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]

Maybe endless repetition of "abortion is murder" isn't furthering the conversation either.

Facts are facts.

 

[RileyG]

You really expect Christians to be able to define it some other way?

See, this is where some of you atheists get the procedure for political maneuvering and influence backwards. If you want to make Christians agree with you, you FIRST have to influence Christians to become ex-Christians. But as it is, you're direct approach of confrontation and denial has no possibility of ever doing this.

This isn’t even about Christians or religion. There are pro life atheists and agnostics.

 

[RileyG]

The majority of humanity plus both political parties feels that it is. You seem to oppose democracy for some reason.

If a majority of people thought it was ok to rob a bank would that make it ok?

No.

Good grief.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My viewpoint isn't hard to understand. The pregnant woman is the only person who gets to decide how to deal with her pregnancy. No one else gets a vote.

Not me, not you, not Margaret Sanger or any one else.

-- A2SG, especially since Sanger is long dead....

I vote that men learn to keep their penises in their pants, then we won't have the problem of illegitimate parents, especially where those in minority positions of poverty and a lack of education (very often for no fault of their own) have been pushed into and out of which they try to live and make decisions. Y'know, those sectors of society that Margaret Sanger wasn't too fond of but, despite her ideology, Christ loves.

 

[RileyG]

I vote that men learn to keep their penises in their pants, then we won't have the problem of illegitimate parents, especially where those in minority positions of poverty and a lack of education (very often for no fault of their own) have been pushed and out of which they try to live and make decisions. Y'know, those sectors of society that Margaret Sanger wasn't too fond of but, despite her ideology, Christ loves.

EXACTLY! Self control. But people don’t like that.

 

[Hammster]

Not really. Biblical passages were used by many to justify slavery. Mark Twain wrote about it in Huck Finn. It's interesting that some conservatives are trying to suppress that fact by banning the book.

There was still the argument that they weren’t human. Same argument that the Nazis used against the Jews.

 

[Hammster]

That you seem to oppose democracy?

You seem to not have followed the discussion that led to my post you quoted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This isn’t even about Christians or religion. There are pro life atheists and agnostics.

Maybe, but I bet if I check the demographical spread, pro-life atheists and agnostics are in the minority among their own strata. I'd be shocked to find otherwise (... or even elated and jumping for joy if I were to find they are the majority among themselves).

 

[A2SG]

You implied that a woman may have at least a third way of looking at it.

She very well might.

I’m asking what that third way might be.

And my response remains: you'd have to ask her.

I don’t think you need to be a woman to answer that.

It's kind of a requirement if you're trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

-- A2SG, at a minimum...

 

[NxNW]

You really expect Christians to be able to define it some other way?

Sure. We don't want to violate site policy, but that policy is but one interpretation and (as noted in my signature), mainstream Christianity was fine with abortion before the "quickening" prior to ~1980. Billy Graham's publication stated as such in the 70s. It just wasn't a major issue, and some of us actually remember that. In 1980 the GOP started campaigning against abortion and suddenly we'd always been at war with Eastasia.

See, this is where some of you atheists get the procedure for political maneuvering and influence backwards. If you want to make Christians agree with you, you FIRST have to influence Christians to become ex-Christians.

Either that, or confront them with mainstream Christian thinking from 45 years ago and ask them why it no longer applies.

But as it is, you're direct approach of confrontation and denial has no possibility of ever doing this.

Nobody said the truth is always easy, but it's still the truth.

 

[NxNW]

There was still the argument that they weren’t human. Same argument that the Nazis used against the Jews.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and state that Christians who promoted slavery were wrong, and the Nazis were also wrong. I suspect most of the world agrees with me. Most of the world also opposes attempts to take away women's reproductive freedom.

The whole "consequences" argument doesn't hold water. Getting in a car wreck is a potential outcome of driving, but we don't prohibit car accident victims from getting medical treatment. Choking is a potential outcome of eating, but we don't outlaw the Heimlich Maneuver. Getting one's ear shot off by a Republican is a potential outcome of running for President, but we don't ban presidential candidates from getting medical treatment. Dying is a potential outcome of kidney failure, but we don't force others to donate a kidney to those suffering renal failure. You see how the logic works?

 

[Hammster]

It's kind of a requirement if you're trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

-- A2SG, at a minimum...

