Mental gymnastics...

submitted by In-the-clouds from i.imgur.com

all 41 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yet, you still can't take the autonomy of the mother over her own body away.

If she doesn't want the baby, you can't force her to carry it because - of course - she will search for ways to get an abortion. The harder you push against her will, the harder she will push back. This is quite simple to understand.

Forcing abortions into legally gray or dark areas of our systems has only misery as a consequence.

The limits are debatable, though. I believe an abortion after the first trimester should be illegal. If a woman can't make up her mind in 12 weeks time to decide, she should live with the consequences.

She still has the option to give away the baby after its birth. This is infinitely sad, but still better for all involved parties than the alternative, imo.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I tend to agree. The issue I have is largely with this idea that we can't force women to carry it. Why? We can't force women to not kill their babies either, like they will literally can do it anyway simply by not feeding it (something which happens in nature constantly) but that doesn't mean it should be legal.

I take issue with the idea that terminating a pregnancy immediately after conception constitutes murder but it's hard to argue that terminating a more developed fetus in the latter half of pregnancy is anything other than that. Maybe justified homicide in the case of extreme medical risk to the mother, but still a homicide.

It's justified to kill someone who threatens to kill you, the same logic applies here.

I think the best situation is simply to prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place. I'll admit gender transition is a poor solution for that though.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Knowledge about and access to contraceptives is another key to find solutions for these issues. I agree.

When you're young, a lot of things happen on impulse (or lack of impulse control).

But there should be options. In every stage of the process.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You give one solution: adoption, as a viable alternative to abortion.

Regarding your claim of a woman's autonomy... A man was required to give seed for the unborn to grow in her womb. She did not make herself pregnant. So she did not act independently when she conceived, nor by her own power.

And does the man have no rights to protect his unborn child?

If the woman were autonomous, why do other men and women perform the abortion inside her body and on the bodies growing inside her womb?

...former abortion worker Marianne Anderson describes how abortionists sifted the remains of aborted babies and examined them. One abortionist, she says, talked to the dead babies, saying things such as “where’s your little arm….there you are! Now where’s the head? Where’s this?” while trying to locate all the parts of the baby. He had to do this in order to make sure the abortion was complete.

If she were autonomous, then let her perform the abortion herself, by her own free will and by her own power. Then she alone will be held accountable for her act. Most abortions are not autonomous, but involve other people taking part in the barbarous act, many times involving entire corporations that manufacture the abortion drugs and tools, and profit from it. Now all involved and knowingly profiting from the destruction of the unborn (such as Planned Parenthood) will have to give an account for their actions to God on the day of judgement.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And then there is rape. Which is not consensual by definition. Badumm tzz.

Men take part in this process with exactly one very small cell. While women literally sacrifice parts of themselves to nurture the baby for nine months.

So it shall be their decision and theirs alone. This is justifiable, in every sense, I can think of.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There is some logic in the bodily autonomy argument but I don't think any of us agree it's an absolute. There are times when it's justifiable to take away someone's bodily autonomy. Specifically when they are a threat to themselves or others.

I don't think it's reasonable to say, allow a consenting adult to gouge out their own eyeballs or something like that. It's clearly an insane notion and a sign of mental illness and intervention to prevent them from doing so is justifiable. We wouldn't just sit back and be like, well they are an adult they have bodily autonomy and the right to do that. Now there may be a valid reason for removing an eyeball due to injury or disease where bodily autonomy and personal choice comes into play. But if it's an otherwise healthy individual I'm not sure it's fair to say there's a right to self harm. Although admittedly there is very little that can be done to prevent it if someone really wants to.

Now an abortion isn't at all compatible to causing permanent handicap in terms of its effects on someone's life. (If it is done right of course). But I don't think the argument is really about bodily autonomy so much as it's about "does the fetus have a soul, and if so when?" Which is a largely metaphysical question you can't prove or nail down an exact time.

I don't see a huge problem with allowing early stage abortions before the fetus has progressed far in development especially when weighed against the social and economic consequences of banning it in our current society, but I still find the idea of it being a bodily autonomy argument to be missing the point of what it's really about. We could argue that while a woman absolutely has a choice on whether to breastfeed or not, she doesn't have a choice to feed the baby or not. The baby must be fed somehow. Otherwise it's no better than murder. If the mother absolutely refuses and wishes to give the baby away instead that as you say is sad but perfectly justifiable and protects the interests of the infant. But once the pregnancy progresses beyond a certain point I don't think we can justify abortion as a bodily autonomy argument unless it's in an aforementioned case of medical necessity where the mother's life is in peril, it's absolutely her choice then. But if she's otherwise healthy and wishes to get a third trimester abortion I do think the developed fetuses right to live (as I see no valid distinction between a developed fetus and a baby in terms of the morality of homicide).

