Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Reply to topic
Texan Christian
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:30 am  Abortion Reply with quote

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless Smile
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 61: Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:57 pm
Reply

Like this post
jgh7 wrote:

Clownboat wrote:

I was afraid you might be making an emotional argument.
A terminated fetus does not qualify as a human being for not yet having superior mental development, power of articulate speech, or an upright stance. If it survives the 50% abortion rate set up by the gods (as many presume), and it is not removed by the mother, then it would likely reach the human being qualifier.
Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion.


I'm sorry but this is one of the worst set of criteria I've heard for defining a human being. Everything you said would mean that babies aren't human beings either. Try again, and maybe look up some or your sides definitions for human beings. They're all sorely lacking, but they're better than yours.


hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 62: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
Clownboat wrote:


hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.


Ah, I see the problem. You are taking the distinguishing characteristics of a fully developed member of a species and applying it to underdeveloped members of the same species. This makes DNA irrelevant. Well, this kind of negates all of the objections that you and others have made regarding the grouping of animals in the Scriptures. If, in a matter of life and death, you can discard DNA identification, why can't the Scriptures group animals without regard for DNA, for much lesser reasons?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 63: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
So, are you arguing that all people with inferior mental development, do not have the power of articulate speech and can not stand upright are not human? Well, that would mean that bed ridden mutes with down's syndrome are not human. Is that really your argument?

No, that is not what I argued. You responded to what I argued, yet missed it. How did you manage that?
Cut/paste: "Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion."

Quote:
It is my understanding that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
Then in this context, where you are insisting on calling it the killing of a human being, then no, we do not judge people for such a thing as you should know, abortions (the removal of a fetus, not a human being) are legal.

Quote:
To clarify, if any of us are to actually kill a human being, we have laws in place for that and people are then judged.


Quote:
Do you believe that all laws are right?

No. Odd question though.

Quote:
What we do all of the time is hold people responsible for what they do with their bodies. It is common to justify the killing of humans by first dehumanizing them, as with the debilitated, mentally inferior and disabled, as you have done with your definition of what is not human.

No question to respond to here, so I'll just correct your mistake.
I cut/pasted the definition for human being above. I did not create it.

Quote:
OK, so let's leave deities out of this. Is it acceptable to kill mute down syndrome cancer patients for convenience, because 50% will die anyway?

I wouldn't think so, but please present your case for why we should do such a thing and I'll see if I find it credible or not.

Notice, I'm not arguing that since 50% of conceptions abort naturally that abortions should then be allowed. They are already allowed.
What I notice is that the people that rail the most against a women being able to choose to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not, generally worship a god concept that would be responsible for the 50% natural abortion rate. The irony!

Quote:
If it isn't fair to ask you unknowable questions about unknown entities that may not even exist, why is it fair for you to ask me about them?

I don't make claims on behalf of unknowable god concepts. Therefore it is not fair to ask me about any unknowable god concepts as if I should know.
You are in a different bed though. You made this bed, and you need to sleep in it.

Quote:
All of the things I have said so far about deities are in response to your statements regarding deities. If you don't wish to discuss deities, stop discussing them.

Impossible since I am discussing the 50% natural abortion rate that god believers must be OK with for following such a god concept in the first place. Would you prefer I discuss chess here?

Quote:
Do you think that it was appropriate for a mother to engage in infanticide in Germany and India in the late 19th century, because only 50% of children survived to the age of 5?

No.
You must think, that I think a women has a choice to carry a fetus to term or not has something to do with a god concept coming up with process that aborts 50% of conception. My Pro Choice views have nothing to do with the gods.

Quote:
You are the one who is making arguments about deities.

False. I'm not aware of the existence of any deities for me to make arguments about.

Quote:
I am just attempting to address your justification for killing the unborn.

Please list my justifications for killing the unborn. It certainly has nothing to do with any god concepts creating a process that naturally aborts 50% of conceptions though.

Quote:
No, I am deliberately trying to focus on the issue. If the unborn are not human, what are they?

zygote
morula
blastocyst
The most accurate semi generic term would be fetus or embryo though.