And that has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Hammster]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and state that Christians who promoted slavery were wrong, and the Nazis were also wrong. I suspect most of the world agrees with me. Most of the world also opposes attempts to take away women's reproductive freedom.

The whole "consequences" argument doesn't hold water. Getting in a car wreck is a potential outcome of driving, but we don't prohibit car accident victims from getting medical treatment. Choking is a potential outcome of eating, but we don't outlaw the Heimlich Maneuver. Getting one's ear shot off by a Republican is a potential outcome of running for President, but we don't ban presidential candidates from getting medical treatment. Dying is a potential outcome of kidney failure, but we don't force others to donate a kidney to those suffering renal failure. You see how the logic works?

You are like a politician who who pretends to answer a question but actually addresses something entirely different.

 

[NxNW]

Why would I be concerned about what Billy Graham thought, as if he had some sort of defining authority?

As mentioned, it was mainstream Christian thinking at the time. I bring up Graham because the fact that it was immortalized in his publication process this.

What Christians thought 45 years ago isn't the litmus test for what Christians could think or should think.

Did Christian thinking change in 1980 because of a divine revelation, or for political advantage?

There's a h--- of a lot more that can go into it than merely "what side of the political track do I want to stand on?"

That was the sole motivation in 1980. Trump's flip-flop and continued support is evidence of this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As mentioned, it was mainstream Christian thinking at the time. I bring up Graham because the fact that it was immortalized in his publication process this.

Who cares if it was mainstream Christian thinking "at the time"? Your choice of a delimiting time frame for definition is arbitrary as far as posing any epistemic prescription upon anyone else is concerned. If some of you atheist want freedom for abortion, I suppose you'll get it anyway, but even so, that doesn't mean there has to be a matching interpretive response among Christians, even if they don't get their political way.

Did Christian thinking change in 1980 because of a divine revelation, or for political advantage?

Did Christian thinking change on anything, at any time, due to divine revelation? THAT should be your first question to consider, with the second trailing after if you so wish to pose it.

That was the sole motivation in 1980. Trump's flip-flop and continued support is evidence of this.

I see. You're whole motive and goal for even being on CF is a political one. Personally, I don't care about politics until politicians, whether liberal or conservative----of whatever sort, start telling me what I "have to believe" regarding either Religion or Ethics. Then there's a problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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."

And our discussion has been entirely about your claim that faith in Jesus reduces or prevents abortion and how that would be measured. Not directly about the specifics in the OP.

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.

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

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.

"Social decline" was not the issue we were discussing. It was the causality of faith and choices about having abortions.

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.

Perhaps "overthought" wasn't the right term. Perhaps you were just inferring things about the women who could answer the abortion question with a yes. I don't know. I guess we'll never get to that part because our conversation has gone meta, and meta ruins everything.

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.

Fair enough.

Y'know, it's a good thing my name isn't Anakin Skywalker........................

Take it easy, Darth.

..because I do find that when ex-Christian and atheist folks out there have a lack of interest, it's disturbing to me,

That's too bad that it disturbs you because many of us are just utterly uninterested in theology or which theology is "right". They are to most of us utterly unimportant.

most particularly when their particular views push particular angles in politics such as those at the center of this particular thread.

It is not as if I haven't thought about these things and reasoned through my position. It is no longer based on the Vatican's cloistered functionaries. The basis many use on this issue that embryos have souls has no sway with me, nor any argument by scripture. I do not see anything intrinsically immoral about abortion anymore. I could discuss the reasoning, but the rules forbid.

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

TY.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And our discussion has been entirely about your claim that faith in Jesus reduces or prevents abortion and how that would be measured. Not directly about the specifics in the OP.

For you, our discussion has been entirely about that sole nuance; for me, on the other hand, the nuance didn't stop being enmeshed in the context that had already been in the flow of the previous conversation I was having.................. I mean, you can't expect everyone to line up with your epistemic focus simply because you showed up unannounced, Hans. Which is one reason why I don't clarify everything upfront at all times with every interlocutor who crosses my path.

"Social decline" was not the issue we were discussing. It was the causality of faith and choices about having abortions.

For me, it's a holistic epistemic connection. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Perhaps "overthought" wasn't the right term. Perhaps you were just inferring things about the women who could answer the abortion question with a yes. I don't know. I guess we'll never get to that part because our conversation has gone meta, and meta ruins everything.

