PDA

View Full Version : Abortion Is Equal To Murder?



Pages : [1] 2

seer
05-14-2018, 01:11 PM
This is a syllogism by a cyber friend from New Zealand, Bnonn Tennant. I think the logic is solid.

1.It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons (because it is murder)

2.A human zygote or fetus is a human being

3.Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons

https://bnonn.com/why-abortion-is-irrefutably-equivalent-to-murder/

lee_merrill
05-14-2018, 02:55 PM
Yes, this is true, may the Lord have mercy on us, and may he stop this.

Blessings,
Lee

firstfloor
05-14-2018, 03:32 PM
This is a syllogism by a cyber friend from New Zealand, Bnonn Tennant. I think the logic is solid.

1.It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons (because it is murder)

2.A human zygote or fetus is a human being

3.Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons

https://bnonn.com/why-abortion-is-irrefutably-equivalent-to-murder/Tosh and nonsense, sentimental garbage of the first order. Human beings are air breathing. A zygote has zero intrinsic value. The anti-abortion movement has always and forever been about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage - punishment they do not visit on the men involved.

Zymologist
05-14-2018, 03:36 PM
Tosh and nonsense, sentimental garbage of the first order. Human beings are air breathing. A zygote has zero intrinsic value. The anti-abortion movement has always and forever been about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage - punishment they do not visit on the men involved.

What definition of "human being" are you using to restrict it to air breathing?

firstfloor
05-14-2018, 04:17 PM
What definition of "human being" are you using to restrict it to air breathing?

If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one? To be a human being you need at least to be born. Before that, it is someone’s pregnancy and is not a thing of itself in the world among the other animals.

seer
05-14-2018, 04:17 PM
Tosh and nonsense, sentimental garbage of the first order. Human beings are air breathing. A zygote has zero intrinsic value. The anti-abortion movement has always and forever been about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage - punishment they do not visit on the men involved.

So a human zygote is not, well, human?

seer
05-14-2018, 04:48 PM
If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one? To be a human being you need at least to be born. Before that, it is someone’s pregnancy and is not a thing of itself in the world among the other animals.

That is just stupid FF, even for you. Do you really believe that a baby one day away from birth is not human? What is it? A plant?

QuantaFille
05-14-2018, 05:01 PM
If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one? To be a human being you need at least to be born. Before that, it is someone’s pregnancy and is not a thing of itself in the world among the other animals.

A woman with an infant likewise buys only one ticket. Does that mean an infant isn't a human being, either?

QuantaFille
05-14-2018, 05:07 PM
(...)punishment they do not visit on the men involved.

Do you think men should be able to opt out of paying child support? And how is it "punishment" to leave a child you don't want in the custody of the state? She doesn't have to even look at the child again if she doesn't want to. Nobody is forcing her to raise a child she didn't intend to have. Men are forced to pay for the care of children they never intended to have, and they can't opt out.

QuantaFille
05-14-2018, 05:09 PM
That is just stupid FF, even for you. Do you really believe that a baby one day away from birth is not human? What is it? A plant?

It's a blob of tissue up until then, which magically and instantaneously transforms into a fully formed infant on the way through the birth canal.

Jedidiah
05-14-2018, 05:18 PM
Abortion is equivalent to murder. The only reason it is not actually murder is that the law makes abortion an exception.

Zymologist
05-14-2018, 06:55 PM
If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one? To be a human being you need at least to be born. Before that, it is someone’s pregnancy and is not a thing of itself in the world among the other animals.

If a really large guy flies on an airliner, does he buy two tickets or just one?

I'm used to pro-choice arguments being scientific poppycock, but this is a new low.

element771
05-14-2018, 07:23 PM
If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one? To be a human being you need at least to be born. Before that, it is someone’s pregnancy and is not a thing of itself in the world among the other animals.

Actually it depends on how old the baby is. Our daughter flew a number of times with us just purchasing two tickets for myself and my wife. I believe that a baby can do this until the age of 2.

KingsGambit
05-14-2018, 08:03 PM
Abortion is equivalent to murder. The only reason it is not actually murder is that the law makes abortion an exception.

The law has no bearing on whether or not it is murder. (This is where I disagree with J.P. Holding, when he argues that "thou shalt not murder" is not relevant as a Bible verse condemning abortion.)

Tassman
05-15-2018, 12:37 AM
Abortion is equivalent to murder. The only reason it is not actually murder is that the law makes abortion an exception.

This is only a recent view among Evangelicals. “In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for “legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such circumstances as rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal abnormality, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

https://eewc.com/evangelicals-open-differing-views-abortion/

Nothing about “murder” here!

"The classic recognition of what represents a human being is the biblical teaching concerning the creation of Adam. At first, the Book of Genesis simply states that Adam was formed to look like a human being and then God breathed into his body the breath of air (the spirit).

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7

Until the breath of air entered the body of Adam, he was not a living soul. If anything, he was a dead soul, even if he was a living fetus. A soul only becomes a soul when the breath (the air) comes into the lungs. "

http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d050201.htm

This has always been the Jewish view. And Jesus was a Jew.

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 12:40 AM
This is a syllogism by a cyber friend from New Zealand, Bnonn Tennant. I think the logic is solid.

1.It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons (because it is murder)

2.A human zygote or fetus is a human being

3.Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons

https://bnonn.com/why-abortion-is-irrefutably-equivalent-to-murder/


Um, wouldn't 'self defense' be by definition a 'personal reason'?

