The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[Hans Blaster]

It's really not all that tricky since we all know that the "No True Scotmans Fallacy" is really an appeal to various level of denial regarding what is stated in the New Testament. So, I'm sticking with my assertion.

What does the fake Scot fallacy have to do with anything I wrote?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What does the fake Scot fallacy have to do with anything I wrote?

To answer that, I'd have to get into a bunch of academic esoterica that you've many times said you don't get into. So, just assume that in my area of education, I have some cogency.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To answer that, I'd have to get into a bunch of academic esoterica that you've many times said you don't get into.

I'm perfectly fine with "academic esoterica", its just that yours is disturbingly deficient in differential equations. How can I trust it without equations? Hmm?

So, just assume that in my area of education, I have some cogency.

That's the thing, I don't see the response as special to your stated education. I have no doubt (as I have been aware of such methods, though not their details) that the psychologist and social scientists have their means for measuring subjective things like pain or faith or anxiety, etc. However, your invocation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy has sent up red flags immediately. I fear that at some point it will devolve to something like "no one with a true faith in Jesus would have an abortion" as a definition of faith. I certainly won't be deploying it to deny someone's claimed faith. I have no reason to do so.

"Denial of what is in the New Testement" has nothing to do with this.

 

[Hammster]

Good news for you then. Fetuses don't breathe. They get oxygen and remove carbon dioxide through their placentas.

You may want to go back and look at the context of my statement.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm perfectly fine with "academic esoterica", its just that yours is disturbingly deficient in differential equations. How can I trust it without equations? Hmm?

That's the thing, I don't see the response as special to your stated education. I have no doubt (as I have been aware of such methods, though not their details) that the psychologist and social scientists have their means for measuring subjective things like pain or faith or anxiety, etc. However, your invocation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy has sent up red flags immediately. I fear that at some point it will devolve to something like "no one with a true faith in Jesus would have an abortion" as a definition of faith. I certainly won't be deploying it to deny someone's claimed faith. I have no reason to do so.

You're quick witted and astute, Hans. Because that's EXACTLY where I'm going with this, but not with the simplicity of insinuating that it's "all the woman's fault."

Premise 1: No murderer has eternal life.
Premise 2: Abortion often, if not usually, qualifies as murder.
Premise 3: [Other than Mary the Mother of Jesus] No woman gets pregnant by cosmic fiat.

What could be our next inference from these premises, even if not a conclusion? Do we need statistics to figure this out? No, no for this we don't.

The answer, as it relates to the OP, is that if there's any form of "stepping up" men should do, they'd be very wise to do it in the direction of not advocating for (or causing circumstances that bring about) abortion.

"Denial of what is in the New Testement" has nothing to do with this.

Oh, my dear Hans, denial of what's in the New Testament most certainly does have something to do it, and this is the case whether we're partisan or non-partisan in our dear ol' U.S. of A. politics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're quick witted and astute, Hans. Because that's EXACTLY where I'm going with this, but not with the simplicity of insinuating that it's "all the woman's fault."

That wasn't the thing I was implying, rather that a faithful woman wouldn't "commit abortion", so any that did are clearly not faithful. Claim proved by circular argument -- no faithful Christian would have an abortion.

Premise 1: No murderer has eternal life.

Life is universally fatal. This premise makes "Socrates is a man" look profound.

Premise 2: Abortion often, if not usually, qualifies as murder.

It does not. Even in the states where it is currently illegal, no one has been charged with murder for having an abortion. (Yet, give them time, I'm sure they will.)

Premise 3: [Other than Mary the Mother of Jesus] No woman gets pregnant by cosmic fiat.

It usually always involves a sperm.

What could be our next inference from these premises, even if not a conclusion? Do we need statistics to figure this out? No, no for this we don't.

Is your argument going to be that no faithful follower of Jesus will ever get pregnant accidentally, or at least outside a marriage? (If so, you should stop. It is a bad argument.)

