Saying "Pro-Life" (video)

Maybe not where you live, but in the US, certain rights ARE inalienable. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable.

Those rights do not come from government. We possess those rights in virtue of our existence. Some rights DO come from government, but fundamental rights do not.

That may well be. This is the whole point behind the great experiment of the US. Rights that are inalienable do NOT change over time, rather, they are recognized and safeguarded.

Not true. The RCC was ALWAYS against abortion. The RCC did NOT always teach that life begins at conception, but the RCC always condemned abortion at ANY stage.

In the second place, even if the RCC sanctioned abortion at one time, SO WHAT? What does that have to do with NOW?

More to the point: when I have I ever appealed to my Church, religion, holy book, or God as a reason why abortion must be outlawed? YOU are the one bringing religion into the discussion, not me.

We have a voice--and believe me, we will continue to use it until the scourge of abortion is lifted.

In the US, until the SCOTUS in 1973 conjured the right to abortion, it was a state issue. Now that the SCOTUS has overturned Roe, the issue has gone back to the states in the absence of federal legislation.
Of course those rights came from government. They had to be written into your constitution, which can be amended by government. If they have to be safeguarded, then clearly they are not safe.

The RCC accepted abortion before quickening for centuries. They may or may not have liked the idea, but they certainly didn't oppose it. That was the standard position on abortion throughout Europe. What does it have to do with now? If rights are inalienable and unchanging, what has now got to do with anything?

Get your story right. Either rights are objective, unchanging, everpresent, immutable and completely independent of government action, or they are not. I would say not. I would say that rights are entirely at the mercy of government. That they change with fashion, do that the right to own slaves is taken away and the right to not be enslaved is given. The right to abort pregnancy before quickening is taken away, then restored, then taken away again, then restored again, all decided by the instruments of government. This has to be the case, as you have pointed out in the past, the religious position isn't really relevant. This is a secular matter, decided upon by secular authorities. And as you also point out, different secular authorities come to different ideas. How can you on the one hand claim that right to life is inalienable, and on the other day that it is for the states to decide?
 
So, okay. Please accept a virtual door slam into your face. I'm sure you are used to it.
Matthew 10:14
Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
 
Matthew 10:14
Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
Surely, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed He is the most Forgiving, the Merciful' (Quran 39:53). We then learn 'And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust' (42.40).
 
It's nothing to do with religion, for or against. It's a secular matter of public health policy. If you think such an issue is going to be solved by reference to what the Bible says, you are a fool.

And you mischaracterise my position. I don't want to tell anyone what to do. I want the person most intimately involved to be able to choose what to do.
So dont mention religion. Dont say 'the problem with your religion' and then say its nothing to do with it.

And you only want what you recognise as the 'person' immediately involved, you dont want what we recognise as the human being.
And you have lost your person in law argument, so what have you got left as an argument? Practically nothing
 
Surely, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed He is the most Forgiving, the Merciful' (Quran 39:53). We then learn 'And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust' (42.40).
I wonder how much you know about the Quran?
Its bizarre indeed that having said to a Christian its nothing to do with religion, you then quote the Quran.
 
Surely, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed He is the most Forgiving, the Merciful' (Quran 39:53). We then learn 'And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust' (42.40).
False god.
 
Of course those rights came from government. They had to be written into your constitution, which can be amended by government. If they have to be safeguarded, then clearly they are not safe.
No government or Constitution is foolproof. But you miss the point. The POINT of the US experiment was to set up a system where it would be very difficult for a government to take away inalienable rights, or Constitutional rights. This is why our founders made it difficult to amend the Constitution. This is also why the founders gave us the right to keep and bear arms. The American Citizen is the ultimate check against a tyrannical government. When they are armed, they can fight back.
The RCC accepted abortion before quickening for centuries. They may or may not have liked the idea, but they certainly didn't oppose it. That was the standard position on abortion throughout Europe. What does it have to do with now? If rights are inalienable and unchanging, what has now got to do with anything?
Where are you getting your information? The RCC NEVER accepted abortion. This goes back as early as the Didache written in 90-100AD.

