Abortion is evil

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
Also, I 'm thinking.... When a fetus is expelled prior to 16 weeks at the direction of the mother, it is murder of a fetus, over 16 weeks is murder as per usual. Different crimes with different penalties.

Expulsion for good reason is justification that makes the act no longer a crime which I already addressed.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Also, I 'm thinking.... When a fetus

Let's avoid using terms that dehumanize people. It's a baby.

(By the way, "fetus" is latin for "offspring." AKA a baby.)

is expelled

Expelled?

You think that's all that happens in an abortion?

prior to 16 weeks at the direction of the mother, it is murder of a fetus, over 16 weeks is murder as per usual.

Murder is murder. BOTH are capital crimes, according to God.

Different crimes with different penalties.

Which shows our "justice" system to be inherently broken.

Expulsion for good reason is justification that makes the act no longer a crime which I already addressed.

 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Abortion is wrong always. No matter what. My thinking has evolved through the years. I think there should be exceptions for rape, when the baby will definitely not survive, or the mother's life is truly specifically threatened. Otherwise, the woman chose the situation, and must face the consequence and responsibility of gestation.

When abortion is allowed it should be solemn. The woman should experience some shame, but not always devastating life altering shame.

In regard to rape, the woman should have the right to expell what the nasty rapist put there, but it must be in the first 16 weeks. The baby does not deserve that punishment at all but it's the violent father's fault, not the woman's. We all have an extra say over what goes on in own bodies even when someone else is involved.

Well that's a start. I know how well moderate views do around her, but let me know your thoughts on this compromise.
The compromise won't work. Think about it; what would the rapist want? He wants to get rid of the evidence.

Of course this also assumes the justice system will have the death penalty for rapists.

Also think about this. If using a dialectic argument, the very best argument for killing innocent babies before they are born is the autonomy of a person's body argument. It is similar to the argument that if somebody is on your property you're allowed to justly kick them off. Or, similarly, one could use the argument that if someone were hooked up you bodily in order to stay alive for 9 months in order to be healed well enough to live without being hooked up to you - you can justly refuse such a dependency with your body. Notice that this argument leaves no room for your compromise.

But this argument, the very best dialectic argument, fails when it comes to who initiates violence.

So what are you basing your compromise on?
 

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
The compromise won't work. Think about it; what would the rapist want? He wants to get rid of the evidence.

Of course this also assumes the justice system will have the death penalty for rapists.

Also think about this. If using a dialectic argument, the very best argument for killing innocent babies before they are born is the autonomy of a person's body argument. It is similar to the argument that if somebody is on your property you're allowed to justly kick them off. Or, similarly, one could use the argument that if someone were hooked up you bodily in order to stay alive for 9 months in order to be healed well enough to live without being hooked up to you - you can justly refuse such a dependency with your body. Notice that this argument leaves no room for your compromise.

But this argument, the very best dialectic argument, fails when it comes to who initiates violence.

So what are you basing your compromise on?
I like what you say here. It helps rather than harms my position. When you welcome someone onto your property a duty to keep conditions safe attaches. This is analogous with chosen sex with consequent pregnancy. The mother must deliver the child into the world.

A dangerous invitee alters the duty. You can expell a dangerous invitee. He or she was invited but oversteps the license. An invitee threatening the landowner gives the landowner the right to act in self defense.

An out and out trespasser can be expelled despite no risk to the land owner AND despite risk to the trespasser. The land owner doesn't owe a duty to such a tresspasser. This is analogous to the situation in rape.

Some rapists like a family member who impregnated his child might want an abortion to hide evidence. But, a tissue sample is easy to collect from the discharge. An ugly truth.

The rapist from my area wanted to produce biological child and did not care about his nowhere life. He is better off in jail. The death penalty might have deterred him. Having a baby forced to term was one of his goals so it was an incentive not a deterrent. The state colluded with him.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I like what you say here. It helps rather than harms my position.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

When you welcome someone onto your property a duty to keep conditions safe attaches. This is analogous with chosen sex with consequent pregnancy. The mother must deliver the child into the world.

A dangerous invitee alters the duty. You can expel a dangerous invitee. He or she was invited but oversteps the license.

An innocent baby is hardly dangerous.

An invitee threatening the landowner gives the landowner the right to act in self defense.

None of this gives you the right to kill an innocent child if the child needs to be removed from the mother's body to prevent her from dying.

