Abortion is evil

[JudgeRightly]

Well, no, I don't.

Yes, you do.

Tedious word salad notwithstanding, it's not murder if a woman takes a day after drug. That's law.

It is if a baby is killed as a result.

Yes. Duh.

They shouldn't be allowed to, because if a baby is killed, it becomes a homicide, aka, murder. Maybe not according to man's law, but man is fallible, God is not, and God says "do not kill the innocent" and "do not murder" and "“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man."

The morning-after pill violates all three of those commands, and thus, if you claim to not support murder, then you should CONDEMN its use, not support it.

 

[Yorzhik]

I just wanted to know if you would treat other forms of human reproductive substrates with any kind of care or reverence.

Seriously? Care and reverence? How would you actually do that?

 

[Yorzhik]

I think you err when you do not consider location and biological commandeering simultaneously.

So far my consideration has mostly been about location and biological commandeering simultaneously.

I just told you the best dialectic argument for your compromise. Can you recall what it is?

My prediction is that you will obfuscate.

Each give a woman independent grounds over a fetus. I also contend a raped woman has a window where her perogative reigns. Inaction for the first 16 weeks means she can no longer have an abortion just like a pregnancy derived of volition.

The problem is that your opinions here stand on nothing but your feelings. As demonstrated just above, where you didn't recognize a logical argument, it's all you have. It's all you will ever have. It's why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I just said something incendiary. Insulting even. Did I do it on purpose? Of course I did. Will you fall into the trap it represents? Of course you will. And then I'll laugh and not consider your evil compromise much more (pearls before swine and all that).

It is the merging of a stolen choice and the stage of development of a fetus that allows the exception.

LOL, you aren't forgetting that fetus just means unborn child are you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, you do.



It is if a baby is killed as a result.



They shouldn't be allowed to, because if a baby is killed, it becomes a homicide, aka, murder. Maybe not according to man's law, but man is fallible, God is not, and God says "do not kill the innocent" and "do not murder" and "“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man."

The morning-after pill violates all three of those commands, and thus, if you claim to not support murder, then you should CONDEMN its use, not support it.

No, I don't, no, it isn't and no, I shouldn't condemn it in order.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I do not know what you are talking about, hence the question I asked you, idiot:

JR doesn't consider a child to have rights once they've been born, RD seemed to go along with it. Over here a child has the right to necessities for survival - food, water, warmth, shelter - also an education and to be free from abuse and neglect.

Ya understand it now?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Once there's a new critter involved it's categorically different. You're one of those critters, as am I. You get this, why are you acting like you don't get this?

So you're okay with artificial methods being used that are designed to prevent life from coming about but if a condom breaks and a couple use a day after drug it's somehow potential murder?

It isn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

But not rights to life, liberty, ethical independence, etc. Basically it means, get out of people's way, that's what a right is. Get out of their way, let them be, yield to them. Right to life? Don't kill them. Right to liberty? Don't kidnap or enslave them. Right to ethical independence? Don't arrest them or fine them if they don't agree with your ethics.

If a person can't get food, who do you arrest and charge with a rights violation? If he has no home, who do you imprison for violating his rights? What if he has no health insurance? Who gets visited by the police?

What use is a 'right to life' if you deny children the essentials necessary to sustain life once born?

 

[Right Divider]

JR doesn't consider a child to have rights once they've been born, RD seemed to go along with it.

You continue to show yourself to be a liar. You should stop lying.

Over here a child has the right to necessities for survival - food, water, warmth, shelter - also an education and to be free from abuse and neglect.

Nobody, child or adult has the "rights" that you proclaim.

Ya understand it now?

We understand that you lie, evade, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Right Divider]

What use is a 'right to life' if you deny children the essentials necessary to sustain life once born?

There is no doubt that parents should provide "the essentials necessary to sustain life" for their children. To claim that this is a "right" is incorrect.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You continue to show yourself to be a liar. You should stop lying.

Nobody, child or adult has the "rights" that you proclaim.

We understand that you lie, evade, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, they do have those rights RD. A child has all of those rights that I mentioned and that is rightfully and lawfully so. That you may think that they shouldn't is hardly a lie on my part is it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

There is no doubt that parents should provide "the essentials necessary to sustain life" for their children. To claim that this is a "right" is incorrect.

The child has and should have the right to essentials necessary to live, preferably with responsible parents but unfortunately that's not always the case sadly enough.

 

[Idolater]

So you're okay with artificial methods being used that are designed to prevent life from coming about

Legally, yes. Ethically I strongly disapprove, as does Catholicism, but we neither of us believe in criminal penalties for it.

but if a condom breaks and a couple use a day after drug it's somehow potential murder?

Brand new critter involved now.

It isn't.

See above.

What use is a 'right to life' if you deny children the essentials necessary to sustain life once born?

My questions weren't just rhetorical. Who gets arrested if a child goes hungry or without healthcare or without housing? Who do we throw in the slammer for such rights violations in your view?

My position all along has been that we are within our moral limits to provide government services to assist the poor and needy and vulnerable, nothing wrong in it. But to make these things rights imposes moral obligations upon us that means that someone's going to jail if we don't do something politically.

Who? Legislators? Magistrates? Judges? Just random people?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, they do have those rights RD. A child has all of those rights that I mentioned and that is rightfully and lawfully so. That you may think that they shouldn't is hardly a lie on my part is it?

I've clearly said that while they do NOT have those "rights", they should be given all the care that they need.

You are an arrogant humanist that thinks you're nicer than God.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Legally, yes. Ethically I strongly disapprove, as does Catholicism, but we neither of us believe in criminal penalties for it.

Brand new critter involved now.

See above.


My questions weren't just rhetorical. Who gets arrested if a child goes hungry or without healthcare or without housing? Who do we throw in the slammer for such rights violations in your view?

