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.

[KCfromNC]

They made their choice. Actions lead to consequences. No one is being forced.

I'm not sure many accept this argument that parents must be forced by law to give up organs if their children need them. A new, progressive idea, as it were.

 

[KCfromNC]

Saying something is wrong is about morality? I mean if killing people is wrong, then I guess it’s about morality.

Yep, that's kinda what the word means.

Long roundabout to get back to my question, though : Does the idea that "Having very strong desires doesn’t mean they should act on them." apply to strong desires to impose moral views of abortion onto other people's health care choices? Or is that another argument that only applies in some very select cases?

 

[Hammster]

Yep, that's kinda what the word means.

Long roundabout to get back to my question, though : Does the idea that "Having very strong desires doesn’t mean they should act on them." apply to strong desires to impose moral views of abortion onto other people's health care choices? Or is that another argument that only applies in some very select cases?

Try not to make category errors.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

I knew there was actual data. It wasn't so hard now was it?

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.

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

Right now you seem intent on voiding that respect. I don't know why.

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.

It is the conclusion I came to once freed of religious dogma.

We'll just let it lie there.

Agreed. This is finished.

 

[RileyG]

Yep, that's kinda what the word means.

Long roundabout to get back to my question, though : Does the idea that "Having very strong desires doesn’t mean they should act on them." apply to strong desires to impose moral views of abortion onto other people's health care choices? Or is that another argument that only applies in some very select cases?

Abortion is not health care.

I will say it again.

Abortion is not health care.

It’s human destruction.

 

[RileyG]

I'm not sure many accept this argument that parents must be forced by law to give up organs if their children need them. A new, progressive idea, as it were.

Lol. No one is being forced to give up organs. Contraception, abstinence, parenthood, or adoption. They have plenty of choices.

Terminating a pregnancy that will kill the healthy fetus shouldn’t be one of them.

Sorry

 

[RileyG]

Christians are going to say otherwise, and what's more, coming onto a Christian public forum and repeating the mantra "The unborn are not people" ad infinitum isn't going to convince or deter any Christians here from continuing to advocate for an essentially Christian viewpoint.

So, maybe save yourself the effort and the wasted time ... ???

Pro choice atheist tell pro life Christians how to think. Weird.

I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I know the difference between right and wrong. Must follow my conscience and carry on.

 

[NxNW]

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.

Well, two thousand years of one interpretation followed by 45 years of another, adopted solely for political advantage, seems like a good reason to doubt on the current position.

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.

Not right away, but humans are good at rationalizing things.

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.

Mormons tell us they began welcoming blacks due to revelation. I've seen preachers on TV claim to receive messages right then and there.

 

[KathrynAragon]

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.

Actually, the book has been controversial for decades, and two African American Democrats are trying to ban it now in New Jersey.

https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2019/03/21/new-jersey-lawmakers-want-schools-to-stop-teaching-huckleberry-finn-924748#:~:text=Two%20African-American%20members%20of%20the%20state%20Assembly%20have,America%E2%80%99s%20greatest%20literary%20works%20%E2%80%94%20from%20their%20curricula.

 

[NxNW]

Abortion is not health care.

I will say it again.

Abortion is not health care.

I know a couple of women who are alive only because abortion saved their lives.

Abortion is health care.

 

[NxNW]

Pro choice atheist tell pro life Christians how to think.

I'm just telling you what you (Christians) were telling me a few years ago, and wondering why you want to pretend it never happened.

I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I know the difference between right and wrong.

Apparently what's wrong now was "right" in 1979. Weird.

 

[stevil]

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.

I've never made any blanket judgement as to whether abortion is right or wrong.

I don't think it is government's place to decide what is right or wrong.
I think it is upto the pregnant woman to decide if she is going to have an abortion or not.
She can try to make a moral judgement, is it morally right for me to have this abortion. But she doesn't have to.
She can make the choice based on economics, or based on her personal situation e.g. I'm young, not married, I just don't want to have a child.
It's upto her, her decision, based on whatever criteria she wants to use.

I personally don't care if its morally right or morally wrong, I don't think that is relevant.

 

[RileyG]

I'm just telling you what you (Christians) were telling me a few years ago, and wondering why you want to pretend it never happened.



Apparently what's wrong now was "right" in 1979. Weird.

So? We know more about the unborn and can actually see their little faces. Just because peoples opinions change over time doesn’t make it invalid.

People used to think slavery was ok. Not anymore.

 

[RileyG]

I know a couple of women who are alive only because abortion saved their lives.

Abortion is health care.

As a whole, NO, Abortion is NOT health care.

When a pregnancy is terminated for the sake of the mothers life, that’s of course much different.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pro choice atheist tell pro life Christians how to think. Weird.

It is rather uninformed on their part.

I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I know the difference between right and wrong. Must follow my conscience and carry on.

And I applaud you for that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, two thousand years of one interpretation followed by 45 years of another, adopted solely for political advantage, seems like a good reason to doubt on the current position.

I'm not following you here. What are you referring to?

Not right away, but humans are good at rationalizing things.

As I've seen so much of among atheists as well. However, I don't rationalize, but I do endeavor to always be rational. In reflection of my endeavor, there's a reason why I chose Copernicus as my avatar rather than Luther.

Mormons tell us they began welcoming blacks due to revelation. I've seen preachers on TV claim to receive messages right then and there.

Goody for Mormons. Goody for charlatan TV preachers. Either way, I don't care about that, nor do either of those positions stand as some sore of comparison for contrast against what Christians think, have thought, can think, or should think.

 

[stevil]

I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I know the difference between right and wrong. Must follow my conscience and carry on.

If only what you are doing is that innocent.
All the pro-choicers are in favour of you making your own decisions based on your own criteria, perhaps your own moral beliefs.
If you choose not to have an abortion, then that is absolutely fine. Your choice.

But, it seems you are in support of government taking away this choice by force. And your justification to support government forcing this on people is because this is your belief of right vs wrong. You want government to force your morality onto others. What then happens when the president or prime minister's moral beliefs aren't consistent with your own? Will you happily conform to restrictions the govt puts on you, when you don't accept the moral beliefs of your government leader?

 

[RileyG]

If only what you are doing is that innocent.
All the pro-choicers are in favour of you making your own decisions based on your own criteria, perhaps your own moral beliefs.
If you choose not to have an abortion, then that is absolutely fine. Your choice.

But, it seems you are in support of government taking away this choice by force. And your justification to support government forcing this on people is because this is your belief of right vs wrong. You want government to force your morality onto others. What then happens when the president or prime minister's moral beliefs aren't consistent with your own? Will you happily conform to restrictions the govt puts on you, when you don't accept the moral beliefs of your government leader?

Simple.

It’s a human that doesn’t deserve to die in the name of choice. Not wanting pre born humans dead isn’t “forcing” anyone.

Good grief.

 

[RileyG]

I've never made any blanket judgement as to whether abortion is right or wrong.

I don't think it is government's place to decide what is right or wrong.
I think it is upto the pregnant woman to decide if she is going to have an abortion or not.
She can try to make a moral judgement, is it morally right for me to have this abortion. But she doesn't have to.
She can make the choice based on economics, or based on her personal situation e.g. I'm young, not married, I just don't want to have a child.
It's upto her, her decision, based on whatever criteria she wants to use.

I personally don't care if its morally right or morally wrong, I don't think that is relevant.

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, if someone isn’t ready to be a parent, they shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. No, saying they have very strong desires is just a cop out.

No, that isn’t shaming anyone.

 

[stevil]

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, if someone isn’t ready to be a parent, they shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. No, saying they have very strong desires is just a cop out.

It's not a cop out, it is just an observation of reality.

I mean, if you are going to use that line on your kids. "Well, you should have thought about that earlier, shouldn't have you"
That's up to you.

But um, if you go over to the neighbor's kids and spout that gem onto them. You're certainly not going to have friendly neighbors any more.

All I can say, from my own personal opinion, is that people should keep their opinions to themselves. No one want's judgy neighbors spying on them.