A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Freewill]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

Matthews gottcha question for the sound bite to Trump was "if abortion was outlawed....". Trump answered based on the illegality of abortion.

So stop the bullshit.

The only bullshit is calling abortion "murder", and refusing to hold one half of the parties involved in the murder responsible.

The bullshit I refer to is the posters statement that Trump just out of the blue called for the incarceration of a woman who has an abortion.

Who claimed that? Please quote anyone suggesting that Trump's words were "spontaneous", and not in response to a question.

The gottcha question for the soundbite was "if abortion was outlawed..."

So the left gets their fucking soundbite from that old bastard Matthews and runs with the "answer" without putting up the question that results in Trump's response.

AKA fucking bullshit.

Except I didn't do that. I, very specifically, laid out the premise that the anti-choice crowd holds that leads to the question I asked, then asked the question.

The only bullshit here, is yours. It is your deflection, and avoidance, because you know that you cannot answer the question that naturally follows from the anti-choice position.

 

[Czernobog]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

 

[Anathema]

What makes a rape or incest fetus less worthy than any other?

And you want a woman to suffer health issues or even be unable to have another child because you can't deal with an abortion?

A perfectly healthy fetus can be aborted because of how she got pregnant but not one to save the health of the mother? Totally irrational.

This is about the Consequences of a decision. The only 100% effective contraceptive is ABSTINENCE. If you CHOOSE to have sex you have consented to the pregnancy and parenthood (for both parties involved) so far as I'm concerned. Rape and Incest (generally) are not acts one CHOOSE to engage in. Therefore there us no consent for the pregnancy.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

The words do not confuse me, as that is the very definition of murder that I used. The problem seems to be your reading comprehension, not my understanding of the meaning of words. And you didn't answer the question. What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman who has an abortion?

You are confused. Badly. You alone don't get to decide justification. If abortions are legal then it's justified. If they are illegal then it isn't. See how simple that was?

Gee. Thanks for the juvenile sophistry. Again, you should go back and try reading for comprehension. The entire point of the OP is that the anti-choice crowd wants abortion to be illegal, and that they base their desire on the position that abortion is the unjustified killing of a person - which by your own admission is murder. I simply want to know why the anti-choice crowd seems willing to "give a pass" to one half of the parties guilty of the act that they claim is equivalent to murder.

You are only doing what I expect, equivocating, and deflecting, because the question leaves rational people in an indefensible position.

You're insulting pro-life people then snivel about me? What's wrong with you. You can't read, most of them don't want it illegal outright, just not used as birth control. Rape, incest, mother's life are reasons to allow it.

You aren't rational, you're an idiot. It's common knowledge, been discussed endlessly and your puerile attempt to smear pro-lifers can't be covered up by attacking me. Like the death penalty, it should be up to the states, not some halfwit on the internet.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

 

[Czernobog]

What makes a rape or incest fetus less worthy than any other?

And you want a woman to suffer health issues or even be unable to have another child because you can't deal with an abortion?

A perfectly healthy fetus can be aborted because of how she got pregnant but not one to save the health of the mother? Totally irrational.

This is about the Consequences of a decision. The only 100% effective contraceptive is ABSTINENCE. If you CHOOSE to have sex you have consented to the pregnancy and parenthood (for both parties involved) so far as I'm concerned. Rape and Incest (generally) are not acts one CHOOSE to engage in. Therefore there us no consent for the pregnancy.

However, consenting to the pregnancy is not the same thing as consenting to parenthood. Hence abortions. Although, as misogynistic as your position is, I will, at least, give you credit for having the courage of your convictions, and admitting openly, that you want to mutilate women who do not share your moral positions.

 

[tinydancer]

Murder is murder. You either sanction it, or you don't.

A good reason not to call abortion murder, which it isn't. Not even in the Bible.

Where in the bible?

Exodus:

21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

You are using RSV. This differs greatly from NIV and the Hebrew translation.

It's a no go.

Bring any translation you like. They all say the same thing. As long as she lives, that's all that matters. The fetus is property, not a person.

Not true. And I love it when assholes like you try to quote the Word out of context to meet your own ends.

Translation from original Hebrew.

"And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

In other words if the baby or the mother is injured, the fighter is toast.

As to baby vs property? Here ya go sparky. Quick breakdown for you.


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.
—Jeremiah 1:5

Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His.
—Galatians 1:15

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.
—Psalm 139:13, 16

Your hands shaped me and made me… Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life.
—Job 10:8-12

This is what the Lord says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb
—Isaiah 44:2

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?
—Job 31:15


Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder—

He didn’t kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave.
—Jeremiah 20:17

And a biggie....

