Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12
Results 221 to 233 of 233
  1. #221
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm expressing what I hold to be right and wrong and trying to justify why I believe the way I do. I'm not going out and killing others because of the belief they or I hold. I'm not demonizing the person because they are a human being but identifying an action that I see is wrong, then showing the justification for my belief. The command is to love others. Love speaks truth even when it is not politically correct to do so. I am not acting hatefully towards homosexuals. The Christian is instructed to give to those in need, regardless of their beliefs. If I see someone in need and I can give them a meal or shelter I'm not to discriminate because of their belief system.

    On a debate forum it is a different case. The forum is here to debate/showcase belief systems.
    No one is accusing you of killing gay people. I am saying that your words dehumanize the love between two gay people. That your statements and attitudes diminishes them. You do realize, even with the best of intentions you are actually hurting people with what you say. I have no skin the the game but if someone said the same things about my own love with my wife, I would not be happy.

    No matter how you justify it, if you follow the golden rule and apply it to yourself, itís pretty much dehumanizing when you fall their love wrong. Religion was used to argue against interracial marriages too with much the same justifications by Christians who were otherwise decent people.

    The sooner you admit that you are hurting people and dehumanizing them the better. Iím not asking you to justify your opinion nor to defend your religion. I just want you to see the truth of what youíre doing.


    WHAT? Where have I ever expressed being okay with aborting a baby? I have done what is called 'trotting out the toddler' to show the difference between the unborn and newborn or toddler is one of four different qualities - Size, Level of Development, Environment, Dependency. On the basis of those four common qualities I have shown there is no difference in what the being IS before or after birth and have tried to bring this point home by arguing that the standard you use to take a life before birth is the same one you use to preserve life after birth. You appear to be okay with killing an innocent human being because you don't value it as a human being.

    There is only one kind of abortion I agree with. That is when the mother's life is at risk and there is no way to save the unborn because of its viability.
    Letís just focus on the abortions you agree with where the motherís life is at risk. And we know this from an early stage. Do you see it is morally equivalent to abort as soon as possible versus waiting another few months?

    This is the question that is asked for all the other abortion cases and that is why we distinguish between an embryo and a baby. Because you refuse to accept these distinctions, you must therefore be OK with killing a baby when the motherís life is at risk even though it could have been aborted sooner. Correct or not correct?


    I was thinking of the hypocrisy on your part as I read Post 209. I wanted to reflect on it before commenting. Your position is insensitive to what is going on regarding abortion. You recognize that the unborn is a human being, but that does not matter to you. You don't seem to care that innocent human beings are being butchered in the millions every year, mostly because of lifestyle choices. You seem to think that because they are in the early stages of development that it justifies killing them. You have turned the tables to villanize my position on this and other issues. It is the double-standard of the left all over again. Once the argument does not go your way you start ad homenum attacks based on the Christian faith. I see an ultimate authority as determining right and wrong. If you want to justify your position on a moral stand then either open a thread on morality and abortion or morality and relativism to discuss it.
    Thatís not quite what it is. You spent half your time, unnecessarily I might add, to convince me over linguistics. You said this was done for the purpose of dehumanizing the baby. I pointed out instances where dehumanizing humans is done all the time, including from Christians when it comes to homosexuality. This isnít an attack on your faith - it is to point out your hypocrisy.

    I also discussed and you agreed that education and contraception is a good way to mitigate the need for an abortion. This the number of abortions is reduced. And thatís a good thing.

    Last time I checked, I was still allowed to express my belief.
    Of course you are. As am I. And I am pointing out some of your hypocrisies.

    ******** TODO *********
    Sometimes I can't justify what I or others professing a belief in Jesus Christ do. If I believe something is wrong I can provide the reasons why.
    I donít care how you justify your hate. I ask only that you empathize with the people you are hurting and acknowledge that pain.

    There is a difference between being hateful and disagreeing on what is right and wrong. Do you understand that difference? Who determines right and wrong? As I said, I would be glad to discuss the merits of your atheistic beliefs as opposed to my Christian beliefs in regards to morality.
    When you disagree which city does the best pizza that is one thing. When you say that eating Chicago pizza should be ďdemonizedĒ, your term, that kinda points more to hatred than an intellectual disagreement.

    A discussion between a fact based moral system versus on based on ignorance should be done elsewhere. And would probably be a good one. However, it is distracting because Iím not opposing your Christian views. I am saying you are being hypocritical in your application of those views.

    You invoke your religious beliefs (atheism) too because you want to deny me my right to my belief. It is a worldview war. What you choose to do as a man in the privacy of your home it your business as long as it does not harm others, IMO. When you say that gay-marriage is right you bring into the discussion my belief on the subject, which is that God created both MAN and WOMAN for the purpose of marriage and pro-creation. He sanctified that union, not some other union. He speaks out against other ACTS of sexuality as immoral and displeasing to Him.
    Well, first of all, this is not my first rodeo - I can probably argue your side as well as you can. This isnít about your religion - it is about your hypocrisy. That you argue from one side of your mouth that pro-choicers demonize humans, much like Naziís and slave owners did. And from the other side of your mouth, you demonize acts of commitment and love. The point is that you are just as guilty of demonizing and dehumanizing as everyone you accuse of. It doesnít matter what your justifications are: youíre literally doing it.

    Even though I see your moral justification as inadequate if those are the standards you hold to I am all for your right to hold your beliefs except when you act on those beliefs to kill other innocent human beings. It is when those beliefs kill/murder others that I object to them and want to express why.
    My moral justification to kill an embryo or as early in the pregnancy is possible should be the same justification you should be making. That baby that will kill its mother is just as innocent as any other so once you understand your own reasons why itís morally better to abort an embryo rather than a baby, once you admit that there is a distinction then we can move on. After you with draw all your other false comparisons that it.

    Since you continue to attack the man I will respond again because you are making it personal.
    Itís not an attack if it accurately describes your double-standards. It is a factual description of your stated positions.

    1. I pointed out that I believe it is wrong based on my belief system. It is 'right' based on your belief system. The problem is that both systems of thought cannot both be logically right. I invite you to justify your belief system. It is a moral issue.
    Sure but if itís right to kill a baby in the circumstances where the motherís death is a risk then you must also distinguish between an embryo and a baby in that situation. If you do distinguish between the two then you need to withdraw all the other claims that such comparisons are nazi like and dehumanizing. If not then you are nazi like and dehumanizing.

    2. If both the unborn and newborn are human beings it is not me who is discriminating against the human being by dehumanizing it and supporting its killing on the preference of the female, but you and she.
    You already agree that babies can be aborted in the case where the motherís life is at risk! Youíre ďkilling on the preference of the femaleĒ too! Are you literally losing track of what your own opinions are?

    3. How do you ever come to this conclusion? Where have I not advocated for the life of all human beings, except in justifiably specific cases? Please give examples because I believe you may be taking what I said out of context or just plain changing what I believe (putting words in my mouth) to VILLANIZE me because I don't think the same way you do on these issues.
    Thereís no villanizing going on - youíre being hypocritical and I have explained multiple times already in previous posts and several times here. If you do not understand why you are a hypocrite we can take even more slowly but I am getting tired of explaining to you the same thing over and over again.

    I have replied to all three of your responses.

    Peter
    You have ignored every point I made so I had to explain them again. You specifically havenít answered:

    1. In the situation where you agree that a preganancy should be aborted, do you agree or disagree that it is more moral to kill the embryo or wait until it is a baby? Or are they morally the same to you because making such distinctions is Ďdehumanizingí?
    2. Do you believe that when a gay couple marry in a secular civil marriage, and nothing to do with religion, that this is an act that should be demonized? If so, do you not see that you are dehumanizing that act?
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 15th, 2018 at 04:54 PM.

  2. #222
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Every nation recognizes the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body. This isn’t some ideal appeal to popularity, it is done so with weighing all the facts and coming up with the best solution for everyone.
    This quote is the definition of appealing to popularity. IE "everyone thinks X, therefore X is correct or based on the most sound evidence".

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m not against facts or seeing an ultra sound. I think a woman must understand that they are taking away a life.
    Right, but this point(that I made) directly contradicts your assertion that the majority are working with the best information.
    That isn't even the case for people actually having abortions, because when those people do get more facts (Ie ultra sound) then they do not get abortions.. at a 90% rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m not talking about personhood - I’m talking about the cognitive ability to suffer death.
    Are you saying that persons who are not cognitive about death can not be "murdered" but rightly killed by whoever controlls their "needs"?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m not talking about the potential - only you are. I am talking about an embryo with barely a brain and certainly no mind that can be dispatched with quickly so as to cause the least amount of suffering.
    First, hold your horses there. Brain =/= Mind necissarily. That may be what you think, but it isn't established or accepted.
    As to the "potential", that was me projecting the basis for you rejecting the killing of unconcious people based on the grounds you forward.

    Your a bit arbitrary in your lines so I may have over stepped your position there.
    In which case. Why can't we kill unconcious humans with no brain waves? (IE like the condition of heart surgery patient)
    or if your relying on conciousness then sleeping humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    They should feel guilty about their decisions. I don’t object to that at all.
    Why? I'm confused. I don't see why they should feel guilty on your position... what did I miss?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    A fertilized egg is hardly a human - your emotional argument that this is anything more than a tiny bundle of cells is just ridiculous. It’s no worse than biting your nails.
    This is false, and demonstraited so several times.
    the unborn from conception are fully human. Categorically, they are human. So your language is not communicating your point or, your point is demonstrably scientifically invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Plan B ensures that a fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the womb. Depending on how you see it, it is aborting a human.

    I don’t see evidence for contraception being a cause for not being able to have a child. That sounds like a recipe for a huge class action lawsuit so I have to reject that claim.
    Well, there are some contraceptions that work as a kind of abortion drug.
    I don't think a fertalized egg is a "concieved" human.

    [QOUTE=SHARMAK] 24w is where the legal limit currently is but it does depend on the circumstances. I will always save the life of the mother if that is the scenario. If the child is disabled then I would also agree on allowing a woman to choose.

    Ideally, the abortion should happen as soon as possible so 24w is probably a reasonable maximum. Unless of course the mother’s life is at stake. [/QUOTE]
    Thanks for answering the question directly, I honestly appreciate it.