An out and out trespasser can be expelled despite no risk to the land owner AND despite risk to the trespasser. The land owner doesn't owe a duty to such a trespasser. This is analogous to the situation in rape.

Again, this doesn't give anyone the right to INTENTIONALLY kill the innocent baby. Remove, yes, to save the mother, and then love the baby.

But not to murder the baby.

Some rapists like a family member who impregnated his child might want an abortion to hide evidence. But, a tissue sample is easy to collect from the discharge. An ugly truth.

And yet, places like Planned Parenthood DO NOT take a sample and present it to law enforcement. They're supposed to, but they don't.

Talk about cruelty...

The rapist from my area wanted to produce a biological child and did not care about his nowhere life. He is better off in jail.

No, he's better off dead. Far better to execute him so that he never harms anyone again, than to run the risk that he might escape by putting him in prison.

The death penalty might have deterred him.

A properly enforced death penalty would have deterred him, not just "might have."

Having a baby forced to term was one of his goals so it was an incentive not a deterrent. The state colluded with him.

Yes, we agree, the "just-a-system" is broken beyond repair, and as such, is not just.
 

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
Saying it doesn't make it so.



An innocent baby is hardly dangerous.



None of this gives you the right to kill an innocent child if the child needs to be removed from the mother's body to prevent her from dying.



Again, this doesn't give anyone the right to INTENTIONALLY kill the innocent baby. Remove, yes, to save the mother, and then love the baby.

But not to murder the baby.



And yet, places like Planned Parenthood DO NOT take a sample and present it to law enforcement. They're supposed to, but they don't.
Removal however carefully will not prevent the death of an underdeveloped baby. Sad situation.

An ectopic pregnancy is dangerous. No one's fault.

I did not know that about Planned Parenthood. They over cater to the abortionist with evil results.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Removal however carefully will not prevent the death of an underdeveloped baby. Sad situation.

Yes, I agree. But at least you're not intentionally murdering the child!

An ectopic pregnancy is dangerous. No one's fault.

Indeed. Yet, many ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves.

I did not know that about Planned Parenthood. They over cater to the abortionist with evil results.

 

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
No, he's better off dead. Far better to execute him so that he never harms anyone again, than to run the risk that he might escape by putting him in prison.



A properly enforced death penalty would have deterred him, not just "might have."



Yes, we agree, the "just-a-system" is broken beyond repair, and as such, is not just.
I meant he felt better off in prison than on the street not society. We would be better off executing him instead of wasting tax dollars on such a loser.

He felt like he could become a father by rape because people believed abortion should never be allowed. If he knew the pregnancy would be aborted half the reason to rape in the first place would be eliminated.

We agree on one part and disagree on another.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I meant he felt better off in prison than on the street not society.

It would have felt better as a human being if the law punished rapists by executing them, because he wouldn't have even considered raping the girl in the first place.

We would be better off executing him instead of wasting tax dollars on such a loser.

AMEN!

He felt like he could become a father by rape because people believed abortion should never be allowed. If he knew the pregnancy would be aborted half the reason to rape in the first place would be eliminated.

You have it backwards. People need to face the consequences of their actions. You want to remove the consequences. The consequences for raping someone is that they be put to death. By removing the consequence, you tell criminals they don't have to fear for their lives if they commit a crime, and the result is that more criminals will commit more crimes.

By executing rapists, you make it so that would-be criminals are deterred from committing the crime to begin with, which makes society as a whole safer.

By executing the child of a rapist, you punish the child for the sin of his father (which is inherently unjust), and by letting the criminal live, you teach him that he can get away with his crime.

Solomon tells us:

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

We agree on one part and disagree on another.

It's not me you're disagreeing with. It's God. He's the one who says that the rapist should be put to death, and that the innocent child should be spared, and that it's unjust and wicked for a child to be punished for the crime of his father.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I like what you say here. It helps rather than harms my position. When you welcome someone onto your property a duty to keep conditions safe attaches. This is analogous with chosen sex with consequent pregnancy. The mother must deliver the child into the world.
This actually doesn't follow. People have every right to disinvite on a whim, so to follow the analogy every case must be treated as an uninvited person.
A dangerous invitee alters the duty. You can expell a dangerous invitee. He or she was invited but oversteps the license. An invitee threatening the landowner gives the landowner the right to act in self defense.
This also does not follow because in self defense it is assumed the defender has the *right* to destroy the threatener. That right does not exist when a doctor removes a child from the womb early due to a pregnancy needing to end to save a mother's life. The doctor is obligated to do what he can to save both the mother and child.

