chris155au
Active member
Were you not saying that, other than the mother, there are other people in the kid's life who can look after them?
⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜
- Thread starter DreamRyderX
- Start date
Once the child is born, that is often the way. But you said "What if there is nobody there", bizarrely. It really didn't deserve an answer but you got one anyway.
chris155au
Active member
You're mistaken. I asked: "What if there are no other people?" See for yourself - check to see what you quoted here:
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
And, also in the case of the mother being raped, or under the age of consent. Make sure you say everything. Don't just pick out one thing and leave out the rest. We must at least try and be honest, right?
Feigning incredulity doesn't work with me. DO YOU THINK THAT THE VIABLE FETUS OR PREEMIE IS, OR IS NOT A INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? Stop playing games! YES OR NO!
I appreciate your honesty here. I'm glade you realize that no issue, no beliefs, and no moral truth, is ever in black or white. There will always be exceptions, and there will always be limitations.
It's simple! Either you DO believe that ALL unborn lives are innocent, precious, and deserve NOT to be aborted. Or, you DON'T believe that ALL unborn lives are innocent precious, and deserve to be aborted! It would be just hypocritical and inconsistent to believe in both. Either you believe in the ethos of ALL prolife and anti-abortion claims. Or you don't.
The innocent life is NOT responsible for how it was conceived. Therefore rape and consent are moral issues at best. And since many newborn HAVE survived when there was no hope for their survival. it is also a moral issue at best. Saving the unborn child's is the only priority. Even at the expense of the mother's life.
Or, maybe you can tell me why one life needs to be aborted and the other doesn't??
And when you were doing so well at NOT misrepresenting my words!!! I was ONLY talking about the UNBORN child. You kinda just slipped-in the "born" child. So, no exceptions. But you are correct. Killing a "born" child would be child homicide. This is morally and legally wrong. But absolutely nothing to do with having an abortion, or a woman's choosing to have an abortion.
What the hell is wrong with you? It means the exact same thing!
Seriously, there's no point trying to engage you. You're ridiculous.
chris155au
Active member
It's VERY simple! What if there are no OTHER people - people OTHER than the mother!
adoption agencies around the world are full of children waiting for 'other people' to take them on. Sadly, most remain in the system until they are old enough to get thrown out.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously?
Do you think you're asking some important question here?
It's already been answered, stupid as it is, you utter idiot.
chris155au
Active member
Well you said that @DreamRyderX "makes absolutely no exceptions. He would gladly sacrifice any woman's life, to save the life of a pea-sized embryo." And I said that I assumed that this is not @DreamRyderX's position, but that they instead make a exception to save the mothers life. I thought that it was a very safe assumption, given that it is the mainstream pro-life position. However, other exceptions such as rape cannot be assumed as easily. If @DreamRyderX made no exception for rape, but made an exception to save the mothers life, then you still would have grossly mischaracterised their position.
It is, but that doesn't mean that I think life can NEVER be ended. See: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
I DO believe that ALL unborn lives are innocent, but
this doesn't mean that they can never be aborted.
Sure. An unborn life which will result in the mother's death needs to be aborted. An unborn life which is a mere inconvenience to the mother does NOT need to be aborted.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware that you were only talking about the UNBORN child. My point is that if you "play zero role in the child's life", and therefore "play zero role in a mother's decisions" and it's "none of [your] business", then why doesn't this equally apply to a mother's decisions with her BORN child?
Last edited:
chris155au
Active member
Yes, you answered it thinking that I was asking: WHAT IF THERE IS NOBODY WHO CAN LOOK AFTER THE KID!
so you don't believe the unborn should be saved then, it's just about you forcing women to live by your rules.
chris155au
Active member
Oh man, thanks so much for alerting me to my SPECTACULAR screw up! I totally misread that part of the post to which I was replying! Thanks to this forum allowing edits at any time after posting, I was able to change it! It's now: "I DO believe that ALL unborn lives are innocent, but
this doesn't mean that they can never be aborted."
what sort of gooblygook is that? No one has ever said they are guilty of anything. Except for bible bashers, who funnily enough are often the ones opposed to abortion, who don't think they are innocent at all, but guilty of the original sin
Either they should all be saved or they shouldn't. Agree or not?