    Follow up question.
    -Context-
    So people generally agree that when a baby is born it is a person, but as we wind the clock back, at some point we will reach an area of uncertainty.
    ,I'm not asking where that line is.
    Question...
    At that point, on which side should we error?
    On the side of refraining for threat of killing a person
    or on the side of a womans right to choose the actions she takes with her body?
    To serve man.

  3. #223
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    But that only identifies WHO is being leached from. It is not at all impossible to tell that the single father is the SOLE provider for a newborn (who's mother has died for argument sake).
    That is the point. The only one on whom an embryo/fetus/etc can be dependent is the mother. That is why it is her choice.

    Well that last part is speculation. And I think there are efforts to create an artificial womb to push the survival rate far past the current threshold.
    Suppose tomorrow they get a breakthrough and now can furtalize an egg and grow a full on human star wars clone style. Does your argument then fail?
    Yes, my argument will fail. As long as the embryo/fetus/etc is not dependent solely on the mother for nourishment and shelter, my argument will be null and void. And I truly hope that we are close to that kind of breakthrough.

    Or is your argument that because the woman is the provider she gets to make the life and death decision, and as she is the only provider she is the only one that gets a say in her case.
    Because I'm just applying the latter to a newborn, as it is totally consistent with your argument.
    Yes, that is my point. The woman, currently, is the only one who CAN provide the care...up until 21 weeks (which is the earliest a child has ever been born and survived).
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  4. #224
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This quote is the definition of appealing to popularity. IE "everyone thinks X, therefore X is correct or based on the most sound evidence".
    Considering we are talking about morality, which is largely a social exercise based on the determining facts and taking into account local studies and opinions and past history, itís a bit of a stretch to say that those are fallacious conclusions.

    Trotting out appealing to popularity is the last desperate accusation of a minority view so I guess thatĎs why your dragging it out. At the very least you have to agree that these are conclusions come to through a great deal of deliberation and if itís from different perspectives and backgrounds that it bears considering that they may be right.

    Right, but this point(that I made) directly contradicts your assertion that the majority are working with the best information.
    That isn't even the case for people actually having abortions, because when those people do get more facts (Ie ultra sound) then they do not get abortions.. at a 90% rate.
    OK. And? Are you suggesting that I am insisting on abortions? Of course women should get more facts before making a decision? What kind of straw man argument is this?

    Are you saying that persons who are not cognitive about death can not be "murdered" but rightly killed by whoever controlls their "needs"?
    Iíd say it may not be ďrightĒ but itís justifiable given that we have technology to keep people alive indefinitely.

    First, hold your horses there. Brain =/= Mind necissarily. That may be what you think, but it isn't established or accepted.
    Of course the brain is the mind - where else would the mind exist? And it is wholly accepted because we can see the mind develop as a child ages.

    Your a bit arbitrary in your lines so I may have over stepped your position there.
    In which case. Why can't we kill unconcious humans with no brain waves? (IE like the condition of heart surgery patient) or if your relying on conciousness then sleeping humans.
    As to the "potential", that was me projecting the basis for you rejecting the killing of unconcious people based on the grounds you forward.
    We donít kill sleeping or unconscious people unless their brain is showing no normal activity. Why bring more red herrings into a complicated discussion?

    Well, there are some contraceptions that work as a kind of abortion drug.
    I don't think a fertalized egg is a "concieved" human.
    Of course itís conceived - itís a fertilized egg that would have implanted if it were not for outside intervention to prevent it. Iím glad you agree that plan B is a good thing but youíre now being inconsistent in saying itís not conceived - itís already splitting and forming. So what to you makes that early fertilized egg killable but not the few weeks old one?

    Follow up question.
    -Context-
    So people generally agree that when a baby is born it is a person, but as we wind the clock back, at some point we will reach an area of uncertainty.
    ,I'm not asking where that line is.
    Question...
    At that point, on which side should we error?
    On the side of refraining for threat of killing a person
    or on the side of a womans right to choose the actions she takes with her body?
    Obviously the womenís rights - sheís the only person that really exists and the best person to determine what kind of life that child would have and how her own life would change.

    A fetus is no more a person than the egg that youíre agreeing is killable.

  5. #225
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Considering we are talking about morality, which is largely a social exercise based on the determining facts and taking into account local studies and opinions and past history, itís a bit of a stretch to say that those are fallacious conclusions.

    Trotting out appealing to popularity is the last desperate accusation of a minority view so I guess thatĎs why your dragging it out. At the very least you have to agree that these are conclusions come to through a great deal of deliberation and if itís from different perspectives and backgrounds that it bears considering that they may be right.
    Not at all. My appeal to morality is an objective one not a subjective one. Yours is a fallacious appeal to popularity for several reasons but the first is because right and wrong is not based on a collective agreement. The majority of Germany did not make the killing of the Jews right and moral, and neither does the appeal to convenience make the killing of the unborn moral.

    I can not accept your position and then disparage the nazies, simply because it is inconsistent in that view, and thus obviously fallacious view.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    OK. And? Are you suggesting that I am insisting on abortions? Of course women should get more facts before making a decision? What kind of straw man argument is this?
    No, i'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that your appeal to popularity is further undercut when the majority of people who gather more information disagree.
    (here I'm using your standard).

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Iíd say it may not be ďrightĒ but itís justifiable given that we have technology to keep people alive indefinitely.
    Your making a distinction without a difference. If it is justifiable then it is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Of course the brain is the mind - where else would the mind exist? And it is wholly accepted because we can see the mind develop as a child ages.
    Of course is not an argument... so of course your mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    We donít kill sleeping or unconscious people unless their brain is showing no normal activity. Why bring more red herrings into a complicated discussion?
    your using the standard of "unconcous". So I'm just applying it.
    If your arguing brain dead, then that is different. But clearly there is a sliding scale from the time the brain starts to develop at 8 weeks, and on.
    and you haven't made any distinctions or explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Of course itís conceived - itís a fertilized egg that would have implanted if it were not for outside intervention to prevent it. Iím glad you agree that plan B is a good thing but youíre now being inconsistent in saying itís not conceived - itís already splitting and forming. So what to you makes that early fertilized egg killable but not the few weeks old one?
    First, to clear up some definition confusion.

    [/quote=link]
    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...ticlekey=31242
    Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
    2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.
    3. A basic understanding of a situation or a principle.
    From the Latin conceptio, conceptions meaning conception, becoming pregnant; drawing up of legal formulae; and from the Latin concepts meaning conceiving, pregnancy; collecting, or a collection. [/quote]

    Your not mis-using the word conceive, but I'm referring to conception as the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation.
    Until then your not aborting a pregnancy or avoiding a pregnancy your stopping a pregnancy. That is not me being inconstant (even if that is what you would like to believe), it isn't even me mis-using the word.

    Second, your factually wrong that fertilized egg WILL get implanted. It may, or it may not.


    Finally, why the distinction? Because I don't have a problem with preventing pregnancy which occurs at conception (.. be mindful of my use of the word).
    Science has clearly defined when pregnancy begins. So I'm just going with that.
    To serve man.

  6. #226
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all. My appeal to morality is an objective one not a subjective one.
    Not sure if youíve really done that - care to back it up?

    Yours is a fallacious appeal to popularity for several reasons but the first is because right and wrong is not based on a collective agreement. The majority of Germany did not make the killing of the Jews right and moral, and neither does the appeal to convenience make the killing of the unborn moral.
    No one is saying it is moral - Iíve already said itís the lessor of two evils.

    I can not accept your position and then disparage the nazies, simply because it is inconsistent in that view, and thus obviously fallacious view.
    Well, exaggerating everything to the Naziís does that to you. When you conflate a genocide with everything you disagree with then things get inconsistent: see how your friendís hypocrisy is so easily revealed: as is yours.

    No, i'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that your appeal to popularity is further undercut when the majority of people who gather more information disagree.
    (here I'm using your standard).
    Again, because everything is ĎNazií to you youíre taking the one thing which we both agree about and turning it into a weird disagreement that doesnít exist.

    Your making a distinction without a difference. If it is justifiable then it is right.
    If it is justifiable to do something then it is done.

    Of course is not an argument... so of course your mistaken.
    There is no other place that the mind exists within so I have no idea what youíre thinking the mistake is.

    your using the standard of "unconcous". So I'm just applying it.
    If your arguing brain dead, then that is different. But clearly there is a sliding scale from the time the brain starts to develop at 8 weeks, and on.
    and you haven't made any distinctions or explanations.
    Ah, so now you agree that there is no brain development before 8 weeks. So do you agree that abortions should be OK at that point?

    First, to clear up some definition confusion.

    Your not mis-using the word conceive, but I'm referring to conception as the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation.
    Until then your not aborting a pregnancy or avoiding a pregnancy your stopping a pregnancy. That is not me being inconstant (even if that is what you would like to believe), it isn't even me mis-using the word.

    Second, your factually wrong that fertilized egg WILL get implanted. It may, or it may not.


    Finally, why the distinction? Because I don't have a problem with preventing pregnancy which occurs at conception (.. be mindful of my use of the word).
    Science has clearly defined when pregnancy begins. So I'm just going with that.
    Interesting distinction - so youíre OK with preventing a potential pregnancy from happening and not at the moment that the egg actually starts itís genesis.

    I guess thatís all I need to know about where you stand regarding a Ďhumaní. Itís kinda weird but Iím OK with it if youíre OK with Plan B. Hopefully that will reduce the number of pregnancies due to rape and incest and maybe even a change of mind or as a precaution.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  7. #227
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Not sure if youíve really done that - care to back it up?
    I think that is more of a clarification of the context of my argument. When I say that it is immoral to kill humans.
    I don't mean that we all have generally agreed that we don't like killing humans and prefer it not to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    No one is saying it is moral - Iíve already said itís the lessor of two evils.
    Well we both agree that killing the unborn is immoral, but you haven't really explained or supported the other evil that you say is greater, or why, or why we should accept it.
    I think you answered a few questions i directly asked about it (which I appreciate), but I would really like to hear the rest of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Well, exaggerating everything to the Naziís does that to you. When you conflate a genocide with everything you disagree with then things get inconsistent: see how your friendís hypocrisy is so easily revealed: as is yours.
    Well lets be clear. Killing 50million unborn is far worse than what the Nazie's were able to do, and that is totally consistent from my view.
    And your incorrect if you think that your reasoning about subjective morality doesn't apply to the Nazi's as well.