Murder is the willful killing of another human being without just cause, in law usually with malice aforethought. When people use 'murder' it's rarely contextually about second degree or lesser offenses - which is why I'm using a general definition of first degree here. Regardless, tacking on 'because it is murder' doesn't fix the problem.

So no, it's not sound. Needs works. But it's a good start.

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 12:44 AM
The law has no bearing on whether or not it is murder. (This is where I disagree with J.P. Holding, when he argues that "thou shalt not murder" is not relevant as a Bible verse condemning abortion.)

I kinda disagree here but only because the laws legalizing abortion don't past the sniff test - they rest on contrived legal fictions which means that in our Constitutional system, they aren't just laws and therefore aren't arbiters of the definition. I'm confused about what the heck JP is arguing - how would an unjust law not be relevant?

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 12:45 AM
Tosh and nonsense, sentimental garbage of the first order. Human beings are air breathing. A zygote has zero intrinsic value. The anti-abortion movement has always and forever been about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage - punishment they do not visit on the men involved.
Nothing in that has any basis in reality or law - you are actually undermining the argument for abortion.

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 12:46 AM
So a human zygote is not, well, human?
According to Roe v Wade, it is human.

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 12:49 AM
Abortion is equivalent to murder. The only reason it is not actually murder is that the law makes abortion an exception.
Abortion is murder - the Court erred. That means that it may be legal but that is based on an error - one the Court will eventually correct (remember it took the Court a considerable time to correct the slavery related errors as well - and means that like abortion, slavery should not have been deemed constitutional EVER).

seer
05-15-2018, 04:31 AM
Um, wouldn't 'self defense' be by definition a 'personal reason'?

Murder is the willful killing of another human being without just cause, in law usually with malice aforethought. When people use 'murder' it's rarely contextually about second degree or lesser offenses - which is why I'm using a general definition of first degree here. Regardless, tacking on 'because it is murder' doesn't fix the problem.

So no, it's not sound. Needs works. But it's a good start.

I spoke to Bnonn about this. Self defense would fall under a civil action since it is acceptable by law. So it would not be strictly personal since it would be unjust (by law) for someone to attempt to take your life.

Cerebrum123
05-15-2018, 05:20 AM
Tosh and nonsense, sentimental garbage of the first order. Human beings are air breathing. A zygote has zero intrinsic value. The anti-abortion movement has always and forever been about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage - punishment they do not visit on the men involved.

The underlined is a perfect description for the text that follows it. :yes:

Bill the Cat
05-15-2018, 05:21 AM
If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one? To be a human being you need at least to be born. Before that, it is someone’s pregnancy and is not a thing of itself in the world among the other animals.

God, you are stupid.

Bill the Cat
05-15-2018, 05:23 AM
What definition of "human being" are you using to restrict it to air breathing?

That's the problem with syllogisms like this. It's using a philosophical term like "person" or "human being" instead of "unique member of our species".

shunyadragon
05-15-2018, 05:49 AM
Wrong place for this thread. The moderator needs to move this to Pro Life Activism 301.

element771
05-15-2018, 05:51 AM
Wrong place for this thread. The moderator needs to move this to Pro Life Activism 301.

Wrong. It is a philosophical question, not any sort to activism.

shunyadragon
05-15-2018, 05:54 AM
Wrong. It is a philosophical question, not any sort to activism.

Disagree, seer is proposing a pro life activist position. Everything is not philosophy just to suit indivdual agendas.

Littlejoe
05-15-2018, 05:57 AM
Wrong place for this thread. The moderator needs to move this to Pro Life Activism 301.
Pro Life Activism does NOT allow debate. It does not belong there.

element771
05-15-2018, 05:58 AM
Disagree, seer is proposing a pro life activist position. Everything is not philosophy just to suit indivdual agendas.

He is asking about a philosophical argument about abortion.

What is up with you and "individual agendas"?

Instead of pretending to understand cosmology, you should read up on psychological projection.

Sparko
05-15-2018, 06:19 AM
If a pregnant woman flies on an airliner, does she buy two tickets or just one?

Wow. I never thought of that argument. You have won the internet. Congrats. Why hasn't anyone else ever thought of that point? The Airline Seat argument. :clap:

:duh:

Sparko
05-15-2018, 06:20 AM
A woman with an infant likewise buys only one ticket. Does that mean an infant isn't a human being, either?

not according to Starlight!

One Bad Pig
05-15-2018, 07:32 AM
God, you are stupid.
Why are you calling God stupid?

:outtie:

firstfloor
05-15-2018, 01:15 PM
That is just stupid FF, even for you. Do you really believe that a baby one day away from birth is not human? What is it? A plant?Human BEING, seer. It has to be a person to qualify as a being. Under construction or sitting on the launch pad is not the same thing.

Imbued with spirit means air breathing. When it breathes it is a being.

element771
05-15-2018, 02:07 PM
Human BEING, seer. It has to be a person to qualify as a being. Under construction or sitting on the launch pad is not the same thing.

Imbued with spirit means air breathing. When it breathes it is a being.

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a life?

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 02:25 PM
This is a syllogism by a cyber friend from New Zealand, Bnonn Tennant. I think the logic is solid.

1.It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons (because it is murder)

2.A human zygote or fetus is a human being

3.Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons

https://bnonn.com/why-abortion-is-irrefutably-equivalent-to-murder/

I think pro-choice advocates would suggest that the syllogism fails on Premise 2. They acknowledge that the zygote/fetus is human - as they would that a thumb is human. They dispute that it is a human being, which is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

For myself, I agree that the implanted zygote/fetus is a human being and it is immoral to destroy it with very few exceptions (basically the same exceptions that apply to any human life).

