Pro-choice

BMS

Well-known member
Thankfully, what you believe is not taken seriously by those who take theses decisions.
Sadly not, which is why the comparison with extremist ideologies like the Nazi's and the Marxists.

Of course the men, and women, who determine laws have an agenda.
So they do, but did Christ fulfil the agendas of the NT community? No. It wasnt what the wanted or expected and they were challenged. This is where your remark was faulty, and where mine was correct as you have just shown.
There is no evidence.
There is the written testimony, so there is some evidence, but what we are challenging you on is the observable reality of the unborn human being.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Why it is exactly the same spirit of denial has been alluded to by puddleglum and laid out by me. Trolling is where you are unwilling to debate.
Since you cant acknowledge the biology of male/man and female/woman, it is no surprise that you cant acknowledge the reality of the unborn human being in the womb.
Why are you still lying about my position? Why can't you acknowledge that I believe biology is irrelevant to abortion? (It is also largely irrelevant to trans gender issues, but that is a different subject). Biology doesn't determine morals and abortion is a moral question. Once again you go off on a tangent, basing your reply on a false statement about me. You are establishing a pattern.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I didn't say that laws are based on objective criteria. I said that laws are themselves an objective fact.
Yes of course, but then once again you didn't address my point which was the subjective limits of 14 and 24 weeks and the subjective criteria they are based on namely either sentience or survivability, which is subjective. They aren't even the subjectivity of the pro-choice claim that a woman should be allowed to choose whether to 'terminate her pregnancy'. If the woman should be allowed to 'terminate her pregnancy' then why do you support a limit of 24 weeks?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Why are you still lying about my position?
In what way? You arent responding to the points put to you.
Why can't you acknowledge that I believe biology is irrelevant to abortion?
I do acknowledge that, and my position is that is a denial of reality. That is one of the reasons the law needs changing by educating people of the reality.
(It is also largely irrelevant to trans gender issues, but that is a different subject).
Since you cant see the relevance of biology in abortion it is hardly surprising you cant see its relevance so called 'trans gender' issues.
 

Andreas

Well-known member
Only to those who believe in Him. What actually counts are the ideas of those who make the laws governing our actions. If you want to live by God's laws, that's fine, as long as you don't break secular laws while doing so. And yet not all Christians agree with you. There are Christians (admittedly few on this forum) who support abortion rights because refusing them is so demeaning to women. They too can quote scripture and say "Therefore God...". You speak for yourself and your opinions. Your attempt to outsource your opinions to a supernatural deity fails without :
a) Cast iron assurances that your opinions accord with His.
B) Cast iron assurances that He exists.
You have neither of these, and are left with your opinion, neither more nor less important than anyone else's, including mine.

Murdering a female baby in the womb in more demeaning than refusing abortion rights. All these questions about rights of the mother, convenience, money and choice and whatever is used to rationalize murder pale in comparison to the monstrous act of killing a baby. Those that are pro-abortion have already been born.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Yes of course, but then once again you didn't address my point which was the subjective limits of 14 and 24 weeks and the subjective criteria they are based on namely either sentience or survivability, which is subjective.
Very happy to address your point, since it supports my position that in reality the objective laws of different states are informed and formulated by the subjective views of those drafting them, not by some ineffable dictate from an invisible and silent god.
They aren't even the subjectivity of the pro-choice claim that a woman should be allowed to choose whether to 'terminate her pregnancy'. If the woman should be allowed to 'terminate her pregnancy' then why do you support a limit of 24 weeks?
Because this right, like virtually every right, is qualified by circumstances. The risks of terminating a pregnancy should be outweighed by the risks of not terminating it.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Subjective views can be whatever you prefer and without an objective umpire, the nazis opinions are neither true or false.
While I give you credit for referencing the best animation humanity ever conceived of, that same humanity has no umpire for world events - or even crimes at the level of the individual.

Not even God counts as an objective umpire, because such a role involves an objectively-existing being loudly providing objectively audible judgments in reaction to objectively-visible events.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Murdering a female baby in the womb in more demeaning than refusing abortion rights.
Not at all. The unborn child has no rights, cannot be a victim of crime and is not considered at all. What you want is the right to impose your morality on the bodily integrity of women who you have no other connection with.
It isn't going to happen. Telling emotionally gut-renching falsehoods about murder not withstanding.
All these questions about rights of the mother, convenience, money and choice and whatever is used to rationalize murder pale in comparison to the monstrous act of killing a baby. Those that are pro-abortion have already been born.
All your argument is proving is that you don't understand what murder is, you don't understand what a baby is, you don't understand the motivations or rationale of those who support abortion rights and you don't know what is relevant and what is irrelevant. You have homework to do before your arguments can ve treated seriously.
 