I think the issue gets messy because there's no scientific basis by which a clear point can be determined where we can say, before this point it's not a person yet. Conception is the closest point where we can say that there's a definite before and after. Birth is messier as there's no real moral ground to argue that there is any difference immediately before and after birth in terms of viability. )

Perhaps viability is a point we should consider but even then there are moral implications that must be considered. For example if the fetus is viable and the woman wishes to induce premature labor for no valid reason that clearly should not be allowed as it has definitely consequences on the child's life. In the same way women should be allowed to chain smoke or drink massive amounts while pregnant as it is hurting the future child. I think consenting to pregnancy constitutes consenting to the loss of your own bodily autonomy for the sake of the child. And I don't think that after the fact there's any right to revoke that consent once things have developed too far.

Personally I say balancing out all the social and ethical concerns, sex selective abortions, aborting of fetuses with disabilities etc. The only real time an abortion is clearly justifiable for non-medical reason is very early in the pregnancy. Within arguably the first few weeks.

I don't think at all men should be left off the hook for this. Clearly men can't share in the pregnancy but I do believe very strongly any man has at the very least an obligation to support the woman financially during the pregnancy. (Though mere financial obligation is far from optimal)

It's really an ethical quagmire from a number of angles. Women can be pressured into getting abortions they don't want by boyfriend's or husband's or mere financial necessity. I don't agree with an outright ban on abortions across the board but I do think it's important we look at the issue as a practice which isn't inherently good or lacks the gravity of ending a potential life. It's at best a necessary evil. And I think the common talking points of "my body my choice" or "stop killing babies" really dumb down the whole discussion to a moral black and white issue when it's far more complex.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'd always go with the Hippocratic Oath : "... and I will do no harm or injustice to them."

Since pregnancy by rape is a thing nowadays, I'll adjust the following sentences of it to our "modern" times. An abortion isn't that risky itself anymore when done by professionals, as far as I understand. But it can be, when done in some backdoor slaughterhouse.

But it is factual harm to the woman, when she can't have an abortion on her free will. At least up to some point in time of the pregnancy. But this harm can be the lesser harm to her. Hence, she should have the right to choose between options.

Christian fundamentalists raising questions about when a soul starts to exist in a fetus are completely beside this point.

The first angle should always be the physical and mental health of the pregnant women in question.

As far as I can understand your points, you agree on this.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's completely fare. I agree, but the issue comes down to differing opinions on what specifically constitutes harm or injustice.

Euthanasia is a prime example of a that. I think that there are circumstances where it's morally justifiable but I don't think it should be legalized because it removes a major social more of taking care of the sick and infirm and not merely disposing of them. We don't want to come to a society where we are so cruel that we consider the elderly and infirm a burden that should be easily disposed of. And I think legalization here has potentially troublesome unknown social ramifications.

But is it harm or injustice to give a terminally ill person in hospice care a knowingly fatal dose of heroin so they die faster rather than languishing in pain for hours or days? I'd argue that it is neither. But is it something that society should tolerate or promote? I think the answer to that question is also no.

Ethical quandaries are controversial because there are usually good compelling arguments to be made for both positions. That doesn't necessarily mean both positions are equally moral or right, but it does mean we'll never have the short easy answers that we want and are so drawn to adopting. It's the primary reason why in most debates people become frustrated why their short insight on the topic isn't received as they hoped. My body my choice is a good example. The basic idea is sound, but it's a poor pro-abortion argument because the opponent is not arguing against bodily autonomy. They will simply say it's not your body, so it's not your choice. They underlying postulation is not accepted so the argument is ineffectual but to the person making the argument they can't understand that and here the rejection of the statement as a rejection of the idea of bodily autonomy in general rather than a rejection of the idea that bodily autonomy applies specifically to abortion. They then see that rejection as monstrous as indeed, saying that people have no right to make their own medical choices is indeed a monstrous thing to say, however that isn't what is being argued, both sides are misrepresenting the other but not intentionally. Abortion is murder is another good example. From the pro life side the person making that statement believes fetus = baby therefore murder. They see the rejection of that ideal as monstrous as indeed promoting infanticide is. However the pro choice side disregards that argument not because they are pro murder but because they do not accept the underlying postulate that fetus = baby.

