Joe Rogan defends abortion in case of rape

[CivilDiscourse]

To be honest, I rarely see that from her. That seems more an artificial construct created by those that disagree with her very, very strongly that opens the door for rude and inappropriate behavior towards her.

That's because you are often in agreement with her, and the games she plays don't stick out to you. Can you not see the games she's playing that I just highlighted? She often admits when called out on trolling that she was just "playing along"

You'll notice she doesn't ask for definitions nearly as much as she used to because people recognized that she used it as a derailment tactic. The rule is to basically assume at this point that she does not act in good faith.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...er%20commenter.

We constantly see her shift her standards. She'll ask someone for their credentials when discussing topic X, then in topic Y she'll dismiss someone's credentials as "not making them an expert" She'll use polls to justify some position she takes, only to question the entire basis of polling in general in another thread.

[oxmixmudd]

That's because you are often in agreement with her, and the games she plays don't stick out to you. Can you not see the games she's playing that I just highlighted? She often admits when called out on trolling that she was just "playing along"

You'll notice she doesn't ask for definitions nearly as much as she used to because people recognized that she used it as a derailment tactic. The rule is to basically assume at this point that she does not act in good faith.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...er%20commenter.

We constantly see her shift her standards. She'll ask someone for their credentials when discussing topic X, then in topic Y she'll dismiss someone's credentials as "not making them an expert" She'll use polls to justify some position she takes, only to question the entire basis of polling in general in another thread.

Thanks for explaining why you see her as disingenuous. I don't see it myself, and I do very much almost always disagree with her on matters concerning the Christian faith or the authorship of scripture. Maybe it is there to a smaller degree but certain ones with a tendency to do so (not you) have exaggerated it to suit their own ends? Something to consider.

[Mountain Man]

I agree that it would be evil to do so, but I wouldn't say it's an unforgivable sin, if that's what you're saying.

Well, no, not unforgivable. I simply mean it would be an act without justification.

[rogue06]

Why should an innocent woman be forced to create and form a child against her will?

So that means that the child who is by definition perfectly innocent must pay with their life.

The situation is horrific but that hardly justifies execution of the resulting baby.

[Juvenal]

So that means that the child who is by definition perfectly innocent must pay with their life.

A little Biology 101 might be appropriate here.

There is no birth without a pregnancy. There is no pregnancy until the fertilized ovum has been implanted. That's by definition.

Something like half of the time, left to natural processes, that doesn't happen. Not that I'd be able to say of my own knowledge, but Deb told me once that a morning after pill was always offered to rape victims who showed up in the emergency room.

She also told me the morning after regime they used was just a strong dose of birth control pills. I really wish I remembered the details.

The point being that morning after pills prevent pregnancies, preventing pregnancies prevents births, and preventing births prevents children from paying with their lives.

The situation is horrific but that hardly justifies execution of the resulting baby.

Executing a resulting baby really would be horrific.

[Diogenes]

A little Biology 101 might be appropriate here.

There is no birth without a pregnancy. There is no pregnancy until the fertilized ovum has been implanted. That's by definition.

No where does the quoted material mention "birth"

The point being that morning after pills prevent pregnancies, preventing pregnancies prevents births, and preventing births prevents children from paying with their lives.

So a zygote is not biologically alive? I thought this was Biology 101.

Executing a resulting baby really would be horrific.

Abortion fanatics have no problems with execution by neglect for abortion survivors.

[rogue06]

Executing a resulting baby really would be horrific.

So you are now against abortion?

[whag]

Israel killing children as part of God's judgment against unrepentant nations wasn't evil, so your counter argument doesn't work.

Killing children for the sins of their fathers is repaying kids just existing with war hammers.

We also don’t know if the Jews reporting was accurate.

There are other considerations, too, such as the fact that Israel simply didn't have the resources to suddenly take in and care for thousands of people, which would have effectively doomed everybody to starvation.

That’s conjecture and merely justification to kill children who have no means of visible support.

What’s another justification? You missed one in your cursory review of WLC’s standard defense of biblical infanticide.

As for modern war efforts, the goal, typically, is to limit the number of innocents killed in combat, but there will inevitably be collateral damage (there are obvious exceptions, such as Hamas' attack on Israel, where killing innocents was their sole intent).

Consider the ending of an enforced pregnancy a type of collateral damage, then—just as you accept Palestinian children burned to death with bombs.

In the case of a woman getting pregnant as a result of rape, there is no morally good reason to murder the unborn child, and it would be irredeemably evil to do so.

It’s irredeemably evil to make a woman who’s been forcibly impregnated to undergo a risky medical condition and procedure she didn’t volunteer for and doesn’t want to pay for.

[Juvenal]

So you are now against abortion?

Yeah, what does that have to do with being opposed to executing babies?
.

noun

1. a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
   "his wife's just had a baby"
   
2. INFORMAL
   a young woman or a person with whom one is having a romantic relationship (often as a form of address).
   "my baby left me for another guy"

I meant the first sense, but I'm willing to extend it to the second sense, and especially the given example.

Why do I have to keep reminding you that words have meanings?

[whag]

The baby is more innocent than the woman.

No, the baby is completely innocent. “More innocent” implies the baby is guilty of something to a lesser degree.

And I am not blaming the woman for the rape, by any means. But the baby has not lived a life of sin, as all humans do.

The women’s lived experience and baby’s lack of lived experience is immaterial. The women can be as innocent as Enoch and still have the right to not undergo a medical condition and pay for the costs of going into labor.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Thanks for explaining why you see her as disingenuous. I don't see it myself, and I do very much almost always disagree with her on matters concerning the Christian faith or the authorship of scripture. Maybe it is there to a smaller degree but certain ones with a tendency to do so (not you) have exaggerated it to suit their own ends? Something to consider.

I think CD has, perhaps inadvertently, made his position clear. Any disagreement with him will be regarded by him as being disingenuous.

[whag]

So you are now against abortion?

When you say “execute babies,” you must be thinking of this:

“And Moses was angry with the officers of the army…[and] said to them, ‘Have you let all the women live? Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.’” —Numbers 31:13-18

That’s a shade different from getting morning after treatment after being raped.

What’d they do with the pregnant Midianites, I wonder.

[Diogenes]

No, the baby is completely innocent. “More innocent” implies the baby is guilty of something to a lesser degree.

The woman is innocent due to being the victim of rape, the baby is innocent a fortiori for being the result of rape.


But again, rape is rarely a reason for abortion and is just using rape victims as cudgels.

[oxmixmudd]

No, the baby is completely innocent. “More innocent” implies the baby is guilty of something to a lesser degree.



The women’s lived experience and baby’s lack of lived experience is immaterial. The women can be as innocent as Enoch and still have the right to not undergo a medical condition and pay for the costs of going into labor.

...im this case imposed on her by force and violence.

[oxmixmudd]

The woman is innocent due to being the victim of rape, the baby is innocent a fortiori for being the result of rape.


But again, rape is rarely a reason for abortion and is just using rape victims as cudgels.

They are not "cudgels" when the law expressly refuses to acknowledge an exception for that case. The oppressiveness of a law and a legislature that would remove such an exception simply can't be overstated.