Originally Posted by sinjin

One's capacity for consciousness is not altered by a temporary suspension of that consciousness.

During that suspension there is no capacity, why would we treat this hulk of flesh like a person when it feels nothing of the external world?

Originally Posted by Freedom

She has the right to decide what to do with herself, no right to decide to kill her baby.

So in effect what you are saying is once a woman gets pregnant she is an incubator. I assume your position would include she has not the right to intentionally harm the fetus which by virtue of the symbiotic nature of the relationship would prevent her from doing many things to herself. In other words her right to her body is no longer hers. Under any other circumstances you would cry violation of rights

If it weren't for adoption you would also have a moral obligation to raise your children no matter how bad you would want otherwise.

Why? What establishes the moral obligation that the incubator must continue to be an unwilling caregiver. Again under any other circumstances by your standards this forced servitude would be a violation of rights.

A rapist destroys his/her rights by their act, no one else's. If someone cuts off your arm, and you can undo the damage by grafting a third parties arm on to yourself; that doesn't give you the right to do it without their permission just because you were wronged.

If someone grafts a third arm onto you without your permission do you have to leave it attached because now it is part of you?

Raping her is cruel, keeping her from killing someone is not.

Denying her the ability to choose and forcing her to carry and and give birth can be just as cruel. Cruel is a matter of perspective.

What she would rather do is irrelevant.

Because she has lost her right to make choices for herself and her future because of why?

And the rapist had a choice to rape or not rape, but at least he had the choice.

Would you willingly give up many of your rights, saddle yourself with life long obligations and impair possible future plans because someone else violated your rights? What is so easy about demanding that a woman do so?

What does feeling matter? Everything feels.

OK Spock

She shouldn't have to go through birth if she didn't want to? Why must she go through parenthood if she didn't want to?

She shouldn't

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Those who promote, defend, and/or enable the infanticide of abortion WILL one day answer to God for it.

You don't butcher an innocent baby for the sins or convenience of the parent(s).

God gives permission in the Bible to kill children, cause a woman to miscarry or have an abortion, doesn't count them under 1 month and values them at 5 shekels for boys and 3 for girls.

There is no bible verses that specifically condemn abortion. All the verses used for that purpose need to be stretched a little or a lot to work

Originally Posted by pappillion001

God gives permission in the Bible to kill children...

Assuming that's not a divine judgment on a particular group of people who got way out of line with God, back that up with the respective scripture if you would.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

There is no bible verses that specifically condemn abortion. All the verses used for that purpose need to be stretched a little or a lot to work

Horse manure.

What does the Bible say about abortion?

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)

God affirms the value of human life in a mother’s womb.

Next, a divinely appointed prophet from the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5 – ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’

Of course, the question here is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating? Answer the question?

That was a future prophet to the nations in the womb. But the pro-infanticide crowd wants to pretend that instead of a baby with a divine plan, it’s nothing more than an unviable tissue mass. Well, God is not fooled, and neither are we.

So, preppie, unless you have even a small tidbit of spiritual insight, you're going to continue to make these assoholic claims that abortion is ok with God.

Originally Posted by hwyangel

Psychiatric help. Even if she kills her baby she would still need to deal with the real problem rather than the imagined problem , and the real problem would be the rape and the perpetrator of the rape.

Lie. A baby is not killed during an abortion.

And, being forced to carry to term and give birth to the spawn of a rapist compounds the harm of the rape many times over.

Being forced to bear the child of a rapist is not healthy and healing. A woman would look into the face of the child and see the evil face of her rapist over and over again.

This is total injustice.

Originally Posted by hwyangel

Abortion is four times deadlier than childbirth. Abortion is more traumatic physically, emotionally and mentally. The only single reason to have an abortion is because you don't want to carry it.

Another lie. Refer to the scientific and medical findings of President Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General Everett C. Koop regarding the health risks of abortion mentally and physically, versus the health risks of pregnancy:

Despite years of trying, antiabortion activists failed to gain any traction with the nation's major medical groups in alleging that abortion posed a direct threat to women's health, especially their mental health, so they turned to the political process to legitimize their claims. In 1987, they convinced President Reagan to direct U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to analyze the health effects of abortion and submit a report to the president. As Koop had been appointed to his position in no small part because of his antiabortion views, both prochoice and antiabortion factions believed the outcome to be preordained. (An eminent pediatric surgeon as well as an outspoken abortion foe, Koop had no prior experience or background in public health; both public health and prochoice advocates in Congress vehemently opposed his appointment, delaying his confirmation by several months.)

Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.

Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president"

Abortion and Mental Health: Myths and Realities

Originally Posted by hwyangel

It's selfishness at the expense of human life.

Another lie. Selfishness is in the eye of the beholder. Choosing to have an abortion can be an extremely unselfish decision, making the wise decision not to bring a child into a world where it would be unwelcome, where it would lack the nurturance and shelter that every child needs and deserves in order to thrive.

