Within the first 3 months, the risk of a natural abortion is 20%.

Germany* in 2021:
Number of births: 800k
Number of abortions per mother: 100k
Total number of pregnancies (see above 20%**): 1mio
Percentage of abortions per mother: 10%
Percentage of natural abortions: Still 20%. Total number of natural abortions: 200k
How do you want to save the lives of these "babies"?


* Ruled by (Chancellor is one) and full of: evil commie atheists. Abortion is not punished until week 22.
** for sake of simplicity, ignoring 100k abortions per mother, which could have ended in natural abortion as well.


Terminology:
Up to the 9th week the correct term is "embryo", after that "fetus". Your feeble attempt to poison any discussion right away by throwing in the incorrect term "baby" is telling, about you, your intentions and your honesty.

Question for @Nishant Xavier

How many unwanted children have you adopted?

Boru

Do you think that it's right that a 10 year old rape victim be forced to give birth when she is not fit enough mentally or physicaly to cope with it?
If she does give birth, who should be responsible for bringing the child up?

(July 10, 2023 at 7:33 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Do you think that it's right that a 10 year old rape victim be forced to give birth when she is not fit enough mentally or physicaly to cope with it?
If she does give birth, who should be responsible for bringing the child up?

Why would you think they care about a child being raped and impregnated?

Their god raped and impregnated a young virgin and they worship it.

(July 10, 2023 at 6:02 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: And so, we can reasonably go from one commonly, if not universally, admitted premise to the other. It's for atheists/liberals to tell us why, if killing babies with beating hearts 3 months after their birth is wrong, killing those same babies with beating hearts 3 months before is. And since both of them are human beings, and all human beings intrinsically have the Natural Right to Life, it necessarily follows it's as wrong to kill one as to kill the other. Either, therefore, none of them ought to be protected, and either of them can be killed, or rather, neither of then can be rightly killed, and both of them ought to be protected.

But these aren't the same babies three months before that they are three months after birth. You are using same in the sense of possessing an identity that is the same when what is relevant is whether they are developmentally the same and possess the same political rights. So this is an equivocation and your argument is invalid.

As Boru already said, and I'll repeat:

1) is ipse dixit and therefore invalid;
2) is a false equivalence as born babies and the elderly can be dependent on others, and in a different way, and enjoy some limited autonomy; not so of the foetus, so this is a false equivalence;
3) guilt by association is an invalid argument, not to mention is a rather despicable one;

All your arguments are invalid.

Oh, I forgot your religious argument. Do you think that others should be forced to obey the strictures of a religion to which they do not belong?

(July 10, 2023 at 7:27 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Question for @Nishant Xavier

How many unwanted children have you adopted?

Boru

He does not need to adopt them, just pay for them, as commanded by his saviour.

(July 10, 2023 at 6:02 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Pope St. John Paul II also was one of the First to oppose the unjust War in Iraq

And yet the same pope sent thousands of priests to Iraq as moral support to the Catholic soldiers, so that when they kill a Muslim a priest can tell them "God forgives you, go and kill some more"; and no doubt the Pope got the hefty paycheck for it. I mean if he was really against it he would not help with the war in Iraq and not profit from it.

This also reminds me of Catholic priest George Zabelka who held a holy mass over the atomic bomb that was thrown on Hiroshima and another mass for the bomb that was thrown on Nagasaki. Also for moral support so that soldiers know that Jesus is with them when they throw the bombs.

@ Brian, and also that guy with the Gandalf pic: I would prefer to keep such things confidential, but since you asked, I will tell you. I donate roughly 20% of my income - more than Christianity requires, btw - to Churches and Charities among which are also various Orphanages and Trusts that help abandoned or orphaned children. Now, maybe you should tell me how much you donate, since you put me on the spot. But even if not, that's fine. And while I'm happy to say, by God's Grace, I earn a Good Salary, and therefore 20% of that is a considerable amount, I aim to gradually increase that to 40% by the time I'm 40, especially if my salary itself increases to a certain threshold by then, which I intend to work for, so that I'll then be able to afford that; and as I've mentioned before, a famous Christian, Pastor Rick Warren, a Millionaire, has done the same. He started with 10% and kept increasing. He now gives 90%, a practice also known as Reverse Tithing. Ooh, I can just hear Angry Atheist Hitchens from beyond the grave: "Oh boy, that Christianity really poisons everything". LOLOL. Wrong.

