How to win

[civilwarbuff]

How is it odd?

Had Lincoln not been against slavery he would not only have not got the abolitiionist vote he would never have been nominated. The Republican Party was an abolition party.....though that was not something that was frequently trumpeted......

 

[LoAmmi]

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.

Wasn't talking to you. I already addressed your little thing and you stopped talking.

 

[Speedwell]

It is scientific fact, period.

That a human genome is a human genome? Of course.

If you will re-read my post you will find your are very wrong in that criticism.

Why? have you edited it? In any case I didn't suppose that you actually believed that there is nothing important about a human being but a genome, only that you were making a dishonest argument to that effect.

Why? This is, after all, a Christian forum.......

I suppose you can make an argument against abortion anywhere you want, but it does seem a little odd that you should do so in a discussion in which it has been proposed arguendo that Democrats should concede that abortion should be prohibited.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

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.

Psalm 51:5 disproves Premise #2. Humans are sinful from conception and therefore are not innocent and worthy of death because the wages of sin is death. Conclusion is wrong because Premise #2 is wrong.

 

[Halbhh]

Because the poll shows this.

Please look more carefully. Let me highlight:

"but a majority favored restrictions on abortion. Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time"

See it better now? If 22% think 'abortion on demand' is always ok, then....

100- 22= 78

78% then do not think abortion on demand is always ok....

right?

You mentioned above what you thought a 'vast majority' viewpoint was, as I recall.

But, seems it's the 'vast majority' (your phrasing) -- 78% -- who would restrict abortion, isn't it?

What did you think of the Will Rogers quote? Seem more true now?

 

[redleghunter]

I don't think that abortion always kills a human being and still don't think it is morally right.

If abortion does not always kill a human being, then what is killed or terminated if not human?

But that is a discussion for another thread. Here what we are talking about is the political impact of the Democrats abandoning a (militant, if you like) pro-choice stance.

I believe my questions are on point. Your thread is about the Democratic Party abandoning the abortion on demand plank (basically abandoning Roe v Wade). For me, who espouses a social safety net for the poor and unemployed, an advocate against predatory lenders, and an advocate to break up Big Tech monopolies, I would have to be convinced the Democrats were serious about abolishing Roe v Wade before pulling the lever for a (D) candidate. Why I offered the syllogism.​

 

[essentialsaltes]

If abortion does not always kill a human being, then what is killed or terminated if not human?​

A human zygote is human, but not a human being.​

 

[redleghunter]

Psalm 51:5 disproves Premise #2. Humans are sinful from conception and therefore are not innocent and worthy of death because the wages of sin is death. Conclusion is wrong because Premise #2 is wrong.

You are assuming Premise #2 is wrong based on how all humans are sinners and deserving death? Nice point, but notice this from Psalm 51:

Psalm 51: NASB

1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.

3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.

4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.​

Notice what you refer to in verse 5, verse 4 addresses. God has every right as creator of every life to give said life and take it. Premise 2 addresses decisions to kill by human beings. We are commanded throughout Holy Scriptures to not take another life. And God does explain this in the context of human on human killing or murdering:

Genesis 9: NASB

6“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.

7“As for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”​

And God does make the distinction of "innocent blood" (life) often in Holy Scriptures:

Psalm 106: NASB
37They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,

38And shed innocent blood,
The blood of their sons and their daughters,
Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;
And the land was polluted with the blood.​

Many more passages on the shedding of innocent blood (life) here.
Therefore, the Scriptures do make the distinction. Premise #2 stands as does the syllogism:

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.​

 

[redleghunter]

A human zygote is human, but not a human being.​

Ok then provide the scientific evidence for this in a syllogism.

 

[Nithavela]

I agree, it's time to sacrifice women's rights on the altar of political expedience.[/s]

Do you really think that this will be a solution? It will just take the conservatives a few months to rile up their voters with another non-issue that they can get outraged about. They propably already have their game plan in the drawer for 3 replacements.

And at the same time, they can celebrate it as a win to have made the democrats buckle and rally around that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok then provide the scientific evidence for this in a syllogism.

