Christian Forums

Bogus Challenge 1: We never regulate what people do with their bodies, so pro-lifers only want to oppress women!

Answer: DUI laws: while drinking alcohol is not illegal, doing something with one's own body that's otherwise legal is a felony when done in a situation that can endanger other life.

Bogus Challenge 2: An unborn child is only suddenly a life because people want to oppress women!

Answer: Murdering a pregnant woman is a double-homicide, so there is legal precedent for considering an unborn child to be a life.

Bogus Challenge 3: Pro-lifers don't care about the child after it's born in other legislation.

Answer: That's what child support laws are for: go get those deadbeat dads solely on account of getting a woman pregnant. In fact, the men have less rights than the woman, since at least the woman has the right to put up a child for adoption, to say nothing of biases against fathers in custody cases.

All three are great answers to the three very bogus challenges!

I've always been puzzled at the near universal notion among pro-choicers that a baby is not a living person worthy of protecting until it is squeezed through the vaginal threshhold. That is even beginning to lose ground as the beginning of personhood.

Quote from: Jaime on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 06:52:33I've always been puzzled at the near universal notion among oro-choicers that a baby is not a living person wirthynof protecting until it is squeezed through the vaginal threshhold. That is even beginning to lose ground as the beginning of personhood.

The real thing to do -- that pro-lifers are often too cowardly to do -- is take the issue to its root: modern Western woman narcissism and gynocentrism. Unfortunately that will work in Harris' favor, too: don't underestimate the mindset of the average modern woman thinking like a faction sisterhood. Ain't no man going to lay down the law for a woman in any way, shape or form.

After the rational arguments are given, that's what's left: call out their disease, mark them as aggressors and perpetrators. If anything, the power to take a life gets them off, just like they love the power to falsely accuse and destroy a man without an actual trial in which he's presumed innocent or granted justice in many other areas.

The most dangerous wolf is the one you let in. The Philistines tried an army of men against Sampson first, but then sent Delilah. It's been working on most Western men ever since, unfortunately, and that's where we're getting this body count from abortions, among other things.

The real argument is it isn't just a woman's body involved. That to me is where we went off the rails with the issue. I absolutely agree a woman's body is her business. It is convoluted with a child on board. A car on fire on the side of the road is just a car on fire. UNLESS an infant is trapped strapped in a car seat. The paradigm logically intensifies with the second scenario. It's not just someone elses property on fire. The question is WHEN is the clump of cells within the mother unquestionably equivalent to a baby in a burning car? I would say traversing the vaginal threshold has nothing to do with the answer. The pro-choice seem to say it is the answe is ALL about that at least now, there has been discussions about babies that survived a botched abortion.

Quote from: Jaime on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 06:52:33I've always been puzzled at the near universal notion among pro-choicers that a baby is not a living person worthy of protecting until it is squeezed through the vaginal threshhold.

Uh... that isn't the usual pro-choice position.

The vast majority of them follow the position of the (now-defunct) Roe v Wade ruling - that a baby has the right to life at the point of viability (28 weeks).  Most people don't believe 3rd-trimester abortions should be legal.  That position only held by extremists and weirdos.

Quote from: Jaime on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 11:33:02The question is WHEN is the clump of cells within the mother unquestionably equivalent to a baby in a burning car? I would say traversing the vaginal threshold has nothing to do with the answer.

Yes, that is indeed the question.  Most people answer:

"At conception" (pro-life) or
"At viability" (pro-choice)

Few people answer "at birth" because it is very clearly just murder to kill a baby that would have survived outside the womb if it was delivered today.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 14:10:36Yes, that is indeed the question.  Most people answer:

"At conception" (pro-life) or
"At viability" (pro-choice)

Few people answer "at birth" because it is very clearly just murder to kill a baby that would have survived outside the womb if it was delivered today.

Only three Dems voted for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would restrict abortions after 20 weeks, which is the age of viability. That would indicate a desire for no restrictions on gestational age at all.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 14:06:15Uh... that isn't the usual pro-choice position.

The vast majority of them follow the position of the (now-defunct) Roe v Wade ruling - that a baby has the right to life at the point of viability (28 weeks).  Most people don't believe 3rd-trimester abortions should be legal.  That position only held by extremists and weirdos.

The age of viability is 20-25 weeks, and the "vast majority" of pro-abort elected officials voted down the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would restrict abortion after viability.

The United States is one of the most barbaric countries when it comes to killing our unborn babies. There are only seven countries in the entire world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks - and we're one of them.
Even France restricts abortion after 14 weeks.

Quote from: mommydi on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 19:53:13The age of viability is 20-25 weeks, and the "vast majority" of pro-abort elected officials voted down the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would restrict abortion after viability.

Roe arbitrarily set the age of viability at 28 weeks... which was probably accurate at the time.  But medicine has advanced since then, so 20-25 weeks is probably accurate... 24 weeks is the number I've heard.

Also, the bill you reference sets the age based on the ability to feel pain, rather than viability.

