(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: If you had bothered to read even half the thread you would have seen where I supported such possible exceptions in over a dozen different posts. Never in my life have I suggested 10 year old rape victim should be forced to carry to term.
I realize in your fantasy world you create for yourself I have, but back here in the real world the complete opposite is true and always has been.
(07-05-2022 11:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: This is the same genius who keeps posting half the country are terrorists then brags how he doesn't attack others for their views and lives his life by the "golden rule". 
So you deflect again by saying I should have already known you support exceptions? I wanted you to address the moral dilemma. That is what matters. How is it the innocent "baby" fault who their parents are? Why should it be punished? It's okay to murder babys when their parents did something wrong? How do you think you'll be judged on your day of reckoning for that? If you think you'd be given a "pass" for murder in this case, why not in the typical case of abortion where the mother is just as emotionally effected by pregnancy (if not more so in some cases) as that of the one who was raped? Is it morally right for us to be the judge of when "murder" is okay in these instances, rather than the woman herself who is the one actually emotionally effected?!
I mean there are many tentacles to this moral monkey.. not just the one I mentioned above. Have you considered the very realistic and likely scenario where the 10-year-old child is against abortion and actually wants the child, yet because you allow exceptions, you are allowing her parents to force her against her will to murder the "baby"? How do you think your maker is going to judge you on your day of reckoning for that?
Again, don't deflect, just address the moral monkey.
(07-06-2022 10:52 AM)umbluegray Wrote: Acting like it's not is to ignore the facts.
Less than 3% (and I would argue much less than 3%) of all abortions in the US are for rape, incest & health/life of mother.
More than 97% are elective. Whatever reason you give, financially unable to provide, not emotionally ready, ANY reason... by definition the woman is controlling whether or not give birth.
If you want statistics, why not address all the relevant statistics when it comes to aborted embryos?
It is estimated approximately half of all fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If a fertilized egg is so special enough to be called a "baby", isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is murdering?
It is also estimated, among those who know they are pregnant, that 10-25% of these embryos/fetuses also end in a nature miscarriage. Again, isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is "murdering" for something that is supposedly a "baby"?
Now among valid birth control methods taken before pregnancy, a significant number of them (especially the popular IUDs) induce spontaneous miscarriages in the same process that "God" induces them naturally. How is this any less "evil" than what "God" does? And if it's not, then how is a pill taken after pregnancy any less "evil"? I mean if God truly wanted to "save" the "baby", wouldn't he just nullify the effect of the contraception method or abortion pill, which is what happens in some cases anyway? "God" is obviously already involved in the decision making process anyway when he chooses to abort the half of fertilized eggs/embryos naturally.
