Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

And every foe of women's rights should be forced to watch a woman die after the abortion she needed was denied - and then explain to her family that the baby was worth the life of their daughter.

That's like banning tumor-removal surgery because it injures the patient.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This argument fails. Check out shroud.com if you really want answers to this and many other questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not true.
By that, I mean it's physically false - an inaccurate description of most abortions.

Bearing false witness is a violation of the Eighth Commandment of the Christian Bible, numerous Proverbs and warnings of that Bible, and the strictures of almost every religion on the planet. It is a sin on the same level as murder.

 

Well, I do not equate the premeditated deliberate murder of a child and the comparatively rare possibility of the death of the mother from natural causes as if they are the same thing. Also, as stated earlier, women die from abortions as well, both born women and unborn women.

Rare potential natural outcomes should not legislate all other choices that have certain outcomes. They are not equivalents. They are categorically different on multiple levels. These arguments fail.

I also do not equate a baby with a tumor. It does not seem like you can see that.

But apparently you are unable to, which I find concerning. I sincerely hope you don’t work in a hospital.

 

An argument from ignorance, of how Jesus looked (which no one knows to begin with) fails. Is an assumption without evidence and is a very poor method of scientific inquiry.

You cannot be this poor at reasoning!

I gave you the place to go to if you really want answers to all your questions. shroud.com

Perhaps you don’t want answers, I don’t know, perhaps you only wish to scoff. If so, that would also be very unscientific as well.

 

Neither do you equate a human embryo with a human child in normal circumstances. Pretending to do so for the sake of accusation is not honest.

They aren't rare.
And nobody is "legislating all other outcomes". That is - again - false witness.

 

People do have a well supported idea - within any reasonable doubt - of how Jesus did not look. He almost certainly did not look Chinese, for example.

 

The argument fails, and causes reasonable doubt.

Correct, Mary the mother was not Chinese, she was a Jew.

Any idea who the Father was?
What genetic lineage was He?

The Shroud fits perfectly!

It is not reasonable to assume that Jesus would have to look like a Jew, because His Father was not a Jew.

His Mother was a Jew, but His Father was not.

 

A fetus is living developing tissue, dependent on the system in which it develops - just like any other organ. We remove all sorts of organs without concern of moral implications.

This comes down to a single issue:
You consider a fetus to be a person the moment it is fertilized.
Most others - including the law - and the woman whose body we are discussing - do not.

It is on that condition alone that this thread exists at all.

 

A baby is not an organ!

Please don’t ever work in a hospital. They know the difference there and you don’t seem to be capable of understanding basic biology.

Most Doctors know the difference as well.

 

Fixed. Better?

No doctor will tell a mother she's murdering and dismembering her pregnancy, so best if you're not in a hospital either. You'd do well to get off your high horse.

This is all argument by emotion - a logical fallacy.

You're entitled to your opinion, but let's keep it that way.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Precious Ones": Pro-life supply to make little girls cry.​

The history of suppression of knowledge regarding abortion and other reproductive health considerations is rather quite easily characterized in the U.S., for instance, by the number of legislative amendments and executive gag orders constraining abortion, contraception, and related information.

Meanwhile, the last time I recall encountering some version of this argument, forced vaginal penetration under color of law was actually the reason.