    So there is no conflating going on.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Again, because everything is ĎNazií to you youíre taking the one thing which we both agree about and turning it into a weird disagreement that doesnít exist.
    Only because you are being inconsistent in your application in your idea of morality, special pleading your way out of justifying what the nazi's did (which we both agree was wrong).

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    If it is justifiable to do something then it is done.
    .... I don't think I understand what your saying. Something being justifiable doesn't mean it is done already.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    There is no other place that the mind exists within so I have no idea what youíre thinking the mistake is.
    Well of course the mind exists with the soul and our bodies are only vessles.
    So... there you go. all explained for you (I'm using your format here so I assume it will be acceptable).

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Ah, so now you agree that there is no brain development before 8 weeks. So do you agree that abortions should be OK at that point?
    What do you mean now? I was the one that pointed out that 8ish weeks is when the brain first starts to form.
    If we use the standard of a healthy active brain, then we must agree on 8ish weeks. Which I'm guessing would account for making the vast majority of all abortions illegal.
    From my position.. I am more than happy to compromise and save those millions of children from death.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Interesting distinction - so youíre OK with preventing a potential pregnancy from happening and not at the moment that the egg actually starts itís genesis.
    Well, it is a medical distinction.
    I do think there is an argument to be made for birth control in general to be immoral. I don't really hold that view. So this is the biological difference of closing a door, vs killing a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I guess thatís all I need to know about where you stand regarding a Ďhumaní. Itís kinda weird but Iím OK with it if youíre OK with Plan B. Hopefully that will reduce the number of pregnancies due to rape and incest and maybe even a change of mind or as a precaution.
    Anything I can do to help.
    To serve man.

  8. #228
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think that is more of a clarification of the context of my argument. When I say that it is immoral to kill humans.
    I don't mean that we all have generally agreed that we don't like killing humans and prefer it not to happen.
    And what is the best way to make it not happen? Forbidding it and driving underground or making it legal to make it safe and use education and contraception and something like PlanB?

    Well we both agree that killing the unborn is immoral, but you haven't really explained or supported the other evil that you say is greater, or why, or why we should accept it.
    I think you answered a few questions i directly asked about it (which I appreciate), but I would really like to hear the rest of it.
    The other evil is that banning abortion will just drive it underground. Or in some cases, newborns are just left to die. Or they will end up living in a situation where they are despised or adopted where there will be other issues. To ignore that there going to be unwanted babies is to misunderstand the issue. So I ask you: do you agree that there are reasons why women may not want their pregnancy to not come to term?

    Well lets be clear. Killing 50million unborn is far worse than what the Nazie's were able to do, and that is totally consistent from my view.
    I think it's offensive to make such a comparison. What the Nazi's did wasn't just the killing but the systematic persecution and torture of a race of peoples. To see it as simply killing is to avoid the actual horror was that living families were torn apart, raped, killed and had their treasures torn from their bodies.

    And your incorrect if you think that your reasoning about subjective morality doesn't apply to the Nazi's as well.
    I know you're trying to make the same emotional impact but frankly it fails purely because there's no comparison between a genocide of a group of people and the squishing of an embryo.

    So there is no conflating going on.
    There absolutely is: you're taking the least evil part of what the Nazi's did and ignored the actual horror of how they did it.

    Only because you are being inconsistent in your application in your idea of morality, special pleading your way out of justifying what the nazi's did (which we both agree was wrong).
    If an abortion was waiting until the baby was born and then torturing it before killing it then the Nazi comparison would be accurate. But what is really happening is far different with sympathy and empathy and as early as possible to minimize impact on the embryo and the mother. I challenge you to find a similar set of empathy in what the Nazi's did.

    ... I don't think I understand what your saying. Something being justifiable doesn't mean it is done already.
    Compared to what happens when abortions are not legalized it is a justifiable alternative. Granted there are more abortions than there needs to be but we have identified those situations and replaced it with decent sex education, contraception and ensuring the mother knows what the moral choices ar.

    Well of course the mind exists with the soul and our bodies are only vessles.
    So... there you go. all explained for you (I'm using your format here so I assume it will be acceptable).
    Well, I don't know what the soul is so it's hardly valid.


    What do you mean now? I was the one that pointed out that 8ish weeks is when the brain first starts to form.
    If we use the standard of a healthy active brain, then we must agree on 8ish weeks. Which I'm guessing would account for making the vast majority of all abortions illegal.
    From my position.. I am more than happy to compromise and save those millions of children from death.
    You're not really saving any one though since there are alternatives that would be found if legalized abortion wasn't available to them. Your path just leads to more deaths, including sometimes the mothers'.


    Well, it is a medical distinction.
    I do think there is an argument to be made for birth control in general to be immoral. I don't really hold that view. So this is the biological difference of closing a door, vs killing a child.
    Either way is ending a potential life so I don't really see the difference but like I said, plan B is probably the best way to go for most abortions and hopefully we see trends going that way.

  9. #229
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    The other evil is that banning abortion will just drive it underground. Or in some cases, newborns are just left to die. Or they will end up living in a situation where they are despised or adopted where there will be other issues. To ignore that there going to be unwanted babies is to misunderstand the issue. So I ask you: do you agree that there are reasons why women may not want their pregnancy to not come to term?
    Sure that is reasons that a woman may not want a baby, but they are not moral reasons. It is not an evil for a baby to be a girl, yet that is the primary justification for all kinds of abortions.
    Further, I don't see being unwanted as a lesser evil than being dead or non existent for the baby.

    From the mothers pov, none of those are moral justifications for killing humans. So they can't be the "lesser of two evils".

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    I think it's offensive to make such a comparison. What the Nazi's did wasn't just the killing but the systematic persecution and torture of a race of peoples. To see it as simply killing is to avoid the actual horror was that living families were torn apart, raped, killed and had their treasures torn from their bodies.
    Well considering how you just laid out systematic justification for killing a group of people .. lets call them "undesirables". There really isn't a distinction.
    The unborn are targeted for simply being girls, as I think that is the major reasoning. Making abortion one of the most sexist acts on the planet.
    The unborn also have their bodies ripped apart while they can feel pain, so it is certainly comparable to what the Nazi's did to the Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I know you're trying to make the same emotional impact but frankly it fails purely because there's no comparison between a genocide of a group of people and the squishing of an embryo.
    A group of humans targeted because they are undesirable, seen as the cause of personal problems, killed simply for being a girl.
    Sounds pretty darn close. Especially when we are talking about the older unborn and not the 8week olds we have generally been discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    There absolutely is: you're taking the least evil part of what the Nazi's did and ignored the actual horror of how they did it.
    "Least evil". I would think that appealing to the evil nature of something should be sufficient to show it is evil, and thus by definition something that ought not be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    If an abortion was waiting until the baby was born and then torturing it before killing it then the Nazi comparison would be accurate. But what is really happening is far different with sympathy and empathy and as early as possible to minimize impact on the embryo and the mother. I challenge you to find a similar set of empathy in what the Nazi's did.
    The unborn are apparently experamented on.. https://books.google.com/books?id=3i...0today&f=false

    This seems about as barbaric as anything the Nazis were able to come up with.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
    This video explains that the unborn at this point are typically to large to be torn apart by suction tube, so it must be done by hand tools.
    Which makes it seem you know, less Nazi concentration camp experimenty. .. err no, I got that backwards.. sounds about right.

    As this is common it goes to show the comparability.
    For a list of all the procedures, but one would really need to look it up to understand what they are talking about as all the terms are sanitized.
    http://americanpregnancy.org/unplann...on-procedures/


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Compared to what happens when abortions are not legalized it is a justifiable alternative. Granted there are more abortions than there needs to be but we have identified those situations and replaced it with decent sex education, contraception and ensuring the mother knows what the moral choices ar.
    I really don't get this line of reasoning. We don't ever apply that to anything else.
    We don't make disposing of a dead body easier for murder's because the way they currently do it is just so undesirable.
    We don't make robbing a bank easier or legal, because people may get hurt if it were illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Well, I don't know what the soul is so it's hardly valid.
    Yea, people have been wondering if pro-abortion people have souls. *zing*
    Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    You're not really saving any one though since there are alternatives that would be found if legalized abortion wasn't available to them. Your path just leads to more deaths, including sometimes the mothers'.
    you will have to support that.. maybe with some sort of statistic.
    As it is it's just your bias talking and there is no reason for anyone to accept that proposition as true.
    To serve man.

  10. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  11. #230
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sure that is reasons that a woman may not want a baby, but they are not moral reasons. It is not an evil for a baby to be a girl, yet that is the primary justification for all kinds of abortions.
    Further, I don't see being unwanted as a lesser evil than being dead or non existent for the baby.
    I don't agree that a girl is a good reason for abortion either so this is a straw man. And indicative of the problems when you see everything in simple black and white. Even where there should be no disagreements you seek to find one.

    From the mothers pov, none of those are moral justifications for killing humans. So they can't be the "lesser of two evils".
    They're generally not moral justifications - they're usually justifications out of shame, fear of reprisals, being poor or not being 'ready' to raise a child. They're practical (to them) reasons and they will end up finding another way to have the abortion unless otherwise helped.

    Well considering how you just laid out systematic justification for killing a group of people .. lets call them "undesirables". There really isn't a distinction.
    The unborn are targeted for simply being girls, as I think that is the major reasoning. Making abortion one of the most sexist acts on the planet.
    The unborn also have their bodies ripped apart while they can feel pain, so it is certainly comparable to what the Nazi's did to the Jews.

    A group of humans targeted because they are undesirable, seen as the cause of personal problems, killed simply for being a girl.
    Sounds pretty darn close. Especially when we are talking about the older unborn and not the 8week olds we have generally been discussing.
    Somehow I think you just read about that reason and you're just using it as a straw man everywhere. I still fail to see the comparison but I've had the fortune, or maybe misfortune, to have many Jewish friends who have relayed some terrible stories. I have to avoid some of your more flammable rejoinders below - they add nothing to the actual debate and more to your emotional state.
    It's just not the same thing and to demonize the women isn't the greatest avenue to reduce abortions either. Some sympathy and empathy will help more than your pitchfork waving and luckily all modern countries are doing that.

    "Least evil". I would think that appealing to the evil nature of something should be sufficient to show it is evil, and thus by definition something that ought not be done.
    And yet here we are, dealing with the issue in a less black and white manner, learning as we go along, teaching and finding other ways to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Which path do you think is more successful? Our current path of having control over the process or yours of banning abortions?


