Question I sent to Jonathan Fisk @ Worldview Everlasting

I occasionally catch the occasionally-helpful and usually-witty Worldview Everlasting show on Lutheran theology, etc, served up by one Pastor Jonathan Fisk, conservative Lutheran extraordinaire. He comes highly recommended by frequent reader Andrew.

I decided to send Pastor Fisk a question on his contact page, to see if he might address it on a future show. The upper limit was 500 characters, so I had to really slice and slice to get it under the limit, but I'm decently happy with what I was able to send:

To say "adult baptism is God’s work" is nothing less than special pleading. Why can’t I assign the label “not my work; God's work” to other things? By this principle, I could consistently be a tithing-circumcisional-abstentional-regenerationist and still profess that I hold to sola fide. Please tell me why I'm wrong. If your answer includes 1 Peter 3:21 or Romans 6, please prove that those are definitely not Holy Spirit baptism (Matt 3) but are definitely water baptism.

A conversation with an abortician?

It is alleged that a real-life abortician emailed Abby Johnson with some choice words about abolitionists of human abortion, as well as a sorta-kinda-half-apology.

Abby Johnson takes the opportunity to toot her own method's horn, and we pause to yet note that all she can point to is this person of possibly fake provenance saying he was sorry for how mean he has been to pro-lifers in the past/ How is it that the method "worked" exactly? I thought we were supposed to save babies. I don't see any saved so far.

Anyway, here is how it all went down.
The alleged abortician allegedly wrote to Abby, then we took the opportunity to reply on our Facebook wall as follows:

===============================================================

An abortician, whose identity we think we might know, recently sent this message to someone in the pro-life movement:

---While you're at it, tell the crew at "Abolish Human Abortion" to cut the sh*t too. Anyone who likes them, hates, extremely hates each and every person that goes into a clinic; down on the women, huh? Yes! They proudly tell you who they are with..and I have never met a more arrogant bunch of sh*t talkers who think they know everything and anything about everyone. "WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU!", one shouted. Can't anyone go to work in peace? You can't without being beat up with words. If one seriously thinks that helps anyone, they're out of their flipping minds. If they're not shouting at you, they do other things, no sane person would do, but it's their "right" to protest. Need I say the word "murderer" too? Nice Christians. They call themselves "Christian" and in the name of their God..they call people names? Need I go any further? It's all hatred! Go away and everything will be just fine.---

Let's be clear: No true abolitionist would *EVER* say *ANYTHING* like "I am better than you" in any other way than a joke, and we would never joke in such a way with anyone who is considering abortion. The law of God convicts us all of sin, and the law and the Gospel of God are serious business. We will proclaim the sinfulness of all humans, the need of all humans for Jesus the Savior, and the fact that we are all equally in need of Jesus's forgiveness. 
A true abolitionist would include in his or her message (depending on the amount of time available to him/her) the fact that, in the eyes of God, the abolitionist deserves to spend eternity in Hell, in torment, because of his/her sin, just as much as the serial baby murderer/abortician does. 
We are all sinners. Nobody is better than anyone else. Jesus stands alone as the crown of humanity, as the very radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature, the one who upholds all things by the word of His power.

Any abortician who claims an abolitionist said something like "We're better than you!" either has missed the "not" in between the "We're" and the "better", has misunderstood, or is flatly lying. But this person is sadly deceived - "go away and everything will be just fine"? Another 50 babies murdered per week is "just fine"?

We've been saying this a long time. http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2011/04/we-are-not-better.html
Let the lies of the enemy all be seen for what they are.

As for us, we will not rest until we have glorified Jesus with the way we spend every minute of our lives and the way we proclaim the holy law and the glorious Gospel of Jesus, and until we have effected abolition.

===============================================================

Interestingly, we then received an email through our website Contact page, claiming to be the man who had written to Abby.
Linked here is the email "Roger" sent.

We must admit that it is unclear whether this really is an abortician. Generally, aborticians have university-level education, and while they are trained in medicine rather than English expression, one would expect a higher level of discourse from someone who has spent at least 5 years in post-high-school graduation, even if he were a product of the government school system. Perhaps our expectations are too high.

Here is my first response:

===============================================================

Hello Roger,

Thanks for writing!

