Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Stop At Birth?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two people have already responded to you, and I completely agree with what they said. But allow me to respond directly.

    Originally posted by Amyrich View Post
    So, if a fetus
    Using dehumanizing terms to refer to a baby is a very liberal thing to do.

    becomes a danger to the mother,
    When is a baby ever a threat?

    she should risk her life to carry it to term?
    What sane mother wouldn't want to see her child live to be able to grow up?

    Are you serious?
    Are you?

    Also, at a larger scale, if you neither condone contraceptives
    I think contraceptives should be used only by married couples (man + woman) if they decide they want to have fun in the bedroom, but don't want children.

    If people are using contraceptives outside of marriage, then it's an indication that society has some serious issues.

    nor legalized abortions
    Abortion may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

    for unwanted children,
    If a mother doesn't want her child, then why not give him or her up for adoption?

    Don't punish the child just because they're inconvenient. How cruel are you?

    how do you ever implement population control?
    We don't.

    God said to man, "be fruitful and multiply."

    Higher population density = better standard of living

    Lower population density = poorer standard of living

    We have grown to 7 billion on this planet
    Just under 7.7 billion currently.

    AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER SPECIES!!
    God said to man, "have dominion over the earth."

    And we've gotten better at preserving nature in the last 500 years, in case you haven't noticed.

    Numerous species have gone extinct just in the last century as a direct result of human overbreeding.
    In other words, you want to raise the man-given rights of nature over the God-given rights of man?

    And right-wingers just seem to want to preach abstinence and wash their hands off addressing the actual problem.
    Oh?

    The problems of society are caused by people NOT being abstinent until marriage. They're caused by the degradation and abolition of laws that have been in place for the past 3500 years.

    We've effectively legalized adultery, murder, theft, and perjury.

    And the society we see today is the result.

    Help the beings that are already born!
    Rather, promote human rights, denigrate animal (and plant) rights.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
      The problems of society are caused by people NOT being abstinent until marriage. They're caused by the degradation and abolition of laws that have been in place for the past 3500 years.

      We've effectively legalized adultery, murder, theft, and perjury.
      thanks for nothing, "progressives"

      this is what you get when you elevate man's law over God's law

      Comment


      • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
        Fully treatable and particularly aggressive? That's pretty odd, but one thing I do know, from what I've been reading, is that babies can survive just fine during a mother's chemo and radiation. I'm quite sure it is very rare that a baby cannot be brought to the age of viability before the mother's life is in danger.

        Unless, of course, a case like you already mentioned....an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube. That is obviously a case of the life of the mother being endangered and no hope for the baby, either.
        There are cases where the mother's immune system actively attacks the child. Viability of the child is a major issue. Cases where the child's organs develop outside the body or never develop at all.
        "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
          There are cases where the mother's immune system actively attacks the child. Viability of the child is a major issue. Cases where the child's organs develop outside the body or never develop at all.
          None of which pose a significant added risk to the mother's life. Are you just saying things for the sake of it now?
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            None of which pose a significant added risk to the mother's life. Are you just saying things for the sake of it now?
            The complications of a mother's immune system attacking the child can have significant risk to the mother. the rest was addressing the viability of the child which is one of the medical reasons for an abortion.
            "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
              The complications of a mother's immune system attacking the child can have significant risk to the mother. the rest was addressing the viability of the child which is one of the medical reasons for an abortion.
              Nope. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                I think the important thing is that abortion is seen as the answer to ectopic pregnancies when medical investigation and advance might save these mothers and kids.

                However, pro-aborts only have an eye for justifying childkilling.
                Well, you make a good point with medical advancement. They're growing babies in test tubes up to a certain time, and then with goats or something they continue in some kind of plastic bag.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post


                  I think contraceptives should be used only by married couples (man + woman) if they decide they want to have fun in the bedroom, but don't want children.

                  If people are using contraceptives outside of marriage, then it's an indication that society has some serious issues.
                  In fact, society DOES have some serious issues. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That should just tell you that one cannot legislate righteousness.

                  As far as contraception goes, it's much better than abortion, so I'm not seeing your point here.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Nope. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.
                    You are absolutely correct, to the best of my knowledge there is no need to stop delivering a baby in order to kill him.
                    "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                      Well, you make a good point with medical advancement. They're growing babies in test tubes up to a certain time, and then with goats or something they continue in some kind of plastic bag.
                      The development of a safe artificial womb would indeed solve a lot of problems.
                      "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                        You are absolutely correct, to the best of my knowledge there is no need to stop delivering a baby in order to kill him.
                        There now...we have something on which we can agree.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                          The development of a safe artificial womb would indeed solve a lot of problems.
                          Maybe.

                          It might just lead to growing babies to sell to the highest bidder....for sex slaves, etc.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                            Maybe.

                            It might just lead to growing babies to sell to the highest bidder....for sex slaves, etc.
                            Or banning sex altogether.
                            "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                              Maybe.

                              It might just lead to growing babies to sell to the highest bidder....for sex slaves, etc.
                              i would think there'd be a larger market for donor organs

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                                In fact, society DOES have some serious issues. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That should just tell you that one cannot legislate righteousness.
                                It's one thing to try to regulate people's thoughts.

                                It's quite another to prohibit actions that harm other people.

                                As far as contraception goes, it's much better than abortion, so I'm not seeing your point here.
                                Sure. But abstinence until marriage (between a man and a woman only) is even better than an unmarried man and woman having sex and using contraceptives, because contraceptives only work most of the time to prevent pregnancy, whereas abstinence is guaranteed (barring rape) to prevent pregnancy.

                                If people don't face consequences for their actions, then they'll continue doing those things that harm them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X