The self defense justification for abortion - does anyone subscribe?

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
As a pro-choice advocate, I reject #4. The appearance-and-growth of a fetus is a natural consequence of sex-which-has-led-to-pregnancy. Nature is amoral, not immoral, and thus to talk about there being "no moral right" of the fetus to exist / respirate is akin to a category error. You might as well talk about there being no moral right of lightning to hit a tree in a thunderstorm...
This is a Christian forum. The Bible has much to say about sexual sin. There is no doubt that abortion is murder and the Bible says thou shalt not murder. It's not a suggestion, it's a command.

You can reject whatever you want, but you are in no position to criticize people who are appalled by baby murder.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
T
Then why do so many married couples struggle to get pregnant?
Why do so many unmarried couples get pregnant?

Why do rape victims get pregnant?

Your all-powerful god designed a system that doesn't work when it's supposed to, and works when it's not.
Take it up with the creator of the reproductive system.

If you criticize God again, you will be reported for rule 25.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
This is a Christian forum. The Bible has much to say about sexual sin. There is no doubt that abortion is murder
In fact there is considerable doubt, on account of it not being true, never having been true and unlikely ever to be true.
and the Bible says thou shalt not murder. It's not a suggestion, it's a command.
which applies to those who accept the right of the writers of the Bible to command behaviour 2000 years later. The rest of us are under no such obligation. For us, "Thou shalt not murder" is commanded by the writ of Common Law. It doesn't apply to abortion, never has and never will.

You can reject whatever you want, but you are in no position to criticize people who are appalled by baby murder.
I reject your right to categorise abortion falsely, as "baby murder."
 

BMS

Well-known member
In fact there is considerable doubt, on account of it not being true, never having been true and unlikely ever to be true. which applies to those who accept the right of the writers of the Bible to command behaviour 2000 years later.
How do you know? You weren't there. You cant even tell. And as to your last point, the biology of male and female hasnt changed.
We see your opinion and we can see its all in your mind

The rest of us are under no such obligation. For us, "Thou shalt not murder" is commanded by the writ of Common Law. It doesn't apply to abortion, never has and never will.
Well it does, and that is why we want the law changed to reflect it.

I reject your right to categorise abortion falsely, as "baby murder."
Well bad luck because you dont get to refuse unborn offspring and us rights. We can help you deal with these things if you wish
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Take it up with the creator of the reproductive system.
I can't - I don't believe in the one you believe in.
If you criticize God again, you will be reported for rule 25.
Where was the criticism?
I said he was "all-powerful", which no Christian would deny, and that the system works irrespective of marriage, which it does.

Fair comment law covers true statements.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It is a fact because the same human being goes through stages of development from zygote to embryo to foetus, to baby, to child etc, so it is a human being. The question here is why are you blind to observable reality.
Repeating the same arguments that have been debunked repeatedly does not make them true.

It is not in evidence that a fetus is a human being; an acorn is not an oak tree.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
This is a Christian forum. The Bible has much to say about sexual sin. There is no doubt that abortion is murder and the Bible says thou shalt not murder. It's not a suggestion, it's a command.

You can reject whatever you want, but you are in no position to criticize people who are appalled by baby murder.
Abortion is not murder, by definition, where it is legal.

The bible doesn't call it murder, either.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Repeating the same arguments that have been debunked repeatedly does not make them true.

It is not in evidence that a fetus is a human being; an acorn is not an oak tree.
Why do you deny the human being goes through zygote, embryo and foetal stages then?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Your claim; your burden. YOU need to show that the fetus is a human being/person to support your claim. You haven't and cannot.
No. Read the question again. Why do YOU deny that the human being goes through zygote embryo and foetal stages.

YOU means YOU not cis you or trans me. 😉
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No. Read the question again. Why do YOU deny that the human being goes through zygote embryo and foetal stages.

YOU means YOU not cis you or trans me. 😉
I've no need to read the question again. It is YOUR burden. YOU claim; I do not. YOU need to support your claim. I do not need to refute it. YOU need to support it.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I've no need to read the question again. It is YOUR burden. YOU claim; I do not. YOU need to support your claim. I do not need to refute it. YOU need to support it.
Woke is dysfunctional mentally deranged delusion.
No, that is you talking about me. I asked you. What do you mean by 'you'

It is self evident observable reality that the human being goes through zygote embryo and foetal stages of development.

Maybe you prove to me the grass is green
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Woke is dysfunctional mentally deranged delusion.
I'm sure you imagine that means something that is relevant. It doesn't.

No, that is you talking about me. I asked you. What do you mean by 'you'
Not interested in this childishness.

It is self evident observable reality that the human being goes through zygote embryo and foetal stages of development.
It is not self-evident that a fetus is a human being/person. Nor have you shown it is nor can you do so. An acorn is not an oak tree.

Maybe you prove to me the grass is green
Not interested in this childishness.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I'm sure you imagine that means something that is relevant. It doesn't.
No we can see it. A man and a woman can be defined according to biological sex, but you are unable to define your idea of gender that isn't anything except a denial of biological sex. So no imagination on our part, only yours.

Not interested in this childishness.
How do you define 'child' and 'childness'?

It is not self-evident that a fetus is a human being/person. Nor have you shown it is nor can you do so. An acorn is not an oak tree.
It is self evident observable reality that the human being goes through zygote embryo and foetal stages of development. We can see the same entity does. All human beings do.

Not interested in this childishness.
On the contrary you are when it comes to gender identity.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No we can see it. A man and a woman can be defined according to biological sex, but you are unable to define your idea of gender that isn't anything except a denial of biological sex. So no imagination on our part, only yours.
Still wrong. Gender is unrelated to sex, so it cannot be a 'denial' of it.
How do you define 'child' and 'childness'?
nwrt
It is self evident observable reality that the human being goes through zygote embryo and foetal stages of development. We can see the same entity does. All human beings do.
No, it is not. It is your claim, which you ahve not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate. Whether a fetus is a human being is entirely the issue.
On the contrary you are when it comes to gender identity.
nwrt
 

BMS

Well-known member
Still wrong. Gender is unrelated to sex, so it cannot be a 'denial' of it.
If gender were unrelated to sex then what is the difference between male and female in terms of gender as opposedto sex? You guys say a biological male with female gender. So what is the 'female'? You see as soon as you use the word female its the biological sex. So a man cant gave a female gender. A man can have feminine traits as gender but not female
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
If gender were unrelated to sex then what is the difference between male and female in terms of gender as opposedto sex?
Already answered repeatedly. Consult a dictionary and learn the difference between 'sex' and 'gender'.

You guys say a biological male with female gender. So what is the 'female'? You see as soon as you use the word female its the biological sex.
False.
So a man cant gave a female gender. A man can have feminine traits as gender but not female
Still wrong, sorry. Consult a dictionary and learn what 'gender' means.
 
Top