Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 8,978
- 4,724
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Is abortion not shameful?I think that's an unhelpful approach. Firstly, only God can make those kinds of judgments. Secondly, those kinds of judgments create a culture of fear and shame so that people don't feel they can be open and honest about their struggles. A person can be against abortion without taking the further step of condemnation.
Q:
How would you rate this article, regarding medical accuracy: Is the Pill an Abortifacient? What does Birth Control Do?
1-10, 1 is the lowest. Provide a very short list of issues, if you find any.
A:
I would rate the article's medical accuracy as 3 out of 10.
Key issues with the article:
Misrepresentation of "abortifacient" action: <long text left out>
Use of outdated and biased terminology: <long text left out>
Lack of balanced evidence and selective citation: <long text left out>
Conflation of contraception and abortion: <long text left out>
Unsubstantiated claims about pharmaceutical companies: <long text left out>
Inconclusive statements on birth control use during pregnancy: <long text left out>
Overall, the article mixes some factual information with misleading interpretations, biased language, and controversial claims that do not align with current medical understanding and guidelines.
A eunich is a man who no longer has his testicles. Nothing more, nothing less. Christ was NOT a eunich.
But even if He was one, to suggest you are better than Him because you have passion is absurd. Christ was the example in ALL things.
I've been having essentially "safer" sex for about 31 years now. Even with that, the "problem" is not solved by merely appealing to a prescriptive prohibition in relation to procreation and the sexual act. Such an appeal is just too simple of an assessment about the nature of biological sexuality among human beings.
The truth is, there are more than a few complications in your assessment that, as I've already inferred, have a part to play in the unfortunate outcome for any individual woman deciding to have an abortion. These additional social factors need to be taken into account and not summarily dismissed in the ongoing process of evaluating any one situation.
And on some things, I (we) do INDEED know more than the ancients. That's just the way it is.
So, with all of this in mind, what do you plan to discuss with this woman whom you've mentioned in the OP?
I am telling you what a eunich is. It is YOU who used it in this manner.So, you think Jesus was saying it's permissible for a man to cut his own genitalia off for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? That is the implication of what you are saying.
I hope you don’t plan on jumping all over her when she doesn’t respond the way you’d prefer. If I had known you were going to be this hostile I’d have never shared my experience on this thread.I plan to ask her what she thinks Jesus thinks of abortion.
I am telling you what a eunich is. It is YOU who used it in this manner.
And while I don’t think Jesus condoned or instructed people to take those kind of actions, it was a common occurrence in those days to achieve the desired outcome. Back in times past it was not unheard of for a male singer to eunichize himself so he was able to reach notes that were usually reserved for a female voice. Given this, I can see how someone might carry those words to that extreme. You have to realize that was a VERY different time with VERY different customs.
I hope you don’t plan on jumping all over her when she doesn’t respond the way you’d prefer. If I had known you were going to be this hostile I’d have never shared my experience on this thread.
You know, when you are confronted with information you don’t know (which appears to be quite a bit), your first act is to lash out instead of being humble enough to admit that you could be wrong and make the effort to study the issue out and, heaven forbid, actually try to work the new information you’ve received into your belief system.The problem with your view is that Jesus says they do it in pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven. Not because they want a higher vocal range.
I don't think all of the fuller connotations possibly inherent in your apparent view of 'sex ed' are being cited here. From one angle, I agree generally agree with you: people ideally should not have sex until they're ready to be parents.I did not say anything about prohibition. I said we should educate people.
Sure. But let's ALSO, by all means, bring the men responsible for those pregnancies to the judgement bar since they are a part of the problem. In fact, in many cases, they are the prior cause of the problem.Again, I am all about raising awareness that abortion kills a defenseless human (because that is literally the definition of abortion). So, by all means, let's get those young ladies debating an abortion an ultrasound.
First principles of morality? Which ethical framework out of a dozen are you referring to in alluding to these "first principles"?Not when it comes to first principles of morality. We are terribly screwed up today compared to 300 years ago.
I plan to ask her what she thinks Jesus thinks of abortion.
