Bard_the_Bowman
New member
What you said to the question of when is it "necessary" for a woman to have an abortion is found in post #20:
So your stated position is that an abortion is "necessary" when a woman decides "she would like to" have one.
Abortion, the Pro-Life Stance, and God's Law. Abortion is Never Okay.
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
What you said to the question of when is it "necessary" for a woman to have an abortion is found in post #20:
So your stated position is that an abortion is "necessary" when a woman decides "she would like to" have one.
So that makes it Ok for your god to tell other people not to kill. Or to tell them to kill, whichever applies at the time.
Stuart
God commands "thou shall not murder" because murder is inherently wrong, it's the shedding of innocent blood. God does not murder, nor does He command people to murder.
Again, I ask, were the people killed innocent? Or were they God's enemies?
Bard_the_Bowman
New member
Yup. And that was over 50 years ago. With the advances in modern medicine, it is probably even more rare today.
So you are still many, many light years away from any kind of defense of your position that abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman feels like she wants to have one.
It is simply not necessary to directly kill an innocent human baby.
So when your god ordered the killings that resulted in the death of Amalekite foetuses, those 'unborn children' were enemies of your god.
Stuart
I recommend you read the Wikipedia page on ectopic pregnancy, then get back to us on exactly what is wrong with the information contained in it.
Stuart
Bard_the_Bowman
New member
Innocence is a characteristic of some people. It is one thing that can distinguish them from non-innocent people such as rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. That could lead to a discussion about how to punish people who commit such crimes but I don't think we need to do that now.
An innocent person doesn't deserve to be punished in any way is the point. Unborn children are innocent.
But why? What is different about the situation? If a mom is struggling with raising a 1 year old, has mental illness and might commit suicide...why do you say she can't kill the child but she could if the child was still in her womb?
What's the difference?
Bard_the_Bowman
New member
Thanks for the clarification Judge. And I agree. I just used both terms because I know that depending on the translation, both terms can be found.
A good point to clarify, though.
Peace.
No. God is not only just, He is merciful.
The innocent children who died were spared from the influence of those who would prevent them from ever knowing their Creator, and given an opportunity to choose to accept or reject Him outside of His enemies' influence. If he had not, then they most likely would have been taught to hate Him, or worse, never even learn about Him.
Use your "Holy Wikipedia" :mock: to find out what autotransfusion is. You seem to rely on it, why not now?
Bard_the_Bowman
New member
In your judgment...
And those who steal food because they are made completely destitute by events beyond their control, they are not innocent.
Not convinced, sorry. Innocence is such a hypocritical claim by a christian. What happened to the doctrine of original sin? You don't believe in that, I guess. Those Amalekite foetuses that were ordered killed by your god, they weren't innocent, presumably. All the foetuses whose deaths resulted from your god flooding the whole planet, not innocent?
Medical consent is the difference. The 1 year old is not part of the mother's right to decide what happens to her body, but the foetus is. So she has the right to decide, which has to go higher that some other idiot deciding that the foetus has the right to decide.
Stuart
Your attempt at asserting rights for the foetus infringe on the woman's right to medical consent. Sorry, but the foetus isn't capable of deciding anything, and you don't know that if it was it might choose to be terminated rather than kill its potential mother, or live the kind of life it will get under the woman's present circumstances.
Once you get past the woman's right to medical consent, you must agree that the claim of a foetus's rights are absurd, no matter how you state them.
The principle is simple: inside the woman's body, entirely the woman's decision. It can't be any other way, or else you can't be allowed to make decisions about your body, either. Your future heart surgery, or whatever, should be open to debate on ToL, with some people quite happy to ignore your wishes for your own body.
Why, do you want to gloat?
Stuart
I know exactly what autotransfusion is. You haven't explained how it is relevant.
Stuart
Think ectopic pregnancy. You'll figure it out. Then again, maybe you won't...
So, killing foetuses is ok in those circumstances then.
I acknowledge your fantastically hypocritical exegetical gymnastics routine.
Stuart
You're called on this one, JudgeRightly. Put up or shut up, as science always demands, in its usual blunt manner.
The exact relationship between autotransfusion and ectopic pregnancy is...?
Stuart
Here's another dream headline for the 'pro-lifers':
14-year-old rape victim dies after being forced to give birth in Paraguay
Stuart
14-year-old rape victim dies after being forced to give birth in Paraguay
Stuart