« Can Christians Get Married in God’s Eyes Without Government Registration? | Main | Links Mentioned on the 2/10/16 Show »

February 09, 2016

Comments

Dehumanizing babies into something we are allowed to kill, encourages people into an utterly false view of sex as nothing more than a recreational activity with no moral component, no implied commitment, and no meaning beyond the pleasure of an orgasm unless it's a way to keep score in some social game.

Then what the hell is marriage about???

If making babies is the only way of having sex that is moral, committed, beyond an orgasm - why the fuss with marriage?

Sex in marriage can be about the orgasm, and only the orgasm.

If the only purpose of sex is to reproduce, then we are no different from a cockroach. (I'm fairly sure a cockroach only has sex to reproduce).

This veiw of sex=children is so, so wrong - God gave us sex in marriage for love and pleasure. Not just simply to reproduce.

THIS is the view tha de-humanises human babies, because YOU have made human reproduction the sole purpose of sex - which is as un-human as possible.

Your statement of "The parents who considered aborting their child will instead come to love it in virtually every case." implies that all, apart from a tiny minority of children will be loved whatever.

If what you say is true, then the concept of abortion simply wouldn't ever exist. Neither would child abuse be so prevalent.

This is a hot mess.

You are supposing that the future state of the parents (loving their unplanned child...and therefore not desiring to murder or abuse it) would cause them, in the present, not to want to murder it.

WL:

Perhaps if you stopped twisting what I have stated, you may get a reasonable discussion.

I have never implied what you state - ever.

Even when I have repeatedly attempted to clarify the original statement to not being what you are claiming, you continue down that path.

Picking up on one point and twisting it's meaning far, far out of its original meaning is not reasonable discussion.

If every child ends up by being wanted and loved no matter what - why the discussion in the first place? - Just have every child born, and the problem goes away...

Only, no matter how many "unwanted" children are born, the problem doesn't go away. Therefore you simply are not right in what you say.

I assume that the problem here is child abuse.

You know, quite a number of abused children were planned.

There are all sorts of contributing factors to child abuse, and whether being unplanned is one of them is not even certain. Go to the HHS web site and see what our pro-abortion government says.

According to our pro-abortion government, most of the risk factors have nothing to do with family planning. If you're a meth-head and you abuse your child, it was probably the meth, and had little to do with whether you planned that child.

This dovetails in with what I said early on to the effect that if you are a parent who does not come to love your unplanned child, there is probably something wrong with you that would have made you an unfit parent anyway.

Unwed teen pregnancy the one risk factor listed by the HHS that is related to family planning. This is because most such pregnancies are unplanned. But to determine whether the lack of planning is a risk factor, you have to compare, within the group of unwed teen pregnancies, those that didn't plan to those that did. It could be that the abuse stems from the lack of preparation and support that the mother has, whether or not she planned to get pregnant. The studies on that subject are mixed.

"Picking up on one point and twisting it's meaning far, far out of its original meaning is not reasonable discussion."

It's original meaning was the universal denial of my claim that even parents that at one point wanted to abort their baby come to love that baby.

You said that that never happened. That's no distortion of your words.

If you want to retract them, be my guest.

Until then, since it almost always happens, this is a real bad problem in your argument.

WL:

No comment - I did not intend those meanings that you are insisting on taking. I have repeatedly said so.

Continuing this line of discussion with you is pointless.

I said that most unplanned children end up being loved by their parents anyway and you replied "Not ever".

This led me to mock you. Because the plain reading of that "not ever" is pretty mockworthy.

Indignant denials followed.

Instead of simply denying that you said (or meant) unplanned children are inevitably unloved, you might try saying what you did mean.

Just a thought.

ABS,

No one has forced a child on to you.. Apart from rape, or such deed...

I was anticipating you swithcing the subject and you didn't disappoint. This is a dishonest red herring, because we were clearly discussing the voluntary engagement of sex in context.

You were talking about couples using contraception. And you cast THAT as forcing people to have children. I pointed out that no one forced that couple to have children (or to have sex). Rather, they voluntarily engaged in an act which naturally produces children and if the woman becomes pregnant then no one has forced her to have a child, she already has one. The only think we are trying to do is prevent her from killing the innocent human being she already has.

The punishment for having sex is that you must have a child...

Wrong, the "punishment" for having a child is that you must not kill it.

Seriously, here we have another pro-abortionist who reasons like a modern day Nazi--you think saving the life of an innocent human being is coercion. And it's despicable that you can't argue in good faith, you have to try and twist the subject and ignore context to score points.

As Machiavelli said, the nobles wish to oppress the serfs, and the serfs do not wish to be oppressed. Only in this case, those who are oppressed have absolutely no voice of their own.

I'm reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin" now. In one powerful vignette, a Christian New Englander (Ophelia) finally has it out with her slave-owning Southern cousin (Augustine St. Claire), who shatters her naïve belief that all slave-owners feel justified about oppressing slaves through a tenuous but oft-repeated Biblical license.

"I always have supposed," said Miss Ophelia, "that you, all of you, approved of these things, and thought them right—according to Scripture."
"Humbug! We are not quite reduced to that yet. Alfred who is as determined a despot as ever walked, does not pretend to this kind of defence;—no, he stands, high and haughty, on that good old respectable ground, the right of the strongest; and he says, and I think quite sensibly, that the American planter is 'only doing, in another form, what the English aristocracy and capitalists are doing by the lower classes;' that is, I take it, appropriating them, body and bone, soul and spirit, to their use and convenience. He defends both,—and I think, at least, consistently. He says that there can be no high civilization without enslavement of the masses, either nominal or real. There must, he says, be a lower class, given up to physical toil and confined to an animal nature; and a higher one thereby acquires leisure and wealth for a more expanded intelligence and improvement, and becomes the directing soul of the lower. So he reasons, because, as I said, he is born an aristocrat;—so I don't believe, because I was born a democrat."

