Abortion... yeah or nah?

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
If she was pregnant the process probably would be different. This isn't a what if scriptural dissertation. It is what it is.
What?

Where in any of that did they say the woman was not pregnant?

And how can you say the process would probably be different and then say it's not a what if?

This guy.:lol
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
What?

Where in any of that did they say the woman was not pregnant?

And how can you say the process would probably be different and then say it's not a what if?

This guy.:lol
Pregnant is nowhere in the info you posted. It was one of your what ifs. It's not there so don't force it. If it were there it would read different but it doesn't so it is as presented. Simple as that.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
What?

Where in any of that did they say the woman was not pregnant?

And how can you say the process would probably be different and then say it's not a what if?

This guy.:lol
Why would that passage be attempting to make a statement about pregnancy but not mention it? It concerns marital infidelity. Why read something into it that literally isn't there?
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,733
Why would that passage be attempting to make a statement about pregnancy but not mention it? It concerns marital infidelity. Why read something into it that literally isn't there?
Agenda.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Pregnant is nowhere in the info you posted. It was one of your what ifs. It's not there so don't force it. If it were there it would read different but it doesn't so it is as presented. Simple as that.
You are right pregnant is not in the info so it is not saying if the woman was pregnant the same would not apply.

You are the one creating a scenario where there would be something different from the text.

It is stating if a woman was accused of adultery this test would be administered there are no but's or if's there.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Why would that passage be attempting to make a statement about pregnancy but not mention it? It concerns marital infidelity. Why read something into it that literally isn't there?
I never said it was making a statement about abortion but it would be an abortion if the woman was pregnant.

There is nothing stating that if she was pregnant things would change.

Right?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
You are right pregnant is not in the info so it is not saying if the woman was pregnant the same would not apply.

You are the one creating a scenario where there would be something different from the text.

It is stating if a woman was accused of adultery this test would be administered there are no but's or if's there.
The context is punishment for unfaithful wives. If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their arses when they land. But it's not about frogs nor is it about wives that may be pregnant. If pregnancy was a side issue it would likely have been addressed but the reason it isn't is because it was not part of the consideration. If it makes you feel better to include the possibility of pregnancy may have existed then so be it but this set of scriptures doesn't confirm it.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
I never said it was making a statement about abortion but it would be an abortion if the woman was pregnant.

There is nothing stating that if she was pregnant things would change.

Right?
:lol

There is nothing stating that if she was pregnant things wouldn't change.

Right?
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,733
Well, fuck, this hits close to home, doesn't it? I'm not sure how I feel about this study. What is the purpose of it? Are they trying to determine if all Downs individuals should be aborted? Are they taking a shot at parents that actually decide to keep their child and raise it no matter the costs (not just financial)?

He says that a lot of that cost is from people that have been put in institutions because of their disability. So, maybe it's a cultural thing? Maybe there parents have a higher propensity to put a disabled child in a home? Maybe Down Syndrome there is worse than here? Maybe they are fucking assholes that require a Downs individual to go into a home? I'm confused and pissed off by this all at the same time.

I can tell you, we never had to face the decision of aborting our daughter because we didn't know until after she was born. For this, I am thankful. I would hope that I would have been a decent human being and had her, regardless. But, that lingering what-if bothers me a lot, even 12 years later. What if I had been a dick? That thought kills me.

Back to the post. Why would they do this? What exactly is the fucking motivator? And, why in the god damn fucking blue hell would they have that poor guy in the room to reveal just how much he "costs"? That is infuckinghumane. Do they seriously not think that just because this person is mentally retarded he won't ponder that they just might be insinuating he is a burden? That is fucking terrible. What are they looking to gain from this? Maybe just all Downs individuals will see this and decide they will off themselves to save their shitty ass government some trouble and money? Those that may not know, these people have emotions and actually understand shit like this. Just because that poor guy didn't say much doesn't mean he wasn't thinking about what in the fuck he was being told. It's not like they live in a padded world where they are completely sheltered from all negative influence. They understand when they are being targeted as different.

Anyway, I'm not sure where I was really going with this, so I'll just walk off now.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I posted it in this thread, because certain "enlightened" European countries are touting the fact that they have nearly eliminated Down Syndrome, when really they are just pushing the murder of Down Syndrome babies in the womb.

The implication of calculating a human's "cost to society" are clear.
 

bbgun

please don't "dur" me
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
23,237
I wonder if he gives the same lecture to cripples and the elderly
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,733
I posted it in this thread, because certain "enlightened" European countries are touting the fact that they have nearly eliminated Down Syndrome, when really they are just pushing the murder of Down Syndrome babies in the womb.

The implication of calculating a human's "cost to society" are clear.
I guess I was really trying to "protect" myself from believing this. I can't fathom that train of thought, really. I'm really trying hard to not go on an emotional rant right now, to be perfectly honest. This is unbelievable.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,733
I posted it in this thread, because certain "enlightened" European countries are touting the fact that they have nearly eliminated Down Syndrome, when really they are just pushing the murder of Down Syndrome babies in the womb.

The implication of calculating a human's "cost to society" are clear.
And, they aren't eliminating shit. They are just killing babies. If there was a gene that proved.... never mind, I'm not going to do this.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Well, fuck, this hits close to home, doesn't it? I'm not sure how I feel about this study. What is the purpose of it? Are they trying to determine if all Downs individuals should be aborted? Are they taking a shot at parents that actually decide to keep their child and raise it no matter the costs (not just financial)?

He says that a lot of that cost is from people that have been put in institutions because of their disability. So, maybe it's a cultural thing? Maybe there parents have a higher propensity to put a disabled child in a home? Maybe Down Syndrome there is worse than here? Maybe they are fucking assholes that require a Downs individual to go into a home? I'm confused and pissed off by this all at the same time.

I can tell you, we never had to face the decision of aborting our daughter because we didn't know until after she was born. For this, I am thankful. I would hope that I would have been a decent human being and had her, regardless. But, that lingering what-if bothers me a lot, even 12 years later. What if I had been a dick? That thought kills me.

Back to the post. Why would they do this? What exactly is the fucking motivator? And, why in the god damn fucking blue hell would they have that poor guy in the room to reveal just how much he "costs"? That is infuckinghumane. Do they seriously not think that just because this person is mentally retarded he won't ponder that they just might be insinuating he is a burden? That is fucking terrible. What are they looking to gain from this? Maybe just all Downs individuals will see this and decide they will off themselves to save their shitty ass government some trouble and money? Those that may not know, these people have emotions and actually understand shit like this. Just because that poor guy didn't say much doesn't mean he wasn't thinking about what in the fuck he was being told. It's not like they live in a padded world where they are completely sheltered from all negative influence. They understand when they are being targeted as different.

Anyway, I'm not sure where I was really going with this, so I'll just walk off now.
Could it be because with socialized medicine eventually everything is reduced to a cost versus return proposition? With privatization the policy holder decides whether to allocate the cost of the insurance that will have predetermined amounts of coverage.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,733
Could it be because with socialized medicine eventually everything is reduced to a cost versus return proposition? With privatization the policy holder decides whether to allocate the cost of the insurance that will have predetermined amounts of coverage.
That is a sobering thought.
 
Top Bottom