How to stop abortions

[Always in His Presence]

Are single women allowed to take their baby or small child to work with them?

Are married woman allowed to do so?

 

[RileyG]

I was taught that it was OK when God killed millions of unborn children in the flood, and they all deserved it because humans begin to sin immediately after conception. Was that not correct?

It's a matter of private interpretation which is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[RileyG]

Identical twins start to exist as soon as God starts to create them. How He does it, I have absolutely no idea. He is the Creator of all life. Since every human is made in image of God, having an abortion is killing a image of God.

Amen!

 

[A2SG]

The fact that you call pregnancy an invasion is by far the absolutely most stupid argument I’ve ever heard, and I think I lost some brain cells just reading it.

Yeah, but you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid admitting that's exactly what you're proposing, haven't you?

Let me ask you something: what do you call someone you invite onto your property? And, what do you call someone who comes onto your property uninvited and unwanted? There is a difference, and you know what it is.

Here's the thing: what you want for an embryo is not EQUAL rights. You want them to have MORE rights than everyone else. What I described was exactly what it would be called if you did exactly what an embryo does. No one has that right, but you feel an embryo should have that right.

That's not equal.

-- A2SG, call it a stupid argument if you want to, but that's just a blatantly obvious attempt to avoid the ramifications of what you're proposing....

 

[RileyG]

I have never heard a woman, who has been insulted, respond by killing her child.

Likewise I am not familiar of lack of childcare or baby sitters a reason to end the life of the child.

Here's thought:

If a woman does not want to get pregnant, don't participate in activity designed to produce a child. Without getting graphic, there are many different alternatives available for pleasure.

That statistically would end more than 95% of abortions.

exactly!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Let me ask you something: what do you call someone you invite onto your property? And, what do you call someone who comes onto your property uninvited and unwanted? There is a difference, and you know what it is.

But death penalty for unwanted guests? Especially when all the conditions for their "coming" are fulfilled by you.

 

[A2SG]

But death penalty for unwanted guests?

Ever see a sign "trespassers will be shot"?

Especially when all the conditions for their "coming" are fulfilled by you.

Even if your front door is left unlocked, that doesn't give anyone and everyone the right to just enter your property without permission.

-- A2SG, the analogy still works.....

 

[RileyG]

....if someone chose to have sex how is a baby "unwanted." I'm only referring to consensual sex here. BTW. Actions lead to certain consequences.

 

[JSRG]

Yeah, but you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid admitting that's exactly what you're proposing, haven't you?

Let me ask you something: what do you call someone you invite onto your property? And, what do you call someone who comes onto your property uninvited and unwanted? There is a difference, and you know what it is.

Here's the thing: what you want for an embryo is not EQUAL rights. You want them to have MORE rights than everyone else. What I described was exactly what it would be called if you did exactly what an embryo does. No one has that right, but you feel an embryo should have that right.

That's not equal.

-- A2SG, call it a stupid argument if you want to, but that's just a blatantly obvious attempt to avoid the ramifications of what you're proposing....

Can you show me anywhere in the United States where a property owner has the right to kill someone on their property who is not there by their own wish and the property owner knows they were not there by their own wish? (we're not talking about them suddenly finding someone in the house and having plausible reason to believe they might be a robber, they are fully aware the person did not intentionally break into the house) I know there are various "castle laws" but I'm not aware of any that go that far to let you kill someone you know was not there by their own choice. I'm certainly not aware of any where, in addition to the above, the property owner through their own willing actions caused the person to end up on their property (which is the case in the majority of pregnancies). Unless such is an extreme right to kill trespassers, which there does not seem to be, the argument seems to fail.

 

[A2SG]

....if someone chose to have sex how is a baby "unwanted."

Not everyone who has sex wants a baby.

I'm only referring to consensual sex here. BTW.

Okay. Still, consenting to sex does not mean you want to get pregnant.

Actions lead to certain consequences.

Sure. Like if you accidentally leave your dryer door slightly open, your clean clothes will be all over the floor. That doesn't mean someone should pass a law mandating you leave them there for 18 years.

-- A2SG, though, ya never know.....

 

[A2SG]

Can you show me anywhere in the United States where a property owner has the right to kill someone on their property who is not there by their own wish and the property owner knows they were not there by their own wish?

Kinda depends on the state, really.

(we're not talking about them suddenly finding someone in the house and having plausible reason to believe they might be a robber, they are fully aware the person did not intentionally break into the house) I know there are various "castle laws" but I'm not aware of any that go that far to let you kill someone you know was not there by their own choice. I'm certainly not aware of any where, in addition to the above, the property owner through their own willing actions caused the person to end up on their property (which is the case in the majority of pregnancies). Unless such is an extreme right to kill trespassers, which there does not seem to be, the argument seems to fail.

Just so we're clear, we're not talking about shooting anyone. You can, legally, forcibly eject someone from your property if they are uninvited and unwanted. Once you've ejected someone from your property, you are not legally responsible for what happens next.

-- A2SG, can see we're dealing more with the absurdum than the argumentum here.....

 

[JSRG]

Kinda depends on the state, really.

Name one state that allows you to execute someone who is on your property, through no fault of their own, and you know they are there through no fault of their own, after you (intentionally or not) caused them to be there to begin with. I don't think even the strongest castle laws allow that.

Just so we're clear, we're not talking about shooting anyone. You can, legally, forcibly eject someone from your property if they are uninvited and unwanted. Once you've ejected someone from your property, you are not legally responsible for what happens next.

