RE: The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians
September 30, 2015 at 4:14 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2015 at 4:14 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(September 30, 2015 at 4:07 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: I agree that you don't have to agree with that definition.
I emphasized the above because you don't really believe that the fetus claimed the woman's body to use as their own out of their own volition? You do understand the only reason for it's existence was out of a choice that the mother made (not counting cases of rape)? You don't think that if the mother makes a conscious choice to have consensual sex knowing that pregnancy is always a possibility, she bares no responsibility for the consequence? And the embryo, fetus, blastocyst (however you want to categorize it) is also equally part of her willing partner. Does the woman's rights supersede his as well? Look I've said repeatedly this is not an easy topic so there are not easy answers.
Yes. Her right--only one right, not "rights"--to bodily integrity supersedes anyone else's, including the sex partner and the fetus/embryo/baby/fully-grown-human-adult-in-potentiam.
Whether it is a conscious decision that led to the creation of that fetus (etc) is irrelevant to the basic question, which is why in my kidney example I specifically state that Person A causes the kidney failure of Person B, and that only Person A's kidney could keep Person B alive. Even under such extreme circumstances, we still do not have the legal right to use government laws to force Person A to surrender their bodily autonomy on behalf of Person B's continued existence. How one feels about this circumstance is up to their own conscience.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
