Abortions and the bible.

#903
#903
Purple Tiger said:
Except he cannot survive outside of his mothers' womb. There is a distinct difference between him and your two children who were delivered safely and were viable outside of their mother.
Click to expand...
Of course there is a difference. So what? There is a difference in a new born and a teenager. A teenager and an adult. A young adult an a senior.

My mother is dependent on insulin. Is she less valuable?
 
#906
#906
Roustabout said:
Of course there is a difference. So what? There is a difference in a new born and a teenager. A teenager and an adult. A young adult an a senior.

My mother is dependent on insulin. Is she less valuable?
Click to expand...

None of the people you described are in the womb. False equivalency.

I may have to go on insulin. too. My pills and good diet aren't working much anymore and my A1C is climbing. How is she doing?
 
#907
#907
ClearwaterVol said:
Your examples are not analogous. In this instance, you are forcing a woman to do something she does not wish to do. You are elevating the rights of the unborn above that of the living.
Click to expand...
And how long should she get to decided that the baby is a risk she doesn't want to take......that's the real question now isn't it? It's not THE risk but the ASSUMPTION of risk.
 
#909
#909
Purple Tiger said:
None of the people you described are in the womb. False equivalency.

I may have to go on insulin. too. My pills and good diet aren't working much anymore and my A1C is climbing. How is she doing?
Click to expand...
Location doesn’t determine value or whether he or she is human. The fact that the child is in the womb, in itself, doesn’t make that a false equivalency.

Moms great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orange_Crush
#911
#911
ClearwaterVol said:
Nobody. I never suggested such a thing.

You are forcing a person to undertake a risk which they do not wish. Thus placing the rights of the unborn and living over those of the born and living. I'm not sure how you can even quibble with that point. In fact, I'd think you would embrace it.
Click to expand...
HYP
 
#913
#913
DinkinFlicka said:
It shouldn't have to be defended. Their rights were already violated when their bodies were ravaged. You cannot force them to be violated a second time because of your sanctimonious horse ****.

This is how ****ing third wave feminism happened... a bunch of dudes forcing a rape victim to carry and birth a living extension of the monster who gave it to her is 100% a hit job on women's rights.
Click to expand...
I have to place myself partially in this corner. I would never insist that a woman that is forcibly raped continue to carry that child. However, she shouldn't have that choice up to birth. There has to be some time limit. We aren't living in the 1800's here and realistically, the medical profession in terms of pregnancy confirmation and risk mitigation has reached levels way beyond when I was growing up. So the risks that CWV keeps complaining about are very small now and the ability to determine pregnancy earlier is there also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#914
#914
IPleadInsanity said:
True, but I think that is in play now. I am guessing, but would imagine a large percentage of women seeking abortions are unmarried or alone in the process. Its just too easy. There should be more viable alternatives for them and those alternatives should be presented to them before aborting. I wonder how many of them wish they could have a do over?
Click to expand...
I actually donate to a women's clinic here in Madisonville. The use ultrasound and show the baby to the mother so that she can make up her mind with full knowledge of what the child looks like. There are also a LOT of single mothers here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#916
#916
marcusluvsvols said:
Funny how the thread just died...or not funny actually, but noteworthy i guess is a better term. If at 18 weeks its a lil baby sitting "criss cross" in there and sucking its thumb...tell me again why it is OK to kill him or her even months after this? A picture is worth 1000 words as they say. Some here take a somewhat centrist view, and say that of course at some point you have a clump of cells, and then a baby...the question is when? Looking at photos, there is no doubt that at 18 weeks ,less than halfway through the 40 week process, you have a little baby...so when exactly do YOU draw the line? Some murderers say its fine up until the day before delivery...i do not know how anyone could sleep at night having done that, though. Where do you put an arbitrary line on a living, developing human and decide after that day it is no longer OK to kill them? Would anyone here volunteer to be that person? The one who made the decision what day or week it was OK to kill the baby until? Sign your name next to it, for all the country to see? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Holiday weekend Marcus. Don't expect everyone to stay inside and post on VN do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#917
#917
82_VOL_83 said:
I actually donate to a women's clinic here in Madisonville. The use ultrasound and show the baby to the mother so that she can make up her mind with full knowledge of what the child looks like. There are also a LOT of single mothers here.
Click to expand...

This is all i ask. I have said it a million times, you cannot legislate morality. I just want ladies to make a fully informed decision. Ultrasound, options presented for adoption etc, and a 72 hour waiting period, like buying a handgun. Why should we have a 3 day cooling off period before you buy a gun..which very very few people do in order to kill someone...but not have a 3 day period when you are absolutely gonna kill someone?? In what reality does that make logical sense? Not this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#922
#922
82_VOL_83 said:
I believe you missed his point. May want to get a do over.
Click to expand...
I re-read it and it seems he is talking about more options after conception. On the one hand, I misunderstood his point at first, but on the other hand, my response is the same. They have over 2 dozen options to prevent conception and after conception they have adoption, leave it at a firehall/hospital, or possibly even removing the fetus and implanting in a more willing mother (just assuming that technology is out there, don't come after me).

If they don't bother to exercise their options before conception, what makes anyone think that that they will get any more responsible afterwards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top