• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How to win

Status
Not open for further replies.

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,093
46,207
Los Angeles Area
✟1,033,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
"Because late term abortions are almost always the result of some dire medical emergency"

QFT

Paint me a scenario where a fully formed fetus (late term abortion third trimester) requires killing the soon to be infant?

Darla and Peter saw additional specialists, and all confirmed a number of issues. Cate had encephalocele, which is a neural defect that causes brain matter to leak out, slow growth, microcephaly, a very large cleft lip and possible fused digits. Her cerebellum was so underdeveloped that one doctor had trouble finding it and her brain’s midline was shifted, indicating “severe disorganization”.

To make matters worse, Olivia’s [the other fetus - they were having twins] life was in danger. Cate’s amniotic sac was growing and restricting the growth of Olivia’s sac.

If she carried to full term, the restriction on Olivia’s sac would likely mean an early delivery. Darla says that every specialist they saw disclosed there was a high probability that Cate would not survive the delivery but if she did, there was no guarantee the surgeries – removing the encephalocele and placing her brain tissue back into her skull – would save her.

----

Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.

What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.

----

Twenty days after seeing the first signs of trouble, they learned that Omara had an aggressive form of lymphangioma growing out of her neck. The diagnosis came in the form of a dense two-page MRI report. The fast-growing, inoperable tumor had grown into her brain, heart, and lungs. It had wrapped around her neck, eyes, and deep into her chest. It was so invasive, it was pushing her tongue out of her mouth.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You might be able to pull in some more right-wing votes by abandoning it, but the Republicans would have pulled in more votes in Lincoln's time by not being against slavery. If one holds a strong conviction that it is not moral to remove the bodily autonomy from people, then it seems like a problem to abandon those views just to score votes.
It's not just "pulling in votes." I believe that the Christian Right represents a serious long-term threat to the survival of our nation. If that threat can be defused by giving them some ground on abortion, then perhaps we should consider it.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
It's not just "pulling in votes." I believe that the Christian Right represents a serious long-term threat to the survival of our nation. If that threat can be defused by giving them some ground on abortion, then perhaps we should consider it.

We give it on abortion then we'll just get hit with LGBT or socialism or whatever is next on the list.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
of course. Nobody who has been paying attention thinks otherwise.
By the polling numbers "pro-life" for Democrats means legal abortions with restrictions. Back to the premise:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

Which amounts to most Democrats (by the poll), if they accepted the above syllogism, would allow for restrictions on the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Either that or most Democrats (according to the poll) don't see life developing in the womb at certain stages as a human being. If the latter, then I would expect to see a syllogism to support the non-human being development stages.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Therefore by the polling numbers a vast majority of Democrats would not agree with the syllogism of:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

They would support 'some' intentional killing of innocent human beings. AKA they would support restrictions on the intentional killing of innocent human beings. But I don't think they would go for that. I believe they believe what they do because of propaganda which dehumanizes human beings at the earlier stages of development.
Hi friend.

What is a 'vast majority' and why do you want to use that wording?

I'm mostly from Oklahoma...and I bet Will Rogers is still right:

  • "I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."
  • "Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."
Will Rogers Today

Kinda know he's still got it right, lol. Even though I know a good number and Democrats and Republicans, I'm not loyal to those parties. Don't make your alliance to the world.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
We give it on abortion then we'll just get hit with LGBT or socialism or whatever is next on the list.
That's possible, but as I said in the OP, I don't think so because I don't believe the constituency for those other issues is anywhere near as large as for pro-life in some form. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but I would certainly like to see some.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You place a human's liberty over the life of another human?
Americans do that a lot, don't they.

I'm thinking of the border, and the immigrants that want to flee to safety here, and how many want to block them for selfish reasons (some of which are not even realistic, but imagined, but that's another topic).

Those blocking the ones trying to flee Mexico for their lives are placing "a human's liberty over the life of another human"...sadly. Horribly.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Americans do that a lot, don't they.

I'm thinking of the border, and the immigrants that want to flee to safety here, and how many want to block them for selfish reasons (some of which are not even realistic, but imagined, but that's another topic).

Those blocking the ones trying to flee Mexico for their lives are placing "a human's liberty over the life of another human"...sadly. Horribly.

I'd actually point to collateral damage during a war. Most people I know on the right-wing of the spectrum don't even bat an eye if you tell them that innocent children were killed during a military strike.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
of course. Nobody who has been paying attention thinks otherwise.
By 'paying attention' I think you mean seeking out more information.