(Note aside: It's actually almost funny; I went looking for a link to throw into the preceding paragraph in order to make the point, and what I came across first was a five year-old discussion among the moderators; it's not exactly amazing how much things don't change, around here. Except it's not funny. A different search suggests I wasn't quite hard enough on the argument over the course several years when it was a partisan favorite in the United States: May, 2012↗, on Virginia ["Ultrasound State"] and Pennsylvania ["Just Close Your Eyes State"]; June, 2012↗, shortly after "Governor Ultrasound" [Bob McDonnell, R-VA] was scuttlebutted into Mitt Romney's veep pool; August, 2012↗, after Sean Spicer, then RNC communications director, fumbled a question about abortion and rape in the context of the 2012 Republican Party platform and multiple high-profile GOP candidates badly botching discussions of sex crime; it was easy enough to recall in February, 2013↗ when "Governor Ultrasound" found himself countenancing the possibility of becoming "Governor Three-Fifths", which ought to make some sort of point about the conservative politics involved; it was also unavoidable when the right-wing Attorney General of Virginia, a guy they actually called "Cooch", was running to replace Governor Ultrasound, and the man running to replace him, Mark Obenshain, had sought in the Virginia Senate to require women to report suspected miscarriages, i.e., menstrual irregularity, under force of law with jail time among the penalties for failure or refusal, and, frankly, who can imagine being "Governor Menstrual Inspector"; indeed, Cooch's part in all that earned him a joke↗, that year, about being "Attorney General Ultrasound", and part of that requires taking the moment to appreciate a government in which the man running to replace a scandal-plagued governor is also investigating that governor while also being investigated for his own ethics scsandal, and even still it ought to count for something that the Party chose, for their Lt. Gov. candidate, a preacher who could not spell the word "commandment" properly on the cover of his book about the Ten Commandments; by the time we get around to 2014↗, the argument took a hit, and it's worth noting that law in question, the "Woman's Right to Know Act", passed in 2011; it's about this point, as it happens, that one moderator's discussion occurs, but it is its own thing, involving political complaint against hard critiques of observable behavior, and the catalyst is a related, albeit separate, subject; in April, 2014↗, we learned from a man in Missouri that forced penetration under law in order to affect behavioral outcomes among women is much akin to "making a decision to buy a car", and his opinion becomes important because, well, he was sponsoring one of these forced penetration bills; in May, 2015↗, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, as part of his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, complained about "'gotcha' media" while describing forced penetration under law as part of "just a cool thing out there"; July, 2015↗ saw other Republicans, including former governor Rick Perry [R-TX] and then Gov. Chris Christie [R-NJ], as well as then pollster Kellyann Conway, trying to help push Walker's message as something more broadly conservative and Republican; Idaho Republicans took a really weird go at it in February, 2016↗; I had cause to recall it again, later that year↗, considering the potential "emergence of that long-rumored silent majority"; it's not so much that the issue has gone away, but, rather, that the not entirely unpredictable confluence of supremacist ideologies and methods swirling through American politics, of late, has actually blown away the subtleties of forcing vaginal penetration under law in favor of open celebration of misogyny and rape culture.)​

It is also true that while gag orders and legislative exclusions have been popular among conservatives, a more recent innovation is the use of state funds to pay for anti-abortion quackery intended to misinform women; as Rewire News↱ reported last year on Florida joining the list, alongside Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. The rest of us ought not be surprised at the actual names of the states on that list.

Nor should anyone be surprised at your pseudoscientific appeals to emotion; phallusy fallacy and excrement do not a proper argument make.
____________________

Notes:

Wilson, Teddy. "State-Level Republicans Pour Taxpayer Money Into Fake Clinics at an Unprecedented Pace". 16 February. Rewire.News. 19 February 2019. http://bit.ly/2GCdK1I

 

Emotion may not be important to you anymore but it is still kind of an important thing for many of us, it can be evidence of empathy for the well-being of others. You know Love?

And not giving weight to it can be evidence of a person’s inability to empathize, and can even be evidence of a self hardened heart. Even a Sociopath.

By the way, are you a Christophobe?

 

They are not the same thing and I did not claim they were. I claimed that it is up to the woman, not you, to make that decision. If you decide to try to impose your will on her, and she dies as a result, you get to explain it to her family. Good luck. Some families might not take your actions leading to her death so well.

Yes - and 99.999% of them are from illegal abortions. Want to protect pregnant women? Ensure abortion is legal.

Yes. And who gets to decide? The woman, not you.

Nor do I. Your strawman is rejected.

I have, in the past. More to the point, most medical professionals support a women's right to choose.

 

And that's great. But it is not a valid defense in a discussion of facts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Life is sacred?? As usual Carlin analyzed the status of fetuses in his inimitable style.

 

That's irrelevant, since an individual can decide to take the risk of surgery. I don't recognize the baby's right to life in this case, since it is dependent on another person's body being used without consent. It doesn't have a right to another person's body. I find this choice to be the morally superior one, since it maximizes well being for the most people. First of all the mother, who wants it gone, secondly society, which benefits from the lack of unwanted uncared for children. It's not enough to be born, a mentally healthy human being requires at least one loving parent.

I find pro-life people to minimize the rights of women in general, so I don't think your concern for women is sincere.