Yakuda
Verified User
Stop it. If they found something like a fetus that was alive on another planet they would cream their shortsAgreed.
I imagine it'd depend on the life form in question.
Stop it. If they found something like a fetus that was alive on another planet they would cream their shortsAgreed.
I imagine it'd depend on the life form in question.
I think that "highlight[ing] the different levels of intelligence..." is completely irrelevant because, regardless, a living human is still a living human.As I said previously, I don't agree. I think the main reason is to highlight the different levels of intelligence between the fetus and the pregnant woman.
Should our country "contract kill" all of the "stupid living humans" so that only the "intelligent living humans" remain?
Correct. In some (rare) cases, people have even been revived after HOURS of being declared "clinically dead". Miracles do happen.People have had their heart stop before and have been revived.
No consciousness, no murder.What does consciousness have to do with it? In coma? Kill em right?
Did you know abandonment is also a crime?
Why should that be?I don't agree. If he made the mistake of giving her his seed via sexual intercourse and the woman gets pregnant, he's on the hook for child support if she chooses to bring the pregnancy to term.
She gets all the say, he has none, but once the child is born based on her decision alone, he's on the hook for 18 years of child support?
Yes, as it should. Abortion is not an interstate or federal issue.I think you know that the norm depends on which U.S. state you're in at this point.
Not true. Consensual sex means both parties agreed to the terms and conditions that sex would occur under and knew potential outcomes. She could ask, even demand, that the man involved wear a condom. It isn't his decision alone. Fair and equal. What they decide before and during sex needs to be agreed on and the outcomes are known. Fair and equal.No, fair and equal would be that any man sleeping with her would have to ensure that he didn't ejaculate into her vagina. Once they do that, they're on the hook for child support, assuming she can prove it was his sperm. The only wiggle room should be if there's solid evidence that he didn't actually ejaculate into her vagina, but instead into something else like a condom and she then put it into her vagina manually.If the woman is sleeping with a trailer park, that's her problem. The legal situation doesn't change. She can't carry the kid to term and then expect child support after a paternity test because she didn't do due diligence to find and notify the man involved of the situation legally. That's FAIR AND EQUAL.
Oh ok so we can kill people in comas. ExcellentNo consciousness, no murder.
No hang on. you say the woman should do what she wants with the sperm. Fine. But then the man is off the hook. He decided to make a deposit but she decided to receive the deposit. They have equal responsibility for the pregnancy so I need someone to make a valid case for why she should have unilateral control of the outcome. She can decide to keep the baby and that triggers him to have to pay child support then he should have a say in preventing or requiring an abortion.I believe that's how things should be because the man made the choice to inject the female via the vagina with his sperm. After this point, I believe what the famel does with the sperm should be up to her.
Not her decision alone. As I already mentioned, the man choose to inject the woman via the vagina with sperm. Had he not done so, there would be no sperm to become pregnant with.
What do we do with the women who cant be bothered to do pregnancy prevention......we know this because they go back for abortions again and again?I think we can agree that in an ideal world, all pregnancies would be desired by the woman getting pregnant. We don't live in such a world, however. So what remains to be determined is what to do when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy. The U.S. has now decided that individual states are to make the laws on this and they have. U.S. citizens can vote with their feet, as well as regular votes and campaigns as to which laws they want to live with.
Patients in comas still have brain activity.Oh ok so we can kill people in comas. Excellent
Something like 1/2 the abortions are at the request of women who end up having at least four.
This is a problem.
FTFY. Let's keep it honest.I suspect you're unaware of some important facts regarding unplanned pregnancies.
*Ignoring everything from Wikipedia*I know you don't like Wikipedia, but it does contain important information at times. Quoting from it:
Sybil is an example of why we need retroactive abortion. You know, like Brian Kilmeade mentioned.You know full well that I don't agree with your notion that abortion is a subset of contract killings.
What I mean by that is following what The Bible (taken as a whole) says about various subjects. For instance, there's a lot of good practical advice found in Proverbs. Upon study, there's also a lot of good reasons for why various OT Laws were established for the nation of Israel.I'm not sure what you mean by the Christian way.
We can agree on that.I think we can agree that marriage certainly isn't something that's restricted to Christians.
The problem is when -gambling- leads to losing.No, the problem is when having -sex- leads to pregnancy.
Anyone engaging in heterosexual intercourse is accepting the possibility of a resulting pregnancy. Such cannot be "unplanned".
When a human life is created, who do you claim has the moral authority to kill it?
I read through the article. I didn't notice anywhere within the article where it clearly defined the term 'contract killing' (the agreed-upon killing of a living human by a "professional killer" on behalf of a "customer") and clearly reasoned how abortion isn't a specific subset of the term 'contract killing'.And here's where we disagree. A Proud Lefty actually found an article that gets into the difference between contract killing and abortions. It's here if you'd like to take a look:
![]()
Abortion is nothing like hiring a hitman, whatever Pope Francis says
Some careful reasoning shows that comparing abortion with contract murder equates two acts that are far from obviously morally equivalent.theconversation.com
I am aware. However, the only sure-fire way to avoid having a child is to ABSTAIN from heterosexual intercourse.I'm sure you know there are ways to avoid having a child,
Agreed. However, the only sure-fire way to avoid having a child is to ABSTAIN from heterosexual intercourse.not to mention that some men and women can't have children for various reasons.
Agreed (on a surface level).I think we can agree that marriage is a type of contract.
I like that idea too (which is why I strongly recommend marriage BEFORE ever having sex). The idea is to form stability (a lifelong commitment to another person, or as I say, a "joining together of two separate bodies into a single unified body") before attempting to bring another human into the world. Of course, life isn't perfect/fair/equal/etc, and "shit happens", but that's the principle of the matter and that process very often works out a lot better than making careless decisions instead. In fact, the very decision to enter into a marriage itself can be a careless decision (which will often end in divorce or other unpleasantness).I definitely like the idea of some kind of contract before the possibility of impregnating a woman. I see it as akin to having car insurance to drive a car.
Let's say that it is a killing, what, next, would your argument be?I read through the article. I didn't notice anywhere within the article where it clearly defined the term 'contract killing' (the agreed-upon killing of a living human by a "professional killer" on behalf of a "customer") and clearly reasoned how abortion isn't a specific subset of the term 'contract killing'.
We've already agreed with each other that it is a living human that is being unalived (IOW, a living human was directly caused to be no longer living).
A doctor (in this case, a professional killer) was hired by the pregnant woman (in this case, a customer) to kill another living human (in this case, an unborn child). All such abortions fall under this greater category of 'contract killing'. Thus, abortion is a subset of 'contract killing'. Show me how it isn't, because I (and IBDaMann before me) have very clearly walked through the logic of how it IS.
first its consciousness now its brain activity. Rolling goal posts.Patients in comas still have brain activity.
I think you're right (that it probably wouldn't go over so well with numerous non Christians). I also think that some non Christians can see the practical reasoning behind what I am saying and why I am saying it (even if they don't "fear God" as I [should] do).This part may not go over so well with non Christians, but as you know, I do think that contracts before complicated endeavours like potential pregnancies are a good idea.
Discernment isn't always easy, that's for sure. Some things are rather "black/white" (aka "oppressive slavery is evil") while other things are much "grayer" (aka "I know that I shouldn't tell lies, but I can save someone else's life by telling a lie in this instance". Christians tend to pray to God for proper discernment under such "grayer" circumstances.Sure. I think the hard part can be figuring out which habits are good and which ones are bad.