• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I am aware of the argument you are parroting. I think it contrived and dishonest. In the first place, I told you already that I am opposed to abortion. I don't need to suppose that there is nothing important about a human being except a genome in order to oppose abortion. As a "non-believer" I believe that the most important thing about human beings are our immortal souls and I am very much surprised that you, as a believer, do not.
In the second place, given the context of this thread, I am surprised that you would think it on topic to mount a sectarian argument against abortion. I have proposed that the Democratic party abandon it's pro-choice stance, which would make an argument against abortion redundant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
So this is about snookering the "Christian Right" into thinking the Democratic party is no longer standing on the pillar of abortion on demand?
Not "snookering" but honestly stepping down from the pillar of abortion on demand. That's the only way it would work.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not "snookering" but honestly stepping down from the pillar of abortion on demand. That's the only way it would work.
That would mean Democrat candidates would then embrace the following:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

How would they convince any voters that they made such a change. And would it not isolate a vast majority of their base?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, they would not have to accept that silly syllogism. Besides, as we have already been shown in this thread, many Democrats are already against abortion to some degree or under some circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm sorry you are unable to understand the similarities between the killing of innocent life in abortion and the killing of innocent life in collateral damage. I would think it obvious, but here we are.
One has the ability and even foreknowledge to know how to escape danger and the other does not....so sorry, I don't see the similarities between them.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
One has the ability and even foreknowledge to know how to escape danger and the other does not....so sorry, I don't see the similarities between them.

How does a child in a village know they can escape a bombing raid?
 
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,092
46,206
Los Angeles Area
✟1,033,035.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Therefore, given what you provided, it is ok to kill an innocent human being due to deformities?

It is up to the woman and her family to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, aided by information and advice from their doctors and friends and other trusted figures.

I don't want abortion to be forbidden. I don't want abortion to be mandatory.

I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare.

If in the case of all of the above examples, the child came to term, should it be permissible to then terminate (kill) the baby based on the odds of survival?

It should not be legal. In the case of suffering, however, medical euthanasia should be an option.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
but the Republicans would have pulled in more votes in Lincoln's time by not being against slavery.
That's odd...The Republican party was formed as an abolitionist party. Lincoln was a Republican.
 
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes, I am aware of the argument you are parroting. I think it contrived and dishonest.
It is scientific fact, period.
As a "non-believer" I believe that the most important thing about human beings are our immortal souls and I am very much surprised that you, as a believer, do not.
If you will re-read my post you will find your are very wrong in that criticism.
In the second place, given the context of this thread, I am surprised that you would think it on topic to mount a sectarian argument against abortion.
Why? This is, after all, a Christian forum.......
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's on topic as Democrat candidates often use the hypothetical situation to paint all abortions as permissible.

Prior to the Roe vs. Wade decision, every state to include the state of Texas had statutes to protect the pregnant woman's life. Roe was about abortion on demand.

So for anyone to take a Democratic party candidate seriously about 'stepping down from abortion' they would have to advocate the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Would you agree with this? Or was your point for a candidate to be 'indifferent' on abortion? Basically, just ignore the elephant in the room?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I don't want to argue with you, but what about if some of the genes are missing?

I was very surprised once here on CF to find a person that thought original sin was physically inherited in genes. Isn't there something called a 'soul' and something called a 'spirit' (I'm being rhetorical, because I know you agree souls and spirits are real).

This isn't a small thing, about what is physical and what is not physical...

This spirit, from God, isn't the body, isn't physical:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 before the dust returns to the ground from which it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The spirit is not the body.

When the body returns to dust, the spirit goes back to God, Who gave it into the dust body, temporarily.

Why does this point matter. It matters because we don't know from scripture when the spirit is put into the body, but only know that the spirit exists before the body does:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations."

"before" -- spirit exists before the body in which it will be placed.

This is all deeply relevant to this whole question, of course. It's not the temporary dust body we are to place our hope in, but in God. Would God put a spirit into a fertilized egg He knows is only going to die just a few days later?

In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.
Conception: How It Works

These usually flawed fertilized eggs are naturally aborted by the body, as God designed.

Would He put a spirit into a fertilized egg He can see is going to die naturally? I don't think that would fit what we know of God.

The soul, which seems to be the outcome of the spirit lived in a body, seems associated to consciousness, and when consciousness is finally ended comprehensively (including the level called 'unconscious' like dreaming and such), the soul departs the body.

But consciousness doesn't begin in a developing baby until at the very earliest 6 weeks, but probably more like 12 --

Some people are concerned with abortions after six weeks of pregnancy because that is when a basic spinal cord and nervous system first develop, but it is not until week eight (six weeks post-fertilisation) that the first rudimentary brain activity – the kind that is observed in organisms as simple as insects – can be observed. The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16.
The moment a baby’s brain starts to function, and other scientific answers on abortion
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How is it odd?
I responded to this:

You might be able to pull in some more right-wing votes by abandoning it, but the Republicans would have pulled in more votes in Lincoln's time by not being against slavery.

Republicans were against slavery. The Democrats favored it. There was an entire war over the economy of slavery.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Republicans were against slavery. The Democrats favored it. There was an entire war over the economy of slavery.

Southern Democrats did, Northern Democrats were not as much for it. Not that they were trying hard to get rid of it, they just didn't support it as much as Southern. It was far more a North/South issue than Democrat/Republican. Hence the war being between the North and South.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How does the above address:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.