Unfortunately there's no easy way to reconcile these viewpoints but at the very least the state of discourse would improve greatly if the arguments were made from a position not assuming the bad intents of the opposition.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

... which has become kind of hard nowadays since almost every difference of opinion or angle is charged with emotion so easily.

Communication itself has gotten quite weird in many aspects when the side with the "shortest" or "funniest" answer is upvoted so easily by doing a click.

Put bots, astroturf accounts and shills in this mix, and you have this chaos happening right now in many, many places.

I agree.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes while I think social media is contributing American society at the very least has had third rail topics for years and years. As the old addage goes don't discuss religion or politics in mixed company. Social media essentially breaks that convention.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

Why don't you read your Bible? According to Exodus 21:22-23, the killing of an unborn fetus is worth less than the killing of the mother. If the mother dies, "a life for a life" is invoked. If she miscarriages due to being attacked, there is only a fine.

The Bible is absolutely clear: the fetus is not an independent human life, and abortion is not homicide or murder. At worst, it is property damage.

Fetuses aren't babies. A clump of cells is not a human being, it is a clump of cells. A heartbeat on its own means nothing. Rats have heartbeats.

When the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, outside of the womb, without extraordinary medical intervention, then it deserves some level of protection as a potential human being. Until then, it is just a part of the woman's body, and only the woman gets to say whether it is a welcome fetus being nurtured from her body or an unwelcome parasite sucking her life away.

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"only the woman gets to say whether it is a welcome fetus being nurtured from her body or an unwelcome parasite sucking her life away."

Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord.

23 The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church people. The church is his body and he saved it.

24 Wives should obey their husbands in everything, just as the church people obey Christ.

Sorry mate Bible disagrees with you husband gets the say not the woman.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're funny. Imagine giving a fuck what the invisible friend of a bunch of goat-fucking ancient desert barbarians thinks.

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Says the person who is using the bible to justify their position?

If you don't give a fuck what they think why you quoting their book mate?

[–]Evola 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's obviously jewish seen as he only pulled scripture from the Torah. You need to update your Jdar.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

You say the same unborn child could be a fetus or a parasite, depending on the opinion of the mother. Most pregnant women consented to having sex with a man that caused their egg to become fertilized and most women are aware that is how babies are formed. So how could she call the unborn child a parasite? The child did not force the parents to have sex. This is the same as a woman that ate food and wondered how her belly got full. What is in her belly? Food? Or something else, because she has some hateful opinion for what is inside of her body?

Here is the scripture cited:

~

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.

21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

~

So, if you want to stick to the old law, an abortionist could legally get a beating, or any other punishment, as determined by the husband, PLUS the fine imposed by judges.

And for those women who die from abortion complications, and it does happen, those abortionists would be executed.

God's word shows that abortion is a form of satanic sacrifice.

~

Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

~

What is the disposal method today for aborted babies? Sometimes their bodies are literally burned in fire. But God's word clearly prohibits the burning of our seed. You cannot truthfully use God's word to justify abortion.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Most pregnant women consented to having sex with a man

So let's just ignore those who didn't, shall we, and compound the abuse and trauma they already suffered? How very christian of you 😒

Let's go back to consent. Every time I eat food, I risk getting food poisoning. Does that mean I consent to being poisoned if I eat out? Obviously not. If I drive on the road, I run the risk of somebody crashing into me and killing me. Does that mean I consent to being run into? Clearly not.

"If you didn't want to almost die from food poisoning, you shouldn't have eaten."

Having sex does not mean you are ready, willing or able to be a parent, or that you consent to pregnancy.

Alone of all of god's creations, human beings are capable of planning their families using whatever combination of methods physically available. Animals mate, and have no control over whether they get pregnant, and if so, whether they carry the fetus to term. We are not just animals, we have the ability to plan their family. Consenting to sex is not consenting to nine months pregnancy followed by 18 years of raising a child and teenager.

So, if you want to stick to the old law, an abortionist could legally get a beating

Only if that abortionist performed an abortion without the consent of the woman. That would be assault.

If you go to a surgeon to have a gangrenous leg amputated, that is not assault and grievous bodily harm. If you allow a friend to borrow your car, that is not theft.

those women who die from abortion complications

All medical procedures carry some risk.

God's word shows that abortion is a form of satanic sacrifice.

Got an actual reference in scripture for that, or are you just repeating the lies you have been taught?

You are doing the Devil's work by repeating lies about scripture, and doing real harm: women who will unnecessarily die from medical complications because of abortion bans, unwanted babies who will be grow up to be troubled criminals, all fodder for the Devil. Whose side are you on?

