Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[seeds]

_______

Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!...

...unless, of course, you are God.

For it seems that God's own system of creation allows for an estimated 23 million "spontaneous abortions" (miscarriages) to take place each and every year on this planet.

Now, with that being said, I'm hesitant to offer my own feelings on the issue of abortion, but I do find myself more in agreement with IC's position.

The sheer immorality of modern females casually using abortion as simply another form of birth control is thoroughly wrong to me. Indeed, abortion should only be reserved for the most pressing of cases, such as...

• 1. Preserving the life of the mother.
  2. Rape.
  3. I'm sure there are other morally justifiable reasons, but I'm hard pressed to think of them at the moment.

Anyway, what fascinates me most about this thread - a thread that seems to pit IC's moral (Christian-based) convictions against everyone else, is how ridiculously incongruent it is to witness IC being so deeply concerned about the lives of unborn humans,...

...while at the same time knowing that he believes there will come a time when he will be sipping mint juleps in Heaven and be perfectly (even blissfully) content knowing that untold billions of his fellow humans...

(perhaps even his own loved ones)

...will be writhing in agony from the deliberate torture they will receive for eternity in the burning pits of Hell...



IC has actually argued with me that it is plausible that humans who died as infants and toddlers may indeed be sent to Hell because God omnisciently "knew" they would have done something worthy of Hell had they lived into adulthood on earth.

That suggestion is so brazenly absurd that, unbeknownst to IC, it raises the possibility that all abortions...

(be they the result of miscarriage or man induced)

...might actually be God being merciful, because had those millions of humans reached actual "personhood" via birth, he "knew" he would have to send them to Hell.

(Hey, it's based on IC's ridiculous suggestion, not mine.)

I mean him no offense, because I'm sure he actually "believes" the things he says. But, good lord, it must be painful to have one's mind squeezed into such a closed and tiny space.

Anyway, even though I pretty much agree with IC on the issue of abortion, his seemingly heartfelt concern for the unborn is rendered utterly meaningless in light of the proverbial torture condoning "demon" he is going to turn into if he makes it into Heaven.
_______

[accelafine]

_______

Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!...

...unless, of course, you are God.

For it seems that God's own system of creation allows for an estimated 23 million "spontaneous abortions" (miscarriages) to take place each and every year on this planet.

Now, with that being said, I'm hesitant to offer my own feelings on the issue of abortion, but I do find myself more in agreement with IC's position.

The sheer immorality of modern females casually using abortion as simply another form of birth control is thoroughly wrong to me. Indeed, abortion should only be reserved for the most pressing of cases, such as...

• 1. Preserving the life of the mother.
  2. Rape.
  3. I'm sure there are other morally justifiable reasons, but I'm hard pressed to think of them at the moment.

Anyway, what fascinates me most about this thread - a thread that seems to pit IC's moral (Christian-based) convictions against everyone else, is how ridiculously incongruent it is to witness IC being so deeply concerned about the lives of unborn humans,...

...while at the same time knowing that he believes there will come a time when he will be sipping mint juleps in Heaven and be perfectly (even blissfully) content knowing that untold billions of his fellow humans...

(perhaps even his own loved ones)

...will be writhing in agony from the deliberate torture they will receive for eternity in the burning pits of Hell...



IC has actually argued with me that it is plausible that humans who died as infants and toddlers may indeed be sent to Hell because God omnisciently "knew" they would have done something worthy of Hell had they lived into adulthood on earth.

That suggestion is so brazenly absurd that, unbeknownst to IC, it raises the possibility that all abortions...

(be they the result of miscarriage or man induced)

...might actually be God being merciful, because had those millions of humans reached actual "personhood" via birth, he "knew" he would have to send them to Hell.

(Hey, it's based on IC's ridiculous suggestion, not mine.)

I mean him no offense, because I'm sure he actually "believes" the things he says. But, good lord, it must be painful to have one's mind squeezed into such a closed and tiny space.

Anyway, even though I pretty much agree with IC on the issue of abortion, his seemingly heartfelt concern for the unborn is rendered utterly meaningless in light of the proverbial torture condoning "demon" he is going to turn into if he makes it into Heaven.
_______

Who cares what you think? Are you ever likely to need one?

