No one forced her to have sex. 99% of abortions are from voluntary sex. People know when they have sex there is a possibility another human being will be conceived as a result. It’s entirely reasonable to say that if actions you chose resulted in the creation of another life, you have a responsibility to sustain that life for at least 9 months. Everyone knows sex makes babies.
By the definition you're using for "life", it should be illegal to kill mold.
Life is not a new thing that's created when a sperm and an egg meet. We are all continuations of existing life which at some point acquires individual egos.
The criteria we use for what is "murder" (not OK) and what is "killing" (OK) do not boil down to "what is sentient" or "what can feel", or even "what has a heartbeat". When we distinguish "murder" and "killing", it boils down to "what has an ego".
An embryo does not have an ego. You're saying the embryo's nonexistent ego must be protected because, if left to grow, it will eventually develop one. If that's the case, then potentially fertile parents must be punished if they don't have as many children as they possibly can, because they could all develop egos.
You had 19 children, but could have possibly had 20? Murder! To the gallows with you!
A human baby in the womb has human DNA and is a human. It’s not mold. It’s not a theoretical potential human. It is an existent human with its own unique human DNA.
Otherwise you have to define when a human becomes a human, and that’s a very dangerous slippery slope that can lead to many atrocities of human rights based who we feel deserves to be classified as a fully realized human person. A newborn? A 5-year-old? A person with developmental disabilities? A person with mental illness? A person with dementia? Where is the line drawn?
Again, some monks argue the line is drawn at "mosquito".
If you're going to argue "human DNA", what exactly is "human DNA"? If we splice some tomato genes into the "human DNA", is it still human?
In my view, it's perverse to treat a biological structure as a "human" when it lacks everything we mean when we say "human", except a blueprint to develop into one. A blueprint, to me, is not a person, even if the blueprint is expressed biochemically.
A human is a human. A person is a person. It's a matter of discernment when a person becomes a person, but it's not a "very dangerous" slippery slope. Birth is an obvious threshold that has been used for ages. When people disagree on the beginning of personhood, any political compromise will lie somewhere between conception and birth.
The "moment of conception" is a period of time when a sperm enters an egg, and the genetic material of the sperm and the egg is somewhat randomly combined. This results in the creation of a blueprint which begins to self-develop into a person.
A blueprint, to me, is not a person, even if the blueprint is biochemically expressed. The blueprint lacks every single property we have in mind when we say "person".
There is no other circumstance where you would consider this blueprint a person, except when abortion is concerned. Then it suddenly "already is" one, simply because the genes have been shuffled and to you, that is that.
The stats helped me with the mental shift, 1% of women who have an abortion report suffering rape. 14% report being forced to abort by the father. More harm and enabling of evil men than helping victimized women. Off they care so much they’d do research. Shallow ignorant hurtful virtue is worthy of
Your stats sum up to "85% of abortions are chosen by women who are not ready to carry a pregnancy to term."
It's no one's business to force them. It's not your duty to enforce God's law. If you think abortion is a mortal sin, then that's a matter between the woman, her doctor, and God.
The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
It means "thou shall not break", "dash to pieces", thou shall not "slay, kill, murder".
Do you think you're meant to use any discernment in that?
Or do you think maybe this requires you to gently swipe the ground in floor of you as you walk, as some Buddhist monks do, to avoid killing an insect?
There are people who take the Bible very literally, and they have Shabbat elevators that run on a schedule all day so they can avoid pressing buttons, which God prohibits on Saturdays. Do you think those people could use some discernment?
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the practical effect would be to increase the 13% that does 50% of violent crime to 15% that does 60% of violent crime. 😐
no 1 forced her.And the guy who stuck it in has to man up. Come on, they keep pushing the permission from 2 months to 3 months to 9 months. It's ridiculous.
it’s not your duty to enforce God's law
As if I’m physically forcing women to give birth by calling a sin a sin. God is the one who said killing an unborn baby in the womb is murder, if you have a problem with that, take it up with Him.
“What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. What sorrow for those who are wise in their own eyes and think themselves so clever.”
Isaiah 5:20-21 NLT
No one forced her to have sex. 99% of abortions are from voluntary sex. People know when they have sex there is a possibility another human being will be conceived as a result. It’s entirely reasonable to say that if actions you chose resulted in the creation of another life, you have a responsibility to sustain that life for at least 9 months. Everyone knows sex makes babies.
By the definition you're using for "life", it should be illegal to kill mold.
