NationStates

Wallenburg wrote:

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:In other news, if either of your parents are a rapist you can be put to death. Apparently.

Nope.

On the other hand, there clearly exist a whole lot of people who want to force victims of child rape to bear children and possibly die in the process.

Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

Katganistan wrote:Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Infanticide approved of. BORN infants. Where is the sanctity of life? Where is the love of the innocent? This is utterly reprehensible, but hey, that's what the Bible says.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life." So, accidental abortion is worthy of a fine -- what you get for losing property. Killing the woman as a result of this accident is worth the death penalty. Therefore: the woman is recognized as having priority over the fetus she carries, and even then, the punishment for ending the growth process of a fetus that was wanted by its parents is merely a fine.

Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.” Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between fetuses and adult males, since smiting a fetus to death is worth only a fine.

Genesis 2:7 New International Version (NIV) "Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Adam was not a living being until he started to breathe. Fetuses don't breathe. Born people breathe. Not breathing? Not a living being. So says the Bible.

Passages in which people are "known" in the womb? Let's look at that.

Isaiah 49:1-3 "The LORD called me from the womb. From the innermost parts of my mother, God named me ... and said to me, ‘You are my servant Israel, in whom I’ll be glorified" Figurative language. Was not referring to Isaiah, was referring to the promised land of Israel.

How about the lovely story of Passover, where the angel of death, sent by God, kills every first born child that was not marked by the blood of a spring lamb -- which the Jewish people were told to do, but the Egyptians were not? Murdering children is A-Ok if they're the RIGHT children.

1. You're using another mistranslation. It's not miscarriage, it's induced birth.
2. Fetuses breathe, just through unconventional means. Respiration is carried out by all animal life.
3. It still demonstrates the attitude that the unborn are recognized by God, even if that particular instance refers to the nation of Israel.
4. The death of the firstborn Egyptians was punishment for their murder of the Hebrew children. Besides, that which is made by God can be unmade all the same.

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Nope.

On the other hand, there clearly exist a whole lot of people who want to force victims of child rape to bear children and possibly die in the process.

Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

No instead you are into harming the woman who is the victim of rape.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Infanticide approved of. BORN infants. Where is the sanctity of life? Where is the love of the innocent? This is utterly reprehensible, but hey, that's what the Bible says.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life." So, accidental abortion is worthy of a fine -- what you get for losing property. Killing the woman as a result of this accident is worth the death penalty. Therefore: the woman is recognized as having priority over the fetus she carries, and even then, the punishment for ending the growth process of a fetus that was wanted by its parents is merely a fine.

Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.” Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between fetuses and adult males, since smiting a fetus to death is worth only a fine.

Genesis 2:7 New International Version (NIV) "Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Adam was not a living being until he started to breathe. Fetuses don't breathe. Born people breathe. Not breathing? Not a living being. So says the Bible.

Passages in which people are "known" in the womb? Let's look at that.

Isaiah 49:1-3 "The LORD called me from the womb. From the innermost parts of my mother, God named me ... and said to me, ‘You are my servant Israel, in whom I’ll be glorified" Figurative language. Was not referring to Isaiah, was referring to the promised land of Israel.

How about the lovely story of Passover, where the angel of death, sent by God, kills every first born child that was not marked by the blood of a spring lamb -- which the Jewish people were told to do, but the Egyptians were not? Murdering children is A-Ok if they're the RIGHT children.

1. You're using another mistranslation. It's not miscarriage, it's induced birth.
2. Fetuses breathe, just through unconventional means. Respiration is carried out by all animal life.
3. It still demonstrates the attitude that the unborn are recognized by God, even if that particular instance refers to the nation of Israel.
4. The death of the firstborn Egyptians was punishment for their murder of the Hebrew children. Besides, that which is made by God can be unmade all the same.

4. Yay for special pleading for god.

It's almost like this is a matter of morality and that most laws for the entirety of the history of Mankind has been based upon morality. Weird.

Neutraligon wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:1. You're using another mistranslation. It's not miscarriage, it's induced birth.
2. Fetuses breathe, just through unconventional means. Respiration is carried out by all animal life.
3. It still demonstrates the attitude that the unborn are recognized by God, even if that particular instance refers to the nation of Israel.
4. The death of the firstborn Egyptians was punishment for their murder of the Hebrew children. Besides, that which is made by God can be unmade all the same.