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 02:28 PM
Why are you calling God stupid?

:outtie:

Oh I completely missed that... :blush:

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 02:29 PM
I think abortion advocates would suggest that the syllogism fails on Premise 2. They acknowledge that the zygote/fetus is human - as they would that a thumb is human. They dispute that it is a human being, which is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

For myself, I agree that the implanted zygote/fetus is a human being and it is immoral to destroy it with very few exceptions (basically the same exceptions that apply to any human life).

(assuming you're not in devil's advocate mode for the bolded statement)

How is that a philosophical claim? A human fetus is a human being; it is not human in the sense that a thumb is human. Or, it's human in the noun sense as well as the adjective sense, not just the adjective sense. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 02:34 PM
(assuming you're not in devil's advocate mode for the bolded statement)

How is that a philosophical claim?

"Human" is a matter of examining the DNA and determining if it is or is not human. Both the thumb and the zygote are "human." "Human being" as to do with personhood (i.e., when do we have a distinct person). Personhood is not a scientific claim - it is a philosophical one that takes into account what a "person" is and when it begins. If a "person" requires the ability to reason, you get one answer. If it involves the ability to breathe, you get another. If it involves the ability to function independently, you get yet another answer.


A human fetus is a human being; it is not human in the sense that a thumb is human. Or, it's human in the noun sense as well as the adjective sense, not just the adjective sense. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

Apparently to you. To me, a distinct human being exists when a being with a unique/distinct DNA is on a path to viability (i.e., implantation). But some say it happens when you have a discernible heartbeat. Some say it is when you have a discernible EEG. Some it is when you have a life capable of independent living (i.e., breathing, eating, etc.). Same say it is when you have a unique DNA only. Every definition has its strengths/weaknesses. They all depend on the definition of "human being" rather than merely the definition of "human."

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 02:40 PM
"Human" is a matter of examining the DNA and determining if it is or is not human. Both the thumb and the zygote are "human." "Human being" as to do with personhood (i.e., when do we have a distinct person). Personhood is not a scientific claim - it is a philosophical one that takes into account what a "person" is and when it begins. If a "person" requires the ability to reason, you get one answer. If it involves the ability to breathe, you get another. If it involves the ability to function independently, you get yet another answer.



Apparently to you. To me, a distinct human being exists when a being with a unique/distinct DNA is on a path to viability (i.e., implantation). But some say it happens when you have a discernible heartbeat. Some say it is when you have a discernible EEG. Some it is when you have a life capable of independent living (i.e., breathing, eating, etc.). Same say it is when you have a unique DNA only. Every definition has its strengths/weaknesses. They all depend on the definition of "human being" rather than merely the definition of "human."

I never mentioned "personhood." Why does "human being" have to equal "person?"

A fetus is a human being in the sense that it is a distinct member of the species (unlike a severed thumb; hence, noun sense vs adjective sense). This is undeniable. To claim otherwise is hogwash* and deserves no serious response. To try to redefine "human being" as equivalent to "person" seems...highly suspect, to me.



*I'd use a stronger word but I'd get in trouble.

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 02:41 PM
Here's a related question, for pro-choicers or whoever would like to attempt an answer: why should I believe that human non-persons exist?

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:09 PM
I never mentioned "personhood." Why does "human being" have to equal "person?"

You didn't - but that is the implication. "Human" is a scientific principle. When something that is human is a distinct "being" is not.


A fetus is a human being in the sense that it is a distinct member of the species (unlike a severed thumb; hence, noun sense vs adjective sense).

You and I are in agreement on this.


This is undeniable.

We are not in agreement on this. You and I (apparently) agree on what it takes to be a "human being." That is not a universally accepted thing.


To claim otherwise is hogwash* and deserves no serious response. To try to redefine "human being" as equivalent to "person" seems...highly suspect, to me.

*I'd use a stronger word but I'd get in trouble.

If it "deserves no serious response" to you, then it would be folly of me to respond. You apparently will not consider any alternative point of view. :shrug:

seer
05-15-2018, 03:09 PM
I think pro-choice advocates would suggest that the syllogism fails on Premise 2. They acknowledge that the zygote/fetus is human - as they would that a thumb is human. They dispute that it is a human being, which is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

But a thumb is not human, it is a part of a human. A fetus has all the genetic material that makes a human being. And a human being by definition is: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 03:13 PM
You didn't - but that is the implication. "Human" is a scientific principle. When something that is human is a distinct "being" is not.



You and I are in agreement on this.



We are not in agreement on this. You and I (apparently) agree on what it takes to be a "human being." That is not a universally accepted thing.



If it "deserves no serious response" to you, then it would be folly of me to respond. You apparently will not consider any alternative point of view. :shrug:

Are you going to argue that a fetus is just a clump of cells, or part of the woman's body, or that it's a vestigial organ? At this point I expect you to.

It doesn't deserve a serious response because it's bollocks. Whether or not it's universally agreed to is irrelevant; I'd remind you that the Flat Earth Society exists, people fervently believe in the Mandela Effect, etc. People believe lots of things.

Oh, and thanks for the characterization in your last comment. I have considered the alternative point of view on this; I find it sorely lacking.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:14 PM
But a thumb is not human, it is a part of a human.

A thumb is most definitely human. Examine the DNA and you will find it contains the entire human genome. It is not a human being, but it is most definitely human (assuming it is part of a human being or was amputated from one).


A fetus has all the genetic material that makes a human being.

So does a thumb.


