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.

[o_mlly]

Third trimester. Roughly 24 weeks.

Evidence that the child is not viable at 23.9 weeks?

And, "Roughly"? A human life is at stake. "Roughly" as a criterion seems far too vague to justify the taking of an innocent human life.

You're not interested in the reality of when most abortions are performed, nor about the issues facing pregnant women.

Please refrain from lurching to the strawman fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

And I'm clear on what that would entail: special rights for embryos, not equal rights. All at the expense of the established rights of pregnant women, who would no longer have equal protection under the law.

-- A2SG, so, clearly, this isn't a legal issue...

Equal. The mother won’t be executed either without due process.

 

[o_mlly]

"Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being"

Yes, and that does not equate to what you wrote: "You said it becomes a human being in the womb."

 

[Bradskii]

I said more than that. And you know it. If this is all you have, then have a great day.

If you have more to add to prevent any misunderstanding then please present it. The only detail I have left out is that you said you'd still vote for Trump even though he's going to cause the death of all those babies (your terms again, if I may). Because you'd be better off I think you said.

The only misunderstanding is now whether you consider one process (destroying test tube embryos) to be worse than the other (an abortion).

 

[o_mlly]

The one that has a comment: 'Regarding the commission of direct abortions for convenience...'?

Not a comment but a premise delimiting the following logical argument. Can you defeat the logic proposed?

Are you suggesting that a woman who is 8 months, 3 weeks and 5 days into a pregnancy suddenly decides it's inconvenient to have the kid and asks for an abortion?

Nope. Again, it would also do you well to follow the posts before lurching into your familiar strawman fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

If you have more to add to prevent any misunderstanding then please present it. The only detail I have left out is that you said you'd still vote for Trump even though he's going to cause the death of all those babies (your terms again, if I may). Because you'd be better off I think you said.

The only misunderstanding is now whether you consider one process (destroying test tube embryos) to be worse than the other (an abortion).

You misunderstood. I can’t seem to help that.

 

[rubyshoes]

I’ve explained it. Deliberately being obtuse isn’t flattering.

Yes, thank you for explaining your stance now is different to that you stated earlier in this thread and that killing unborn life can indeed be justified by:

1. It’s location
2. How economically beneficial its advocate is for you
3. If its destruction is just a byproduct for an elective procedure to birth more babies (the average is around 7-8 destroyed embryo's per baby born, so we could settle on an acceptable average ratio of 5 murders for one baby)

 

[Bradskii]

Nope. Again, it would also do you well to follow the posts before lurching into your familiar strawman fallacy

The conversation started when you said:

And, therefore, it's OK to abort that baby one day before delivery? How about two days? I think you get the point.

Hence my replies to the effect that a C-section or induction would be performed. An abortion wouldn't be performed. No-one would perform one. It's nonsensical to suggest that one would be requested.

 

[Bradskii]

You misunderstood. I can’t seem to help that.

Yes, you can. You can clear up what you think is being misunderstood. No-one else can. I've reiterated your position as accurately as I can and asked you if I'm being correct and asked for your opinion of the two processes. But you can leave it there if you like. We have the discussion available so people can decide themselves what your position is.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, thank you for explaining your stance now is different to that you stated earlier in this thread and that killing unborn life can indeed be justified by:

1. It’s location
2. How economically beneficial its advocate is for you
3. If its destruction is just a byproduct for an elective procedure to birth more babies (the average is around 7-8 destroyed embryo's per baby born, so we could settle on an acceptable average ratio of 5 murders for one baby)

Wow. Once again. If that’s all you got…

 

[Hammster]

Yes, you can. You can clear up what you think is being misunderstood. No-one else can. I've reiterated your position as accurately as I can and asked you if I'm being correct and asked for your opinion of the two processes. But you can leave it there if you like. We have the discussion available so people can decide themselves what your position is.

Apparently I cannot clear it up.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently I cannot clear it up.

Then we'll have to judge your position on what has been posted. I've no problem with that. As long as you're OK with it then I'm prepared to call it a day.

 

[Hammster]

Then we'll have to judge your position on what has been posted. I've no problem with that. As long as you're OK with it then I'm prepared to call it a day.