4. Yay for special pleading for god.

I see it as an expression of property rights, or at least morally equivalent to a hurricane killing people. A natural force, rather than human action.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
4. Yay for special pleading for god.

I see it as an expression of property rights, or at least morally equivalent to a hurricane killing people. A natural force, rather than human action.

Like I said, yay for special pleading for god. Also, a hurricane does not kill because it has intent, unlike a god deciding to kill.

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:It's almost like this is a matter of morality and that most laws for the entirety of the history of Mankind has been based upon morality. Weird.

Thing is different people have different moralities.

I don’t like how the new poll says you can either care for the mom or the baby. If you’re pro-life you should strive to help both as much as you can. And the fathers.

Can I have three choices, OP? Plz?

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Nope.

On the other hand, there clearly exist a whole lot of people who want to force victims of child rape to bear children and possibly die in the process.

Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

In the case of children raped by their parents, I would have to disagree with that assertion. Those pro-life organizers very much want to punish children for the sins of their parents.

Neutraligon wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I see it as an expression of property rights, or at least morally equivalent to a hurricane killing people. A natural force, rather than human action.

Like I said, yay for special pleading for god. Also, a hurricane does not kill because it has intent, unlike a god deciding to kill.

I don't see how it's special pleading. We're talking about a nonhuman entity, and intent is irrelevant for nonhumans.

Wallenburg wrote:

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:
Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

In the case of children raped by their parents, I would have to disagree with that assertion. Those pro-life organizers very much want to punish children for the sins of their parents.

Murder is mercy, war is peace, slavery is freedom. I've heard it all before.

Wallenburg wrote:

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:
Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

In the case of children raped by their parents, I would have to disagree with that assertion. Those pro-life organizers very much want to punish children for the sins of their parents.

The problem in this case is that if you abort the baby, that baby is also being punished for the sins of the grandparents, who have already committed the most heinous crimes one could commit. The rapists should be locked away for life and the child should be given as much support as possible. In a more ideal world, kids in this situation would be given help and safety as quickly as possible.

Katganistan wrote:

The Feylands wrote:I'm pro-life although I don't believe in "rights".. hah...

Yeh, there could legitimate circumstances were an abortion in the first trimester could be kinda justified (rape, risking severe injure or death, the fetus already being brain dead etc.). After all, on some occasions the body will reject the fetus.

But I have to say I'm still pro-life in the general sense. I think I was even before I was an X-tian too, and I still am after saying goodbye to X-tianity, since its not really a religious issue. People making decisions about when a life is a life doesn't feel that swell imho. Because it's always gonna be an arbitrary thing. I feel more positive about the "rights" of fetuses more than those of adult humans for the same reason I support animal rights - these are innocent beings who cannot defend themselves and have done nothing to deserve suffering or death.

On top of that - the social implications are very bad. It's another symptom of the "sexual revolution" that was all about men's desires, were women have to suffer the consequences. Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that (I don't think I have to do sex education with you guys and explain the anatomy behind this lol). And we have a culture that doesn't do enough to teach men ideals about their natural duty to protecting women, but rather urges women to adopt bad male qualities for the sake of "equality".

Women are by nature generally speaking (not always on an individual level) more empathic and have a greater sense of beauty and dignity than men. Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

Oh, seriously, fuck that noise.
That bullshit of "greater beauty and dignity" is a dogwhistle some men have used to put women on a pedestal they then chain her to. Women who are not submissive and suboordinate are deemed 'ugly' and 'undignified', if not outright whores. And to be blunt, if men are less empathic, they are mentally ill. Now I don't know about you, but as a rule, men are not 'less empathic' -- I know plenty of caring compassionate men. "Men don't care as much" is the kind of toxic masculinity bullshit that harms both men and women, so please, just stop.

The sexual revolution was NOT about "men's desires and women have to suffer the consequences." That's how YOU see it, and how a certain toxic strain of men see it. The sexual revolution was recognizing that everyone, men and women, have a right to enjoy sex. Certain men don't like that idea because then women do not have to cater to men's sexual wishes if the woman can pursue their own -- and God forbid women have other partners' skills to compare to their current one's? Male insecurity in knowing a woman may consider their prowess inferior to others -- or that a woman may choose to find a more satisfying partner -- is the basis of this patronizing and frankly possessive 'women should remain virgins til married' idiocy.