Some women choose to abort an embryo that they do not want.
Some religious people worship a god that they credit for creating us. This god concept therefore gets credit for aborting 50% of conceptions.
This does not justify abortions IMO, but it sure is ironic.

Quote:
I am sorry you find this discussion difficult, but if we focus on the nature of human life and not dogma regarding what constitutes human life. it might be easier.

Sounds like you are chastising me for pointing out your usage of terms that are not very accurate.
I have already stated that an embryo and a human don't have the same value. You then went on to use the term human being as if we are not talking about aborting a fetus. I'm then left wondering if you are talking about humans or the less valued embryos. Your chastising is misplaced.

Quote:
Well, if one believes that deities are human that might be something you could discuss with them. However, I am not one of them.

Let's clarify what you are then how about.
You are a religious person that credits a god for creating everything, including a process that aborts 50% of conceptions.
You're also against a women choosing to not attempt to carry a fetus to term.
I notice some irony.

Quote:
There are humans systems where 50% of puppies die. What can dogs do about that? Is it therefore acceptable for dogs to kill their own puppies, just because humans set up systems that kill their puppies?

No. Again, I do not attempt to argue Pro Choice because some god concepts are claimed to have created a system where 50% of conceptions abort naturally.

Now, if I was responsible for aborting 50% of puppies, would you not find it ironic if I judged any dog for aborting? Keep in mind, I would be responsible for millions/billions of natural dog abortions. This is where the irony comes in.

Quote:
We are talking about abortion here. We do not abort human beings. I can only assume you having nothing but an appeal to emotion by your continued obfuscation. This is telling.


Quote:
No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?

This is a child of the species Homo sapiens. So yes, they are a human.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens...

I would once again ask you to use accurate terms.

Quote:
No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?

Already answered.

Quote:
Regarding the previous things you quoted, you have not established that HUMAN embryos and fetuses are not human, but have merely stated it as so.

That's because I argue from their value.
What you call them doesn't affect their value, but it can cause the dialog between us to suffer.

Quote:
How would a jury make such a decision? On what would they base such a decision?

Please cite the specifics of the case.

Quote:
After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.

I said we do not abort human beings and I have stated that the value of a fetus is not the same as a human being.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 64: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:08 pm
Reply

Like this post
bluethread wrote:

Clownboat wrote:


hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.


Ah, I see the problem. You are taking the distinguishing characteristics of a fully developed member of a species and applying it to underdeveloped members of the same species. This makes DNA irrelevant. Well, this kind of negates all of the objections that you and others have made regarding the grouping of animals in the Scriptures. If, in a matter of life and death, you can discard DNA identification, why can't the Scriptures group animals without regard for DNA, for much lesser reasons?


Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of a human being, or how you now feel that DNA is irrelevant, or to discuss some stories in your holy book.

If you don't like the definition for Human Being that I copied for you from online, then perhaps you would prefer to supply your own and argue for why it is superior. Maybe you can even successfully distract from the actual debate and turn this into a discussion on the definition of words.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 65: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:34 pm
Reply

Like this post
Clownboat wrote:


If you don't like the definition for Human Being that I copied for you from online, then perhaps you would prefer to supply your own and argue for why it is superior. Maybe you can even successfully distract from the actual debate and turn this into a discussion on the definition of words.


This being the shorter of the posts, I will address it first.

You're the one who provided the definition in support of your viewpoint. If the definitions of words are not relevant, why did you do that? If they are relevevant then it behooves you to justify your use of that definition as a support for your argument. So, are we to proceed with that definition as the sole determinant for what is and what is not human?


Last edited by bluethread on Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 66: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:49 pm
Reply

Like this post
Clownboat wrote:

Quote:
So, are you arguing that all people with inferior mental development, do not have the power of articulate speech and can not stand upright are not human? Well, that would mean that bed ridden mutes with down's syndrome are not human. Is that really your argument?

No, that is not what I argued. You responded to what I argued, yet missed it. How did you manage that?
Cut/paste: "Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion."


That is not what I was responding to. I was using the definition, which you provided, to try and determine at what stage it is acceptable to kill an organism made up of human DNA. The definition you provided excludes many that current law consider to be human beings.