I guess you're right about one thing - I was mistaken about your identity. That's OK - men who lie to women and oppress others to heap up blood money for themselves are quite common, so no harm done.

I would like to clarify something, though. You claim that those who line up outside your abortuary and proclaim God's law and reflect God's own accusations are engaging in "hatred", but you don't understand the motivation behind doing that. I don't know those people personally and I don't know if they have ever heard of abolition or Abolish Human Abortion; they may be simply very pro-life people for all I know. However, in all probability their motivation is to call abortive women as well as death merchants like yourself to repent, because you are headed for Hell. It matters not one bit whether you believe in Hell any more than it matters whether you believe in policemen when they pull you over for speeding. People who go out to abortuaries to intervene are hopeful that people's souls will be saved. Most of them, if not all, are out there because we have LOVE for the people you're lying to, the babies you're murdering, and you yourself, with your blackened and evil soul. We love you so much that if you would only repent of your great sin and ask for forgiveness, we would grant it with overwhelming JOY. 

You claim that graphic pictures push people away from us. If I may take a moment to chuckle, please believe that the day when we take advice on abolition from someone like you is very far away indeed. The Bible says that all people are born dead in sin, and it's hard to go much farther than that! We proclaim the law of God, which you violate every day for pay, that murder is evil and God will not overlook it nor allow unrepentant murderers to enter His presence. We want to wake people up and those pictures are one avenue for doing so. Besides, those pictures are the results of your own work! What's wrong with showing your handiwork in the daylight? Are you ashamed of it or something?

You claim we "beat people over the head with a Bible". I don't even know what that means, but I do know that I am amazed that someone who writes like you was able to obtain a medical degree. That's a pretty funny joke. Or maybe you don't have a medical degree any more than I beat people over the head with a Bible. 
If you mean that I am sometimes forced to warn people about the terrible mistake they're about to make and offer them a better way, sure, I do that. Murdering a child is literally the worst outcome possible for a person. The only thing worse is to do it for money day after day, over and over. 

You say that the law of God doesn't do much good on an atheist, and yet you took the time to write to me, a Christian whose location you don't even know, to justify yourself. 
The Bible says that you know full well that the God of the Bible exists but you suppress the truth in wickedness. You know He exists, and that He will judge you in anger one day. Stop denying what you know to be true! Repent! Turn back from your evil! He will forgive even repentant murderers like yourself because He has died on the cross to save sinners and risen again to give them eternal life. Turn. Repent. You must. If you don't, you will have eternity to regret it.

You claim it's obvious someone in my "crew" thinks they're better than someone else.
A few responses:
1) It is not inconceivable that someone doing abortuary work said something unwise, foolish, or even straight-up wrong. 
2) I don't know to whom you refer, so I can't comment on the specifics.
3) If they said it, they're wrong. All of us need Jesus to forgive us. We are all born dead in sin, and we are all wretches in need of mercy.
4) Why do you care if someone says he's better than you? You're an atheist! It's not as if there exists any overarching moral imperative that says "thou shalt not think thou art better than anyone else", right? 

You say the question depends on how one looks at what life is. This is absolutely true, and you have clearly lied so much to yourself that you believe your own press. Ridiculous. The baby you dismember is obviously alive! He or she is not a rock!

Finally, you invite me to justify myself. Why would I need to do that? What have I done wrong? On atheism, what have the protesters in front of your murder mill done wrong? Displeased you? So what?

Peace from a redeemed fool to a fool,
Rhology

===============================================================

Roger then replied, which is linked here.

Interestingly, his final line was:
Respond kindly, people are watching.

We am unsure whether this meant as a cryptic implication that he is not really an abortician but rather an anti-abolitionist plant in the employ of someone else, but no matter.

Here is the reply to Roger:

===============================================================



Hello Roger,

You know, I can't decide whether I think you're really who you claim you are or if you're a hireling from some anti-abolitionist well-ensconced pro-life personage. Neither would surprise me, honestly.

I will speak to you as though you are who you say you are, though. 

You claim you've detected a condescending attitude. To this I have a few responses:
1) It is unintentional. 
2) Truth often sounds condescending to those who hate the truth and hate correction. One might say the math teacher is snooty, insisting that 2+2 actually does equal 4, in case the student has other ideas. 
3) Is there some sort of moral objection to being condescending? You're an atheist. Tell me - who says people shouldn't be condescending?

