23 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI think you will find that many soldiers do kill babies. Even Gods soldiers:
No. Soldiers do not try to kill innocent babies.
The Instructor
1 Samuel 15
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”
But why do you think killing innocent babies is worse than killing innocent adults?
23 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you will find that many soldiers do kill babies. Even Gods soldiers:1 Samuel 15cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and [b]infants,
But why do you think killing innocent babies is worse than killing innocent adults?[/b]I did not say I think such a thing. But I do think that it is a pretty good bet that all the babies are innocent in comparison with all the adults.
In the case of the Amalekites, they could have had some kind of contagious disease that required everything belonging to them needing to be destroyed, so the Israelites would not be contaminated. We don't know and should not try to put ourselves in position of a judge of things we know little about.
The Instructor
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo. I at least value my own life, which is not in the womb. Why don't you value life when it is in the womb? There would have not been a Royal baby born in Britain yesterday, if Kate had felt the same as you do.
but they do abort the lives of other humans. do you only value life if its in the womb?
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd?
There would have not been a Royal baby born in Britain yesterday, if Kate had felt the same as you do.
The Instructor
Kate wanted a baby and was able to have one relatively safely because of the
modern medicine and healthcare available to her.
Had she not wanted one at this time then she had that option as well.
Having a child is a major undertaking which brings with it not inconsiderable
risks to the mothers health, both physical and mental, and it doesn't end after
9 (ish) months of pregnancy, because that child will require years of care and love
and support.
If the mother doesn't want to take that risk to her health, and is either not prepared,
or is unable, to raise a child, then she should absolutely have the option, the choice,
not to have that child.
And nobody has the right to tell her what can or cannot be done to something inside
HER body. Even if it were a fully formed and thinking adult.
Which no unborn baby/foetus/embryo/ect is.
The problem with your 'argument' here, is that you seem to think that pro-choicers are
just waiting to abort every pregnancy they can get their hands on.
Many/most/enough women want to have children at some point in their lives, and those
women benefit from having the kind of healthcare that you religious nutters have a habit
of destroying in your theocratic attempts to control and subjugate women.
However at any given time there are many women who don't want kids, either not right now
or ever. And with the best will in the world, birth control doesn't always work, even when
used correctly, and it's not always used correctly.
So their will be a number of unwanted pregnancies. To women that have been raped, to
women who are too young, or poor, or unprepared, or ill, or....
The pro-choicer says that these women have a choice as to what happens in and to their
bodies, and that if they don't want to go through a pregnancy and give birth and raise a child
then they don't have to.
Abortions, excepting perhaps very late term, are safer and less physically taxing than
pregnancy is. And when carried out early, all that is destroyed is a little ball of cells,
or an unthinking blob of amorphous meat.
Now I have never seen any non-religious argument against this that has even the barest shred of
force or merit.
And religious arguments... well even if I could not dismiss them all out of hand as being untrue...
It is a requirement of any truly free and civilised society that it has freedom of religion and freedom
from religion. Embodied in your country as the "separation of church and state" encoded in your first
amendment. And so any and all religious arguments can and must be disregarded for the basis of
forming law. As that would violate the freedom of, and from, religion we all [should] value so highly.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsi couldnt give a crap about the royal baby any more than i give a crap about any other baby born in the world.
No. I at least value my own life, which is not in the womb. Why don't you value life when it is in the womb? There would have not been a Royal baby born in Britain yesterday, if Kate had felt the same as you do.
The Instructor
you joined the army..........a professional human aborting organisation. one that excels in aborting humans in various grizzly ways.
why is it okay for your army to abort humans?
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeWomen have other choices that do not require the murder of an unborn baby. There are other medical procedures to prevent pregnacy in the first place and they don't have to have sexual intercourse. If they refuse to do that and don't take the proper precautions, then they can turn the baby over to an adoption agency.
And?
Kate wanted a baby and was able to have one relatively safely because of the
modern medicine and healthcare available to her.
Had she not wanted one at this time then she had that option as well.
Having a child is a major undertaking which brings with it not inconsiderable
risks to the mothers health, both physical and mental, and it does ...[text shortened]... hat would violate the freedom of, and from, religion we all [should] value so highly.
The Instructor
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes, I understand that you do not give a crap about the unborn baby; but thanks for making it clear that you also don't give a crap about any baby born in the world.
i couldnt give a crap about the royal baby any more than i give a crap about any other baby born in the world.
you joined the army..........a professional human aborting organisation. one that excels in aborting humans in various grizzly ways.
why is it okay for your army to abort humans?
The U.S. Army is not an abortion organization. It is an organization established for the defense of the liberty and freedoms that the people of our nation have fought to gain. If others try to infringe on our rights, we feel obliged to retaliate with whatever method is necessary.
The Instructor
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsPlenty of females get pregnant after being raped, so "they don't have to have sexual intercourse" only applies to those who choose to do so. Similarly, not all females wait until adulthood to have sex, mostly because they are with males who are unwilling to wait until adulthood to have sex. A woman or girl who isn't in a relationship and not planning to have consensual sex shouldn't be burdened with taking birth control on the off chance that some scumbag attacks her.
Women have other choices that do not require the murder of an unborn baby. There are other medical procedures to prevent pregnacy in the first place and they don't have to have sexual intercourse. If they refuse to do that and don't take the proper precautions, then they can turn the baby over to an adoption agency.
The Instructor
Originally posted by SahuaroI some scumbag rapes a women, he should be strung up by his balls in public, then executed.
Plenty of females get pregnant after being raped, so "they don't have to have sexual intercourse" only applies to those who choose to do so. Similarly, not all females wait until adulthood to have sex, mostly because they are with males who are unwilling to wait until adulthood to have sex. A woman or girl who isn't in a relationship and not planning to ha ...[text shortened]... dn't be burdened with taking birth control on the off chance that some scumbag attacks her.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you are perfectly fine with murder as long as its against fully formed sentient beings.
I some scumbag rapes a women, he should be strung up by his balls in public, then executed.
The Instructor
But aborting non-sentient balls of cells you consider immoral.
You are seriously f*ed up.
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo its OK to murder innocent little babies if they might pose a threat to the Israelites?
In the case of the Amalekites, they could have had some kind of contagious disease that required everything belonging to them needing to be destroyed, so the Israelites would not be contaminated. We don't know and should not try to put ourselves in position of a judge of things we know little about.
Don't you think that this mysterious contagious disease might have simply killed them off anyway if they had just been left alone? And if its contagious, going up to them and killing them and getting blood all over yourself is not the best form of prevention.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by SahuaroAll absolutely true.
Plenty of females get pregnant after being raped, so "they don't have to have sexual intercourse" only applies to those who choose to do so. Similarly, not all females wait until adulthood to have sex, mostly because they are with males who are unwilling to wait until adulthood to have sex. A woman or girl who isn't in a relationship and not planning to ha ...[text shortened]... dn't be burdened with taking birth control on the off chance that some scumbag attacks her.
However I don't generally take this line of argument because I do not buy
into the religious notion that sex (between consenting adults) is a bad or
shameful thing when done for any other purpose than reproduction within
religiously approved marriage.
When you make the (valid) argument that women can become pregnant against
their will in cases of rape where they did not choose to have sex you are in
context implying that they have an excuse that by extension women who chose
to have sex willingly don't have.
It also implicitly implies that abortions are a bad thing, but are a necessary evil in
the case of rape and/or under-age sex.
Which I also don't buy.
Any women should be able to freely and safely have an abortion if they choose
for any reason.