And a human being by definition is: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Agreed. The question is, what constitutes an "individual." When we delve into that, there are different definitions. Indeed, my own definition is not universally accepted. Some would suggest that fertilization and implantation is not adequate - that individual sustainability is also required. Others would suggest that implantation is not required, and fertilization is adequate. When an "individual" begins is not universally agreed upon. As a consequence, what is and is not moral is not agreed upon.

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 03:15 PM
If there's no individual there, then why are you opposed to abortion?

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:17 PM
Are you going to argue that a fetus is just a clump of cells, or part of the woman's body, or that it's a vestigial organ? At this point I expect you to.

I believe that any fertilized ovum that is implanted in a context where it can proceed to develop into an independent human organism is a human being. So, to me, the requirements for individualization are fertilization and implantation.


It doesn't deserve a serious response because it's bollocks. Whether or not it's universally agreed to is irrelevant; I'd remind you that the Flat Earth Society exists, people fervently believe in the Mandela Effect, etc. People believe lots of things.

Yes, they do. And when someone has decided that there is no point to discussion, it is pointless to discuss further.


Oh, and thanks for the characterization in your last comment. I have considered the alternative point of view on this; I find it sorely lacking.

I'm not sure what "characterization" you are referring to, but you're welcome, I guess.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:17 PM
If there's no individual there, then why are you opposed to abortion?

Are you asking me?

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 03:19 PM
Are you asking me?

Yes, I was asking you.

And by "characterization" I meant your parting comment about me being unwilling to consider alternative points of view.

firstfloor
05-15-2018, 03:25 PM
What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a life?The claim in the OP is that a Zygote is a Human Being. ‘Life’ is a different topic.

firstfloor
05-15-2018, 03:38 PM
That is just stupid FF, even for you. Do you really believe that a baby one day away from birth is not human? What is it? A plant?

By the way, if you are not a human being you cannot be murdered. Abortion is legal in the U.S. while murder is not. The reason is clear but the pro-birth terrorists just don’t get it.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:40 PM
Are you asking me?

So, first, I did not say there was "no individual" there. Ergo I am opposed to abortion. I am also opposed to forcing a mature, adult woman to make a medical choice that has to do with her own body. The abortion issue pits two closely held values of mine against one another: respect for life - and respect for liberty. It is the quintessential zero-sum game. That is why I advocate for pre-pregnancy alternatives - to avoid getting to that decision point to begin with.

As for the characterization - I was simply reflecting your own language. Statements like:

To claim otherwise is nonsense...

This is undeniable...

To claim otherwise is hogwash...

It doesn't deserve a serious response because it's bollocks...

These are not responses that suggest an open mind willing to examine the issue. So, why would anyone want to engage if that is the starting place...?

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:43 PM
Here's a related question, for pro-choicers or whoever would like to attempt an answer: why should I believe that human non-persons exist?

Because there are things that have the human genome that are not consider a human person. Examples include:

- a severed thumb (or any part of the human body)

- a dead body

These are universally agreed upon. Other examples that are less universally agreed upon include:

- a fertilized embryo in cryogenic freeze

- a dead body in cryogenic freeze

- a brain-dead person in a coma

The world is not as black/white as most of us would wish it to be.

Zymologist
05-15-2018, 03:43 PM
Because there are things that have the human genome that are not consider a human person. Examples include:

- a severed thumb (or any part of the human body)

- a dead body

These are universally agreed upon. Other examples that are less universally agreed upon include:

- a fertilized embryo in cryogenic freeze

- a dead body in cryogenic freeze

- a brain-dead person in a coma

The world is not as black/white as most of us would wish it to be.

So in response to that question you'll answer "a severed thumb?"

Ok, yeah. Have fun y'all. This thread is a waste of time.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 03:53 PM
So in response to that question you'll answer "a severed thumb?"

Ok, yeah. Have fun y'all. This thread is a waste of time.

So I return to my original response - if your mind is closed to the discussion - why waste time discussing?

seer
05-15-2018, 04:00 PM
A thumb is most definitely human. Examine the DNA and you will find it contains the entire human genome. It is not a human being, but it is most definitely human (assuming it is part of a human being or was amputated from one
So does a thumb.
Agreed. The question is, what constitutes an "individual." When we delve into that, there are different definitions. Indeed, my own definition is not universally accepted. Some would suggest that fertilization and implantation is not adequate - that individual sustainability is also required. Others would suggest that implantation is not required, and fertilization is adequate. When an "individual" begins is not universally agreed upon. As a consequence, what is and is not moral is not agreed upon.

An individual human being would be one that is genetically unique from other human beings. And a thumb is not an individual, and will never be.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 04:03 PM
An individual human being would be one that is genetically unique from other human beings. And a thumb is not an individual, and will never be.

I agree. I wasn't saying that it was. I was pointing out that your "complete human genome" is not adequate to define "human being," since any severed part of the human body, or even a dead body, has that characteristic.

mossrose
05-15-2018, 05:19 PM
Here's a related question, for pro-choicers or whoever would like to attempt an answer: why should I believe that human non-persons exist?

Starlight, Jim, Tassy, firstfloor, etc., etc., ad nauseum, infinitum........


:whistle:

One Bad Pig
05-15-2018, 05:22 PM
So I return to my original response - if your mind is closed to the discussion - why waste time discussing?
Have you considered asking yourself that question? You are amazingly good at torturing words to hang on to your preconceived notions. People get fed up with the lexicographical agony, and you wonder why they leave?

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 05:31 PM
Have you considered asking yourself that question?