You say you sense a dark, militant attitude.
I am not sure what you mean by militant, but I can assure you of a few things:
1) We will never resort to physical violence to effect or further abolition.
2) In the philosophical, spiritual, ideological, political, and moral arenas, we are absolutely militant. Jesus commanded us to be that way, and to do no less. We will obey Him even if that means we have to displease serial baby murderers like yourself.
3) The darkness is in *your* heart. We are obeying the biblical command to expose evil that is done in darkness and to bring it to light. That's why you object to street signs portraying the carnage that comes about because of your work.

Trying to help you understand you stand in great danger of eternal condemnation and torment in Hell and need to repent and be forgiven by Jesus is the most loving thing we could do for you.

We would forgive, yes, and so would Jesus. But you need to be much more concerned with Him, since He has the power to judge you and cast you into Hell, and will not hesitate to do so at the time of His choosing if you do not repent. 
And yes, it is absolutely an imperative. If you do not, you will face the most dire possible consequences from the Almighty God of the universe. You must repent, just like we all must. We are abolitionists because we have repented of our sin and now follow Jesus instead of ourselves and our own interests. You need this too.

You said I have a wrong view of atheism. Do tell so that I may avoid such errors in the future.
You say you want God to show up at your door. That's already happened. Jesus came to Earth already, died on the cross, and rose from the dead in real space-time history. Do a little investigation and you will find the facts are undeniable. 
Also, Jesus said that His people, His church, are in a very real way His body. They are the ones at your door with signs and offering to help people turn away from paying you to murder their baby. Just because you don't choose to see it that way makes no difference. The problem is in your sin-blackened heart. Repent of your sin and turn to Jesus and you'll know what I mean.  

You accuse those who are outside your abortuary of "disrupting that which is legal". Certainly you must be aware that many evils have in the past been legal - slavery, pedophilia, etc. Abortion is merely one more evil that is currently legal, but not for much longer. And if they can convince people not to go to pay you to murder their child, that's only "disruption" in one biased and arbitrary definition. Rather, they are exercising free speech and trying to persuade. That's hardly worthy of condemnation.
Besides, if atheism is true, what moral obligation does anyone have to obey a law? It's only something the majority imposed on those who disagree. See, you have to think about these things a little more deeply.

How precisely is murdering a child "health care"?

Yes, "fool" is a biblical word. Feel free to search for it at, say, www.biblegateway.net

Finally, you said:
\\Respond kindly, people are watching.\\

Yes, I know they are. That's one of the reasons I think you may be a hireling from some anti-abolitionist, but it could just be coincidental that you said this bizarre thing. Anyway, I am happy to let my words be public, a whole lot more than you're willing to let the light of day shine on what you do for blood money every week.

Peace,
Rhology

Norman Abortuary Outreach Report, 15 Feb 2013

I also spent the morning at the Norman abortuary on 25 January, but I wasn't able to write up much about it and my recording equipment ran out of batteries halfway through.

Not so this time, however. Numerous abolitionists of human abortion were able to join me this morning for a time that featured comparatively light traffic, some good fellowship, and some good opportunities to share the Gospel.

Here is the playlist:

The pattern that has emerged and which allows me to preach and proclaim the law of God and the good news of Jesus is that I or someone else on the team engages people as they arrive and park their cars. We ask them to come talk to us, etc, but sadly, most of the time they proceed inside the abortuary. I then engage in proclamation, and I know they can hear me inside there.

It is probably a consistent violation of the noise ordinance in that zone to use electronic amplification, but I should think it would be difficult to argue in court that the use of non-artificial amplification, like a bullhorn, should be legally proscribed. And I know they can hear me inside - once I started preaching through the bullhorn, the abortician's wife, who is the administrator and the business manager, came out of the front door to see what was going on. I preached repentance to her.

I pray these videos and testimonies will spur you toward doing what you can to take up similar activities in your locality. Where is the nearest abortuary to you? Go there and pray, plead, and/or proclaim!

Christian - Refuse to set your alarm clock!

I am not simply against cuckoo clocks. I am against all alarm clocks. Period.

The alarm clock mentality is what has blazed the trail for countdown timers and detonation-on-demand.