Only in this case those who are oppressed have absolutely no voice of their own.

Are babies the ones being oppressed here? Solomon said in Ecclesiastes Ch. 4:

Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:

I saw the tears of the oppressed—
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
and they have no comforter.

And I declared that the dead,
who had already died,
are happier than the living,
who are still alive.

But better than both
is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil
that is done under the sun.

Jesus says in Matthew 18:6, "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

So if the little ones are women pressured into abortion (is anybody willing to argue that they don't exist?) then those women are the oppressed. But even worse off are the ones promoting the abortion without their consciences being checked by their peers and authorities!

In Roe v Wade, the majority opinion contains the following logic:

1) The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow any person to be killed without due process etc.

2) The Court was not prepared to allow the unborn to have the status of person.

3) Explicitly: if it were true that the unborn was a person, then the Fourteenth Amendment absolutely protects his or her right not to be killed without due process etc.

So I suppose that any American who acknowledges personness of the unborn while supporting the Federal permission of abortion under any circumstances not otherwise restricted by states...

...such a person ought to consider what they take the Fourteenth Amendment to mean at all, and whether it protects illegal immigrants, criminals, children, members of a different race or religion or political party or denomination or church-feud faction or sibling's household or other department or cross-town rivalry... any person who is ever in any real way opposed to what you yourself want.

Killing italics monster:

Hope that did it.

More closing italics tags needed:

Hopefully better.

ESCalifornia-

When you italicize make sure that the opening italics tag is not another opening tag.

Like this:

Writing with <i>emphasis</i>
Not this
Writing with <i>emphasis<i>

Still no closure.

Amy! Help!!!

Wisdomlover,

Obviously, from your response, you must not think that anybody smart, in their right mind, who isn't a total lying, twisting nutcase...

Just kidding about starting a fight with you on the chat board after your comments.

Trying to stop the italics now:

Did it work?

Looks good now... Must've been Amy. Thanks!

Gaaa it's back!

Sex, with contraception does NOT 'naturally produce children'. That is the entire point of contraception! For example, I have been sterilized, it will take a total miracle to produce a child.

There is no question of abortion when using reliable contraception - Why are you even trying to bring this up? - In the event of less than reliable form of contraception failing (a broken condom) - there is emergency contraception that also prevents pregnancy. It is REALLY hard to 'accidentally' get pregnant.

I need to caveat that last statement.... It is REALLY hard to 'accidentally' get pregnant *when provided with good information and support*.

So, in an attempt to re-join the original article... This will answer your other questions WL.

It is not just pro-abortion camp that choose different life values for humans. It is also those here of the views that are uncompromising to "Everyone wants and must have children" - there is no option for "I don't want children".

Why are you single? - You should be settling down. You must get married. You must have children. If you don't want children, don't have sex. why are you single? and so it goes on and around.

Abortion is simply the only option provided when someone, for some reason doesn't fit your mold.

Where we have so many responding "Marriage and life have no meaning without children" or "sex has to result in children" - we have the situation where children are merely an accessory to an adult's life. The life of the adult is worth more than the child.


If you want to throw Bible passages around:
Galatians 5:13-15 MSG

It is absolutely clear that God has called you to a free life. Just make sure that you don’t use this freedom as an excuse to do whatever you want to do and destroy your freedom. Rather, use your freedom to serve one another in love; that’s how freedom grows. For everything we know about God’s Word is summed up in a single sentence: Love others as you love yourself. That’s an act of true freedom. If you bite and ravage each other, watch out—in no time at all you will be annihilating each other, and where will your precious freedom be then?


We are not called to solely have sex to have children, nor is marriage about children - There are other options - The general refusal of this board to accept that life without children is a fine and valid life is a significant cause of abortion.

When a woman get pregnant and does not want a child, what is the response here - "She shouldn't have had sex" - wow, yes - +1 for justifying abortion right there.

italics off

Hi ABS,

I'm troubled by your use of the Galatians passage in support of abortion being okay. Doesn't Paul go on in Galatians 5:14 that your freedom should not be taken as license for the flesh? And doesn't he clarify in 5:19 that by the flesh, he means adultery and fornication, among other specific things?

If he had just said adultery, then maybe he would have allowed consenting singles that liberty. But I think the combination makes his meaning clear enough. The list later on includes murder... is there some way by which the action described in the Salon article is different from murder?

Regarding those who never wanted children, of course that's okay! It's cruel for parents of single grown-ups to harass and prod about making grandbabies, just for their own gratification. How is it okay to tease your own children about probably the most costly and life-altering decision that there is to make? It's not okay for policy-makers either, and even friends can fall into this trap.

From Matthew 19:

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

From I Corinthians 7:

7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So really, don't listen to people who say that everybody wants babies. It isn't true. But I don't think any one of these Bible verses, appeals to nature, appeals to logic or conscience or law or anything provides a good justification for intentionally killing somebody, including somebody who isn't born yet.

Hi ESCalifornia,

My use of Galatians was to demonstrate that we are free to live as we wish - we are NOT bound to having children.

This was in no way a reference to justifying abortion - apologies for that confusion.

As I have only just started to try to employ the tactics this website is supposed to help teach, I confess a disappointment with those who would advocate a prolife position. Much of what I read in this exchange, especially with ABS, would seem at odds with what Koukl teaches.
The Columbo tactics seem to suggest asking questions for the purpose of clarification, information, and to help make a point. When we attack, we automatically stimulate a strong defensive posture, which seems to be ABS's response as she responds to other's posts.
I am pressed for time so I'm not going to jump into the fray right now. I might have had people been more inclined to seek to understand instead of assuming understanding and responding with accusation.

How about now.

I hereby declare the italics monster the overall victor in this thread.

"I hereby declare the italics monster the overall victor in this thread."