[Immanuel Can]

Rights are granted to me by the laws of my country, and I know that, at least at the present time, those laws exist, so I am rationally bound to believe that rights exist.

Those aren't "rights." "Rights" are, by definition, inalienable. If the State can take them away, then you have no "right" to them at all. What you have is only State-granted beneficence...and only for the present moment.

I'm no expert on rights, but I think it is only unalienable rights that are unalienable. Bog standard rights can be given...

If they can be given and taken away at will, then in what sense are they your "right" at all?

Watch the way people use the language. They don't say "I have a right to...," except when they feel that something that simply ought not to be denied them is being denied them. For example, "People only say, 'I have a right to speak' when their speech-opportunity is being threatened or denied. But if power -- whether regional, state, or national -- is all that's behind that outcry, then they really have no grounds to object at all. Their "rights" then depend entirely on the very force they're recognizing as oppressive.

I don't know what "moral recourse" amounts to,

It amounts to being on the right side of the truth.

How so? "Recourse" implies action, whereas "being on the right side of the truth" is just a state of being. If you are saying they have a moral case, but cannot do anything about it, then we are in agreement about that.

It's more powerful than that. When a person actually claims an intrinsic right, one they actually have, what they are saying is, "You, regardless of your power and authority, have no legitimacy in denying me this." That doesn't mean, of course, that the oppressor will suddenly wilt. But it does mean that the objector is pointing out that the oppressor's abuse of power is illegitimate, wrong, immoral, and perhaps even more...will be seen and judged as such by the Final Court. The claim is, "You may have the power now, but what you're doing is wrong, according to a Power much greater than you."

I would certainly say they had moral grounds for protest,

What are those "grounds"?

I could explain why there is a moral injustice according to my own sense of morality, but why would I do that knowing what your response to it would be?

My response is not going to be the problem. Your lack of grounds is going to be the problem. Your personal "sense of morality" does not even compel you to stick to it, let alone anybody else. It has a moral force of zero, really, unless it aligns with the greater authority of truth, rightness and divine sanction.

That's not intended as an insult, by the way: the very same is true of any human being who imagines he can ground a moral claim without reference to God. Human beings, whether alone or in groups, have no grounds for moral claims. They may still want to make them, but they float them on nothing...unless you have an answer you haven't yet given, which I'm happy to hear.

[Immanuel Can]

So you apparently think it's appropriate to refer to teenagers as octagenarians, because both are humans.

That's completely silly. I've never said anything remotely close to that.

I'll make it simple for you: "persons" is the large category. Within that category are such beings as children, babies, teenagers, old men, Elvis, and pre-born infants. But nothing suggests there is no difference between those sub-categories -- just none that makes a difference to whether or not they're people.

I feel like we're back in kindergarten.

The distinction is based on age.

Right. It doesn't have anything at all to do with one's status as a person, or one's being a human being. If you murder a baby, a toddler, a teenager or an octagenarian, you've still murdered a human being, a person.

This objection is specious and puerile, therefore. You didn't even need to bother.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's completely silly. I've never said anything remotely close to that.

I'll make it simple for you: "persons" is the large category. Within that category are such beings as children, babies, teenagers, old men, Elvis, and pre-born infants. But nothing suggests there is no difference between those sub-categories -- just none that makes a difference to whether or not they're people.

I feel like we're back in kindergarten.

The distinction is based on age.

Right. It doesn't have anything at all to do with one's status as a person, or one's being a human being. If you murder a baby, a toddler, a teenager or an octagenarian, you've still murdered a human being, a person.

This objection is specious and puerile, therefore. You didn't even need to bother.

From the other posts, you are conflating abortion with murder.

• murder = the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

• abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as
  : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation

Morality deal with humans killing of humans in general [born or unborn].
Thus, "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" as an ideal standard and guide.

Murder is a specific 'humans killing humans' is a political and legal element, it is not and should not be a moral matter.

Politically and legally, humans can kill humans conditionally as in capital punishment, wars, self-defense or that which is allowed within the law.

Within morality, "humans killing of humans" is absolutely not permissible, but this is merely a standard and guide within a human-based moral framework and system.
This is exemplified within a theistic moral FS like that of Christianity, Buddhism and the like.
Humanity need to establish a secular moral FS where "humans killing of humans" is absolutely not permissible without a God and threats.

[accelafine]

_______

Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!...

...unless, of course, you are God.

For it seems that God's own system of creation allows for an estimated 23 million "spontaneous abortions" (miscarriages) to take place each and every year on this planet.

Now, with that being said, I'm hesitant to offer my own feelings on the issue of abortion, but I do find myself more in agreement with IC's position.

The sheer immorality of modern females casually using abortion as simply another form of birth control is thoroughly wrong to me. Indeed, abortion should only be reserved for the most pressing of cases, such as...

• 1. Preserving the life of the mother.
  2. Rape.
  3. I'm sure there are other morally justifiable reasons, but I'm hard pressed to think of them at the moment.

Anyway, what fascinates me most about this thread - a thread that seems to pit IC's moral (Christian-based) convictions against everyone else, is how ridiculously incongruent it is to witness IC being so deeply concerned about the lives of unborn humans,...

...while at the same time knowing that he believes there will come a time when he will be sipping mint juleps in Heaven and be perfectly (even blissfully) content knowing that untold billions of his fellow humans...

(perhaps even his own loved ones)

...will be writhing in agony from the deliberate torture they will receive for eternity in the burning pits of Hell...



IC has actually argued with me that it is plausible that humans who died as infants and toddlers may indeed be sent to Hell because God omnisciently "knew" they would have done something worthy of Hell had they lived into adulthood on earth.

That suggestion is so brazenly absurd that, unbeknownst to IC, it raises the possibility that all abortions...

(be they the result of miscarriage or man induced)

...might actually be God being merciful, because had those millions of humans reached actual "personhood" via birth, he "knew" he would have to send them to Hell.

(Hey, it's based on IC's ridiculous suggestion, not mine.)

I mean him no offense, because I'm sure he actually "believes" the things he says. But, good lord, it must be painful to have one's mind squeezed into such a closed and tiny space.

Anyway, even though I pretty much agree with IC on the issue of abortion, his seemingly heartfelt concern for the unborn is rendered utterly meaningless in light of the proverbial torture condoning "demon" he is going to turn into if he makes it into Heaven.
_______

Who are all these women you know who are using abortion as a 'method of contraception'? They must be very close to you to divulge this to you.
You do realise that a woman could be having an abortion every month if this were the case don't you? You do understand 'something' of women's biology don't you? So, if women are using abortion as a method of contraception, and they are having one every month, then that looks a lot like.....

[accelafine]

.

[accelafine]

IC and Seeds would like to see periods outlawed. Or is it just the sperm they consider to be sacred?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ

[Immanuel Can]

From the other posts, you are conflating abortion with murder.

Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.

I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.

How much more strongly can one put it?

[accelafine]

From the other posts, you are conflating abortion with murder.

Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.

I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.

How much more strongly can one put it?

Why do you only respond to morons like you, and only males?

[accelafine]

So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the other posts, you are conflating abortion with murder.

Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.

I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.

How much more strongly can one put it?

Nope.

If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.

You [and like] can personally interpret abortion as murder but that is not the generally accepted meaning. No one can stop you on this, but it will not have an impact on others who do not agree with you.

By the generally accepted definition, abortion cannot be equated with murder as they are supported by their specific circumstances ending with death, i.e. humans killing humans [born and unborn].

When the majority humanity are educated and realize that the 'oughtnotness to kill humans' is an inherent moral fact within a human-based moral framework, then moral progress can be made effectively within a trend of the reduction the number of deaths due to 'humans killing humans' towards the ideal of a ZERO target.

[accelafine]

''By the generally accepted definition, abortion cannot be equated with murder as they supported by their specific circumstances ending with death, i.e. humans killing humans [born and unborn].''

Seriously, VA, could you read back over this and decide if it means anything? Perhaps use the edit function?

[Immanuel Can]

From the other posts, you are conflating abortion with murder.

Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.

I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.

How much more strongly can one put it?

Nope.

If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.

If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

[accelafine]

See? The cowardly weirdo doesn't have the guts to confront an actual woman on this.