User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: One-on-One: Abortion - red77 & Turbo

  1. #16
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1015
    If abortion were generally illegal (as you say it should be), where would a rape victim get Plan B?

    Should Plan B be available over-the-counter? By a doctor's prescription? Not at all?

  2. #17
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1015
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    A woman’s abusive ex-boyfriend gets drunk, shows up at her house, and rapes her while their 3-year-old son sleeps in the next room. Afterwards, she decides that she regrets having brought this slimeball’s child into the world, and just the sight of their son (who is the spitting image of his father) disgusts her. So in her anguish she makes an “impulse decision” to kill him. Would you not condemn her for that either?
    Yes, this would be questionable at the very least, by three years old the mother would have for the most part already bonded maternally with the child and hopefully loved him already,
    So, sometimes it’s okay to murder someone so long as you are haven’t “bonded with” or “loved” the victim? Is that what you are asserting?

    If a rape victim in her distressed state, decides that killing her attacker’s 3-year-old daughter (whom she had never met) would ease her suffering, would you not condemn her for that either?

    I anticipate that you’ll argue that would be wrong because the rapist’s daughter has loving relationships with other people (grandparents, neighbors, etc.) In that case:

    If a rape victim, in her distressed state, takes out her aggression by murdering a homeless man with no family nor a friend in the world, would you not condemn her for that either?


    you and i may think that life starts at conception doesn't mean everybody else does,
    I don’t “think” that life starts at fertilization, I know it. It is a fact, no matter how many people refuse to recognize it.

    Would it be “realistic” to tolerate the slaughter of Jews or the enslavement of blacks because not everyone agrees that Jews and blacks are fully human?

    No, it's not my experience, it's my sisters, and I stand by my statement of not condemning a person who has done such, what is it that constitutes suffering in your book? Not beiong allowed to develop to the point of being aware? There is certainly no suffering involved in the taking of the Plan B drug,
    Suffering is not limited to the experience of physical pain, and murder is wrong whether or not the victim endures physical pain as he or she is being killed.

    Do babies killed by Plan B exist beyond their death. (Do they have an afterlife?)

    Can people experience any suffering in the afterlife?

    Do murder victims in heaven know that they were murdered?

    If yes, what is generally the attitude of murder victims toward their unrepentant murderers?

    (This is and open Book test. )


    I am not making excuses for 'child killing'....
    Yes, you are. Your excuses (so far) include:

    • The killer was not thinking clearly, experiencing trauma, shock and/or fear.
    • The killer had not bonded or loved her victim.
    • Not everyone in the world affirms the personhood of the victim.
    • There is some risk to the killer’s life several months from now if she does not kill her baby.
    • There is some risk to the mother’s health if she does not kill her baby.
    • The baby will not experience physical pain as he or she is being killed.

    (And of course, you also excuse being an accomplice (i.e. abortionist, parent, etc.) in any of these cases.)


    and just how sure are you that a baby can be 'viably removed' in all of these cases?
    Not at all sure. But I am sure that some can. And just because a patient may die, that doesn’t justify killing that patient.

    And just what if the child can't carry the baby till it's 'viable' and suffers greatly as a result as well as the loss of the baby?
    That beats becoming a murderer and wondering if her child might have lived.

    It's not just a 'chance' of risk, it IS a risk for one so young to be forced to endure pregnancy.....
    The very word “risk” implies chance, so I suppose it is redundant of me to say “chance of risk.” But you are advocating killing the unborn child before any complications arise, as though being 11 years old is in and of itself a risk even at the early stages of pregnancy. Yet I have shown you many documented cases in which pregnant 11-year-olds managed to bear healthy children without harm to themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Two patients. Triage. Try to save both. Remember that? You claimed to agree with it.
    I do when there is no danger initially with the pregnancy, if complications occur through a normal pregnancy then all should be done to protect both the mother and the child
    At what point exactly is the unborn child suddenly worth protecting?

