A Rebellious People

[Authari]

It is not actually, a women's sexual promiscuity solely determines whether or not she will have an abortion,a right that should not be given to her.

 It actually is as her right to sexual freedom is divorced from her right to reproductive freedom. She has the right to both. 

That we should give mothers the option to kill their own children to avoid the responsibility of the product of their previous intercourse because they sought the pleasures of the flesh,

That we should give women the option to decide to take responsibility and end their own pregnancy as a result of them engaging in their right to sexual freedom is based. 

 it was the same in the Ancient days as it is today, prostitutes would throw their babies in cisterns in infanticide because sex was their profession.

It isn't the same as throwing babies into cisterns is not the same as removing an unwanted organism living inside their body where it has no business being.

 Sowing according to the Flesh reaped death 2,000 years ago just as much as it reaps death today.

Nope 

 I ask you how often does a married couple, who sow according to the Spirit have abortions? 

I imagine more often than you think. But it doesn't matter if they do or don't it changes nothing. 

You would rather allow one the ability to kill an innocent human being rather than take a shred, no an INKLING of responsibility for their own actions? 

The woman has the right to remove an unwanted organism from her body and whether it's innocent or not makes no difference to that fact. And abortion is taking responsibility for one's own actions. 

What kind of world do you believe to be one free from Sin and Vice? One where a mother who should be known as a kind nurturing woman, should be turned into nothing more than a depraved whore who would take the life of her own child to get rid of the trace of her shamefulness?

A woman is whatever and whoever they choose to be and there is nothing depraved or shameful about taking responsibility for one's own body and removing what they deem should not be there. 

And don't you dare bring up the 'incidents of rape' we are not talking about them

You can ignore them if you want they are relevant to this subject. Your denial does not change that. 

 the Laws of Nature Ordained by God were set in order since before time began, those who are in the unfortunate way of planetary or interstellar phenomenon happened just to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Life is a chance you take on yourself to provide a future for those who will come after you, and if I was raising a child sir, I would want God to reflect myself, a loving Father, that way when I am gone my child may know my Spirit is always guiding him after I and God become united as all do when they perish.

So pointless blather that avoids his responsibility

God forbid it should ever be deemed acceptable that a mother should take the life of her child. Yet this is what you advocate.

It already is acceptable. A woman gets to decide if she stays pregnant or not and gets to decide if the fetus gets to live in her body or not.

Actually in a lot of States here in America there is no such right for a woman to have an abortion...

Also the unborn child is not 'her body' that she gets to decide to do with as she wishes, it comes with its own set of organs and is capable of recognizing their mother's voice, yet you would have an unborn child that is capable of recognizing his mother's voice be thrown to the wolves with the abortion that many places allow where it is legal to have an abortion even a day before the expected mother was due to deliver. So to me more about how this individual being who is capable of recognizing his mother's voice does not have the protected rights of their person and their liberty?

[The Architect Of Fate]

If people who would normally commit these actions would know that they would be executed when they were caught, many of them would simply never do the crime to begin with, its an effective method that works to prevent heinous crime. Naturally it won't stop ALL of them, but it will stop MOST of them. Even then, I think that the unborn child should be let alone, why not let at least one blessing arise from a tragedy? Even if the mother does not want to keep the child, what a greater show of respect it is to life to let such a child live and not let the actions of the rapist father in this case spell his own demise.

Execution has never been a successful deterrent against rape and it never will be.No woman should never have to bear the spawn of the fetus of their rapist to suggest such a thing is vile beyond words, And there is no respect in forcing a woman to keep the fetus against her will.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Actually in a lot of States here in America there is no such right for a woman to have an abortion...

Yup, plenty of freedom-hating loonies have passed draconian bills to take away women's rights. That changes nothing. 

Also the unborn child is not 'her body' that she gets to decide to do with as she wishes

It's within her body and she has every right to remove it from her body 

it comes with its own set of organs and is capable of recognizing their mother's voice,

None of that gives it the right to live in her body

 yet you would have an unborn child that is capable of recognizing his mother's voice be thrown to the wolves with the abortion that many places allow where it is legal to have an abortion even a day before the expected mother was due to deliver. 

The ability to recognize a voice does not grant it the right to live in her body.

So to me more about how this individual being who is capable of recognizing his mother's voice does not have the protected rights of their person and their liberty?

It doesn't have the right to live inside someone else no one has that right.

[Authari]

Alright lets talk about it then, if you executed all the rapists you wouldn't really have a problem with rape to much to concern yourself over, but instead you allow evil to fester and thrive among themselves. Little filthy demons that prey on the innocence of women and children.

Executing rapists is just solving one evil with another.

If people who would normally commit these actions would know that they would be executed when they were caught, many of them would simply never do the crime to begin with, its an effective method that works to prevent heinous crime. Naturally it won't stop ALL of them, but it will stop MOST of them. Even then, I think that the unborn child should be let alone, why not let at least one blessing arise from a tragedy? Even if the mother does not want to keep the child, what a greater show of respect it is to life to let such a child live and not let the actions of the rapist father in this case spell his own demise.