Always...


You are amazingly good at torturing words to hang on to your preconceived notions.

So "preconceived" notions are not implicitly a bad thing, unless "preconceived" means "without evidentiary input." Hopefully, we all have notions we have already examined the evidence for, and have arrived at a determination. Otherwise, we are floating in a sea of indecision. It is when our "preconceived" notions are not open to new evidence that we have a problem. That is the sign of a closed mind. Hopefully, I have never been closed to the introduction of new evidence. But if the evidence is evidence I have already considered...how many times is someone expected to re-evaluate the same evidence?


People get fed up with the lexicographical agony, and you wonder why they leave?

Actually, I don't wonder why they leave at all. My experience is that I put forth arguments, and when people are unable to respond to them, they accuse me of "making my own definitions," or "refusing to look at new evidence," or "moving goal posts" or "being disingenuous" or any number of other ad hominem accusations, and then they leave. On the other hand, I disconnect from a discussion when I have repeated the same thing several times and it is still not being reflected back accurately. After a while, repeating the same thing again appears to be a singular waste of time.

I have no doubt the perspective is different from the other side.

KingsGambit
05-15-2018, 05:42 PM
I kinda disagree here but only because the laws legalizing abortion don't past the sniff test - they rest on contrived legal fictions which means that in our Constitutional system, they aren't just laws and therefore aren't arbiters of the definition. I'm confused about what the heck JP is arguing - how would an unjust law not be relevant?

The very beginning of the article here http://www.tektonics.org/af/abortion01.php :


It must be counseled that "thou shalt not kill" is not a very good verse to use against abortion -- as shown in Link 1 below, "kill" has the connotation of killing after the manner of a predatory animal, and while one might (in some cases properly) ascribe predatory motives to those in the abortion industry, this doesn't help as much in addressing the act itself.

I do not see how abortion does not fall under that sort of category.

One Bad Pig
05-15-2018, 05:55 PM
Actually, I don't wonder why they leave at all. My experience is that I put forth arguments, and when people are unable to respond to them, they accuse me of "making my own definitions," or "refusing to look at new evidence," or "moving goal posts" or "being disingenuous" or any number of other ad hominem accusations, and then they leave. On the other hand, I disconnect from a discussion when I have repeated the same thing several times and it is still not being reflected back accurately. After a while, repeating the same thing again appears to be a singular waste of time.

I have no doubt the perspective is different from the other side.
Different is a vast understatement.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 05:59 PM
Different is a vast understatement.

Undoubtedly... :shrug:

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 07:22 PM
Human BEING, seer. It has to be a person to qualify as a being. Under construction or sitting on the launch pad is not the same thing.

Imbued with spirit means air breathing. When it breathes it is a being.


You do know that neither American law nor Scripture support this nonsense, right?

One Bad Pig
05-15-2018, 07:25 PM
You do know that neither American law nor Scripture support this nonsense, right?
You know he's trolling, right?

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 07:28 PM
The very beginning of the article here http://www.tektonics.org/af/abortion01.php :



I do not see how abortion does not fall under that sort of category.

:uhoh: O....kay...

Naw, I got nothing... :shrug:

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 07:29 PM
You know he's trolling, right?
Sure, but I'm still trying to give the benefit of the doubt. Admittedly, not particularly well here... :hmph:

Teallaura
05-15-2018, 07:34 PM
I spoke to Bnonn about this. Self defense would fall under a civil action since it is acceptable by law. So it would not be strictly personal since it would be unjust (by law) for someone to attempt to take your life.
i think he's mistaken - self defense is very much personal to the one defending themselves and it isn't a civil action. If it's brought into question, it would almost certainly be in a criminal court (certainly most cases anyway). 'Acceptable by law' only opens a can of worms - abortion currently fits that definition so making an exception for self defense that way weakens the argument.

I suspect to make it work he should consider abandoning 'personal' and using 'just'.

carpedm9587
05-15-2018, 08:43 PM
You do know that neither American law nor Scripture support this nonsense, right?

You do know that is actually the Judaic interpretation, right? So apparently at least the OT supports this position, though I have to admit, I'm just citing what rabbinical thought reflects. I do not claim to be an OT expert. I'm assuming rabbinical scholars are.

Tassman
05-15-2018, 09:58 PM
Here's a related question, for pro-choicers or whoever would like to attempt an answer: why should I believe that human non-persons exist?

The question is a point can a human fetus be designated “a person” with all the rights of a person. For the Jews (and presumably for Jesus in the absence of anything to the contrary) it was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”.

seer
05-16-2018, 04:43 AM
I suspect to make it work he should consider abandoning 'personal' and using 'just'.


Yes, I like that. So can we make the syllogism logically bulletproof?

Cerebrum123
05-16-2018, 05:34 AM
The very beginning of the article here http://www.tektonics.org/af/abortion01.php :



I do not see how abortion does not fall under that sort of category.

Yeah, this is definitely one area where I disagree with JPH. Sometimes I just don't understand how he doesn't see things like that.

element771
05-16-2018, 06:09 AM
The claim in the OP is that a Zygote is a Human Being. ‘Life’ is a different topic.

Ok...

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a human being?