The same language of choice used by pro-alarm clock-ists is used by those who would seek to justify countdown detonators.

Someone that claims a decidedly Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel and God's sovereignty is fundamentally inconsistent with itself, if it refuses to take a clear stance against the use of alarm clocks.

The use of alarm clocks is the most basic, and in my opinion heinous, attempt to deny God His sovereignty over time.

Don't be afraid of taking a strong stance on alarm clocks.
After some careful and clear examination of the alarm clock/countdown timer mentality, all believers in Jesus should refuse to set alarm clocks from now on.

Mutual understanding

Scott Alt, replying to a commenter to the effect that I am willfully blind to think that the Scripture teaches both of the following facts:
1) Believers who have reached the end of their earthly lives are alive to God, and
2) God forbids us from talking to dead people,

says the following:

Scott_Alt33p· 20 hours agoI think that's right, though the concept of an obstinate refusal to see suggests the kind of freedom of the will that a Calvinist would deny. Interesting to speculate how Rhology would get himself out of that conundrum.

Thus he shows that he doesn't even have the first idea what Calvinism says about the human will. Or, say, Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It's just funny. Chalk this up to another "Protestant-to-atheist-to-Protestant-to-Catholic con­vert" who never got close to understanding Reformed theology. The problem here is that Alt thinks he does understand it. And the funny thing is that I get accused of misunderstanding Roman Catholic theology all the time but rarely does anyone attempt to demonstrate where I've mistaken its meaning. That's just projection.

(Please leave any comments at Beggars All.)

A conversation with Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger · 64 like this

16 hours ago · 

• Pregnancy: The only blessing that has to be forced on people

  Like ·  · Share

  • 11 people like this.
  • 

    Rhology http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2011/04/rebuttals-to-nobody-can-use-my-body.html
    

    Rebuttals to 'Nobody can use my body without my consent' | Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma

    blog.abolishhumanabortion.com

    6 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview
  • 

    Margaret Sanger Love the bullshit. None of your 'rebuttals' work. Have a nice day!

    6 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Rhology Why don't they work?

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "Left alone, the very small baby will become a larger baby, and eventually a born baby. Left alone, the violinist will die."
    Left alone, the embryo/fetus will die. No aid, no potential life.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "The stranger in the violinist scenario never consented. In ~99% of cases, the woman consented to sexual intercourse. Are 99% of women asleep when their "involuntary hook-up" happened?"
    
    Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The blastocyst implants without the woman's knowledge or consent.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "he baby is not an invader. He is an innocent party"
    Yes, the embryo is an invader. It has to force the woman's body to let it stay there and not be attacked. Women who have certain autoimmune diseases cannot continue a pregnancy since their body attacks the foreign cells.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "execution without due process of law is not justified"
    Self defense is very legal.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing him on an airplane, and then shoving him out without a parachute in mid-flight. "
    Again consent has to be continuous. And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If the man in the airplane attacked you, you have every right to defend yourself. This is a poor analogy.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger ""Causing a child to be is not, in itself, endangerment (it's a normal, natural fact of life)"
    Sex is a natural fact of life, but rape isn't legal.
    
    "because the very fact of pregnancy automatically protects the child against the possible dangers of anunsupportive environment."
    Nope, the person who wrote this must not know about pregnancy. There is nothing that can protect anything from danger.
    
    "But by conceiving a child, parents give themselves a life-or-death power over her, and they do this without her consent. If parents intentionally or negligently use their power to put her in harm's way (let her starve, say), they cause the danger. If the child gets harmed, they caused the harm. They initiated force and violated the child's rights."
    
    If a born child's rights are violated, the child gets taken from the offenders. Another pathetic attempt.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "Not many would say that leaving one's infant unattended in hazardous situations is a matter of the parent's choice. When their children get very sick in the middle of the night and need help, most abortion choicers don't go back to sleep saying, 'So what if my kid might die? I have the right to control my own body, don't I?"
    
    Again, confusing the law.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever 'attached' to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction"
    Someone else needs to learn biology.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger ""A child is not...a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment."'
    Appeals to nature do not help you. A penis naturally goes into a vagina. Cancer and illness are natural.
    And it is in fact a parasite. Intraspecific kleptoparasite.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger ""...the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship...What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child?""
    An embryo is a stranger for starters. And same rules apply to the latter. No consent.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger ""Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless."
    --"If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before (he) is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born?"
    