Oh, my dear Hans, denial of what's in the New Testament most certainly does have something to do it, and this is the case whether we're partisan or non-partisan in our dear ol' U.S. of A. politics.

"No True Scotsman" is not a fallacy about the contents of the Bible. That's just a fact.

It seems you want to go down a road of denying the value of a faith not built on extensive study of religious texts and theology. That somehow the faith of those women who haven't done so is hollow because they haven't stitched together the threads to come to the theological conclusion that abortion is a sin and against god's will.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That wasn't the thing I was implying, rather that a faithful woman wouldn't "commit abortion", so any that did are clearly not faithful. Claim proved by circular argument -- no faithful Christian would have an abortion.

Life is universally fatal. This premise makes "Socrates is a man" look profound.

It does not. Even in the states where it is currently illegal, no one has been charged with murder for having an abortion. (Yet, give them time, I'm sure they will.)

It usually always involves a sperm.


Is your argument going to be that no faithful follower of Jesus will ever get pregnant accidentally, or at least outside a marriage? (If so, you should stop. It is a bad argument.)

"No True Scotsman" is not a fallacy about the contents of the Bible. That's just a fact.

It seems you want to go down a road of denying the value of a faith not built on extensive study of religious texts and theology. That somehow the faith of those women who haven't done so is hollow because they haven't stitched together the threads to come to the theological conclusion that abortion is a sin and against god's will.

I'll state this again:

The answer, as it relates to the OP, is that if there's any form of "stepping up" men should do, they'd be very wise to do it in the direction of not advocating for (or causing circumstances that bring about) abortion. That's my point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll state this again:

The answer, as it relates to the OP, is that if there's any form of "stepping up" men should do, they'd be very wise to do it in the direction of not advocating for (or causing circumstances that bring about) abortion. That's my point.

I don't recall mentioning the OP or men in my conversation with you. It has been entirely about if you can measure faithfulness to Jesus and abortion rates.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't recall mentioning the OP or men in my conversation with you. It has been entirely about if you can measure faithfulness to Jesus and abortion rates.

... or rather, you don't recall stepping into a comment that I made to Hammster in relation to his OP back up in post #99

 

[Hans Blaster]

... or rather, you don't recall stepping into a comment that I made to Hammster in relation to his OP back up in post #99

I remember your comment to that poster and I remember the claim you made about faith as a preventative for abortion and I don't think the social science evidence backs your supposition. (Which is exactly what I told you.)

 

[Yarddog]

The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

Could there be anything more creepy?

notthebee.com

Could there be anything more creepy?

Last weekend, the "second gentleman" of the United States, Douglass Emhoff, took to X to post his personal support of child killing for convenience.

Well, Kamala was wrong about Trump. He is against Florida restricting abortion and feels the current law is too strict, according to news sources. So Trump also looks to be in favor of killing children.

 

[Yarddog]

Y'all really think those two above examples are more creepy than advocating for people to kill their unborn babies????

Glad that you think Trump is creepy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I remember your comment to that poster and I remember the claim you made about faith as a preventative for abortion and I don't think the social science evidence backs your supposition. (Which is exactly what I told you.)

The misunderstanding between us here, Hans, is that as a Christian, I don't always assume Percentages overrule or rule out Principles. For Christians, sometimes Principles impose themselves upon the Percentages and, thereby, make the mere calculations involved a moot point.

We're both rational people, but that doesn't mean we share the same paradigm. That's why it almost feels like our conversation is a page ripped out from the end of The Martian Chronicles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The misunderstanding between us here, Hans, is that as a Christian, I don't always assume Percentages overrule or rule out Principles. For Christians, sometimes Principles impose themselves upon the Percentages and, thereby, make the mere calculations involved a moot point.

Your claim was that more "faith in Christ" would result in less abortion. I don't recall if this was of the number of individuals with faith, or more deep faith, or the collective "faith" of the society, etc., but it was very much so a "percentages" thing. (It overlaps with the "principles" claim as well. More people abiding by the "principles" of that "faith".) And it is exactly that kind of thing that *can* be measured (and has). The adherence to principle induced by the faith or the intensity of the faith can't be directly measured, but proxies like levels of participation, and "how important is your faith to you" questions can at least try to quantify in the population at large.