    I really don't get this line of reasoning. We don't ever apply that to anything else.
    We don't make disposing of a dead body easier for murder's because the way they currently do it is just so undesirable.
    We don't make robbing a bank easier or legal, because people may get hurt if it were illegal.
    I think we're allowed to treat different situations differently and I believe that our current path is reducing abortions whilst allowing them under certain circumstances. Your methodology doesn't actually solve any problems and indeed exacerbates existing ones and making things worse.

    Yea, people have been wondering if pro-abortion people have souls. *zing*
    Sorry.
    I don't even know what a soul is supposed to be anyway so no apology really needed - I know walked into that one :-).

    you will have to support that.. maybe with some sort of statistic.
    As it is it's just your bias talking and there is no reason for anyone to accept that proposition as true.
    There are plenty of history as to what the America was like before RvW. I guess by your own metric, there were probably fewer deaths overall, so you might think it's the better path, luckily the modern world disagrees with you!

    https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/...st-be-prologue
    Illegal Abortions Were Common

    Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
    One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 womenónearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.
    Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.
    These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.
    A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.
    Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 20th, 2018 at 05:45 PM.

  12. #231
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I'm expressing what I hold to be right and wrong and trying to justify why I believe the way I do. I'm not going out and killing others because of the belief they or I hold. I'm not demonizing the person because they are a human being but identifying an action that I see is wrong, then showing the justification for my belief. The command is to love others. Love speaks truth even when it is not politically correct to do so. I am not acting hatefully towards homosexuals. The Christian is instructed to give to those in need, regardless of their beliefs. If I see someone in need and I can give them a meal or shelter I'm not to discriminate because of their belief system.

    On a debate forum, it is a different case. The forum is here to debate/showcase belief systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No one is accusing you of killing gay people. I am saying that your words dehumanize the love between two gay people. That your statements and attitudes diminishes them. You do realize, even with the best of intentions you are actually hurting people with what you say.
    This is the pot calling the kettle black. You do precisely what you claim I do with the unborn as if it hurts no one.

    dehumanize: to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit

    As I have said before, my belief is based on the teaching of Scripture. As such, I see some acts as wrong. That does not mean I should treat a person I disagree with without dignity, nor does it say I can't know rightness from wrongness.

    When people stop speaking out against something wrong the wrongful act can become the norm. Any small group can foster their views on the majority by citing discrimination, bias, wrong. Does that make such beliefs "right"? No, not necessarily, but it just makes the position practicable. The discussion comes down to why something is right or wrong in the first place. If you can't answer that, then you can't justify anything as right or wrong. Why is your view the correct view? Is it because public OPINION has swayed your opinion? Justify that it is not. The problem is you do not have what is necessary for it to be right. You have no fixed standard of morality without God. Morality changes with culture, and it varies with time. Since there is no fixed reference point in your worldview, it very often defies and denies logic. Anyone with power can foster their likes on others. If you want to believe this kind of power is justifiable and if you wish to live that way that is your business, but I know better. If you're going to live with this belief, then I can't see how you can object to what Hitler did with German society or what Kim Jong-un does with his. Each to his own!!!

    According to one pro-gay-rights site, 76 countries still view homosexuality is wrong. There are also 13 States that still have anti-sodomy laws.

    https://76crimes.com/76-countries-wh...ty-is-illegal/

    Logically, either your country and my country is right, or they are wrong. Inevitably the view can't both be right AND wrong.

    Logically, the Law of Identity applies --> A=A.
    Logically, the Law of Non-contradiction applies --> A cannot = A and non-A at the same time and in the same manner.

    So, who is right? Is it those 76 countries or is it the rest? Who decides? Justify that it is you and your liberal views?

    Once you open the door for one small minority belief why can't you open it to other small minority views also, like polygamy, incest, beastiality, S & M? It all depends on who is in power to what opinions they hold, but don't tell me they are right unless you can provide the ultimate standard rather than shifting opinions. When you permit something based on feelings instead of what is right or wrong, you set a president to do it with other desires and likes. That is the danger we face when we concede right for wrong. Moral relativism becomes the norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have no skin the the game but if someone said the same things about my own love with my wife, I would not be happy.
    Sure you have skin in the game. You do not want to be proven wrong. You also do not want to accept the biblical view.

    The point I was making regarding killing is that there is a difference between expressing a view that something is wrong and killing a human being because you see something as wrong. I can't (nor would I) kill someone because I saw something as wrong. A pregnant woman has a choice to kill another human being because she and other people do not see it as wrong.

    I have stated what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business unless I know they are hurting others. I have reiterated that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong for the reason that God made men and WOMEN to pro-create. Thus He sanctified the marriage of a man and a woman as acceptable in His sight. He does not promote sexual promiscuity in any form since it degrades the REASON He made us such creatures of desire.

    So I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong. What you and the society you live in is trying to do is shut down everything that you do not agree with as wrong by demonizing Christianity - calling them hypocrites, villanizing their position and censoring it. IMO, you and liberals want the freedom to promote your beliefs but want to deny Christians the same right. You do not allow me the right to believe according to my faith (and this is always the underlying issue in these debates with atheists - censorship of the religious view).

    Since my view disagrees with yours, you want to show it is wrong. To do so, you have to justify that you have a measure that can be justified. Can you do that?

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...cular-Morality

    The biblical God does not condone all sexuality. You do not tolerate all sexuality. We have a difference of opinion on this issue regarding homosexuality. Because my opinion does not conform to the majority spoon feed opinion or your opinion, you believe I am wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No matter how you justify it, if you follow the golden rule and apply it to yourself, it’s pretty much dehumanizing when you fall their love wrong. Religion was used to argue against interracial marriages too with much the same justifications by Christians who were otherwise decent people.
    Jesus also said regarding those who believe in Him:

    Matthew 5:13-15 (NIV)
    Salt and Light
    13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
    14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

    Where does your light come from and is it a fixed address? Are you enlightened?

    Also, something that can be seen as hurtful is not necessarily intended to be so.

    2 Corinthians 7:8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— 9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. (NIV)

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The sooner you admit that you are hurting people and dehumanizing them the better. I’m not asking you to justify your opinion nor to defend your religion. I just want you to see the truth of what you’re doing.
    So, let's get this straight. I object via biblical principles because that is my worldview.

    I want you to see the truth of what you are doing, as well as determine your justification, or lack of it.

    What others do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business as long as it is not hurting innocent people, IMO. I take into account that we are all answerable to God and my position is not to condemn but I can judge right and wrong. When people want to foster their belief in the mainstream public domain and change what has always been the definition of marriage I object via biblical principles. What I am concerned with is the truth and rightness of the views we are debating. Christianity is villainized and dehumanized because Christians dare to speak the truth in love. We are called racist, bigots, homophobes, hypocrites, low-lifes and a host of other derogatory words. Often I am derided by those who hold a different view and do not want me to have the same freedom of declaring my views, while they have the freedom to express theirs. There is a double standard here.

    When you can't justify that your subjective view is any better than any other relative, subjective view other than by power and force it is a concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    WHAT? Where have I ever expressed being okay with aborting a baby? I have done what is called 'trotting out the toddler' to show the difference between the unborn and newborn or toddler is one of four different qualities - Size, Level of Development, Environment, Dependency. On the basis of those four common qualities, I have shown there is no difference in what the being IS before or after birth and have tried to bring this point home by arguing that the standard you use to take a life before birth is the same one you use to preserve life after birth. You appear to be okay with killing an innocent human being because you don't value it as a human being.

    There is only one kind of abortion I agree with. That is when the mother's life is at risk and there is no way to save the unborn because of its viability.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Let’s just focus on the abortions you agree with where the mother’s life is at risk. And we know this from an early stage. Do you see it is morally equivalent to abort as soon as possible versus waiting another few months?
    If the mother dies then unborn dies, so it is not a moral equivalent. If the unborn cannot be saved either way, then the mother's life becomes the priority.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This is the question that is asked for all the other abortion cases and that is why we distinguish between an embryo and a baby. Because you refuse to accept these distinctions, you must therefore be OK with killing a baby when the mother’s life is at risk even though it could have been aborted sooner. Correct or not correct?
    Not correct.

    The distinction between an embryo and a baby is one of MATURITY, not a difference in kind. Both are the same human being in different stages of development. This is the DISTINCTION you fail to recognize or just want to marginalize to justify abortion.

    The difference between killing the unborn and not killing the unborn in the case of where the mother's life is at stake is the unborn will die anyway. Its development is not enough to survive on its own outside the womb. It is unavoidable it will die. When this is the case, and it is the only case in which I see abortion as justifiable, I see it as defensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I was thinking of the hypocrisy on your part as I read Post 209. I wanted to reflect on it before commenting. Your position is insensitive to what is going on regarding abortion. You recognize that the unborn is a human being, but that does not matter to you. You don't seem to care that innocent human beings are being butchered in the millions every year, mostly because of lifestyle choices. You seem to think that because they are in the early stages of development that it justifies killing them. You have turned the tables to villanize my position on this and other issues. It is the double-standard of the left all over again. Once the argument does not go your way, you start ad hominem attacks based on the Christian faith. I see an ultimate authority as determining right and wrong. If you want to justify your position on a moral stand then either open a thread on morality and abortion or morality and relativism to discuss it.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That’s not quite what it is. You spent half your time, unnecessarily I might add, to convince me over linguistics. You said this was done for the purpose of dehumanizing the baby. I pointed out instances where dehumanizing humans is done all the time, including from Christians when it comes to homosexuality. This isn’t an attack on your faith - it is to point out your hypocrisy.
    It is not dehumanizing. I see a gay man as being as human as you are. I understand some things he does as wrong from a biblical standpoint.