    Morality is subjective. And after an infant is born, anyone can take care of it.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess I love how they suddenly go from "save every life!" to "you only have to care about life that is related to you.. and umm only if that life is inside your uterus.. because dude, don't take my kidney"

    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "I would add here that this is why we abolitionists also care for mothers during and after pregnancy as well as adopt children that they are unable to raise on their own."
    
    LOL is that why we have over half a million children in foster care?

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess Sanger, I guess that is why they refuse to allow abortion to save the life of a mother.. and they support ending welfare programs. Because you know.. they care.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child."
    Again, anyone can take care of the child after it's born.

    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • 

    Margaret Sanger I never will ever understand how quantity is better than quality

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess Right. no one is ever mandated to take custody of the child or even breast feed it. Providing aid is different than providing bodily resources.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Rhology \\Left alone, the embryo/fetus will die. No aid, no potential life.\\
    
    That's not true. The fetus is naturally connected to the woman and will be born. You have to intervene to stop him from living. You're playing on a disanalogy.
    
    \\Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy\
    
    Except in the case of rape, which is rare, this incoherent.
    http://www.vox-veritatis.com/2012/01/the-incoherence-of-consenting-to-pregnancy/
    
    \\It has to force the woman's body\\
    
    You have a poor definition of "force". Prove your definition. In what way did the fetus force his way in? What weaponry did he use? Why weren't the police called?
    
    \\Women who have certain autoimmune diseases cannot continue a pregnancy since their body attacks the foreign cells.\\
    
    Ah, so diseases justify murdering a child. OK.
    
    \\Self defense is very legal.\\
    
    This depends on your proving the fetus is attacking you. Which is laughable.
    Have you ever seen a baby? They're not all that strong, not all that good at assault, or jiujitsu.
    
    \\ If the man in the airplane attacked you, you have every right to defend yourself.\\
    
    Shrug. The baby didn't attack you, so...
    
    \\If a born child's rights are violated, the child gets taken from the offenders.\\
    
    It's cute how you assume a born child has rights and a preborn one doesn't. Prove it.
    
    \\ Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction"
    Someone else needs to learn biology.\\
    
    Yes, you sure do. Perhaps you think that some other person is providing the building blocks of the baby's body, through surgical transplant? 
    Please.
    
    \\And it is in fact a parasite\\
    
    http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq/#the-fetus-is-a-parasite
    
    \\Cancer and illness are natural.\\
    
    How do you figure that? I disagree entirely. They are products of sin and the fall of man.
    
    \\An embryo is a stranger for starters.\\
    
    To whom the mother voluntarily 'attached' herself in almost every case.
    
    \\Morality is subjective.\\
    
    So none of your moral statements have any application beyond you, yes?
    Please let me know if you think that is true of torturing little girls for fun, which is approximately the most disgusting thing I can think of. 
    If Joe Doe says to you "I think torturing little girls for fun is morally obligatory" and you say "I think it's morally reprehensible", is there a way to find out which of you is correct? Are either of you correct and is the other wrong?
    
    \\I love how they suddenly go from "save every life!" to "you only have to care about life that is related to you.. and umm only if that life is inside your uterus.. because dude, don't take my kidney"\\
    
    Please clarify. That doesn't make sense.
    
    \\LOL is that why we have over half a million children in foster care?\\
    
    You're acting like there are millions of abolitionists. Don't get carried away. Stuff takes time to build, and people take time to wake up, sadly.
    
    \\ I guess that is why they refuse to allow abortion to save the life of a mother\\
    
    http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq/#life-of-the-mother-is-in-danger
    
    \\anyone can take care of the child after it's born.\\
    
    Giving away one's child doesn't make one any less a mother than abortion makes one any less a mother of a murdered child. You've missed the point.
    

    
    

    The Incoherence of "Consenting to Pregnancy" | Vox Veritatis

    www.vox-veritatis.com
    

    Examines the idea that a woman can consent to pregnancy, in the context of pro-c...See More

    5 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess Abortion isn't for the fetus. It is to safely remove the fetus from the woman's body. That the fetus dies in the process is immaterial. Her bodily integrity comes first.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger \\Women who have certain autoimmune diseases cannot continue a pregnancy since their body attacks the foreign cells.\\
    
    Ah, so diseases justify murdering a child. OK."
    