We're both rational people, but that doesn't mean we share the same paradigm. That's why it almost feels like our conversation is a page ripped out from the end of The Martian Chronicles.

I wouldn't know. I thought it was a rather dull book and stopped reading before the end.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your claim was that more "faith in Christ" would result in less abortion. I don't recall if this was of the number of individuals with faith, or more deep faith, or the collective "faith" of the society, etc., but it was very much so a "percentages" thing. (It overlaps with the "principles" claim as well. More people abiding by the "principles" of that "faith".) And it is exactly that kind of thing that *can* be measured (and has). The adherence to principle induced by the faith or the intensity of the faith can't be directly measured, but proxies like levels of participation, and "how important is your faith to you" questions can at least try to quantify in the population at large.

I wouldn't know. I thought it was a rather dull book and stopped reading before the end.

What would be interesting, then, is to present a scientific survey among those men or women who 1) identify as "Christian," and 2) who also invest their belief in the biblical principle that "no murderer has eternal life," and 3) who still have either advocated for liberal abortion on demand or have had a liberal abortion on demand [with liberal abortion specifically defined as an instance of abortion not due to rape, incest or ectopic pregnancy].

Of course, being that various psychological tensions in the abortion issue exists so deeply, it's not always easy to find willing participants for that sort of survey. I wonder if anyone has undertaken a scientific survey like that? Pew Research, maybe? Yale? Harvard?

 

[Bradskii]

That’s what we are fighting for anyway.

I don't see the point in fighting to make something illegal when it's already illegal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What would be interesting, then, is to present a scientific survey among those men or women who 1) identify as "Christian,"

OK so far.

and 2) who also invest their belief in the biblical principle that "no murderer has eternal life,"

Never heard of that principle. To the extent the nightmarish prospect of eternal life is granted through grace, I recall no doctrine making any sin as unforgiveable except perhaps the unforgivable sin of "blasphemy of the holy spirt" (though on the that there seems to be some debate about if it is unforgivable and what it is and it is not relevant here) all others are forgivable. So I'm not sure what "Christians" this group is now after applying this criteria.

and 3) who still have either advocated for liberal abortion on demand or have had a liberal abortion on demand [with liberal abortion specifically defined as an instance of abortion not due to rape, incest or ectopic pregnancy].

I would if I could, but I can't so I won't.

Of course, being that various psychological tensions in the abortion issue exists so deeply, it's not always easy to find willing participants for that sort of survey.

I'm not sure what these tensions would be. Personally I went from "abortion is a horrorible tragedy" traipsing past the White House in the "march for life" to "it is sometimes necessary" to the Joe-Biden-pro-Roe Catholic "rare but legal" and "not any of my business" mode while still a Christian. (Though I would not have recognized this" no murder can repent and be forgiven" restriction, so I might have failed *your* survey selection.) Can't say it had much psychological impact on me past the trauma of my childhood experiences in the movement and those didn't last once it was over. It just was. The church was wrong about a lot of things, why not abortion as well?

I wonder if anyone has undertaken a scientific survey like that?

I wouldn't know. I am not familiar with the proper tools for digging into the social science literature. I have not used them.

Pew Research, maybe?

Could be?

Yale? Harvard?

Are they any good at this kind of stuff?

 

[comana]

Do you know why some do not restrain the woman's right to abortion even as the child is transiting her birth canal?

A baby being born is not going to be aborted. States that do not have any restrictions leave the medical and ethical decisions to doctors and their patients.

 

[Bradskii]

That is unfortunately true.

One might then ask if you're going to vote for a man who is willing to destroy embryos. Although you might use different terminology.

 

[Hammster]

One might then ask if you're going to vote for a man who is willing to destroy embryos. Although you might use different terminology.

Yes, I am.