|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 2, 2024 20:31:42 GMT
On what? That women could EVER be mistaken about who raped them? Yes. There is deception and non deliberate deception to be considered. For instance perhaps you have never heard of the Scottsboro Boys, a notorious and famous case of the latter. (With regard to racism in the United States, historically, due to white people having greater influence in the judicial system, false accusations of rape made by White women against African American men often resulted in wrongful convictions, and led to extrajudicial acts of violence such as lynchings.) For believers, an example can be found in Genesis 39:19–23, which describes Joseph's arrival in the Egyptian prison reserved for the king's prisoners. Joseph's once-trusting master has him jailed after the master's wife falsely accuses Joseph of attempted rape. And then we have false memories: Looks like there's no need to wonder whether novastar could ever be mistaken though..
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 251
Likes: 130
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 2, 2024 23:03:52 GMT
There are laws already on the books that ban not only hurting kids, but other people. As for the other two paragraphs, perhaps you would like to change places with a person who has been raped. Maybe it would change your opinion.
On what? That women could EVER be mistaken about who raped them?
I think you misunderstood what I asked. I asked if you would change your opinion if you were raped and got pregnant, would you then have any empathy for others who did get raped and found themselves with others in a similar situation. As for your question, it does happen that the woman might make a mistake about who the rapist was.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 2, 2024 23:16:13 GMT
On what? That women could EVER be mistaken about who raped them?
I think you misunderstood what I asked. I asked if you would change your opinion if you were raped and got pregnant, would you then have any empathy for others who did get raped and found themselves with others in a similar situation. As for your question, it does happen that the woman might make a mistake about who the rapist was.
You're assuming pregnant following rape = pregnant FROM rape, which is to infer that rape victims are not normal women with consensual sexual relations that just happen to take place in the same timeframe as their attack. Rape victims are not all made up of nuns and virgins and widows who last had sex a year ago, they have husbands, they have boyfriends, they have one night stands, they can even have several of these taking place at the same time, but oh if she gets pregnant, just blame it on the rapist. Don't get a DNA test to make sure its father isn't the man she loves or had a fling with, just assume and kill it and call that 'healing'.
And here's the other side of it. People LOVE to pretend Plan B doesn't exist or it's SOOOOOOOO hard to find being RX free and only $50 in any Walmart and all...but it's not. Law says you need batteries in your smoke detectors BEFORE there's a fire. The law says you need car insurance BEFORE you get in a crash. And it's only common sense have food on your shelf BEFORE a blizzard takes out the power for a week. So since women are programmed to fear being raped at some point in their lives simply because they're women, it would only be common sense for every ovulating woman to buy a Plan B pill before that happens and take it when necessary.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 251
Likes: 130
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 2, 2024 23:20:41 GMT
I think you misunderstood what I asked. I asked if you would change your opinion if you were raped and got pregnant, would you then have any empathy for others who did get raped and found themselves with others in a similar situation. As for your question, it does happen that the woman might make a mistake about who the rapist was.
You're assuming pregnant following rape = pregnant FROM rape, which is to infer that rape victims are not normal women with consensual sexual relations that just happen to take place in the same timeframe as their attack. Rape victims are not all made up of nuns and virgins and widows who last had sex a year ago, they have husbands, they have boyfriends, they have one night stands, they can even have several of these taking place at the same time, but oh if she gets pregnant, just blame it on the rapist. Don't get a DNA test to make sure its father isn't the man she loves or had a fling with, just assume and kill it and call that 'healing'.
And here's the other side of it. People LOVE to pretend Plan B doesn't exist or it's SOOOOOOOO hard to find being RX free and only $50 in any Walmart and all...but it's not. Law says you need batteries in your smoke detectors BEFORE there's a fire. The law says you need car insurance BEFORE you get in a crash. And it's only common sense have food on your shelf BEFORE a blizzard takes out the power for a week. So since women are programmed to fear being raped at some point in their lives simply because they're women, it would only be common sense for every ovulating woman to buy a Plan B pill before that happens and take it when necessary.
