Chew Toy Apologetic*

R

radvermin

Active member
"The arguments surrounding pro-choice are the same as arguing that it's okay to kill a person because that person doesn't exist."
Take for example "my body my choice". As I've learned from people here, this is referring only to the "mother". No mention of the baby inside.
All forms of pro-choice arguments essentially ignore the human being growing in the womb, ie treating that human as though they don't exist.


*Chew Toy Apologetics is my idea for inviting individuals to tear my thoughts apart. Have fun, but be thoughtful.
 
N

Nedsk

Well-known member
radvermin said:
"The arguments surrounding pro-choice are the same as arguing that it's okay to kill a person because that person doesn't exist."
Take for example "my body my choice". As I've learned from people here, this is referring only to the "mother". No mention of the baby inside.
All forms of pro-choice arguments essentially ignore the human being growing in the womb, ie treating that human as though they don't exist.


*Chew Toy Apologetics is my idea for inviting individuals to tear my thoughts apart. Have fun, but be thoughtful.
Click to expand...
You are correct. A baby is not the womans body. Its all smoke and mirrors with these people.
 
N

Nedsk

Well-known member
radvermin said:
Any thought on I said that's in quotations?
Click to expand...
Well you cant kill someone that doesnt exist so Im not sure what that was supposed to mean. What pro-choicers have actually done is say the baby isnt a "person" therefore they can eliminate it. They cant deny that something exists in a womans womb but if they say its a person then thats murder so they claim it isnt a person but a "fetus" or less eloquently, "a clump of cells". If its not a person, then they think they can kill it. Thats what Hitler did with the Jews and slave owners did with blacks.
 
R

radvermin

Active member
Nedsk said:
Well you cant kill someone that doesnt exist so Im not sure what that was supposed to mean. What pro-choicers have actually done is say the baby isnt a "person" therefore they can eliminate it. They cant deny that something exists in a womans womb but if they say its a person then thats murder so they claim it isnt a person but a "fetus" or less eloquently, "a clump of cells". If its not a person, then they think they can kill it. Thats what Hitler did with the Jews and slave owners did with blacks.
Click to expand...
Excellent, thanks :)
So in my OP, killing someone who doesn't exist is intentionally a non-nonsensical statement.
It's meant to underline that we need to take seriously what/who is growing in the mother. Anything else is devoid of reason.
I think my non-nonsensical statement also a means to say that people implicitly know that the "clump of cells" is a person.

But you bring out some excellent points. Thank you.
 
E

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
radvermin said:
"Grotesque" is a matter of feeling or opinion. Not a good basis for objective facts.
Click to expand...
Are the objective facts when it comes to the morality of abortion?
If there are, what are they, and on what objective - no opinions - basis are they established?

If you think "abortion is wrong" is not an opinion, prove it.
 
S

shnarkle

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
It is in her body, so she should have the choice as to whether or not it remains there.
Click to expand...
It's in her house, and on her property, therefore she has the choice to let them live or die as well. As I've pointed out already, it's a private property issue just like slavery. In fact it's identical to slavery in that the person living inside her did NOT choose to live in her body. She made that choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
S

shnarkle

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
Because anybody else having the choice would be grotesque - whom do you suggest, in that regard?

The father?
Her parents?
The courts?
Click to expand...
Yep, at least that's how it went down with slavery. The slave owners certainly didn't make the decision to free their personal property. The government made that decision for them.
 
R

radvermin

Active member
Eightcrackers said:
Are the objective facts when it comes to the morality of abortion?
If there are, what are they, and on what objective - no opinions - basis are they established?

If you think "abortion is wrong" is not an opinion, prove it.
Click to expand...
Well, I just want to establish first that your position is that even if I could prove that the baby in the womb is a real human being, a person, then your position is that whether this human being should live or die is a matter of opinion.
Yes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
E

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
radvermin said:
Well, I just want to establish first that your position is that even if I could prove that the baby in the womb is a real human being, a person, then your position is that whether this human being should live or die is a matter of opinion.
Yes?
Click to expand...
The decision falls to the person inside whom the other human is living.
And only that person.

Not only do I not have an opinion, I don't see myself as having the right to one.
Do I think that abortion is bad? No.
Do I think it's good? No.
 
D

DaGeo

Active member
Eightcrackers said:
It is in her body, so she should have the choice as to whether or not it remains there.
Click to expand...
Quite false. Your current error is based on several preceding false assumptions.

Nevertheless, all your false assumptions are based on one underlying false assumption: people own themselves.

You assume the man’s body, which made the woman’s body pregnant, belongs to the man and you falsely assume the woman’s body belongs to her.

Even worse, you falsely assume the baby’s body belongs to the woman just because the baby happens to be in the woman.

You assume so much and all your assumptions are false.

Human beings actually belong to the only God who made them and who controls their destiny and who will eventually call them to account for what they did with his property.

Any person, who lays claim to property belonging to God (the owner and maker of everything) and precedes to go forth doing whatsoever he wishes with it, is nothing less than a thief who steals and killer who kills

To this date you have yet to prove that you own your body.

Instead, all you’ve done is to post more failed attempts at wishing away realities that you fear and want to ignore
 
CrowCross

CrowCross

Super Member
radvermin said:
Excellent, thanks :)
So in my OP, killing someone who doesn't exist is intentionally a non-nonsensical statement.
It's meant to underline that we need to take seriously what/who is growing in the mother. Anything else is devoid of reason.
I think my non-nonsensical statement also a means to say that people implicitly know that the "clump of cells" is a person.

But you bring out some excellent points. Thank you.
Click to expand...
The "clump of cells" has DNA. The unborn baby has its own and unique DNA.

The Satanic baby killers seem to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top