It is evil to think this way about any other human.

I think the stretch is a little too thin.

Take it up with those "My body, my choice" women, it's /their/ sign.

What a sick, disgusting attitude.

yes
328b4k.jpg [image not found]

Coming across that pro-abortion protesters pic a couple of days ago I was thinking about the very same lines as You. I even googled the very other pic (the pamphlet) but couldn't think of an appealing caption so I put it aside.
Yours is excellent.
I now submitted this instead
328b4k.jpg [image not found] (click to show)

So what does a Book written by Nazis have to do with Pro Choice Supporters?

in case you Missed the commonality...

The Nazis Dismissed Jews (et al) as Parasites...
the 'Pro-Choice' people are dismissing Fetuses as 'just' parasites as well...

Well, I'd agree that Fetuses arent parasities and at the same time have no rights, but not the disscusion I want to have. However that doesn't justify comparing Pro Choice supporters with Nazis

A Fetus inside of a Human Female, brought to term (or to the point of Viability) , Can only be one thing, A HUMAN...

Debate over where the line is on viability, or where 'Life' Starts...

But dismissal of anything you wish to kill as 'parasites' is Classic Dehumanization

"But dismissal of anything you wish to kill as 'parasites' is Classic Dehumanization"

Yeah, and I disaprove of it. Still doesn't justify a comparison of Nazis

My work here is done!

Of course not. You implied that they were Nazis. Don't be a smartass about it, because you ain't, buddy. Also, what your saying is essentially, ah' didn't do that.

Nazis practiced dehumanization of the Jews, just as European colonials practiced dehumanization of Native Americans, just as the Atlantic slave trade practiced dehumanization of black people, and just as these women are practicing dehumanization of unborn babies.

Yes and as I said I do not exactly aprove. Biologically speaking a fetus is a premature Human that still doesn't have any rights. Still doesn't mean you get to compare pro chice supporters to Nazis. I find that to be a bit harsh

The nazi party didn't start out as a force for pure evil any more than these women are. It's the ability and decision to dehumanize another human being, or group thereof, that leads to what the nazis eventually became.

Right. You don't need to lecture me about how the NSDAP started out. I am German.

And again, I am not supporting the dehumanization of Fetuses, because biologically speaking they are premature Humans who have no rights, but the way the meme makes it look, it paints all Pro Choice supporters as Nazis regardless of whether or not they dehumanize Fetuses.

That's kind of a strawman, they'd have to be doing or saying something in the picture that could be viewed as comparable. Just existing doesn't count.

babies are technically by definition parasites

God didn’t advocate legalizing the murder of Canaanites whenever an Israelite felt like it.

And abortion is genocide pure and simple

Genocide: deliberate killing of a large group of people. Abortion: deliberate killing of a large group of preborn people. I fail to see the difference.

One of the phases of genocide is dishumanization. Sound familiar?

Not to people who don't want it to be to justify killing it. Tell a mother who tragically miscarried in the early weeks that it was not a person. Personhood doesn't depend on opinion.

[image deleted]If I'd show you a sequoia seed you wouldn't see a sequoia tree either.

If you had any decent education you would acknowlege that the zygote is the biological start of any human being.
Biologically speaking the fertilization of the ovocite gives a much better initialization timeline than the sectioning of the umbilical cord or the labor.
Actually this is the only distinct criteria that does not vary on timelines or depends on adverse health effects as narcotics, nicotine or alcohol.
Birth or heartbeat are weaker criterias. A birth certificate is no criteria at all.

'viable outside the womb' is no applicable criteria either:
- it's not datable as 'yes or no' , there's only percentage chances.
- preemie survival chances depend on many factors like medical assistance.

No, it just looks like an egg cell to me. so answer me this, at what point in pregnancy does personhood begin? And do all on the left agree?

"An embryo is not a person"

And that statement is the precise crux of the dehumanization argument.

Do you not see the circular flaw in your statement?

Go back in time to a pre-civil war deep south slave owner and accuse him of "dehumanizing" his black slaves. He could make the exact same argument to you, because he doesn't consider them to be human, and if I'm not mistaken, even the law doesn't recognize them as human.

Octavia it is pretty simple equation, really, do not make it harder than what it is. Here are the values 1) we are on God's world, it is not ours 2) His Judgement, His will, how dare we question it? Where where you when he created the planets and the stars? 3) To better understand it I gave you an image that you can relate to which was you have your garden and you have pretty grass, but then weed comes along and starts killing your garden, will you not kill all the weeds so that you can have a beautiful garden that you can show off to your neighbors? The same thing is happening here. The weeds had to be killed so that God could show the nation He had chosen. No different. It is just the level from where you are viewing things.

There's a problem with your argument.

