Abortion is evil

[Idolater]

The woman's rights trump the rudimentary human's rights.

Not how rights work. Absolute rights are not balanced with any other absolute rights, that's what absolute means. And as I said previously if we receive that children have rights, they impose obligations on parents and in this case on the mother. She is morally obligated to take care of her child. Rights do serve as a trump against others, and in this case, the right of the child to life trumps the mother's wish to end the child's life.

So long as you maintain materialistic determinism, consequentialism, utilitarianism, you'll never get this.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Not how rights work. Absolute rights are not balanced with any other absolute rights, that's what absolute means. And as I said previously if we receive that children have rights, they impose obligations on parents and in this case on the mother. She is morally obligated to take care of her child. Rights do serve as a trump against others, and in this case, the right of the child to life trumps the mother's wish to end the child's life.

Kindly start another thread on your musings and leave less of your clutter here.

 

[ok doser]

The woman's rights ...

The woman's "right" to murder her child

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

The woman's "right" to murder her child

A raped woman should absolutely have the state's advocacy in killing the rapist and irradiating his DNA from her body. Unfortunately, a perfectly good egg is wasted in the process.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes. It is immoral, but

No, no "buts."

It's immoral, thus, not allowed. End of story.

less immoral

Murder and rape are BOTH capital crimes, according to God. BOTH should result in the death of the one who commits them.

That includes the murderers of children, and the rapist who assaults a woman which results in a baby being conceived.

In NEITHER case should the innocent parties be executed, the victims of the murderer, and the woman and child and their family,.

than violating the rights of an innocent woman.

So punish the one who violated those rights, the criminal, the rapist.

Not the innocent baby.

The right of liberty, privacy, and autonomy over your own body.

The baby has those rights too, no matter how small.

But you'd ignore them because you're a murderer at heart.

The baby has the right to liberty, but you'd take it away by killing him.
The baby has the right to privacy, but you strip his identity by using dehumanizing terms and using statistics, as if they'd matter in morality.
The baby has the right to autonomy over his own body, but you won't give him a say in the matter.

Your views on God's rights are just your opinion.

No, they're not. I quoted scripture, verbatim, three different verses, on what God says regarding killing the innocent.

Here they are again:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV

“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV

Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. - Exodus 23:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus23:7&version=NKJV

Not one Jew was located inside a German.

Missing the point.

True. Unless the woman had no part in the loss of control over her biology.

There is no "unless."

Rights (actual, God-given rights) are absolute. Women were designed to have children. The moment a baby is conceived, the woman no longer has any say over what happens, because the baby has a right to life, to not be murdered.

The embryo is at once a human quasi-individual

There's that dehumanizing language again. The baby is a baby, a human being.

and part of the woman's body (at early stages). That is the crux of the problem.

No, it's not part of the woman's body.

Yes, the baby is sheltered in the mother's body, and when implantation occurs, the embryo is secured from being flushed out of the woman's body, but in no way is the baby a part of the woman's body.

Have you ever seen parents stroll in the park with their fetus. Hire a babysitter for their fetus?

Again, "fetus" means "offspring." It's a latin word. If I spoke latin, and I don't, but if I did, then yes, I have, because fetus means "offspring." Babies are offspring of their mother and father.

Have you ever seen someone legally store five babies a freezer?

See post #253.

A fetus is a human unlike her mother.

But a human, all the same, and thus, has the same human rights his mother has.

But you don't care, because of your lust for innocent blood.

Not until viable.

From the very moment of conception.

It would be great if they could be safely extracted and men could be pregnant,

That's not how God designed mankind.

then you could bear the children of rapists.

The child in the womb is not guilty for the crime of rape. The baby is completely innocent, and is in fact a victim of the rapist.

That's why the punishment for crime is/should be execution.

It could be your mission in life.

The baby is just as much a person as the mother, and 50% of the time the baby is also female. What about her reproductive rights? Doesn't she get a say in whether she can have children?

