 |
|
RE: Multiple issues with your response:
Posted on: June 18, 2022 at 16:59:18 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
69636
Member For:
20.86 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
1. Some women never get married. And want to be. Are you saying they should never experience sex? Thats a yes or no.
If women do not want children they should not engage in activities that could cause them to conceive children. If they are not willing to take on the responsibilities of their choice, but would insist on killing their children if their choices result in them conceiving children, then no they should not have sex. Of course, if they do conceive children and feel that they would rather put their child up for adoption to parents of her own choosing, that is always an option for her. Killing her child is always a grave evil, of course, and is not a legitimate option.
2.Your chain of reasoning is not comprehensible to me.
Why, it really isn't that difficult to follow. Your argument was that if a couple is young and poor that they should be free to kill their unborn child because it would create a financial hardship on them to raise the child... or presumably even to choose another couple to raise their child.
I don't see why you think the deciding factor as to whether or not they should be able to kill their child is based upon where their child currently resides. If the child is unborn, go ahead and kill him or her. If not...?
3. IOW they should not have sex if they want no more children?
If they are not responsible enough to care for any children their sexual activity would bring into the world or to allow one of the hundreds of thousands of other couples waiting for many years to adopt a child, and they would insist on killing their child, then no, they should not engage in that activity.
4. Yes. And that rebuts nothing I suggested.
If a couple has a child and runs into financial difficulties and decides for whatever reason that they do not want any other family to care for their child in their stead, do you think they have a "right" to kill their child instead?
If women do not want children they should not engage in activities that could cause them to conceive children. If they are not willing to take on the responsibilities of their choice, but would insist on killing their children if their choices result in them conceiving children, then no they should not have sex. Of course, if they do conceive children and feel that they would rather put their child up for adoption to parents of her own choosing, that is always an option for her. Killing her child is always a grave evil, of course, and is not a legitimate option.
2.Your chain of reasoning is not comprehensible to me.
Why, it really isn't that difficult to follow. Your argument was that if a couple is young and poor that they should be free to kill their unborn child because it would create a financial hardship on them to raise the child... or presumably even to choose another couple to raise their child.
I don't see why you think the deciding factor as to whether or not they should be able to kill their child is based upon where their child currently resides. If the child is unborn, go ahead and kill him or her. If not...?
3. IOW they should not have sex if they want no more children?
If they are not responsible enough to care for any children their sexual activity would bring into the world or to allow one of the hundreds of thousands of other couples waiting for many years to adopt a child, and they would insist on killing their child, then no, they should not engage in that activity.
4. Yes. And that rebuts nothing I suggested.
If a couple has a child and runs into financial difficulties and decides for whatever reason that they do not want any other family to care for their child in their stead, do you think they have a "right" to kill their child instead?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
RE: Multiple issues with your response: - JeffB MU - 6/18 16:59:18