British findings by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:

Abortion is safer than having a baby, doctors say
Pregnant women should be told that having an abortion is safer than having the baby, according to medical chiefs.
Never before has official advice to doctors and nurses in Britain instructed them to use such comparisons to help pregnant women decide whether to keep a child
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
10:00PM GMT 26 Feb 2011
The advice, which would be given to women considering terminations, has caused anger, with anti-abortion campaigners accusing doctors' leaders of forcing an "absurdly liberal agenda" on women in a vulnerable situation.

The draft guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating terminations.

Its first recommendation on "what women need to know" instructs health professionals: "Women should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term."

Abortion is safer than having a baby, doctors say - Telegraph

Quote from Simone

'And, being forced to carry to term and give birth to the spawn of a rapist compounds the harm of the rape many times over.'

Have you thought about therapy darling ?

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Assuming that's not a divine judgment on a particular group of people who got way out of line with God, back that up with the respective scripture if you would.

You remember Numbers the Law of Jealousy where if a husband for any reason suspects his wife of being unfaithful she is forced to drink a potion that will cause her womb to wither. Evidence is not necessary to subject her to this and if you would like some other verses I can give them to you

Horse manure.

What does the Bible say about abortion?

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)

God affirms the value of human life in a mother’s womb.

What would it be like to understand what you read? This says that should a man cause a woman to miscarry due to his fighting with another man he gets a fine. The going price of kids at that time was 5 sheckels for boys and 3 for girls. The life for a life, eye for an eye only applies if the mother is injured. God put almost no value to the unborn child.

By the way Christians don't follow the Law of Moses or are you cherry picking?

Next, a divinely appointed prophet from the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5 – ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’

Can you please explain how either of these verses supports pro life? The first is God stating Jeremiah was always a prophet. It speaks of him specifically, not all people.

Again the second is a part of a prayer to acknowledging God. It is a man speaking what he thinks not God saying what is.

Of course, the question here is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating? Answer the question?

How is God instrumental in creating it? Adam was made from dirt, Eve from a bone and Jesus was artificially created. God from a biblical perspective views our reproductive process as offensive. If you recall he made Adam and it wasn't until he felt bad that he was alone did he make Eve.

That was a future prophet to the nations in the womb. But the pro-infanticide crowd wants to pretend that instead of a baby with a divine plan, it’s nothing more than an unviable tissue mass. Well, God is not fooled, and neither are we.

Of course your fooled look at the evidence you provide and the conclusion you reach. So is it your contention that God is unable to insure that the ones he needs born to accomplish some goal of his he can't protect? Because he without question does not intend for every child to be born and live, otherwise they would.

So, preppie, unless you have even a small tidbit of spiritual insight, you're going to continue to make these assoholic claims that abortion is ok with God.

Don't get mad at me because you have been lied to. I am simply pointing out what you don't understand and giving you the chnace to educate yourself on something that you value. If you want to keep walking around with TP hanging out the back of your pants then I won't mention it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

So in effect what you are saying is once a woman gets pregnant she is an incubator.

Biologically all pregnant mammals are incubators, but I'm sure you knew that.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I assume your position would include she has not the right to intentionally harm the fetus which by virtue of the symbiotic nature of the relationship would prevent her from doing many things to herself. In other words her right to her body is no longer hers. Under any other circumstances you would cry violation of rights

It's neither symbiosis nor parasitism as both of those require different species.

I see you still don't quite understand my theories on ethics. Rights are freedoms from interference of other moral beings (moral as in capable of deriving moral theory, not moral as in a follower of an accurate theory), not from nature.

You do not have a right to live forever, nor to eat when your life is threatened; it's your body why can't you live forever if you want?

A person who dies of old age was not murdered because nature is not a moral entity.

Now being a parent is a biological function, which we often have control over but not always. We can make mistakes, and we can be violated; but that doesn't change the function.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Why? What establishes the moral obligation that the incubator must continue to be an unwilling caregiver. Again under any other circumstances by your standards this forced servitude would be a violation of rights.

Why do parents have an obligation to take care of their children? Well I don't have as rigorous response as is typical of moral matters for me; but of course you must see that such is the question you have asked.

The normal response would be an obligation entered into upon choosing to create someone, however obviously in the case of rape no choice was made.

In the case of rape it is in fact the rapist who should bear the responsibility for his/her actions.

I would fully endorse forcing a rapist to provide continued financial support to the raising of their children, but given their actions proper parenting is out of the question. At worst a mother of a rape produced child has the right to offload the responsibility of the child onto the rapist in full at the earliest opportunity as well as receiving what possible recompense for her trouble as possible but as noted that would be quite cruel to the child.

So the real question is everyone have entitled to be raised or is it a privilege.