Rights are objective and unchanging. It does not follow that society will always recognize those rights. The reason Hitler killed Jewish people isn't becasue rights are not inalienable, it is becasue Hitler was an evil madman. Freedom isn't free. The tree of liberty sometimes has to be refreshed with people willing to die defending liberty and rights.
Get your story right. Either rights are objective, unchanging, everpresent, immutable and completely independent of government action, or they are not.
I didn't say government always recognizes rights. I said rights are inalienable.
I would say not. I would say that rights are entirely at the mercy of government. That they change with fashion, do that the right to own slaves is taken away and the right to not be enslaved is given. The right to abort pregnancy before quickening is taken away, then restored, then taken away again, then restored again, all decided by the instruments of government. This has to be the case, as you have pointed out in the past, the religious position isn't really relevant. This is a secular matter, decided upon by secular authorities. And as you also point out, different secular authorities come to different ideas. How can you on the one hand claim that right to life is inalienable, and on the other day that it is for the states to decide?
I think you are assuming that becasue rights are given and taken away by governments, that this entails rights come from government. It doesn't. What it shows is that governments become corrupt.
 
And if you have sex without the intent of getting pregnant, the purpose of sex is not pregnancy.
Um, no. Intent has nothing to do with it. Just becasue you have sex but do not want to get pregnant does not change what sex is for. Our subjective whims and intentions when engaging in the act have nothing to do with the purpose of the act itself.

But, as I said, with all the "choices" and options women have to avoid pregnancy--there is no reason for abortion.
Then why don't they happen every single time?
Why would a pregnancy have to happen every single time in order for sex to be for reproduction?
If pleasure happens more frequently than pregnancy - and it does - couldn't pleasure be argued more strongly to be the purpose of sex?
People eat because eating is pleasurable. This does not change the purpose of eating: nourishment and survival. People may have sex becasue it is pleasurable. That is all well and good. That does not change that sex is for reproduction.
 
Um, no. Intent has nothing to do with it. Just becasue you have sex but do not want to get pregnant does not change what sex is for.
What determines what a thing is "for", if not the intent with which it's used?
Why would a pregnancy have to happen every single time in order for sex to be for reproduction?
You think a god designed it to be for reproduction, don't you?
 
What determines what a thing is "for", if not the intent with which it's used?
The murder weapon you mean?

No, the humans species relies on man/woman sexual union to reproduce whether pleasurable or not, and one cant get more important than that.
 
Who are you to say that?
The Bible teaches that.

How do you know?

Because Muslims believe only God is to be prayed to and yet the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 7:59-60) which demonstrates He is God.

Yet they deny the Lord Jesus is God.
Thus, they have a false god.

What relevance has it to the secular matter of abortion?
You're the one who brought up the Quran. So ask yourself.
 
The murder weapon you mean?

No, the humans species relies on man/woman sexual union to reproduce whether pleasurable or not, and one cant get more important than that.
Is a thing's purpose defined by the intent with which it is used?
 
What determines what a thing is "for", if not the intent with which it's used?
The thing itself. In other words---purpose is objective.
You think a god designed it to be for reproduction, don't you?
No. I do not need to invoke God or the design argument to know that sex is for reproduction. That is manifestly obvious.

Then again--look who I am talking to. Someone who thinks male and female are subjective categories that depend on the subjective whims of a person, rather than objective biological features.

You know----given that you think male and female are subjective traits---how can I prove anything to you about anything--much less anything have to do with sex?
 
The thing itself. In other words---purpose is objective.
No, it's not.
Purpose is relational - somebody uses something.
Then again--look who I am talking to. Someone who thinks male and female are subjective categories that depend on the subjective whims of a person, rather than objective biological features.
Where did I say this?

Quote, please.
You know----given that you think male and female are subjective traits
"Given"?

Quote, please - where have I said this?
 
Back
Top