I keep being told that God objects to abortion...

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here's the thing about cakes, and bakeries...

If you open a bakery, you are benefiting off the public commons to do so, in fact you are DEPENDENT on the public commons, funded by EVERYONE, before you can generate dime #1 in your bakery business... you rely on roads, sidewalks, public utilities, foreign oil brought here on shipping lanes protected by the US Navy, the public education system that provides you with an educated workforce, stable currency, the court system to enforce contracts, the federally insured banking system, police, fire dept, etc...

When you receive these benefits that your bakery is 100% dependent on to even function, benefits that are REQUIRED to be paid for by ALL people, even the gays, you don't then get to say to the gays (or the Blacks, or the Puerto Ricans, or people who you think are too tall, or too short, or wear funny hats)... I'll freely take the benefit from your tax dollars, but I won't provide the product or service to you that I provide to other people I don't find "yucky".

Not so keen on liberty now? Huh?

 

[parousia70]

Not so keen on liberty now? Huh?

People are absolutely FREE and have the liberty to choose NOT to open a bakery, are they not?

 

[parousia70]

Why then after such governing control over procreation should the government give back freedom to the parents to raise the children appropriately? Shouldn't you follow this to its logical conclusion and demand that the government also have full control over how all its citizens until adulthood are cared for?

Well, isn't it your position that after the baby is born it has a right to continue to enjoy all the benefits it enjoyed while in the womb, and that government has a responsibility to make sure those benefits are provided for them?
Or is it your position that babies lose certain rights once they're born?

If once the baby is born, for example, it is discovered it's kidneys don't function, should the mother, if a match, be required by law to give the baby one of hers? or does the right of the baby to use the mothers organs against her will end at birth?

 

[bekkilyn]

Yet I was responding to your poor and inconsistent position. None us cares about libetertarian freedom yet so many pretend to be liberty at the forefront of this issue.

Now do we have no Christian basis to object to Abortion? We certainly have tradition. Aboritificiants have long been abhorred in the Church' reasoning as has infanticide and child abandonment. I wonder though, why does the parent on your basis of belief have any responsibility to actually look after the child? There's no biblical mandate, only an expectation that parents should look afterthejr children and be honored for it.

Well legally parents can give their child (and hence responsibility) to someone else through adoption, but I don't usually see people fighting to make adoption illegal under the motive that the bible expects natural parents to provide for the child and so the natural parents should be forced to do so so that they can be honored for it.

 

[SPF]

Well, isn't it your position that after the baby is born it has a right to continue to enjoy all the benefits it enjoyed while in the womb, and that government has a responsibility to make sure those benefits are provided for them?
Or is it your position that babies lose certain rights once they're born?

My position is fairly straight forward and based upon a set of premises that most Christians don't object to.

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. The intentional and purposeful killing of an innocent human being by another human being for convenience reasons is immoral and wrong.
4. 98.5% of abortions are performed against innocent human beings for convenience reasons.

Conclusion - The 98.5% of abortions are immoral and wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

My position is fairly straight forward and based upon a set of premises that most Christians don't object to.

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. The intentional and purposeful killing of an innocent human being by another human being for convenience reasons is immoral and wrong.
4. 98.5% of abortions are performed against innocent human beings for convenience reasons.

Conclusion - The 98.5% of abortions are immoral and wrong.

Scripture does not state, nor even remotely suggest that a human being is created at fertilization, and science only speaks of life which already existsand has existed for billions of years, it doesn't say anything about God bringing life into existence, nor can it.

With that said, premise number two is an assumption.

 

[SPF]

Scripture does not state, nor even remotely suggest that a human being is created at fertilization, and science only speaks of life which already existsand has existed for billions of years, it doesn't say anything about God bringing life into existence, nor can it.

With that said, premise number two is an assumption.

Yes, I'm aware of your unsubstantiated, uneducated, island of one opinion on this matter. But for everyone else who made it through middle school biology, we recognize that a human beings developmental period lasts about 25 years, beginning at fertilization. It's basic, observable science.

 

[BNR32FAN]

...but then I read Deuteronomy 2:33-34 and see that He sanctioned infanticide without any problem.

How do people reconcile those two stances?

Well you can’t compare people whom God specifically stated that He wanted killed to those whom He didn’t say He wanted killed. If we did that then we could justify killing anyone at will because God had commanded the death of some people. Just because He said to kill certain people doesn’t give us the right to kill whoever we choose.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

People are absolutely FREE and have the liberty to choose NOT to open a bakery, are they not?