Quote:
Quote:
It is my understanding that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
Then in this context, where you are insisting on calling it the killing of a human being, then no, we do not judge people for such a thing as you should know, abortions (the removal of a fetus, not a human being) are legal.


Oh, you are speaking of legal judgement. Well, there are legal judgements being made all of the time regarding the removal of a human life form from the womb. Current law does not permit all abortion prior to birth. Do you believe that the law is wrong about that? When is it that you believe that what you claim to be nonhuman becomes human?

Quote:
Quote:
To clarify, if any of us are to actually kill a human being, we have laws in place for that and people are then judged.



Quote:
Do you believe that all laws are right?

No. Odd question though.


Then why are you holding up current law as an absolute standard? Do you believe in absolute stare decisis?

Quote:
Quote:
What we do all of the time is hold people responsible for what they do with their bodies. It is common to justify the killing of humans by first dehumanizing them, as with the debilitated, mentally inferior and disabled, as you have done with your definition of what is not human.

No question to respond to here, so I'll just correct your mistake.
I cut/pasted the definition for human being above. I did not create it.


You are using it as a justification for your argument, are you not? If so, then it behooves you to show how it supports that argument.

Quote:
Quote:
OK, so let's leave deities out of this. Is it acceptable to kill mute down syndrome cancer patients for convenience, because 50% will die anyway?

I wouldn't think so, but please present your case for why we should do such a thing and I'll see if I find it credible or not.

Notice, I'm not arguing that since 50% of conceptions abort naturally that abortions should then be allowed. They are already allowed.
What I notice is that the people that rail the most against a women being able to choose to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not, generally worship a god concept that would be responsible for the 50% natural abortion rate. The irony!


Are you arguing for abortion or against irony? What of those who make the secular argument, as I am doing here? What argument would you make against an atheist who opposed abortion?

Quote:

Quote:
If it isn't fair to ask you unknowable questions about unknown entities that may not even exist, why is it fair for you to ask me about them?

I don't make claims on behalf of unknowable god concepts. Therefore it is not fair to ask me about any unknowable god concepts as if I should know.
You are in a different bed though. You made this bed, and you need to sleep in it.


I have made no such argument here. You have presented that straw man argument in support of your view. If you wish to argue about theistic irony, then why does that obligate me to do so? I am discussing the ethics of abortion.

Quote:
Quote:
All of the things I have said so far about deities are in response to your statements regarding deities. If you don't wish to discuss deities, stop discussing them.

Impossible since I am discussing the 50% natural abortion rate that god believers must be OK with for following such a god concept in the first place. Would you prefer I discuss chess here?


No, I would prefer you discuss why abortion done by humans is acceptable? Are you saying that the apparent irony of some theistic views is a justification for abortion performed by humans?

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think that it was appropriate for a mother to engage in infanticide in Germany and India in the late 19th century, because only 50% of children survived to the age of 5?

No.
You must think, that I think a women has a choice to carry a fetus to term or not has something to do with a god concept coming up with process that aborts 50% of conception. My Pro Choice views have nothing to do with the gods.


Well, you are the one who made the argument. Do you wish to withdraw it now and discuss the justifications for abortions performed by humans? If not, what do the actions of deities have to do with the actions of men, in your opinion?

Quote:
Quote:
You are the one who is making arguments about deities.

False. I'm not aware of the existence of any deities for me to make arguments about.

Quote:
I am just attempting to address your justification for killing the unborn.

Please list my justifications for killing the unborn. It certainly has nothing to do with any god concepts creating a process that naturally aborts 50% of conceptions though.


Well, that is a bit of a mystery, since you have done little more than make points regarding deities as a justification for whatever those views are.

Quote:
Quote:
No, I am deliberately trying to focus on the issue. If the unborn are not human, what are they?

zygote
morula
blastocyst
The most accurate semi generic term would be fetus or embryo though.

Some women choose to abort an embryo that they do not want.
Some religious people worship a god that they credit for creating us. This god concept therefore gets credit for aborting 50% of conceptions.
This does not justify abortions IMO, but it sure is ironic.


So, there are some people who hold ironic views regarding the killing of a zygote, morula, blastocyst, fetus and/or embryo. However, what makes those things nonhuman and/or grants a human the right to kill them.