:)

Sex, with contraception does NOT 'naturally produce children'. That is the entire point of contraception! For example, I have been sterilized, it will take a total miracle to produce a child.

That's irrelevant. The point remains that sex naturally produces children and when a couple have sex they must accept responsibility for the consequences of sex, even in cases where they tried to prevent a human being from being brought into existence.

Suppose that I know that typing on my keyboard is naturally designed to produce cancer in a child. If I choose to type on my keyboard then I need to accept responsibility for the cancerous child. Now suppose that wearing gloves prevents the occurrence of cancer, but I know that glove wearing still has a failure rate of 1%, so that there is a 1% chance of a child getting cancer even if I type while wearing gloves. It's still obvious that if I choose to type on my keyboard and that 1% chance happens to be realized and a child gets cancer then I am still responsible for that child's cancer.

"Everyone wants and must have children" - there is no option for "I don't want children".

That's a straw-man. No one has said this.

Abortion is simply the only option provided when someone, for some reason doesn't fit your mold.

Not only is there no such "mold", but it's false that there is no other option. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and instead you just ignore it and keep claiming there is no option. You're acting similar to a psychopath that murders a homeless person, claiming there is no option because homeless shelters aren't great and there is no perfect welfare system in place. The psychopath just keeps repeating "there is no other option, there is no other option, there is no other option" as he plunges the knife into the victim.

Where we have so many responding "Marriage and life have no meaning without children" or "sex has to result in children" - we have the situation where children are merely an accessory to an adult's life. The life of the adult is worth more than the child.

You're trying to justify your murderous worldview by pretending like people have said something they haven't.

Pastor Mike,

How charitable of you to be concerned with the tone only of one side of the debate. Why aren't you concerned about ABS straw-man tactic to justify the murder of children? Why aren't you bothered by ABS lying about the pro-life position so that he/she can say killing an innocent child is the only option?

Do you only care about how nice someone sounds when they are misrepresenting a position in order to justify taking innocent life or does the substance of what a person is saying also matter to you?

Trying to dialogue in a more friendly manner is a good goal and I'm sure I could work on that myself. But playing the drive by tone-police isn't the best way to achieve that.

Hi ABS,

Thank you for your exhortation to see the bigger picture. You make a good point that stopping abortions, if it were possible, wouldn't solve the problem.

If you had to choose, which of these would you change first? Abortion, unwanted pregnancies, incorrect or uneducated contraception, sex without the intent of taking care of babies, sex outside of marriage, unloving married sex, inappropriate lust (and its partner inappropriate tenderness), pornography, soft pornography, hot women in shows, lust and objectification of women in shows, disrespect for women (and its sister, disrespect for self), children who are unwilling to learn from their parents, bad environments for children to grow up in, parents who are selfish and don't care about their children, parents who are too busy to care for their children properly, parents who aren't actually perfect, parenthood, marriage, or people?

My point is that of course changing one thing doesn't solve much, if anything. It's like snipping one braid in a fishing net. If you tie up that one connection, everything else begins to strain. Another connection may break! But would that prove that it's wrong-headed or unjust to prevent a mother from obtaining modern medical assistance to intentionally kill her own child... safely?

Abortion seems like the solution, but it's a crappy solution.

ABS,

KWM: Once the child is born, if the parents decide they want to kill or abuse the child, the state steps in to protect the child. (obviously, the state can't step in until the child is born)

ABS: You are stating that there is a fundamental difference between a child being born and not being born!

Oh dear. Of course there are fundamental differences! There are fundamental differences between my 4 month old and my 6 year old. My daughter and my sons. There are fundamental differences between my wife and her mother.

So what?

How’s this for a fundamental difference: Unborn babies get nourished from the umbilical cord! (Yuck!)

All these fundamental differences have something in common. They don’t decide what makes a human being valuable.

Having clearly defined opposite consequences (punishments) for killing different humans is utter sh1t....

But you haven’t told us why you don’t believe in the science that shows unborn babies are human. If you do believe the science, then you don’t believe your statement above.

Finally, (again) on your silly “unwanted” point, even if you knew these “unwanted” children would be cared for, you’d still be all for abortion on demand. It doesn’t matter one iota to you on this issue.

It's not hard to find other articles taking this point of view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dorothy-samuels/abortion-without-apology_b_8054364.html

But the other side is not quelled, either... I suppose that we have arrived at a debate, Americans!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/supreme-court-makes-every_b_8898518.html

I got it, guys. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier!

Yes abortion is a dreadful solution... No, I do not advocate abortions...

The subject of abortion is exceedingly complex, and simply making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It is diven underground and becomes an even worse solution than it is now...

There are many, many issues that are required to be resolved at the same time to make abortion irrelevant as a solution.

The first step is to start educating people!

The people who teach sex= children are wrong. Sex education, decent contraception = no pregnancy. No pregnancy = no aborions.

Saying "If you have sex, then you must accept having children" is simply false information.

If you don't want children, use contraception! Is this not a better answer than 'don't have sex'?

A married couple can can a lot of sex and not produce children. Easily.

Having a default state where every married couple engaging in sex must end up by producing children (don't want children, don't have sex argument) the we are no different from cockroaches.

I fully agree that it is human life in the womb, it should be considered that in all situations! A child is a life on its own... A child is not an accessory to marriage, nor does it "complete" an adult life in some way.


Sex=children is also a view that degrads the value of the human life in the womb.


Or, if you don't like the above - provide easy, no questions asked adoption - in otherwords, remove the responsibility of raising the unwanted child from the parents...

This is why the question of who is responsible for raising an unwanted child is important - It demonstrates where your compromise is going to have to be...

If the parents are responsible then you have to provide a way for parents to avoid unwanted children.

Hi ESCalfornia,

I find your list very interesting - especially when looking at a conversation about abortion...

Which would I solve first - easy.... unwanted pregnancies.