Andreas

Well-known member
Not at all. The unborn child has no rights, cannot be a victim of crime and is not considered at all. What you want is the right to impose your morality on the bodily integrity of women who you have no other connection with.
It isn't going to happen. Telling emotionally gut-renching falsehoods about murder not withstanding. All your argument is proving is that you don't understand what murder is, you don't understand what a baby is, you don't understand the motivations or rationale of those who support abortion rights and you don't know what is relevant and what is irrelevant. You have homework to do before your arguments can ve treated seriously.

Do my homework? According to you rights of a baby are all about location. Move the baby 3 inches from inside to outside the womb and it arbitrarily has rights as a person. Absurd.

The no-rights claim is what all abusers and tyrants say: Slaves were considered non-persons at one time, then 3/4's of a person. Jews in Nazi Germany had no legal rights.

My words don't even begin to describe the horror of a baby in the womb attempting to swim away from the abortionists instruments that will decapitate her/him and vacuum her/his bloody and broken body into a tube for disposal or bisect for body parts resale.

Do you understand the emotional pain and guilt a woman who has had an abortion often faces for her entire life?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Do my homework? According to you rights of a baby are all about location. Move the baby 3 inches from inside to outside the womb and it arbitrarily has rights as a person. Absurd.
Ahhh, another thing you don't understand. Leaving aside that this doesn't apply to me at all, since I do not agree with abortion up to term, if you think that the only thing that happens at birth is that the baby moves 3 inches, then you are sadly uninformed. There are massive physiological changes, particularly to the respiratory and circulatory systems. The biological difference between a foetus ten minutes before birth and a baby ten minutes after are profound.

The no-rights claim is what all abusers and tyrants say: Slaves were considered non-persons at one time, then 3/4's of a person. Jews in Nazi Germany had no legal rights.
So what? The Nazis did X.
The Nazis were evil.
Therefore X is evil.

This is a faulty premise. If something is morally bad then that moral badness stands on its own. You shouldn't need to make dishonest comparisons to try and force it to look bad. And no, abortion, while not a good thing, is in my opinion nowhere near as bad as the evil of dictating to a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term.

My words don't even begin to describe the horror of a baby in the womb attempting to swim away from the abortionists instruments that will decapitate her/him and vacuum her/his bloody and broken body into a tube for disposal or bisect for body parts resale.
I refer you to my previous comments on emotionally gut-renching falsehoods being a poor substitute for actual reason.

Do you understand the emotional pain and guilt a woman who has had an abortion often faces for her entire life?
No. Never experienced it. I have experienced the joy, thankfulness and relief from stress experienced by the women I have assisted who chose to have an abortion. I don't know about lasting an entire life, but I still get Christmas cards 15 years later.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Very happy to address your point, since it supports my position that in reality the objective laws of different states are informed and formulated by the subjective views of those drafting them, not by some ineffable dictate from an invisible and silent god. Because this right, like virtually every right, is qualified by circumstances. The risks of terminating a pregnancy should be outweighed by the risks of not terminating it.
Nope, not the objectiveness of the existence of the different laws in different countries, but the subjective criteria, unless of course you are saying the limit has to be 24 weeks in the UK and has to be 14 weeks in Europe for some objective reason. I have acknowledged that the laws of different states are objective in themselves but you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the subjective nature of the decisions those laws are based on.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Nope, not the objectiveness of the existence of the different laws in different countries, but the subjective criteria, unless of course you are saying the limit has to be 24 weeks in the UK and has to be 14 weeks in Europe for some objective reason. I have acknowledged that the laws of different states are objective in themselves but you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the subjective nature of the decisions those laws are based on.
On the contrary, I celebrate them. This is precisely what I say in the post you are replying to. You haven't got both paddles in the water today.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Glad we agree that all these so called 'non-persons' can be rightly referred to as victims.

The one thing all pro-abortion advocates have in common is that they have already been born.

One thing unborn babies and Holocaust victims have in common is they never got to vote on whether or not they are 'persons'.
Sorry, I'm not really interested in discussing all these slogans that have been rehashed a thousand times.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Murdering a female baby in the womb in more demeaning than refusing abortion rights. All these questions about rights of the mother, convenience, money and choice and whatever is used to rationalize murder pale in comparison to the monstrous act of killing a baby. Those that are pro-abortion have already been born.
Abortion is not murder. Nobody is "pro-abortion". Most people are pro-choice.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Very happy to address your point, since it supports my position that in reality the objective laws of different states are informed and formulated by the subjective views of those drafting them, not by some ineffable dictate from an invisible and silent god. Because this right, like virtually every right, is qualified by circumstances. The risks of terminating a pregnancy should be outweighed by the risks of not terminating it.
So subjective then according to the different criteria. There is greater risk to the unborn human in terminating a pregnancy just by choice of the mother. Be careful because if you cant accept the unborn human being's life, the mother can lump it. But education will bring love and justice into the situation whereby the care of both the mother and her unborn child are taken into consideration; that cant happen with the rhetoric and ideology coming from pro-choice and yourself
 
Top