If barbarity is the only guidepost, the age that an unborn baby feels pain would be a preferrable threshold. for me that is NOT the only guidepost.

If one is going to terminate a pregnancy due to rape or incest, one knows, or can know in a short space of time if they are positive, after the act occurs.. long before a heartbeat.

That leaves only one potential issue, IMO, that could allow for a termination and that would be the health of the mother.

It should never be based on a heartbeat, or viability.

I am in the minority believing that the moment sperm hits an egg and process begins that is viable. That is God.

I am so sick and tired of "men" saying its IS a woman's choice when they are the ones that delivered the sperm that made that baby.

Since the explosion of "free" sex back in the 1960s came along, to the point of not just acceptance today... but expectations... when that was/is absolutely not acceptable to God ..women have tried everything under the sun to get rid of unwanted babies that the sheer numbers are astounding.

Ill stop because it is a very sore subject with me.

I agree Rella. I also believe the health of the mother is a mich rarer actual reason than it is claimed. And from what I have read, long term mental and emotional anguish of the mother so often accompanies an abortion.

Quote from: mommydi on Fri Jul 26, 2024 - 20:09:00The United States is one of the most barbaric countries when it comes to killing our unborn babies. There are only seven countries in the entire world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks - and we're one of them.
Even France restricts abortion after 14 weeks.

Which is because America has some of the most infamously narcissistic women in the world: not to be told "no" in anything, not to be held to a standard higher than themselves, not to be regarded as having a sense of duty or obligation to anything. That is where feminism gets its passion: a woman simply is not to be told what to do.

Quote from: Cally on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 10:05:58Which is because America has some of the most infamously narcissistic women in the world: not to be told "no" in anything, not to be held to a standard higher than themselves, not to be regarded as having a sense of duty or obligation to anything. That is where feminism gets its passion: a woman simply is not to be told what to do.

not even to be told to get back on that pedestal

Quote from: Rella on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 06:35:54It should never be based on a heartbeat, or viability.

I am in the minority believing that the moment sperm hits an egg and process begins that is viable. That is God.

100%

Quote from: Cally on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 10:05:58Which is because America has some of the most infamously narcissistic women in the world: not to be told "no" in anything, not to be held to a standard higher than themselves, not to be regarded as having a sense of duty or obligation to anything. That is where feminism gets its passion: a woman simply is not to be told what to do.

I believe the reason pro abort women stay in a rage about this is because of displaced anger. The anger, although they can't/won't admit it, is at themselves for killing their own unborn babies. It goes against nature for a woman to willingly kill her offspring and it scars her soul.

Quote from: mommydi on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 11:50:22I believe the reason pro abort women stay in a rage about this is because of displaced anger. The anger, although they can't/won't admit it, is at themselves for killing their own unborn babies. It goes against nature for a woman to willingly kill her offspring and it scars her soul.

I don't know about that.  Some people are just evil.  They don't want any consequences for their actions.

But they are permanently scarred all the same. It goes against the nature and builtin instict of mothers, in a big way.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 13:05:48But they are permanently scarred all the same. It goes against the nature and builtin instict of mothers, in a big way.

Especially the longer she carries the baby for the most part.

There ARE some children born who are not wanted... either by one or both parents.

Then the child has a miserable life. But that is not for this thread.

 

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 13:05:48But they are permanently scarred all the same. It goes against the nature and builtin instict of mothers, in a big way.

I am not describing all mothers who have had abortions.  But many, especially with modern feminism who are evil and full of scars before they had abortions. 

It goes towards their sin nature.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 11:54:09I don't know about that.  Some people are just evil.  They don't want any consequences for their actions.

It really is that simple in this case as much as it is for any other.

It's surreal how far gone the culture is in its worship of women when pro-lifers clearly aren't acknowledging what pro-choicers are SAYING, which is to the effect that a woman shouldn't be obligated to do anything. "For women" is such a righteous cause, a taxpayer-funded program here, a women's ministry there, promoting notions that women should take and take and take as being an investment without notions of contributing something back. They also push for women to be able to remove all notions of burden of proof on the accuser when they want to have a man punished. It's all about unlimited power. Let men sign up for the draft, but let women be obligated for nothing.

That's the whole pro-choice message and it's like pro-lifers aren't even hearing it: let a woman be obligated for nothing. They're here to absorb investments, but contribute only how they feel like.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 14:07:08I am not describing all mothers who have had abortions.  But many, especially with modern feminism who are evil and full of scars before they had abortions. 

It goes towards their sin nature.

I agree it goes toward their sin nature, BUT abortion also plays against the motherly nature an instincts, which are very powerful even in animals.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 16:47:38I agree it goes toward their sin nature, BUT abortion also plays against the motherly nature an instincts, which are very powerful even in animals.

Not as powerful as you believe. 

Child killing and sacrifice is as old as time.  So it is also that many women are dead spiritually, hard hearted, and given over to evil just as many men. 

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jul 27, 2024 - 16:47:38I agree it goes toward their sin nature, BUT abortion also plays against the motherly nature an instincts, which are very powerful even in animals.

