Joe Rogan defends abortion in case of rape

[Mountain Man]

I would answer your question if you were not first creating a strawman representation of my position that simply isn't accurate. If you are going to purposefully distort or even lie about what my position is, then I see no reason to waste my time trying give you a good faith explanation of the difference, since you will simply just lie about that as well.

There is no straw man, no distortion of your position, no lying on my part. Here are your exact words from earlier in the thread:

The first trimester there is no mind, no consciousness, no movement. The potential child has not yet formed, it is in process. There should be no issues with ending the process in that period of time [...] There is no execution, no murder, taking place at that point.

So I ask again, based on your reading of scripture and your understanding of science, on what grounds can you oppose extending that same luxury to all pregnant women?

You have never given a satisfactory answer to this question.

[Mountain Man]

...I've run across more than a few that it would be fair to say have made science itself their god.

Including some Christians on this forum.

[Juvenal]

Neither is money but it hardly has stopped some folks from "worshipping" it.

I wouldn't call evolution itself something that is worshipped, but I've run across more than a few that it would be fair to say have made science itself their god.

Amusingly enough, I considered creating a Church of Pi, a transcendental entity that does not, and indeed cannot change, that exists beyond the bounds of our universe and yet is instrumental in all of creation. But in the end, I decided to stay true to my actual faith in the divine Caffeine, which I worship every morning with offerings at the Shrine of Keurig.

[Bill the Cat]

Annoying, isn't it.

Yes, she is.

[Bill the Cat]

Hence I posed a question which you have acknowledged.

Your question was intentionally backhanded.

Is that a euphemism for doing what she was told without questioning it?

No. It's a euphemism for being a good parent. I wonder just how awful of a "parent" you were if you had to get your child's permission every time you had to make a decision on their behalf... or they made it and you were just feckless...

What if Amy had not wanted the baby? Did she have a choice? Or were parental decisions made on her behalf? Your sister would appear to have come to her own decision very quickly

Amy was raised in the church. She is strongly pro-life. Her biggest concerns were financial and practical. At no point did she seriously consider killing Mac.

That answers my question about what choice Amy actually had and the pressure of her family making the decisions for her

No it doesn't. You got the "answer" that you read into it without knowing anything about Amy or her mother and father. It does expose your bias though...

I wonder what she would say in private to a psychologist?

You can keep wondering and waste more of your time. Fine with me. Mac is here and we are far better for it.

That "we" made the decisions does strongly hint at emotional coercion.

And you strongly hint at idiocy.

Given from what you have written it would seem she had no alternative.

She knew there was no alternative in her own mind. She is pro-life and always has been. She knew Mac's bio-dad was to blame for the rape, and not Mac. Mac existed at that point, and she never once considered destroying her. We, as her family, agreed to stand beside her and help where she needed as a single mom at the time. We did what good families do. Encourage life and support family.

[Cow Poke]

Here are three examples:

"And again, why would they keep their enemies alive and feed them and care for them after they have been hounded by them for hundreds of years? They didn't have prisons to keep them in. If they enslaved them, they could still rise up one day and attack from within."

"The reason why women and children were also targeted by all nations when fighting another nation is that the women would teach the children to hate their enemies and thus war would erupt again in the near future once those children grew up and also killing the children is more humane than leaving them to starve without any parents."

"Yep because everybody knows that a captured people are no threat and will never be a threat in the future. ... Yep because we all know that women and children can't kill people or that they wouldn't have seeked revenge for their defeat."

Three Christians who posted here defending the killing the children of defeated enemies on the grounds that they might grow up to be more enemies. You can easily find out who they were if you want to.

One of them (who is no longer posting) also suggested enemy children should be killed in case they were booby-trapped.

Oh, and they weren't all about ancient history either. One of them concerns 20th century Japan.

I asked who, Roy, not what. I know what you allege was said - and as much as you went to the trouble of hunting these down, the quote function would have given me my answer.
Plus, I have YOUR version of what was said with ZERO context.

[Cow Poke]

I wouldn't call evolution itself something that is worshipped, but I've run across more than a few that it would be fair to say have made science itself their god.

Except in cases where science (doppler color ultrasound) doesn't work to their advantage.

[Mountain Man]

Apparently encouraging a family member to make a good and moral decision is now considered "emotional coercion" by blood thirsty liberals intent on defending the murder of unborn children.

[Roy]

I asked who, Roy, not what.

I know. But why does it matter who wrote these things? They were written here. One of the writers is still posting. Do you think attitudes have changed?

Plus, I have YOUR version of what was said with ZERO context.

They're accurate and not quote-mined.

At least you noticed them rather then pretending they weren't given. That's something.

[oxmixmudd]

There is no straw man, no distortion of your position, no lying on my part. Here are your exact words from earlier in the thread:

Oh, look at you lying about what I said as you try to make the claim you are not lying about what I said


Just what IS the text of my post you so deceptively cut from your quote of my words?

Why they are THESE words:

There should be no issues [with respect to murder- sic] with ending the process in that period of time to protect the mother from the consequence and responsibility of a pregnancy and a new life forced on her by the rapist, should she chose that option.

And nowhere in my words do I use 'just a lump of cells' In fact, the only implication of my actual words is that abortion before the presence of consciousness cant be called murder, and therefore ending a pregnacy caused by rape during that period can't be called murder. Now that is a very, very long way from it is willy nilly ok to end any pregnancy anytime in the first trimester because it's 'just a lump of cells'

[Mountain Man]

Oh, look at you lying about what I said as you try to make the claim you are not lying about what I said


Just what IS the text of my post you so deceptively cut from your quote of my words?

Why they are THESE words:



And nowhere in my words do I use 'just a lump of cells' In fact, the only implication of my actual words is that abortion before the presence of consciousness cant be called murder, and therefore ending a pregnacy caused by rape during that period can't be called murder. Now that is a very, very long way from it is willy nilly ok to end any pregnancy anytime in the first trimester because it's 'just a lump of cells'

It's true that you never said the phrase "lump of cells", but then, I never quoted you as saying it, either. So where's the lie?

And, yes, I know you want to arbitrarily limit your argument to cases of rape only, but that's just special pleading since you have not once, in all the times we've had this discussion, given a valid reason why your arguments can't apply with equal force to all pregnant women.

[rogue06]

Apparently encouraging a family member to make a good and moral decision is now considered "emotional coercion" by blood thirsty liberals intent on defending the murder of unborn children.

Did you see/hear some of the excuses offered trying to justify all the attacks on pregnancy centers that took place after the Dobbs decision by groups like Jane's Revenge. Attacks that no arrests have ever been made in because apparently if they're done at night the FBI and other law enforcement groups are helpless.

[rogue06]

Except in cases where science (doppler color ultrasound) doesn't work to their advantage.

The "Party of Science" has become awfully confused about basic biology in recent years as well. Old Joe's Administration just set aside $700,000 to keep boys from getting pregnant.

[Bill the Cat]

The "Party of Science" has become awfully confused about basic biology in recent years as well. Old Joe's Administration just set aside $700,000 to keep boys from getting pregnant.

My agency just received a mandate to put tampon dispensers in the men's room...

[whag]

Your misreading of Exodus 17 aside

I think you’re both referring to Exodus 21:22, not Exodus 17:

²² “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely^[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. ²³ But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.