I'm curious... From a Calvinists perspective couldn't you just argue that since there is no free will and God predetermined everyone's salvation that abortion is just part of God's plan for those kids?
From a calvinist perspective everything has already been determined, but that still makes it a horrible crime on the side of the mother and the abortion doctor. Calvinism or (heretical) arminianism change nothing about that.
Rights only exist if you can protect them. We have an agreement with our government that if they protect our that rights then we won't take deadly force to protect them on a day-to-day basis.
A child that has been born is and has entered Society the same Society in this case that participates under the US government.
Rob ... an unborn child has likewise entered society. They are separate and distinct with their carrier, and are recognized to have rights to life and liberty. We already admit to protect those rights. If a pregnant woman is murdered while she’s carrying her child, the murderer is charged with two counts of murder ... under the law.
I get that leftists are used to viewing other humans as property, given the history of the Democrat party. The disgusting trend is that modern leftist Democrats treat the unborn in the EXACT SAME WAY that Democrats of old treated their slaves. That is simply not correct. It wasn’t correct when laws allowed it in the 19th and 20th centuries when it applied to slaves and it is not correct now when relating to the unborn child.
I believe we had this conversation before, if a pregnant mother is murdered and there are two cases of murder to try because the person who took the fetus's life did not have custody of it.
Our government grants a certain protections to a fetus. Our government does not recognize any rights of a fetus.
First of all slavery is only illegal in the private sector please read our laws a little bit more carefully if you think slavery has been abolished.
2nd off laws in this country should not be based on right or wrong they should be based on if they affect another person's rights that's. Our laws are not based on morals I know you haven't mentioned morals yet but I feel like the conversation is going that direction.
Robert ... let’s modify the scenario to expose the insanity of your position. Let’s say that the carrier is stabbed in the stomach, and that act severs the child’s separate and unique spinal chord, similar to the brutal act of an abortionist. That child dies. Is the murderer properly charged with the crime?
Robert ... the government does NOT grant rights. The constitution properly acknowledges that the rights are God-given. The government ignores the rights of some, and acknowledges the rights of others in its capricious interpretation at any one point in time.
The fact is that blacks had rights during the dark Democrat control, the problem was that the government simply didn’t acknowledge the existence of those rights.
Rob ... finally, your silly emotional plea that laws “should” only be based on how they impact others is simply baseless. Are you a “sovereign citizen”?
Provided the mother lives yes the killer in this instance has at very least committed involuntary manslaughter. Unless of course that was his intention and then sure murder is on the table.
I'm not a sovereign citizen although I usually agree to their narrative other than the fact that the constitution was ratified legitimately.
We agree that our rights are god-given, during the time of slavery it wasn't that the government didn't acknowledge people's rights it was that they didn't acknowledge that they were people.
Maybe that's just anecdotal but it is significant to this conversation.
Rights only exist when they are protected or can be protected. A fetus does not hold any rights the government does however give it protections.
I have said several times that the government does not Grant rights it protects them I don't see why you included that in your statement you are simply agreeing with me.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment