User Tag List

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 112

Thread: Justice Kavanaugh’s first test on abortion comes this week

  1. #91
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,340
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,080 Times in 756 Posts

    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    266493
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Chair, you used to have thought in your responses. But you are just an NPC in this thread. Why?

    Did you have an abortion? Did you have one done for someone you got pregnant? Did you approve of one for someone else?

    The questions are clear - Why is abortion wrong but not murder? Is it ever right to stop to kill the baby? And additionally I'd like to ask; if we view the baby-before-it-is-born as a human, aren't our protestations reasonable?

    If you can answer that last one in the affirmative, then can you restate our argument or are you an NPC? If you answer in the negative, then why do you say abortion is wrong in any way?
    This will seem strange to you- but I don't know what an "NPC" is.

    And yes, it could be considered OK to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life. Your friends here insist that such a case could never happen- I guess the idea would shake their beliefs too much or something.

    The main question is whether an unborn child is a complete human in the sense that an adult is. Anti Abortion folks here (pro-life, sorry)insist that it is. Why- they feel no need to explain, even though that is the crux of the matter.

    I am not anti-life, pro choice, or pro abortion at all. I think it is criminal, just not quite murder. Why does that get people so uptight?

  2. #92
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,134
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    This will seem strange to you- but I don't know what an "NPC" is.
    Google is your friend in this situation.

    And in case it's not, I read "NPC" as "Non-Playable Character." But maybe that's just because I play too many vidyagames...

    And yes, it could be considered OK to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life.
    What possible situation would require the doctor (or whoever is doing the caring) to stop caring for either and kill the baby, and then go back to kill the mother?

    Wouldn't it be better to simply deliver the baby, hand him off to someone else for them to care for the baby, and then go back to caring for the mother? Or even if there's just one person, set the baby aside and go back to caring for the mother?

    What reason do you have for that person to stop what he's doing and kill the baby?

    You have yet to provide one. Why? Because there IS NO REASON TO! It's just your lust for the blood of the innocent. You are so mentally ill that all you can think about is that there must be a way to kill the baby at some point and it be ok.

    It's not enough that the baby might die naturally, no. You ACTUALLY WANT the baby dead, as soon as possible! You are a murderer at heart, Chair. You need to turn to God and tell Him you're sorry for wanting innocent babies to be murdered!

    Your friends here insist that such a case could never happen-
    You have yet to provide one. The onus is on you to support your case. If we're wrong, TELL US WHY!!!!!!!!

    I guess the idea would shake their beliefs too much or something.
    Ignorant.

    You need to first supply an example where it would be ok to kill the baby. Since you cannot (or will not), our beliefs are vindicated.

    The main question is whether an unborn child is a complete human in the sense that an adult is.
    No, the main question is when is it ok to kill a baby. The answer is NEVER, because it's an innocent person made in God's image.

    Anti Abortion folks here (pro-life, sorry)
    "Pro-life" is overrated these days. Anti-abortion is fine.

    insist that it is. Why- they feel no need to explain, even though that is the crux of the matter.
    Saying it doesn't make it so.

    We have answered plenty of times why. You just never listen.

    I am not anti-life,
    If you're pro-murder, you're anti-life.

    You're pro-murder.

    pro choice,
    Pro choice is just a politically correct way of saying "do X and then you can kill the baby," which is murder, which means your pro murder. Which makes you anti-life.

    or pro abortion at all.
    This is an outright lie.

    Here is what you said earlier in this very post:

    And yes, it could be considered OK to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life.
    That is called ABORTION! You are pro abortion. You are FOR KILLING an unborn baby.

    That makes you pro-murder. Which means you are anti-life!

    You are the very definition of someone who is anti-life.

    I think it is criminal, just not quite murder. Why does that get people so uptight?
    It's criminal BECAUSE IT'S MURDER!!! IT'S MURDER BECAUSE IT'S A BABY!!! IT'S NEVER OK TO KILL A BABY!

  3. #93
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,340
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,080 Times in 756 Posts

    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    266493
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    What possible situation would require the doctor ...
    Reading my previous posts will help. A midwife in central Africa doesn't have the same options as a doctor in a hospital. I started this by mentioning that the subject was discussed in ancient Jewish legal texts. I'm not making this up.

  4. #94
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,134
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Reading my previous posts will help.
    I've already read them. They don't answer my question.

    A midwife in central Africa doesn't have the same options as a doctor in a hospital.
    So what? The midwife in africa must stop and kill the baby to continue caring for the mother? Why not just set the baby to the side and let it live while still caring for the mother? Why not, if at all possible, hand the baby off to the next person nearby?

    WHY DOES THE ONE CARING FOR THE MOTHER HAVE TO STOP CARING LONG ENOUGH TO KILL THE BABY!?

    I started this by mentioning that the subject was discussed in ancient Jewish legal texts. I'm not making this up.
    Which Jewish texts? Either provide a source, or link to where you did.

    The Bible clearly states that if in the commission of a crime a baby in the womb is killed (either right away or harmed so that it later dies), the criminal should be put to death.