    Earlier you said that from conception a child is fully human and has equal rights, but the above statement contradicts that one.
    It doesn't take a genius to know that 11 years old is a dangerous age to be risking pregnancy, the body is not developed enough to be able to safely cope, every 11 year old who undertakes pregnancy is at risk....
    Isn’t there some risk associated with every pregnancy? (And every abortion, for that matter?)

    And you say 'countless'? I would hope that the proportion of 11 year olds falling pregnant is lower than what you seem to surmise.
    I’m not talking just about the children of 11-year-olds, but about every child whose slaughter you condone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Here is a list of at least 18 people you are asserting could have rightly been slaughtered before they were born. You should repent.
    And how many others have lost their babies, suffered physical damage etc? Stats can work both ways....
    Those weren’t stats, they’re actual people who you say could have rightly been killed before they were born.

    Which is worse: being injured or becoming a murderer?

    It is NOT wrong to assume that a woman of a certain age who undertakes a pregnancy is taking a risk!
    What is that “certain age?”

    Fill in the blanks:

    It should be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child if she is younger that ____ or older than ____.

    It is true, you should surely be aware that the risks of both underage and elderly pregnancy arre hardly just possibilities, the riske are there from the START.....
    What risks are there at the start?

    Whatever the risk, it is not as great as the risk to the baby during an abortion. The risk of death is roughly 100%. (And in those extremely rare cases when the baby has survived an abortion, the abortionist considers it a “failure.”)
    Your definition of 'condoning' is not supporting the prosecution of rape victims who undertake such, that is not mine.....
    As I showed, mine is the same as what’s printed in dictionaries. What’s yours?

    Regarding your condoning of a starving woman eating her starving child, you wrote:
    Well first off I never said anything about advocating killing the child,
    Yes, you did.

    My question was:
    Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    This was a modification of the question you asked me:
    hypothetically speaking - if a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to have an actual abortion would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    Yes, I should have written “kill and eat” for clarity’s sake. But of course I was asking about killing one’s two-year-old. If the child is already dead, then it is not analogous to abortion and the question would be irrelevant.

    But you did not misunderstand me. You knew I was asking about killing a child in order to eat. Here you wrote:
    Then I said if the only means of survival was for the mother to do this then she would be justified – on the proviso being that both the mother and child are doomed.
    A child who is “doomed” is not already dead, but is “marked for certain death.” (That is, unless this is another case where your definition of a word is different than what’s in dictionaries.)
    I wouldn’t [advocate killing the child].
    Well, I’m glad you’ve come to your senses on this one.

    So, if you recognize that it is never right to deliberately kill one’s born child, why don’t you believe the same about one’s unborn child, which you have claimed to believe has equal value and rights as anyone who has already born?

    although here is a question back which I've asked other people but have yet to get an answer for, supposing in this hypothetical situation the woman has other children who are dependant on her for their survival, would she be justified in eating the remains then if it gave her a chance to be there for her other children....?
    I don’t see how that would really help the situation, but I don’t see that as something that should be criminal, either.

    But what is done with the remains of someone who died of natural causes has nothing to do with abortion.

    Just HOW sure are you that even in our socieities that 'viable' removals are 100% option?
    They aren’t, and I never suggested otherwise. Sometimes babies die. But that doesn’t justify deliberately killing them.

    so I will ask you again - supposing a woman's life is in danger if she proceeds with a highly risky pregnancy and the odds are that she will die as a result, there is only abortion that could save her, should she at least have the choice?
    No. Your question is bogus. There is never a need to cut up or burn or tear apart or stab or lethally inject a baby before removal.

    Why can’t you recognize this, yet you are (now) able to recognize that a woman is never justified in killing her toddler in order to eat?

  3. #18
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1015
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Which is more dangerous:

    Being a pregnant eleven-year-old who will not kill her baby,

    or

    Being an unborn baby who's about to be aborted?
    They're both dangerous,
    This is obfuscation. I asked which is more dangerous.

