Abortion Discussion

[tiglathpileser]

You're the one who implied that all people who perform abortions define a fetus as a baby. Not me.

Lol. Ok. So that entire paragraph had nothing to do with me. Got it. Even though you said "those who fight for abortion" like it pertained to everyone fighting for abortion. So what you meant to say was "Some people who fight for abortion", right?

One. As I said before the definition you use is determined by your worldview and I pointed out that fetus is latin for baby so in effect both call the abortion of a preborn baby a baby.

Two. Whatever. I am not perfect but I do realise that when you rely on yourself to be the benchmark for life you get into all sorts of twists and tangle to try and be perfect. In all honesty, the comment should be "most people who fight for abortion" as it seems to come up in nearly every conversation on the subject.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

One. As I have said, I don't live according to as dictionary. I live according to reality. I know that annoys you intensely but them's the facts.

I find you amusing, not annoying. And are you saying that you live in a reality where people make up definitions to words instead of using dictionaries? How would anyone communicate?

Two. A lot of people have a lot of degrees in everything but that does not necessarily make them intelligent. I have THREE university degrees and ONE theological degree so on your assessment I know more than you do.

You are the one that implied that what an abortion doctor calls a fetus is important. It's not. That's an appeal to authority fallacy. With THREE (all-caps) degrees you should know that.

Three. You are the one that is incorrect as it is YOU that is implying that I said all abortion doctors are killing babies. I have made it very clear in my original comment that what you beleive is determined by your worldview.

No, I said no such thing. I was responding to your claim that "According to the people performing the abortions it [abortion] does [kill babies]." I'm pointing out that redefining words to prove a point is dishonest. And that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

[tiglathpileser]

We have two victims. Does one deserve death ?

if one is dispassionate about this, any intelligent person would say that you don't solve a person's problem by the taking of innocent life. No one I would suggest except rapists, are enamoured by the incident and outcomes of rape, but is killing the baby going to solve the problem?

it is bad enough the trauma experienced caused by the rape and then to subject the victim to more trauma caused by abortion is callow to say the least and not really giving a damn about the woman's wellbeing.

The people who say they are pro-choice do not it seems to me want to give the woman who has been raped any choice. In their eyes there is only one solution and that is abortion. The fact is I have read many stories of women who conceived as a result of rape and refused to abort the baby, gave birth to it and loved it as their own.

If that is the woman's wish, I would say that is a far better outcome than having the baby killed physically and the woman killed emotionally. it seems to me that pro-aborts want to operate on the basis that one size fits all so no discussion is necessary.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I find you amusing, not annoying. And are you saying that you live in a reality where people make up definitions to words instead of using dictionaries? How would anyone communicate?

You are the one that implied that what an abortion doctor calls a fetus is important. It's not. That's an appeal to authority fallacy. With THREE (all-caps) degrees you should know that.

No, I said no such thing. I was responding to your claim that "According to the people performing the abortions it [abortion] does [kill babies]." I'm pointing out that redefining words to prove a point is dishonest. And that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

You obviously enjoy going round the mulberry bush so please continue to do so. I will pass to the other side of the road and have intelligent discussion with people who have something intelligent to say.

 

[Abraxos]

Calling it a fetus just makes people feel better about killing babies.

 

[Cearbhall]

Reality, a baby.

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure what you mean. Humans construct language. It does not exist outside of what we make of it. You're correct that "baby" is sometimes used to refer to a fetus informally. However, the reality of the medical definitions is that an unborn human is a zygote, embryo, or fetus, whereas a newborn is a "baby" or "infant."

Both definitions are right in different contexts. I personally prefer to use the more specific terms in conversations where both fetuses and babies may come into the conversation, simply for the sake of clarity. I won't insist that other people do the same, but I'm not understanding your beef with the medically correct terms.

I live in reality, not in technicalities. Having studied the subject in depth for 10 years, I know a baby when I see one.

Ok...medical dictionaries will go on saying what they say with or without your approval.

We are not talking about animals.

We are animals. But I only used that general term because the same medical terms apply to certain other animal species. I didn't want to make it sound like it's limited to homo sapiens.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

Calling it a fetus just makes people feel better about killing babies.

Exactly. Dehumanization has been used throughout history to silence our moral conscience about the way we treat others of this group or that group. The settlers did it to indigenous peoples all over the globe, the American colonists did it to the slaves they brought over from Africa, the Brittish did it to the Indians, the Nazis did it to quite a few groups, most famously the Jews. Now pro-choice people do it to the unborn

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your argument is found wanting on the basis of standard exegesis. That being the case, it could not be legitimately argued. You need to look at the context, without which, you cannot exegete scripture. And your claim about obeying the government is crazy shows that again, you have ignored context and the scripture gives no indication whatsoever that God approves of any specific law although we are to obey the government.

Wrong, since "standard exegesis" is pure nonsense. And where did I ever claim that the government is crazy? And you don't seem to even realize what your God supports. But then the Bible is vague enough that it can be used to argue almost any point.

Now let me inform you about correct exegesis. The scripture says to obey the government. The question arises "what if the law means we have to disobey scripture." The next step is to search the scripture regarding biblical relates to the situation and then we determine if the law demands we ignore scripture, then the law is subservient to scripture because the overwhelming evidence shows that is the case.