—and God vowed to punish those who…

ripped open the women with child
—Amos 1:13

Abortion and the Bible: What does Scripture say about abortion? • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates | Desiring God

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

Many in the Right to Life crowd have pushed the envelop to include the Morning After Pill and all other means of birth control except abstinence. So that left/right claim by Iceweasel is a lie or he is ignorant.

• Bringing up "sex with children" is a non sequitur.
• Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
• Rhetoric is language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

Maybe stating Iceweasel is simply ignorant was too kind.

Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life. On the final point we have a paradox but one which does not prove abortion is murder.

 

[Jack4jill]

What makes a rape or incest fetus less worthy than any other?

And you want a woman to suffer health issues or even be unable to have another child because you can't deal with an abortion?

A perfectly healthy fetus can be aborted because of how she got pregnant but not one to save the health of the mother? Totally irrational.

This is about the Consequences of a decision. The only 100% effective contraceptive is ABSTINENCE. If you CHOOSE to have sex you have consented to the pregnancy and parenthood (for both parties involved) so far as I'm concerned. Rape and Incest (generally) are not acts one CHOOSE to engage in. Therefore there us no consent for the pregnancy.

I'll let the healthy fetuses, aborted for no reason, know. I wonder, what was their consent for said abortion?

 

[Czernobog]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

 

[Jack4jill]

A good reason not to call abortion murder, which it isn't. Not even in the Bible.

Where in the bible?

Exodus:

21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

You are using RSV. This differs greatly from NIV and the Hebrew translation.

It's a no go.

Bring any translation you like. They all say the same thing. As long as she lives, that's all that matters. The fetus is property, not a person.

Not true. And I love it when assholes like you try to quote the Word out of context to meet your own ends.

Translation from original Hebrew.

"And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

In other words if the baby or the mother is injured, the fighter is toast.

As to baby vs property? Here ya go sparky. Quick breakdown for you.


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.
—Jeremiah 1:5

Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His.
—Galatians 1:15

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.
—Psalm 139:13, 16

Your hands shaped me and made me… Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life.
—Job 10:8-12

This is what the Lord says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb
—Isaiah 44:2

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?
—Job 31:15


Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder—

He didn’t kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave.
—Jeremiah 20:17

And a biggie....

—and God vowed to punish those who…

ripped open the women with child
—Amos 1:13

Abortion and the Bible: What does Scripture say about abortion? • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates | Desiring God

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye]">[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

BTW, you lose.

 

[tinydancer]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

Matthews gottcha question for the sound bite to Trump was "if abortion was outlawed....". Trump answered based on the illegality of abortion.

So stop the bullshit.

The only bullshit is calling abortion "murder", and refusing to hold one half of the parties involved in the murder responsible.

The bullshit I refer to is the posters statement that Trump just out of the blue called for the incarceration of a woman who has an abortion.

Who claimed that? Please quote anyone suggesting that Trump's words were "spontaneous", and not in response to a question.

The gottcha question for the soundbite was "if abortion was outlawed..."

So the left gets their fucking soundbite from that old bastard Matthews and runs with the "answer" without putting up the question that results in Trump's response.

AKA fucking bullshit.

Except I didn't do that. I, very specifically, laid out the premise that the anti-choice crowd holds that leads to the question I asked, then asked the question.

The only bullshit here, is yours. It is your deflection, and avoidance, because you know that you cannot answer the question that naturally follows from the anti-choice position.

VOR's post. And piss off that I'm deflecting. I haven't addressed your OP whatsoever. Responded to two other posters.

Now as to my position on abortion? As complicated as the issue itself. In the realm of anti choice but pro necessity under certain circumstances. I abhor the extreme pro choice stance as it is frivolous.

You now have Planned Parenthood representatives who believe that if a child is born alive during an botched abortion the mother and the doctor can decide to terminate the baby's life if they see fit.

That's beyond fucked up. That's murder.

 

[turzovka]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

If the unborn is not a person then why are all these laws on the books?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

You want black and white rulings or else you are saying we have no justification. In the real gray world I am sure an appropriate judgment can be made and I am even willing to add or lessen the sentence based on the age of the unborn child.

 

[tinydancer]

Where in the bible?

Exodus:

21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

You are using RSV. This differs greatly from NIV and the Hebrew translation.

It's a no go.

Bring any translation you like. They all say the same thing. As long as she lives, that's all that matters. The fetus is property, not a person.

Not true. And I love it when assholes like you try to quote the Word out of context to meet your own ends.

Translation from original Hebrew.

"And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

In other words if the baby or the mother is injured, the fighter is toast.

As to baby vs property? Here ya go sparky. Quick breakdown for you.


