Abortion and The Holocaust....Differences?

[Tambora]

First, nature put the fetus where it now exists...

Well, no. Now you are using way too broad of a term.
Rocks, plants, dogs, etc. are nature.
None of them put a child in the woman's womb. You are going to have to narrow that term "nature" a WHOLE LOT before you get to what put the child in the womb.

it still may be considered a trespass upon her body.... using an alternate connotation of the word.

Come on, Quip!

The only possible way you could use any form of "trespass" would be in the case of rape.
But even then, it was not the child that trespassed, but the male sperm from the father.

Speaking of such, if you two still want to deflect via minced terms I could gladly find another.

definately need to do better than "trespass" and "nature".

Second, you two have never heard of the concept of a visitor "overstaying their welcome"?

I have.
Is it OK to solve the problem of "a visitor overstaying their welcome" by murdering them?

 

[quip]

Well, no. Now you are using way too broad of a term.
Rocks, plants, dogs, etc. are nature.
None of them put a child in the woman's womb. You are going to have to narrow that term "nature" a WHOLE LOT before you get to what put the child in the womb.

Why?

Sex is not a natural human desire/function?

More than likely, your entire argument rest upon the moral censure of women for daring to engage in (natural) sexual intercourse while subsequently getting pregnant.

It's a valid if only useless, morally self-satisfying, retroactive chastisement .....whereas by this point in the discussion amounts to no more than finger-waving.

Come on, Quip!

The only possible way you could use any form of "trespass" would be in the case of rape.
But even then, it was not the child that trespassed, but the male sperm from the father.


definately need to do better than "trespass" and "nature".

What's the point of this quibbling? It's more than likely you willfully ignoring/dodging the principle at stake: Her pregnancy is unwanted; by way of her pregnancy she has an unwanted intrusion upon her body.

I have.
Is it OK to solve the problem of "a visitor overstaying their welcome" by murdering them?

Only if their very lives are mortally contingent upon continued residency/squatting.

 

[Tambora]

Why?

Sex is not a natural human desire/function?

While not wanting to get into all the sexual acts that are not natural, intercourse between a married man and woman would be the natural course,

More than likely, your entire argument rest upon the moral censure of women for daring to engage in (natural) sexual intercourse while subsequently getting pregnant.

In the moral world, any unmarried woman engaging in sexual intercourse = SLUT.
That's from God (the authority of my moral standard).
Who do you get your moral standard from?

What's the point of this quibbling?

To show how utterly weak your defense of murdering babies is.

It's more than likely you willfully ignoring/dodging the principle at stake:

Which is that there is a living child in a woman's womb. A living and growing child that has committed no offense whatsoever, but was the natural result of intercourse that (except in the case of rape) was agreed upon by the woman.

Her pregnancy is unwanted;

"Got a living child that is unwanted? Just murder it."

Can't get much lower than that.

by way of her pregnancy she has an unwanted intrusion upon her body.

Let's not skip over that the woman knowingly accepted engaging in sexual intercourse that is the number one cause of babies.
The baby did nothing to cause it.

So let's let the lady off scott free (who knew the consequences of her actions, but readily accepted that risk, and went full steam ahead), and let's give the kid the death sentence (who neither caused it or knew the consequence).

Just how deranged does one need to get in order to think that is justice?

Only if their very lives are mortally contingent upon continued residency/squatting.

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman is practically an invitation for a baby, as it is the number cause of babies.
"Uninvited guest" is way off.
That baby is there because of her actions, not the actions of the baby.

 

[Nick M]

True Nick but still pretty harsh to say isn't it?

Let's go back to this. If it is true, why would you not say it? Would you dilute truth with lies to make it more palatable?

 

[quip]

While not wanting to get into all the sexual acts that are not natural, intercourse between a married man and woman would be the natural course,

Religious hubris. Nature cares nary one wit over your idealistic notions of matrimony.

In the moral world, any unmarried woman engaging in sexual intercourse = SLUT.
That's from God (the authority of my moral standard).
Who do you get your moral standard from?

We all don't live within your morally exclusive bubble. This is primarily the cause of your close-minded bigotry....religious hubris once again.

To show how utterly weak your defense of murdering babies is.

Odd thing is you can only counter the issue of abortion via moralizing, finger-waving and overwrought comments such as above. Which is fine ....as long as you understand the limits of such subjective opinions. It seems you don't though.

Which is that there is a living child in a woman's womb. A living and growing child that has committed no offense whatsoever, but was the natural result of intercourse that (except in the case of rape) was agreed upon by the woman.

You're implying that abortion, by way of rape, is more acceptable than an elective one.
Your motives seems quite clear...you simply want to punish immoral women (whores) that happened to get pregnant out of wedlock. Good luck with that.

"Got a living child that is unwanted? Just murder it."

Can't get much lower than that.

Or ignorant. simply more self-serving hyperbole.

Let's not skip over that the woman knowingly accepted engaging in sexual intercourse that is the number one cause of babies.
The baby did nothing to cause it.

So let's let the lady off scott free (who knew the consequences of her actions, but readily accepted that risk, and went full steam ahead), and let's give the kid the death sentence (who neither caused it or knew the consequence).

Just how deranged does one need to get in order to think that is justice?