One thing we DON'T do is just pick a verse of scripture and say "there you are, that is what the scripture says."

Sorry, that is called rationalization. The Bible is on all sides of most arguments so it is just a matter of finding the verses that agree with you. Except for slavery. Oddly enough the Bible is not antislavery anywhere and can only be interpreted as being pro-slavery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to prominent abortionists, every abortion kills a baby. You just performed a "don't bother me with the facts. I am content with unproven theories to defend the indefensible."

As far as the burden of proof is concerned, we are way past that as the ethersphere is full of it so take a look.

Really? I have never seen a "prominent abortionist" cmake that claim. You made the claim, let's see your evidence. Or is this just more unsupported nonsense of yours that will simply lead to your side continuing to lose.

And please, you don't understand one bit of how to use logical arguments. I would suggest that you study up before trying to do so again.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

As luck would have it, I live in a city that had a well known abortionist. He didn't believe that a fetus should be called a baby. And dictionaries typically reflect how a society defines something. You can call a fetus a cheeseburger if you'd like, but I don't think you'll be able to hold an intelligible conversation on the topic.

Better to call a fetus a cheeseburger - that way you would be very unlikely to fool anybody and perpetuate a falsehood.
That is, nobody would believe you, but some people are very willing to believe the constantly repeated "pro-life" assumption.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

One. As I said before the definition you use is determined by your worldview and I pointed out that fetus is latin for baby so in effect both call the abortion of a preborn baby a baby.

So since they mean the same thing you're fine with calling all babies "fetuses" from now on.

Two. Whatever. I am not perfect but I do realise that when you rely on yourself to be the benchmark for life you get into all sorts of twists and tangle to try and be perfect. In all honesty, the comment should be "most people who fight for abortion" as it seems to come up in nearly every conversation on the subject.

Hey, I think we probably agree on something!

 

[redleghunter]

And saying that anything at all is from Satan definitely isn't something a non-theist would be saying...

Are you sure about that? Trolls like to disrupt social media when someone is telling a heartfelt story. No ideology is devoid of these types of trolls.

We had a troll right here on CF last month telling a nursing student she needed to drop her faith if she wanted to become a good nurse.

I'm sure you've seen the other side of the coin where an atheist is told they believe in nothing.

All I can say is the idiot who posted that comment circled in blue is a troll.

 

[redleghunter]

As luck would have it, I live in a city that had a well known abortionist. He didn't believe that a fetus should be called a baby. And dictionaries typically reflect how a society defines something. You can call a fetus a cheeseburger if you'd like, but I don't think you'll be able to hold an intelligible conversation on the topic.

Gossner?

 

[redleghunter]

Your argument is found wanting on the basis of standard exegesis. That being the case, it could not be legitimately argued. You need to look at the context, without which, you cannot exegete scripture. And your claim about obeying the government is crazy shows that again, you have ignored context and the scripture gives no indication whatsoever that God approves of any specific law although we are to obey the government.

Now let me inform you about correct exegesis. The scripture says to obey the government. The question arises "what if the law means we have to disobey scripture." The next step is to search the scripture regarding biblical relates to the situation and then we determine if the law demands we ignore scripture, then the law is subservient to scripture because the overwhelming evidence shows that is the case.

One thing we DON'T do is just pick a verse of scripture and say "there you are, that is what the scripture says."

I can see you taught an adult Sunday school. Or still do!

Yes when government endorses evil we can point to Daniel 3.

 

[redleghunter]

According to prominent abortionists, every abortion kills a baby. You just performed a "don't bother me with the facts. I am content with unproven theories to defend the indefensible."

As far as the burden of proof is concerned, we are way past that as the ethersphere is full of it so take a look.

If we go to a climate change thread scientific studies are well sourced. With abortion it seems science is an inconvenient truth.

 

[redleghunter]

wrong, wrong wrong. You don't have a clue. Get an embryology text book and read.

Indeed. Several textbooks quoted and linked here:


Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245

 

[tiglathpileser]

All these ......were aborted. They look like babies to me.

 

[redleghunter]

Some people are determined to promote thier erroneous views I realise that. Despite that fact it doesn't alter the fact that two of America's most prominent abortionists said that every abortion kills a baby. I heard one say it on TV and read the other's commitment in a magazine and until you can prove I didn't, it is not false.

As far as your comment about doctors correctly don't say such things, that is a subjective comment as there are those that have a Christian worldview and there are those who have an atheist worldview so what is right is subjective. In my country there is an organisation of doctors who believe that every abortion kills a baby, so that means I am correct and you are wrong so you get nowhere making accusations like that.

May I ask which country? I'm curious as it seems your citizens take an enlightened approach to this issue.

 

[tiglathpileser]

May I ask which country? I'm curious as it seems your citizens take an enlightened approach to this issue.

Australia. the State of Victoria has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. You can have your baby killed right up to delivery.

 

[tiglathpileser]

If we go to a climate change thread scientific studies are well sourced. With abortion it seems science is an inconvenient truth.

Well said. I am lead to believe that pro-abortionists don't want abortion to be shown on TV as the gruesome facts would be so vivid it would turn people off abortion.