God's word clearly prohibits the burning of our seed.

The bible does not prohibit cremation.

The Bible does not prohibit abortion either. Don't take my word for it: read it yourself, and you will find nothing, not one single word, that prohibits or condemns abortion for family planning. Child sacrifice to worship foreign gods? Prohibited. Assaulting a woman and causing her to miscarry against her will? A crime. But abortion, nothing.

The New Testament says nothing about abortion, and the Old Testament is conflicted about the status of babies and children. It is a Satanic lie that has convinced Christians that the Bible prohibits abortion.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So let's just ignore those who didn't, shall we, and compound the abuse and trauma they already suffered?

This is what you say, and if you support abortion, that is exactly the view you have toward the souls of the unborn. Why should their lives be terminated? What wrong have they done? They are completely innocent. They cannot defend themselves. They are the weakest of our society, but who will speak up for them? They cannot expect your help if you support their destruction. Those that support death should remember their views when they find themselves weak and vulnerable, and no longer valued by society. Then who will defend them? God has a law that will be fulfilled: whatsoever a man sows, that shall he reap. If you sow the seed of death, you shall reap the fruit of death, unless you repent and turn to Jesus, that you might live.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why should their lives be terminated? What wrong have they done? They are completely innocent.

An embryo or fetus too young to survive outside of the womb without heroic and unnatural medical care is not a "they". A fetus is no more "innocent" than is a kidney. They have no hopes or dreams or fears because they are not people. They might someday grow to be a person, but they are no more a person than this is a chicken.

There is no Biblical justification for a ban on abortion. Even third-trimester abortion is permitted by the Bible. Stop twisting the Bible. Whether you are doing it out of a foolish sentimentally, or to prove you are Holier and More Virtuous than everyone else, or out of a sick and twisted desire to hurt women, that's up to you. But everytime you twist scripture you inch closer to hell.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you even believe in a hell, or in a God that would like to save man from it?

I already reminded you that God said, Thou shalt not kill. I support life. You are the one who supports death, for the unborn, and twist the scriptures to support your desire for death.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

God said, Thou shalt not kill. I support life.

And that's why God told the Israelites to wage war against the Amalekites, the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Philistines, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, all of whom were all to be exterminated to the last man, woman, and child.

That's why God killed the innocent first born children of the Egyptians, after hardening Pharoah's heart so that God had an excuse to visit more plagues of Egypt. That's why Jesus came "not to bring peace, but bearing a sword".

That is why God killed Lot's wife, turning her into a pillar of salt, for the heinous crime of... looking back over her shoulder as she fled from her home which was being destroyed. While Lot, who offered up his own daughter to be gang-raped, is considered a Righteous Man.

Speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, God killed all the inhabitants of the city for the sins of a few, including innocent babies and the unborn. And let's not forget that God drowned the entire world, again including innocent babies and the unborn.

This is why the Bible says that those who are herem ("proscribed") they are to be destroyed.

This is why the punishment for the daughter of a priest who becomes a prostitute is to be burned alive -- and if the priest fails to burn his own daughter alive, he is to be killed (Leviticus 21:9). God also orders the killing of women who cannot prove that they were virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22). This is why God sends a plague which kills 70,000 Israelites -- including innocent babies and the unborn -- for King David's heinous sin of... taking a census.

When Phineas murdered in cold blood an Israelite and his Midianite girlfriend, God was so pleased by this double murder that He gives Phineas “My pact of friendship” and declares that Phineas and all his descendants as His priests for all time. He then stopped the deadly plague that He had sent to kill 24,000 Israelites, including innocent babies and the unborn. Afterwards, Moses sends his army to murder five Midianite kings, and slaughter all the Midianite men. Moses, incensed that his army brought back the women and children alive, orders them to murder the boy children and all women except the virgins. Moses is another Righteous Man.

Maybe you shouldn't call yourself a Christian if you don't know what the Bible actually says.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

The Bible does not prohibit abortion either.

There are many specific forms of killing that are not named in the Bible, but God covers them all in one commandment that he engraved in stone:

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

And in the New Testament, Jesus is recorded giving the Royal Law:

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Would you like for men to kill you when you are considered a nuisance and unwanted?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The commandments of a man spouting gibberish after getting lost on a mountain and inhaling the smoke of a hallucinogenic bush on fire, then came back declaring that God gave him tablets which he mysteriously lost and were never recovered, and which he appeared to have revised several times sometime after.