What's justice have to do with it? What inherent right-to-life may exist for an entity that has zero capacity to self-sustain its own existence?

Moreover, this woman - of her own freewill - chose to have sex, unwittingly became pregnant and, via this identical freewill, retains the liberty to seek a remedy for herself.

Seems undoubtedly the ideal of justness to me....if you insist.

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman is practically an invitation for a baby, as it is the number cause of babies.
"Uninvited guest" is way off.
That baby is there because of her actions, not the actions of the baby.

...and the baby be gone by similar actions. You've offered nothing - beyond soap-box, moral prescription - as to why this viable choice must be otherwise.

Otherwise, more of the same hubris...supra.

 

[King cobra]

Why compare abortion to the Holocaust? That's kind of small potatoes, isn't it?

Tell that to Anne Frank.
Nevermind, she was murdered….similarly to the victims of abortion.

We should use the metaphor of the blood of those "others" flows so freely that it reaches the level of the horse's bridle for 200 miles!

That's from John of Patmos metaphorical bloodbath in Revelation. It beats anything the Nazis did hands down.

Now wouldn't you agree that when it comes to divine "ethnic cleansing" the revenge and murder fantasies go way beyond the worst ideas in Mr. Hitler's frontal lobe?

So you liken God’s judgement to ethnic cleansing, revenge and murder?
Stripe was way too generous in his description of you.

 

[King cobra]

It's more than likely you willfully ignoring/dodging the principle at stake: Her pregnancy is unwanted; by way of her pregnancy she has an unwanted intrusion upon her body.

The Jews were unwanted by the Nazis; by way of their presence, the Nazis had an unwanted intrusion upon their territory. Sounds pretty similar to abortion!

You're definitely willfully ignoring/dodging the principle at stake.
Nothing new.
Oh, and still no differences between abortion and The Holocaust? :yawn:

 

[Nick M]

Stripe was way too generous in his description of you.

Yep. Mine is the correct one.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The holocaust was under the guise of false religion. Abortion is lack of religion. Kinda different. Hitler looked to solidify his selfish beliefs by any atrocious means....no, no... Uh. Wow there really aren't to many differences. Ooh, ooh, the fetuses don't know they are about to die. Good question.

 

[aikido7]

Tell that to Anne Frank.
Nevermind, she was murdered….similarly to the victims of abortion.


So you liken God’s judgement to ethnic cleansing, revenge and murder?
Stripe was way too generous in his description of you.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[aikido7]

You've bought into them hook, line and sinker.

Speaking of hook, line and sinker, I thought I would pass along to you this definition of what fishing actually is:

...A JERK AT ONE END.

 

[aikido7]

Seriously...are you serious??

You already know the answer to that. You are a masquerader.

 

[aikido7]

This hysterical fixation on women and their fetuses is quite the merry-go-round!

 

[gcthomas]

So let's let the lady off scott free

This line seems to underpin your entire argument. You want the woman punished for her temerity to not be married, and an unwanted pregnancy seems to be a suitable punishment for you. Baby as a punishment.

Well, lovely. Christian morality at its best.

 

[King cobra]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I’m sorry you think that way.
What you should be sorry for is the fact that you haven’t amended your lying misquote that I pointed out in Post#138.

 

[King cobra]

You already know the answer to that. You are a masquerader.

Actually, I was hoping your answer would be, “I blundered into a really stupid statement. Of course I didn’t mean to blaspheme The Almighty. I am so, so sorry.”

 

[King cobra]

This hysterical fixation on women and their fetuses is quite the merry-go-round!

There are those who feel the same way about The Holocaust. They are called “deniers.” Perhaps you/they would prefer to be “forgetters?”

Oy vey! Yet another similarity! We’re looking for differences!!!

 

[King cobra]

This line seems to underpin your entire argument. You want the woman punished for her temerity to not be married, and an unwanted pregnancy seems to be a suitable punishment for you. Baby as a punishment.

Well, lovely. Christian morality at its best.

You sound like the Nazis who looked at the Jews as a punishing entity.
If only they had looked at the “unwanted sub-humans” as a blessing to their nation, they would have prospered exponentially.

Well, lovely. “Other” morality at its best.

Oy vey! Yet another similarity! We’re looking for differences!!!

 

[Tambora]

This line seems to underpin your entire argument. You want the woman punished for her temerity to not be married, and an unwanted pregnancy seems to be a suitable punishment for you. Baby as a punishment.

Well, lovely. Christian morality at its best.

No. It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.
BOTH, the married and unmarried, are the ones that AGREE to have sexual intercourse, knowing full well that it is the number one cause of pregnancy.

It is because of that agreement that a baby ended up in her womb.
The baby made no such agreement. The baby is there only because of the purposeful and direct actions of the parents.

I thought punishment was supposed to be toward the murderer, not the victim of murder.
Abortion completely flips morality upside down.

 

[gcthomas]

BOTH, the married and unmarried, are the ones that AGREE to have sexual intercourse, knowing full well that it is the number one cause of pregnancy.

You have that the wrong way round.

Sex may be the number one cause of pregnancy, but getting pregnant is not remotely the number one cause of sex.

Sex has at least two functions, so consenting for one does not require consent for the other.