That is undeniable, but what is it we are sacrificing these children to? So interesting that those who claim to be anti religion are typically supportive of child sacrifice. Why is that?
That depends upon where one defines the moral cutoff line where in which an entity should actually be considered a child/a being with moral rights and a lot of people have very different ideas about that. As for the law though, my personal view on this is that Pain Perception and or Mental Life/Consciousness should be considered as the gold standards for determining the legal cutoff. i.e. I believe that one of the following cutoff points/ranges (gestational) and justifications should be used: -Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception -Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point Others however seem to really favor the cutoff of Viability (Week 24) as the standard instead... a very popular choice... which is fine by me, because when you get right down to it, that cutoff still lines up nicely within the ranges based off of Pain Perception and Mental Life/Consciousness. BTW, we actually had a Ranked vote on this a couple years ago and the following is essentially a compromise proposal compiled based on all the votes: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/ So... what are your thoughts on such a compromise? Would it be a suitable middle ground in your opinion? And if not, what changes would you propose and why? Thanks! -Meta
We can cut to the bottom line on that in America fairly easily. The Unborn Victim of Violence Act (a federal law currently in force) recognizes children in utero at any stage of development as having human rights! Since we are discussing law and human rights, this covers all the bases. Any threshold of weeks is completely arbitrary and unacceptable when we are talking about the right to kill a human being. Would you support negotiating conditions under which wanton murder is acceptable?
Contradicted by other laws of course, not that any of that matters. When determining what the law ought to be, morally speaking, we shouldn't use existing laws as justification. After-all, we used to have laws that recognized certain people as only 3/5ths of a person. Laws are not infallible, which is why they shouldn't be used when morally justifying other laws. Setting the cutoff between specific justified developmental stages is by definition, not arbitrary. arbitrary adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle You mean war?... -Meta
NO, the UVVA does NOT recognize the fetus as a person with rights. It has PROTECTIONS, NOT RIGHTS. And IF you read the UVVA you'd see that it states it has NOTHING to do with abortion.
Moloch/Baal were some of the demons the ancient Canaanites sacrificed to, and the Aztec elite ate babies to increase protein in their diets.. but ultimately it is a sacrifice to the god of this world, Satan. (Jesus's sacrifice did not remove Satan from this world, HE gave us the power to defeat Satan in our lives. You can say you don't believe in God.. or Satan.. but you serve Satan just the same. But if I had to tell a secularist who dead babies are sacrificed to.. I'd say "convenience" .
We'll never know the exact numbers but there's a good bet that christians took more lives in their wars. Why is that??
Wow, is this an attempt to change the argument into something else? Maybe you think if you succeed in getting us to start arguing about history, you will have succeeded in derailing this thread from the original discussion? Or do you just like to throw out all sorts of arguments in thread and hope that at least one of them sticks, and think the other side can't possibly argue with all of them?
I've noticed that not a single reply so far has addressed the subject in the opening post. Isn't that interesting.
No, it's a rebuttal to the idea that non-christians are supporters of sacrificing human lives. Being an Ashiest I took acception to the o.p.
You are completely and obviously wrong. You should actually read it before commenting! BTW big fonts don't help your case, like ....at all!
There can be no protection against homicide and assaults without the recognition of human rights. Logic, get you some!
You ask what these babies are being sacrificed to, it is to the woman's lifestyle, her sex life. All her actions could be being manipulated by demonic forces, without her realizing it. I mean, if you were the devil, how would you trick the woman into performing a human sacrifice and killing her own child? And then make her think that was her right and that she had done nothing wrong. In fact, make her think it was a good decision, something that "empowers" women.
Yep, Bingo! I am not upset with the women who are duped by the abortion industry's marketing, which is worse than that of cigarette companies, I am upset with the sellers of death and destruction!
Why would you assume I am a secularist? I am not BTW. I am just trying to get the supporters of this practice to think about it and not just gobble up what their political overlords feed them!
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA does NOT recognize the fetus as a person with rights. It has PROTECTIONS, NOT RIGHTS. And IF you read the UVVA you'd see that it states it has NOTHING to do with abortion. I have, you haven't. PROVE my statement is incorrect...show EXACTLY where in the UVVA that it gives rights to ZEFs, makes them legal persons.....show it …
My trying to prove your thoughts wrong is no more possible than you proving my thoughts wrong. What we have are two opinions that can't be proven. It's o.k. to disagree.
So why do you think women are so stupid they have to be "duped" into having an abortion. BTW, they aren't.
FoxHastings said: ↑ So why do you think women are so stupid they have to be "duped" into having an abortion. Uh, you forgot to read the actual question...….as usual.. so you replied with something ridiculous and totally untrue and unprovable...
Either they have been duped or something far more sinister is going on. I was actually giving them the benefit of the doubt! But you bring me back to my original question, if they know they are sacrificing their children, what (or who) are they sacrificing them to????