The first part of your argument is based on only one premise, that everyone accepts that there is a God and that God is an authority. (argumentum ad verecundiam)

If there is no God, then obviously your argument is meritless. You have not provided any proof or reasoning of Gods existence. Since your whole argument is based on an unproven authority, the rest of what you said carries no weight.

To use God as your only justification, you first need to be able to prove there is a God and that it is an authority.

The second part of your argument, weeds in the garden, makes somewhat more sense. However, comparing weeds to humans is a false analogy. Most reasonable and moral people would not equate the treatment of weeds equal to the treatment of humans.

What was the reason behind it?

The inhabitants of Canaan were neither ignorant nor innocent victims of an angry God. They had been committing terrible sin knowing full well of the true and living God. Because they rejected Him and His forgiveness God harshly judged them. If you have a garden, and you see weeds growing among your good grass will you not also kill all the weeds? In this picture the good grass was the Israelites and the weeds was the canaanites. The Earth is Gods belonging he is free to judge as He pleases. The problem really is when we humans try to measure ourselves as God. Do you hold in your hands of every souls fate as He does?

People are weeds? Man, what a nasty, vengeful, vindictive God of the Bible. If you don't love me I will kill every man, woman and child. That's sick in the extreme, that's Islamic State on steroids!

That's called a parable, calm yer tits.

Not exactly, you might want to look about who Canannites worshipped and the origins of the Hebrews themselves.

You talk of forgiveness by a God and then proceed to say how said God harshly judged them within the same sentence. Irony, much?

The God you speak is not of the world, but of that little spec on the map to which he belonged, which, incidentally, was the land of Canaan.

Look up "soul" as meant to the Hebrews and their God. It does not mean exactly what you think.

Had they done that in World War 1, there likely wouldn't have been a World War 2. The greater good would have been accomplished by killing a few million to save 100 million. The US made the same ethical decision when deliberating on what to do to end World War 2, a decision that would never had been made if the war hadn't started to begin with.

That's not something I advocate because I'm not God and don't claim to be. That is however, and was, common practice in ancient history. Leaving survivors meant leaving angry generations of people that would one day seek to take revenge. That's also why a king and his heirs were all killed after a victory or coup to a throne. You don't have to agree with it, but the reasoning is sound, not to our culture, but to theirs. Israel didn't go in and kill everyone in the land. They let some survive, and made treatise with some peoples as well, which led to centuries of trouble and wars from the descendants of those same people. More died by the hands of the descendants than the numbers that would've died in the beginning of the "genocide". It's a greater good argument.

When it comes to ethics on the greater good, every side is biased and suspect because the question arises, "who gets to make the claim that their greater good is better than someone else's?" The answer, historically, is "he who has the greatest might, has the greatest right." Power determines the right. The two points I leave with you are:

1. If the Bible is true, then an all knowing God acted is such a way to accomplish a greater good, one known to him but not to his followers at the time.
2. If the Bible is false, which most claim, then you're arguing over something that didn't happen anyway and wasting your life debating fairy tales.

There's my 2 cents...now bring on the lynchings! lol

2 point... exactly what I was thinking!

BluMoon33 I love that meme. Can have your permission to borrow it to use it each instance Octavia_melody comes to a meme to argue religion she does not believe in? Maybe if he sees it enough times he will get the message.

Lol. He doesn't seem actually interested in knowing God or the Bible despite cherry picking verses out of context. You may borrow the meme but it was inspired by Pascelean to be honest.

Where are you at in it?

Conveniently skipped the story of Abram and Sodom/Gomorrah?

Abram convinced God if there were only 10 righteous person in there, He would spare them. And... could NOT find even 10.

This was back in Abram's days. Remember what the Lord said? The sins of these people have not "reached full measure," by the time the Israelites reached them, it did.

So all of Canaan, they were WORSE than Sodom and Gomorrah. And I'm sure not 10 people were righteous.

These are people so wicked, they want to rape the visitors Lot was protecting. Child sacrifice were the norm. Forget homosexuality, they were into beastiality.

And of course liberals like you would defend them and call them righteous.

but you can only address the present ones

By th way I'm pretty sure the cainanites sacrificed thief own children

No. And God punished the isrotes several times when they disobeyed him

That's true however they where very sinful. And I don't mean homosexuality

How dare you question Gods motives? Again where where you when he created the stars and planets? When he created the living creatures? And how about when he sent his son to pay the price for all who believed in him? Why do you think you can outsmart Him or even dare to compare the way you think and process information to the way He thinks? Again, the problem is self made gods. And just like Blumoon33 said, you are using a book you do not believe in to argue a God you do not believe in with people you do not agree with. You must be a new kind of special.

I'm just saying, where were you when God created the universe? How do you know that everything in the old testament, and new testament is true? You have been fooled ever since childhood, and have never grown out of the fairy tale of the christian bible. There's a reason why high iq people are not religious, and it's because a rational person must conclude that every religion created by man, stuck a three dimensional universe, is false.