    I am not hypocritical to my worldview regarding same-sex marriage. I have expressed the teaching of Scripture. If I were hypocritical as a Christian, I would pratice, or state and condone the opposite of what is shown in Scripture while teaching others not to do as I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I also discussed and you agreed that education and contraception is a good way to mitigate the need for an abortion. This the number of abortions is reduced. And that’s a good thing.
    I might add, contraception or birth control that is done to prevent fertilization, not after fertilization which is killing a human being. Abortion is birth control after fertilization is murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Last time I checked, I was still allowed to express my belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course you are. As am I. And I am pointing out some of your hypocrisies.
    I am consistent with the biblical standard on such issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Sometimes I can't justify what I or others professing a belief in Jesus Christ do. If I believe something is wrong I can provide the reasons why.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t care how you justify your hate. I ask only that you empathize with the people you are hurting and acknowledge that pain.
    Pure nonsense. Again, you villanize me and stigmatize me as hateful, the exact thing that many liberals do in your country. Because I disagree with you-you are labeling me hateful.

    Wayne Lapierre, CEO of the NRA, raised some sound talking points at CPAC. The media has smeared the NRA just like it has smeared Christians and Conservatives in the stance against abortion because liberals hate our value system. It is a political and control issue, as Lapierre pointed out, to restrict free speech and make us less free. Now, "new European style socialism" is taking over. This socialism is the kind seen in leftist big government states around the world who think they, "the intellectual elites," are "smarter and better" than the rest. So often it begins by villanizing and suppressing the rights of the people without having an objective best to mirror goodness through. They do so to make their ideology the mainstay of society. They think they know better than God. They don't want Christians or Conservatives to challenge their authority because they want the State, Big Government, to rule the day. So they SMEAR.

    Lapierre says, "The loss of transparency is a loss of truth." "It does not have to be true; it just has to stick somewhere, anywhere. It is designed to degrade and destroy, and it is all over the national media to serve their agenda. And Socialism is a movement that loves a smear. Racist, misogynist, sexist, xenophobe and more. These are the weapons and vitriol these character assassinations scream to permanently hang on their targets and create a growing segment of victims because socialism feeds off manipulated victims...they keep their movement growing by finding someone to be offended by something every minute of every day."

    This is the kind of country that is being pushed for by big liberal, leftist government and its propaganda machine, big media, its educational systems, and the gatekeepers of society (such as those with money like George Soros). They want control in every area of life. It is a power game.

    Abortion is just one of its many victims. Christians are becoming another.

    Again, you are hurting the unborn to death in your complicity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    There is a difference between being hateful and disagreeing on what is right and wrong. Do you understand that difference? Who determines right and wrong? As I said, I would be glad to discuss the merits of your atheistic beliefs as opposed to my Christian beliefs in regards to morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    A discussion between a fact based moral system versus on based on ignorance should be done elsewhere. And would probably be a good one. However, it is distracting because I’m not opposing your Christian views. I am saying you are being hypocritical in your application of those views.
    How is repeating the biblical teaching being hypocritical?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You invoke your religious beliefs (atheism) too because you want to deny me my right to my belief. It is a worldview war. What you choose to do as a man in the privacy of your home it your business as long as it does not harm others, IMO. When you say that gay marriage is right you bring into the discussion my belief on the subject, which is that God created both MAN and WOMAN for marriage and procreation. He sanctified that union, not some other union. He speaks out against other ACTS of sexuality as immoral and displeasing to Him.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, first of all, this is not my first rodeo - I can probably argue your side as well as you can. This isn’t about your religion - it is about your hypocrisy. That you argue from one side of your mouth that pro-choicers demonize humans, much like Nazi’s and slave owners did. And from the other side of your mouth, you demonize acts of commitment and love. The point is that you are just as guilty of demonizing and dehumanizing as everyone you accuse of. It doesn’t matter what your justifications are: you’re literally doing it.
    Again, I am not dehumanizing or demonizing them. I recognize their value as human beings. I also realize that some things human beings do are not moral or right. The question I keep asking you is why are your moral likes any better than any other persons? Is it because some person in power makes their likes the law of the land or is it because there is an ultimate standard of appeal that is best that moral values can be compared to?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Even though I see your moral justification as inadequate if those are the standards you hold to I am all for your right to hold your beliefs except when you act on those beliefs to kill other innocent human beings. It is when those beliefs kill/murder others that I object to them and want to express why.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    My moral justification to kill an embryo or as early in the pregnancy is possible should be the same justification you should be making. That baby that will kill its mother is just as innocent as any other so once you understand your own reasons why it’s morally better to abort an embryo rather than a baby, once you admit that there is a distinction then we can move on. After you with draw all your other false comparisons that it.
    You keep trying to sneak in these different stages of development to conceal that the zygote, embryo, fetus, is a human being.

    I have listed the ONLY situation where killing the unborn is justifiable. The distinction is that the unborn will not survive either with the mother or without the mother because once the mother dies the unborn will not live. I have repeatedly asked what makes different levels of development criteria for killing a human being because that is what you are condoning, so establish it is a false comparison. The distinction is in the level of development, not in kind of development. An human embryo is still a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Since you continue to attack the man I will respond again because you are making it personal.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s not an attack if it accurately describes your double-standards. It is a factual description of your stated positions.
    It is an attack when you call me hateful and demonize me with such language.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    1. I pointed out that I believe it is wrong based on my belief system. It is 'right' based on your belief system. The problem is that both systems of thought cannot both be logically right. I invite you to justify your belief system. It is a moral issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure but if it’s right to kill a baby in the circumstances where the mother’s death is a risk then you must also distinguish between an embryo and a baby in that situation. If you do distinguish between the two then you need to withdraw all the other claims that such comparisons are nazi like and dehumanizing. If not then you are nazi like and dehumanizing.
    No, not between an embryo and a baby but between saving at least one instead of both dying. If the mother dies, the unborn will die too. If the unborn is aborted in this one situation then the mother will live. That is the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    2. If both the unborn and newborn are human beings it is not me who is discriminating against the human being by dehumanizing it and supporting its killing on the preference of the female, but you and she.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You already agree that babies can be aborted in the case where the mother’s life is at risk! You’re “killing on the preference of the female” too! Are you literally losing track of what your own opinions are?
    I don't know of how many different ways I can express this and it still not register (you continue to ignore my justification). There are some situations in which the unborn cannot be saved and rather than the woman die also the unborn is aborted to save a life.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    3. How do you ever come to this conclusion? Where have I not advocated for the life of all human beings, except in justifiably specific cases? Please give examples because I believe you may be taking what I said out of context or just plain changing what I believe (putting words in my mouth) to VILLANIZE me because I don't think the same way you do on these issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There’s no villanizing going on - you’re being hypocritical and I have explained multiple times already in previous posts and several times here. If you do not understand why you are a hypocrite we can take even more slowly but I am getting tired of explaining to you the same thing over and over again.
    I have answered your criticism multiple times.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I have replied to all three of your responses.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You have ignored every point I made so I had to explain them again. You specifically haven’t answered:

    1. In the situation where you agree that a preganancy should be aborted, do you agree or disagree that it is more moral to kill the embryo or wait until it is a baby? Or are they morally the same to you because making such distinctions is ‘dehumanizing’?
    The unborn is going to die anyway, for we don't have the technology to save it. The mother will also die unless we perform the abortion. We have the technology to save her. Thus, we choose the less evil.

    The embryo and the baby are both the same human entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    2. Do you believe that when a gay couple marry in a secular civil marriage, and nothing to do with religion, that this is an act that should be demonized? If so, do you not see that you are dehumanizing that act?
    Marriage or union? Civil union or a civil marriage?

    One objection to secular civil marriage is that God ordained marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
    Another is that God identifies particular unions as wrong. These include same-sex unions (unnatural and not intended), unions before marriage (fornication), bestiality (sex with an animal), incest (sex with a member of one's family), pedophilia (sex with a child), and sexual relations with someone other than a spouse.

    Peter

  13. #232
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    This is the pot calling the kettle black. You do precisely what you claim I do with the unborn as if it hurts no one.
    Um, you forget that you're the one being called out your hypocrisy. Just to be clear, youíre the one saying dehumanizing is a bad thing. Iím just pointing out that you are also being dehumanizing.

    As I have said before, my belief is based on the teaching of Scripture. As such, I see some acts as wrong. That does not mean I should treat a person I disagree with without dignity, nor does it say I can't know rightness from wrongness.
    When you call someone's love and marriage as being wrong then you are by definition not treating them with dignity! Think about what you're saying - the religious also used their religion to see mixed race marriages as being wrong. It doesnít matter how you justify what you say, it is still hurtful and still demeaning and still removing their dignity. It's simple, what if someone said that your own marriage is wrong and that your religion is wrong?

    Why is your view the correct view?
    Well, in a diverse and multicultural and multiracial country and world, applying your own religion onto others is absolutely wrong. Your personal opinions and how you wish to apply your own religion is up to you. But the moment you act on them by voting then that is a religious act.

    Is it because public OPINION has swayed your opinion? Justify that it is not.
    Of course public opinion has swayed me - every conversation with "Christians" that see themselves as holding some kind of moral high ground on the issue makes me know how wrong those positions are. Some of those Christians even believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and other Christians aren't as strong in their beliefs about divorces.

    The problem is you do not have what is necessary for it to be right. You have no fixed standard of morality without God. Morality changes with culture, and it varies with time. Since there is no fixed reference point in your worldview, it very often defies and denies logic.
    Meh. Just because you have a fixed standard of morality, it doesn't make it a good one! The problem with such a 'fixed' standard is that you have to bend over backwards to justify ridiculous pronouncements. So I don't quite see your advantage here.

    Basing one's opinions on new information is absolutely the best way to approach morality - you can just look at the differences between the old and new testaments to see how the contradictions that your 'fixed standards' get you. Your own religious beliefs aren't even consistent - Islam, from the same God, has totally different opinions on many other moral questions too! And the Mormons, again based on the same "fixed" God came up with weird things like magic underwear and not drinking coffee. The only thing "fixed" with your "standard of morality" with your "God" is that anyone can make stuff up all the time! It is literally the least fixed set of ideas about practically everything!

    Anyone with power can foster their likes on others. If you want to believe this kind of power is justifiable and if you wish to live that way that is your business, but I know better. If you're going to live with this belief, then I can't see how you can object to what Hitler did with German society or what Kim Jong-un does with his. Each to his own!!!
    Well sure - then don't gay marry but also keep your bigoted opinions on the matter back in the '50's where they belong!

    So, who is right? Is it those 76 countries or is it the rest? Who decides? Justify that it is you and your liberal views?
    Easy: if an moral opinion is based on religion then it's more than likely wrong. It's usually held by hypocrites that don't treat all religious statements equally and tend to attack the most weakest of our society. They see their opinions as being harmless yet have no compunction in offering them when asked. Yet, they likely are much more reticent when talking about other moral wrongs such as divorce or promiscuity where they give those transgressors a free pass. The bigoted hag that refused to sign marriage licenses was thrice divorced is a perfect example of this.