Why do I say this? - Unwanted pregnacies are the root cause of abortion. Solve that problem, then the vast majority of abortion requrests would go away, leaving only a handful of difficult medical cases (and the difficult topic of rape).

The rest of your list are sexual morality issues.

I do think your list is relevant because the threat of producing unwanted children is useful to discourage sexual morality issues. But of course, what does this do to the life value of the child when it's sole purpose in life comes from being a pawn?

And I think that this is one of the problem areas why abortion is such a tough discussion. To really resolve abortion, you have to compromise on certain sexual morality issues...

For example, providing sex education and readily available contracteption to everyone, regardless of age, will certainly help reduce unwanted pregnancies - this is shown in more liberal countries than the US, where teen pregnancy rates are far lower than the US. BUT, it encourages sexual behaviour outside of marriage.

WBy trying to enforce sexual morality issues, you are generating the root cause of the requirement of abortion. The sexual marality police (churches) are not helping resolve the problem of abortion, they are compounding it.

Again, I see in your post:
"sex without the intent of taking care of babies" - This is simply factually incorrect - I have a healthy sex life, and have absolute asurance that I will not produce a baby..... Having sex does not require the want to have babies.

The total disregard for the Fact that one can have sex and expect not to get pregnant is astonishing!


The list for reference:
Abortion, unwanted pregnancies, incorrect or uneducated contraception, sex without the intent of taking care of babies, sex outside of marriage, unloving married sex, inappropriate lust (and its partner inappropriate tenderness), pornography, soft pornography, hot women in shows, lust and objectification of women in shows, disrespect for women (and its sister, disrespect for self), children who are unwilling to learn from their parents, bad environments for children to grow up in, parents who are selfish and don't care about their children, parents who are too busy to care for their children properly, parents who aren't actually perfect, parenthood, marriage, or people? - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/02/challenge-all-human-life-is-not-equal/comments/page/2/#comments

ABS,

Yes abortion is a dreadful solution... No, I do not advocate abortions...

Yes you do. You've been playing the abortion apologist the entire time in this thread.

This is the twisted language game of the pro-abortionists. They pretend like they are pro-life all the while advocating for all the abortion policies in the U.S. that lead to 3 million abortions per year and many more millions of abortions around the world.

It's a like a Nazi saying that they are pro-Jew, while giving all the standard speeches of Hitler.

The subject of abortion is exceedingly complex

No it's not. It's exceedingly simple: killing an innocent human being outside of a triage scenario is murder. Murder should never be legalized. Thus, abortion, except in the case of the imminent loss of life of the mother, should never be legalized.

It is diven underground and becomes an even worse solution than it is now...

That is a lie: http://afterabortion.org/1999/illegal-abortions-the-myth-and-the-cure/

And it is a demonstrable fact that anti-abortion laws reduce the number of abortions. If you are going to claim that making abortion illegal will result in a *worse* state of affairs you would need to demonstrate that more than approximately 3 million women and or children will die from illegal abortions each year. That's absurd.

The first step is to start educating people!

First, it's ridiculous to assume that we can only do one thing at a time. As though we have to stop fighting abortion in the courts in order to start educating people. False. Posts like this one serve to educate people about the ridiculously bad arguments pro-abortionists like yourself employ. And at the same time we can fight for legislation against abortion.

Second, it's ridiculous to assume that people merely lack information (education) and that giving them more information will change their minds. Take your own behavior on this thread for example. You have been given plenty of information to debunk your bad arguments for abortion and yet you persist in repeating them over and over without actually responding to the counter-points that have been presented to you.

Sadly, in many cases such as your own, the person appears to be incorrigible. They plug their ears to the education and simply repeat their slogans "it's the only way! It's the only way! It's the only way!" They need the rule of law to prevent them from killing innocent human beings.

The people who teach sex= children are wrong.

This is an illustration of your incorrigibility. No one here has taught that sex = children. You've been called out on this straw-man several times, but you just ignore it. I'm sure pastor Mike is proud of you, but no one else is blinded by the fact that you're not willing to engage in an actual dialogue. You're only here to spout off your talking points that involve creating a straw-man of your opponents. When you are refuted you just repeat yourself.

Sex education, decent contraception = no pregnancy.

Kids already receive sex education and free contraception and yet there are still many unwanted pregnancies. Why? Because giving people information doesn't magically transform their beliefs and behaviors, contrary to popular liberal dogma. And because contraception isn't 100% effective. This is why we need anti-abortion laws.

Saying "If you have sex, then you must accept having children" is simply false information.

I think you've had a freudian slip of honesty here... It is false information, but the false information is coming from you and your game of pretending like this is the pro-life message.

No. Rather, as has been pointed out to you several times now, we are saying "If you have a child then you must accept having children."

If you don't want children, use contraception! Is this not a better answer than 'don't have sex'?

How ironic that you talk about how the issue is complex and yet you rely on over simplifications like this in order to play an apologist for killing millions of innocent humans each year.

Contraceptions often fail. The only 100% successful method to not having children is not having sex. If you are going to use a less reliable method then you must accept responsibility for the child you have as a result of that.

A married couple can can a lot of sex and not produce children. Easily.

So what? That's irrelevant to the actual debate. It only has relevance in the straw-man inside your head.

Having a default state where every married couple engaging in sex must end up by producing children (don't want children, don't have sex argument) the we are no different from cockroaches.

Your worldview treats unborn children as if they were cockroaches and advocates for the crushing of millions of them as if they were cockroaches every year.

The "don't want children, don't have sex argument" does not logically entail that sex must end up producing children. Rather, it is premised on the idea that if you have sex you must be ready to accept responsibility of the child you create if you create one.

I fully agree that it is human life in the womb, it should be considered that in all situations!