    I see you have a comprehension problem. Her body itself attacks the embryo. Nice to know you consider women who have natural abortions murderers.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger \\Left alone, the embryo/fetus will die. No aid, no potential life.\\
    
    That's not true. The fetus is naturally connected to the woman and will be born. You have to intervene to stop him from living. You're playing on a disanalogy."
    
    If I deny aid, and access to my body, the embryo/fetus gets removed. And it dies naturally.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger Force: power to influence, affect, or control. Your definition is quite limited.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger \\LOL is that why we have over half a million children in foster care?\\
    
    You're acting like there are millions of abolitionists. Don't get carried away. Stuff takes time to build, and people take time to wake up, sadly.
    
    Yet you're focusing only on forcing women to remain pregnant. The born are more important than the unborn.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess Goodness Rho.. nice bit of verbal ranting there. If you are going to address me, try not to hide it. I don't bother reading long posts that are not addressed to me. Someone happened to mention you addressed my post in it. 
    
    Prolifers often claim "all life is special/precious" " everyone has a right to life".. you know. .emotional drivel. However, the minute you ask if they would support being mandated to hand over their bodily resources to save the life of another, you get "umm but I am not related to them" 
    
    Apparently, only a woman loses her right to bodily integrity because she is related to the fetus. This is not supported by any legal precedence. She is not obligated to hand over her bodily resources to save the life of a relation. 
    
    As for the whole "consenting to sex = consenting to pregnancy" .. umm no. Only I get to say what I have consented to through my actions. A rapist doesn't get to say my short skirt was consent to sex.. anymore than you get to say my having sex was a consent to pregnancy. I have to express my consent to either action.

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger Abortion is also not murder. Would you like a dictionary? I have been giving them away in honor of the 40th anniversary of RvW

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess And seriously.. stop citing your blogs as a source.. it isnt .It is just a blog.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Goldie McGoddess Well, I am going to bed.. it seems to be just cut and pasting from the blogs of others.. not worth my time. See ya later, sweet cheeks.

    4 hours ago · Like · 1
  • 

    Rhology \\ It is to safely remove the fetus from the woman's body. That the fetus dies in the process is immaterial.\\
    
    Safely? The fetus dies. It is a murderous intervention. You know that as well as I do.
    
    \\Her body itself attacks the embryo.\\
    
    My kids turned out OK, and you and I both did too. This is misleadingly simplistic.
    Where did the child get the hormones to change the mother's body's behavior anyway? Did he carry them in with him when he burrowed into her flesh?
    
    \\ Nice to know you consider women who have natural abortions murderers.\\
    
    That's nonsense and you know it.
    
    \\If I deny aid, and access to my body, the embryo/fetus gets removed\\
    
    You can't "deny" aid once he's there. Yuo have to intentionally intervene. That's murder.
    Also, you had the chance to deny access before you had sex. 
    
    \\Yet you're focusing only on forcing women to remain pregnant.\\
    
    No, that's just not true, but you get a pass b/c you're ignorant. Please learn more about us before you make foolish judgments that make you look bad.
    
    \\The born are more important than the unborn.\\
    
    I might agree in some sense, but I want you to prove it. How do you gauge importance? What is your objective standard of measurement?
    
    \\Goodness Rho.. nice bit of verbal ranting there.\\
    
    I was actually quite restrained.
    
    \\ I don't bother reading long posts that are not addressed to me\\
    
    Part of it *was* addressed to you, so...
    
    \\the minute you ask if they would support being mandated to hand over their bodily resources to save the life of another, you get "umm but I am not related to them"\\
    
    1) That's not true of everyone. Don't overgeneralise.
    2) They're right to say that - there's a special obligation that comes along with family that doesn't exist for not-family. You know this as well as I, but you chose to ignore it to try to score a point.
    
    \\only a woman loses her right to bodily integrity because she is related to the fetus.\\
    
    No, that's only part of it. It's b/c murdering the fetus is murder. 
    
    \\This is not supported by any legal precedence\\
    
    So quoth the slaveowner at the beginning of the 18th century. So what? Laws are often wrong.
    