Pastor Warren: "Kay and I became reverse tithers. When we got married 30 years ago, we began tithing 10%. Each year we would raise our tithe 1% to stretch our faith: 11% the first year, 12% the second year, 13% the third year. Every time I give, it breaks the grip of materialism in my life. Every time I give, it makes me more like Jesus. Every time I give, my heart grows bigger. And so now, we give away 90% and we live on 10%. That was actually the easy part, what to do with the money--just give it away, because I'm storing up treasures in heaven." The reference is to Mat 6.

Jesus Christ: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Mat 6:19-21)


Angrboda, and also anyone else, on the Abortion issue:

The argument really is very simple, I: (1) All Human Beings have All Human Rights (2) The Child in the Womb is a Human Being (3) Therefore, the Child in the Womb has All Human Rights. (4) All Human Rights include the Right to Life, otherwise you and I don't have that Right either. (5) Therefore, the Child in the Womb has the Right to Life. It has this simply by virtue or by Nature of being Human, which we can now medically prove. Not just of course the fact that the Child in the Womb has a beating human heart proves that, but even some time earlier, it was medically known, the child in the womb is a new human being, genetically distinct from each of her parents, having 23 chromosomes from both.

You need to establish he/she is not Human in order to justify discriminating against them to the point you deny them Basic Human Rights as alleged Sub-Human Non-Persons. The same argument would apply in earlier times to those who denied Human Rights to some Human Beings, say, Black or Brown People etc. Since all Human Beings have all Human Rights, and since Black and Brown People are genetically Human, it necessarily follows they have all Human Rights, including, in that case, the right to liberty etc. 

As for your response, the 2nd Argument is a pre-emptive response to an Atheistic/Liberal Objection that would go something like this: (1) That all human beings have all human rights, I concede. (2) But these rights can be justly denied when one person depends on another. (3) Now, the Baby in the Womb depends on her Parents. (4) Therefore, the intrinsic and Natural Human Rights of this Baby can be justly denied.

This is a Sophism and a False Argument.

The False Premise is (2). I gave the 2 counter-examples to show that it is not true that one person's basic human rights can be justly denied even if one person depends on another. Babies depend on their Parents after birth, yet it is clearly wrong to kill them. You are saying the manner of dependence is not the same before and after birth, and that's true, but what matters is the premise itself of dependence doesn't enter into the question. In these days when we're saying even Prisoners and Guilty Criminals ought not be put to death, it's a shame we put to Death Innocent Babies who have done no wrong, except be born to Parents who conceived them.

@ Fake Messiah: Pathetic Militant Atheist Rubbish I don't have time to address right now. Will get back to it later when work is done. Btw, you should read what Just War is, and the difference between Right to go to War, and Right Conduct during War. Both matters. And the Church knows Soldiers, now having gone to War, still need prayer help, the Sacraments etc, even as She tries to stop War and bring Peace.

Xavier, your argument is rife with equivocations and bare assertions. You're just making noise. No, I do not need to demonstrate any such thing; that's an illegitimate shifting of the burden of proof.

Anyway, as I pointed out when you first came here, your arguments are almost uniformly easily refuted crap that's been seen a million times and while you present it well rhetorically, the logical side of your arguments is not good at all. It would be nice if you could present any argument that was at least superficially both sound and valid, but that does not appear to be something that is in your skillset. You are wasting your time and ours. Not that doing so isn't an enjoyable pastime, but if you think you are productively evangelizing for the Lord, you are sadly mistaken.

Of the arguments you've made, probably the strongest is the argument from contingency; I'd focus on that if I were you.

(July 10, 2023 at 7:24 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Within the first 3 months, the risk of a natural abortion is 20%.

Germany* in 2021:
Number of births: 800k
Number of abortions per mother: 100k
Total number of pregnancies (see above 20%**): 1mio
Percentage of abortions per mother: 10%
Percentage of natural abortions: Still 20%. Total number of natural abortions: 200k
How do you want to save the lives of these "babies"?


* Ruled by (Chancellor is one) and full of: evil commie atheists. Abortion is not punished until week 22.
** for sake of simplicity, ignoring 100k abortions per mother, which could have ended in natural abortion as well.


Terminology:
Up to the 9th week the correct term is "embryo", after that "fetus". Your feeble attempt to poison any discussion right away by throwing in the incorrect term "baby" is telling, about you, your intentions and your honesty.

So god could stop this but does not, Hmmmmm...........

The only conclusion that I can draw is that GOD INTENTIONALLY KILLS BABY'S. (read the fairy tale book, it's had no problem killing babys in the past)