(06-08-2019, 08:35 AM)Beaker Wrote: So you oppose the death penalty?

(06-10-2019, 06:13 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Absolutely not! Abortions and Death penalties are apples and oranges.

Abortion is the killing of innocent  unborn babies who don't have a choice.

Death penalty is the killing of some guilty degenerate criminal who has a choice and screws up any way...

(06-08-2019, 08:35 AM)Beaker Wrote: So you oppose the death penalty?

(06-10-2019, 06:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That still means you are not "always pro life".

You have times when you are "pro death" even if it means killing an innocent man or two.

(06-10-2019, 06:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That still means you are not "always pro life".

You have times when you are "pro death" even if it means killing an innocent man or two.

(06-10-2019, 06:13 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Absolutely not! Abortions and Death penalties are apples and oranges.

Abortion is the killing of innocent  unborn babies who don't have a choice.

Death penalty is the killing of some guilty degenerate criminal who has a choice and screws up any way...

(06-10-2019, 07:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No such thing as an innocent human. When we are ensouled we are filled with sin.

(06-10-2019, 06:13 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Absolutely not! Abortions and Death penalties are apples and oranges.

Abortion is the killing of innocent  unborn babies who don't have a choice.

Death penalty is the killing of some guilty degenerate criminal who has a choice and screws up any way...

(06-10-2019, 08:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If every person on death row was truly guilty then I'd agree that there is a philosophical difference. Until then, supporting the death penalty does mean supporting the killing of some innocent people. 

(06-10-2019, 08:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A small fraction of the people killed by the death penalty were innocent (or may have been), so that justifies the killing of millions of innocent babies?

(06-10-2019, 06:13 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Absolutely not! Abortions and Death penalties are apples and oranges.

Abortion is the killing of innocent  unborn babies who don't have a choice.

Death penalty is the killing of some guilty degenerate criminal who has a choice and screws up any way...

(06-10-2019, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless of course you look at the subject of abortion without a religious lens. 

(06-11-2019, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering almost all pro-life efforts arguments are rooted in religion and ignores a modern day science based understanding of biology, it is impossible to remove it from the conversation.

(06-11-2019, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering almost all pro-life efforts are rooted in religion it is impossible to remove it from the conversation.

(06-11-2019, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get folks try to bring it up to support their stance; as you just did. I can freely say as a Christian: Abortion takes the life of an innocent child. I assume you're somehow trying to twist "born into sin" unless there's another biblical passage to use to support your stance.

There are both the secular and biblical definitions of innocent. The child is free from blame aka: Innocent

(06-11-2019, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all honesty, my position is based entirely on the legal aspects of the situation. The unborn are not persons, they hold no legal rights. They lack a birth certificate, a SSN, or any other sort of identification that our society uses to prove the legal presence of an individual. No presence, no rights. Therefore, the right to liberty of the expecting mother is not infringing on the rights of another individual if she chooses to have an abortion.

(06-11-2019, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all honesty, my position is based entirely on the legal aspects of the situation. The unborn are not persons, they hold no legal rights. They lack a birth certificate, a SSN, or any other sort of identification that our society uses to prove the legal presence of an individual. No presence, no rights. Therefore, the right to liberty of the expecting mother is not infringing on the rights of another individual if she chooses to have an abortion.

I use the religious conversation simply to push back on the idea of its use to justify infringing on the rights of women. I could provide scripture quotes backing up the idea that life begins at breath, meaning not until a child is out of the womb. Hermetical argumentation that there is an "approved" method of abortion in the OT. Also that causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a property crime, while injuring the woman herself is treated as a crime against a person. All of this is biblical evidence that life begins at birth and not in the womb.

But none of that really matters to me. The legal argument is what it is.

(06-11-2019, 05:00 PM)Benton Wrote:

(06-11-2019, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure, and I base my argument on the secular as well to include those of both parents. But just the woman has the Right to abort her offspring for simple inconvenience doesn't mean it has to sit well with me; especially if a co-parent is willing and able to provide the child with a future.

Folks will use religion to support their stance for instance in this of one of the numerous I was told by a Pro-Choicer that I simply believe life begins at conception because I'm religious. That may lead me to believe that is why abortion is a sin, but religion has 0 to do with my view of the fact when human life begins.  We can make attempt to make it as gray as we want, but by its very name; Conception is when a child is conceived "to cause to begin". 

(06-11-2019, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Will your opinion change if the law does?

(06-11-2019, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But just the woman has the Right to abort her offspring for simple inconvenience doesn't mean it has to sit well with me; especially if a co-parent is willing and able to provide the child with a future.

(06-12-2019, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pop culture references are usually lost on me.


But until personhood it is not an individual. I hate when people throw around "cluster of cells," but in truth that is what it is. That is what everything organic (minus single-celled organisms) is and all cells are life. Society then defines what things are based on certain traits. The unborn go through multiple stages defined by society (and by science) until birth, at which point they become an individual and our legal system recognizes them as a person. But the cells involved were living long before, long before conception, even. The gametes that joined together to begin the evolution to the blastocyst stage were live cells before fertilization, a process that was discovered 400 years after the word conception was first used in the manner you are using it. So for me, the term "conception" and its meaning means very little to the argument when looked at through the lenses of science or law.


On the right to abortion? Likely not. If the unborn were determined to have innate rights as an individual then there would still be a conflict between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the woman carrying it. This is not something that should be handled by the government, especially not in a broad piece of legislation that would be unlikely to take into account all potential scenarios.