If you listened to what a lot of pro-choice women say, they'd tell you that they'd never get an abortion themselves. It's more on principle to them: the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body.

Quote from: Cally on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 06:00:51If you listened to what a lot of pro-choice women say, they'd tell you that they'd never get an abortion themselves. It's more on principle to them: the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body.

And the men who are pro-choice.

They tell you it is your right and they support that.... what they really mean is they wont stop their fun

Quote from: Rella on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 08:56:32And the men who are pro-choice.

They tell you it is your right and they support that.... what they really mean is they wont stop their fun

I can only guess what this comment means, so forgive me if I guess wrong. Do you mean men who are out using women for casual sex? You'll have to bring me up to speed on your train of thought.

For men who support pro-choice, I only really see the same SJW virtue-signaling flak, like, look at how much better I am than you because I can call everyone else racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. It also falls under the umbrella of men's white knight syndrome that gets a lot of them to support feminism (and not for any kind of men's rights issues like female on male DV, sexual abuse and statutory rape, or basically any and all forms of male victimhood like female victimhood), and, quite frankly, why pro-lifers are so ridiculously unable to make a genuine crackdown on evil in a woman in general with the same force that they can with a man.

Far be it from me to give THAT any credit whatsoever, but by all means, what other nefarious intent do you see with men who support abortion?

Quote from: Cally on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 11:55:42I can only guess what this comment means, so forgive me if I guess wrong. Do you mean men who are out using women for casual sex? You'll have to bring me up to speed on your train of thought.

For men who support pro-choice, I only really see the same SJW virtue-signaling flak, like, look at how much better I am than you because I can call everyone else racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. It also falls under the umbrella of men's white knight syndrome that gets a lot of them to support feminism (and not for any kind of men's rights issues like female on male DV, sexual abuse and statutory rape, or basically any and all forms of male victimhood like female victimhood), and, quite frankly, why pro-lifers are so ridiculously unable to make a genuine crackdown on evil in a woman in general with the same force that they can with a man.

Far be it from me to give THAT any credit whatsoever, but by all means, what other nefarious intent do you see with men who support abortion?

Yep.. for casual sex. And an idiotic understanding by women that they will still be respected when that is far from the truth.

Quote from: Rella on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 13:39:15Yep.. for casual sex. And an idiotic understanding by women that they will still be respected when that is far from the truth.

I don't see that it's different from either side. Men are likewise not understanding that they are not respected by a promiscuous woman.

So, to your point, you could be right. I heard from a WOMAN I know, who is an avid supporter of pro-choice (lest she feel "oppressed" if she's denied an abortion by law), who made clear that people shouldn't be taught that abstinence is the answer because "sex is fun." I'm not as familiar with men saying the same thing, but I grant that that could be on their minds: if they get a woman pregnant, they could pressure her to get an abortion. Otherwise, I think the casual sex situation is pretty much symmetrical. So, fine point there.

Quote from: Cally on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 14:12:37I don't see that it's different from either side. Men are likewise not understanding that they are not respected by a promiscuous woman.

So, to your point, you could be right. I heard from a WOMAN I know, who is an avid supporter of pro-choice (lest she feel "oppressed" if she's denied an abortion by law), who made clear that people shouldn't be taught that abstinence is the answer because "sex is fun." I'm not as familiar with men saying the same thing, but I grant that that could be on their minds: if they get a woman pregnant, they could pressure her to get an abortion. Otherwise, I think the casual sex situation is pretty much symmetrical. So, fine point there.

Likely.

But as to your friend saying no to abstinence... YOU need to remind her that it was not you who said so but God.

I am from the 60s generation so I was there when it was exploding all around and by the 70s no way to ever shut that door again

Quote from: Rella on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 08:56:32And the men who are pro-choice.

They tell you it is your right and they support that.... what they really mean is they wont stop their fun

Neither these men or women want to stop their fun.

There are three reasons men would say they are pro-choice:
1.  Avoid responsibility
2.  Hoping for increased access to sex
3.  They have been indoctrinated and have been infected with the "woke mind virus."

Quote from: Rella on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 13:39:15Yep.. for casual sex. And an idiotic understanding by women that they will still be respected when that is far from the truth.

Many men put women in two camps.  One is a woman you want a relationship with.  The other is recreational use only.  Many women do not understand this.  Obviously, it isn't right for men to treat women this way.

Quote from: Rella on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 15:14:25Likely.

But as to your friend saying no to abstinence... YOU need to remind her that it was not you who said so but God.

I am from the 60s generation so I was there when it was exploding all around and by the 70s no way to ever shut that door again

She actually said that she'd never get an abortion herself. It was all on principle: men oppressing women to tell them what not to do with their bodies.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Jul 28, 2024 - 16:55:12Neither these men or women want to stop their fun.

There are three reasons men would say they are pro-choice:
1.  Avoid responsibility
2.  Hoping for increased access to sex
3.  They have been indoctrinated and have been infected with the "woke mind virus."

Agreed