It sounds like you are deliberately avoiding my question and engaging in victim blaming.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 0:12:39 GMT
You're assuming pregnant following rape = pregnant FROM rape, which is to infer that rape victims are not normal women with consensual sexual relations that just happen to take place in the same timeframe as their attack. Rape victims are not all made up of nuns and virgins and widows who last had sex a year ago, they have husbands, they have boyfriends, they have one night stands, they can even have several of these taking place at the same time, but oh if she gets pregnant, just blame it on the rapist. Don't get a DNA test to make sure its father isn't the man she loves or had a fling with, just assume and kill it and call that 'healing'.
And here's the other side of it. People LOVE to pretend Plan B doesn't exist or it's SOOOOOOOO hard to find being RX free and only $50 in any Walmart and all...but it's not. Law says you need batteries in your smoke detectors BEFORE there's a fire. The law says you need car insurance BEFORE you get in a crash. And it's only common sense have food on your shelf BEFORE a blizzard takes out the power for a week. So since women are programmed to fear being raped at some point in their lives simply because they're women, it would only be common sense for every ovulating woman to buy a Plan B pill before that happens and take it when necessary.
It sounds like you are deliberately avoiding my question and engaging in victim blaming. The baby is a victim, it didn't do anything and it gets murdered for someone else's crime, assuming the crime actually happened, assuming the right person is fingered for the crime. So again, if killing your baby because you hate the father is a good thing, why shouldn't it also be legal for women to kill their rapists any time between their attack and say...9 months after it happens? Everybody's quick to place the mother's healing/emotional health over a baby's very life, so how could it NOT be healing for a woman to kill her own rapist?
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 251
Likes: 130
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 3, 2024 0:28:42 GMT
It sounds like you are deliberately avoiding my question and engaging in victim blaming. The baby is a victim, it didn't do anything and it gets murdered for someone else's crime, assuming the crime actually happened, assuming the right person is fingered for the crime. So again, if killing your baby because you hate the father is a good thing, why shouldn't it also be legal for women to kill their rapists any time between their attack and say...9 months after it happens? Everybody's quick to place the mother's healing/emotional health over a baby's very life, so how could it NOT be healing for a woman to kill her own rapist? Ok, so it appears you have no sympathy for the woman. What if it were you?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 0:49:15 GMT
The baby is a victim, it didn't do anything and it gets murdered for someone else's crime, assuming the crime actually happened, assuming the right person is fingered for the crime. So again, if killing your baby because you hate the father is a good thing, why shouldn't it also be legal for women to kill their rapists any time between their attack and say...9 months after it happens? Everybody's quick to place the mother's healing/emotional health over a baby's very life, so how could it NOT be healing for a woman to kill her own rapist? Ok, so it appears you have no sympathy for the woman. What if it were you?
Is there a reason you can't answer why women shouldn't be legally allowed to kill their rapists if killing their baby, THEIR baby regardless of who the father is, is supposed to be so therapeutic for them? Rapists never stop and 98% of them will never spend a day in jail, so the solution is just let them keep raping women but it's OKAY because the women can just get an abortion and that's going to make it all better?
And should women also be allowed to kill their already born children if the father was a rapist? Can men punch their pregnant girlfriends in the stomach and kill the baby if she raped him to get pregnant?
If it were me, as previous stated, there's a pill that only costs $50 and it's in every pharmacy that can prevent pregnancy, even rape pregnancy, *that* problem would be solved. But rape card people always forget the matter of STDs, you can't just abort those and make them go away, some are here to stay, some are only treatable but not curable, some have become resilient to antibiotics, so what's the quick fix for them if a rapist is infected?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 7:47:48 GMT
On what? That women could EVER be mistaken about who raped them? Yes. There is deception and non deliberate deception to be considered. For instance perhaps you have never heard of the Scottsboro Boys, a notorious and famous case of the latter. (With regard to racism in the United States, historically, due to white people having greater influence in the judicial system, false accusations of rape made by White women against African American men often resulted in wrongful convictions, and led to extrajudicial acts of violence such as lynchings.) For believers, an example can be found in Genesis 39:19–23, which describes Joseph's arrival in the Egyptian prison reserved for the king's prisoners. Joseph's once-trusting master has him jailed after the master's wife falsely accuses Joseph of attempted rape. And then we have false memories: Looks like there's no need to wonder whether novastar could ever be mistaken though..