It doesn't require logic or a syllogism or scientific evidence. It's a definition.

Human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens"

A zygote is not a man woman or child of any species.

 

[Halbhh]

You are assuming Premise #2 is wrong based on how all humans are sinners and deserving death? Nice point, but notice this from Psalm 51:

Psalm 51: NASB

1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.

3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.

4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.​

Notice what you refer to in verse 5, verse 4 addresses. God has every right as creator of every life to give said life and take it. Premise 2 addresses decisions to kill by human beings. We are commanded throughout Holy Scriptures to not take another life. And God does explain this in the context of human on human killing or murdering:

Genesis 9: NASB

6“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.

7“As for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”​

And God does make the distinction of "innocent blood" (life) often in Holy Scriptures:

Psalm 106: NASB
37They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,

38And shed innocent blood,
The blood of their sons and their daughters,
Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;
And the land was polluted with the blood.​

Many more passages on the shedding of innocent blood (life) here.
Therefore, the Scriptures do make the distinction. Premise #2 stands as does the syllogism:

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.​

That was interesting. Friendly questions:
when the human body does abortion naturally, why should we guess (without any scripture basis) that a God-given spirit was present?

Don't you yourself believe God could foresee that natural abortion? If you do believe He can, then...well...? Do you then think He intentionally puts spirits into fertilized eggs He knows are dying within a day?

An hour?


(anyone: please see post 116 for a more consideration of the when-the-spirit-is-present question).

 

[redleghunter]

Please look more carefully. Let me highlight:

"but a majority favored restrictions on abortion. Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time"

See it better now? If 22% think 'abortion on demand' is always ok, then....

100- 22= 78

78% then do not think abortion on demand is always ok....

right?

You mentioned above what you thought a 'vast majority' viewpoint was, as I recall.

But, seems it's the 'vast majority' (your phrasing) -- 78% -- who would restrict abortion, isn't it?

What did you think of the Will Rogers quote? Seem more true now?

From the Marist poll:

The Marist poll conducted in February 2019 shows that respondents are split evenly on the question of whether abortion should be legal, but the most surprising part of the poll is that a third of Democrats, 34 percent, identify as pro-life. Further, 15 percent of Democrats said that abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances and a total of 35 percent said that it should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

Sixty-one percent of Democrats identified as pro-choice, but a majority favored restrictions on abortion. Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time while 13 percent said it should be legal within the first six months of the pregnancy.​

First they destroyed their own poll by lumping cases of rape and incest in with "to save the life of the mother.' Before Roe v Wade every state to include Texas had statutes protecting the life of the mother to be.

Given the poll results, only 15% of Democrat voters would support 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.​

The poll reveals "61% of Democrats identified as pro-choice, but the majority favored restrictions on abortion." That means the majority of pro-choice Democrats believe, according to the syllogism above that there should be restrictions on the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

The article provided (Poll: More Democrats Are Pro-Life - The Resurgent) also cautions the following:

There are some cautions about the poll, however. First, the poll showed a 14-point jump in the share of pro-life Democrats in a one-month span. Any sudden large shift in poll numbers should be regarded with skepticism. Additionally, the poll’s sample size of 1,008 adults is too small to make its findings conclusive. Subsequent polling will need to verify the shift in Democratic attitudes before I am convinced.​

So we either have an outlier of those who claim to be Pro-Life, or more Democrats have defined Pro-Life to mean exceptions acceptable other than "life of the mother to be" which has been a Pro-Life position well before Roe v Wade.

 

[redleghunter]

A zygote is not a man woman or child of any species.

A human zygote is not human? And a zygote is not of our species? Provide the genetics to support your assertion.

 

[Halbhh]

From the Marist poll:

The Marist poll conducted in February 2019 shows that respondents are split evenly on the question of whether abortion should be legal, but the most surprising part of the poll is that a third of Democrats, 34 percent, identify as pro-life. Further, 15 percent of Democrats said that abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances and a total of 35 percent said that it should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

Sixty-one percent of Democrats identified as pro-choice, but a majority favored restrictions on abortion. Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time while 13 percent said it should be legal within the first six months of the pregnancy.​

First they destroyed their own poll by lumping cases of rape and incest in with "to save the life of the mother.' Before Roe v Wade every state to include Texas had statutes protecting the life of the mother to be.

