Search results

"A difference" doesn't automatically equate to "a difference that justifies denying the right to life". You need to explain the specific rights and situations you are referring to.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus wasn't part of a governing body that had authority to execute people. Also notice that the text tells us this was a deliberate attempt to trap Jesus. It doesn't come right out and say what exactly the trap is, but we know something fishy is going on. There are...

The deciding factor, according to you, was the quality of being counted. Distance is irrelevant. We have yet to see the "demonstrable fact" that the unborn are not persons deserving protection of life. Sure, just assume what I might say, with no actual specific situation offered for example...

None of which contains any factual evidence of a crime. Oh, he claimed concern. Hardly real evidence. Oh, he claimed concern. Hardly real evidence. And full stop. That's a lie by Vindman right there. Have you even read the transcript of the call? There's no "demand" for an investigation at...

Let's seal a bunch of people in a room with no windows. You can't see into the room. Since you have no way of counting them, must be ok, then, to blow up the room. Hey, can't count them, blow that sucker! Can't be any people in there since we can't count them. Awesome argument there!

"We can't tell how many human beings there are; therefore, it's zero." Lmao, sure, makes perfect sense.

Once again, a claim that you can't demonstrate as true beyond a certainty of "maybe". So apparently you just don't value human life high enough to warrant assurance beyond "maybe". Is a skin cell a human being? Nope. Are the unborn? Yep. After conception, there is no point in development before...

No it isn't. Any such law is made by popular vote. No one is forced to vote a particular way, and no one is prohibited from attempts to challenge or change laws. That's not authoritarian. Yet under many cases, you & many others would use your own freedom to deny the freedom of the unborn.

So, forcing more of an anti-abortion rule on society is authoritarian; while forcing more of a pro-abortion rule on society would not be authoritarian. Riiiiiight.

Which, once again, amounts to nothing more than "maybe". Oh, so you have proof it's just "imaginary" then? Otherwise, I'm under no obligation to consider your opinion. I'm not imposing my will on anyone. Where was anyone forced to accept my view? I don't see that happening anywhere.

Once again, you haven't demonstrated that they aren't beyond a certainty of "maybe". I think human life is valuable enough to warrant assurance better than "maybe".

So, it's my fault that the Nazi's are a well known example that legality != morality? "Important in life" doesn't equate to "holds much weight in this discussion". Irrelevant to whether or not abortion is moral. I also like to keep in mind idealogical zealots who would impose authoritarian...

Oh, well I guess that makes it easy. Since you haven't proven consciousness rests on the presence of a physical brain, I don't need to consider the implications of the physical brain not yet being developed in the early stages of life. You've given your opinion on what the criteria should be...

All well & good, except that I'm a Christian. We accept the existence of spirits, like God. God, by nature, has no physical "brain" and yet has consciousness. The angles don't have physical "brains" and yet have consciousness. Humans have a spirit/soul which has consciousness apart from a...

(disregard this)

So, just our guesses make a compelling argument? Ok, well, it's my guess that the unborn are persons. Does that settle it now? Not really. Please be clear & specific about what morally makes the unborn be non-persons.

Legally, or morally? Two different things. If all you have is a legal point, it doesn't hold much weight in a morality discussion. According to who? From a medical dictionary: "Baby" includes "an unborn child". Ok, what's a "child"? It's "the human young", which applies, and "an unborn...

That simply doesn't follow. The Old Testament being 100% God's revelation does not require everything in it to be considered a direct instruction for me. God making a covenant with one set of people doesn't require an identical covenant with a different set of people.

No, the English would say what the Greek says. And, as already shown in post #22, the Greek is literally "I am", so the English says "I am". The question is, though, what does "I am" refer to. And the argument can be made that it refers to the same "I am" that God claims for a name in the Old...

Thanks, but I know what the standard answer is. I was really just interested in how the OP would respond.