So it sounds like there are actually a LOT of holes to poke in the 'RAPE!' card to justify abortion. The women could be mistaken, they could even be outright lying, they could be crying rape to cover up an affair. But the idea it should be okay to kill a baby for a crime that someone else may or may not have committed, that just strikes me as a very eugenicist way of thinking, kill babies because of who/what the parents allegedly are. Imagine if we made the same allowances for witness testimony in death penalty cases, 'well there's actually a good chance the witness is mistaken, but we'll just take her word instead of using the DNA forensics at our disposal because it's easier and quicker'.
But I think the real slap in the face is when people beat their breast all day long about we need legal abortion 'because RAPE!', so someone makes the logical argument, 'okay, ONLY allow abortions for rape/incest and medical crises, and outlaw all the ones done for convenience', which would cut the number down to about 10% of all cases, if even that much, and then for some unknown reason the same people suddenly go 'Ohhhh nooooo!' and insist every woman should be able to get an abortion at any time for any reason, for no reason, just because she wants it. Really? Why waste our time pretending you care about real victims then?
And food for thought for people who just assume NO woman would ever want or keep or raise or love a child that was conceived in rape, that those kids have no right being born, they don't deserve to live, no good will ever come from their existence:
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 3, 2024 11:57:02 GMT
So it sounds like there are actually a LOT of holes to poke in the 'RAPE!' card to justify abortion. The women could be mistaken, Make your mind up. Just before you were sarcastically suggesting that women could never be mistaken about who had raped them. In the UK at least rape is one of the conditions in which abortion is legal. It is deemed necessary to allow women the choice of an abortion because their mental and/or physical health could be at serious risk if they were forced to keep the child of the rapist. There is still enormous stigma surrounding rape. A child born of rape faces possible discrimination and almost certainly a lot of soul searching and confusion about their nature as they get to the point where they can understand how they came to be conceived. And the reality is that many women will seek abortions in cases of rape, regardless of its legality, make the availability of abortion a practical necessity. Ultimately, apart from those theocratic lawmakers (usually men) who seek to belittle or downplay such things, the main consideration in many jurisdictions is with the health and welfare of the woman over those putative rights of (in the case of early pregnancies, which make up the vast proportion of such legal cases) a mucoid being, not yet a 'little baby' let alone a 'person'
A policy of sensible and humane exemptions to the rule one notes taken up in some otherwise anti-abortion states and countries.
This is just more of your characteristic hyperbole, and also something of a slippery slope argument- a fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I have sympathy with the view that one is 'punishing the unborn' for the huge trauma inflicted on the mother. But if a mother is determined to love a child so conceived then no one is suggesting compulsory abortion, so your point is just rhetorical.
Oh, and as noted before, YouTube (always your only source of reference, one notes) is not an authoritative source.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 14:25:19 GMT
Hyperbole, eh? Okay, you've been justifying abortion for rape. So do you think it should ONLY be allowed for rape and medical emergency cases?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 3, 2024 19:40:49 GMT
Yes. No; as you ought to know I favour women having control over their own bodies and health care; for abortion to be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy, just as is the case in many progressive countries and states around the world while, in exceptional cases, (woman's life at risk, foetus brain dead etc) in later stages too. But we have been over this before. Here's one for you. In Exodus 23:26, Israel is promised that “none will miscarry or be barren in your land” if they followed the Mosaic Covenant. Conversely, in Hosea 9:14, Israel in a state of disobedience is promised “wombs that miscarry / and breasts that are dry.” So we learn from these passages that miscarriages are in your purported god’s hands and previously He has apparently chosen both to allow and conversely stop them. So if He is apparently against abortion so much in general, you being such a mirror of His views, why does He allow such spontaneous abortions be so prevalent still? (In one study, researchers found a miscarriage rate of 9.4 percent at 6 weeks of pregnancy, 4.2 percent at 7 weeks, 1.5 percent at 8 weeks, 0.5 percent at 9 weeks and 0.7 percent at 10 weeks.). Oh, I think I know: Your presumed deity doesn't care about "innocent little babies" that much? He's punishing the wicked with a loss of their child maybe? Or is it just that He works in mysterious ways?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 20:10:03 GMT