    Once you open the door for one small minority belief why can't you open it to other small minority views also, like polygamy, incest, beastiality, S & M? It all depends on who is in power to what opinions they hold, but don't tell me they are right unless you can provide the ultimate standard rather than shifting opinions. When you permit something based on feelings instead of what is right or wrong, you set a president to do it with other desires and likes. That is the danger we face when we concede right for wrong. Moral relativism becomes the norm.
    Your lack of sophistication in sexual matters is made worse by your lack of understanding about the idea of 'consent'. That you put S&M and polygamy, both of which are wholly consensual acts between adults along with incest & bestiality are usually not, means that you have not considered your religious pronouncements very much: you're just following along like a sheep. More hypocritically, you're OK with gays doing whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom but not multiple people and you feel that sexual gratification has to fit whatever limited view of sex you have.

    That you are not confident in humanity learning about our sexual selves in order to make the right moral decisions means that you lack confidence in yourself. Your lack of knowledge is apparent and your lack of curiosity, understanding and empathy is galling when it comes to those matters that you apparently deem important enough to make religious moral statements about; but somehow not important enough to learn about.

    So your ignorant opinions on matters that you can't be bothered to find out about are irrelevant. Those that have taken the trouble to understand things and can justify them in vigorous debate will always win out. Your insular and deliberate lack of knowledge means that you don't qualify to debate properly - you're just proselytizing to people that are not held to your religion.

    Sure you have skin in the game. You do not want to be proven wrong. You also do not want to accept the biblical view.
    I'm pretty sure that knowing about something trumps not knowing about something. I am confident that I am right.

    The point I was making regarding killing is that there is a difference between expressing a view that something is wrong and killing a human being because you see something as wrong. I can't (nor would I) kill someone because I saw something as wrong. A pregnant woman has a choice to kill another human being because she and other people do not see it as wrong.
    Being right or wrong is not a black and white issue - there are shades of gray and different levels of wrongness. That you don't see the subtly in all matters human, and especially all matters sexual, along with your general ignorance and (limited and ancient) one-sided view point kinda puts you in a moral disadvantage.

    I have stated what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business unless I know they are hurting others.
    You have stated that - I don't disagree. However, just in this very post you hypocritically say that S&M is wrong! So you can't even keep your own morality straight for very long!


    I have reiterated that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong for the reason that God made men and WOMEN to pro-create. Thus He sanctified the marriage of a man and a woman as acceptable in His sight. He does not promote sexual promiscuity in any form since it degrades the REASON He made us such creatures of desire.
    OK. Let's go with that. If God is saying promiscuity is wrong, why do you focus on the minor issue of homosexuality? Why not expend your moral energy on the big problems and not bully those who are weaker in society? God also apparently made humans to worship him and not others, the first three commandments are preserving his own skin, so why aren't you out there protesting about other religions? Why does it matter to you that a small minority of people wish to be legally recognized together as spouses?

    So I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong. What you and the society you live in is trying to do is shut down everything that you do not agree with as wrong by demonizing Christianity - calling them hypocrites, villanizing their position and censoring it. IMO, you and liberals want the freedom to promote your beliefs but want to deny Christians the same right. You do not allow me the right to believe according to my faith (and this is always the underlying issue in these debates with atheists - censorship of the religious view).
    Woah. Stop there - no-one is saying you aren't allowed to hold a position. You're just not allowed to force other people to listen or go along with your beliefs. You're fully allowed to defend it, even though your knowledge is both ignorant and hypocritical and inconsistently applied. It's clear after a few rounds that your religion is where you stopped learning and that's fine too: just don't expect it to be very persuasive!

    Also, something that can be seen as hurtful is not necessarily intended to be so.
    It is when you are told by people that they are being hurt.


    One objection to secular civil marriage is that God ordained marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
    And that's fine - then you do that: other people of other religions don't have to follow your views.

    Another is that God identifies particular unions as wrong. These include same-sex unions (unnatural and not intended), unions before marriage (fornication), bestiality (sex with an animal), incest (sex with a member of one's family), pedophilia (sex with a child), and sexual relations with someone other than a spouse.
    I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't say much about sex with children, as much as you wish it to be so, that is most certainly a modern invention. In fact, until recently, girls as young as 12 could be married in the Vatican. In fact, Mohammed of Islam fame, a cousin religion of Christianity married a 9 year old!

    So here we are. Not only have you been shown to be ignorant and hypocritical in matters sexual and now we have to add to it some deliberate fabrications. Just because pedophilia is now 'unpopular in public opinion', to use your own term, you now want to jump on the bandwagon against pedophilia, even though your own Bible says little and may even justify it (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sa...edophilia.html).

    I'm not sure where to go from here. It's pointless for you to argue more because you're literally not going to say anything new or bring up points that are novel or interesting: I already knew what you'd say even before you said it. Unfortunately, after many years of debating Christians on these matters, gets dull - the 'fixed' point of morality that you're so proud of makes discussions kinda boring since ultimately, you have no opinions of your own - you're just parroting your religion, being deliberately ignorant of new information and adding nothing new.

    You didn't even realize that in your own post you repeated yourself multiple times, as if you were on automatic and not really having a discussion of import. So unless you're going to add something new to the discussion, I suggest you bow out. At the very least, edit your post a bit! Much appreciated.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 6th, 2018 at 03:47 AM.

  14. #233
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    What I did was respond to your post point by point. That is my habit. You made a statement, I responded, I replied - as simple as that.

    1) You were the one who prolonged the discussion of homosexuality on an abortion thread. In fact, you brought up the topic in Post#207:

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Even here on ODN, conservative Christians feel free to liken homosexuals to pedophiles whilst denying them the right to marry. And they have no problems calling the transgendered mentally ill.
    I expressed my worldview position, and you expressed your secular position. Only one of the two positions can be true since they state opposites.

    Do you want hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is telling me I villainize homosexuals and call it wrong while all this time you villainize Christians and call them wrong and you devalue the unborn and make it a lesser being than you are. You continually dehumanize the unborn human being.

    You are free to hold your views, but it seems to me you do not allow me the freedom to believe what I do without condemning me, the very thing you criticize me for doing. And you can't justify why your worldview is "right" other than because "Of course public opinion has swayed me..." You don't like it that Christians identifies a higher appeal that is a fixed measure for morality.

    ***

    Here is some of the language you use to belittle my faith, my viewpoint:

    Post 209 - The problem happens when Christians apply their religion onto others that do not share their faith. Please be accurate as to who is in the moral wrong in this situation.

    Here is a situation where you get to submit your view of wrong yet want to deny Christians their view. How is that not hypocritical? We witness Conservative opinions being shut down on liberal campuses and in secular media outlets.

    Post 209 - Your own words are as hateful as the actions of others. And that hatred is a slippery slope to the persecution and discrimination that is practiced among Christians to this day. So don’t separate yourself from your other religious brethren.

    You have characterized my words as hateful as well as that of other Christians.

    Post 209 - You don’t really care much for the babies that we have and you certainly only recognize only certain kinds of love. You don’t even distinguish between stages of a baby so according to what you have said thus far, you’re fine with aborting a viable baby even though it could have been done earlier.

    Again, you demonize me by projecting your thoughts about me into my character (basically a character assassination). I am not okay with killing the unborn or the born so please don't misrepresent my position.

    Let me correct the record. I do care about human life from conception onwards. I focus on the abortion issue because of 1.5 billion deaths since Roe v. Wade. I recognize the different levels of development although my point was to highlight the growth regarding its humanity, not lessen it by calling it "the embryo of a human." I am not "fine" with aborting a baby, whether viable or not. There is one exception to aborting the unborn; when it is not viable and can't survive because if the mother dies, it will die also. I the unborn is viable there is no excuse to abort it.

    Post 219 - Maybe instead of defending someone who has been exposed as a hypocrite you might want to respond to my last post with you.

    You have labeled me a hypocrite. I point the finger back to you hoping that you see the hypocrisy in your stance in that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing. You are devaluing a human being and condoning its execution.

    Definition of hypocrite
    1
    : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2
    : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

    A biblical definition:
    Matthew 7:5
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.


    https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...egin=47&end=73

    Post 221 - I don’t care how you justify your hate.

    Again, you are projecting that I hate homosexuals. I have already explained otherwise. I have identified the act as wrong biblically. Do you have to hate someone because something they do is wrong?

    Do you hate your wife because she has done something wrong?

    The example is the kind of argument you are making.

    I may think the act is wrong, but I am told to love the sinner because God has shown the same mercy to me. Again, I gave you my definition of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-8). It is the highest form of love. Sexual attraction is a lesser form of love - it, so often, seeks its pleasure, its purposes.

    Post 221 - A discussion between a fact based moral system versus on based on ignorance should be done elsewhere.

    Again, you 1) paint the picture that MY moral system is based on ignorance and 2) that it is not fact based. You seem to think because you can get two people in a particular belief system (Christianity) to disagree on a point that it makes the entire Christian system devoid of fact. I will admit that when I go against what the Bible teaches I am ignorant, but just stating it based on disagreement does not make it so. Also, the facts are an appeal to Scripture, RIGHTLY interpreted. So, if you are going to accuse me of misinterpretation, then we'll appeal to the facts - the words of Scripture.

    Post 221 - I am saying you are being hypocritical in your application of those views.

    1 Timothy 1:10
    It is for those who commit sexual sins. It is for those who commit homosexual acts. It is for people who buy and sell slaves. It is for liars. It is for people who tell lies in court. It is for those who are a witness to things that aren’t true. And it is for anything else that is the opposite of true teaching.

    Romans 1:25-28
    25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
    28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

    Post 221 - This isn’t about your religion - it is about your hypocrisy. That you argue from one side of your mouth that pro-choicers demonize humans, much like Nazi’s and slave owners did. And from the other side of your mouth, you demonize acts of commitment and love. The point is that you are just as guilty of demonizing and dehumanizing as everyone you accuse of. It doesn’t matter what your justifications are: you’re literally doing it.