Yes, you can judge me by what I said. In context. That’s fair. Let me know when you start.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, you can judge me by what I said. In context. That’s fair. Let me know when you start.

It's already finished. You stated your position quite clearly. You would vote for Trump even though he is proposing free IVF which will entail numerous embryos being destroyed, because you'd be better off. You explained that destroying embryos was part of the process but it at least gave a woman a chance to have a baby.

The rest of the posts were me asking you to clarify if you thought that destroying embryos in a test tube wasn't as bad as having an abortion. We didn't get a reply to that. So we'll have to make an assumption. Unless you want to add something?

 

[Hammster]

It's already finished. You stated your position quite clearly. You would vote for Trump even though he is proposing free IVF which will entail numerous embryos being destroyed, because you'd be better off. You explained that destroying embryos was part of the process but it at least gave a woman a chance to have a baby.

The rest of the posts were me asking you to clarify if you thought that destroying embryos in a test tube wasn't as bad as having an abortion. We didn't get a reply to that. So we'll have to make an assumption. Unless you want to add something?

Thanks for that. Now everyone can clearly see that you either didn’t understand, or you are just trying to score points by deliberately mischaracterizing my position.

 

[comana]

? And, therefore, it's OK to abort that baby one day before delivery? How about two days? I think you get the point.

Find me one case where this happened. You are missing the point that leaving it up to doctors to decide the appropriate procedure doesn’t mean that healthy viable babies are being aborted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said nothing about whether or not murder can be forgiven. When I refer to the principle of "no murderer has eternal life," I'm using it in the present tense in such a way to imply, and to reflect the biblical implication, that in the case that repentance hasn't been (or most often, in very many cases, won't be) sought and achieved, then there is no hope in eternity for that person.

I find this to be an odd way to structure this (and by implication your original screening question). I don't know of any Christian that would think that unrepented sins aren't a barrier to salvation (except those OSAS people, but take that up with them, not me). If asked in a screening question, I'm sure most Christians would answer something like "of course they won't go to heaven if they haven't repented afterwards.)

So, of course. You're absolutely correct. Murder can be forgiven by God if a person has repented of that sin and that psychotic mindset.

Thank you for confirming that I wasn't completely out to lunch. I started to worry about my basic understanding of Christian theology.

But how many men and women who've murdered someone have actually availed themselves deeply and sincerely of God grace, mercy and forgiveness? Historically speaking, I don't think it's very many, so my citation of the biblical principle about "no murderer has eternal life" serves as a warning to those who might heed it. And what's more is that it DOESN'T MATTER that I don't have historical or statistical numbers by which to demonstrate who has or who has not repented, because the biblical FACT remains that any murderer who doesn't repent is going into the Lake of Fire after the Final Judgement. NO ifs, NO ands, NO buts. People need to realize this rather than acting out in accordance with the wishes of Satan.

I'm not concerned about the difficulty or anyone's perception of the success rate of devine forgiveness.

So, my assertion in Premise #2 stands and, I know, will continue to stand regardless of what any fellow American Tom, Rick or Sally contests otherwise.

OK, OK, then. (backs off slowly) I just don't think it would be a good screening to get the information you wanted. You are only going to get those with a "sophisticated understanding of theology" or such.

However, in the context of this thread, this is first being applied to men rather than to women, and I take the abortion issue as a subsidiary issue in the overall social discord that has been brought about by the continuous promulgation of the Playboy Philosophy (a.k.a. crass sexual hedonism and egoism), an age old philosophy in new garb that needs to continually be dismantled time and time again by Christians.

I'm not asking about your "social decline" narrative.

My "branch" of Theology invokes the praxis of Philosophical Hermeneutics, combined with the field of Biblical Exegesis, by which to then better adjudicate the various histories and development of 2,000 years of Christian Theology (as well as of crass, atheistic assertions of the kind that have been promulgated ever since the time of Porphyry and Celsus, to the present day).

I thought it might be something about a division of the church I wasn't familiar with. (Calvinism came to mind. I can't say I really know much about it.) It turned out to be just overthinking the problem in ways the surveyed public would not.

If you'd like to discuss these things in depth, I'm always open to doing so, if that piques your interest.