Yes. No; as you ought to know I favour women having control over their own bodies and health care; for abortion to be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy, just as is the case in many progressive countries and states around the world while, in exceptional cases, (woman's life at risk, foetus brain dead etc) in later stages too. But we have been over this before. Here's one for you. In Exodus 23:26, Israel is promised that “none will miscarry or be barren in your land” if they followed the Mosaic Covenant. Conversely, in Hosea 9:14, Israel in a state of disobedience is promised “wombs that miscarry / and breasts that are dry.” So we learn from these passages that miscarriages are in your purported god’s hands and previously He has apparently chosen both to allow and conversely stop them. So if He is apparently against abortion so much in general, you being such a mirror of His views, why does He allow such spontaneous abortions be so prevalent still? (In one study, researchers found a miscarriage rate of 9.4 percent at 6 weeks of pregnancy, 4.2 percent at 7 weeks, 1.5 percent at 8 weeks, 0.5 percent at 9 weeks and 0.7 percent at 10 weeks.). Oh, I think I know: Your presumed deity doesn't care about "innocent little babies" that much? He's punishing the wicked with a loss of their child maybe? Or is it just that He works in mysterious ways? If you're going to pretend a miscarriage is the same thing as abortion, then let's just start calling homicide natural causes, it's all the same thing, right?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 3, 2024 20:23:03 GMT
Yes. No; as you ought to know I favour women having control over their own bodies and health care; for abortion to be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy, just as is the case in many progressive countries and states around the world while, in exceptional cases, (woman's life at risk, foetus brain dead etc) in later stages too. But we have been over this before. Here's one for you. In Exodus 23:26, Israel is promised that “none will miscarry or be barren in your land” if they followed the Mosaic Covenant. Conversely, in Hosea 9:14, Israel in a state of disobedience is promised “wombs that miscarry / and breasts that are dry.” So we learn from these passages that miscarriages are in your purported god’s hands and previously He has apparently chosen both to allow and conversely stop them. So if He is apparently against abortion so much in general, you being such a mirror of His views, why does He allow such spontaneous abortions be so prevalent still? (In one study, researchers found a miscarriage rate of 9.4 percent at 6 weeks of pregnancy, 4.2 percent at 7 weeks, 1.5 percent at 8 weeks, 0.5 percent at 9 weeks and 0.7 percent at 10 weeks.). Oh, I think I know: Your presumed deity doesn't care about "innocent little babies" that much? He's punishing the wicked with a loss of their child maybe? Or is it just that He works in mysterious ways? If you're going to pretend a miscarriage is the same thing as abortion, then let's just start calling homicide natural causes, it's all the same thing, right? What we are discussing is a deity who, by doing nothing, allows miscarriages to proceed when scripture tells us clearly that your alleged God has previously prevented them - or conversely, makes them happen, something scripture has also told us He has done on His whim. If your god really is the First Cause of everything, then He is the First Cause of all natural causes, is He not? (The older medical term for miscarriages is 'spontaneous abortions' either way the loss of life is the same) But more important why don't you ask your alleged deity why He does not act to save life given the prevalence of miscarriages? After all Isaiah 58:9-11 "When you call, the Lord will answer", Right? Maybe time give Him a ring? You are supposedly pro-life after all. The impression the skeptical get is that your deity is less interested in the survival of "innocent little babies" than some of His fundamentalist followers.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 20:30:34 GMT
If you're going to pretend a miscarriage is the same thing as abortion, then let's just start calling homicide natural causes, it's all the same thing, right? What we are discussing is a deity who, by doing nothing, allows miscarriages to proceed when scripture tells us clearly that your alleged God has previously prevented them - or conversely, makes them happen, something scripture has also told us He has done on His whim. If your god really is the First Cause of everything, then He is the First Cause of all natural causes, is He not? But more important why don't you ask your alleged deity why He does not act to save life given the prevalence of miscarriages? After all Isaiah 58:9-11 "When you call, the Lord will answer", Right? Maybe time give Him a ring?
Why don't you? Since you're the one who's oh so curious.
