Abortion Discussion

[Subduction Zone]

This should help.

http://www.christianbook.com/apps/p...nt=ESRCP|M&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&Ntt=227759

Don't need it. Besides most of those authors make a gross mistake.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

We should eliminate a human life who did nothing wrong based on another person's transgression?

How do you justify this?

That human life was forced into the woman, against her will, in a violent and criminal act. Anything that comes from that and without the woman's consent is a clear violation of her body and autonomy.

Now, let me be clear... If that woman wants to go through with the pregnancy, then I would never deny her that right and I would support her decision 100% and I'd never tell her what I would do differently if I were in her position, or shame her for her choice. Regardless of what that choice is.

I would also hold the exact same position should she decide to abort the pregnancy.

That is the essence of being pro-choice. Maybe that makes me pro-abortion to some people around here, I don't really care. I will stand with the woman to make her own choice and not force her to follow my personal choice for her situation, as she would know better than I do what is best for herself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fixed it before you posted this. But just barely. You could have still read it by hitting "click to expand".

Still shows your posts with my comments in the quote.

I don't see that. When I look at it your conversation is separate from mine. Exactly what is wrong with it? I do not like to quote incorrectly.

 

[Cearbhall]

As I understand it, God made the animals and then he made man in his image. He did not make the animals in his image. Therefore man is not an animal, although the actions of abortionists makes me think that some humans are animals. That is my worldview so that is what I operate by.

I was speaking scientifically, which is accurate whether or not one is Christian, though I am not.

And....I notice that animals do not have their babies aborted so just maybe we are the animals.

Nah, they just eat their babies instead.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It didn't sound perfectly fine in your previoius post.

Then you must have misunderstood my previous post.

 

[tiglathpileser]

You need to strive to be a bit more honest. In a debate when you make a claim as you just did you place the burden of proof upon you. If your claim was correct you should have been able to find a valid source that supports you. That you could not indicates that I was correct. I usually spend my time debating science here since there I can support my claims clearly. Here it would simple be a game of finding verses. And then there are those that will not interpret verses honestly because the clear translation disagrees with their beliefs. I am not really a fan of using the Bible in debates for those purposes.

Meanwhile I have been here pointing out errors in the arguments of people on your side and telling them what they would have to do to change the laws on abortion. If you are satisfied with simply looking down your noses at those poor women that felt the need to go through with this process then have fun. But that is neither a productive or Christian way to look at things.

Your holier than thou reply leaves a lot to be desired. I am never moved by such arguments as when you point the finger at us four are pointing back at you and to illustrate, I made a comment in another thread and an atheist accused me of not providing evidence, so I asked him for his evidence for what he was claiming. He put up a list of about 100 names that he said supported what he said so I went on the internet and looked for those names. There they were as plain as day and they had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.

Then there was the atheist that claimed that this body and that body supported what he said. I researched the bodies he quoted and found that they did no such thing. So your demand for evidence means very little to the atheist as they are very happy to provide evidence that is not evidence.

You should do what I do. When I want evidence I go look for it. I would never trust what an atheist tells me.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I was speaking scientifically, which is accurate whether or not one is Christian, though I am not.

Nah, they just eat their babies instead.

One chooses which worldview on which to base their life on. Yours is based on what man says, mine is based on what God says.

It is not possible to eat a baby that is still in the womb.

 

[Cearbhall]

Meanwhile I have been here pointing out errors in the arguments of people on your side and telling them what they would have to do to change the laws on abortion. If you are satisfied with simply looking down your noses at those poor women that felt the need to go through with this process then have fun. But that is neither a productive or Christian way to look at things.

Personally, I want to hear about a movement to take organs and tissue from corpses with or without permission from the family or prior permission from the person. I don't know if I would support it, but until that happens on a large scale, I can't take pro-lifers seriously. If they'd rather target a distraught woman than a corpse in the name of preserving lives, well, that says something very disturbing, and I'm not a fan.

Seriously, they think it'd be cool for the government to force me to go through pregnancy and childbirth after being raped, but God forbid the government try to do anything to my body to save a life after I die!

 

[tiglathpileser]

Then you must have misunderstood my previous post.

No misunderstanding, as it was as plain as day and what is also plain as day is your weasel words to get you out of the fix you're in.

 

[PapaZoom]

Huge numbers of females are aborted each year in sex selection abortions. Girls are aborted in greater numbers than boys. Imagine if there was a gay gene and people were screening their pregnancies to abort if the developing human was gay. I thin the liberals' heads would explode. But killing the females over males? Crickets.

"To kill an unborn female is to kill a young woman. There can be no equal rights for all women until there are equal rights for unborn women." Alcorn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your holier than thou reply leaves a lot to be desired. I ma never moved by such arguments as when you point the finger at us four are pointing back at you and to illustrate, I made a comment in another thread and an atheist accused me of not providing evidence, so I asked him for his evidence for what he was claiming. He put up a list of about 100 names that he said supported what he said so I went on the internet and looked for those names. There they were as plain as day and they had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.

What someone may or may not have done on another thread has no bearing here. The simple fact is that I was correct in demanding evidence. When none is given in a debate it is reasonable to assume that the other person at best was simply wrong in his claim.

Then there was the atheist that claimed that this body and that body supported what he said. i researched the bodies he quoted and found that they did no such thing. So your demand for evidence mans very little to the atheist as they are very happy to provide evidence that is not evidence.

It seems more likely that you did not understand how they supported his claim, but then I have not seen the thread. I have only seen how you debate here. That gives me a rather one sided view of things.

