How to win

[redleghunter]

You should have been more precise in your language in Premise #2 and said we are only counting on whether someone is innocent before man and not before God.

That would be a theological proposition. I was not making a theological proposition. In fact, it was you who brought up the theological proposition not knowing you were doing so. Thus my response which clarified the premise based on your theological proposition.

I would think following God’s standard would be a good measure for Christians to go by. You’ve spammed this thread countless times with a poorly worded argument.

The syllogism even with the theological clarification. I was not the one who quoted the Bible out of context. I provided the context. Thus far your only objection to the premise has been theological in nature and has been answered.

 

[redleghunter]

I’d also take issue with Premise #1 because of the Trolley Problem. Killing one innocent person to save several is a moral dilemma but very arguable that the less dead people the better. Imagine if you were at an IVF clinic with a Petri dish of dozens of fertilized eggs on inside of the room and an infant in a carrier on the other side of the room. The building is burning to the ground and you only have time to save one. Which do you save? It is unfortunate but at extreme times weighing lives is necessary so your Premise #1 doesn’t always hold up.

(1) not an intentional killing of an innocent human being. The fire is the 'killing' agent. Now if a person responsible for the protection of life commits in a premeditated manner to burn the clinic down to kill all human life then that would be the intentional killing of human beings.

(2) Your example only holds if one is arguing that the pregnant woman was in danger of dying and we let her die to save the human being in the womb. Both the mother and child are innocent human life. This is a matter of triage.

(3) If you want to discuss the morality of creating human beings out of the womb, we can do that.

 

[Speedwell]

(1) not an intentional killing of an innocent human being. The fire is the 'killing' agent. Now if a person responsible for the protection of life commits in a premeditated manner to burn the clinic down to kill all human life then that would be the intentional killing of human beings.

(2) Your example only holds if one is arguing that the pregnant woman was in danger of dying and we let her die to save the human being in the womb. Both the mother and child are innocent human life. This is a matter of triage.

(3) If you want to discuss the morality of creating human beings out of the womb, we can do that.

I suppose there is no hope of your wanting to discuss the OP.

 

[Nithavela]

It's certainly possible. But as I said, it is also possible that the constituency for the rest of the Christian Right's political agenda is not so broad as they would like to think. I don't know, really--it's just an idea I got the other day reading about the Civil War. In March, I think it was, of 1865 the Confederate Government finally decided to offer slaves their freedom to serve as soldiers. The Confederated Army was always undermanned and the situation had grown disastrous. By then, of course, it was too late. But what if they had come to that decision in, say, late 1862? It would have meant the end of the institution of slavery, but wiser heads knew that was inevitable anyway. And if they were really fighting for freedom and states rights, why not? They could well have won the war, or at least settled it on favorable terms. It would depend on what they really wanted.

What do the Democrats want? Is an inflexible stance on unrestricted abortion on demand worth another four years of Trump? The courts he will continue to packing will almost certainly gve him abortion, but they, or the Congress, are likely to give him the rest of the Christians Right's political agenda as well, crouched in the cruel and punitive terms they dream of. It's certainly worth thinking about. If the chips are down, I don't think there would be unanimous support for unrestricted abortion on demand in the Democratic party anyway,

You would do well to study how abortion got onto the conservative agenda. a few decades ago it was a non-issue.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I must conclude your personal worldview is based on … a dictionary.

No, just my understanding of what words mean.

Therefore, children or even adults who don't have a high degree of mental development are not human.

False. 'a' children is a child, and so on. a man, woman, or child. The additional clauses in the definition help to distinguish homo sapiens from other species.

Which leads to the question on where you view when we become human beings?

It is a fraught question, similar to the paradox of the sorites. I have come to the conclusion that legal personhood occurs at 'fetal viability without medical intervention'. 'Human being' I haven't spent as much time thinking about, but I think at birth.

 

[Speedwell]

You would do well to study how abortion got onto the conservative agenda. a few decades ago it was a non-issue.

I believe we can blame that largely on Pat Buchanan, Kevin Philips and Paul Weyrich, good Christian Nationalists all.

 

[Sparagmos]

He won Florida.

Yes that is why dems would need to flip it....

 

[Athanasius377]

Pro life is the key to it. The other issues are mostly paranoid fantasies spun by the right and can be dealt with (gun control) or which have become less important to a younger demographic than aging conservative leadership will admit (LGBT). But abortion is the issue and I think it's time the Left made a strategic retreat. How many times have I heard (and many of you too, I'll bet) "I like some of the things Democrats stand for but they're baby-killers and I can't vote for them."? If the Democrats dropped their militant pro-choice stance, Doofuss Donald wouldn't have a chance, and a lot of his sycophants in the Senate wouldn't either.