Just about everything you’ve said has been hostile, from accusing me of being an atheist because I’m a nurse to Jesus not being a good example like you because He has no passion to accusing me of accusing Jesus of making people mutilate themselves. You truly have no idea how you come across if you think there is nothing wrong with any of those things you said.What have I said that is "hostile?"
I've said you don't understand what I am saying. That is a fact.
I will be gentle on her, don't worry. She is my friend and I don't want to hurt her.
You know, when you are confronted with information you don’t know (which appears to be quite a bit), your first act is to lash out instead of being humble enough to admit that you could be wrong and make the effort to study the issue out and, heaven forbid, actually try to work the new information you’ve received into your belief system.
I really feel bad for that young woman you say you’re talking to.
Just about everything you’ve said has been hostile, from accusing me of being an atheist because I’m a nurse to Jesus not being a good example like you because He has no passion to accusing me of accusing Jesus of making people mutilate themselves. You truly have no idea how you come across if you think there is nothing wrong with any of those things you said.
I don't think all of the fuller connotations possibly inherent in your apparent view of 'sex ed' are being cited here. From one angle, I agree generally agree with you: people ideally should not have sex until they're ready to be parents.
Yet, coming from another angle, there's an old traditional perspective that takes this general notion and applies it with vigorous inflation. I don't think that perspective is sensible, useful or even impermissible.
Sure. But let's ALSO, by all means, bring the men responsible for those pregnancies to the judgement bar since they are a part of the problem. In fact, in many cases, they are the prior cause of the problem.
First principles of morality? Which ethical framework out of a dozen are you referring to in alluding to these "first principles"?
Ok. And when she says to you either that, "I don't know," or "I don't care at this point in my life," how will you respond to either of these answers?
I understand all too well. You don’t like to be told you’re wrong, even when you’re wrong. I’ve been around here a good long time and have seen a good number of posts that express fantastical claims, but never have I seen anyone be so wrong about so much and still act like they are the person who could do, or know, no wrong and try to pass off their own wrongness onto someone else.Your perception of reality is very flawed. You don't understand the arguments I am making, even after I clarify them to you twice.
I understand all too well. You don’t like to be told you’re wrong, even when you’re wrong. I’ve been around here a good long time and have seen a good number of posts that express fantastical claims, but never have I seen anyone be so wrong about so much and still act like they are the person who could do, or know, no wrong and try to pass off their own wrongness onto someone else.
I’ll be praying for that girl so that when you approach her with all your misinformation, as well-intentioned as it might be, that she is able to see beyond the errors to your heart, which I really hope is in the right place.
LOL. What is going on is that you were plain-old wrong on multiple occasions and don’t want to admit it. So, yes, you might say you said things I’ve never heard before, and in that one instance, you’d be right. That doesn’t mean you weren’t wrong when I confronted you about them.I think what is going on here is that I am saying things that you have never heard before, so I am wrong by default.
LOL. What is going on is that you were plain-old wrong on multiple occasions and don’t want to admit it. So, yes, you might say you said things I’ve never heard before, and in that one instance, you’d be right. That doesn’t mean you weren’t wrong when I confronted you about them.
Yes, you were wrong about Jesus being a eunich. Jesus, I believe though it is not stated otherwise, had all his bodily parts.You in no way demonstrated that I was wrong. Was I wrong about Jesus being a Eunuch? No. Was I wrong about The Pill creating an inhospitable womb for a fetus to develop? You questioned my source (subjective), but you never challenged the actual claim that The Pill causes an inhospitable womb. Usually, when a person challenges the source rather than the claim, they are on the losing side of the debate because they are trying to discredit something based on a technicality rather than the substance of the argument.
It’s a good icon/avitar and I’ve had it for several years now. No plans to give it up. But I think it’s good enough that several people can use it. So I’m not asking anybody else to change it either. But sorry for the confusion.I explained why I think it is unhelpful in the post to which you responded. I'll just refer to that again.
On a completely unrelated note, I often get you confused with @chevyontheriver It's partly the avatar throwing me off, but it's also my bad eyes/small phone.
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?