    No, I would be hypocritical if I said one thing and practiced another. My belief system recognizes some things as wrong, just as yours does. I'm not inconsistent with my belief system in regards to these issues. Since you mention justification, the question is how do you justify your belief system? It does not have what is necessary for justification because it has no fixed address. It can mean two opposite things depending on who holds the view. Why does your view (the view you side with) have to be the one that IS right? It doesn't have the grounds to be right. It is a shifting ethical system. Not long ago, the opposite view of what you hold was considered wrong. Now it's right? How is that so? How can something defy the laws of logic in that its identity can mean two contrary things?

    Post 232 - Well sure - then don't gay marry but also keep your bigoted opinions on the matter back in the '50's where they belong!

    Again, you stigmatize my belief as bigoted and antiquated. It is not, but what makes yours better? Because you see things differently? First, establish that your morality is based on a necessary standard that is universal and best. Your system of thought does not have what is necessary to demonstrate this. Go ahead and try without borrowing from the Christian worldview.

    Post 232 - Easy: if an moral opinion is based on religion then it's more than likely wrong.

    It would depend on the religion, and it would depend on the issue, so you are making another generalization again that lumps most religious people together into buffoons.

    Post 232 - It's usually held by hypocrites that don't treat all religious statements equally and tend to attack the most weakest of our society. They see their opinions as being harmless yet have no compunction in offering them when asked. Yet, they likely are much more reticent when talking about other moral wrongs such as divorce or promiscuity where they give those transgressors a free pass. The bigoted hag that refused to sign marriage licenses was thrice divorced is a perfect example of this.

    This language is loaded with derogatory remarks against my belief system and depending on false generalizations once again.

    Your religious belief system (atheism - yourself as self-appointed god) would apply too. You see your opinions as being harmless, but in effect, it turns people away from the only true hope and eternal life based on subjectivism, uncertainty, and a hopeless future.

    Again, the hypocrisy is apparent. You talk about other moral wrongs such as you see my belief system while giving your own a pass. You appear to see no bigotry or prejudice in your own.

    The lesson about the woman at the well was a lesson for each of us too.

    Post 232 - Your lack of sophistication in sexual matters is made worse by your lack of understanding about the idea of 'consent'.

    Again, you degrade my position as simplistic and lacking understanding. You continuously do what you accuse me of doing by treating me in an unloving, demoralizing, inhuman, morally inferior, and intellectually beneath you manner. There is a word for this, but I won't use it except to say that it stinks of intellectual elitism.

    Post 232 - That you are not confident in humanity learning about our sexual selves in order to make the right moral decisions means that you lack confidence in yourself. Your lack of knowledge is apparent and your lack of curiosity, understanding and empathy is galling when it comes to those matters that you apparently deem important enough to make religious moral statements about; but somehow not important enough to learn about.

    I recognize the frailties of human learning. Again you stigmatize me as the one having a lack of knowledge, curiosity, understanding, and empathy. Why can't it be you? You are not open to the Christian system of thinking because you think yours is superior when in fact it is not. If you want to get into epistemology, we can do that.

    Post 232 - So your ignorant opinions on matters that you can't be bothered to find out about are irrelevant. Those that have taken the trouble to understand things and can justify them in vigorous debate will always win out. Your insular and deliberate lack of knowledge means that you don't qualify to debate properly - you're just proselytizing to people that are not held to your religion.

    Again, it is you who are presupposing all kinds of things. You downgrade my ability to understand. I'm open to debating you, depending on the format of the debate.

    I recognize the battle of ideas going on here. I see you are proselytizing too and you don't even realize it. You have a desire to be proven right and a desire to promote your belief system as superior.

    proselytize:
    1) convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another
    2) advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)

    ***

    Here is a sample of some of the language you use to dehumanize the unborn:

    Post 203 - A fertilized egg is hardly a human - your emotional argument that this is anything more than a tiny bundle of cells is just ridiculous. It’s no worse than biting your nails.
    Post 203 - I’m not talking about the potential - only you are. I am talking about an embryo with barely a brain and certainly no mind that can be dispatched with quickly so as to cause the least amount of suffering.

    The unborn is a human being from the moment of fertilization when it becomes a separate life form. When you try to downgrade the human being based on its level of development you discriminate against it. Would you say a toddler is a lesser human because it is less developed than an adult, or that is it not a human being because it is not as developed? This is the argument you are making with the unborn because of its brain and other development.

    Either the unborn, from the moment of conception, is a human being and deserving of the same protections of any other human being, or it is some other kind of being. Do you believe the unborn from fertilization/conception is some other kind of being? If not, then what gives you the right to treat it as less than it is? If you so determine that some human beings are less of a human being you are doing what so many throughout history have done in getting rid of the downgraded. This is precisely what our societies are doing with the unborn - degrading it into non-existence at the whim of the pregnant woman and legislation. Legislation downgraded the slave and it downgraded the Jew, in just two of many examples. It is evil.

    Post 207 - It is an embryo of a human being; or a fetus of a human being; or a baby.

    An embryo of a human is a human being. It is not some other kind of being. Again your fuzzy words downgrade it.

    Post 207 - And yes, it is a life being extinguished: it’s baffling that this continues to be pointed out.

    What makes killing one human being a matter of choice and killing another a matter of murder? Again, you are basing it on level of development. So why can't a mother kill the toddler based on its level of development being lesser than hers (and on goes the slippery slope)? The unborn is no less of a human being than the toddler or the mother. Both, all three, have the same nature, one being less developed than the other just like the toddler is less developed than the mother.

    Do you understand the argument?

    Post 207 - The distinction is not to dehumanize the embryo but to point out that if you’re going to abort it then that is a good time to do because there isn’t much brain function to feel the pain and no awareness because the frontal cortex (arguably what makes us actually “human”) doesn’t really exist.

    Again, this reasoning is faulty. IT IS a human being and yet here you go again, dehumanizing and degrading it. Its level of development does NOT make it less of a human being. Everything it is or will ever be is contained in its DNA structure at conception. You ARE making a false distinction (i.e., arguably what makes us actually "human"). What makes us human is whether or not we have a human nature.

    Post 207 - So yes, it is meant to “dehumanize” the embryo - to make it more ethical to kill.

    Finally! You admit the purpose it is dehumanized is to kill it. That is the motive. This is the same logic the Nazis used. It is the same language the American South used in regards to the slave. You have admitted that when you dehumanize it, it gives you more leeway to ETHICALLY kill it???? Apply those standards to other human beings. The Germans believed (through propaganda) that Jews were subhuman, not to the same level of humanity that the Aryan race was. Thus, they too believed it ethical to kill them.
    Their level of development was not up to the Aryans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race

    Post 207 - However, the distinction between an embryo, a fetus and all the stages through to birth allows us to determine the line between legality and illegality.

    It is an artificial distinction you are making. Again, the embryo, the fetus in all its stages from conception is just as much of a human being as you are. Its nature is no less human than yours is.

    Post 207 - Whilst that baby is in the womb, it is part of her body - it’s why there’s a limit: at some point post viability of some percent (50%) it is considered an independent enough life that abortion is unwarranted.

    1) Here you use the term baby, but earlier on you used the term embryo.
    2) It is not part of her body; it is a separate being who is dependent on her. The toddler is also a different human being that is dependent on her, but she does not have the "right" to kill it. Why not? It still depends on her. If she neglects it, then it can die. The toddler is "part" of her body when it breast-feeds. Does that make it okay to kill it?
    3) You make the limit based on level of development once again.
    4) You also make it in regards to its location. How does location change what a human being is?

    Post 207 - Plus, I get the privilege of seeing a partial birth abortion on a daily basis in TapaTalk.

    Again, you dehumanize and degrade the human being - "the PRIVILEGE"?

    Post 207 - legal abortion is better than what came before which was the death of both the mother and baby. Now it is done legally which allows the government to step in an make sure it is done safely and ethically.

    So it is better to kill/murder a human being rather than permit it to live? The percentage of cases in which the mother or babies life is threatened is minimal, a tiny percentage.

    Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

    While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”

    https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

    1% of over 50 million abortion in the USA alone.

    Is it "better" to kill an innocent defenseless human being? You think so because of its location and level of development. Such a ridiculous argument.

    ***

    Finally, in Post 209 you admit - "Firstly, nobody is masking that a human being is killed during an abortion. That is the point of the abortion; just like an execution, it is to ensure that there is one less human being on the planet."

    So, it is okay to kill human beings! Everyone, grab your guns. See how ridiculous this line of thought is?

    Post 221 - Let’s just focus on the abortions you agree with where the mother’s life is at risk. And we know this from an early stage. Do you see it is morally equivalent to abort as soon as possible versus waiting another few months?

    In a tubal pregnancy if the unborn continued to grow it would kill the woman and in the process also die, since we don't have the means to sustain its life. There is no moral equivalent here. You artificially try to manufacture one. We are not seeking to kill either. If we don't take the life of the unborn, then both will die instead of just the one.

    Post 221 - That baby that will kill its mother is just as innocent as any other so once you understand your own reasons why it’s morally better to abort an embryo rather than a baby, once you admit that there is a distinction then we can move on. After you with draw all your other false comparisons that it.

    I have painstakingly explained the difference. What I am saying is not registering to you. You are talking past me, not trying to understand my points.

    It is not morally better to kill the unborn; it is necessary to save a life because if the one life is not taken then, both will die. It is unavoidable.

    Post 228 - The other evil is that banning abortion will just drive it underground. Or in some cases, newborns are just left to die. Or they will end up living in a situation where they are despised or adopted where there will be other issues. To ignore that there going to be unwanted babies is to misunderstand the issue. So I ask you: do you agree that there are reasons why women may not want their pregnancy to not come to term?

    Driving it underground will lessen the cases of abortion if you take a look at the stats from when abortion was made legal (the massive spike in abortion statistics) and the enormous increase it doing abortions. I laid those stats out in another post.

    Post 232 - Um, you forget that you're the one being called out your hypocrisy. Just to be clear, you’re the one saying dehumanizing is a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that you are also being dehumanizing.

    I'm calling you out for yours, and no, I am not hypocritical in my viewpoint based on my system of belief nor am I dehumanizing anyone. I am calling what is wrong as wrong.
    If you tell your daughter something is wrong, does that mean you hate her? That is an example of the argument you are using on me.