  5. #95
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,340
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,080 Times in 756 Posts

    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    266493
    Here's the best reference I could find in English on short notice. The text is from about 200 AD.

    Please note that it is very graphic.

    http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/ohalot-7-6-htm/

  6. #96
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,374
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 10,634 Times in 7,750 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    This will seem strange to you- but I don't know what an "NPC" is.
    Non-playing character.

    It could be considered OK to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life. Your friends here insist that such a case could never happen.
    You've been told numerous times what we hold to, but insist on saying it is something else.

    It is never OK to murder one in the name of saving another. Moreover, it is impossible for such a scenario to arise in a pregnancy. In an emergency scenario, the baby might need to be delivered to give both the best chance. There are no guarantees. There is no guarantee that both will die if no action is taken. There is no guarantee that both will live. The only time certainty is involved is when you insist the process of delivery must be halted in order that a pair of scissors can be inserted into the baby's head to kill him.

    I guess the idea would shake their beliefs too much or something.
    Reality. Abortion is never necessary for the life of the mother.

    The main question is whether an unborn child is a complete human in the sense that an adult is. Anti Abortion folks here (pro-life, sorry)insist that it is. Why- they feel no need to explain, even though that is the crux of the matter.
    Nope. Explained in great detail thousands of times. Literally. What we don't get is a rational defense from those who support abortion through all nine months.

    You've drawn some arbitrary line at which you assert personhood begins, but you won't share where your line is or answer questions over why we should adhere to your standards.

    Meanwhile, conception is the biological, rational, fact-based line between potential and personhood.

    This is the position of the anti-abortion — that is: anti-murder — side.

    I am not anti-life, pro choice, or pro abortion at all. I think it is criminal, just not quite murder. Why does that [prompt challenges I don't like]?
    1. You won't explain yourself. You say it's wrong (but not murder), but won't explain how you arrive at such a belief.

    2. You mischaracterize the other side, pretending we do not believe emergency situations might arise.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 24th, 2018)

  8. #97
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    ...whether an unborn child is a complete human in the sense that an adult is....

    which adult?

    the iraq war vet missing limbs?

    is he a "complete human"?

    how about the elderly patient with severe dementia?

    is she a "complete human"?

    how about a newborn?

    is he "a complete human in the sense that an adult is"?

    how about a two year old?


    what exactly do you mean by "a complete human in the sense that an adult is"?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 24th, 2018)

  10. #98
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,134
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Here's the best reference I could find in English on short notice. The text is from about 200 AD.

    Please note that it is very graphic.

    http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/ohalot-7-6-htm/
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Here's the best reference I could find in English on short notice. The text is from about 200 AD.

    Please note that it is very graphic.

    http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/ohalot-7-6-htm/
    I have a source that has authors from 1600BC to around 90AD. It's called the Bible.

    Here's a few excerpts:

    http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the...about-abortion

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    ok doser (October 24th, 2018),Right Divider (October 24th, 2018)

  12. #99
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Here's the best reference I could find in English on short notice. The text is from about 200 AD.

    Please note that it is very graphic.

    http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/ohalot-7-6-htm/
    from your link:


    Explanation

    Section one: While still in the womb, the fetus’s life does not take precedence over the mother’s. Indeed, one might not even go so far as to call it a “life.”




    ummmmmmmm

    no


    sorry



    every mother with a wanted child, who hasn't lied to herself to ameliorate her conscience to allow herself to murder her child, knows that her baby is alive


    and human



    now, if some evil rabbis want to pretend it isn't alive to ameliorate their consciences, fine

    but i don't have to respect their self-delusion

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 24th, 2018),Right Divider (October 24th, 2018),Yorzhik (October 24th, 2018)

  14. #100
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,134
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    [Never mind]

  15. #101
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,948
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 290 Times in 225 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    394735
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    And yes, it could be considered OK to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life.
    I understand where you think you are coming from. Just because we cannot save every baby in an emergency it's killing the baby. But you should, if you are not an NPC, understand our position that failing to save someone is not killing them.

    And still, you haven't answered the question. Why is what you call "abortion" wrong, but not murder? If the baby is not a human, and not alive, what could be wrong when it is killed?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 24th, 2018),Right Divider (October 24th, 2018)

  17. #102
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,340
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,080 Times in 756 Posts

    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    266493
    Apparently some of you have confused the modern comments in my link with the actual ancient text.

    Here is teh Mishnah itself:
    Mishnah Six

    1)If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child].

    2) But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.

    The pertinent points are:
    1. Cases where one had to make a decision between the mother's and the child's life did happen. Despite in insistence of some here that such things could never happen.
    2. In this text, the basis appears to be that birth defines the child as a complete human. Once the child is born, or mostly born, one can't hurt the child in order to save the mother. This differs from the "life starts at conception" idea that is common today.