You know several examples when two people are involved and it is not murder.

Huh?

People's stage in life is considered the n end of life care all the time. Never heard you complain.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Kindly start another thread on your musings and leave less of your clutter here.

He is completely on topic.

You just don't like it because he's right.

A raped woman should absolutely have the state's advocacy in killing the rapist

AMEN!!!!

and irradiating his DNA from her body.

Only if there's no baby inolved.

If there's a baby involved, however, it's not the rapist's DNA anymore, it's the baby's, and her DNA is now a part of the baby as well, and so no harm should come to the child.

Unfortunately, a perfectly good egg is wasted in the process.

If it's a baby, it's no longer an egg.

If it's an egg, there's no baby involved.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

No, no "buts."

It's immoral, thus, not allowed. End of story.



Murder and rape are BOTH capital crimes, according to God. BOTH should result in the death of the one who commits them.

That includes the murderers of children, and the rapist who assaults a woman which results in a baby being conceived.

In NEITHER case should the innocent parties be executed, the victims of the murderer, and the woman and child and their family,.



So punish the one who violated those rights, the criminal, the rapist.

Not the innocent baby.



The baby has those rights too, no matter how small.

It is not practical to treat a fertilized egg the same as we do a baby. And we don't -- except when someone like you wants to accuse someone of murder. No one is charged for neglect because of a miscarriage. Pregnant women cannot ride the carpool lane unless someone else is on the car.

But you'd ignore them because you're a murderer at heart.

You are a liar.

The baby has the right to liberty, but you'd take it away by killing him.
The baby has the right to privacy, but you strip his identity by using dehumanizing terms and using statistics, as if they'd matter in morality.
The baby has the right to autonomy over his own body, but you won't give him a say in the matter.

Catch a rape induced pregnancy early enough then there is no baby. The rapist is the wrong doer who set up the terrible situation, not the woman. It is terrible because of the potential we can imagine.

No, they're not. I quoted scripture, verbatim, three different verses, on what God says regarding killing the innocent.

Here they are again:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV

A fertilized egg has no blood for the first two weeks and pumps the woman's blood after three weeks.

“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV

Killing that is righteous isn't murder

Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. - Exodus 23:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus23:7&version=NKJV

An egg fertilized by no volitional conduct of a woman is not righteous.

Missing the point.

Yes you did.

There is no "unless."

Rights (actual, God-given rights) are absolute. Women were designed to have children. The moment a baby is conceived, the woman no longer has any say over what happens, because the baby has a right to life, to not be murdered.



There's that dehumanizing language again. The baby is a baby, a human being.



No, it's not part of the woman's body.

Yes, the baby is sheltered in the mother's body, and when implantation occurs, the embryo is secured from being flushed out of the woman's body, but in no way is the baby a part of the woman's body.



Again, "fetus" means "offspring." It's a latin word. If I spoke latin, and I don't, but if I did, then yes, I have, because fetus means "offspring." Babies are offspring of their mother and father.

Playing with semantic origins is futile. A concept is valid when it hangs together with other exemplars within the concept. A zygote is more similar to a gamete than it is to an individual.

See post #253.



But a human, all the same, and thus, has the same human rights his mother has.

But you don't care, because of your lust for innocent blood.

You are a liar.

From the very moment of conception.



That's not how God designed mankind.



The child in the womb is not guilty for the crime of rape. The baby is completely innocent, and is in fact a victim of the rapist.

That's why the punishment for crime is/should be execution.



The baby is just as much a person as the mother, and 50% of the time the baby is also female. What about her reproductive rights? Doesn't she get a say in whether she can have children?



Huh?



I have no idea what you're saying here.

Self-defense and lethal actions in war are righteous killing as examples. Halting the evil actions of a rapist is righteous when done diligently.

AMEN!!!!

Amen

 

[Yorzhik]

How so? Was the hook up voluntary or involuntary?