That's just a basic fact of biology. It's not grand of you to concede such an obvious fact. It is reflective of a sad moral and mental state of so many pro-abortionists though that they refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact. But at the same time you support snuffing out millions of human lives every year, as if human life were no more valuable than a cockroach. So your admission of this fact is probably evidence of even greater moral depravity than the pro-abortionist who wants to deny that an unborn child is a human being--because they at least have a high regard for human life.... whereas you don't.

Sex=children is also a view that degrads the value of the human life in the womb.

By repeating this mantra you demonstrate that you have no intellectual ability to interact with the actual arguments employed by pro-lifers. You demonstrate that you have no intellectual ability to actually engage in a dialogue on this issue where you listen to what the other side is saying and respond meaningfully.

And this isn't the first time you've given everyone such a demonstration. You did the same thing earlier when you kept repeating the "it's the only way" mantra despite the fact that it was pointed out to you that there are many other ways.

One begins to wonder why you are even still in this thread spouting your pre-planned talking points that ignore what the other side is saying. Are you just trying to convince yourself? Are you trying to massage your own moral conscience? You don't need to come here to do that, you could use a mirror.

Or, if you don't like the above - provide easy, no questions asked adoption - in otherwords, remove the responsibility of raising the unwanted child from the parents...

That's another false presentation of the options. Adoption doesn't need to be "no questions asked" in order for it to be a viable alternative to abortion.

This is why the question of who is responsible for raising an unwanted child is important - It demonstrates where your compromise is going to have to be...

Parents are always responsible for their children. If they give their child up for adoption then they forfeit their rights and responsibility. Nothing here requires no questions asked adoptions. That's just a shell game to make the adoption position look unfavorable.

If the parents are responsible then you have to provide a way for parents to avoid unwanted children.

Wrong. This is premised on your "it's the only way" mantra. The parents are responsible for their child until they can lawfully give their child to another care-taker. Sometimes we have to accept responsibility for things we don't want. For instance, I could incur debt and later regret it. I'm still responsible for it. The fact that I don't want it doesn't magically absolve me of responsibility.

Which would I solve first - easy.... unwanted pregnancies.

Which illustrates your moral depravity. It's as if Hitler were given the option to stop killing Jews or deport them to another country and he says that he cares more about taking care of unwanted Jews by killing them until someone comes up with a simpler solution for him to deport them... so long as they are not easily deported at someone else's expense, he is going to kill them.

This is why abortion activists truly are the modern embodiment of Nazi genocide. That's not an exaggeration.

Why do I say this? - Unwanted pregnacies are the root cause of abortion.

No, moral depravity that doesn't respect human life is the root cause of abortion. Unwanted pregnancies and no abortion can easily exist side by side. In the same way unwanted Jews and no genocide can easily exist side by side. It's only your hitlerian logic that makes you think the solution to not wanting a human being is killing the human being.

But of course, what does this do to the life value of the child when it's sole purpose in life comes from being a pawn?

That's the result of your own worldview where the value of the life of the child is determined by whether or not the parents want it. And I've already demonstrated that you have no stop gap for extending this to infants and homeless people (or mentally handicap people for that matter).

If you say that this is false and that you do value all human life equally then that only demonstrates that you value all human life as equally expendable. According to you all human life is expendable depending on whether or not that person happens to be valued by other human life. At least Hitler had the decency to say that some human life was above his genocidal logic, which is more than I can say for your position.

And I think that this is one of the problem areas why abortion is such a tough discussion.

It's such a tough discussion because in almost every internet forum in which the discussion takes place the pro-abortionist refuses to actually dialogue. They just trott out their talking points and then try to repeat them ad nauseum until the other side gets tired and walks away. It's actually a brain washing technique (c.f. psychologist Joost Merloo's book The Rape of the Mind), which is what I think demonic powers have employed in this issue.

For example, providing sex education and readily available contracteption to everyone, regardless of age, will certainly help reduce unwanted pregnancies - this is shown in more liberal countries than the US, where teen pregnancy rates are far lower than the US. BUT, it encourages sexual behaviour outside of marriage.

False: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15174/

And your stats will be skewed so long as you rely on counting abortifacients as contraception.

WBy trying to enforce sexual morality issues, you are generating the root cause of the requirement of abortion. The sexual marality police (churches) are not helping resolve the problem of abortion, they are compounding it.

This is the upside down logic of someone who has been totally brainwashed or is trying to totally brainwash. In what fantasy world does teaching abstinence lead to abortions? Can you spell out exactly how this is supposed to work? Please spell out for me all the premises of how this is supposed to work?

In what fantasy world does teaching that unborn children are innocent human beings that should not be killed lead to more abortions? Again, please spell out for me all the premises of how this is supposed to work.

This is simply factually incorrect - I have a healthy sex life, and have absolute asurance that I will not produce a baby..... Having sex does not require the want to have babies.

First, having sex doesn't entail that your sex life is healthy. Second, if you have absolute assurance that you will not produce a baby because you are sterile or impotent then fine. But if you have absolute assurance that you will not produce a baby because you take a contraceptive or some other measure that has a chance of failure then your "absolute assurance" is simply delusional. I can jump off a 5 story building with absolute assurance that I wont be injured, but my absolute assurance in such cases doesn't match up with reality.

The total disregard for the Fact that one can have sex and expect not to get pregnant is astonishing!

It has nothing to do with expecting not to get pregnant. It has to do with accepting responsibility for your actions in the case that you do get pregnant.

ABS,

I have watched your conversations here with great amusement.

Your answer to "unwanted" children is to kill them.

Similar to the famous quote; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"!

Thanks for the engagement here. Vastly amusing.

Goat Head 5

So let me get this straight...

You state that

1)"Unwanted pregnancies and no abortion can easily exist side by side"; and then moments later
2) "It has to do with accepting responsibility for your actions in the case that you do get pregnant."