  4. #19
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1015
    red77, I hadn't brought this up yet because it is irrelevant to whether abortion is right or wrong...

    ...But have you considered that 11-year-olds don't get to choose for themselves whether they have surgery?

    And have you considered that when an 11-year-old is raped, the rapist is likely to be a close family member such as an uncle or a step father?

    And have you considered that if a step-father impregnates his 11-year-old, it is him who is likely to "choose" that she should have an abortion, and it is he who is likely to take her to the abortion clinic, to conceal his crime?

    And have you considered that when an 11-year-old is raped, she is not likely to report it?

    And did you know that abortion clinic personnel are notorious for violating and "working around" mandatory reporting laws?

    Have you considered that your so-called compassion for young rape victims often allows them to be re-victimized?

  5. #20
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    red77, I hadn't brought this up yet because it is irrelevant to whether abortion is right or wrong...
    Turbo, i will answer your main post in a little while when I have some more time to address it, I would like to make one thing very clear though, I would have not advocated a mother killing her son to eat in the scenario you gave, I should really have realised within the context of the debate that you meant to kill and eat but in all truth I didn't pick up on that, so I hope you accept that there is no turn about from me on that issue,

    ...But have you considered that 11-year-olds don't get to choose for themselves whether they have surgery?
    They should at least have a say in the matter even if they arent old enough to 'choose' to,

    And have you considered that when an 11-year-old is raped, the rapist is likely to be a close family member such as an uncle or a step father?
    In several cases I suspect that this may unfortunately be true, certainly not in all cases though and whoever the perpetrator is shouldn't influence whether the child should be forced to undertake pregnancy

    And have you considered that if a step-father impregnates his 11-year-old, it is him who is likely to "choose" that she should have an abortion, and it is he who is likely to take her to the abortion clinic, to conceal his crime?
    A horrific scenario and hopefully rare, I fail to see what this has to do with forcing an 11 year old girl to conceive though

    And have you considered that when an 11-year-old is raped, she is not likely to report it?
    Even the ones who don't report it are not likely to not tell someone in confidence, I doubt that it's something that an 11 year old would be able to keep secret from friends and family for very long....

    And did you know that abortion clinic personnel are notorious for violating and "working around" mandatory reporting laws?
    Do you have evidence for this?

    Have you considered that your so-called compassion for young rape victims often allows them to be re-victimized?
    How is not forcing an 11 year old into a pregnancy 're victimizing' her?

  6. #21
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    So, sometimes it’s okay to murder someone so long as you are haven’t “bonded with” or “loved” the victim? Is that what you are asserting?

    If a rape victim in her distressed state, decides that killing her attacker’s 3-year-old daughter (whom she had never met) would ease her suffering, would you not condemn her for that either?

    I anticipate that you’ll argue that would be wrong because the rapist’s daughter has loving relationships with other people (grandparents, neighbors, etc.) In that case:

    If a rape victim, in her distressed state, takes out her aggression by murdering a homeless man with no family nor a friend in the world, would you not condemn her for that either?
    Turbo, I find it telling that you think that a rape victim would have 'aggression', isn't it normally trauma and fear?! Do you honestly think that a rape victim would want to have any kind of physical violent contact with anyone after such an event? Please be realistic on this, I am not asking you to condone the plan B drug but just to consider why a woman may take such and to not condemn her as some kind of criminal because of whats just happened to her, you cannot judge someone who has been raped as if they are totally ok, please do not even try, you already know by now that I have a sister who suffered such and I saw the side effects where even going to the corner shop was a trial.....I wish you would see things in context on this and value the already living to the same extent as a fertilised egg....


    I don’t “think” that life starts at fertilization, I know it. It is a fact, no matter how many people refuse to recognize it.

