive using your body. Turns out your blood and mine are compatible but I have a blood disorder that your body can filter out. If you disconnect yourself from this machine, I will die.... guaranteed. You decide you don't appreciate this violation of your bodily autonomy and ask the doctors to disconnect you, but I assert my right to live as trumping your right to leave. Under your thinking, where the right to life trumps all, you cant leave. I would die, and you'd have killed me.
No. But if you considered it a reward, you would not be in favor of killing it!It's telling, of course, that you use the word "consequence" as this reflects the very tiresome view that a baby is a punishment for engaging in sex.
A woman has no rights and never had any rights and never will have the right to kill babies sent from God. Engaging in sex is no excuse. That is like saying...I drove too fast to work, so I might as well blow up the bank.That you think this way is all the more evident by your eroneous belief that a WOMAN gives up rights by engaging in sex, with no view of what rights a man gives up.... if any.
Of course a dad is responsible for his family. There are also lots of great parents who would be willing to adopt. Not every child in history had a dad that was there or lived all that long. That is no excuse to destroy little people.If you're going to advocate for carrying every pregnancy to term as a woman's punishment for having sex, then you'd have to advocate for every father to be legallt and equitably responsible for those children in every case.... or else be nothing more than a hypocrite. Good luck getting any men to line up behind that proposition.
All sin has consequences. Not all crimes merit the same punishments.It should be obvious to any sexually active adults, even fundamentalists who can't bring themselves to think of it, that there's a vast array of sexual activity that has 0 chance of leading to pregnancy. Since not one of those has a "consequence" attached to it, it makes no logical sense to argue that one particular act must be allowed to have consequential punishment attached.
In the case of the murderess would be mom, she cannot go out to the alley, get the garbage bag with the burned fetus, and restore it to health! It is irrevocable.Granted, there could be other consequences like spread of an STD. But would you argue that people who engage in sex give up the right to cure themselves of such consequences? If a man contracts herpes because he has sex, does he give up the right to get rid of the infection because that's the consequence of having sex?
Yes. But you're not really doing a good job of explaining a) why I'm wrong or b) why you're right.
FYI: the secular courts of the USA charge men with fetal homicide. In other words they already try men that kill fetuses as murderers.
Most people that commit murder in the USA do not get the death sentence.
I marked "No" on your poll by the way.
Can't deny that and I can't deny that more women have died from botched legal abortions than those who died from botched illegal abortions because the number of legal abortions performed far outweigh the illegal ones.
What about in countries where women who have miscarriages are jailed? That isn't right either.
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?