One Bad Pig
05-16-2018, 07:08 AM
You do know that is actually the Judaic interpretation, right? So apparently at least the OT supports this position, though I have to admit, I'm just citing what rabbinical thought reflects. I do not claim to be an OT expert. I'm assuming rabbinical scholars are.
*A* Judaic interpretation. Rabbinical thought is not dogmatic, but speculative. The early church considered abortion to be murder, in stark contrast to the Hellenistic/Roman culture around it; thus they could only have come to that conclusion from their Jewish heritage - one earlier than the rabbinic period.

carpedm9587
05-16-2018, 07:50 AM
*A* Judaic interpretation. Rabbinical thought is not dogmatic, but speculative. The early church considered abortion to be murder, in stark contrast to the Hellenistic/Roman culture around it; thus they could only have come to that conclusion from their Jewish heritage - one earlier than the rabbinic period.

My comment was about modern rabbinical thought. The comment was based on several conversations I had with local rabbis over the past couple years, and a few articles I had reviewed. Your post made me dig a bit more, and your "a" is apparently justified. There is a wide breadth of belief around abortion and its morality. It's pretty well summarized here (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/culturebox/2000/08/what_do_orthodox_jews_think_about_abortion_and_why .html). So my original statement about "rabbinical thought" was overly broad.

Sparko
05-16-2018, 09:06 AM
Human BEING, seer. It has to be a person to qualify as a being. Under construction or sitting on the launch pad is not the same thing.

Imbued with spirit means air breathing. When it breathes it is a being.

Law.com legal dictionary:
person
n. 1) a human being.


Dictionary.com
human being

noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals

A fetus is a human being. A human being is a person. Pretty simple FF.

Nothing about breathing.

Do you stop being a human being if you hold your breath?

What about divers who use oxygenated perfluorocarbon liquid while underwater? Are they still human?

Sparko
05-16-2018, 09:14 AM
Because there are things that have the human genome that are not consider a human person. Examples include:

- a severed thumb (or any part of the human body)

- a dead body

These are universally agreed upon. Other examples that are less universally agreed upon include:

- a fertilized embryo in cryogenic freeze

- a dead body in cryogenic freeze

- a brain-dead person in a coma

The world is not as black/white as most of us would wish it to be.

A human being would be a distinct human organism at any specific stage in it's existence. A thumb is not an organism, it is part of an organism. It is not distinct, it is part of a greater object.

And a dead body is still considered a person. Just a dead one. Same with someone in a coma. And they are still human beings.

carpedm9587
05-16-2018, 09:35 AM
A human being would be a distinct human organism at any specific stage in it's existence. A thumb is not an organism, it is part of an organism. It is not distinct, it is part of a greater object.

Hence the distinction between "human" and "human being."


And a dead body is still considered a person. Just a dead one.

Umm...no. At least not legally (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11605417). It is a human body, but not a human person, AFAICT.


Same with someone in a coma. And they are still human beings.

This one is less clear. In most cases, it depends on the status of the brain. If there is no sign of brain activity at all, most legal systems consider personhood ended, making it legally possible to disconnect life support. The higher order functions of the brain are absent, but the brain stem remains functional, the person is said to be in a persistent vegetative state. There are different views of whether or not this is still a person. If there is activity in the cortex, then the person is considered alive.

element771
05-16-2018, 10:14 AM
Law.com legal dictionary:
person
n. 1) a human being.


Dictionary.com
human being

noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals

A fetus is a human being. A human being is a person. Pretty simple FF.

Nothing about breathing.

Do you stop being a human being if you hold your breath?

What about divers who use oxygenated perfluorocarbon liquid while underwater? Are they still human?

The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.

carpedm9587
05-16-2018, 10:23 AM
The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.

Which is why some people use higher-brain function (not just brain stem). But then, by definition, a very young fetus would not qualify until it has a detectable EEG. I think we have to couple the notion with the potentiality. Someone who has suffered catastrophic damage to higher brain function and only has an operational brain stem has no potentiality to regain that function. A fetus, once it is fertilized and implanted, may not actually have an EEG, but they have the potential to develop one. That is, for me, the difference.

Sparko
05-16-2018, 11:00 AM
The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.

Carpe just did. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=543016#post543016

carpedm9587
05-16-2018, 11:25 AM
Carpe just did. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=543016#post543016

It's a little disingenuous, Sparko, to misrepresent someone's argument. I'm going to assume it was unintentional.

The term "brain dead" was defined in a subsequent post. I also did not claim that all people in a coma are "not persons."

One Bad Pig
05-16-2018, 01:38 PM
It's a little disingenuous, Sparko, to misrepresent someone's argument. I'm going to assume it was unintentional.

The term "brain dead" was defined in a subsequent post. I also did not claim that all people in a coma are "not persons."
You did, however, claim that some people in a coma (to wit, those who are "brain dead") are "not persons"; thus, Sparko's point stands. It's a little disingenuous to protest otherwise.

carpedm9587
05-16-2018, 01:46 PM
You did, however, claim that some people in a coma (to wit, those who are "brain dead") are "not persons"; thus, Sparko's point stands. It's a little disingenuous to protest otherwise.

In conventional English...the sentence "a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being," would be understood in it's absolute sense. The "all" is implied. It is why statements like "Liberals think Republicans are bigots" is useless. SOME liberals may think that way. Maybe even a lot of them do. They don't all think that way, and to assume, "you're a liberal, so you think Republicans are bigots" is an exercise in prejudice with no knowledge of what that particular person thinks.

I was fairly clear in noting the specific type of person in a coma that would be a non-person, and that qualification was omitted in Sparko's post. Hopefully it was unintentional, but Sparko appears to be a bit irritated with me right now, so I'm really not sure.

