• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

The Vatican, the Catholic And Christians Churches

Is the Vatican under Pope Francis

  • Too much interfering in politics

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Too much leftist

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Too much anti capitalist

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Is doing a great job

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Is doing a Middle job

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Is doing a bad job

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Is defending the poor and the environment

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • It’s position on immigration negative

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • It’s position on immigration positive

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • The pope is a saint in his private life

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • The pope is an inspirational figure

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Pope Francis while a saintly figure is wrong in his opposition to populist leaders like Trump or Lig

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • It’s a scandal the Pope refuse to receive Populist Government in Italy

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Pope refusal of Abortions is great

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Pope acceptance not to condemn people and to give second chances even for abortions supporters is ??

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
I am all for personnal freedom, so if your argument is about Accepting abirtiin for someone eho got raped or is risking death due to the pregnancy then by jove am all for it.

The simple truth is that these cases are nowhere near the najority of abortion cases.
Most are done by recidivist women who have plenty of unprotected sex. Plenty of other ways to hav sex.
Its not natural that by the age of 22 a woman has already had 7 abortions. And believe there are lots of those.


Asking people to be responsible by using protection is not shaming them. You are doing them a disservice when you tell them its okay there’s always a way out no matter how ugly it is.


Again with the rape survivors. They are a minority and i already pointed out that it should be acceptable in the case of a forced/criminal pregnancy.


The money can be used to teach people abt safe sex practices. People have the right to ask where their taxes are going, and killing babies is something i do not wish to pay for.



I am not gonna talk abt rape again, but the sovereignty point is unterresting.
Lets say a couple is having loving consensual sex, accidental pregnancy happens, the woman does not want to have the baby but the man does, why is this accidental act only under the sovereignty of the eoman. She was doing a consensual act and knew the risks.

Or the other way around, accidental pregnancy and the woman wants the baby but the man doesnt, why do you want to force him to pay alimony for something he doesnt want?

Is it moral to force any of thise two cases just because the sovereignty if the wman’s body?
Unfortunately this is a risk a man takes. Another example that men and women are not equal but should have broadly, equal rights.

In this case though it is fair that the right of a woman to control the pregrnency trumps the one of the man due to the simple fact that the fetus is part of her body. This is still viewed as equal rights in my mind but with the obvious differences between men and women acknowledged.

The fact that the man has to pay alimony and child support, is where there is a travesty against equal rights and laws that are not fair at all to men. That needs to be corrected.
 

Thoma

New Member
Paraphrasing the good people on the internet:

The right to choose isn’t the right to choose anything. Some choices are wrong and should be restricted. If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is on par with murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'. However, there is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being.

Faced with this, the ignorant and the wicked may reply with 'the unborn are unable to think like we do or do the things we adults are able to do'. However, as they cannot but concede truths that ultimately contradict them (truths they partly harbor (or half truths) for their wicked, deceiving purposes, as does their bastardized, dangerously compromised, and ultimately farcical paraded humanism), namely, that our values as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence and dependency, it is entailed that the unborn are as as much persons as the newborns, adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. If they concede all of those to be human persons, then they simply cannot rationally deny the human personhood of the unborn.

If the unborn are human (as per the scientific evidence) and person as per the above, then abortion is simply a human rights violation.

The desperately and unashamed wicked people might still reply by

- "it's not black or white" mantra or that abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies. However the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- Appeals to bodily autonomy. However, If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. However, this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

----

As things stand, abortion is the worst human rights violations of all time.
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
Paraphrasing the good people on the internet:

The right to choose isn’t the right to choose anything. Some choices are wrong and should be restricted. If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is on par with murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'. However, there is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being.

Faced with this, the ignorant and the wicked may reply with 'the unborn are unable to think like we do or do the things we adults are able to do'. However, as they cannot but concede truths that ultimately contradict them (truths they partly harbor (or half truths) for their wicked, deceiving purposes, as does their bastardized, dangerously compromised, and ultimately farcical paraded humanism), namely, that our values as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence and dependency, it is entailed that the unborn are as as much persons as the newborns, adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. If they concede all of those to be human persons, then they simply cannot rationally deny the human personhood of the unborn.

If the unborn are human (as per the scientific evidence) and person as per the above, then abortion is simply a human rights violation.

The desperately and unashamed wicked people might still reply by

- "it's not black or white" mantra or that abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies. However the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- Appeals to bodily autonomy. However, If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. However, this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

----

As things stand, abortion is the worst human rights violations of all time.

So long that the fetus is inside a woman's body it is her choice to make, and to live with. Everything else is rubbish.
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
rubbish like your post for ex ? ;)
It is the woman's choice, no laws or church or anything can take that away from a woman. It is sad that people can't grasp this.

If you don't want abortions convince women not to have them. Help them chose to keep the baby. Help them throughout the pregnancy, facilitate adoptions. And for those you can't convince butt out of their business.
 

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
Paraphrasing the good people on the internet:

The right to choose isn’t the right to choose anything. Some choices are wrong and should be restricted. If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is on par with murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'. However, there is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being.

Faced with this, the ignorant and the wicked may reply with 'the unborn are unable to think like we do or do the things we adults are able to do'. However, as they cannot but concede truths that ultimately contradict them (truths they partly harbor (or half truths) for their wicked, deceiving purposes, as does their bastardized, dangerously compromised, and ultimately farcical paraded humanism), namely, that our values as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence and dependency, it is entailed that the unborn are as as much persons as the newborns, adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. If they concede all of those to be human persons, then they simply cannot rationally deny the human personhood of the unborn.

If the unborn are human (as per the scientific evidence) and person as per the above, then abortion is simply a human rights violation.