1) yes! - I have already stated that "Unwanted pregnancies and no abortion can easily exist side by side" WHEN you releive the parents of their responsability to look after the child
2) Yes! "It has to do with accepting responsibility for your actions in the case that you do get pregnant." WHEN you releive the parents of their responsability to look after the child. A responsible action is to provide instant, question free adoption...


According to you, the ONLY responsible action is for the parents to look after the child. or not to have sex.....


What is more realistic? -- To suggest to people that even when married, they should abstain from sex until they are ready to produce children, or to adopt out unwanted children (releive the parents of their responsability to look after the child).


You state that no contracteption is 100% effective, yes it is... even if one level of contraception fails, there are emergengy contraceptions as well - Getting accidentally pregant should and can be very, very difficult... Impossible if, like me you are steralised.

So yes - I can say 100% I will not get pregnant! - Therefore, I can have sex with the expectation of not getting pregnant. Which makes you premise of "Only have sex if you expect to raise children" 100% wrong!


Beyond, "Not having sex" - what other solutions would you like to see?

This is getting very tedious going around in circles.

My answer is not "Your answer to "unwanted" children is to kill them."

My answer is that YOU are generating the situation that the ONLY way forwards is to kill unwanted children.

I am trying to generate the situation where killing children is unnecessary.

I suggest that instant adoption be used - relieve the parents of their requirement to raise a child - but no, this is not acceptable because 'they had sex'.

What other option is there but to abort?

at ABS
just to let you know "emergency contraception" usually actually turns out to be emergency really early abortion by chemical pill, so you should drop that canard. And for your personal knowledge base, my boss had 4 kids and got snipped cause they felt they had enough. Several years of healthy sex later and #5 was surprisingly on the way. They had the new joy and he went back to get snipped again. Sometimes they don't remove a long enough piece of the plumbing. Also thankfully, he and his wife did the responsible thing and they have 5 beautiful kids.

1) yes! - I have already stated that "Unwanted pregnancies and no abortion can easily exist side by side" WHEN you releive the parents of their responsability to look after the child

Wrong. Unwanted pregnancies and no abortion can easily exist side by side even when the parent is not relieved of their responsibility to look after a child. My illustration, which you conveniently chose to ignore, about Hitler not wanting Jews made this point.

I've also demonstrated the moral depravity of your argument here by applying it to homeless people, infants, and the mentally disabled... All of which you conveniently ignore. All you can do is continue to repeat your refuted canard.

2) Yes! "It has to do with accepting responsibility for your actions in the case that you do get pregnant." WHEN you releive the parents of their responsability to look after the child. A responsible action is to provide instant, question free adoption...

FALSE. It doesn't require "instant, question free adoption" which is itself a really dumb idea since intermediate steps must clearly be taken: such as proof that the child actually belongs to the person trying to forfeit the child and finding a good, safe home.

But all you care about is the parent. You don't care about the child at all, which is why you don't care about the safety of the child so long as the parent doesn't have to deal with it.

According to you, the ONLY responsible action is for the parents to look after the child. or not to have sex.....

Does it bother you that you have to blatantly lie about your opposition to make your case?

What is more realistic? -- To suggest to people that even when married, they should abstain from sex until they are ready to produce children, or to adopt out unwanted children (releive the parents of their responsability to look after the child).

Like someone who has been brainwashed or is trying to brainwash you continue to repeat refuted dichotomies. What is more realistic is to suggest to people that even when they are married they should only have sex if they are ready to accept responsibility for the children produced by sex.

You can keep repeating yourself here for as long as you want. I'm just going to keep repeating my refutations of your absurd infanticidal claims.

You state that no contracteption is 100% effective, yes it is...

No, it isn't. Thats just another ignorant assertion.

even if one level of contraception fails, there are emergengy contraceptions as well

Those are usually abortifacients. And your attempt to beat this drum is pointless since it is irrelevant to the claim that I've made: which is that if a person gets pregnant from sex then they must accept responsibility for that child. I even gave a cancer illustration of this, which again you ignored.

So yes - I can say 100% I will not get pregnant! - Therefore, I can have sex with the expectation of not getting pregnant. Which makes you premise of "Only have sex if you expect to raise children" 100% wrong!

I'm wondering why STR even allows someone like you to continue commenting here. You don't engage in dialoguing, you just straw-man what people have said and then repeat it over and over and over and over.

I never made the assertion to "Only have sex if you expect to raise children." So you haven't proven me wrong.

Anyone can see that you are a liar by pressing CTRL/CMMD+F on their keyboard and then typing that phrase into the search bar. They will see that the only who has ever made that assertion on this thread is YOU as you falsely attribute it to me and others. What I have said is that if you don't want children then don't have sex. But the logical counterpart to that is obviously not "only have sex if you expect to raise children."

Beyond, "Not having sex" - what other solutions would you like to see?

Abortion outlawed.

This is getting very tedious going around in circles.

As long as you continue to repeat yourself and misrepresent the pro-life position I'm going to keep refuting you.

My answer is not "Your answer to "unwanted" children is to kill them." My answer is that YOU are generating the situation that the ONLY way forwards is to kill unwanted children.

You are like Hitler trying to blame his genocide of the Jews on the United States because the United States didn't offer to deport all the Jews quick and enough and pick up the tab.

You are trying to blame other people for your own decision to kill an innocent human being.

I am trying to generate the situation where killing children is unnecessary.

Killing children is already unnecessary. It's obvious from your behavior in this thread that you would never be satisfied with any "solution" to abortion--you would simply claim that whatever the state of the affairs is it isn't good enough and women are still forced not to kill their kids.

And you still haven't answered the charge that your same disgusting morality can't be extended to infants, the homeless, or mentally handicap.

I suggest that instant adoption be used - relieve the parents of their requirement to raise a child - but no, this is not acceptable because 'they had sex'.