The analogy is usually assumed involuntary because if it were voluntary it would either not mean anything or be a discussion about something only tangentially related to killing innocent children before they are born.

In the case of a person being attached involuntarily it is always, unless a contract to the contrary is signed, within the rights of the person if they refuse to stay connected.

And this is the reason your compromise is doomed to fail. By logic, a person can withhold their support at any time. It leaves no room for your compromise. What are you basing your 6 week compromise on? Your 6 week compromise has as much logical support as a 42 week compromise. In fact, the 42 week compromise has more logical support according to the analogy.

The rapist violently assaults a woman when he applied his sperm to her biology. A similar assault occurs when a person is hooked up to such a machine. Walking away from such an arrangement should be a legal if less courageous option.

You still have to add something to the analogy you're using. In most cases, especially incest rape, the doctors hooking you up to the person wants you to reject the attachment because they want the violinist/pianist/patient dead! Then they get to keeping "assulting" you. It's where the analogy breaks down.

But there is more. The womb is owned by the next generation. It serves no other purpose than to serve the next generation. It means, in the airplane analogy (which is better than the doctors hooking a person up to another person analogy because the plane will continue across the Pacific as it normal would have) one needs to have a stow away room that any potential stow away owns, not the airplane owner.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

The analogy is usually assumed involuntary because if it were voluntary it would either not mean anything or be a discussion about something only tangentially related to killing innocent children before they are born.

Okay so far. Fair enough.

In the case of a person being attached involuntarily it is always, unless a contract to the contrary is signed, within the rights of the person if they refuse to stay connected.

And this is the reason your compromise is doomed to fail. By logic, a person can withhold their support at any time. It leaves no room for your compromise.

Why? Spell it out. You jump to a conclusion without supporting it and expect me to fill in the justification?

My compromise fits perfectly. A woman voluntarily hooked up cannot leave unless the fetus is safe. The act of initiating the relationship confers a duty just like when you start CPR. You cannot just stop on a whim. You are liable until someone else is there willing to take over. If you see someone drowning and you try to save them you cannot just give up and leave. You are liable. You must continue to try unless someone else takes over. This is because your actions may have lead others to assume their rescue efforts were not needed, so they did not help.

If you saw someone drowning or in need of CPR and you do nothing, you are not liable. If some one forces you at gun point to give CPR, you can stop without liability because any defrayed safety efforts are the fault of the gunman. Same with the hook up scenario.

I should point out that I view an unplanned pregnancy borne of casual sex as a voluntary pregnancy. Engaging in consensual sex is implied consent.

What are you basing your 6 week compromise on? Your 6 week compromise has as much logical support as a 42 week compromise. In fact, the 42 week compromise has more logical support according to the analogy.

I suggest 16 weeks but it is somewhat arbitrary. I could be convinced that a different time frame is a more rational cut off. It is based on what I considered essential hallmarks of an individual and giving the woman a reasonable but not too lengthy time to realize she is pregnant and make arrangements.

You still have to add something to the analogy you're using. In most cases, especially incest rape, the doctors hooking you up to the person wants you to reject the attachment because they want the violinist/pianist/patient dead! Then they get to keeping "assulting" you. It's where the analogy breaks down.

Spell out what you mean. Seems very garbled.

But there is more. The womb is owned by the next generation. It serves no other purpose than to serve the next generation.

I have been infertile for a long time and no one owns my body but me.

It means, in the airplane analogy (which is better than the doctors hooking a person up to another person analogy because the plane will continue across the Pacific as it normal would have) one needs to have a stow away room that any potential stow away owns, not the airplane owner.

What?

 

[ok doser]

My compromise ...

Your compromise results in the murder of a human life.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

A stowaway is best not allowed off at the destination. Rather he is detained and sent back to the point of origin.

The biological hook up is an infinitely better analogy.

 

[ok doser]

A stowaway is best not allowed off at the destination. Rather he is detained and sent back to the point of origin.

Alive?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Alive?

Yes -- As he or she is not a microscopic precursor.