Perhaps by removing the particular mode of reproduction the issue can be seen more clearly, if someone clones themselves; where the clone by biological fact requires additional support; is someone obligated to continue support until the clone is capable of independent existence?

I don't have a concrete answer, but I can tell you for most people through most of history the answer has been yes. So while I do not know the answer (and would love to explore possible solutions) I can say confidently that it's one or the other, yes or no. I don't think any pro-deather would be willing to give no. i.e. they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

If someone grafts a third arm onto you without your permission do you have to leave it attached because now it is part of you?

No.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Denying her the ability to choose and forcing her to carry and and give birth can be just as cruel. Cruel is a matter of perspective.

The rapist forced her, no one else. You are not talking about the 'harm' but the failure to recognize the harm as an excuse to violate rights in an attempt to repair the harm. Refer to my example with the arm, another one is if a thief stole something from you; stopping you from stealing from other random passersby until you regained the value you lost is not 'forcing you to lose your wealth'. The thief did that.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Because she has lost her right to make choices for herself and her future because of why?

She didn't lose her rights, they were violated. Why she, after the violation; is not given special permission to violate more rights in an attempt to mitigate her own violation is because one violation never justifies another. As you love to mistakenly apply to criminal punishment, two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Would you willingly give up many of your rights, saddle yourself with life long obligations and impair possible future plans because someone else violated your rights?

I thought you didn't want to talk about taxes (JK)

"Willing to give up rights" is an oxymoron, if you are willing to do something that thing cannot be a violation of your rights.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

What is so easy about demanding that a woman do so?

Simple, I don't. If I did that would mean I would accept rape.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

OK Spock

No seriously, if our rights came from our sensory systems than all higher animals would share them.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

She shouldn't

Joan and John are on a desert island. No one gave them the bees and the birds speech and joan got pregnant. She didn't know what it was until she gave birth. However the child was extremely annoying to take care of.

Should joan have to be a parent if she doesn't want to?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

You remember Numbers the Law of Jealousy where if a husband for any reason suspects his wife of being unfaithful she is forced to drink a potion that will cause her womb to wither.

A judgment on an unfaithful wife if that happens.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

What would it be like to understand what you read? This says that should a man cause a woman to miscarry due to his fighting with another man he gets a fine. The going price of kids at that time was 5 sheckels for boys and 3 for girls. The life for a life, eye for an eye only applies if the mother is injured. God put almost no value to the unborn child.

"Almost" no value? There was value placed on the child. That's the point.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

By the way Christians don't follow the Law of Moses or are you cherry picking?

The moral law is still in effect. Adultery is still adultery, etc.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Can you please explain how either of these verses supports pro life? The first is God stating Jeremiah was always a prophet. It speaks of him specifically, not all people.

Again the second is a part of a prayer to acknowledging God. It is a man speaking what he thinks not God saying what is.

How is God instrumental in creating it? Adam was made from dirt, Eve from a bone and Jesus was artificially created. God from a biblical perspective views our reproductive process as offensive. If you recall he made Adam and it wasn't until he felt bad that he was alone did he make Eve.

The scripture is clear, pappi. God is in some way instrumental in the creation of a child in a mother's womb. Jeremiah was appointed a prophet to the nations before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5). Don't believe it if you don't want to but that's what it says.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

So is it your contention that God is unable to insure that the ones he needs born to accomplish some goal of his he can't protect? Because he without question does not intend for every child to be born and live, otherwise they would.

They live in heaven. Everyone lives forever. It's just a matter of where you're going to spend eternity. And right now you're headed down the wrong path.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Don't get mad at me because you have been lied to. I am simply pointing out what you don't understand and giving you the chnace to educate yourself on something that you value. If you want to keep walking around with TP hanging out the back of your pants then I won't mention it.

<Flush>

You've got nothing, pappi. Wise up before you wind up as Satan's whipping boy.

Live, breathing babies that survive abortion are wrapped in a blanket and disposed of with hazardous waste and left to die on their own. These babies suffer sometime for hours and no one is allowed to help them. This is what pro-choice advocates.

Originally Posted by gansao

Quote from Simone

'And, being forced to carry to term and give birth to the spawn of a rapist compounds the harm of the rape many times over.'

Have you thought about therapy darling ?

Are you trying to say something meaningful?

Try again.

Originally Posted by hwyangel

Live, breathing babies that survive abortion are wrapped in a blanket and disposed of with hazardous waste and left to die on their own. These babies suffer sometime for hours and no one is allowed to help them. This is what pro-choice advocates.

Where is this happening?

Where's your evidence?

Originally Posted by hwyangel

Live, breathing babies that survive abortion are wrapped in a blanket and disposed of with hazardous waste and left to die on their own. These babies suffer sometime for hours and no one is allowed to help them. This is what pro-choice advocates.

Prove it. Evidence from a neutral and objective source, please.