Two problems with this.

First off, I'm not sure if you get the legal right to eject someone (who, again, is not there by their own fault, you know it was not by their fault, and it was probably you who brought them there, even if inadvertently) if doing so will cause them to die. Admittedly, laws may not be written with such a level of specificity because of the unlikelihood of such events happening (closest thing that is likely to happen is if someone who is unable to care for themselves gets evicted from their place of residence, though I would guess there are at least some kinds of laws to protect them in such a case). Which is another issue with your claim that people want special rights for fetuses, because if we had analogous situations where regular people were often ending up on other people's properties through no fault of their own, and probably through the fault of the property owner, and in which they would have to stay on the property for several months or die, then I expect we would see much greater specificity in laws that would prevent, or at least restrict, the property owner from simply throwing them out and causing them to die.

The second problem is that abortion isn't simply an ejection from your property. If abortions were cases of C-sections or forcing of labor, then you could have a point there. But abortions are far more commonly, as far as I understand it, done by killing the zygote/embryo/fetus, and then evicting it. So if we insist on this analogy, it would be a case where you kill someone and then throw them out after killing them.

 

[returntosender]

You can't trust any sitter except yourself. I used a licensed sitter through the state and still she was sexually abused. It wasn't found out til years later. Forewarned!

 

[A2SG]

Name one state that allows you to execute someone who is on your property, through no fault of their own, and you know they are there through no fault of their own, after you (intentionally or not) caused them to be there to begin with. I don't think even the strongest castle laws allow that.

But you are allowed to remove that person from your property. For those who propose granting embryos "equal" rights, they would grant the embryo the right to not be removed.

Two problems with this.

First off, I'm not sure if you get the legal right to eject someone (who, again, is not there by their own fault, you know it was not by their fault, and it was probably you who brought them there, even if inadvertently) if doing so will cause them to die. Admittedly, laws may not be written with such a level of specificity because of the unlikelihood of such events happening (closest thing that is likely to happen is if someone who is unable to care for themselves gets evicted from their place of residence, though I would guess there are at least some kinds of laws to protect them in such a case). Which is another issue with your claim that people want special rights for fetuses, because if we had analogous situations where regular people were often ending up on other people's properties through no fault of their own, and probably through the fault of the property owner, and in which they would have to stay on the property for several months or die, then I expect we would see much greater specificity in laws that would prevent, or at least restrict, the property owner from simply throwing them out and causing them to die.

The second problem is that abortion isn't simply an ejection from your property. If abortions were cases of C-sections or forcing of labor, then you could have a point there. But abortions are far more commonly, as far as I understand it, done by killing the zygote/embryo/fetus, and then evicting it. So if we insist on this analogy, it would be a case where you kill someone and then throw them out after killing them.

Zygotes and embryos (the stage at which the vast majority of abortions are performed) cannot survive outside of the womb, so there is no possibility of surviving. None. There is no option for them to live anywhere else. (We'll leave the fetal stage out of this, since no one is advocating for late-term, third trimester abortions post fetal viability.) So, yeah, the analogy has limits to a real-world comparison.

But the point remains: an embryo would not be given "equal" rights by prohibiting abortions outright. It would be granted rights no born person has ever had, and would restrict the rights of pregnant women considerably. That is not equal.

-- A2SG, which is the point I was going for, if you recall....

 

[Larniavc]

That statistically would end more than 95% of abortions.

Yeah, but only if you think humans are robots who don’t have emotions. Remember how horny humans get as younger people?

Humans are not robots.

 

[Hammster]

Yeah, but you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid admitting that's exactly what you're proposing, haven't you?

Let me ask you something: what do you call someone you invite onto your property? And, what do you call someone who comes onto your property uninvited and unwanted? There is a difference, and you know what it is.

Here's the thing: what you want for an embryo is not EQUAL rights. You want them to have MORE rights than everyone else. What I described was exactly what it would be called if you did exactly what an embryo does. No one has that right, but you feel an embryo should have that right.

That's not equal.

-- A2SG, call it a stupid argument if you want to, but that's just a blatantly obvious attempt to avoid the ramifications of what you're proposing....

Doubling down on idiotic arguments doesn’t magically make them better.

 

[JustOneWay]

Doubling down on idiotic arguments doesn’t magically make them better.

As is wanting to give the unborn equal rights and equal protection under the law, yet nobody was bold enough to call the point idiotic. Giving the unborn equal rights and equal protection under the law is absurd and will never happen.

 

[Hammster]

As is wanting to give the unborn equal rights and equal protection under the law, yet nobody was bold enough to call the point idiotic. Giving the unborn equal rights and equal protection under the law is absurd and will never happen.

Are there other groups of people who you think it’s idiotic to give equal protection to? People used to think it was idiotic to give equal protection to blacks. Thankfully that was overcome. This will be as well.

 

[JustOneWay]

Are there other groups of people who you think it’s idiotic to give equal protection to? People used to think it was idiotic to give equal protection to blacks. Thankfully that was overcome. This will be as well.

No, idiotic is your word. I said absurd, and it is absurd for some of the reasons pointed out in rebuttal and others which have not been mentioned, whatever they are..
Also, comparing legal person-hood status to a fetus to equal protection to blacks is also absurd. You are conflating racism with giving equal rights to the unborn.

 

[NxNW]

It's a matter of private interpretation which is beyond the scope of this thread.

How convenient.