Saying "Pro-Life" (video)

romishpopishorganist said:
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?
Click to expand...
Every murder victim's right to life has been alienated - the dead don't have a right to life.

They're dead.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Yes, they do.

Unintended consequences are accidents - cross the road on purpose, get hit by a car by accident.
Have sex on purpose, get pregnant by accident.
Click to expand...

The intention when driving is not to kill others, but the intention of an abortion is to kill (yes, that is murder) another.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Yes, they do.

Unintended consequences are accidents - cross the road on purpose, get hit by a car by accident.
Have sex on purpose, get pregnant by accident.
Click to expand...
Its not an unintended accident. The primary purpose of sexual intimacy is reproduction, not pleasure! That is the lie. If conception occurs then that is what the purpose of it.
It is remarkable then that such a worldview and ideology as yours, namely sexual attraction, is indeed now talking about minor attracted persons. Since sexual attraction and pleasure is the basis, why not?
 
BMS said:
Its not an unintended accident. The primary purpose of sexual intimacy is reproduction, not pleasure!
Click to expand...
Prove it.
BMS said:
If conception occurs then that is what the purpose of it.
Click to expand...
Conception does not always occur, and pleasure occurs the more often.
BMS said:
It is remarkable then that such a worldview and ideology as yours, namely sexual attraction, is indeed now talking about minor attracted persons.
Click to expand...
Where did I - me - bring that up?

If you can't win without changing the subject, don't play the game.
 
Fred said:
I already have the Bible that teaches the unborn child is a person.
Click to expand...
The problem with using the Bible, or any holy book as a trump card, is that the moment you play it, you lose. You think abortion is a religious issue? That's fine. Keep to your religious teachings and don't have an abortion. The problem is that your religion doesn't get to tell me , or anyone else, what to do. As your friend @romishpopishorganist will tell you, abortion is a secular issue. You won't win any argument against abortion rights by waving the Bible. That may be your motivation, but it cuts no ice with me, or many others. Including, I should be add, a great many Christians.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
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?
Click to expand...
You missed the point. I am all for the right of self- defence, but that right isn't inalienable or innate. No rights are. Rights are arbitrary, decided by those in charge of any given society, and they change all the time. For many years, centuries even, women had the right to abort their pregnancy at any time before quickening. A right sanctioned by the Church. Then that right eas taken away, then it was given back. The situation in different countries had fractured, just as the Church has fractured. Now the Church has no say. Perhaps rights on abortion should revert to those in place when the constitution was founded.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Prove it.

Conception does not always occur, and pleasure occurs the more often.

Where did I - me - bring that up?

If you can't win without changing the subject, don't play the game.
Click to expand...
To prove it .. conception. Conception may occur regardless of pleasure. Pleasure cant control conception.

Pleasure, which we see is irrelevant in terms of conception, doesnt always occur either, so your point was nul there.

I brought it up and its on topic. You are the ones who equate same sex acts with man and woman intimacy, so bad luck
 
Temujin said:
The problem with using the Bible, or any holy book as a trump card, is that the moment you play it, you lose. You think abortion is a religious issue? That's fine. Keep to your religious teachings and don't have an abortion. The problem is that your religion doesn't get to tell me , or anyone else, what to do. As your friend @romishpopishorganist will tell you, abortion is a secular issue. You won't win any argument against abortion rights by waving the Bible. That may be your motivation, but it cuts no ice with me, or many others. Including, I should be add, a great many Christians.
Click to expand...
Your problem is you cant recognize the science, so bring on the religious position.
 
Fred said:
Since you are coming at it from an anti-religious standard then you shouldn't tell me or anyone else what to do.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Temujin said:
You missed the point. I am all for the right of self- defence, but that right isn't inalienable or innate. No rights are.
Click to expand...
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.
Temujin said:
Rights are arbitrary, decided by those in charge of any given society, and they change all the time.
Click to expand...
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.
Temujin said:
For many years, centuries even, women had the right to abort their pregnancy at any time before quickening. A right sanctioned by the Church.
Click to expand...
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.
Temujin said:
Then that right was taken away, then it was given back. The situation in different countries had fractured, just as the Church has fractured. Now the Church has no say.
Click to expand...
We have a voice--and believe me, we will continue to use it until the scourge of abortion is lifted.
Temujin said:
Perhaps rights on abortion should revert to those in place when the constitution was founded.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Every murder victim's right to life has been alienated - the dead don't have a right to life.

They're dead.
Click to expand...
No, they have a right to life. That right was taken away by the murderer. This is why we put murderers in jail. This does not bring someone back from the dead, but--it is the best we can do.

This is also why the death penalty is seen as a fitting punishment for capital crimes. You took away someone's right to life, you forfeit your right to life.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Yes, they do.

Unintended consequences are accidents - cross the road on purpose, get hit by a car by accident.
Click to expand...
Cross the road in purpose, get hit by a car by accident?

Huh? No. You are missing the point.

The purpose of the road is not to get hit by a car. The purpose of crossing the road is not to get hit by a car. The purpose of the road is to facilitate efficient movement of cars and people. If an accident happens---that did not happen becasue the point of a road is--to have an accident.
Eightcrackers said:
Have sex on purpose, get pregnant by accident.
Click to expand...
No. The purpose of sex IS pregnancy. An "unintended pregnancy" outside of cases of rape is an oxymoron. Pregnancies are supposed to happen.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
No, they have a right to life.
Click to expand...
"The dead have a right to life"...
Unbelievable.
romishpopishorganist said:
That right was taken away by the murderer.
Click to expand...
Yes, or "alienated".
A right that you can't exercise is indistinguishable from a right that you haven't got.
romishpopishorganist said:
This is why we put murderers in jail. This does not bring someone back from the dead, but--it is the best we can do.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
I murder you, taking your right to life (your corpse can't exercise it, so it's as good as gone), and imprisoning me does not bring you back to life.
romishpopishorganist said:
This is also why the death penalty is seen as a fitting punishment for capital crimes. You took away someone's right to life, you forfeit your right to life.
Click to expand...
Executing me does not give you, my victim, your right to life back.
It's gone. Alienated.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
The purpose of the road is not to get hit by a car.
Click to expand...
And if you have sex without the intent of getting pregnant, the purpose of sex is not pregnancy.
romishpopishorganist said:
No. The purpose of sex IS pregnancy. An "unintended pregnancy" outside of cases of rape is an oxymoron. Pregnancies are supposed to happen.
Click to expand...
Then why don't they happen every single time?
If pleasure happens more frequently than pregnancy - and it does - couldn't pleasure be argued more strongly to be the purpose of sex?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top