Why did Jesus suffer for sinners and not victims

[onlinebiker]

Victims don't generally feel guilty about things...

But -- a "sinner" can be convinced into his misdeeds and then further convinced into a financial contribution to alleviate his guilt.

...

as always --

Follow The Money

[Astreja]

No one has the right to someone else's body or to live within it or to use its resources against the will of that person.

This. This x ∞.

No exceptions. Ever.

[Angrboda]

Well said, @SUNGULA

It doesn't matter whether the fetus is human or not. It doesn't matter if it could talk and do taxes.

If it is using the woman's body, it is her decision on whether to allow it to keep using it. You can't force someone to sustain the life of someone else through the use of their body.

It matters some. I'll accept that the attachment to the mother is relevant, but I don't think that's the whole story. If a fetus at 8-1/2 months could be delivered viable, that is different than one that isn't. And the fact of her complicity in affairs matters some, too.

[ronedee]

No one has the right to someone else's body or to live within it or to use its resources against the will of that person.

This.  This x ∞.

No exceptions.  Ever.

So... 2) no rights, is the answer?

If the baby were taken out of womb at 24 weeks (alive & well), the Virginia governor/doctor believes (he's on record and apparently unopposed) it's ok to leave it 
"on the table, and let nature take it's course." After consulting w/ mom of course...no mention of dad. 

Meaning...the placenta is also removed along w/ the fetus/baby and the cord won't be cut. The baby/fetus would eventually run out of air and suffocate. 
Less painful than being removed piece by piece, but same end result.

So, what's different than taking a life of any child, by anyone? A thin wall of tissue, and a choice?

Can we extend that "choice" to the "born" child? I mean, if a child is "living off you" materially, that can also be an "inconvenience & liability". Qui?
"....leave it in it's room, and let nature take it's course" ...so to speak. You see where this is going...and it's ugly!

You see, there is no difference.... except, the law can protect what is "deemed" born. So, mom's are the judge. Not science. Not law. Not fathers.

And that is the ultimate Truth.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It matters some. I'll accept that the attachment to the mother is relevant, but I don't think that's the whole story. If a fetus at 8-1/2 months could be delivered viable, that is different than one that isn't. And the fact of her complicity in affairs matters some, too.

No amount of humanity or viability can override her right to her own body

---

So... 2) no rights, is the answer?

Nope as I said whether or not it has rights is irrelevant. No right entitles it to live in her body against her will 

If the baby were taken out of womb at 24 weeks (alive & well), the Virginia governor/doctor believes (he's on record and apparently unopposed) it's ok to leave it 
"on the table, and let nature take it's course." After consulting w/ mom of course...no mention of dad. 

Even if that's true it's Irrelevant to the subject of abortion (and many argue his words have been taken out of context )

Meaning...the placenta is also removed along w/ the fetus/baby and the cord won't be cut. The baby/fetus would eventually run out of air and suffocate. 
Less painful than being removed piece by piece, but same end result.

Even if that's true it's Irrelevant to the subject of abortion (and many argue his words have been taken out of context )

So, what's different than taking a life of any child, by anyone? A thin wall of tissue, and a choice?

No, the difference is the concept of bodily autonomy and the right of a person to it and the fact to one has the right to someone else's body or the right to live there.

Can we extend that "choice" to the "born" child? I mean, if a child is "living off you" materially, that can also be an "inconvenience & liability". Qui?
"....leave it in it's room, and let nature take it's course" ...so to speak. You see where this is going...and it's ugly!

This is a poor argument as again raising children is not equivalent to them living inside you. So this sad attempt at an argument from emotion fails.

You see, there is no difference.... except, the law can protect what is "deemed" born. So, mom's are the judge. Not science. Not law. Not fathers.

Yes, there is one is about bodily autonomy and the right not to be used by someone else. And yes she is the judge and thank goodness for that 

And that is the ultimate Truth.

You have no truths

[Astreja]

This.  This x ∞.

No exceptions.  Ever.

So... 2) no rights, is the answer?

Not unless those rights can be accomplished without infringing on someone else's rights.

When it gets right down to it, the whole concept of "rights" is an abstraction that is subject to human perceptions of fairness and justice.  You may think it unjust for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, but are you properly considering the effect that bearing an unwanted child has on her rights?

And are you personally open to the possibility of taking full responsibility for the raising of that child, and also compensating the woman for the danger of continuing a pregnancy?  Would you contribute cold hard cash to support the development of an artificial womb that allowed fetuses to be incubated independently of a woman's body?  How much time and money do you currently donate to food banks, crisis shelters, affordable-housing initiatives, living wage advocacy?

Or are you just sitting there spluttering "But... but... we gotta save the babies!"  ?

[Angrboda]

Or are you just sitting there spluttering "But... but... we gotta save the babies!"  ?

Ve has a viener!

[John 6IX Breezy]

It matters some. I'll accept that the attachment to the mother is relevant, but I don't think that's the whole story. If a fetus at 8-1/2 months could be delivered viable, that is different than one that isn't. And the fact of her complicity in affairs matters some, too.

Right, abortion (like most things in life) is a complex system with many moving and interacting parts. To simplify things into such absolute, one-sided, all-or-nothing terms is almost certainly to get it wrong.

Every variable affected by an abortion ought to be accounted for and understood before ascribing ultimate value and importancee to a single aspect.

[Abaddon_ire]

It is always the same with the anti abortion twits.

Sure, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure mom carries to term regardless of mom's bodily autonomy and what have you. Fuck up mom's life, why not? That is a human life we are dealing with, right?

Child is born.

Suddenly, fukkem they can go die in a fire the welfare leaches.

Work that out for me please? Nobody ever has.

[onlinebiker]

It is always the same with the anti abortion twits.

Sure, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure mom carries to term regardless of mom's bodily autonomy and what have you. Fuck up mom's life, why not? That is a human life we are dealing with, right?

Child is born.

Suddenly, fukkem they can go die in a fire the welfare leaches.

Work that out for me please? Nobody ever has.

If you're pre-born - you're golden. If you're pre-school - you're fucked.  - George Carlin