So unless one agrees with your liberalism they cannot own and operate a business? You probably would force Christians who want to become doctors to perform abortions as well, right?

If we're really arguing on the basis of liberty for abortion, why is your liberty so restrictive? It's like an Islamic liberty. Oh sure, you can live in this society as a free dhimmi. Just recognize that Islam is the greater spiritual and societal force around you. Pay the Dhimmi tax and all will be well. Don't pay, and well suffer the consequences. You're free to choose!

Thankfully I'm not arguing on the basis of liberty that a parent should have a right to kill their child in the womb. It's not a matter of liberty I trust to anyone because children require of those who conceive them certain responsibilities. One of those being that their lives should not be discarded flippantly.

What I find stunning is that you object so hard to the idea of abortion of convenience. Why? And I mean seriously, what is your reasoning? If as you say the majority of abortions are done because the infant has down syndrome or something else, why object to outlawing a minority of abortions? I don't believe that by the way, but we're just accepting your premise for the time being.

 

[parousia70]

So unless one agrees with your liberalism they cannot own and operate a business?

So you think its Ok for a Business to refuse to serve Black people then?
Or is THAT level of liberalist government intervention into the free market something you believe business owners MUST agree with you on before they can operate a business?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So you think its Ok for a Business to refuse to serve Black people then?
Or is THAT level of liberalist government intervention into the free market something you believe business owners MUST agree with you on before they can operate a business?

Quite frankly I don't care who a business decides to serve. If a black Hebrew Israelite decided to put a sign up saying: "no fake Jews and no white people," I would shrug and move on. Then again, I'm not the one arguing from a libertarian perspective that women should have the complete and unadulterated right to choose whether or not to kill their children. That's your position, that it's a woman's choice, a woman's liberty to kill her child. To have it's body picked apart and discarded for whatever reason she so desires.

You'll forgive me if I don't buy your libtertarian argument for abortion since your fine with government interference with even the most minor of things. Oh, he won't make a very specific cake because he has objections? Shut down his entire business, confiscate his wealth and give it to the offended party.

You keep avoiding my main question. Why are you so opposed to outlawing abortions of convenience? You don't have a problem with the state pointing a gun at Christians. Why do you have a problem with the state using it's authority on women?

 

[parousia70]

Thankfully I'm not arguing on the basis of liberty that a parent should have a right to kill their child in the womb.

Rather, you are arguing that one human being has a superseding right to the use of another's organs against their will, as long as the human who needs those organs to survive is located inside the the womb of the other, yet you argue those rights are to be stripped away from that human once it leaves the womb.

Why should those rights be stripped away once that human is born? Why does a baby lose those rights once it is outside of the womb? If it needs a Kidney and the mother is a match, why shouldn't the law continue to protect that baby by requiring the mother donate one of hers?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Rather, you are arguing that one human being has a superseding right to the use of another's organs against their will, as long as the human who needs those organs to survive is located inside the the womb of the other, yet you argue those rights are to be stripped away from that human once it leaves the womb.

Why should those rights be stripped away once that human is born? Why does a baby lose those rights once it is outside of the womb? If it needs a Kidney and the mother is a match, why shouldn't the law continue to protect that baby by requiring the mother donate one of hers?

My argument is that a woman is not at liberty to kill her child. That's it. But it's clear you are unable to actually engage with a reasonable discussion on this matter. Your mind is only polemical and cannot concede or consider a single point in opposition. So you resort to strange arguments that an organ of the mother must belong to the child. Who, besides you is making this argument?

My question is not an unfair one. It is not a trap although I understand if you concede to it you are purposefully limiting abortion and it seems one of your goals is to increase the amount of abortion in the world.

Your profile says your Catholic. Do you think Abortion is evil, along with your Church? Or do you dissent from that opinion?

 

[parousia70]

. Oh, he won't make a very specific cake because he has objections? Shut down his entire business, confiscate his wealth and give it to the offended party.

Again, its about the tax base... if a business must leach off the public commons in order to make ANY money, which ALL businesses MUST do, then it needs to serve ALL the people it leaches off of... why would you object to that?

Why would you want to force Gay people to contribute to the tax base that a Christian Bakery REQUIRES in order to operate, then allow that Christian Bakery refuse to serve those very people who fund them?

 

[parousia70]

Your profile says your Catholic. Do you think Abortion is evil, along with your Church? Or do you dissent from that opinion?