In your very first post you said that adoption was not an option because it wasn't fast enough for you. You know that there will never be immediate, no-questions-asked adoptions (because that creates a very unsafe environment for kids) so you hide behind it as if you would be fine with that scenario. And it illustrates a real hate for children... your only concern is that you not have to take care of a child.

You're like Hitler demanding "instant deportation" (knowing that such a thing is impossible) as an excuse for murdering Jews.

What other option is there but to abort?

Carrying the child to term and then going through the adoption process.

So, your only solution to helping outlaw abortion is simply to outlaw it. Ignoring all and any of the associated issues?

My argument is not strawman, perhaps you should look up what a strawman argument is!

Your entire argument is based on the requirement of people having sex to be willing to raise children. I am living proof that it is possible to have sex and not get pregnant.

Is it wrong for me to be having sex as I have totally zero intent of raising a single child. Ever.

Your outlaw of abortion. Requires ADDITIONAL help and support. Outlawing abortion without compassion to parents will simply increase the pain and suffering involved to all. Thus generating a high demand for illegal abortion practices.

Simply outlawing abortion will not make abortion stop.

One of my arguments are like Hilter because I am wanting to save lives! I want to stop abortion with compassion and love to all human lives.

It is it lack of compassion that generates the lack of any alternative.

None of my arguments... Not one... Damn mobile typing

I am like Hitler blaming the US for not importing the Jews??????

This is folly.. theee is nothing for me to answer, I am suggesting that there are alternative answers to abortion. Every single answer is met with a negative response. Therefore according to you, there is no alternative to abortion.

The only option for not wanting children is not to have sex, as you reject any possible alternative.

Emergency contraception is NOT very early abortion!!!!

This is yet more false information!


/ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

Emergency contraception begins working prior to pregnancy!


Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Take Action, Next Choice One Dose or My Way ) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized.

"You are trying to blame other people for your own decision to kill an innocent human being. "

What an Ad Hominem attack!

Seriously? - Where have I stated that I have had an abortion??? - I am sterile, I can not have children.

I have taken a responsible line of action to avoid the dreadful situation of a pregnancy... **I* have taken a line of action that is beyond most people, and have ensured that I will never have an unwanted pregnancy. *I* have acted respectfully to human life. *I* expect others to do the same.

*You* on the other hand, have zero respect for the life of a BORN child, nor do you respect the life of a person who does not want to have a child so much that they are willing to MURDER that child!

If that is not of concern, then what is??

You want to ban abortion, it is up to you to come up with a solution! - I have my solution and have stood by it!

The Holocaust was massive ethnic cleansing - Abortion is not ethnic cleansing! Beyond a deeply tragic loss of life, links between the two are simply fictitious, designed to attempt to elicit an emotional response.

So basically to round this interesting conversation up....

Lessons I have learnt:
1) Any attempt to justify not raising a child is immediately linked to Hilter killng the Jews.
2) All we need to do is to ban abortion, and all problems associated with why abortion was wanted will just go away.
3) Pro-life advocates are compassionate a55holes
4) Women should be baby producing machines if they are married.
5) There really are people out there who think emergency contraception is abortion... I thought that this was an urban myth.
6) Legal abortion is going to be around for a very long time

Thanks for the enlightenment...

Until next time, God bless.

So, your only solution to helping outlaw abortion is simply to outlaw it. Ignoring all and any of the associated issues?

Outlawing abortion as a solution to helping outlaw abortion? You're becoming more and more incoherent as this goes on.

All other issues are secondary to preserving innocent human life. You're like a Nazi that thinks that before the Germans stop their genocidal murder of Jews they have to first change German attitudes towards Jews. Nope, the Germans must immediately stop killing Jews since preserving innocent human life is the number one priority. Then we work on changing German attitudes towards Jews.

My argument is not strawman, perhaps you should look up what a strawman argument is!

Your argument is a straw-man. I explained how anyone could prove that you are guilty of misrepresenting me and the pro-life position generally simply by typing your phrase "Only have sex if you expect to raise children" into their browser search bar and finding where I (or anyone else other than YOU) said such a thing. And it proves that you are guilty of the straw-man fallacy.

Your entire argument is based on the requirement of people having sex to be willing to raise children. I am living proof that it is possible to have sex and not get pregnant.

Nope. More straw-man tactic. My argument is that if a woman gets pregnant she must not kill the child.

Is it wrong for me to be having sex as I have totally zero intent of raising a single child. Ever.

It's pretty pathetic that you're trying to chase down your own straw-man. You keep up the disingenuous charade by leaving out the middle term: if you get pregnant. It is wrong to have sex without intent of raising a child if you get pregnant. It is not wrong to have sex without intent of producing a child.

In your attempt to obfuscate the issue and create a straw-man you keep skipping over the issue of conception.

Your outlaw of abortion. Requires ADDITIONAL help and support. Outlawing abortion without compassion to parents will simply increase the pain and suffering involved to all.

Wrong. Outlawing abortion will decrease the pain and suffering of the millions of babies that would have been torn apart, had scissors jammed into their necks, had their chests or heads crushed etc.

Thus generating a high demand for illegal abortion practices.

That is a lie: http://afterabortion.org/1999/illegal-abortions-the-myth-and-the-cure/

Simply outlawing abortion will not make abortion stop.

Irrelevant. Outlawing abortion will save millions of lives. You're like a Nazi that complains that outlawing the systematic killing of Jews won't make all murders of Jews stop, so we shouldn't do it.

One of my arguments are like Hilter because I am wanting to save lives! I want to stop abortion with compassion and love to all human lives.

It's not just ONE of your arguments that are like Hitler. You have a whole stream of thought that is hitlerian.

You are genocidal, infanticidal.

You don't want to save lives, you want to continue the system that kills millions of lives every year.

You don't want to stop abortion, you want to obfuscate the issue and focus on everything BUT stopping abortion.