Women DON'T have to suffer the consequences. Roe v. Wade saw to that in the US and in most civilized nations of the world -- which is why toxic men who want to control women are fighting so very fucking hard to erode the ability of women to seek abortions. Close Planned Parenthood -- which also, by the way, provides mammography services and helps families that PLAN to have children to do that. Make laws that make it impossible for clinics to operate with the bullshit excuse 'they can go elsewhere' -- when 'elsewhere' might be hundreds of miles away and someone too poor to get there. The only reason women 'suffer the consequences' is because men force it on them, to keep them under male control.

As for being Christian, where do I start? Seriously, where? Christians are very very selective about the sanctity of human life when it comes to fetuses. Shall I quote you some Scripture about fetuses and babies?

Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Infanticide approved of. BORN infants. Where is the sanctity of life? Where is the love of the innocent? This is utterly reprehensible, but hey, that's what the Bible says.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life." So, accidental abortion is worthy of a fine -- what you get for losing property. Killing the woman as a result of this accident is worth the death penalty. Therefore: the woman is recognized as having priority over the fetus she carries, and even then, the punishment for ending the growth process of a fetus that was wanted by its parents is merely a fine.

Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.” Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between fetuses and adult males, since smiting a fetus to death is worth only a fine.

Genesis 2:7 New International Version (NIV) "Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Adam was not a living being until he started to breathe. Fetuses don't breathe. Born people breathe. Not breathing? Not a living being. So says the Bible.

Passages in which people are "known" in the womb? Let's look at that.

Isaiah 49:1-3 "The LORD called me from the womb. From the innermost parts of my mother, God named me ... and said to me, ‘You are my servant Israel, in whom I’ll be glorified" Figurative language. Was not referring to Isaiah, was referring to the promised land of Israel.

How about the lovely story of Passover, where the angel of death, sent by God, kills every first born child that was not marked by the blood of a spring lamb -- which the Jewish people were told to do, but the Egyptians were not? Murdering children is A-Ok if they're the RIGHT children.

Or Numbers 5:11-5:31 where if a man SUSPECTS through jealousy that his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her to a priest who doses her with an potion to make the 'unfaithful' have an abortion.

So please -- no Biblical arguments for why fetuses are precious when clearly, in the Bible, they aren't.

Good job taking all these verses out of context I guess? Psalm 137:9 is spoken by the Edomite invaders who are destroying Jerusalem, who are calling for the Israelites’ babies to be dashed against rocks. So yes, THEY didn’t see the dignity of the baby Israelites and committed infanticide. You could always read the rest of the Psalm in whichever version. The baby is still considered sacred, and killing an infant is listed in the Bible as a sin that calls for vengeance from God. (This is an edit, I phrased this verse wrong the first time I posted.) Exodus’s law had a lot of emphasis on “eye-for-an-eye” because, if you recall what Jesus says in Matthew, much of the law was made due to the hardness of men’s hearts, and murder in any case was regarded as acting in the place of God.

The Genesis verse is a reach for several reasons. If we regard Genesis as literal, then Adam, the first being, breathed because he was given life from God. Therefore all life comes from God, and God chooses, rather than humans, when a being becomes living. If this is your argument, then you have thrown away your ability to say when the baby starts breathing, because that is entirely in God’s hands. In the seven-days’ narrative, sure, Adam was not a fetus and was born a live man. If we regard that the world was not made in a week, however, then Adam could have been born, could have grown-up, and could have then named all the things in the garden and such. After all, as most theologians will tell you, the seven-days narrative is a symbol for how God made the world as complete as it is. “Seven” in Jewish theology is the number for completion. If we regard the entire thing as a metaphor, then your response falls flat anyway, because the first man very well could have evolved over many millions of years, until God put a reasoning soul into the first Homo sapiens. Also, fetuses breathe, science says so. At the very least they are capable of breathing after 24 weeks, when they are viable. I was born at 32 weeks and was breathing fine before I was born.

Uhhhhh figurative language can and does indeed refer to Isaiah in this verse. While also referring to Israel, which Isaiah was a part of. God has breathed life into all of the people of Israel and has chosen all of them as His people. Therefore your argument essentially states you believe all of them to be living, based on your previous argument that states when a person is given breath by God, they are living.