You should do what I do. When I want evidence I go look for it. I would never trust what an atheist tells me.

That is simply wrong. When someone makes a claim in a debate the burden of proof is upon him. By the way, I can support that claim if you need me to. In fact on any of my claims you can ask for evidence that supports them. If you can't support your claims when challenged then your claims are of no merit at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huge numbers of females are aborted each year in sex selection abortions. Girls are aborted in greater numbers than boys. Imagine if there was a gay gene and people were screening their pregnancies to abort if the developing human was gay. I thin the liberals' heads would explode. But killing the females over males? Crickets.

"To kill an unborn female is to kill a young woman. There can be no equal rights for all women until there are equal rights for unborn women." Alcorn.

Citation required. I think that you are possibly overstating the extent of such practices in China. But then I am not one hundred percent sure of where you are getting that claim from, which is why I am demanding evidence.

 

[redleghunter]

Then people should support their claims that they make. That is a standard in debates. Otherwise we could all make crazy unsupported claims and that gets threads shut down too.

Yes however standard in debates is to not make things personal. When one does so they come off as attacking the person and not the issue.

There are ways to combat an idea or data without attacking a person's integrity, or insulting them.

You can call the data bogus or incomplete but the person should never be the target.

We should all assume everyone is being honest and that sometimes honest people don't agree or can be wrong.

 

[tiglathpileser]

What someone may or may not have done on another thread has no bearing here. The simple fact is that I was correct in demanding evidence. When none is given in a debate it is reasonable to assume that the other person at best was simply wrong in his claim.

It seems more likely that you did not understand how they supported his claim, but then I have not seen the thread. I have only seen how you debate here. That gives me a rather one sided view of things.

That is simply wrong. When someone makes a claim in a debate the burden of proof is upon him. By the way, I can support that claim if you need me to. In fact on any of my claims you can ask for evidence that supports them. If you can't support your claims when challenged then your claims are of no merit at all.

Thankyou for your opinion which has been duly noted.

And if you think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim when are atheists going to provide proof that God does not exist. So far only one had admitted to me that they have no proof.

And finally, my claims may be of no merit...to you, but I am not writing to impress you. What you think is water of a ducks back to me as I have found that at times atheists lie through their teeth with so called "evidence."

 

[redleghunter]

It almost always is. It is a concept that is abused by believers in the Bible.



No, that is simply because you disagree with a clear reading of the Bible at times.



I seriously doubt that claim. To support it you need something much better than a site written by Kool-Aid drinkers. It is all but impossible to take apologists seriously. The y may use some of the methods in that article, but to claim that they use the same methods goes to far.

It seems you have some strong views on Biblical interpretation. May I suggest again to form a polemic and post it on the apologetics forum. Trust me you will get takers in that discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes however standard in debates is to not make things personal. When one does so they come off as attacking the person and not the issue..

Perhaps. In the future I will point out when a citation is needed.

There are ways to combat an idea or data without attacking a person's integrity, or insulting them.

You can call the data bogus or incomplete but the person should never be the target.

We should all assume everyone is being honest and that sometimes honest people don't agree or can be wrong.

Part of the problem was that I have had to ask multiple times for evidence. But I tell you what, if people promptly provide the required citations when reasonable demanded I won't make any leading conclusions about them.

 

[Cearbhall]

And if you think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim when are atheists going to provide proof that God does not exist. So far only one had admitted to me that they have no proof.

Er, no, the burden of proof is still on the person making the positive claim. There are an infinite number of things that a human being could make up, but that doesn't mean other people are burdened with proving that they don't exist.

Unless you believe you have proof that all the other gods are made up? Then you would be justified in holding others to the same standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thankyou for your opinion which has been duly noted.

And if you think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim when are atheists going to provide proof that God does not exist. So far only one had admitted to me that they have no proof.

Sorry, but you don't understand atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God, you could be said to be over 99% atheist since I could name over 100 gods that you do not believe in. Stating "I don't believe that" is a statement that does no require any support. What you may be thinking of is an anti-theist. Those people make the positive claim that "There is no God" and the burden of proof for that statement does fall upon them. Most of them will be more than happy to give the evidence that supports their beliefs.

And finally, my claims may be of no merit...to you, but I am not writing to impress you. What you think is water of a ducks back to me as I have found that at times atheists lie through their teeth with so called "evidence."

Right, you are only impressing those that already agree with you. You do not change anything by doing so. I have been actually trying to help you here by pointing out the flaws in your arguments and what you need to do if you want a positive change. I assume that you would like to change the abortion laws in this country, or am I mistaken?

Edit: And I have never seen an atheist lie through their teeth. Again at best you were probably mistaken. I would like to see an example of that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No misunderstanding, as it was as plain as day and what is also plain as day is your weasel words to get you out of the fix you're in.

No weasilling. My position has been clear throughout the entire thread.

If you can find and point out the contradiction, I'd be more than happy to explain myself.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Citation required. I think that you are possibly overstating the extent of such practices in China. But then I am not one hundred percent sure of where you are getting that claim from, which is why I am demanding evidence.

I don't think you have any right to demand anything bearing in mind some of the lies that atheists tell when they are providing "evidence." When the atheists holy sheet is clean, then you are in a position to demand something.

You could try and find the evidence for yourself and stop being so lazy. That way you will get the truth as you don't seem to want to accept the truth that others give. And by the way, the facts re China are common knowledge. It doesn't require evidence as I have been reading about it for years from various sources. But then I do my homework. I don't just sit around waiting for everything to fall into my lap and rabbit on about "I need evidence" when you don't want to know the truth that you have been told. You atheists are so predictable.