    Would it be “realistic” to tolerate the slaughter of Jews or the enslavement of blacks because not everyone agrees that Jews and blacks are fully human?
    Of course not, although in human history such atrocities have occurred several times because of mindless bigotry unfortunately....and still occur!

    Suffering is not limited to the experience of physical pain, and murder is wrong whether or not the victim endures physical pain as he or she is being killed.

    Do babies killed by Plan B exist beyond their death. (Do they have an afterlife?)

    Can people experience any suffering in the afterlife?

    Do murder victims in heaven know that they were murdered?

    If yes, what is generally the attitude of murder victims toward their unrepentant murderers?

    (This is and open Book test. )
    Well wow, you're opening up a whole can of theological worms with this one, do YOU know what happens to babies when they die before they're born? Exactly? Please do share if you do because I haven't exactly come over too many verses that give much indication, obviously on a moral level i believe they will not suffer pointlessly in the afterlife but then again i think the same for any adults and children over a certain age as well - for the same moral reasons.....

    Yes, I expect once people have died on the physical plane they will experience suffering to certain degrees - but not without end and with purpose, so....?

    Your analogy about murder victims in heaven is a ubjective one and as such I can only give a subjective answer, if the victims are in heaven then they're beyond such things as rage, vengeance and anger IMO....


    Yes, you are. Your excuses (so far) include:

    • The killer was not thinking clearly, experiencing trauma, shock and/or fear.
    • The killer had not bonded or loved her victim.
    • Not everyone in the world affirms the personhood of the victim.
    • There is some risk to the killer’s life several months from now if she does not kill her baby.
    • There is some risk to the mother’s health if she does not kill her baby.
    • The baby will not experience physical pain as he or she is being killed.

    (And of course, you also excuse being an accomplice (i.e. abortionist, parent, etc.) in any of these cases.)
    Wrong, your idea of 'condoning' means not condemning the person in such situations or accepting that any danger to the mother is acceptable for a chance of a life being born no matter what....


    Not at all sure. But I am sure that some can. And just because a patient may die, that doesn’t justify killing that patient.
    Then what of any cases where it is actually mother or child?

    That beats becoming a murderer and wondering if her child might have lived.
    She is an 11 year old GIRL, do i really have to copy and paste the dangers that Glenda had already submitted in a related thread of just what they entail?

    The very word “risk” implies chance, so I suppose it is redundant of me to say “chance of risk.” But you are advocating killing the unborn child before any complications arise, as though being 11 years old is in and of itself a risk even at the early stages of pregnancy. Yet I have shown you many documented cases in which pregnant 11-year-olds managed to bear healthy children without harm to themselves.
    At what point exactly is the unborn child suddenly worth protecting?
    And just how many documented cases have you shown where the child has lost the baby and in some cases her life too? none - should I go and post some tragic cases which would counteract yours - would you be so cavalier about the pregnant CHILD then?

    Earlier you said that from conception a child is fully human and has equal rights, but the above statement contradicts that one.
    Isn’t there some risk associated with every pregnancy? (And every abortion, for that matter?)
    I've already addressed this Turbo, in these situations BOTH of us have to side with either the unborn or the born, as long as the unborn is of no threat to the mother then it has equal rights, I wish you could be honest enough to admit that when it comes to the crunch you believe that the unborn have priority rights over the born, I don't have a problem with such and wish you would stop trying to deny this....

    I’m not talking just about the children of 11-year-olds, but about every child whose slaughter you condone.
    Those weren’t stats, they’re actual people who you say could have rightly been killed before they were born.
    Wrong, the pivotal point you seem to be missing is 'choice' in these situations, that doesnt make me "pro choice" overall but rather in these cases we're discussing, and in these specific cases then as long as the mother in question was not FORCED but did so willingly even under risk then I have little problem

    Which is worse: being injured or becoming a murderer?

    What is that “certain age?”