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
DreamRyder is an extreme card-carrying, antiabortionist, prolife fundamentalist, and extreme religious ideologue. He would gladly sacrifice anything, or anyone to justify his own beliefs. IMHO.
You, on the other hand are a MODERATE prolife advocate. Which is where the inconsistency and incoherency lies. Try and follow my train of logic.
Someone who is pro-choice can accept that a fetus does have a right to life, but that this right is outweighed by the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. And, someone who is pro-life can accept that a mother does have a right to bodily autonomy. But that this right is outweighed by the fetus's right to life. Still with me?
A moderate pro-life position says that all abortion should generally be morally forbidden, EXCEPT in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, or when the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. With extreme prolife defenders, THERE ARE NO QUALIFIERS!!! With this new Abortion law, there are NO justifiable exceptions!
“..the value of human life is not determined by the circumstances of one’s conception or birth.”.
Now here is the problem. There are 3 underlying claims being made.
The fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, or at some point during gestation.
The right to one's life is stronger than, or outweighs, the right to one's bodily autonomy.
That abortion is permissible ONLY if it is caused by rape, or to save the mothers life.
The third only excuses the second. Abortion is permissible in pregnancies caused by rape, or the safety of the mother. This means that the right to life of the fetus, is outweighed by any violation, or threat to the woman's reproductive autonomy. This means that life is sometimes not more important than autonomy. Or worse, that life is only more important than autonomy, when autonomy is more important than life. This is INCOHERANT and INCONSISTENT! You just can't have it both ways.
Because if the pregnancy was terminated, there would not be any decisions for the mother to be making! Right? Once the unborn is born, it is too late for the mother to decide to abort, right?
Isn't the survival of the mother, only an inconvenience to the unborn child? There is nothing wrong with the unborn child, right? So why should his life be sacrificed, to save the mother? Should we now add "inconvenience" to your list of exceptions??
chris155au
Active member
Unless @DreamRyderX has stated that there should be no exception to save the mother's life, then you are assuming. Simple!
Is this your position?
Well I believe that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, but that has precesily nothing to do with abortion.
This isn't just the moderate pro-life position, but is in fact the mainstream pro-life position. The next level which I think is quite a bit LESS common, is that there should be no exception for rape. However, the next level which is no exception even to save the woman's life, is VERY VERY VERY fringe! As for incest, again, I don't see why incest between two consenting adults should be treated the same as rape. Incest is much broader than an adult impregnating an underage family member, and in cases where the girl is underage, THEN the exception should be applied.
Well you're obviously not aware that there is in fact an exception to save the woman's life. But yeah, it's a CRAZY law, no question. It seems to have been designed specifically to challenge Roe v Wade, deliberately making no exceptions other than to save the woman's life.
Where's that from?
Which is obviously true. It cannot be any other form of life other than HUMAN life.
It's not about autonomy, it's about the woman being in danger of dying. There's nothing inconsistent about saying that a woman should not die so that the baby can live.
She made the decision to terminate. Is that not the decision that you're talking about which you have "zero role" in?
There is nothing wrong with the unborn child, but there IS something wrong with the mother, and that is that she is at risk of dying. And if she dies, then there will be something VERY wrong with her.
What a ridiculous question to ask, given that I made myself very clear, saying: "An unborn life which is a mere inconvenience to the mother does NOT need to be aborted."
chris155au
Active member
Christians don't think of it as being GUILTY of original sin, but rather that humans are born into the world WITH original sin.
Not if the mother has to die.
we seek forgiveness through baptism BECAUSE we are deemed guilty
chris155au
Active member
Did you grow up in the church or something?
I'm Italian ... i've had Catholicism shoved down my throat since birth
chris155au
Active member
I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure they don't believe that salvation/forgiveness of sins happens at point of baptism.