In any event, at no point did I suggest that all people in comas are nonpersons. People with zero brain activity - non-person. People with brain stem activity but no higher functions, I would also consider them non-persons. People with higher brain function (however slight) and in a coma retain their personhood.

firstfloor
05-16-2018, 04:50 PM
Law.com legal dictionary:
person
n. 1) a human being.


Dictionary.com
human being

noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals

A fetus is a human being. A human being is a person. Pretty simple FF.

Nothing about breathing.

Do you stop being a human being if you hold your breath?

What about divers who use oxygenated perfluorocarbon liquid while underwater? Are they still human?


ZYGOTE, Sparko, for that is the subject, nothing bigger.
Often the word autonomous is used to define person. A zygote is a single cell. About 30% are eventually born. Those zygotes that die (it is a brief life) are completely anonymous. They didn’t even make it to the first step of the long climb towards Human Being.

carpedm9587
05-16-2018, 05:56 PM
ZYGOTE, Sparko, for that is the subject, nothing bigger.
Often the word autonomous is used to define person. A zygote is a single cell. About 30% are eventually born. Those zygotes that die (it is a brief life) are completely anonymous. They didn’t even make it to the first step of the long climb towards Human Being.

Actually - they did. The first step is fertilization. The second is implantation. Both are distinct points in the development of the person. Except for birth, all of the intermediate steps strike me as fairly arbitrary. A heartbeat doesn't "just turn on." The development of the heart is a process. An EEG doesn't just turn on. The development of the brain is a process. Motion happens throughout. There is no other place where on can clearly say, "this second it's not a human being...the next second it is." That is why I believe human personhood begins when a zygote is in a context where, without further intervention, it has the potential to proceed to adulthood. That means fertilization AND implantation. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. It eliminates the conflict of the ectopic pregnancy. It eliminates the fertilized egg in a freezer.

I know that is not a widely held or widely agreed with position from the left, but there it is.

Tassman
05-16-2018, 09:59 PM
Ok...

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a human being?

It a fetus is born prematurely than one does everything to revive it. The question is not whether or not a human fetus is “human”, it’s hardly going to be say, a reptile. The only question WHEN a human fetus is to be designated “a person” with all the rights and privileges of a person.

For the Jews it was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace.

Christians have a varying history regarding abortion rights. Baptist historian Randall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D., argues in his book, Thy Kingdom Come, that contrary to the popular belief that anti-abortion sentiments galvanised the fundamentalist evangelical movement, what actually galvanised the movement was evangelical opposition to the American Internal Revenue Service after the IRS stripped the evangelical Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow interracial dating and marriage. It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

In short, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon.

firstfloor
05-17-2018, 12:26 AM
Ok...

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a human being?
Obviously it is. Breath is life. If it lives, it breathes. Human Beings failing to breathe for several minutes transition to corpse.

Bill the Cat
05-17-2018, 05:09 AM
Obviously it is. Breath is life. If it lives, it breathes. Human Beings failing to breathe for several minutes transition to corpse.

Wrong. In 2012, German freediver Tom Sietas held his breath underwater for 22 minutes and 22 seconds. Was he a corpse under water? The longest time breath held voluntarily (male) is 24 min 3.45 secs and was achieved by Aleix Segura Vendrell (Spain), in Barcelona, Spain, on 28 February 2016. Was he a corpse?

firstfloor
05-17-2018, 05:54 AM
Wrong. In 2012, German freediver Tom Sietas held his breath underwater for 22 minutes and 22 seconds. Was he a corpse under water? The longest time breath held voluntarily (male) is 24 min 3.45 secs and was achieved by Aleix Segura Vendrell (Spain), in Barcelona, Spain, on 28 February 2016. Was he a corpse?
I really hope we don’t need to get into the exact details of breathing; do we? Mind you, I’m sure there’s a certain amount of danger in that type of activity. I read that one Reiss Morgan died in 2009 trying to break a record.

element771
05-17-2018, 06:11 AM
It a fetus is born prematurely than one does everything to revive it. The question is not whether or not a human fetus is “human”, it’s hardly going to be say, a reptile. The only question WHEN a human fetus is to be designated “a person” with all the rights and privileges of a person.

For the Jews it was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace.

Christians have a varying history regarding abortion rights. Baptist historian Randall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D., argues in his book, Thy Kingdom Come, that contrary to the popular belief that anti-abortion sentiments galvanised the fundamentalist evangelical movement, what actually galvanised the movement was evangelical opposition to the American Internal Revenue Service after the IRS stripped the evangelical Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow interracial dating and marriage. It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

In short, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon.

So this is where I break from my Christian brothers and sisters. I don't base my view on abortion on the Bible. I base it on my scientific background and my conscience (obviously I believe that my conscience is rooted in God's distinction between good and evil). I could become an atheist tomorrow and would still not agree with those that are pro-choice.

I just want consistency. For example, some people opposed to research using fetal derived stem cells are fine with in vitro fertilization. This is not consistent. For in vitro fertilization, often a dozen or so eggs are fertilized. Several are implanted in an effort to impregnate a female. If implantation is successful, those fertilized eggs are then kept frozen indefinitely or are discarded. To me, this two positions are juxtaposed to one another.

I also don't agree with the Roe V Wade definition. There are several groups of people that cannot have a meaningful life outside of a mother's womb BUT if they were killed...it would be murder plain and simple.

Also, the legal system isn't consistent either. For example, a woman can take the abortion pill if she decides to terminate a pregnancy. However, there was a case where a man slipped this pill into his girlfriend's drink in order to cause an abortion. Now, he should have only been charged with endangering his girlfriend by slipping something into her drink. He was also charged with premeditate murder of a fetus. If it is just a ball of cells, why would be charged with murder?

element771
05-17-2018, 06:19 AM
Obviously it is. Breath is life. If it lives, it breathes. Human Beings failing to breathe for several minutes transition to corpse.