    Now, why would aborting an unborn child be wrong, if it is not murder? Here are some ideas:
    1. The child is a potential human, and thus has value.
    2. If you claim that the child is 'just part of the mother's body, so she can do what she wants with it' - well, if a woman showed up at a hospital and asked to have her right leg removed- would that be OK?
    3. The unborn child isn't just a potential daughter or son to her mother. That potential child is part of the community's future. We don't often think in those terms in modern western society, but there is something there, if you think about it.

  18. #103
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,374
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 10,634 Times in 7,750 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    1. Cases where one had to make a decision between the mother's and the child's life did happen. Despite in insistence of some here that such things could never happen.
    Nope.

    The decision did not have to be made. The baby could have been delivered without cutting him to pieces first.

    2. In this text, the basis appears to be that birth defines the child as a complete human. Once the child is born, or mostly born, one can't hurt the child in order to save the mother. This differs from the "life starts at conception" idea that is common today.
    So you think location determines personhood.

    1. The child is a potential human.
    Reality says otherwise. Of course, the baby is an actual human being. The only reason to deny his personhood is to justify killing him.


    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 25th, 2018)

  20. #104
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,173
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,588 Times in 1,172 Posts

    Blog Entries
    12
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Well if you dont have the $ you should not have sex. Easy solution to the problem.
    INFANT MOTALITY RATES - BY COUNTRY

    Infant mortality rate compares the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.

    RANK - COUNTRY - DEATHS/PER 1000 LIVE BIRTHS - YEAR
    ************************************************** ****************************


    163 Russia 6.80 2017 est.
    164 Chile 6.60 2017 est.
    165 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 6.50 2017 est.
    166 Puerto Rico 6.40 2017 est.
    167 Qatar 6.20 2017 est.
    168 Cayman Islands 5.90 2017 est.
    169 Gibraltar 5.90 2017 est.
    170 United States 5.80 2017 est.
    171 Serbia 5.80 2017 est.
    172 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.50 2017 est.
    173 Faroe Islands 5.40 2017 est.
    174 New Caledonia 5.20 2017 est.
    175 Latvia 5.20 2017 est.
    176 Slovakia 5.10 2017 est.
    177 Hungary 4.90 2017 est.
    178 French Polynesia 4.60 2017 est.
    179 Greece 4.60 2017 est.
    180 Canada 4.50 2017 est.
    181 Cuba 4.40 2017 est.
    182 Poland 4.40 2017 est.
    183 New Zealand 4.40 2017 est.
    184 Australia 4.30 2017 est.
    185 United Kingdom 4.30 2017 est.
    186 Wallis and Futuna 4.30 2017 est.
    187 Taiwan 4.30 2017 est.
    188 San Marino 4.30 2017 est.
    189 Portugal 4.30 2017 est.
    190 Liechtenstein 4.20 2017 est.
    191 Denmark 4.00 2017 est.
    192 European Union 4.00 2016 est.
    193 Isle of Man 4.00 2017 est.
    194 Slovenia 3.90 2017 est.
    195 Jersey 3.80 2017 est.
    196 Estonia 3.80 2017 est.
    197 Lithuania 3.80 2017 est.
    198 Ireland 3.60 2017 est.
    199 Andorra 3.60 2017 est.
    200 Belarus 3.60 2017 est.
    201 Netherlands 3.60 2017 est.
    202 Switzerland 3.60 2017 est.
    203 Malta 3.50 2017 est.
    204 Israel 3.40 2017 est.
    205 Germany 3.40 2017 est.
    206 Guernsey 3.40 2017 est.
    207 Belgium 3.40 2017 est.
    208 Austria 3.40 2017 est.
    209 Luxembourg 3.40 2017 est.
    210 Italy 3.30 2017 est.
    211 Anguilla 3.30 2017 est.
    212 Spain 3.30 2017 est.
    213 France 3.20 2017 est.
    214 Macau 3.10 2017 est.
    215 Korea, South 3.00 2017 est.
    216 Hong Kong 2.70 2017 est.
    217 Czechia 2.60 2017 est.
    218 Sweden 2.60 2017 est.
    219 Bermuda 2.50 2017 est.
    220 Finland 2.50 2017 est.
    221 Norway 2.50 2017 est.
    222 Singapore 2.40 2017 est.
    223 Iceland 2.10 2017 est.
    224 Japan 2.00 2017 est.
    225 Monaco 1.80 2017 est.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html
    ************************************************** *******************************

    "Abstinence" has never been a successful strategy throughout recorded history, so why would conservatives expect it to become a winning strategy in the 21stC!

    Notice that while conservatives are shedding large quantities of "crocodile tears" over the fate of the foetus, they remain eerily silent when it comes to making those financial investments, as a nation, to promote the health of America's newborns!

    The fact that the United States ranks only 170th of 225 nations with respect to infant mortality speaks volumes as to America'a priorities/lack of priorities with respect to its newborns!
    Last edited by jgarden; October 25th, 2018 at 09:48 PM.

  21. #105
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,814
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post

    "Abstinence" has never been a successful strategy throughout recorded history...


    In fact, there is only a single case in recorded history of abstinence failing to prevent pregnancy


    Last edited by ok doser; October 25th, 2018 at 11:56 PM.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us