The desperately and unashamed wicked people might still reply by

- "it's not black or white" mantra or that abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies. However the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- Appeals to bodily autonomy. However, If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. However, this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

----

As things stand, abortion is the worst human rights violations of all time.

This is very dangerous ground that you are waking "The right to choose isn’t the right to choose anything. Some choices are wrong and should be restricted".

This is how people die.
 

Thoma

New Member
So long that the fetus is inside a woman's body it is her choice to make, and to live with. Everything else is rubbish.
It is the woman's choice, no laws or church or anything can take that away from a woman. It is sad that people can't grasp this.
...

Your brain surely must have short-circuited at the sight of that seemingly-inconvenient truth-revealing post, and made you skip it and revert directly to reiterating your unjustifi(ed/able) stance in the form of nonsensical halfwit one-liner replies. What you are exhibiting here is the signature type-of-responses of the self-proclaimed freethinking secular non-or-anti Christianity humanists, who unfortunately are wandering freely in the world in this age while unashamedly wearing that signature shit eating grin on their faces (embodying well the most dangerous farce of this age).

As was briefly demonstrated in what i relayed in my post, in order to appeal to the bodily autonomy line of defense in support of abortion, and succeed in doing so, you must successfully support the notion that the unborn is not a human person, otherwise, and as absurd and ridiculous as it is true, in maintaining your stance you would be supporting and encouraging the idea that women are allowed to kill their newborn while the latter are awake, or in deep sleep when they are months or few years old, or while they are fully grown-up but happen to be mentally ill or mentally retarted or neither but surviving on life support machines, ... , and all that just because they are women (who are choosing so).. or just because, on a deeper level, you might be ignorant and wicked enough to want to ignore, maim and transgress truth whenever truth appears inconvenient to you.

May 'the force' have mercy on your soul.
 
Last edited:

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
Your brain surely must have short-circuited at the sight of that seemingly-inconvenient truth-revealing post, and made you skip it and revert directly to reiterating your unjustifi(ed/able) stance in the form of nonsensical halfwit one-liner replies. What you are exhibiting here is the signature type-of-responses of the self-proclaimed freethinking secular non-or-anti Christianity humanists, who unfortunately are wandering freely in the world in this age while unashamedly wearing that signature shit eating grin on their faces (embodying well the most dangerous farce of this age).

As was briefly demonstrated in what i relayed in my post, in order to appeal to the bodily autonomy line of defense in support of abortion, and succeed in doing so, you must successfully support the notion that the unborn is not a human person, otherwise, and as absurd and ridiculous as it is true, in maintaining your stance you would be supporting and encouraging the idea that women are allowed to kill their newborn while the latter are awake, or in deep sleep when they are months or few years old, or while they are fully grown-up but happen to be mentally ill or mentally retarted or neither but surviving on life support machines, ... , and all that just because they are women (who are choosing so).. or just because, on a deeper level, you might be ignorant and wicked enough to want to ignore, maim and transgress truth whenever truth appears inconvenient to you.

May 'the force' have mercy on your soul.
Women can do whatever they want, and live with their decision, so long the fetus is inside their bodies. You can take all your arguments boil them and drink their water :) it's the woman's decision. You and I may agree or disagree with the woman's decision but it is hers and hers only.
 

Thawra # Furoshima

Well-Known Member
Your brain surely must have short-circuited at the sight of that seemingly-inconvenient truth-revealing post, and made you skip it and revert directly to reiterating your unjustifi(ed/able) stance in the form of nonsensical halfwit one-liner replies. What you are exhibiting here is the signature type-of-responses of the self-proclaimed freethinking secular non-or-anti Christianity humanists, who unfortunately are wandering freely in the world in this age while unashamedly wearing that signature shit eating grin on their faces (embodying well the most dangerous farce of this age).

As was briefly demonstrated in what i relayed in my post, in order to appeal to the bodily autonomy line of defense in support of abortion, and succeed in doing so, you must successfully support the notion that the unborn is not a human person, otherwise, and as absurd and ridiculous as it is true, in maintaining your stance you would be supporting and encouraging the idea that women are allowed to kill their newborn while the latter are awake, or in deep sleep when they are months or few years old, or while they are fully grown-up but happen to be mentally ill or mentally retarted or neither but surviving on life support machines, ... , and all that just because they are women (who are choosing so).. or just because, on a deeper level, you might be ignorant and wicked enough to want to ignore, maim and transgress truth whenever truth appears inconvenient to you.

May 'the force' have mercy on your soul.
Don’t bother he has no soul
He will go to Hell until the end of times
 

Thoma

New Member
Women can do whatever they want, and live with their decision, so long the fetus is inside their bodies. You can take all your arguments boil them and drink their water :) it's the woman's decision. You and I may agree or disagree with the woman's decision but it is hers and hers only.
It may very well be morally wrong, but it is the woman's decision.

Reiterating your claim while evading and failing to address the criticism mounted against it will not make it any less non-true or non-valid. As much as it might seem hard for you and your likes to do, try to reason openly for a minute here; what your collectively parroted 'fetus inside women bodies' might (and actually does, as per the criticism you are evading) mean is human persons who happen to be depended on, or under the mercy/power of, other humans, for their survival, which in this case happen to be their mothers or women custodian, and therefore supporting and encouraging the women's decision to kill the unborn would be tantamount to murder / supporting and encouraging murder. And you'd still not mind that because, as per your parroted irrational/wicked stance, 'it is their decision and theirs alone and no one should butt in their business', or... because on a deeper level it seems too inconvenient to you to admit your error.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thoma

New Member
" The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.
This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. " ~ Mother Teresa
 
Top