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.

[RileyG]

Non sequitur. Your reasoning denies medical treatment to anyone injured in a car accident. Prove me wrong.

No, it didn’t.

The whole car accident scenario is a red herring.

 

[stevil]

I never stated any of that.

You said you want IVF to be illegal didn't you?
You said abortion is murder didn't you?

Do you think it is fine to have an abortion if a woman gets pregnant through rape?

 

[stevil]

This isn’t about moral beliefs. It’s about protecting people. Especially those most vulnerable.

Point blank period

You keep talking about wrong and right so I assumed you were talking about moral beliefs.

A fertilised egg is hardly a person.

 

[Hammster]

When you talk about things being "wrong" that is a moral judgment. And wanting to outlaw things based on them being "morally wrong" means that you are wanting to force your moral beliefs onto everyone else.

Same thing when you say it’s right.

 

[stevil]

Same thing when you say it’s right.

What have I claimed as being right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.)

Right. But my argument isn't, and hasn't been, directed at fellow Christians, but rather at those democrats who think that "men should step up."

I'm rather under the impression that, instead, men should learn to "step off."

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

Sometimes, I aver for focusing in upon certain nuances of thought without getting entrapped by whatever it is everyone automatically jumps to in inference or other contexts, so as not to always lose the value of single trees for the forest.

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

Well..................I am.

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.

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

Right. You didn't ask about, but I gave it anyway, especially since I'm not of the mindset of "waiting" for others to finally have a light bulb go off in their minds and realize, "By George, there were some other factors that involve my own well-being that I never thought about before."

So yeah, I sometimes give extra, unasked for contexts, especially where social decline is in the mix. I know that my atheistic and democratic neighbors go out of their way to do the same for me.

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.

I never feel that a problem has been "overthought." If anything, in an essentially anti-intellectual culture such as ours, I don't think we're in danger of overthinking on much of anything quite yet.

It doesn't, but I appreciate the offer.

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I also wanted to make sure you know that I know that I live and think and breath in the 21st century, not the 1st century.

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.)

Fair enough.

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.

Y'know, it's a good thing my name isn't Anakin Skywalker..........................because I do find that when ex-Christian and atheist folks out there have a lack of interest, it's disturbing to me, most particularly when their particular views push particular angles in politics such as those at the center of this particular thread.

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.

And this is one thing I appreciate about you, Hans: your ability to be discerning even if when you're not interested.

 

[KCfromNC]

This isn’t about morality.

You're really trying to sell the idea that there's zero moral component to the claimed desire to save lives?

Come on, no one's going to buy that.

It seems like an attempt to avoid responding to my question rather than a serious attempt at discussion.

 

[KCfromNC]

What double standard?

In one case, the fact a couple consented to having sex is used as an excuse to force one of the people to give up bodily autonomy as a result. But the same assumed consent disappears there when the question is a slightly different question of bodily consent.

Seemed pretty clear to me, and shows the whole idea isn't based on some consistent logical principles but instead a poorly thought out post hoc rationalization for wanting to force women to carry children to term.

 

[KCfromNC]

So?

Well, just a few posts back there was a post insisting this had nothing to do with morality. Seems there's not a lot of consistency in the claims here. Makes one wonder what the real story actually is.

 

[Hammster]

What have I claimed as being right?

Abortion is either right or wrong. There’s no neutrality. So if you don’t think it’s wrong, there’s only one other choice.

 

[A2SG]

Abortion is either right or wrong. There’s no neutrality. So if you don’t think it’s wrong, there’s only one other choice.

Incorrect. You could recognize that it isn't your decision to make, and allow the one who does have to decide the freedom to make that decision unencumbered by someone else's views on morality.

Just like we do with other moral dilemmas.

-- A2SG, I, for one, have never said a single word about whether abortion is moral or not...and I don't intend to.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

The deflections continue. The syllogism is quite simple to defeat:

Invalidate P1.​

Invalidate P2.​

Shoe the conclusion does not logically follow from P1 and P2.​

 

[o_mlly]

If I can jump in here, yes I can. Twinning can occur after that point, which means the number of so-called humans can't even be quantified at the one-week mark. And since all humans are distinct, the fact that you can't quantify them/it disqualifies the zygote from being a person or persons.

Ask yourself: Did both twins exist before the split? If so, you're claiming there were two humans in the single fertilized egg, which is nonsense. If no, then you've conceded that life begins after conception. Take your pick, but you have to choose one.

The deflections continue. The syllogism is quite simple to defeat:

Invalidate P1.​

Invalidate P2.​

Shoe the conclusion does not logically follow from P1 and P2.​

 

[o_mlly]

It can easily be rejected by any scientific evidence that talks about 'little people' being formed after conception. That a zygote is a 'tiny person'. I thought this sort of thinking went awol in the 17th century. From wiki:

'Nicolas Hartsoeker postulated the existence of animalcules in the sperm of humans and other animals. This was the beginning of spermists' theory, which held that the sperm was in fact a "little man" that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child'

View attachment 354263

The deflections continue. The syllogism is quite simple to defeat:

Invalidate P1.​

Invalidate P2.​

Shoe the conclusion does not logically follow from P2 and P2.​

 

[o_mlly]

But you're arguing that abortions should stop. Period. No time limit. No consideration of viability. No concept of personhood. As far as you are concerned (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you don't want abortions from the point of conception.

We have nothing to argue about because you don't accept the basis on why people have no problem with early term abortions.

The deflections continue. The syllogism is quite simple to defeat:

Invalidate P1.​

Invalidate P2.​

Shoe the conclusion does not logically follow from P1 and P2.​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Incorrect. You could recognize that it isn't your decision to make, and allow the one who does have to decide the freedom to make that decision unencumbered by someone else's views on morality.

Just like we do with other moral dilemmas.

-- A2SG, I, for one, have never said a single word about whether abortion is moral or not...and I don't intend to.

And we assume you would be inclined to lean this way since you're expressing your viewpoint from being in that "other religion."

 

[A2SG]

And we assume you would be inclined to lean this way since you're expressing your viewpoint from being in that "other religion."

In this case, my viewpoint comes from the idea that those who aren't pregnant don't get to decide how the pregnancy should be handled.

-- A2SG, not pregnant....

 

[Hammster]

Incorrect. You could recognize that it isn't your decision to make, and allow the one who does have to decide the freedom to make that decision unencumbered by someone else's views on morality.

Just like we do with other moral dilemmas.

-- A2SG, I, for one, have never said a single word about whether abortion is moral or not...and I don't intend to.

You just made a moral argument that isn’t neutral. Good effort, though.

 

[A2SG]

You just made a moral argument that isn’t neutral. Good effort, though.

How do you figure?

-- A2SG, didn't choose A or B, rather none of the above...

 

[Hammster]

How do you figure?

-- A2SG, didn't choose A or B, rather none of the above...

There is no none of the above. It’s either okay to terminate a pregnancy or it’s not.