Given the poll results, only 15% of Democrat voters would support 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.​

The poll reveals "61% of Democrats identified as pro-choice, but the majority favored restrictions on abortion." That means the majority of pro-choice Democrats believe, according to the syllogism above that there should be restrictions on the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

The article provided (Poll: More Democrats Are Pro-Life - The Resurgent) also cautions the following:

There are some cautions about the poll, however. First, the poll showed a 14-point jump in the share of pro-life Democrats in a one-month span. Any sudden large shift in poll numbers should be regarded with skepticism. Additionally, the poll’s sample size of 1,008 adults is too small to make its findings conclusive. Subsequent polling will need to verify the shift in Democratic attitudes before I am convinced.​

So we either have an outlier of those who claim to be Pro-Life, or more Democrats have defined Pro-Life to mean exceptions acceptable other than "life of the mother to be" which has been a Pro-Life position well before Roe v Wade.

It's good news, even if the actual percentage favoring abortion restrictions isn't an entire 14% increase in just 1 month, even if only 10% or whatever. It's good more have gained awareness of distinctions. Further, again, 78% don't agree that 'abortion on demand' is always ok (such as just for 'convenience' alone, after some point in time).

 

[Halbhh]

A human zygote is not human?

Hold on there. He'd just posted to you above:

A human zygote is human, but not a human being.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So we either have an outlier of those who claim to be Pro-Life, or more Democrats have defined Pro-Life to mean exceptions acceptable other than "life of the mother to be" which has been a Pro-Life position well before Roe v Wade.

Thanks for the link to the poll. No exception except for the mother's life is one Pro-Life position, but not the only one. See slides 5 and 6.

Slide 5. People who identify as Pro Life:

Should never be permitted 26%
Permitted in the case of mother's life 18%
Allowed for Life/Incest/Rape 35%
Allowed in first trimester 13%
Allowed in second trimester 3%
At any time in the pregnancy 6%

Similarly on Slide 6, views of Republicans are almost exactly the same as these Pro-Life opinions.

Looks like Republicans and Pro-Lifers have also redefined pro-Life to mean exceptions acceptable other than life of the mother.

 

[redleghunter]

That was interesting. Friendly questions:
when the human body does abortion naturally, why should we guess (without any scripture basis) that a God-given spirit was present?

Why should we guess that a soul/spirit was not present?

Don't you yourself believe God could foresee that natural abortion? If you do believe He can, then...well...? Do you then think He intentionally puts spirits into fertilized eggs He knows are dying within a day?

An hour?

You want me to opine on what I think God's will and purpose is for everyone?

Let me ask a more compelling question...Do you believe we can be saved by the Grace of God at any stage of our development as human beings?

Also, I have not heard if you accept 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.

 

[Halbhh]

Thanks for the link to the poll. No exception except for the mother's life is one Pro-Life position, but not the only one. See slides 5 and 6.

Slide 5. People who identify as Pro Life:

Should never be permitted 26%
Permitted in the case of mother's life 18%
Allowed for Life/Incest/Rape 35%
Allowed in first trimester 13%
Allowed in second trimester 3%
At any time in the pregnancy 6%

Similarly on Slide 6, views of Republicans are almost exactly the same as these Pro-Life opinions.

Looks like Republicans and Pro-Lifers have also redefined pro-Life to mean exceptions acceptable other than life of the mother.

This reminds me of how trying to guess how many jelly beans in the jar, there's an interesting ability of a large group to guess on average about right -- averaging all the guesses is a very good guess at the actual amount.

In America today, after decades of this issue, isn't the averaging of American opinion close to roughly a kind of 'pro-life' stance with the exceptions you laid out up until roughly sometime near the beginning of the third trimester, which is very roughly about 12 weeks?
(also, compare 12 weeks with post #116)

 

[redleghunter]

Hold on there. He'd just posted to you above:

Yeah but he should answer what I posed. Because Merriam-Webster is not supporting what he thinks.