    Fill in the blanks:

    It should be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child if she is younger that ____ or older than ____.
    In younger women the same as the consentual age for sex in the UK - 16, even then I know that several medical opinions on the subject think that it's still too young to safely conceive and it's not advisable....in older women it's normally advisable to become a mother before the menopause for the safest results for both mother and child..

    What risks are there at the start?
    There are MAJOR risks at the start - either through premature pregnancy or later on. You know this as well as I do......

    Whatever the risk, it is not as great as the risk to the baby during an abortion. The risk of death is roughly 100%. (And in those extremely rare cases when the baby has survived an abortion, the abortionist considers it a “failure.”)
    As I showed, mine is the same as what’s printed in dictionaries. What’s yours?
    This again already is where we can't claim "equal" rights for the unborn, we are either on one side or another, I am 'equal rights' as long as the mother is not affected by a pregnancy where the unborn could seriously harm or kill her, that is where the equal rights go out of the window, and THAT is not withstanding every medical effort for both mother and baby

    Yes, and this is why I've already told you that we cannot be completely 'equal rights' on this issue, you fight this because you seem to side on the unborn no matter what... I am honest enough to admit that when the mother's life is in danger from a pregnancy then she should have the CHOICE in what happens next, you do not allow that correct?

    Regarding your condoning of a starving woman eating her starving child, you wrote:
    Yes, you did.

    My question was:
    Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    This was a modification of the question you asked me:
    hypothetically speaking - if a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to have an actual abortion would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    Yes, I should have written “kill and eat” for clarity’s sake. But of course I was asking about killing one’s two-year-old. If the child is already dead, then it is not analogous to abortion and the question would be irrelevant.

    But you did not misunderstand me. You knew I was asking about killing a child in order to eat. Here you wrote:
    Then I said if the only means of survival was for the mother to do this then she would be justified – on the proviso being that both the mother and child are doomed.
    A child who is “doomed” is not already dead, but is “marked for certain death.” (That is, unless this is another case where your definition of a word is different than what’s in dictionaries.)
    Well, I’m glad you’ve come to your senses on this one.

    So, if you recognize that it is never right to deliberately kill one’s born child, why don’t you believe the same about one’s unborn child, which you have claimed to believe has equal value and rights as anyone who has already born?

    I don’t see how that would really help the situation, but I don’t see that as something that should be criminal, either.

    But what is done with the remains of someone who died of natural causes has nothing to do with abortion.

    They aren’t, and I never suggested otherwise. Sometimes babies die. But that doesn’t justify deliberately killing them.

    No. Your question is bogus. There is never a need to cut up or burn or tear apart or stab or lethally inject a baby before removal.

    Why can’t you recognize this, yet you are (now) able to recognize that a woman is never justified in killing her toddler in order to eat?
    [/QUOTE]

    I have answered this already as you may have already noticed in my previous post, in no way would I condone the mother killing her child to survive but I would not condemn her for eating to live like some posters here seem to think is so disgusting for her to survive going by spin off threads from this one, hence the hypothetical going a little further where usually it's there to illustrate a point, and several people have told me that for a mother to eat her own child under any circumstances is forbidden, funnily enough when the hypothetical involves the mother having other children who may be dependant on the mother's survival there's a reticence to answer What say you?

  7. #22
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1015
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    And did you know that abortion clinic personnel are notorious for violating and "working around" mandatory reporting laws?
    Do you have evidence for this?
    Yes.

    Child Predators

    By Mark Crutcher

    EXPOSING THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD,
    THE NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION AND MEN WHO
    SEXUALLY ABUSE UNDERAGE GIRLS


    With the information we now have, it is simply undeniable that Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation have made a conscious decision to conceal the sexual exploitation of children and protect the men who commit these crimes.

    We have uncovered an overwhelming body of statistical evidence showing that the rate at which these two organizations fail to comply with mandatory reporting laws is in excess of 90 percent. This data was obtained from government sources, medical journals, independent researchers and the abortion industry itself.

    Listen to these clips.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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