Abortion Discussion

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I am not really interested in "debunking" the Bible. That has already occurred, at least if one has literal interpretations of various books. I am not a fan of the word games and other nonsense that apologists use. Then I do tend to get a bit snarky. To me most of their arguments reek of dishonesty.

 

[Cearbhall]

You could try and find the evidence for yourself and stop being so lazy.

You want him to do someone else's citation work...? And you're calling him lazy?

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.

Is that what you would tell an academic integrity panel? "I don't have to cite my sources until those filthy atheists stop telling lies."

That would be a fun report to write...

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Of course I have a right to demand evidence when someone makes a claim. Once again it keeps people from making crazy claims.

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.

Not "finding the evidence" myself is not being lazy. I am willing to work hard to support my claims, it is standard debate rules that one has to be able to support ones own claims. Also if something is "common knowledge" then it should be extremely easy for the poster to support his claims. By the way if he does support his claims then the burden of proof is upon me if I want to refute him. These are fair rules since they apply equally to all.

Edit: And I could argue that the atheist "holy sheet" is much cleaner than that of Christians. Where do you get off making such an allegation?

 

[redleghunter]

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

Thank you for your infallible ruling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your infallible ruling.

You are welcome. A wise person would have at least wondered what the error that they make is.

By the way, I have never claimed to be infallible. But thanks for recognizing my superiority.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.

What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?

Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.

What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?

Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?

Of course. Have we not fought entire wars to defend liberty?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.

What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?

Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?

The problem is that not everyone sees a fetus as "life". Until you convince others that a fetus should have all of the rights of a born person you are not going to be able to win this debate. And for me "winning" would mean a change in the laws that govern this act, not just convincing a few people on an internet forum.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

 

[OrthodoxForever]

You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.

What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?

Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?

See that's where the pro-abortionists will back track...

Here's an example I often use.

You invite someone into your home, do you then shoot them for trespassing? Certainly not. You have consensual sex, you abort the life brought into existence by your actions?

Someone throws another person through your window, you didn't invite them but they also didn't choose to be tossed through your window into your house but...you...shoot them anyway? I should hope not. You are raped and you kill the innocent lifebrought into existence as a result as if they are the criminal?

Does not compute

 

[redleghunter]

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



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.

I agree that making a claim requires evidence. If none is provided then the claim is an assertion and not an argument.

I have seen quite a few posters "impeach " evidence given before examining the source.

On one thread someone impeached any news piece from Fox or Brietbart but then linked HuffPo and Mother Jones.

Seems convenient.

Frankly such tactics are either lazy or deceiving. I think you would agree.

 

[tiglathpileser]

You are welcome. A wise person would have at least wondered what the error that they make is.

By the way, I have never claimed to be infallible. But thanks for recognizing my superiority.

You condemn yourself out of your own mouth.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course. Have we not fought entire wars to defend liberty?

That's actually a good response on the surface so kudos on that.

Most wars throughout history have been struggles between cultures competing for resources. Resources to keep them fed mostly. And most of those wars always has an aggressor who wants to conquer. Those who fight the conqueror are defending their own lives and their families.

That makes your comparison somewhat off kilter as there is a survival instinct in defending one's own life.

Now in our modern era as in centuries past we have just wars and unjust wars. Just war theory is about last resorts and not that the ends justify the means.

This brings us back to your comment on taking a life to uphold liberty. With regards to rape is the woman justified to kill a life not threatening her own life?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

A baby in the womb is not possible, period.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

Very good, the problem is that even in China the number of female births may have been greatly obscured by the hiding of female births. Under the old One Child rule, it was recently rescinded, the births of some children were hidden. You could not be charged if no one knew that you had a child. From the second source:

"When sex ratio began being studied in China in 1960, it was still within the normal range. However, it climbed to 111.9 by 1990[9] and to 118 by 2010 per its official census.[49][50] Researchers believe that the causes of this sex ratio imbalance are increased female infant mortality, underreporting of female births and sex-selective abortion. According to Zeng et al. (1993), the most prominent cause is probably sex-selective abortion, but this is difficult to prove that in a country with little reliable birth data because of the hiding of “illegal” (under the One-Child Policy) births.[51]

These illegal births have led to underreporting of female infants. Zeng et al., using a reverse survival method, estimate that underreporting keeps about 2.26% male births and 5.94% female births off the books. Adjusting for unreported illegal births, they conclude that the corrected Chinese sex ratio at birth for 1989 was 111 rather than 115.[51] These national averages over time, mask the regional sex ratio data. For example, in some provinces such as Anhui, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Hunan and Guangdong, sex ratio at birth is more than 130.[52][53]"

That being said, I would have no problem on banning selective abortion. The problem is proving it in the first place.

 

[redleghunter]

I am not really interested in "debunking" the Bible. That has already occurred, at least if one has literal interpretations of various books. I am not a fan of the word games and other nonsense that apologists use. Then I do tend to get a bit snarky. To me most of their arguments reek of dishonesty.

Perhaps your OP can address the evidence you have on debunking the Bible as settled. I'm sure you will get responses.

 

[Cearbhall]

You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.

What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?

The liberty of one is in conflict with the liberty of the other. You would choose the embryo?

You invite someone into your home, do you then shoot them for trespassing? Certainly not. You have consensual sex, you abort the life brought into existence by your actions?

I'm not nearly as concerned about an embryo as I am about a grown person.

 

[redleghunter]

You are welcome. A wise person would have at least wondered what the error that they make is.

By the way, I have never claimed to be infallible. But thanks for recognizing my superiority.

We just need to outfit you with a mitre flowing robes and replace that Francis guy.

 

[tiglathpileser]

The problem is that not everyone sees a fetus as "life". Until you convince others that a fetus should have all of the rights of a born person you are not going to be able to win this debate. And for me "winning" would mean a change in the laws that govern this act, not just convincing a few people on an internet forum.

Where did you get the idea that we are trying to win a debate? This is a Christian Forum so you are the intruder trying to win the debate and make us believe that we have to ditch our christian worldview to accommodate your atheistic nothingness evidenced by the fact that you consider yourself superior.

I am so glad that the scripture teaches us that God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. He did not choose the superior things as they tend to be full of their own self importance which is what is coming over from you.

The scripture asks us what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul. The answer is simple. Absolutely NOTHING. On the day of judgment you will not be assessed by how much you know. You will be assessed by your acceptance or rejection of God's salvation. Acceptance means your name goes into the Lamb's Book of Life. Rejection means it doesn't and if it is not there, it is zero for you and you will have only yourself to blame.

I know atheists like to blame the God who does not exist according to them for everything but on this one, you are your own worst enemy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that making a claim requires evidence. If none is provided then the claim is an assertion and not an argument.

I have seen quite a few posters "impeach " evidence given before examining the source.

On one thread someone impeached any news piece from Fox or Brietbart but then linked HuffPo and Mother Jones.

Seems convenient.

Frankly such tactics are either lazy or deceiving. I think you would agree.

Yep, just because a story comes from FOX does not mean that it is not reliable. In fact in FOX's early days I do remember that they often fared better under fact checks than other networks. FOX had an early instant success because when it was formed the main stream news was hopelessly for the Democrats. GHW Bush complained because the recession was over well before the election that he lost to Clinton, but it was never reported as such. If someone provides a source and he does not like it then he needs to find another one. Meanwhile now that some evidence has been supported for selective abortion I will want to see if there is anything that seriously counters it.