Saying "Pro-Life" (video)
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
You are deceived. Human life obviously starts at fertilised conception, one can observe the actual entity that is the human being develop from that point. That is objective.
So why cant she abort whenever she wants, why does she have to be limited to someone else's timeframe?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
But the oak tree begins its life as an acorn. Nothing before that.
The human being is the same entity with the same unique DNA at fertilized conception as adult. Its not a male as a foetus and a female as an adult whatever any lunatic imagines.
that is not her deciding, but you. You said she should decide and now you are giving your opinion
Temujin
Well-known member
Umm, it's your assertion. Your OP is an assertion without evidence. Your argument is looking almost as tired and woebegone as the videos you espouse.
mikeT
Well-known member
Christians make those all the time.
Reserving that privilege for yourself but denying it to others is hypocritical.
Has evidence
Have you got any comments on the OP?
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
If the woman was raped, you might have a point.
On this site I debate abortion on demand, not abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. For the sake of argument, I will grant that abortion in RARE cases of rape, incest, of life of the mother is justifiable.
Outside of cases of rape or incest, the woman in choosing to have sex, choose to get pregnant. Why is this so difficult for abortion supporters to understand? There is a connection between sex and pregnancy that abortion supporters appear for some reason not to be able to recognize. They bury their heads in the sand and act like sex and pregnancy are not connected. It is as if they think pregnancy happens by magic, and or a magic stork brings an unwilling woman a baby.
If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can:
1) "Choose" not to have sex
2) "Choose" to take contraception
3) "Choose" to have her tubes tied, or have other surgery to ensure she cannot get pregnant
4) "Choose" to use a condom, or require her partner to use a condom, or both.
5) "Choose" to do one or more of the above
6) "Choose" when all else fails to accept the child the magic Stork brings
See all that "choice" the woman has? And you call pro-lifers anti-choice!
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
If that person was attacking the other person? Of course I would. I would do whatever was necessary to stop the attack and save the life of the person under attack. In cases of self-defense, killing another human being is regrettable, but morally justifiable.
This, incidentally, is something the far left does not seem to grasp when it comes to police killings. If a person is charging you with a knife or baseball bat, those are potentially deadly attacks. It does not matter whether the person doing the attacking is conscious or responsible for what they are doing. It does not matter whether they are having a mental crisis. Baseball bats, knives, or guns do not care about the mental capacity of the person wielding them. They will kill the person just the same.
So you would stand by an allow the attack? You would do nothing?
That is just the point: A human beings rights are innate and inalienable. They have them because they exist, not because some woman arbitrarily decides to bestow those rights on the person.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
"If you choose to cross the road, you choose to get hit by a car"
makes about as much sense.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
No, they aren't.
If I kill you, your right to life is gone.
Temujin
Well-known member
The point is that human rights are not innate and not inalienable. Human rights are a relatively recent concept, hard won in those places, still striven for in others, and argued over everywhere. There's no moral high ground to be found here. I would say that the right to an abortion is much more innate and inalienable that the right to life of the unborn. You would argue otherwise. You don't get to decide the matter by saying "I'm right, that's it.". There's nothing concrete to say that human rights are any more than the collective opinion of a given society. They are mutable and fragile.
I already have the Bible that teaches the unborn child is a person.
Stick with the topic at hand.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
No, it makes no sense at all. I can't believe you would even think there is a comparison.
The whole reason human sexuality exists--is so that we can propagate our species. Roads do not exist so people can get hit by cars.
A person gets hit by a car---by ACCIDENT. Pregnancies do not happen by accident. They happen--because--get this---THAT IS WHAT SEX IS FOR!
Correct: when a woman is raped, she did not consent to pregnancy.
Okay, let me amend my statement, though I suspect you already knew this:
A human person's right to life is inalienable unless they put someone else's life in danger.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
They are--outside of grave cases where self-defense is necessary. If a person is being attacked and they have to kill the attacker to save their life--that is different---from taking a person's life based on "choice." Killing in cases of self-defense is far different from murder, sir. You seriously cannot tell the difference between legitimate self-defense and outright murder?
Shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be given to a human person? If not, WHY not?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
If I kill you, your right to life is "alienated".
Corpses don't have the right to life.