>>42883784
Do you feel the same way about killing other peoples children (of all ages)? Because that's what your reasoning implies.

File: german conversion to islam.jpg (72 KB, 720x900)

72 KB JPG

>>42883784
>In Islam, these babies are guaranteed a path into heaven without struggle

Mmmmmm.... surely this must be true right? otherwise it would mean this is a tardish religion that teaches complete bullshit, and there is no chance that's the case right?

Do you want 'reincarnate' as a baby who'll be aborted? To me all the evidence seems to point that transmigration occurs right when the man inseminates the woman.

9 months of waiting + becoming a clump of tissues that gets sucked out by a plastic tube.

I thought that If my theory about rebirth is wrong they might end up going to heaven, which is great. But they might also end up hell, you cannot rule this out. There are babies a span long in hell.

Again, if the the reincarnationists do end up right, they will probably end up as another reincarnated animal(whom happily don't give this treatment to their offspring) , after getting sucked by a plastic tube and being disposed as medical waste.

>>42883790
Killing the child of people would (most of the time) cause massive trauma to several living people and condemn you to prison before you even face any spiritual consequences, so no.

>>42883792
This is why I gave different religions and spirituality too, not just Islam stuff.

>>42883799
>To me all the evidence seems to point that transmigration occurs right when the man inseminates the woman.

?

>>42883799
If aborted babies went to hell we already live in hell and would be doomed because "God" would be a complete irrational psychopath. Even a comically evil video game villain would act more sane than that.

>>42883784
>Are people who abort babies not spiritually and religiously doing them a huge favor?
No, those souls are still in samsara and will simply get another body.
Those who are aborted generally have some weird karma to work off, which is why they are killed by their mother in the first place.

>>42883799
>animal(whom happily don't give this treatment to their offspring)
Most sharks will eat their young if they dont swim away fast enough.
A great many mammals have the male killing any child of a rival male so as to induce ovulation in females.
A rabbit in an overcrowded warren can literally re-absorb fetuses back into their body.
Shit gets a LOT worse in animal forms of life.

>>42883916
still no plastic tube sucking so ok.

>>42883922
No, they usually just rip things open or go in through the anus.
Lots of bleeding and mutilation and death.
But no plastic.

>>42883799
i'd love to know whether your theory turned out to be correct! be sure to return to the board and let us know when you find out!

>>42883784
Happiness in the afterlife comes as we clean ourselves of our imperfections here on Earth.
Abortions interrupts their incarnation plans, and delays their opportunity for spiritual growth here.

>>42884106
Souls aren't created imperfect...

>>42884106
>their opportunity for spiritual growth here.

This is the most enslaved shit I have ever read. Bro really believes that immortal souls completely free of the shackles of flesh somehow need to incarnate into shithole earth, wagecuck for 70 years years, shit out of their ass, pay taxes to "spiritually grow" hahaha GROW INTO WHAT? And what is that growth needed for in a world without bodies and bills to pay? Insanity.

>>42883836
>Killing the child of people would (most of the time) cause massive trauma to several living people and condemn you to prison
Let's say you could convince the parents and other lived ones of your way of thinking, and you all get away with it legally. Is it now morally sound to kill, well, basically anyone? Whether they want to die or not?

>>42884465
>lived ones
LOVED ones

>>42884465
If I knew heaven was 100% real and I knew no one would be hurt by the child's death and I had a painless, peaceful method to kill, it would be morally sound to allow the child a quick path to heaven without ever straying away or damning itself to hell. But those circumstances aren't really given.

>>42884465
>your way of thinking
Their way of thinking doesnt include killing persons. That is YOUR way of thinking that you are trying to force onto them.

>>42884492
Define "persons"

>>42884492
Actually, see >>42884488

I'm not forcing any way of thinking on them. If you think killing "persons" is bad then take it up with OP, who would happily kill you if they could get away with it (and do it painlessly). I presume you consider yourself a person.

>>42884940
You literally have no logical reason to object against the killing of a person if it was:

1) painless
2) caused no trauma or pain to any survivors
3) brought them DIRECTLY into heaven and thus eliminates any suffering and potential to go to hell

You can only moralfag with no basis. This would be the best case scenario for everyone. However, it's not possible to have all of these circumstances guaranteed and without them, I wouldn't kill anyone.

>>42884931
If you have no definition then you have no issue with either OP or any killing at all.
>>42884940
>then take it up with OP,
OP did not suggest killing any person.

>>42884963
You've moved the goalposts pretty far from your original OP ("Are people who abort babies not spiritually and religiously doing them a huge favor?"). You created a hypothetical religious scenario with no basis, in order to claim I have no basis to object to killing as long as certain criteria are met. Do the religions you brought up in the OP, and the heaven you reference, have as much basis for belief as a claim that the deliberate killing of an innocent, non-consenting human is inherently wrong, regardless of pain inflicted?

You're borderline just saying "isn't killing okay if killing is okay?" But you can't quite get there. You still need to tackle the purpose of life. What if the person you kill is here for a reason nobody understands? Part of a divine plan? Sure their death is painless and they go to "heaven," but what gives you the right to meddle in a divine plan that has as much basis for existence as the heaven your hypothetical scenario relies on?

>>42884999
You brought in the term "person" without defining that term. If you refuse to define such ambiguous words, then you're effectively just running away from the conversation.

I never said OP suggested killing someone. They suggested killing was justified, if painless for all concerned and if the killed goes to heaven. You introduced the qualifier of "non-persons," which you haven't defined.

With a smaller body the connection to the soul is more direct.
The pain of death while young may be worse than the pain of an entire life.