I've already said for years how the people who simultaneously insist God doesn't exist, just love to blame Him for everything wrong in the world. Don't your all knowing scientists have the answer for what causes miscarriages? But maybe you should consult someone with agricultural knowledge instead, to explain the difference in crops naturally dying despite doing everything right to make them grow, and intentionally taking an axe and chopping them all to little pieces, and then pretending the two are the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 3, 2024 20:37:54 GMT
Why don't you? Since you're the one who's oh so curious. Because I don't believe in a deliberate supernatural. Apparently you do, so I was hoping you might be able to offer an explanation, you being in touch with a supposed deity and what it likes and all. Your god has apparently stopped and started miscarriages. Why does it allow things now? One does not have to believe in something to ask hypothetical questions about it, indicated by such terms as "alleged deity".. I am sure you really know that. I am aware of the difference thanks. I am asking why, your supposed deity, the source of all natural causes, does not prevent that loss of "innocent little babies" which exercises you so much. I guess we are back to 'mysterious ways' then since you won't give Him a call?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 3, 2024 21:32:57 GMT
Why don't you? Since you're the one who's oh so curious. Because I don't believe in a deliberate supernatural. Apparently you do, so I was hoping you might be able to offer an explanation, you being in touch with a supposed deity and what it likes and all. Your god has apparently stopped and started miscarriages. Why does it allow things now? One does not have to believe in something to ask hypothetical questions about it, indicated by such terms as "alleged deity".. I am sure you really know that. I am aware of the difference thanks. I am asking why, your supposed deity, the source of all natural causes, does not prevent that loss of "innocent little babies" which exercises you so much. I guess we are back to 'mysterious ways' then since you won't give Him a call?
Obviously you're not aware of the difference since you think a natural miscarriage is the same thing as paying someone to willfully dismember a baby.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 1,329
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 4, 2024 10:21:52 GMT
Because I don't believe in a deliberate supernatural. Apparently you do, so I was hoping you might be able to offer an explanation, you being in touch with a supposed deity and what it likes and all. Your god has apparently stopped and started miscarriages. Why does it allow things now? One does not have to believe in something to ask hypothetical questions about it, indicated by such terms as "alleged deity".. I am sure you really know that. I am aware of the difference thanks. I am asking why, your supposed deity, the source of all natural causes, does not prevent that loss of "innocent little babies" which exercises you so much. I guess we are back to 'mysterious ways' then since you won't give Him a call?
Obviously you're not aware of the difference since you think a natural miscarriage is the same thing as paying someone to willfully dismember a baby.
So if abortions could be performed without dismembering (which is essentially what abortion pills do in early stage pregnancies) would they be ok then in your book? Or would they still be bad, just to a lesser degree?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 4, 2024 18:29:13 GMT
Obviously you're not aware of the difference since you think a natural miscarriage is the same thing as paying someone to willfully dismember a baby.
So if abortions could be performed without dismembering (which is essentially what abortion pills do in early stage pregnancies) would they be ok then in your book? Or would they still be bad, just to a lesser degree?
I think any and all methods of murdering a helpless baby BECAUSE it's a helpless baby should be equally condemned. Or was what the Hillside Stranglers did okay because it wasn't Jack the Ripper? We KNOW where the general public stands on George Floyd NOT being shot.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 4, 2024 20:34:57 GMT
Obviously you're not aware of the difference since you think a natural miscarriage is the same thing as paying someone to willfully dismember a baby. Obviously I need to restate my point to you, which you appear to be deliberately ignoring in favour of misdirection (but I can see why): your supposed deity has in the past, according to scripture, both specifically suspended and instituted miscarriages to suit His preference. In fact, as we know from Isiah 45:7 (a thing brought to your attention before) your deity is quoted as admitting to actively creating natural evil or misfortune, which would obviously include miscarriages. Yes, miscarriages are natural events, we can both agree, but as the confessed cause of natural evil, as in causing, or by inaction allowing, the death of "innocent little babies", your deity would appear to be guilty of culpable homicide. Instead of offering distractions, it would be best for you to argue either that God 'works in mysterious ways' (so you can't awkwardly explain why the First Cause causes or allows the death of "innocent little babies"), or go the Command Theory way iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/ , in arguing that whatever your deity does, including causing miscarriages, is necessarily justified and moral. In which case you will justify the death of children on these grounds. But that would clash with your disapproval of such loss of life would it not? Of course you could just conveniently continue to ignore my questions... I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 4, 2024 20:41:54 GMT
So if abortions could be performed without dismembering (which is essentially what abortion pills do in early stage pregnancies) would they be ok then in your book? Or would they still be bad, just to a lesser degree?
I think any and all methods of murdering a helpless baby BECAUSE it's a helpless baby should be equally condemned.
Abortions are not carried out on this basis, but most often for medical or health and welfare reasons - as I am sure you must realise away from your characteristic hyperbole. As such it is something of a non-sequitur too, so that is two fallacious ways of arguing in one post.
|
|