You pretend like you are in favor of stopping abortion just so long as your ludicrous condition is met.

That's similar to Hitler saying that he is all in favor of saving the lives of Jews, just so long as you get the Jews out of his reach before he can slit their throats.

You're so twisted in your reasoning that it's sad.

It is it lack of compassion that generates the lack of any alternative.

There is no lack of alternative. There is always an alternative to killing the innocent human life in the womb.

It's youre lack of compassion for the innocent human life in the womb that generates your twisted logic that leads to infanticide and systematically killing the homeless and the mentally handicap.

I am like Hitler blaming the US for not importing the Jews??????

This is folly.. theee is nothing for me to answer

The only reason you can't come up with an answer is because you are incorrigible and you can't refute the fact that you ARE like Hitler blaming the US for not deporting the Jews from Germany.

The Hitler analogy is a demonstration of your twisted logic. You refuse to oppose abortion so long as your unreasonable demand isn't met. It's as absurd as Hitler refusing to stop killing Jews so long as his unreasonable demand isn't met.

I am suggesting that there are alternative answers to abortion. Every single answer is met with a negative response. Therefore according to you, there is no alternative to abortion.

There is always an alternative to abortion: don't kill the child.

I've already demonstrated that your twisted logic can be applied to infants:

A single mother doesn't want her infant. According to your own statement, the adoption system as it currently stands is unsatisfactory. Thus, the mother is justified in killing her 3 month old or her 1 year old or her 3 year old because, according to you, there is no other option.

Since that is where your reasoning logically leads, and since that conclusion is psychopathic, you are reasoning like a psychopath.

The only option for not wanting children is not to have sex, as you reject any possible alternative.

More straw-man tactic. I never said that the only option was not having sex. But now that you mention it that is obviously an alternative to abortion. So you prove your own claim that there is no alternative to be false.

Adoption is an alternative that I have mentioned several times. The other alternative is to simply raise your child. There are 3 alternatives for you and in each case you favor killing the innocent.


Emergency contraception is NOT very early abortion!!!! This is yet more false information! /ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html Emergency contraception begins working prior to pregnancy!

FALSE. You are the one who is giving false information! The site you link to states that "pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman's uterus" but that's not when human life begins! Human life begins at conception, not when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus.

There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options... works after an egg is fertilized.

The website you link to states explicitly that "It is possible that EC may affect the movement of egg or sperm (making them less likely to meet), interfere with the fertilization process, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg."

In which case, emergency contraception acts as an abortifacient.

What an Ad Hominem attack! Seriously? - Where have I stated that I have had an abortion??? - I am sterile, I can not have children.

My comment wasn't meant to be biographical. By being an advocate for abortion you are complicit in the deaths.

*I* have acted respectfully to human life.

Nope. You don't respect the life of the unborn human being. You view it as first and foremost expendable to the whims and comfort of the mother.

*You* on the other hand, have zero respect for the life of a BORN child

Nope. You're own method of argument in this thread undermines respect for the BORN child. Your own method of argument in this thread would lead to infanticide.

And you aren't able to refute it. And you haven't even tried to refute it, because you know you can't do so without retracting your entire line of argument.

nor do you respect the life of a person who does not want to have a child so much that they are willing to MURDER that child!

I admit I don't have much respect for murderers. I also don't have much respect for hypocrites who will say anything to try and justify murder, even if it's inconsistent with what they've said elsewhere. For instance, a few days ago you said "Abortion is not murder..." but now you are flip flopping and saying abortion is murder? You'll say anything to make the pro-life position look bad.

You are the one who favors them murdering their child.

If that is not of concern, then what is??

The life of the child. That answer should be so obvious that only a complete moral degenerate would have to ask.

You want to ban abortion, it is up to you to come up with a solution! - I have my solution and have stood by it!

Banning abortion IS the solution to the problem of murdering children.

The Holocaust was massive ethnic cleansing - Abortion is not ethnic cleansing!

Which is why your murderous worldview has resulted in far more innocent deaths than the holocaust. At least Hitler had his limits... with you everyone is subject to your twisted logic.

Beyond a deeply tragic loss of life, links between the two are simply fictitious, designed to attempt to elicit an emotional response.

I'm afraid not. The parallels are very real and there is a mountain of dead baby bodies to prove it.

So basically to round this interesting conversation up.... Lessons I have learnt: 1) Any attempt to justify not raising a child is immediately linked to Hilter killng the Jews.

Too bad you didn't learn the lesson of accurately representing what your opponent has said.

It's your attempt to justify abortion and in such a way that logically leads to infanticide, killing the homeless, and killing the mentally handicap that is linked to Hitler killing the Jews.

2) All we need to do is to ban abortion, and all problems associated with why abortion was wanted will just go away.

Amazing that you can learn lessons that no one ever gave. Of course you only "learned" that lesson by listening the voices in your own head in which you imagine a fictitious dialogue that is conducive to your talking points.

3) Pro-life advocates are compassionate a55holes

Says the person protecting a system that kills millions every year.

4) Women should be baby producing machines if they are married.

According to the voices in your head.

5) There really are people out there who think emergency contraception is abortion...

Because basic biology and the website you link to infer as much.

6) Legal abortion is going to be around for a very long time

So millions and millions of more innocent human beings will be killed, because you care more about how comfortable the mother is.

Hi ABS,

Let's agree that unwanted pregnancy only happens with unsafe sex combined with a partner-pair who don't want to take care of a new baby.

Of course there are married people who can't normally have babies. But the otherwise-fertile folks who wouldn't want to take care of any new babies resulting from the union, for one reason or another... would you say that these sexual relationships are actually good things that sometimes have a bad outcome?

You acknowledge that abortion as bad, as well as unwanted pregnancies. Why diminish the other items of my list? Was I off-track in finding bad causes for bad outcomes?

The comments to this entry are closed.