The way we will know if you understood what I just said is if you argue intent doesn't matter.
An out and out trespasser can be expelled despite no risk to the land owner AND despite risk to the trespasser. The land owner doesn't owe a duty to such a tresspasser. This is analogous to the situation in rape.
This doesn't follow either because it isn't the baby that is trespassing, but the rapist. Therefore, kill the rapist and protect the baby.

To demonstrate this imagine you are a pilot flying across the ocean. You discover an unconscious stow away. It was clear this person was placed there by someone else. Could be the mafia counting on you to toss the body overboard. Could be a frat prank counting on getting the person (relatively) safely across the ocean. Either way doesn't matter. Can the "trespasser" be justly tossed into the ocean? According to your compromise they can be. According to reason they can't because you'd have to grab them and drag them off the plane and that is assaulting them. It's violating the same standard you are using to support your compromise!
Some rapists like a family member who impregnated his child might want an abortion to hide evidence. But, a tissue sample is easy to collect from the discharge. An ugly truth.
It's true a body can provide forensic evidence, but why compromise to take a child's life in the first place?
The rapist from my area wanted to produce biological child and did not care about his nowhere life. He is better off in jail. The death penalty might have deterred him. Having a baby forced to term was one of his goals so it was an incentive not a deterrent. The state colluded with him.
Kill the baby. That'll show him!

Is your compromise based on this case?
 

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
This actually doesn't follow. People have every right to disinvite on a whim, so to follow the analogy every case must be treated as an uninvited person.

This also does not follow because in self defense it is assumed the defender has the *right* to destroy the threatener. That right does not exist when a doctor removes a child from the womb early due to a pregnancy needing to end to save a mother's life. The doctor is obligated to do what he can to save both the mother and child.
No analogy is perfect. When you change your mind about an invitee you have to expell them without life threatening force.

Also, consider the fact that when you start to rescue someone, you cannot stop unless the one in danger is delivered to a safe harbor.

When it is impossible to save the tresspasser anyway, then removal might be best accomplished by trying to minimize pain also factoring in methods that reduce risk to the landowner.

Of course the property we are referring to is a woman's body, the most personal of possessions. As such even greater reverence should be granted. Further a fetus is using DNA to develop. People have a say over their likeness ... Ie how images of them may be used for profit. Don't you think someone has a right to stop use of their own DNA when no permission is granted.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No analogy is perfect. When you change your mind about an invitee you have to expell them without life threatening force.

Also, consider the fact that when you start to rescue someone, you cannot stop unless the one in danger is delivered to a safe harbor.

When it is impossible to save the tresspasser anyway, then removal might be best accomplished by trying to minimize pain also factoring in methods that reduce risk to the landowner.

Of course the property we are referring to is a woman's body, the most personal of possessions. As such even greater reverence should be granted. Further a fetus is using DNA to develop. People have a say over their likeness ... Ie how images of them may be used for profit. Don't you think someone has a right to stop use of their own DNA when no permission is granted.

The problem is that 1) it's no longer the woman's DNA, and 2) we're talking about a person, not property, so trying to use the analogy in that way doesn't work.

It's a person, therefore it's wrong to intentionally kill him or her. NO EXCEPTIONS.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
No analogy is perfect. When you change your mind about an invitee you have to expell them without life threatening force.

Also, consider the fact that when you start to rescue someone, you cannot stop unless the one in danger is delivered to a safe harbor.
The womb is the safe harbor.
When it is impossible to save the tresspasser anyway
As long as that is factually true then abortion is no more evil than killing a first degree rights violator (a violent offender). I am not of the profession which naturally possesses the authority to do that rn. Are there ever times when the woman's life and or limb literally cannot be spared unless her pregnancy (which many if not most pregnant woman are welcoming with joy) is terminated? I do not know this because I haven't studied the Harvard, Stanford, etc. medical schools' textbooks yet. When I do, then I'll know and I'll be able to cite those books. All I'm really establishing is that or whether there are cases where the mother's life is literally in danger, and for which abortion is the only reasonable choice? The most ethical choice, in fact?

idk. Yet. But regardless I'll have all those citations to medical school textbooks that they're giving to Harvard and Standford medical school students today. That's a strong and valid appeal to authority. I'm not establishing as my thesis, it is just a premise.