I agree with the Church.
As I mentioned earlier I don't think is goes far enough...

We need a national... nay... GLOBAL Menstrual registry.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Again, its about the tax base... if a business must leach off the public commons in order to make ANY money, which ALL businesses MUST do, then it needs to serve ALL the people it leaches off of... why would you object to that?

Again, this is not a Libertarian argument. This is an argument you believe about the so-called common good. The right to compel creators who offer their services to do whatever a client wants them to do.

The inconsistency I am pointing out is that you are okay with the state using force to shut down a business. You would be okay with a gay owner of a creative business to refuse to produce a certain art or creative work that was contrary to his own lifestyle. But Christians you believe must be forced to submit to their cultural betters. Interesting how that works.

This is a bizarre detour and one which I never intended on reaching. What is your point here? That you think faithful Christians cannot operate and display their faith in the public space? How does this strengthen Christianity? How does this actually make Christianity a presence in the culture at large? Instead what you are arguing for is Christians not being allowed to have a cultural presence. Being forbidden to practice certain professions because they will not align with secular liberalism.

That's a pretty liberal Catholic position but why should I, support it when you just want to weaken Christianity in the public sphere?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I agree with the Church.
As I mentioned earlier I don't think is goes far enough...

We need a national... nay... GLOBAL Menstrual registry.

Can you be anything but sarcastic? Your Church teaches that abortion is evil, you are for abortion being practiced. You want no limitation on it and why it's done. I might presume you are okay with late term abortion, race based abortion and sex determined abortion, as well as the abortion of down syndrome people and any other undesirable. Can you reconcile your position to me because I am legitimately confused.

As a Catholic you ought to believe what your Church has historically taught, but it's apparent that you don't. I don't understand this inconsistency and why you are so adamant about protecting what your personal faith calls evil. How is this a testimony to your Christian faith? How does this accomplish the will of God on earth?

 

[parousia70]

Again, this is not a Libertarian argument. This is an argument you believe about the so-called common good. The right to compel creators who offer their services to do whatever a client wants them to do.

Yet you argue that the Government should FORCE Gay people to fund the creator who refuses to offer them the very product or service they offer to others.

The inconsistency I am pointing out is that you are okay with the state using force to shut down a business.

Not inconsistent at all.
The inconsistency I am pointing out is that you are okay with the state using force to compel a Gay couple to fund the roads, utilities, Police, Fire, Judicial system, Military etc, that a Christian bakery REQUIRES before it can make dime #1, while allowing that bakery to refuse to make them the exact cake that they would make for a hetero couple.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yet you argue that the Government should FORCE Gay people to fund the creator who refuses to offer them the very product or service they offer to others.

I made no such argument. I don't want to force anyone to make something for me they don't want to make. My argument was with regards to how you would treat people. Let us presume a Christian pro-lifer needed the services of a printer or graphic designer. He wants to make fliers for his pro-life event. You would likely say the graphic designer should not be forced to make those fliers and can object on his own personal moral grounds.

You would probably not allow the Christian pro-life graphic designer the same liberty. Since you will not allow Cake owners to choose their clients. Thus it's clear that you favour one party over the other.

This is a typical lefitst position but not a liberal one. It's an attempt to influence the culture and change it through coercion of the non-compliant. Don't pretend it's anything else.

Not inconsistent at all.
The inconsistency I am pointing out is that you are okay with the state using force to compel a Gay couple to fund the roads, utilities, Police, Fire, Judicial system, Military etc, that a Christian bakery REQUIRES before it can make dime #1, while allowing that bakery to refuse to make them the exact cake that they would make for a hetero couple.

I'm okay with forcing everyone to fund roads and utilities, so what's your point? What I'm not okay with is forcing private individuals to make things contrary to their conscience. Yet that's a world you are very comfortable in.

You're more authoritarian than myself. Stalin would be proud.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yet you argue that the Government should FORCE Gay people to fund the creator who refuses to offer them the very product or service they offer to others.



Not inconsistent at all.
The inconsistency I am pointing out is that you are okay with the state using force to compel a Gay couple to fund the roads, utilities, Police, Fire, Judicial system, Military etc, that a Christian bakery REQUIRES before it can make dime #1, while allowing that bakery to refuse to make them the exact cake that they would make for a hetero couple.

The bakery pays taxes to so I don’t see how this is even relevant. Each person is paying their part in taxes. If I’m not mistaken self employment tax is higher than what a working individual pays.