    Post 232 - When you call someone's love and marriage as being wrong then you are by definition not treating them with dignity! Think about what you're saying - the religious also used their religion to see mixed race marriages as being wrong. It doesn’t matter how you justify what you say, it is still hurtful and still demeaning and still removing their dignity. It's simple, what if someone said that your own marriage is wrong and that your religion is wrong?

    I base marriage on the biblical definition. I believe it is sacred because it is ordained by our Maker. I think homosexuality is not natural but a perversion of what the Maker - God - intended. It is not natural for distinct reasons.
    1) It does not promote humanity. If everyone were gay humanity would soon die out because the natural act between a man and a woman determines our existence - one generation in which everyone practiced homosexuality would eradicate humankind.
    2) To be explicit, it is not natural where the action takes place - a place that expels waste.

    Post 232 - Of course public opinion has swayed me - every conversation with "Christians" that see themselves as holding some kind of moral high ground on the issue makes me know how wrong those positions are.

    Wrong because of your moral high ground? What you did here was pitch your moral view as the higher ground. What makes it so - because you and those you LIKE think it "BETTER?" Where do you get your ultimate standard from? Let me tell you; you get it from moral relativism, some subjective viewpoint that passes itself off as better than mine without what is NECESSARY to make it better. Do you want to know what (logically) would make it better? An objective, ultimate, universal, all-knowing eternal fixed BEST. How do you get there from where you start?

    Answer: You don't. Hence, you are imposing your subjectivity on others not knowing your relative "best" is what wars are fought over. It is what every malicious and greedy, self-seeking wrong in humanity is based - relative morality.

    Post 232 - Just because you have a fixed standard of morality, it doesn't make it a good one! The problem with such a 'fixed' standard is that you have to bend over backwards to justify ridiculous pronouncements. So I don't quite see your advantage here.

    I have argued why it is better. It is better because it has a fixed BEST, a final measure that all others can be compared to and discerned from. You, on the other hand, make up your measure by subjective preference. WHY IS YOUR SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE ANY BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE?

    News for you: It is not unless you have what is NECESSARY to make it so.

    Post 232 - Basing one's opinions on new information is absolutely the best way to approach morality -

    Again, whose BEST? Yours? Your "BEST" is not what I call best in many of your views.

    Post 232 - you can just look at the differences between the old and new testaments to see how the contradictions that your 'fixed standards' get you. Your own religious beliefs aren't even consistent - Islam, from the same God, has totally different opinions on many other moral questions too! And the Mormons, again based on the same "fixed" God came up with weird things like magic underwear and not drinking coffee.
    The only thing "fixed" with your "standard of morality" with your "God" is that anyone can make stuff up all the time! It is literally the least fixed set of ideas about practically everything!

    The OT and NT deal with two different covenants. Until you understand this, you will understand neither.

    God took a people and based on the ANE culture they lived in, showed them what kind of standard He required of them and other cultures. He taught them what it was like to be holy as He was holy and that unless they conformed to His holiness, they would be separated from His presence. The LESSON is that no human being can live up to that perfection that is God's righteousness, but One - His Son. Human history shows how when we live according to our relative standards evil is present everywhere because we are not the ones who determine goodness by our subjectivity. That is the lesson of human history.

    You confuse Islamic or Mormon beliefs as equivalent to the Christian belief system. They are not. They are contradictory.

    Sure people can make things up, but Christians have a written standard that is our measure, not what others might do or say that contradict it.

    ***

    POST 232:

    Post 232 - That you put S&M and polygamy, both of which are wholly consensual acts between adults along with incest & bestiality are usually not, means that you have not considered your religious pronouncements very much: you're just following along like a sheep.

    I identify it as perverted according to the biblical definition. So what?

    Post 232 - More hypocritically, you're OK with gays doing whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom but not multiple people and you feel that sexual gratification has to fit whatever limited view of sex you have.

    It is none of my business what they do for I am not their judge. I just know it is wrong and I'm expressing it is wrong from a Christian worldview.

    I'm sure you would think some kinds of sexual gratification are wrong, like raping a woman for fun and the sexual gratification of doing so. So even you make the distinctions between right and wrong regarding sexual gratification. We just disagree on which ones, in some cases.

    25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions

    So why is your standard BETTER than mine?

    Post 232 - I'm pretty sure that knowing about something trumps not knowing about something. I am confident that I am right.

    Pretty sure? How sure is that?

    Post 232 - Being right or wrong is not a black and white issue - there are shades of gray and different levels of wrongness. That you don't see the subtly in all matters human, and especially all matters sexual, along with your general ignorance and (limited and ancient) one-sided view point kinda puts you in a moral disadvantage.

    Either you are right, or you are wrong. That is black and white. You can't be both right and wrong at the same time regarding the same issue. I agree that some things are hard to determine the rightness or wrongness of the act or belief.

    I see one kind of sexual expression as acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, sex within a marriage between a man and woman. I see within that act of sex somethings that are still not acceptable, like raping your wife or hurting her by maliciously tying her up.

    The moral disadvantage comes from not being able to recognize the difference between right and wrong; between what is permissible and what is not.

    Post 232 - You have stated that - I don't disagree. However, just in this very post you hypocritically say that S&M is wrong! So you can't even keep your own morality straight for very long!

    It is not my job to be their moral police. They are answerable to God. If they want or ask for my opinion, I will give it.

    My responsibility is to live with what I know is right before my Creator. That is what I have to answer for, including any unkind words, any unkind acts, and the motivation behind my words and actions. I am thankful that I have a perfect righteousness that is not my own as an Advocate before my Creator, the heavenly Father. That Advocate pleads my case based on His righteousness.

    Post 232 - If God is saying promiscuity is wrong, why do you focus on the minor issue of homosexuality? Why not expend your moral energy on the big problems and not bully those who are weaker in society? God also apparently made humans to worship him and not others, the first three commandments are preserving his own skin, so why aren't you out there protesting about other religions? Why does it matter to you that a small minority of people wish to be legally recognized together as spouses?

    Why do you think homosexuality is a minor issue?
    As for bullying, you brought up the issue. I responded.

    What is worthy of our worship that is greater than God?

    I try to represent the Christian belief to the best of my ability, so I do protest and lend my voice against false gods who are made in the image of humanity. That would include atheism. It is a belief that recognizes the atheist as the highest power. He/she places himself/herself in place of God. You have continually shown me that your position is the bee all and end all for no other reason than that you hold it, and ultimately you acknowledge no authority as more potent than your own authority, IMHO. You are the final arbitrator in what you believe. (^8

    If God exists, and He does, then it is not a matter of my belief or yours but His. It matters because we have to give account to Him.

    Post 232 - Stop there - no-one is saying you aren't allowed to hold a position. You're just not allowed to force other people to listen or go along with your beliefs. You're fully allowed to defend it, even though your knowledge is both ignorant and hypocritical and inconsistently applied. It's clear after a few rounds that your religion is where you stopped learning and that's fine too: just don't expect it to be very persuasive!

    Ah, back to the mudslinging - ignorant, hypocritical and inconsistent!

    How am I forcing you to listen or go along with my beliefs? I learned a long time ago that I could not convince someone of something against their will.

    "Convince a man against his will; he remains the same unchanged still."

    I can apply the same principles to your religion, the religion of self. You stopped learning when you looked to yourself as the final authority, the one who decides what is and is not true. As if you know.

    Post 232 - ME: Also, something that can be seen as hurtful is not necessarily intended to be so.
    Post 232 - YOU: It is when you are told by people that they are being hurt.

    I could tell a child not to touch a hot stove because it will hurt them. They may do it anyway and get hurt. If you can't distinguish between something that is hurtful and something that is not (the love of God), then you are going to find out the hard way. It may be too late to prevent hurt. In the same way, if you can't distinguish between right and wrong in some areas, or you don't want to, you are going to hurt yourself because of your lifestyle. I have a grandchild that is gay. There is nothing I could ever do to convince that person otherwise but pray for them. In fact, my beliefs (knowing I am a Christian and recognizing homosexual acts as wrong) have hurt that person's feelings. I am protective of that person as a human being, always hoping the best for them. I see the ridicule that the person goes through in their daily life and I don't like that they are being hurt. I am sorrowful for their bondage. I don't talk to them about their practices or express my belief to them now I know they are gay. My heart goes out to this grandchild, hoping/praying God will bring that person to His grace and mercy.

    Post 232 - And that's fine - then you do that: other people of other religions don't have to follow your views.

    It either is or it is not right. There is no middle ground. Logically, two opposing views cannot both be true. Either you are right or I am right. So how do you know which it is? Is your mind the ultimate determiner of right and wrong? It would have to be if there is no higher authority other than subjective humanity.

    Post 232 -I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't say much about sex with children, as much as you wish it to be so, that is most certainly a modern invention. In fact, until recently, girls as young as 12 could be married in the Vatican. In fact, Mohammed of Islam fame, a cousin religion of Christianity married a 9 year old!...Just because pedophilia is now 'unpopular in public opinion', to use your own term, you now want to jump on the bandwagon against pedophilia, even though your own Bible says little and may even justify it"

    It says enough for me to know with certainty harming children is wrong and something God takes very seriously:

    Matthew 19:13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    Matthew 18:2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

    Harming a little child is not something that God takes lightly.

    Post 232 - I already knew what you'd say even before you said it.

    I had a good idea of the same old points you would bring up since I have been a Christian for 38 of my 62 years. I have been engaged in forums for many years now. Before my profession of faith, I investigated a handful of beliefs, and I have done so after too, but only to refute them.

    Post 232 - the 'fixed' point of morality that you're so proud of makes discussions kinda boring since ultimately, you have no opinions of your own - you're just parroting your religion, being deliberately ignorant of new information and adding nothing new.

    Ultimately, for you, your opinion is the ultimate opinion, which is kinda boring also. There is nothing new under the sun. You are parroting what has been parroted through the ages. It is not new information, and there is no certainty in what you believe because you don't have what is necessary for assurance.

    Post 232 - You didn't even realize that in your own post you repeated yourself multiple times, as if you were on automatic and not really having a discussion of import. So unless you're going to add something new to the discussion, I suggest you bow out. At the very least, edit your post a bit! Much appreciated.

    I'm older and not as observant as I used to be. My brain is slowing down and I usually respond to each statement a person makes, unless I figure it is redundant. So, the repetition comes because of your comments. (^8

    Peter

 

 
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 07:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  5. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •