What percentage of the Bible do you/should you follow?

[atheist buddy]

There are hundreds upon hundreds of edicts in the Bible.

Stuff ranging from "Don't murder" to "Kill any two men caught having gay sex". From "Don't allow women to speak in church", to "Rape any virgin who's family you killed". From "Don't steal" to "Don't wear a t-shirt made of two different fabrics". From "Love thy neighbor" to "The just decree of God is that people who gossip deserve death". From "don't work on the Sabbath" to "Kill anybody who works on the Sabbath".

Questions for debate:

What percentage of the Bible's edicts and decrees do you follow?

On what basis do you determine which decrees should be followed and which ones shouldn't?

Are there any decrees in the Bible that if you knew your neighbor followed them, you'd be tempted to call the police, or move to a different neighborhood, or forbid your children from visiting your neighbor's home?

If you look back to 500 or 1000 years ago, would you guess that on average people followed a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees than you do now?

If you had to guess, would you think that 500 or 1000 years from now, if things continue to follow recent trends, people on average will follow a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees?

[sf]

Are dietary or dress codes moral laws?

There were referred to as abominations, so I would say so. What do you say?

An abominations is something that is strongly disliked or hated.

After a discussion about cities of refuge (for people who unintentionally kill another) and putting an (intentional) murderer to death, Numbers chapter 35 says:

"So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel." (verses 33-34)

That sounds more serious than an abomination. Furthermore, a distinction seems to be made between things that are an abomination to God (which I would consider a moral law) and an abomination to the Israelites. Here are a few examples:

"And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. ... but all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:1-2, 23) non-moral

"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; ... The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God."
(Deuteronomy 7:1, 25) moral

"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." (Deuteronomy 22:11) non-moral

[bluethread]

.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is determined by the consumer. Therefore, everything has a different value based on whom you ask.

Finally, something with which I can agree.

Thus, no absolute or universal values have been assigned by one of the hypothetical "creators" or "gods." Right?

I didn't say anything about values, ie morals. I am speaking of merit. There may very well be absolute values, but the value of each them varies from person to person. Which has greater value, "Thou shalt not steal", or "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Different people would have different answers.

So morality in your view, is completely arbitrarily, relative and subjective?

Different people have different answers?

No, a am not talking about moral values, but the economic value of things. Even moral values can not be said to have intrinsic economic value. What one values varies from person to person, even if the thing valued is absolute. Some people value human life higher than a women's right to self determination. Others value a women's right to self determination higher than human life. Neither moral value has intrinsic economic value.

[Ancient of Years]

What percentage of the Bible should one follow?

0.01%

Matthew 19:16-19

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?
Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.

Which ones? he inquired.

Jesus replied, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.

84 words in this passage versus 783137 words in entire Bible equals 0.01%

[atheist buddy]

What percentage of the Bible should one follow?

0.01%

Matthew 19:16-19

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?
Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.

Which ones? he inquired.

Jesus replied, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.

84 words in this passage versus 783137 words in entire Bible equals 0.01%

Well, these words are a very very mediocre moral message, aren't they?

Who, in their right mind, would put the commandment not to commit adultery right between the commandments against murder and theft? That implies that somehow adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is) is just as bad as muder and stealing.

Secondly, why does Jesus say that one should honor his parents, but not that you should treat your children well? It seems weirdly unbalanced. It directly implies that one should honor his parents even when they mistreat you as a child.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the worse one of all. If you are suicidal and love yourself so little that you want to kill yourself, does that therefore give you the right to kill other people?

You know who loves his neighbors as much as himself: A SUICIDE BOMBER. That's right. He doesn't treat them any different than he treats himself.

Also, isn't there something missing here? Wouldn't any 8 year old be able to come up with a couple additional things that should have been added and which Jesus NEVER EVER did? "Do not own slaves" and "Do not treat women as anything other than equal".



Lastly, the 800 pound gorilla in the room: When asked Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? Jesus totally endorses the notion that one should be moral so as to get rewarded for it later. That's not morality. That is fundamentally misguided. What Jesus should have said is "If you are doing good things to avoid punishment or to earn rewards, you are not truly being good. As a moral person, you should do good thing for no ulterior motive, but just because it's good to do good things.


Big fail.

[Bust Nak]

An abominations is something that is strongly disliked or hated.

An appropriate description of immoral actions, no?

After a discussion about cities of refuge (for people who unintentionally kill another) and putting an (intentional) murderer to death, Numbers chapter 35 says:

"So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel." (verses 33-34)

That sounds more serious than an abomination. Furthermore, a distinction seems to be made between things that are an abomination to God (which I would consider a moral law) and an abomination to the Israelites. Here are a few examples:

"And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. ... but all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:1-2, 23) non-moral

"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; ... The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God."
(Deuteronomy 7:1, 25) moral

"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." (Deuteronomy 22:11) non-moral

What about "a woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God?" Or "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Are they for all people or just old laws made irrelevant by the new covenant?

[Blastcat]

.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is determined by the consumer. Therefore, everything has a different value based on whom you ask.

Finally, something with which I can agree.

Thus, no absolute or universal values have been assigned by one of the hypothetical "creators" or "gods." Right?

I didn't say anything about values, ie morals. I am speaking of merit. There may very well be absolute values, but the value of each them varies from person to person. Which has greater value, "Thou shalt not steal", or "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Different people would have different answers.

/viewtopic.php?p=716430#716430]Blastcat[/url]"]
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forumSo morality in your view, is completely arbitrarily, relative and subjective?

Different people have different answers?

No, a am not talking about moral values, but the economic value of things.

What are the "THINGS" that you're talking about?

Looks like "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not bear false witness" are pretty much moral values TO ME.

Even moral values can not be said to have intrinsic economic value.

Hard to argue with that.. hard, but perhaps not impossible.
Depends on what you mean by "intrinsic" .. but in HUMAN SOCIETIES... moral values CAN be said to have intrinsic economic value.

* I take "economic value" to mean MONEY *

You might have heard of libel laws. There are GREAT amounts of economic value to what is true in certain societies. America is one such society that DOES happen to confer a great deal of economic value to what is true of false.

What one values varies from person to person, even if the thing valued is absolute.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

If everything we value is subjective, then what is the truth about anything? Nothing can be agreed on?

If everything one values is subjective, then isn't TRUTH also subjective, as most folks VALUE the truth in a different way from person to person?

Is the truth itself a variable subjective thing from person to person?

Some people value human life higher than a women's right to self determination.

Some people might put that differently, too. Some people might value the life of a WOMAN higher than the life of a fetus. Some people might value the QUALITY of human life over the QUANTITY of human life.

Some people might value MALE decisions about female life over FEMALE decisions about female life.

Some people value religious rules about human life over scientific knowledge about human life.

Some people value EMOTIONAL decision making over rational decision making when it comes to human life.


Right, you're building a case for subjectivity. What people VALUE should be the criteria for what is true?

Because some people don't value science at all, or rationality at all. But is an anti-scientific , anti-rational attitude about life also what can be said as TRUE in any way?

If what is true to YOU is true.. then what is true to ANYONE else is also true.. if truth is only what we VALUE... and not what can be DEMONSTRATED.

Others value a women's right to self determination higher than human life. Neither moral value has intrinsic economic value.

Hate to break it to you, but you couldn't be more wrong.

We PAY more for things we VALUE MORE.

Guess what.. MORE people in the GOOD OLD USA don't VALUE the right of women to have abortions. We KNOW this because there aren't a whole lot of PLACES where a woman can get one easily. ( these places aren't funded.. with money, you see. )

VALUE means MONEY....

WE VALUE gold more than TIN.. and guess what?

GOLD costs a lot more than tin.

What we VALUE, pretty much by DEFINITION, is what we like. We pay more attention to what we value than what we don't value. We are willing to PAY more for what we value than what we don't value.

We are willing to pay for OTHERS to get what we happen to value more than what we don't value.

WE are willing to pay more money for things which we VALUE than for things which we DO NOT VALUE.

A lot of people pay a LOT of money to promulgate BELIEFS that they value over BELIEFS that they do NOT value.

And that INCLUDES beliefs about abortion issues.

WOMEN aren't as VALUED in our wonderful society... and maybe THAT'S why WOMEN generally get PAYED less for doing the SAME work.

Less value pretty much equals less MOOLAH. ( oh, call it economic value if you like )

MORAL VALUE pretty much equals MONEY.

How many people give MONEY to the KKK?

Not as many as in the good old days. THE REASON is that the KKK isn't seen as a good moral INSTITUTION any more.

How many CHURCHES are there in the good old US of A?

People tend to value churches .. ( or did in the past ) ..

VALUE... people used to value churches.. we have lots of churches.. it did take money to build all of them churches.

Odd how that works.

[Ancient of Years]

What percentage of the Bible should one follow?

0.01%

Matthew 19:16-19

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?
Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.

Which ones? he inquired.

Jesus replied, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.

84 words in this passage versus 783137 words in entire Bible equals 0.01%

Well, these words are a very very mediocre moral message, aren't they?

Who, in their right mind, would put the commandment not to commit adultery right between the commandments against murder and theft? That implies that somehow adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is) is just as bad as murder and stealing.

The church did not exist at the time of Jesus. All of that new round of rule-making came later. It was Jewish Law that was in effect. But Jesus chose to pick out certain commandments from the Big Ten to emphasize and did not even mention the 613 mitzvot.

The order of the shall not commandments is how they appear in the Jewish scriptures that Jesus is quoting. The original meaning of adultery involved violating marriage vows, either your own or someone elses (or both).

We can see this in the attitude of Jesus toward divorce, which Jewish Law did allow.

Mark 10

11 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.

There being no birth control in those days, and life being quite hard, the possibility of having to raise the child of another man was bad news. Similarly in those days when most women were utterly dependent on men, divorce would be really rough on them. Putting adultery in this sense between murder and theft sounds like a reasonable placement.

There were numerous rules about extra-marital sex in Jewish Law: rape, unexpected pregnancy and so forth. But there is no explicit forbidding of non-adulterous extramarital sex. We can see hints that it happened without the onus of grave sin that the churches lay on it. In the Book of Ruth, Ruths mother-in-law has Ruth go to Boaz while he is sleeping and do what he says to do to try to get him to marry her. (They are both dirt poor.) She uncovers his feet. (Ruth 3 It is not clear what happened but it is clear that Ruth was willing to do whatever. Boaz marries her.

But Jesus was not concerned with all that. His hot button here was adultery as a violation of marriage vows.

Your argument is mistaken. It seems to be based on a problem you have with the church. Catholic Church, right? Cant fault you on that one. But it does not apply to what Jesus is saying.

Secondly, why does Jesus say that one should honor his parents, but not that you should treat your children well? It seems weirdly unbalanced. It directly implies that one should honor his parents even when they mistreat you as a child.

Jesus is once more quoting Jewish scripture, the Big Ten again. What do you think a mistreated child should do to his/her parents? What exactly is mistreatment anyway? Most children think that they have been mistreated at one time or another. Are they to not honor their parents ever again?

You are talking about the exception, the child who is really and truly mistreated. Because that sort of thing does happen you want to say that parents who provide you with food, clothing, shelter, education and other needs and try to raise you with love and provide you with the understanding and sense you will need to survive in the world should not be honored.

Your argument does not work. It is based on trying to make the exception the universal case.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the worse one of all. If you are suicidal and love yourself so little that you want to kill yourself, does that therefore give you the right to kill other people?

You know who loves his neighbors as much as himself: A SUICIDE BOMBER. That's right. He doesn't treat them any different than he treats himself.

Your examples do not make sense.

Hating yourself as a reason for suicide does not translate into hating other people enough to kill them. The assumption is that normally one does not hate ones own self. Again you want to turn the (really wild) exception into the universal case. Does not work.

A suicide bomber does not hate himself. He loves himself so much he wants to reward himself with paradise right now. It is certain other people that he hates, the exact opposite of the command. This does not work either.

Also, isn't there something missing here? Wouldn't any 8 year old be able to come up with a couple additional things that should have been added and which Jesus NEVER EVER did? "Do not own slaves" and "Do not treat women as anything other than equal".

He also did not say Never run with scissors. If you really loved everyone else as you love yourself, you would treat everyone as an equal, which would also imply not owning slaves.

Although the church (and virtually every church) does not want people to know this, Jesus as really portrayed in the Gospels was pushing a return to true righteousness as the prophets preached (as opposed to the obsession with rules the Pharisees preached). His methodology was to base his arguments on Jewish scripture and tradition. He was not looking to create a new religion or a new way of thinking but simply to cut through the bull that was being touted as religion in those days and reinstitute original views on morality.

The things Matthew has Jesus say to do are not complete? So what? They are a good start (your mistaken or convoluted objections notwithstanding). And as the OP asked they are IMO the only part of the Bible worth following.

Lastly, the 800 pound gorilla in the room: When asked Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? Jesus totally endorses the notion that one should be moral so as to get rewarded for it later. That's not morality. That is fundamentally misguided. What Jesus should have said is "If you are doing good things to avoid punishment or to earn rewards, you are not truly being good. As a moral person, you should do good thing for no ulterior motive, but just because it's good to do good things.

Big fail.

Good things are those that make for a better world for all. As I said, the things Jesus said are a good start. It was not Jesus who raised the subject of eternal life. Apocalyptic expectations were in the air at the time. If the man had said How do I make the world a better place? would it have been wrong for Jesus to quote the familiar Jewish scripture that he did?

In any case you are missing the main point. (But then so do a lot of Christians.) Jesus did not bring up the 613 mitzvot. He even left out the theological and covet commandments of the Big Ten. Everything he said to do or not do is related to action that leads to real world results. No minutiae of rituals to follow. No mention of worship. In fact Jesus even downplays his role in the matter. Why do you ask me? There is only One who is holy. (And Jesus proceeds to quote God-given Mosaic Law to support the idea of action being key to goodness.) It is not about ritual or belief but about what you do. Dont murder. Dont cheat on your spouse. Dont steal. Dont lie. Honor your parents. Treat everyone well. Do you really think these things are very very mediocre? Sounds like a good start to making the world a better place.

[sf]

What percentage of the Bible should one follow?

0.01%

Matthew 19:16-19

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?
Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.

Which ones? he inquired.

Jesus replied, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.

84 words in this passage versus 783137 words in entire Bible equals 0.01%

Well, these words are a very very mediocre moral message, aren't they?

Who, in their right mind, would put the commandment not to commit adultery right between the commandments against murder and theft?

One who thinks they are all wrong?

adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says adultery is "sexual unfaithfulness of a married person."

An example of the same Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments rule against adultery is:

"But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!" (Ezekiel 16:32)

That implies that somehow adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is) is just as bad as muder and stealing.

That does appear to be what Jesus is implying.

Secondly, why does Jesus say that one should honor his parents, but not that you should treat your children well? It seems weirdly unbalanced. It directly implies that one should honor his parents even when they mistreat you as a child.

That depends on what you understand "honor your parents" to mean.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the worse one of all. If you are suicidal and love yourself so little that you want to kill yourself, does that therefore give you the right to kill other people?

No, because suicide wouldn't fall under loving oneself.

[bluethread]

No, a am not talking about moral values, but the economic value of things.

What are the "THINGS" that you're talking about?

Looks like "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not bear false witness" are pretty much moral values TO ME.

Yes, but they do not have the same value to everybody. "thou shalt not steal" has little value for the thief and great value for the victim. "thou shalt not bear false witness" has little value to the perjurer, but has great value to the accused.

Even moral values can not be said to have intrinsic economic value.

Hard to argue with that.. hard, but perhaps not impossible.
Depends on what you mean by "intrinsic" .. but in HUMAN SOCIETIES... moral values CAN be said to have intrinsic economic value.

"1.Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential."

That is not the case with regard to value. Value is determined by the person who wishes to use or acquire it and that varies not only from person to person, but time to time.

* I take "economic value" to mean MONEY *

No money is a means of exchange not a determinate of value. Something can be valueed in monetary terms, ie. the fine for perjury is the sentence of accused, in Torah law. The sentence of the accused is the means of paying for perjury.

You might have heard of libel laws. There are GREAT amounts of economic value to what is true in certain societies. America is one such society that DOES happen to confer a great deal of economic value to what is true of false.

However, that value is not inherent in the act. It is determined by the society, ie the judgment of the court.

What one values varies from person to person, even if the thing valued is absolute.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

If everything we value is subjective, then what is the truth about anything? Nothing can be agreed on?

If everything one values is subjective, then isn't TRUTH also subjective, as most folks VALUE the truth in a different way from person to person?

Is the truth itself a variable subjective thing from person to person?

My point is that you are conflating two different concepts. Even if truth is objective, it's value is still subjective. Let's use science as an example. Empirically , a rock objectively exists, but the value of the rock depends on who wants to use or own it. The fact that values, like rocks, have subjective value does not mean that they are subjective by nature. One can say objectively that they value something, but the actual value of that thing is subjective.

Some people value human life higher than a women's right to self determination.

Some people might put that differently, too. Some people might value the life of a WOMAN higher than the life of a fetus. Some people might value the QUALITY of human life over the QUANTITY of human life.

Some people might value MALE decisions about female life over FEMALE decisions about female life.

Some people value religious rules about human life over scientific knowledge about human life.

Some people value EMOTIONAL decision making over rational decision making when it comes to human life.


Right, you're building a case for subjectivity. What people VALUE should be the criteria for what is true?

No, you are not paying attention to what you are saying. It is not WHAT they value, but HOW they value it. Your examples show HOW people value things, but your conclusion speaks of WHAT people value.

Because some people don't value science at all, or rationality at all. But is an anti-scientific , anti-rational attitude about life also what can be said as TRUE in any way?

If what is true to YOU is true.. then what is true to ANYONE else is also true.. if truth is only what we VALUE... and not what can be DEMONSTRATED.

No, some people place very little value on science or rationality. However, yes, that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. I am not talking about truth of a "truth", but the value of a truth. They are two different things. A "truth" can be intrinsically true, but it can not have intrinsic value. The value resides in the one doing the evaluating, not in the object being valued.

Others value a women's right to self determination higher than human life. Neither moral value has intrinsic economic value.

Hate to break it to you, but you couldn't be more wrong.

We PAY more for things we VALUE MORE.

Guess what.. MORE people in the GOOD OLD USA don't VALUE the right of women to have abortions. We KNOW this because there aren't a whole lot of PLACES where a woman can get one easily. ( these places aren't funded.. with money, you see. )

VALUE means MONEY....

WE VALUE gold more than TIN.. and guess what?

GOLD costs a lot more than tin.

What we VALUE, pretty much by DEFINITION, is what we like. We pay more attention to what we value than what we don't value. We are willing to PAY more for what we value than what we don't value.

We are willing to pay for OTHERS to get what we happen to value more than what we don't value.

WE are willing to pay more money for things which we VALUE than for things which we DO NOT VALUE.

A lot of people pay a LOT of money to promulgate BELIEFS that they value over BELIEFS that they do NOT value.

And that INCLUDES beliefs about abortion issues.

WOMEN aren't as VALUED in our wonderful society... and maybe THAT'S why WOMEN generally get PAYED less for doing the SAME work.

Less value pretty much equals less MOOLAH. ( oh, call it economic value if you like )

MORAL VALUE pretty much equals MONEY.

How many people give MONEY to the KKK?

Not as many as in the good old days. THE REASON is that the KKK isn't seen as a good moral INSTITUTION any more.

How many CHURCHES are there in the good old US of A?

People tend to value churches .. ( or did in the past ) ..

VALUE... people used to value churches.. we have lots of churches.. it did take money to build all of them churches.

Odd how that works.

Well, your still conflating two different things. So rather than wade through your examples, let me simply ask you this. If I am wrong please tell me the precise value of a woman's right to choose in abortions? How many abortions is a woman's right to choose worth? We all know that a woman's right to choose is a value(principle) that many hold. Everyone agrees on that. However, what is the intrinsic value(worth) of that value(principle)? Is it one abortion, two abortions, maybe two and a half abortions? What is that precise intrinsic value(worth)? To be fair, we also all agree that the right to life is a value(principle) that many others hold. However, what is the precise intrinsic value(worth) of an unborn child? Is it the inconvenience of a woman, the health of a woman, the life of a woman? If these are intrinsic values(amounts) there should be a specific exchange rate for them that is acceptable to all, regardless of where one stands on the issue.

[Zzyzx]

.

So rather than wade through your examples, let me simply ask you this. If I am wrong please tell me the precise value of a woman's right to choose in abortions? How many abortions is a woman's right to choose worth? We all know that a woman's right to choose is a value(principle) that many hold. Everyone agrees on that. However, what is the intrinsic value(worth) of that value(principle)? Is it one abortion, two abortions, maybe two and a half abortions? What is that precise intrinsic value(worth)?

A common dodge when not faring well in debate is to raise a different issue. Apologists are prone to harp on abortion as though Believers had some moral high ground in being opposed to a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. They seem to claim to set high value on embryos and fetuses (and perhaps ovum and sperm?).

However, they seem unable to explain why Christian women account for half a million abortions per year in the US. Self-identified Christian women have as many abortions proportionately as other groups. The claimed "high morals" don't seem to matter much when those decisions are being made.

Where is the evidence of high value on embryos and fetuses in those cases?