God did not desire for the Egyptian children to die simply because He enjoys seeing them die. The Bible puts this into the wider context of the hardness of the pharaoh’s heart. Think about how his own people were suffering before. He gave no care to them, and because he believed he was a god, far removed from his own people, whom God allowed him to rule over, God continued to punish him for his hardness of heart. God saw that not only were the Israelites suffering, but the Egyptians were suffering as well. Thus he took away the pharaoh’s kingdom, including his own child, as punishment for the pharaoh’s hatred of humanity and for his own people. Remember that in Deuteronomy God puts before His own people the choice of life and death. He did not give this only to them, but also to pharaoh, who chose death. Had he shown humility and had shown love for his own people, God would have seen he had chosen life, and would not have taken them from him.

Once again, while this is a difficult verse, it must be placed in the context that God gives life and God takes away life. Did the potion actually work? Probably not. However, God could take away life if He knew that a person had chosen life over death. That Deuteronomy verse is not only one for a single piece of the Bible, but for all of the Bible.

Ultimately, your argument is just an angry rant that reaches and pulls and shows that you do not seriously wish to talk theology. Rather, you wish to act as though those who do believe have nothing to stand-on. However, you do not even argue that point, but instead you grab into some convoluted pretzel-twist of statements about verses while ignoring the major themes of the Bible, and of the Old Testament. To summarize, as Jesus says to Peter, you think not as God does but as man does.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Godular wrote:
I take your strawmen and set fire to them. This is about things done to a person's body against their will, not whether you have to deal with some kind of inconvenience FOR WHICH YOU RECEIVE BENEFITS.

In that case, military service under the draft is using a person's body without their consent.

Strange, I recall this odd thing called selective service and being signed up for. Then there’s this whole conscientious objection thing, and a bunch of other stuff that says you’re talking out your ass.

And let us not forget that they get paid.

But no, do go on about how this is in any way equivalent to denying a woman the capacity to control her own body in the face of an unwanted interloper. It really does not assist your case at all, but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Nope.

On the other hand, there clearly exist a whole lot of people who want to force victims of child rape to bear children and possibly die in the process.

Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

It’s wrong to treat abortion as if it is some form of punishment.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

The very few people arguing that are indeed ignorant. Which rally are you referring to, though?

Marcha por la vida, here in Argentina.

Also, quick side-note about that particular website: they used to have probably the most toxic, often violent comment section in Argie internet and I've been feeling half-glad, half- nostalgic since they got rid of it.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:In that case, military service under the draft is using a person's body without their consent.

Strange, I recall this odd thing called selective service and being signed up for. Then there’s this whole conscientious objection thing, and a bunch of other stuff that says you’re talking out your ass.

And let us not forget that they get paid.

But no, do go on about how this is in any way equivalent to denying a woman the capacity to control her own body in the face of an unwanted interloper. It really does not assist your case at all, but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

TBF, men in the US are required by law to sign up for it by 25. It's selective and signed up for in the sense that being voluntold is voluntary and of one's own volition.

The rest is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:In that case, military service under the draft is using a person's body without their consent.

Strange, I recall this odd thing called selective service and being signed up for. Then there’s this whole conscientious objection thing, and a bunch of other stuff that says you’re talking out your ass.

And let us not forget that they get paid.

But no, do go on about how this is in any way equivalent to denying a woman the capacity to control her own body in the face of an unwanted interloper. It really does not assist your case at all, but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

I wonder how many Vietnam draftees took solace in the fact that they got paid, even in the face of terrible trauma, injuries, and death. The requirements for being a conscientious objector should not be necessary at all.

Jebslund wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Strange, I recall this odd thing called selective service and being signed up for. Then there’s this whole conscientious objection thing, and a bunch of other stuff that says you’re talking out your ass.

And let us not forget that they get paid.

But no, do go on about how this is in any way equivalent to denying a woman the capacity to control her own body in the face of an unwanted interloper. It really does not assist your case at all, but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

TBF, men in the US are required by law to sign up for it by 25. It's selective and signed up for in the sense that being voluntold is voluntary and of one's own volition.

The rest is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Required by law but not necessarily arrested for not doing so as I recall. There are a host of government bennies predicated on it, but no criminal penalties.