 

[ok doser]

Yes -- As he or she is not a microscopic precursor.

The fertilized egg is the precursor of the embryo.
The embryo is the precursor of the fetus.
The fetus is the precursor of the newborn.
The newborn is the precursor of the toddler.
etc.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes -- As he or she is not a microscopic precursor.

Still trying to dehumanize a human. Quite disgusting!

 

[Jefferson]

So everyone will know whose side they're on:

Satanic Temple Sues Indiana Over Abortion Bans – Claims It Violates Their Religious Rights

 

[Idolater]

Kindly start another thread on your musings and leave less of your clutter here.

Oh my bad!

By all means continue with your own musings, which includes that you think it is OK to kill this woman, just so long as it was early enough in her timeline!

Rebecca Kiessling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Arthur Brain]

That wasn't your point, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said. You're the one who introduced the analogy of the safe harbor. Yet you failed to stop at that the child is already in a safe harbor right where he or she (and or neither he-or-she) already is. To safely transport the child to safe harbor involves keeping him or her (and or neither him-nor-her) right where they are already right now, when they are already in the safe harbor.

But ... that aside, "Prove that you're not a materialist determinist." I don't have time pretending to converse with a determinist drone like Mr. Sam Harris. Show me you're not one of him.


@Arthur Brain has argued that children have rights to essentials, and he's also established that those rights create or impose obligations on the child's parents, not on the community in general, or on the polity, or on the regime. Such that if a child is denied essentials, then that child's parents are the ones penalized, and criminally even. This establishes the rights of the child.

You are the one arguing that there is no moral obligation on the mother of an unborn child here. You are the one arguing that the unborn child has no rights. That is the unjust, and atrocious view here. Being victimized by a first degree rights violator (a violent criminal) doesn't absolve you of your moral obligations, such as that you, if you're a parent, have an obligation to take care of your own children.

To clarify my position here: A child, once born, has rights under law whereby he/she is entitled to food/water/shelter/warmth/education/to be free from abuse. Ideally, the parents will be those providing for the child's needs but in those cases where parents are remiss/abusive then children can be taken into care. Criminal charges can and should be leveled towards parents who are willfully negligent/abusive but my primary point was a counter to those who consider a child to have no rights post birth.

 

[Right Divider]

To clarify my position here: A child, once born, has rights under law whereby he/she is entitled to food/water/shelter/warmth/education/to be free from abuse.

Why does the child only have rights if it is lucky enough to escape the womb?

Are you unaware that some people are convicted of a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman?

Ideally, the parents will be those providing for the child's needs but in those cases where parents are remiss/abusive then children can be taken into care. Criminal charges can and should be leveled towards parents who are willfully negligent/abusive but my primary point was a counter to those who consider a child to have no rights post birth.

Children have the same God given rights as everyone else... from the moment of conception.

 

[Idolater]

To clarify my position here: A child, once born, has rights under law whereby he/she is entitled to food/water/shelter/warmth/education/to be free from abuse. Ideally, the parents will be those providing for the child's needs but in those cases where parents are remiss/abusive then children can be taken into care. Criminal charges can and should be leveled towards parents who are willfully negligent/abusive but my primary point was a counter to those who consider a child to have no rights post birth.

OK. I underscored that the rights of children impose obligations on the parents. Criminal charges brought against parents for abuse and or negligence, prove that a society believes children have rights, that's the justification for those criminal charges. Your children have rights, and if you their parent violate those rights then you're going to jail. That's how moral society functions.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why does the child only have rights if it is lucky enough to escape the womb?

Are you unaware that some people are convicted of a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman?

Children have the same God given rights as everyone else... from the moment of conception.

I didn't say that he or she didn't. There's laws here where once a pregnancy has developed beyond a certain stage then it's illegal to abort except in exceptional circumstances.

Children have legal rights to all the aforementioned. Don't pretend that you care about children if you deny them any rights once outside of the womb.