Nor does the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill" explain exactly what this means. Does it mean that you should not commit intentional murder? Or is involuntary manslaughter included? Moses did not seem to mind ordering his people to take up arms and kill his fellow man the same day of his return from the psychedelic hills.

The word of the Bible is questionable. https://youtu.be/v-63cTYJDCA

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You mock the word of God. Do you actually expect a response?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I mock the credibility of man who wrote the words you refer to. To deny me a response only legitimises my argument.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you do not believe God's word, why would you believe mine? If you were seeking the truth out of a sincere desire for it, you would find it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why would you be a more credible man than the man who claimed to write the words of a god? To remain truly free, is to be skeptical of the words of all people.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is right to be skeptical and ask questions, and doing so with a sincere desire for truth will lead you to it, and the truth shall make you free.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

The rest of the Bible: kill witches, kill your enemies, kill criminals, kill anyone who touches the Arc of the Covenant (God will do that for you), kill innocent people from another tribe because God wants you to steal their land and enslave their women and children, kill your child because God wants a sacrifice (God to Abraham: nah, just kidding, LOL -- God to Jephthah: did I fucking stutter?).

Even Jesus said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).

The prohibition against killing only applies to people, and even then God allows exceptions. We kill plants and animals and insects a thousand times a day and nobody even blinks. A fetus is not a person.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Are you God's judge? You defend the right to kill the unborn, but then you seem to have a problem with God's judgments. The unborn are innocent. Witches and criminals are not. How about we leave the judgments up to the Judge? He commands us to not avenge ourselves, but to let God repay.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Those that support killing the innocent... the unborn children... should fear God's vengeance.

You leap to a conclusion that a baby in its mother's womb is not a person. You were once that weak and helpless. So does that mean you are not a person? Or, at what time did you become a person? Are you sure you are a living person even now?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you God's judge?

Maybe someone should be.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is good to examine God's word with the intention of finding the truth, but it is not wise to try to be God's judge. God is already the most perfect being with far more wisdom than us. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Malachi 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Perfection shouldn't come with genocidal rage and impossible demands such as to police thought crime. This god you speak of is a tyrant and a dictator hell-bent on causing death and suffering. The same god would have you believe you are born in sin and must spend your entire life repenting and begging on your knees for forgiveness, it is despicable to act as though this were normal behaviour, let alone to refer to this manic as perfect.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I read your accusations against the God of the living, then I looked at your chosen username... I'm done with you. I am also done arguing with the guy that had his face eaten by weavils. You can defend yourself when it is time for you to give account for your life: how you thought, spoke, and acted. But for those of us that repent, we have Jesus the Lord as our mediator.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You leap to a conclusion that a baby in its mother's womb is not a person.

Damn straight. You would have to be under some some sort of demonic possession to think that this is a person.

You were once that weak and helpless. So does that mean you are not a person?

That was a very long time ago. What I am now is not what I was then. Things change. Once upon a time there was a blob of cells that was not a person, it grew and eventually became a person -- me -- and some day I shall die and cease to be a person again. As the Bible says, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Every person in history was once not a person, and shall return to not being a person.

Or, at what time did you become a person?

It was a gradual process, in the same way that a pile of raw materials (timber, bricks, plaster, paint) will become a house and then a home. This is not a house even if it may become one eventually. This is not an oak tree.

There is no absolute point where a fetus becomes a baby, but I think a reasonable legal fiction is the moment the newborn takes its first breath. I am even satisfied that we offer the unborn fetus protection as an honorary person during the third-trimester, provided the mother -- a real, actual person -- is not in any danger.

What I do not accept under any circumstances is the Virtue Signalling Holier Than Thous who will sacrifice real, living actual people so that they can hypocritically and dishonestly pretend to care for fetuses which are already all but dead in the womb, or have no chance of survival.

Actual people are more important than fetuses which are at best only a potential person, and often are not even that, if the fetus has no chance of survival.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."

This isn't a reference to abortion. Rather it's a reference to the Pagan god Molech and not allowing your children to participate, either in a form of human sacrifice, or some kind of pagan dedication ritual (the specifics of what passing through the fire involves are unclear), however it is not referencing abortion.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The scripture did not call it abortion, but called the evil act passing seed through fire. I agree with you that details are lacking. But if people today remove the unborn from the womb and burn the body in an incinerator, how is that significantly different? Do you think God would approve? Would this act not instead delight the satanic forces? The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy, and when people destroy the fruit of the womb, or their seed, they are doing the work of a devil even if they have no spiritual beliefs.

[–]NiceGuy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

🙄