Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.
/s
Advertisement
by The Forlorn Redoubt » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:56 pm
by Northern Davincia » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:01 pm
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.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Neutraligon » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:06 pm
by Neutraligon » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:07 pm
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.
by The Forlorn Redoubt » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:10 pm
by Northern Davincia » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:11 pm
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.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Neutraligon » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:12 pm
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.
by Luminesa » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:16 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:17 pm
by Northern Davincia » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:18 pm
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.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by The Forlorn Redoubt » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:19 pm
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.
by Luminesa » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:21 pm
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.
by Luminesa » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:46 pm
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.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:51 pm
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.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:53 pm
by Liriena » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:55 pm
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?
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Jebslund » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:56 pm
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.
by Northern Davincia » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:58 pm
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.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:01 pm
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.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:04 pm
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.
by Liriena » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:05 pm
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.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:07 pm
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.
by Northern Davincia » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:10 pm
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.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Jebslund » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:17 pm
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.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:22 pm
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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cerula, Fauxia, Great Eddy, Haganham, Ineva, Jerzylvania, La Paz de Los Ricos, Lunayria, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Republics of the Solar Union, Tungstan, Zurkerx
Advertisement