Do you understand logic?
, then removal might be best accomplished by trying to minimize pain also factoring in methods that reduce risk to the landowner.

Of course the property we are referring to is a woman's body, the most personal of possessions. As such even greater reverence should be granted. Further
When you start talking about bodies as possessions ... even as your own ... you're tipping your hat to anarcho-libertarians, and their heroes.

These people have reified the notion of liberty and freedom, which literally comes from the word that meant a freed slave, or at any rate, a non-slave. There were back then, which this Latin word was used in common parlance, it meant that there were slaves, and then there were those who are not slaves, and that substantive word that means non-slave, is where we get our words Liberty, Liberal.

It's not some positive entity, it's only a concept, it's someone's attempt to condense down what America's founders and framers were grammatically expressing in their founding documents. Instead they should just be receiving those documents as the actual liberty, and the actually liberalism. They may and may not have conceived of liberty as a positive entity, which really exists in the world. All we know without any dispute, is that they wrote the documents they wrote.

So if you conceive of liberty as defined by those documents, then you become an American exceptionalist. Everyone else is in some way, shape, form or sense, doing it wrong. North Korea and Russia and China and Mexico on one side, and Western democracies on the other, and plenty of countries in between. But America is off the chart. It's like comparing a man to ants and fleas and microbes. That's what liberty means, really. It definitely doesn't mean that somehow, that a woman can kill her baby, just because it's her body.

It's also the baby's body. And that baby is already in a safe harbor. America's founders and framers would have agreed, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

And that's how you make an argument.
a fetus is using DNA to develop. People have a say over their likeness ... Ie how images of them may be used for profit. Don't you think someone has a right to stop use of their own DNA when no permission is granted.
If you were a materialist determinist you'd say the same thing. They believe in this reified (iow fake, phoney, fictional) concept of liberty: Above all, what you want to presuppose, is that being able to make your own choices is the most important thing in the world, and no matter what, there's nothing more valuable to protect that liberty, and if anything comes along and looks like it's a threat to liberty, then it must be neutralized and disabled or at least handicapped, if not destroyed significantly.

If you are a materialist determinist then you're an atheist, I think, if you look at the matter with precision. Or you're a Muslim. They kind of believe in the same concept. It's all in Allah's hands, which in the case of a materialist atheist, it's in the hands of mechanics. There are what are called random or uncaused behaviors. The determinist just thinks that us who believe in free will, are improperly interpreting this behavior as free will, free choice, and true (American) freedom, when in fact it's just randomness.

Prove that you're not a materialist determinist.
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
...we're talking about a person, not property, so trying to use the analogy in that way doesn't work.

It's a person, therefore it's wrong to intentionally kill him or her. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Yeah...I've been sitting here watching this conversation unfold from the position that the fact that it's occurring at all is evidence enough that we are morally bankrupt as a people.

Hey...My wife wants back-rent from the kids and royalties for DNA usage. :sneaky:
 

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
The womb is the safe harbor.
Yes that's the point. You cannot remove an invited passenger on your ship unless there is another place of safety. You can set a stow away adrift in a life raft. You can throw off an invited guest who suddenly decides to try to sink the ship.
 
Last edited:

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
The problem is that 1) it's no longer the woman's DNA, and 2) we're talking about a person, not property, so trying to use the analogy in that way doesn't work.

It's a person, therefore it's wrong to intentionally kill him or her. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Anything inside the woman could well be considered part of the woman. The baby will eventually take on unique characteristics and become viable while inside. Individual rights of the infant emerge and must be balanced with the mothers rights at some point. In the case of rape, the mother has an edge for the first half of pregnancy. Her rights supercede the infants.

You readily agree to exceptions. A strange guy barges into your living room unwilling to obey your command to leave. He's looking around wildly and makes a move toward the entrance to your little daughter's bedroom. You take the opportunity to shoot him dead.

Even if he was totally innocent and someone poisoned him making him confused, you would expect to not be charged with a crime.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Anything inside the woman could well be considered part of the woman.
No, it cannot. The baby is a unique individual and it NOT "part of the woman".
The baby will eventually take on unique characteristics and become viable while inside.
Not "eventually". The baby is completely unique at conception!
Individual rights of the infant emerge and must be balanced with the mothers rights at some point.
That is nonsense.
 
Top