    \\As for the whole "consenting to sex = consenting to pregnancy" .. umm no.\\
    
    You're just asserting; I gave you a whole article demonstrating this is true. Refute it please.
    
    \\A rapist doesn't get to say my short skirt was consent to sex\\
    
    I agree, but the baby is not a rapist.
    
    \\stop citing your blogs as a source.. it isnt .It is just a blog.\\
    
    The blog contains ARGUMENTS. Try reading a bit, and try not committing the genetic fallacy next time.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger So you actually have kids? Are you a mother or are you just the sperm donor?

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger " The fetus dies." Blame biology for it not being autonomous.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "Yes, you sure do. Perhaps you think that some other person is providing the building blocks of the baby's body"
    Sperm contains half of the genetic code needed to attempt to form a human.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger How do you figure that? I disagree entirely. They are products of sin and the fall of man."
    I am not religious. Mutation is completely natural and effects life either beneficially or negatively.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger Could you please tell me how your link debunks the classification of a parasite a fetus falls under?

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "My kids turned out OK, and you and I both did too. This is misleadingly simplistic.
    Where did the child get the hormones to change the mother's body's behavior anyway?"
    
    I gave you an example of what happens when the blastocyst cannot bypass the woman's immune system.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "You can't "deny" aid once he's there. Yuo have to intentionally intervene. That's murder.
    Also, you had the chance to deny access before you had sex. "
    Again. Consent has to be continous and can be revoked. If I consent to sex, and during the act, I decide I want out, I can revoke sex and intervene to get the man out of me. If he does not it's rape and I can use lethal force if necessary.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Rho Logy \\Blame biology for it not being autonomous.\\
    
    You removed it from its environment. What if Joe Doe positively intervened and shoved you under water for 10 minutes, evicted you out of your environment? Blame your biology for not being autonomous, right? Joe wasn't wrong in what he did. 
    
    \\Sperm contains half of the genetic code needed to attempt to form a human.\\
    
    Yep, knew that. So what?
    
    \\I am not religious. Mutation is completely natural and effects life either beneficially or negatively.\\
    
    1) Facts are facts, whether you're religious or not. 
    2) Since you think morality is subjective, you don't have an objective way to know whether mutations are beneficial. They just ARE.

    2 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Rho Logy \\ Could you please tell me how your link debunks the classification of a parasite a fetus falls under?\\
    
    It's better if you just read it.

    2 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • 

    Rho Logy \\I gave you an example of what happens when the blastocyst cannot bypass the woman's immune system.\\
    
    But you stumbled where you thought that proved that the woman's body treats the fetus as an enemy or something. You need to strengthen that point.

    2 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Rho Logy \\Consent has to be continous and can be revoked.\\
    
    1) Prove it. 
    2) Does this apply to a 5 year old child? If not, why not?
    \\I can revoke sex and intervene to get the man out of me.\\
    
    True, but if he has already ejaculated, time is not on your side. 
    
    \\If he does not it's rape and I can use lethal force if necessary.\\
    
    I agree with that, sure, but what has that to do with whether it's OK to murder a human being whom you brought into existence?

    2 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "But you stumbled where you thought that proved that the woman's body treats the fetus as an enemy or something. You need to strengthen that point."
    It does, unless it can bypass the immune system. Wasn't that clear?

    2 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "It's better if you just read it."
    I did, nothing says I'm wrong about the classification.

    2 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • 

    Margaret Sanger "You removed it from its environment. What if Joe Doe positively intervened and shoved you under water for 10 minutes, evicted you out of your environment? Blame your biology for not being autonomous, right? Joe wasn't wrong in what he did. "
    Do you have a PO box I can mail you the dictionary to? You aren't using autonomous correctly.

    2 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • 

    Rho Logy \\It does, unless it can bypass the immune system\
    
    The woman's body is the one who gives the fetus the ability to do that. 
    This is part of God's design. No, it doesn't change anything if you don't believe in God. 
    \\I did, nothing says I'm wrong about the classification.\\
    
    Then you have poor reading comprehension skills.
    
    \\Do you have a PO box I can mail you the dictionary to? You aren't using autonomous correctly.\\
    
    This isn't an argument either. 
    But let's take it a step further. Prove you have autonomy.

    38 minutes ago · Like