Quote:
Quote:
I am sorry you find this discussion difficult, but if we focus on the nature of human life and not dogma regarding what constitutes human life. it might be easier.

Sounds like you are chastising me for pointing out your usage of terms that are not very accurate.
I have already stated that an embryo and a human don't have the same value. You then went on to use the term human being as if we are not talking about aborting a fetus. I'm then left wondering if you are talking about humans or the less valued embryos. Your chastising is misplaced.


You appear to be arguing that embryos of humans are not human. On what do you base this?

Quote:
Quote:
Well, if one believes that deities are human that might be something you could discuss with them. However, I am not one of them.

Let's clarify what you are then how about.
You are a religious person that credits a god for creating everything, including a process that aborts 50% of conceptions.
You're also against a women choosing to not attempt to carry a fetus to term.
I notice some irony.


What does what I may believe about a deity, ironic or otherwise, have to do with the nature of a fetus and the ethics of killing one?

Quote:
Quote:
There are humans systems where 50% of puppies die. What can dogs do about that? Is it therefore acceptable for dogs to kill their own puppies, just because humans set up systems that kill their puppies?

No. Again, I do not attempt to argue Pro Choice because some god concepts are claimed to have created a system where 50% of conceptions abort naturally.

Now, if I was responsible for aborting 50% of puppies, would you not find it ironic if I judged any dog for aborting? Keep in mind, I would be responsible for millions/billions of natural dog abortions. This is where the irony comes in.


Are you making this argument or not. First you present the argument, then you object to my engaging your argument, then you present a response to my engagement of your argument. I think you really need to make up your mind. Is that your argument or not?

Quote:
Quote:
We are talking about abortion here. We do not abort human beings. I can only assume you having nothing but an appeal to emotion by your continued obfuscation. This is telling.


Quote:
No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?

This is a child of the species Homo sapiens. So yes, they are a human.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

I would once again ask you to use accurate terms.


Just so I can be sure to use accurate terms, when does one become a child of the species Homo sapiens and on what is that designation based? Does one need to have "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" to be considered a child?

Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the previous things you quoted, you have not established that HUMAN embryos and fetuses are not human, but have merely stated it as so.

That's because I argue from their value.
What you call them doesn't affect their value, but it can cause the dialog between us to suffer.


Ah, you are making an economic arguement. You should have said so. So, what is it that gives a human value and at what point does that value make one subhuman?

Quote:
Quote:
How would a jury make such a decision? On what would they base such a decision?

Please cite the specifics of the case.

Quote:
After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.

I said we do not abort human beings and I have stated that the value of a fetus is not the same as a human being.


I have stated the relevant facts, a woman is heading to an abortion clinic having stated her intent to have the abortion. She is then harmed such that the child aborts naturally. Of course, she can sue for damages and pain and suffering. However, do you believe that she should prevail in a suit for compensation for a lost child?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 67: Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:49 am
Reply
Re: Abortion

Like this post (1): Clownboat
Texan Christian wrote:


Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?



Of course it is.

Is it preferable? No, it isn't.

However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing. This is true of all men stating their opinion on this thread.

It is a woman's right to choose. Her body, her choice.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 68: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:44 am
Reply
Re: Abortion

Like this post
Tcg wrote:

Texan Christian wrote:


Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?



Of course it is.

Is it preferable? No, it isn't.

However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing. This is true of all men stating their opinion on this thread.

It is a woman's right to choose. Her body, her choice.



Until it comes time to pay. If she decides to deliver the child and rejects the father, he becomes an indentured servant for 18+ years. This is enforced by the government, because she is granted the title of "single mother", which is deemed a protected class.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 69: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:22 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing.


I have not noticed that ethics are ever sex/gender related. ie, what is right and what is wrong does not depend on whether I am male or female or something inter-sex between. There seems to be a higher determination than that.

Best wishes, 2RM

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 70: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:23 pm
Reply

Like this post
2ndRateMind wrote:

Quote:
However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing.


I have not noticed that ethics are ever sex/gender related.



Have you ever noticed which sex/gender gets pregnant? Taking note of that may help you understand my point.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version