Execution has never been a successful deterrent against rape and it never will be.No woman should never have to bear the spawn of the fetus of their rapist to suggest such a thing is vile beyond words, And there is no respect in forcing a woman to keep the fetus against her will.

For thousands of years women didn't have the choice whether in the case of rape if they would carry the child to term or not, they bore their affliction with great humility and to say a woman is incapable of overcoming such a tragedy is foolish, rather many women hearts are turned from the trauma that they suffered to the beauty of the life that came from that tragedy, for you do not respect the natural bonding that happens between a mother and her child, regardless of where that child came from.

https://www.rainn.org/survivor-stories/vals-story

[The Architect Of Fate]

For thousands of years women didn't have the choice whether in the case of rape if they would carry the child to term or not, they bore their affliction with great humilitynd to say a woman is incapable of overcoming such a tragedy is foolish, rather many women hearts are turned from the trauma that they suffered to the beauty of the life that came from that tragedy, for you do not respect the natural bonding that happens between a mother and her child, regardless of where that child came from.

Mainly because they didn't have a choice. I love how you make the idea they had to endure a horrific and traumatizing event they should never have had to endure as a virtue. Thank goodness, many women have some self-respect and reject this misanthropic view of themselves and their bodies. And don't treat a horrific violation of their personhood as anything natural or beautiful.

[The Valkyrie]

Yeah, let's not talk about rape.  Let's just not bring that into the discussion.  'Cause it doesn't fit the narrative.

Alright lets talk about it then, if you executed all the rapists you wouldn't really have a problem with rape to much to concern yourself over, but instead you allow evil to fester and thrive among themselves. Little filthy demons that prey on the innocence of women and children.

That's not how it works in your big book of myths, though.

A man who rapes a woman needs to pay her father a few shekels.

Then there's the, "slaughter women who have known men, and keep the virgins for yourself" bullshit.

[Authari]

Actually in a lot of States here in America there is no such right for a woman to have an abortion...

Yup, plenty of freedom-hating loonies have passed draconian bills to take away women's rights. That changes nothing. 

Also the unborn child is not 'her body' that she gets to decide to do with as she wishes

It's within her body and she has every right to remove it from her body 

it comes with its own set of organs and is capable of recognizing their mother's voice,

None of that gives it the right to live in her body

 yet you would have an unborn child that is capable of recognizing his mother's voice be thrown to the wolves with the abortion that many places allow where it is legal to have an abortion even a day before the expected mother was due to deliver. 

The ability to recognize a voice does not grant it the right to live in her body.

So to me more about how this individual being who is capable of recognizing his mother's voice does not have the protected rights of their person and their liberty?

It doesn't have the right to live inside someone else no one has that right.

The unborn child not only has that right but the mother has the RESPONSIBILITY to take care of the child. It is the sole purpose of the womb to create and nurture life, it was never meant to have that precious life ripped from its insides.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, let's not talk about rape.  Let's just not bring that into the discussion.  'Cause it doesn't fit the narrative.

Alright lets talk about it then, if you executed all the rapists you wouldn't really have a problem with rape to much to concern yourself over, but instead you allow evil to fester and thrive among themselves. Little filthy demons that prey on the innocence of women and children.

So, you’re saying we should bring demon children into the world?

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

The unborn child not only has that right

The organism has no such right.

but the mother has the RESPONSIBILITY to take care of the child.

She has no responsibility to the fetus she has a responsibility to herself and in this instance no one else.

It is the sole purpose of the womb to create and nurture life,

Its purpose is whatever she decides it is as it's in her body what lives in it is solely her decision. 

 it was never meant to have that precious life ripped from its insides.

She decides what is meant and is not meant to be there and whether it stays there.

[brewer]

Actually in a lot of States here in America there is no such right for a woman to have an abortion...

Also the unborn child is not 'her body' that she gets to decide to do with as she wishes, it comes with its own set of organs and is capable of recognizing their mother's voice, yet you would have an unborn child that is capable of recognizing his mother's voice be thrown to the wolves with the abortion that many places allow where it is legal to have an abortion even a day before the expected mother was due to deliver. So to me more about how this individual being who is capable of recognizing his mother's voice does not have the protected rights of their person and their liberty?

It is not a 'child' until surviving the birth process. Until then (or at the very most surviving until 22 weeks and even then requiring extreme medical assistence), it is not a human life.

Is this a human life?

Warning, graphic fetal pathology. Open at your own risk.

---

https://webpath.med.utah.edu/PEDHTML/PED006.html
https://webpath.med.utah.edu/PEDHTML/PED032.html
https://webpath.med.utah.edu/PEDHTML/PED026.html

---

And these are a very few examples.

Why does your omnipotent god allow this? Get it yet, either it (or your feeble  concept) is a monster or does not exist. Or............ maybe you're the monster.