Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am not really interested in "debunking" the Bible. That has already occurred, at least if one has literal interpretations of various books. I am not a fan of the word games and other nonsense that apologists use. Then I do tend to get a bit snarky. To me most of their arguments reek of dishonesty.It seems you have some strong views on Biblical interpretation. May I suggest again to form a polemic and post it on the apologetics forum. Trust me you will get takers in that discussion.
You want him to do someone else's citation work...? And you're calling him lazy?You could try and find the evidence for yourself and stop being so lazy.
Is that what you would tell an academic integrity panel? "I don't have to cite my sources until those filthy atheists stop telling lies."I don't think you have any right to demand anything bearing in mind some of the lies that atheists tell when they are providing "evidence." When the atheists holy sheet is clean, then you are in a position to demand something.
I don't think you have any right to demand anything bearing in mind some of the lies that atheists tell when they are providing "evidence." When the atheists holy sheet is clean, then you are in a position to demand something.
You could try and find the evidence for yourself and stop being so lazy. That way you will get the truth as you don't seem to want to accept the truth that others give. And by the way, the facts re China are common knowledge. It doesn't require evidence as I have been reading about it for years from various sources. But then I do my homework. I don't just sit around waiting for everything to fall into my lap and rabbit on about "I need evidence" when you don't want to know the truth that you have been told. You atheists are so predictable.
Don't need it. Besides most of those authors make a gross mistake.
You are welcome. A wise person would have at least wondered what the error that they make is.Thank you for your infallible ruling.
That human life was forced into the woman, against her will, in a violent and criminal act. Anything that comes from that and without the woman's consent is a clear violation of her body and autonomy.
Now, let me be clear... If that woman wants to go through with the pregnancy, then I would never deny her that right and I would support her decision 100% and I'd never tell her what I would do differently if I were in her position, or shame her for her choice. Regardless of what that choice is.
I would also hold the exact same position should she decide to abort the pregnancy.
That is the essence of being pro-choice. Maybe that makes me pro-abortion to some people around here, I don't really care. I will stand with the woman to make her own choice and not force her to follow my personal choice for her situation, as she would know better than I do what is best for herself.
Of course. Have we not fought entire wars to defend liberty?You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.
What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?
Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?
The problem is that not everyone sees a fetus as "life". Until you convince others that a fetus should have all of the rights of a born person you are not going to be able to win this debate. And for me "winning" would mean a change in the laws that govern this act, not just convincing a few people on an internet forum.You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.
What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?
Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?
Citation required. I think that you are possibly overstating the extent of such practices in China. But then I am not one hundred percent sure of where you are getting that claim from, which is why I am demanding evidence.
You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.
What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?
Can this model of choice or liberty first be applied in other moral or ethical decisions?
Perhaps. In the future I will point out when a citation is needed.
Part of the problem was that I have had to ask multiple times for evidence. But I tell you what, if people promptly provide the required citations when reasonable demanded I won't make any leading conclusions about them.
You are welcome. A wise person would have at least wondered what the error that they make is.
By the way, I have never claimed to be infallible. But thanks for recognizing my superiority.
Of course. Have we not fought entire wars to defend liberty?
A baby in the womb is not possible, period.One chooses which worldview on which to base their life on. Yours is based on what man says, mine is based on what God says.
It is not possible to eat a baby that is still in the womb.
Very good, the problem is that even in China the number of female births may have been greatly obscured by the hiding of female births. Under the old One Child rule, it was recently rescinded, the births of some children were hidden. You could not be charged if no one knew that you had a child. From the second source:
I am not really interested in "debunking" the Bible. That has already occurred, at least if one has literal interpretations of various books. I am not a fan of the word games and other nonsense that apologists use. Then I do tend to get a bit snarky. To me most of their arguments reek of dishonesty.
The liberty of one is in conflict with the liberty of the other. You would choose the embryo?You addressed the woman's liberty but not the human life who did no harm and committed no transgression.
What of the life? Is liberty so sacrosanct human life takes a back seat?
I'm not nearly as concerned about an embryo as I am about a grown person.You invite someone into your home, do you then shoot them for trespassing? Certainly not. You have consensual sex, you abort the life brought into existence by your actions?
You are welcome. A wise person would have at least wondered what the error that they make is.
By the way, I have never claimed to be infallible. But thanks for recognizing my superiority.
The problem is that not everyone sees a fetus as "life". Until you convince others that a fetus should have all of the rights of a born person you are not going to be able to win this debate. And for me "winning" would mean a change in the laws that govern this act, not just convincing a few people on an internet forum.
Yep, just because a story comes from FOX does not mean that it is not reliable. In fact in FOX's early days I do remember that they often fared better under fact checks than other networks. FOX had an early instant success because when it was formed the main stream news was hopelessly for the Democrats. GHW Bush complained because the recession was over well before the election that he lost to Clinton, but it was never reported as such. If someone provides a source and he does not like it then he needs to find another one. Meanwhile now that some evidence has been supported for selective abortion I will want to see if there is anything that seriously counters it.I agree that making a claim requires evidence. If none is provided then the claim is an assertion and not an argument.
I have seen quite a few posters "impeach " evidence given before examining the source.
On one thread someone impeached any news piece from Fox or Brietbart but then linked HuffPo and Mother Jones.
Seems convenient.
Frankly such tactics are either lazy or deceiving. I think you would agree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?