My position all along has been that we are within our moral limits to provide government services to assist the poor and needy and vulnerable, nothing wrong in it. But to make these things rights imposes moral obligations upon us that means that someone's going to jail if we don't do something politically.

Who? Legislators? Magistrates? Judges? Just random people?

Well, I figured with you being Catholic that you'd be opposed to contraception methods so do you consider it unethical for anyone to support them?

Possibly, possibly not. If a couple take a plan b drug the following day then it's not murder either way.

If a child is suspected of being abused, maltreat, malnourished etc then in the UK there are child protection services that can investigate and remove children from abusive environments into care if warranted.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've clearly said that while they do NOT have those "rights", they should be given all the care that they need.

You are an arrogant humanist that thinks you're nicer than God.

Who's to provide all the care that they need if the parent's aren't up to the job and you consider a child once born to have no rights?

Your juvenile little name calling is noted and filed appropriately.

 

[Idolater]

Well, I figured with you being Catholic that you'd be opposed to contraception methods so do you consider it unethical for anyone to support them?

As with all mature content, I strongly oppose them being taught to youngsters without their parents prior and clear consent. Meaning, in public schools. This kind of ethical inculcation should be outlawed.

Possibly, possibly not. If a couple take a plan b drug the following day then it's not murder either way.

If there's a new critter involved it most certainly could be murder.

If a child is suspected of being abused, maltreat, malnourished etc then in the UK there are child protection services that can investigate and remove children from abusive environments into care if warranted.

OK. So then the rights you're talking about are moral rights that children have against their parents, legal guardians and caregivers. Those are the ones going to jail for the rights violations. Thank you for answering.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I don't,

By definition, you do.

no, it isn't

Yes, it is, by definition.

and no, I shouldn't condemn it in order.

Then stop saying you don't condone murder, because you do.

JR doesn't consider a child to have rights once they've been born,

LIAR. I do say the child has rights, and from the moment of conception, not just from birth!

But what YOU assert are "rights" are not rights at all, but socialist ideals.

RD seemed to go along with it.

I'll let RD speak for himself.

Over here a child has the right to necessities for survival - food, water, warmth, shelter - also an education and to be free from abuse and neglect.

Which aren't rights at all, but socialist laws.

Ya understand it now?

I understand you perfectly.

You, however, don't understand what God said at all, or if you do, you outright reject it in favor of your own beliefs, which makes you wrong.

So you're okay with artificial methods being used that are designed to prevent life from coming about

"Preventing a life from coming about" is a completely different topic than "ending an already existing life." We're talking about the latter. You're trying to equivocate it with the former. See the problem yet?

but if a condom breaks and a couple use a day after drug it's somehow potential murder?

If a condom breaks, more likely than not, a child will be conceived.

The "morning-after pill" was DESIGNED to KILL the life that is conceived when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell.

In other words, it is the MURDER of an innocent child.

It isn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

What use is a 'right to life' if you deny children the essentials necessary to sustain life once born?

The answer lies in the nuclear family. When you have both a father and a mother present, they are responsible for providing the necessary essentials to sustain a baby's life.

By having the government provide those things, instead of requiring the parents to provide them, you lessen the responsibility that God INTENTIONALLY placed upon the parents to provide for their child. God instituted marriage (and therefore sex as well) to between ONE man and ONE woman, so that the resulting children would have a solid foundation on which to grow, one that provides for them when they cannot provide for themselves, and that serves as a stepping stone for when they start their own family. And so, by having the government provide "the essentials," you make it so that parents do not have to follow God's design, which only harms the child.

Yes, they do have those rights RD.

No, they don't.

Don't confuse laws requiring things with rights.

A child has all of those rights that I mentioned

If that were the case, then the same child you would have murdered by taking a pill also has those rights, yet you would deny the child those rights?

Hypocrite.

and that is rightfully and lawfully so.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As with all mature content, I strongly oppose them being taught to youngsters without their parents prior and clear consent. Meaning, in public schools. This kind of ethical inculcation should be outlawed.

If there's a new critter involved it most certainly could be murder.

OK. So then the rights you're talking about are moral rights that children have against their parents, legal guardians and caregivers. Those are the ones going to jail for the rights violations. Thank you for answering.

Okay, I'm no fan of any sex ed in schools but that wasn't really my question. Do you consider it unethical for any adult to support contraception methods?

The day after drug is not murder.

Well, irresponsible and abusive parents, guardians and caregivers can certainly be prosecuted and jailed for offences but the primary concern is for the welfare of the child when those rights aren't being met.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If a couple take a plan b drug the following day then it's not murder either way.

It is if there's a baby that's killed as a result.

If a child is suspected of being abused, maltreat, malnourished etc then in the UK there are child protection services that can investigate and remove children from abusive environments into care if warranted.

Don't confuse your socialist programs for rights.

Who's to provide all the care that they need if the parent's aren't up to the job

The parents are.

Even if they're not up for the job, then they are still responsible for their children.

You take away their responsibility by taking away their responsibilities, and in doing so, you encourage other parents to be worse parents, because they know that the government will pick up the slack.

and you consider a child once born to have no rights?

A child has the right to life, which all other actual God-given rights stem from.

Your juvenile little name calling is noted and filed appropriately.

It's not juvenile, hypocrite.

It's the truth. You are an arrogant humanist who thinks he's nicer than God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The child has and should have the right to essentials necessary to live,

A child has the right to have parents who take care of their child, so that the government doesn't have to step in for abusing their child.

preferably with responsible parents but unfortunately that's not always the case sadly enough.

Your laws make it easier for parents to be irresponsible.

The day after drug is not murder.

It is if there is a child killed as the result of using it.