This is me remembering informational pamphlets though.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Strange, I recall this odd thing called selective service and being signed up for. Then there’s this whole conscientious objection thing, and a bunch of other stuff that says you’re talking out your ass.

And let us not forget that they get paid.

But no, do go on about how this is in any way equivalent to denying a woman the capacity to control her own body in the face of an unwanted interloper. It really does not assist your case at all, but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

I wonder how many Vietnam draftees took solace in the fact that they got paid, even in the face of terrible trauma, injuries, and death. The requirements for being a conscientious objector should not be necessary at all.

Insofar as the topic of this thread is concerned, I don’t particularly give a shit.

Maybe in some other thread we can all remonstrate about the misery of an unjust and unwarranted war, but here it remains a terrible appeal to emotion connected to a terrible argument.

Ifreann wrote:

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

There is no gif from lefttube, breadtube, or any YouTuber whomst is good for this Y I K E S.

The worst/best part about the aftermath of the failed attempt to legalize abortion last year has been watching the "save both lives" campaign proceed to show how much of their previous rhetoric was merely face-saving concern trolling.

Sex education in schools to prevent unwanted pregnancies? They allegedly loved the idea while they were debating the legalization of abortion... but now that there's an actual push to implement comprehensive sex education in schools, the Venn diagram between the "save both lives" campaign and the "not with my kids" campaign against comprehensive sex ed appears to be a perfect circle.

Exceptions in the cases of rape or serious health risks to the mother? In the past few months the leaders of their movement have repeatedly meddled in cases of pregnant child molestation survivors and, with the complicity of provincial governments, forced those same child molestation survivors to give birth despite the serious risk to both the girls and the fetus. Oh, and one of them got that horrid "child mothers with capital letters" op-ed where they cheered for the little girls who didn't abort the fetuses growing in their, and I quote, "almost infantile uteruses".

Katganistan wrote:

The Feylands wrote:I'm pro-life although I don't believe in "rights".. hah...

Yeh, there could legitimate circumstances were an abortion in the first trimester could be kinda justified (rape, risking severe injure or death, the fetus already being brain dead etc.). After all, on some occasions the body will reject the fetus.

But I have to say I'm still pro-life in the general sense. I think I was even before I was an X-tian too, and I still am after saying goodbye to X-tianity, since its not really a religious issue. People making decisions about when a life is a life doesn't feel that swell imho. Because it's always gonna be an arbitrary thing. I feel more positive about the "rights" of fetuses more than those of adult humans for the same reason I support animal rights - these are innocent beings who cannot defend themselves and have done nothing to deserve suffering or death.

On top of that - the social implications are very bad. It's another symptom of the "sexual revolution" that was all about men's desires, were women have to suffer the consequences. Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that (I don't think I have to do sex education with you guys and explain the anatomy behind this lol). And we have a culture that doesn't do enough to teach men ideals about their natural duty to protecting women, but rather urges women to adopt bad male qualities for the sake of "equality".

Women are by nature generally speaking (not always on an individual level) more empathic and have a greater sense of beauty and dignity than men. Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

Oh, seriously, fuck that noise.
That bullshit of "greater beauty and dignity" is a dogwhistle some men have used to put women on a pedestal they then chain her to. Women who are not submissive and suboordinate are deemed 'ugly' and 'undignified', if not outright whores. And to be blunt, if men are less empathic, they are mentally ill. Now I don't know about you, but as a rule, men are not 'less empathic' -- I know plenty of caring compassionate men. "Men don't care as much" is the kind of toxic masculinity bullshit that harms both men and women, so please, just stop.

The sexual revolution was NOT about "men's desires and women have to suffer the consequences." That's how YOU see it, and how a certain toxic strain of men see it. The sexual revolution was recognizing that everyone, men and women, have a right to enjoy sex. Certain men don't like that idea because then women do not have to cater to men's sexual wishes if the woman can pursue their own -- and God forbid women have other partners' skills to compare to their current one's? Male insecurity in knowing a woman may consider their prowess inferior to others -- or that a woman may choose to find a more satisfying partner -- is the basis of this patronizing and frankly possessive 'women should remain virgins til married' idiocy.