It all depends on how much I sense you care. As it is, you've let me know more than a few times that where certain epistemic inquiries are at play, you don't care and aren't interested. Remember, I'm not AV. I'm not going to play semantic musical chairs continuously for issues and nuances of those issues that others don't care about.

Take it easy, Darth.

That's too bad that it disturbs you because many of us are just utterly uninterested in theology or which theology is "right". They are to most of us utterly unimportant.

....You're not helping me appreciate your case here, Hans.

It is not as if I haven't thought about these things and reasoned through my position. It is no longer based on the Vatican's cloistered functionaries. The basis many use on this issue that embryos have souls has no sway with me, nor any argument by scripture. I do not see anything intrinsically immoral about abortion anymore. I could discuss the reasoning, but the rules forbid.

TY.

I don't care what you think about the Vatican. I don't care much what the Vatican thinks, either. My views aren't based on some one or two person's views about the World.

And since you're not interested in understanding my position, I'm at liberty to withhold offering you any explanation about it. Now, with that said, if you want to teach me and discuss something about Physics, I'm all ears ....................................................................

 

[RileyG]

Maybe, but I bet if I check the demographical spread, pro-life atheists and agnostics are in the minority among their own strata. I'd be shocked to find otherwise (... or even elated and jumping for joy if I were to find they are the majority among themselves).

They still exist. Abortion isn’t about religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For you, our discussion has been entirely about that sole nuance;

It is literally the claim I challenged for evidence. Evidence that it seems will never come.

for me, on the other hand, the nuance didn't stop being enmeshed in the context that had already been in the flow of the previous conversation I was having.................. I mean, you can't expect everyone to line up with your epistemic focus simply because you showed up unannounced, Hans. Which is one reason why I don't clarify everything upfront at all times with every interlocutor who crosses my path.

For me, it's a holistic epistemic connection. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

It all depends on how much I sense you care. As it is, you've let me know more than a few times that where certain epistemic inquiries are at play, you don't care and aren't interested. Remember, I'm not AV. I'm not going to play semantic musical chairs continuously for issues and nuances of those issues that others don't care about.

I already told you I can differentiate you from the class clown.

....You're not helping me appreciate your case here, Hans.


I don't care what you think about the Vatican. I don't care much what the Vatican thinks, either. My views aren't based on some one or two person's views about the World.

I never claimed they were, to you. I told you that they once did to me. I was trying dispel your implication that morality on this issue could only arise from religious thinking or that anyone with a different position hadn't thought about it seriously. I have, but I will not discuss it openly on this board.

And since you're not interested in understanding my position, I'm at liberty to withhold offering you any explanation about it. Now, with that said, if you want to teach me and discuss something about Physics, I'm all ears ....................................................................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is literally the claim I challenged for evidence. Evidence that it seems will never come.

I did address, but you don't like the form in which I addressed it.

You're instead thinking that IF I go out and begin amassing probabalistic/statistics of the following form below, then that somehow tears into the overarching nuances that the Principles out of Ethos, Pathos or Logos by which any of us think we're choosing to arbitrate our evidences, the nature of those evidences, and our notions about 'sufficiencies' for those evidences. I'm going to say that amassing these doesn't exhaust what needs to be exhausted in order to account for the essence of the issues we're pondering.

70% of Women Who Get Abortions Identify as Christians, Survey Finds

Over 40 percent of women who ve had an abortion say they were frequent churchgoers at the time they ended their pregnancies and about a half of them say they kept their abortions hidden from church

www.christianpost.com

So what? I don't care what people 'say' they are. I care about the situations and their actual educational attainment and, taking into account all who has been involved, which is usually...... men who claim they can only act on instinct.

The overarching fact will still remain that you and I operate from different paradigms, with yours dominating the public realm.

I already told you I can differentiate you from the class clown.

Yes, I know you can. But differentiating me from the class clown doesn't mean you'll still respect me in the morning.

I never claimed they were, to you. I told you that they once did to me. I was trying dispel your implication that morality on this issue could only arise from religious thinking or that anyone with a different position hadn't thought about it seriously. I have, but I will not discuss it openly on this board.

Ah, I see. The thing is, I will and do discuss issues will a measured amount of opaqueness and, at times, transparency.

Anyway, we can drop this discussion if you wish. As a Christian, I aver for an essentially Christian Non Pro-Abortion stance; you opt for the liberal stance.

We'll just let it lie there.