>>42885081
>never asked to kill anyone
>ask if aborted babies get an immediate ticket to heaven
>SO UMMM WOULD YOU KILL CHILDREN IF IT WAS PAINLESS AND THEIR PARENTS WOULDN'T GET TRAUMATIZED AND IT WAS LEGAL?

Yeah, I am the one who moved goalposts LMAOOO

>>42885108
Why specify aborted babies in the OP though? Your logic, if followed to its logical conclusion, would also justify the killing of any human that met your criteria, regardless of age. I didn't say you asked to kill someone. I said your proposed logic justifies any killing that meets that criteria. I wasn't moving goalposts, I was following your logic to its conclusion.

"What if it's just sending them to heaven" relies on the religious idea of heaven, while conveniently ignoring other religious ideas that contradict your religion-based logic.

I'm just trying to answer your question logically.

>>42885147
Because the circumstances are completely different. Most abortions happen before week 24 and as far as we know SO FAR the connections needed for conscious pain experience have not developed sufficiently. Furthermore, the misery and suffering parents feel from an abortion is way, way less (on average) than the pain parents feel when their 7 year old child that lived for years next to them, spoke to them, fell asleep in their arms, had dreams and desires... is nuked from orbit. You would also go to prison and ruin your own life for killing a child. And lastly, we do not know if heaven exists for sure. I posed a question, I did not make a statement.

So no aborting a baby is not comparable to "umm why dont u go out and kill children then?"

>>42885160
I didn't suggest anyone go out and kill children. Stop putting words in my mouth. Killing an unborn child fits your criteria much easier than killing a 7 year old. Sure. But IF the killing of a 7 year old fit the same criteria, is it still justified? If not, why not? And don't say because the criteria aren't met, we're dealing with hypotheticals here. IF the exact same criteria are met, does your logic still apply?

You posed a question and I tried to help you answer it by testing the logic.

>>42885081
>You brought in the term "person" without defining that term.
Why was this not a problem with OP?
>I never said OP suggested killing someone. They suggested killing was justified
Define "killing" and "justified."

>>42885081
>if painless for all concerned
"all concerned"?
You are the one that wants to run to semantics and definitions because you have no response to my point.

>>42885181
You asked me if I would be okay with killing children of ALL AGES. I said no, because it would cause a lot of suffering among many other reasons.

If we lived in some kind of parallel universe where all of these things wouldn't happen then sure killing children and sending them straight to heaven while no one on Earth is sad about it or suffers would be ideal. But this is not the case, so the question is not comparable to abortions.

>>42885207
OP didn't use the word "person" as if it changes the scenario. You did. So clearly you don't consider an unborn child a "person." So what do you consider a "person?" Until you answer that, we can't begin to look at how it would change the scenario.

I think you know what I mean by "killing" and "justified," but I'll humour you. By "killing" I mean deliberately ending a life. By "justified" I mean a kind of action that isn't morally questionable.

>>42885241
>OP didn't use the word "person" as if it changes the scenario.
No it doesnt, it was and still is understood.
Otherwise, define "all."
>By "killing" I mean deliberately ending a life.
Define life.
>a kind of action that isn't morally questionable
Define moral, and questionable.

>>42885220
>no, because it would cause a lot of suffering
This ignores the criteria of your hypothetical scenario that I said were consistent.
>killing children and sending them straight to heaven while no one on Earth is sad about it or suffers would be ideal
This presupposes the religious idea of heaven while ignoring other religious ideas that would contradict your logic. This is the problem with your question. If your made up religion was real, in which heaven exists but the sanctity of life doesn't exist, the possibility of a divine plan doesn't exist, the biblical commandment against killing doesn't exist, the consent of the killed doesn't matter, etc, etc... Then, sure. We can logically, justifiably, kill anyone as long as it's legal, and painless, and not bothering anyone.

>>42885256
>it was and still is understood
By you. My terms weren't ambiguous, yours was, and still is because you refuse to say how an unborn child is different to a person.

>>42885321
>My terms weren't ambiguous
As much as mine were.
And you have left a lot ambiguously undefined.

>>42885313
I don't believe in any religion. I asked if ACCORDING TO THEIR RELIGIONS or spiritual views it's given the child a golden ticket into heaven.

>sanctity of life doesn't exist
Yeah, I don't believe life ends when you "die" so you are even more alive then. My only concern is reducing suffering. And going outside and killing children would cause immense suffering.

>>42885328
At this point, you're lying. You refuse to define your term "person." If you won't do that or explain why then I'm not going to reply to you again.

>>42885330
If "according to their religions?" You'd have to ask an expert in their religions, which I'm not. But none of them seem to accept killing, from what I know of their religion, even if the killing is painless etc.

Maybe you need to make your question more clear.

I can trace every single one of my problems to being born so OP may not be a faggot today.

>>42883840
>tell me you haven't read the new testament without telling me you haven't read the new testament

>>42887013
>im suicidal so everyone would be better off dead
Get well soon

>>42887004
>At this point, you're lying.
Lol, I havent lied about anything. We all know what a person is, just like we all know what living is.
You dont want to define "life"" when you use it, are you lying?
Such a pissy little shit.

>>42883784
>(aside from hardcore catholics?)
and what do you think we believe happens to the baby's soul?

>>42887026
Do you really think the average christian believes babies go to hell? Not even these people are insane enough for that.

>>42887498
>Such a pissy little shit.
Says the one who resorted to name calling

>>42888118
When you run from the semantics you start and whine about lying you're a prissy little shit, yes.
Still havent defined your terms, faggot.

I'm certain there is some sort of spiritual consequence for abortion.