It doesn't, but I appreciate the offer.

I don't follow Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, nor do I rely on the Socratic method or on an Aristotelian epistemology. No, my philosophical outlook was born through the study of Modern Philosophy and of 20th Century Analytic Philosophy at a state university. So, there's no chance of "playing Socratic games," and your phrasing of what it is that you think I'm doing just shows where your current understanding of what Philosophy even is, is.

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't accusing you of playing the game, but stating that I was not play Socratic games on you. I was not asking pointed, detailed questions so that you would reveal the details I already knew and use them against you. I asked those questions because I didn't know and genuinely wanted to understand your previous statement. You clarified and I appreciate that.

If you truly want to know something, then ask and I'll be more than happy to offer you the sources from which I draw and explain further my lines of thought.......................................... but if you ask, you need to do so without the stonewalling and game playing of that goes with implying that you demand clarity on one hand, but then waving away whatever answers begin to trickle forth to you and then you saying that you "aren't interested" in hearing any of it. I didn't earn my degrees so that I can play games with people, nor to have them play games with me.

First, the "trickle" is sometimes the problem, but in other times, multiple rounds of inquiry are required to reach an understanding on terms and positions. That is fine.

Second, I'm not trying to stonewall you, I just don't understand many of your statements. In the particular case of the "muderers don't get eternal life" screening (for a hypothetical survey), when your statement threw me off I asked for clarification and stated my basic understanding of the issue. Your reply was:

"The church has gotten a number of things wrong, obviously, but it would be a fallacy to assume that Christians have been wrong about everything they preach or that their errors in thought permeate the abortion issue."

I wasn't assuming any thing about errors by anyone. If anything, where I assumed I was wrong was that you applied a different theological interpretation that I was unfamiliar with. (My guess was Calvinism. I was wrong.) So I wrote the second, more structured and thorough inquiry to which you graciously replied with the needed clarification. That second round could have been avoided if you had just included something like "unrepentant sinners don't get the eternal reward and murder is a hard sin to repent" there would have been no second inquiry and we could have continued to discuss, for example, if that question would distort the results. (It would have been even better as the actual screen #2, but we all include assumed meaning in our statements from time to time.)

Third, sometimes at the bottom of that rabbit hole it is the case that what fine detail was setting your position is not of interest to me or at least not of interest to debate. This one wasn't so much a fine detail, but about when the assumption about unrepentant sinners was being applied, as I had already "baked it in" to my understanding of salvation being *possible* for all sins.

And it's not my fault if people online underestimate me based on the experiences they've had with other Christians.

I know who I am dealing with. Unlike many of the other posters who often blend together into vague groups in my memory, I know which one you are. Even if you keep shifting your face, I can still track your character. (Keeping track of all the characters in a story is not my best skill. It's why I rarely read novels.) Don't worry, I am not mistaking you for other Christians or other CF posters. However, when I am talking about other Christians as a collective I am neither assuming they are all like you nor all like I was.

 

[o_mlly]

The conversation started when you said:

No. The conversation started with my post #49; not when you decided to jump into the thread unwilling to follow and be informed by the chain of posts subsequent to #49.

Hence my replies to the effect that a C-section or induction would be performed ...

More deflection. Kindly stay on topic: "The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child."

A realistic scenario
"Promiscuous" Pam discovers she's pregnant. A pregnancy is not convenient right now for Pam, so she decides to abort her child. She does not know who the father is -- she had fornicated many times with different men in the previous month. Nor does Pam have any medical issues affected by her pregnancy. Or she does know who the father is, and he agrees that aborting his child is OK with him.

I'll repost for you the rational argument.

Regarding the commission of direct abortions for convenience:

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.
P2: The living being in its mother's womb, if left alone, can only be a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore: In ignorance of that living being's humanity, one may never kill that innocent living being.

Can you logically defeat the argument?

 

[o_mlly]

You are missing the point that leaving it up to doctors to decide the appropriate procedure doesn’t mean that healthy viable babies are being aborted.

That is not the argument. Re-read post #49 and try to defeat the logic of the argument.

 

[NxNW]

Yes, and that does not equate to what you wrote: "You said it becomes a human being in the womb."

That's exactly what it means.