But there is also a large group that simply believed the propaganda naively. They put too much trust in their political commentators or such. I wonder if after the revelations like with O'Reilly of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, whether anyone stopped believing/placing faith/trust/hope in the ideology, or instead just switched to another vendor of the same. Did 10% stop believing in that worldly political ideology?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
That's a question I don't have an answer to. At some time between fertilization and birth a human being comes into existence. There may not even be a determinable point at which this happens; it may happen gradually. That is why I am opposed to abortion. That is also why I have been pro-choice, because I don't want right-wing religious ideologues making cruel and arbitrary laws about it, because I don't think they have an answer either.
So, at the moment of fertilization when 23 chromosomes from the mother and father pair up, what do you have? Most scientists, as well as science books, will tell you that you have a human being. This zygote, which is what a fertilized egg is called, has everything it needs to be identified as a human being....not a horse, not a pig,.....a human being. So it seems that conception is the point that determines when a human being exists and not some indeterminate point later down the line. Don't believe me; go investigate for yourself before making a decision on whether abortion is killing and innocent human being. I understand you are not a believer but we will all stand before God someday and receive His judgement for our lives....abortion is an easy one to not stand judgement for.....
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Because late term abortions are almost always the result of some dire medical emergency"

QFT
Then perhaps provide me the premises and conclusions to support the "QFT."

Darla and Peter saw additional specialists, and all confirmed a number of issues. Cate had encephalocele, which is a neural defect that causes brain matter to leak out, slow growth, microcephaly, a very large cleft lip and possible fused digits. Her cerebellum was so underdeveloped that one doctor had trouble finding it and her brain’s midline was shifted, indicating “severe disorganization”.

To make matters worse, Olivia’s [the other fetus - they were having twins] life was in danger. Cate’s amniotic sac was growing and restricting the growth of Olivia’s sac.

If she carried to full term, the restriction on Olivia’s sac would likely mean an early delivery. Darla says that every specialist they saw disclosed there was a high probability that Cate would not survive the delivery but if she did, there was no guarantee the surgeries – removing the encephalocele and placing her brain tissue back into her skull – would save her.

----

Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.

What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.

----

Twenty days after seeing the first signs of trouble, they learned that Omara had an aggressive form of lymphangioma growing out of her neck. The diagnosis came in the form of a dense two-page MRI report. The fast-growing, inoperable tumor had grown into her brain, heart, and lungs. It had wrapped around her neck, eyes, and deep into her chest. It was so invasive, it was pushing her tongue out of her mouth.
Therefore, given what you provided, it is ok to kill an innocent human being due to deformities? If in the case of all of the above examples, the child came to term, should it be permissible to then terminate (kill) the baby based on the odds of survival?
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I'd actually point to collateral damage during a war. Most people I know on the right-wing of the spectrum don't even bat an eye if you tell them that innocent children were killed during a military strike.
Not sure what that has to do with abortion but if you would like to start another thread please link me to it.....
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would it be morally acceptable to force a person to be imprisoned under the threat of killing a different person if they refuse?
I'm not following. Are you suggesting the baby in the womb is somehow imprisoning their mother to be, or threatening to kill the mother?

You already said you accepted the syllogism I posited in this thread. Should I conclude then that there is some 'justification' to kill an innocent human being by abortion?
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I'm not following. Are you suggesting the baby in the womb is somehow imprisoning their mother to be, or threatening to kill the mother?

In a way, yes. The mother-to-be has freedom restricted because of the child. Now, clearly, it is a restriction that people accept. Children are born all the time. But the mother is in a lot more danger when she is pregnant, the mother has to accept the changes to her body and life that come with it.
You already said you accepted the syllogism I posited in this thread. Should I conclude then that there is some 'justification' to kill an innocent human being by abortion?

Perhaps. We make justifications to kill innocent human beings all the time.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Not sure what that has to do with abortion but if you would like to start another thread please link me to it.....

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the similarities between the killing of innocent life in abortion and the killing of innocent life in collateral damage. I would think it obvious, but here we are.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok, good question we can start there. But your question does not address the following:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​
Was my post too long? I can try to make it shorter. Let me know.

I'll copy it here:

Do you sincerely and honestly think your Democratic neighbors want to 'kill innocent human beings'? I ask rhetorically, because we both know that answer is no. If you want to change their minds about abortion, you would have to love them and begin to talk, in love, with them about when a conception becomes a human being equal to an already born person. Many would answer (believe it or not) at some certain point (which would vary), but hardly any would agree that contraception should be outlawed, for instance. I point out this extreme instance as a helpful point -- if we ascribe the most extreme views onto people (before we find out precisely what their actual views are in detail), we forestall, or prevent, the conversation. They simply get offended in that case.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not just "pulling in votes." I believe that the Christian Right represents a serious long-term threat to the survival of our nation. If that threat can be defused by giving them some ground on abortion, then perhaps we should consider it.
So this is about snookering the "Christian Right" into thinking the Democratic party is no longer standing on the pillar of abortion on demand?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.