Women DON'T have to suffer the consequences. Roe v. Wade saw to that in the US and in most civilized nations of the world -- which is why toxic men who want to control women are fighting so very fucking hard to erode the ability of women to seek abortions. Close Planned Parenthood -- which also, by the way, provides mammography services and helps families that PLAN to have children to do that. Make laws that make it impossible for clinics to operate with the bullshit excuse 'they can go elsewhere' -- when 'elsewhere' might be hundreds of miles away and someone too poor to get there. The only reason women 'suffer the consequences' is because men force it on them, to keep them under male control.

As for being Christian, where do I start? Seriously, where? Christians are very very selective about the sanctity of human life when it comes to fetuses. Shall I quote you some Scripture about fetuses and babies?

Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Infanticide approved of. BORN infants. Where is the sanctity of life? Where is the love of the innocent? This is utterly reprehensible, but hey, that's what the Bible says.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life." So, accidental abortion is worthy of a fine -- what you get for losing property. Killing the woman as a result of this accident is worth the death penalty. Therefore: the woman is recognized as having priority over the fetus she carries, and even then, the punishment for ending the growth process of a fetus that was wanted by its parents is merely a fine.

Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.” Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between fetuses and adult males, since smiting a fetus to death is worth only a fine.

Genesis 2:7 New International Version (NIV) "Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Adam was not a living being until he started to breathe. Fetuses don't breathe. Born people breathe. Not breathing? Not a living being. So says the Bible.

Passages in which people are "known" in the womb? Let's look at that.

Isaiah 49:1-3 "The LORD called me from the womb. From the innermost parts of my mother, God named me ... and said to me, ‘You are my servant Israel, in whom I’ll be glorified" Figurative language. Was not referring to Isaiah, was referring to the promised land of Israel.

How about the lovely story of Passover, where the angel of death, sent by God, kills every first born child that was not marked by the blood of a spring lamb -- which the Jewish people were told to do, but the Egyptians were not? Murdering children is A-Ok if they're the RIGHT children.

Or Numbers 5:11-5:31 where if a man SUSPECTS through jealousy that his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her to a priest who doses her with an potion to make the 'unfaithful' have an abortion.

So please -- no Biblical arguments for why fetuses are precious when clearly, in the Bible, they aren't.

Most of those quotes are from the Old Testament, which aren't used by Christians for many reasons namely that the Jews didn't follow God's law and they were the ones writing the Bible, they include many things that brag about the things they did, and say God did them to justify them.

As for the death of the children of Egypt, from a theological perspective, not infanticide, God's presence sustains all life, and he breathes all live into all living things, it's not more murder for God to withdraw his presence than it is murder to not give to charity.

The Christian theological argument on abortion has never been based on the Bible, it has been based on that the coming of the messiah was announced at the Annunciation, which means that God was incarnate in Mary's womb from the moment of conception.

(not going to stick around in this thread because it's such a toxic thread, as your reaction to Feylands shows, but needed to clear some stuff up.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I wonder how many Vietnam draftees took solace in the fact that they got paid, even in the face of terrible trauma, injuries, and death. The requirements for being a conscientious objector should not be necessary at all.

Insofar as the topic of this thread is concerned, I don’t particularly give a shit.

Maybe in some other thread we can all remonstrate about the misery of an unjust and unwarranted war, but here it remains a terrible appeal to emotion connected to a terrible argument.

Next time I hear of the plight of unwilling mothers, I shall remember it as an appeal to emotion.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Jebslund wrote:
TBF, men in the US are required by law to sign up for it by 25. It's selective and signed up for in the sense that being voluntold is voluntary and of one's own volition.

The rest is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Required by law but not necessarily arrested for not doing so as I recall. There are a host of government bennies predicated on it, but no criminal penalties.

This is me remembering informational pamphlets though.

And, should anyone be in need of those bennies, it's not a form of coercion to deny them unless they've signed the dotted line?

Jebslund wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Required by law but not necessarily arrested for not doing so as I recall. There are a host of government bennies predicated on it, but no criminal penalties.

This is me remembering informational pamphlets though.

And, should anyone be in need of those bennies, it's not a form of coercion to deny them unless they've signed the dotted line?

Not particularly. At least there’s a dotted line to begin with. Such is more than a woman gets with regards to this presumption of parental responsibility, or whatever such might be called.