And what's the downside? Not much. Middle-class and wealthy women have always had access to medically safe abortions and always will, no matter what laws get passed. Increasingly, the ready availability of pharmaceuticals means that working-class women will too--no more straightened out coathanger wire in a back alley.

It's sure fire, if the Left had the guts to do it.

Interesting post. I normally avoid political posts because I tire of politics easily and I really don’t have a party. So I don’t think the Dems will ever be able to abandon or retreat from this hill they have staked out. For various reasons feminism has wed itself to the idea that abortion, no fault divorce and sexual licentiousness whilst ignoring the negative effects of the same. So if there was a pro life or at the least not a pro abortion Candidate I would be at least be willing to listen. It would have the effect possibly of undercutting the sole reason some groups like evangelicals pulled the lever for trump. You might be on to something here.

I suspect that if the Dems where able to nominate a Bill Clinton they may win in a landslide. I mean my BC like, not all his personal background and baggage.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, in view of Romans 2:6-16 and 1 Peter 3:18-20, I feel very confident that any and all who die without having heard the gospel will get a fair chance, and many of them will be saved then, just as in these verses in 1rst Peter suggest, but especially the 'innocent' (as your interesting post above talked on) children. I feel it's very likely 100% of children who die -- war, famine, cancer, late term miscarriage, you name it -- will live forever in bliss with God.

What would prevent an infant who dies or baby aborted from being saved by Grace?

 

[redleghunter]

Of course you can prove that statement, right?

Using a dictionary of course.

 

[redleghunter]

I've told you my view a few times, and it's still the same (though not rigid -- I consider there are real unknowns). Here it is again. perhaps more succinct (click and wait a second to jump to post): Post #116

Post 116 puts forth an argument of "we don't know when ensoulment happens" thus putting you in a position of "I don't know." If you don't know, then should not the motto be "do no harm?"

 

[redleghunter]

Also, you asked what about Christ -- present with Mary it seems (plausible) after the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.... Very good question. I responded before, that to me it seems He is different than us. He was with God since the beginning. That's qualitatively different than us.
John 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.

This was in a theology specific forum. Yes the Divine Logos is indeed eternal God. Yet there was a human beginning, the incarnation. He also had to be 100% like us but was without sin. So that question still stands: Was Jesus Christ at any point in His human development without a soul/spirit? Remember He is 100% God and 100% human---Two natures but One Person.

 

[Speedwell]

Post 116 puts forth an argument of "we don't know when ensoulment happens" thus putting you in a position of "I don't know." If you don't know, then should not the motto be "do no harm?"

My sentiments exactly, but because I don't vigorously defend the notion that it happens at fertilization, I'm nothing but a wanton baby-killer.

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting post. I normally avoid political posts because I tire of politics easily and I really don’t have a party. So I don’t think the Dems will ever be able to abandon or retreat from this hill they have staked out. For various reasons feminism has wed itself to the idea that abortion, no fault divorce and sexual licentiousness whilst ignoring the negative effects of the same. So if there was a pro life or at the least not a pro abortion Candidate I would be at least be willing to listen. It would have the effect possibly of undercutting the sole reason some groups like evangelicals pulled the lever for trump. You might be on to something here.

I don't know if I am or not, but it's hard to discuss in this forum without being spammed by the usual anti-abortion arguments.

 

[Halbhh]

This was in a theology specific forum. Yes the Divine Logos is indeed eternal God. Yet there was a human beginning, the incarnation. He also had to be 100% like us but was without sin. So that question still stands: Was Jesus Christ at any point in His human development without a soul/spirit? Remember He is 100% God and 100% human---Two natures but One Person.

We'd have to be guessing (in my view) to say whether there were 2 moments, so that His Spirit entered His physical body a little later, like at a moment when the neurons began to work together (or instead before, perhaps even unlike us!), but either way, He is still above us in Spirit it seems. A spirit above ours, already profoundly above us, before He was born into flesh.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't know if I am or not, but it's hard to discuss in this forum without being spammed by the usual anti-abortion arguments.

It would make quite a difference, because the margin is so close that only a couple of percent matters enough to swing a state sometimes.

All the democratic candidate has to do is honestly agree with the majority of democratic voters -- that late term abortions of healthy babies when the mother is not at significant risk should be out of bounds, should not happen, should not be allowed even. Not at all a radical position, and one about 98% of democrats will either heartily endorse, or for the much smaller fringe, be willing to live with.

It's the common sense position too. Common sense is often a pretty good bet when there are unknowns.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know if I am or not, but it's hard to discuss in this forum without being spammed by the usual anti-abortion arguments.

Or the pro-abortion arguments....the lefts version of 'defenders of the faith'......

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​