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.
—Jeremiah 1:5

Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His.
—Galatians 1:15

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.
—Psalm 139:13, 16

Your hands shaped me and made me… Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life.
—Job 10:8-12

This is what the Lord says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb
—Isaiah 44:2

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?
—Job 31:15


Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder—

He didn’t kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave.
—Jeremiah 20:17

And a biggie....

—and God vowed to punish those who…

ripped open the women with child
—Amos 1:13

Abortion and the Bible: What does Scripture say about abortion? • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates | Desiring God

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye]">[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

BTW, you lose.

Bullshit. Read what you just posted. The woman still gives birth and there is no serious injury means the baby is born alive and not dead. It's plain as day.


'If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . .

What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc.'

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates | Desiring God

 

[DGS49]

(1) The current "Constitutional" law on abortion is judge-made-up nonsense, with no basis in any law or the Constitution itself. Roe v. Wade was rendered by a USSC that was drunk on its own power and refused to do the Right Thing, which would have been to send it back to Congress and the States, where such decisions belong.

(2) Any change in the law would have to be by (a) a Constitutional Amendment, which as a political matter is an impossibility, or (b) yet another USSC over-reach (which will never criminalize abortion or declare a "right to life" for the un-born), so speculation about what penalties would be appropriate if at some time in the future abortion becomes a crime are nothing more than political masturbation i.e., an attempt to embarrass a political candidate by making him say something that offends someone who is not already offended.

(3) The public narrative about abortion is infected by the semantic atrocities of the Left. Abortion-on-demand is not "womens' health," nor is it "freedom of choice." There are many, many ways that a fertile woman can "choose" not to have a child, first among which is to refrain from reproductive activity. Failing that, there are condoms, IUD's, a dozen different pills, some of which can be purchased at Walmart for $10/month or less, or some form of sterilization.

(4) Prior to, say, 1970, abortion was not only a crime in most of the U.S., but it was also socially condemned in the strongest terms. And "we" survived. And the number of women who were permanently injured or killed in "botched abortions" was microscopic, compared to the number of babies that we routinely dispatch today through legal abortions.

(5) No moral or ethical physician would perform an elective abortion without some compelling reason (e.g., the tragic death of the father during an early phase of the mother's pregnancy).

(6) If abortions were somehow made a felony thoughout the U.S., effective ten months from today, the number of "unwanted" pregnancies would remain about the same as it is now. Women would simply modify their behavior accordingly.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

The people are supposed to have the right to define their culture. There are a great many state laws, only idiots go around claiming it's anti-choice when you don't get to do whatever you want.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

Many in the Right to Life crowd have pushed the envelop to include the Morning After Pill and all other means of birth control except abstinence. So that left/right claim by Iceweasel is a lie or he is ignorant.

• Bringing up "sex with children" is a non sequitur.
• Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
• Rhetoric is language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

Maybe stating Iceweasel is simply ignorant was too kind.

Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life. On the final point we have a paradox but one which does not prove abortion is murder.

Rye Gulper thinks Iceweasel represents every pro-life advocate, when they differ widely on their individual points of view. It's only anti-choice if you are a flaming idiot that thinks you speak for others.

Put the bottle down, calling you a drunk is too kind.

 

[Jack4jill]

Exodus:

21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

You are using RSV. This differs greatly from NIV and the Hebrew translation.

It's a no go.

Bring any translation you like. They all say the same thing. As long as she lives, that's all that matters. The fetus is property, not a person.

Not true. And I love it when assholes like you try to quote the Word out of context to meet your own ends.

Translation from original Hebrew.

"And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

In other words if the baby or the mother is injured, the fighter is toast.

As to baby vs property? Here ya go sparky. Quick breakdown for you.


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.
—Jeremiah 1:5

Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His.
—Galatians 1:15

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.
—Psalm 139:13, 16

Your hands shaped me and made me… Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life.
—Job 10:8-12

This is what the Lord says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb
—Isaiah 44:2

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?
—Job 31:15


Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder—

He didn’t kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave.
—Jeremiah 20:17

And a biggie....

—and God vowed to punish those who…

ripped open the women with child
—Amos 1:13

Abortion and the Bible: What does Scripture say about abortion? • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates | Desiring God

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye]">[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

BTW, you lose.

Bullshit. Read what you just posted. The woman still gives birth and there is no serious injury means the baby is born alive and not dead. It's plain as day.


'If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . .

What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc.'

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates | Desiring God

A fine for giving birth where the fetus and the woman were both unharmed? No, and why would that be? The harm is if she is harmed, not the fetus.

 

[Anathema]

I'll let the healthy fetuses, aborted for no reason, know. I wonder, what was their consent for said abortion?

I don't consider the life of the fetus the main issue. I consider the fact of whether the impregnating act was or was not consensual to be the determining factor. It's about Consequences more than the life of the child for me.