Life is not a new thing that's created when a sperm and an egg meet. We are all continuations of existing life which at some point acquires individual egos.
The criteria we use for what is "murder" (not OK) and what is "killing" (OK) do not boil down to "what is sentient" or "what can feel", or even "what has a heartbeat". When we distinguish "murder" and "killing", it boils down to "what has an ego".
An embryo does not have an ego. You're saying the embryo's nonexistent ego must be protected because, if left to grow, it will eventually develop one. If that's the case, then potentially fertile parents must be punished if they don't have as many children as they possibly can, because they could all develop egos.
You had 19 children, but could have possibly had 20? Murder! To the gallows with you!
A human baby in the womb has human DNA and is a human. It’s not mold. It’s not a theoretical potential human. It is an existent human with its own unique human DNA.
Otherwise you have to define when a human becomes a human, and that’s a very dangerous slippery slope that can lead to many atrocities of human rights based who we feel deserves to be classified as a fully realized human person. A newborn? A 5-year-old? A person with developmental disabilities? A person with mental illness? A person with dementia? Where is the line drawn?
Again, some monks argue the line is drawn at "mosquito".
If you're going to argue "human DNA", what exactly is "human DNA"? If we splice some tomato genes into the "human DNA", is it still human?
In my view, it's perverse to treat a biological structure as a "human" when it lacks everything we mean when we say "human", except a blueprint to develop into one. A blueprint, to me, is not a person, even if the blueprint is expressed biochemically.
A human is a human. A person is a person. It's a matter of discernment when a person becomes a person, but it's not a "very dangerous" slippery slope. Birth is an obvious threshold that has been used for ages. When people disagree on the beginning of personhood, any political compromise will lie somewhere between conception and birth.
That isn’t logical. You are ignoring the moment of conception.
The "moment of conception" is a period of time when a sperm enters an egg, and the genetic material of the sperm and the egg is somewhat randomly combined. This results in the creation of a blueprint which begins to self-develop into a person.
A blueprint, to me, is not a person, even if the blueprint is biochemically expressed. The blueprint lacks every single property we have in mind when we say "person".
There is no other circumstance where you would consider this blueprint a person, except when abortion is concerned. Then it suddenly "already is" one, simply because the genes have been shuffled and to you, that is that.
The stats helped me with the mental shift, 1% of women who have an abortion report suffering rape. 14% report being forced to abort by the father. More harm and enabling of evil men than helping victimized women. Off they care so much they’d do research. Shallow ignorant hurtful virtue is worthy of
I applaud your transition!
Your stats sum up to "85% of abortions are chosen by women who are not ready to carry a pregnancy to term."
It's no one's business to force them. It's not your duty to enforce God's law. If you think abortion is a mortal sin, then that's a matter between the woman, her doctor, and God.
Look at his username. Explains it really.
I think murder is a sin yes. Are you cool with murder?
What did you have for lunch today? That was a living, sentient creature. Are you a murderer?
What is the meaning of the relevant commandment? Thou shall not murder:
It means "thou shall not break", "dash to pieces", thou shall not "slay, kill, murder".
Do you think you're meant to use any discernment in that?
Or do you think maybe this requires you to gently swipe the ground in floor of you as you walk, as some Buddhist monks do, to avoid killing an insect?
There are people who take the Bible very literally, and they have Shabbat elevators that run on a schedule all day so they can avoid pressing buttons, which God prohibits on Saturdays. Do you think those people could use some discernment?
Condoms are one of the most popular forms of birth control.
They are extremely effective in preventing STDs.
Guess what banning abortion would do? Increase the use of Condoms.
Banning abortion would have a wonderful public health benefit.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the practical effect would be to increase the 13% that does 50% of violent crime to 15% that does 60% of violent crime. 😐
no 1 forced her.And the guy who stuck it in has to man up. Come on, they keep pushing the permission from 2 months to 3 months to 9 months. It's ridiculous.
“What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. What sorrow for those who are wise in their own eyes and think themselves so clever.” Isaiah 5:20-21 NLT
That's what you are doing if your idea of "calling a sin a sin" is to put doctors and women in prison for performing and having abortions.
That's your opinion of what God said. You are not his authorized representative.
I'm happy to argue my case in front of God. What I'm unhappy with is people pretending to know God's will, and enforcing their idea of it.
This is what Muslims also do, and it is outrageous.
If the woman is complicit in acquiring the pregnancy then I don’t care. It’s not her right to kill her kid.