That is without medical intervention. Does medical intervention count as breathing? In other words, is a baby that has not taken its own breath but is kept alive by a machine a human being?

carpedm9587
05-17-2018, 07:04 AM
I really hope we don’t need to get into the exact details of breathing; do we? Mind you, I’m sure there’s a certain amount of danger in that type of activity. I read that one Reiss Morgan died in 2009 trying to break a record.

I think your problem is linking the definition of "human being" to "breathing." A human being needs to breathe, no question about it. I don't think "breathing," however, can be made the deciding factor between whether one does or does not qualify as a "human being."

firstfloor
05-17-2018, 08:36 AM
That is without medical intervention. Does medical intervention count as breathing? In other words, is a baby that has not taken its own breath but is kept alive by a machine a human being?
Yes, yes. I would like to assure you that artificial breathing is still breathing.

firstfloor
05-17-2018, 09:09 AM
I think your problem is linking the definition of "human being" to "breathing." A human being needs to breathe, no question about it. I don't think "breathing," however, can be made the deciding factor between whether one does or does not qualify as a "human being."
I suggest it is about reaching the summit as opposed to being on the slope. There is a special name for those who reach the top. That is why personhood is not given to everything.

carpedm9587
05-17-2018, 09:11 AM
I suggest it is about reaching the summit as opposed to being on the slope. There is a special name for those who reach the top. That is why personhood is not given to everything.

I don't see how that responds to my post.

firstfloor
05-17-2018, 09:23 AM
I don't see how that responds to my post.

Breathing is a convenient marker of the very special event that is child birth. At that point, the entity becomes person.

Bill the Cat
05-17-2018, 09:29 AM
I really hope we don’t need to get into the exact details of breathing; do we?

Of course not. It's an arbitrary biological function that is no less or more important than others to the sustainment of a human life, although one not required before delivery. A headless cadaver can be kept artificially breathing for an indeterminate amount of time with machines should a sicko be so inclined.


Mind you, I’m sure there’s a certain amount of danger in that type of activity. I read that one Reiss Morgan died in 2009 trying to break a record.

Of course it is. Doesn't mean that "stopping breathing" for a few minutes means death.

carpedm9587
05-17-2018, 09:40 AM
Breathing is a convenient marker of the very special event that is child birth. At that point, the entity becomes person.

So if a person is critically injured and on a heart-lung machine with oxygen being put into their blood by a means other than their own lungs - is that person no longer human?

element771
05-17-2018, 10:37 AM
Yes, yes. I would like to assure you that artificial breathing is still breathing.

So if we advance in medial tech enough for us to be able to breathe for a 15 week old fetus and keep it alive until it is fully developed, that 15 week old fetus would be a human being?

element771
05-17-2018, 10:40 AM
Of course not. It's an arbitrary biological function that is no less or more important than others to the sustainment of a human life, although one not required before delivery.

I agree with BtC

Someone could just as easy choose a beating heart to be THE sign of personhood.

If that is the case, a 6 weeks old fetus is a human person.

carpedm9587
05-17-2018, 10:44 AM
So if we advance in medial tech enough for us to be able to breathe for a 15 week old fetus and keep it alive until it is fully developed, that 15 week old fetus would be a human being?

I think the issue is deeper than this. If "artificial breathing" still counts, as is implied here, then a case can be made that, from the moment of implantation, the "artificial breathing" source is the mother's body. She is playing the role of the heart/lung machine until the fetus' heart takes over, and then just the lungs until the baby breathes for the first time.

My question to FF was to make the following point: if a person who suffers major lung/heart damage and is kept alive by a heart/lung machine is still a person, why then is a fetus in the womb, who's heart/lung machine is a human person, any less a person?

Sparko
05-17-2018, 10:46 AM
ZYGOTE, Sparko, for that is the subject, nothing bigger.
Often the word autonomous is used to define person. A zygote is a single cell. About 30% are eventually born. Those zygotes that die (it is a brief life) are completely anonymous. They didn’t even make it to the first step of the long climb towards Human Being.

A human zygote is an individual of the human species at a specific stage in his/her life. Everyone went through it. Just because some people die at various stages of their life doesn't mean they were not people before they died. That is a stupid argument.

Sparko
05-17-2018, 10:49 AM
I really hope we don’t need to get into the exact details of breathing; do we? Mind you, I’m sure there’s a certain amount of danger in that type of activity. I read that one Reiss Morgan died in 2009 trying to break a record.

People have been put on heart/lung bypass machines and were alive without breathing or a heartbeat. Were they human beings during that time?

element771
05-17-2018, 11:03 AM
I think the issue is deeper than this. If "artificial breathing" still counts, as is implied here, then a case can be made that, from the moment of implantation, the "artificial breathing" source is the mother's body. She is playing the role of the heart/lung machine until the fetus' heart takes over, and then just the lungs until the baby breathes for the first time.

My question to FF was to make the following point: if a person who suffers major lung/heart damage and is kept alive by a heart/lung machine is still a person, why then is a fetus in the womb, who's heart/lung machine is a human person, any less a person?

Oh I agree, I just stuck with the fetal breathing point.

Jedidiah
05-17-2018, 11:51 AM
So this is where I break from my Christian brothers and sisters. I don't base my view on abortion on the Bible. I base it on my scientific background and my conscience (obviously I believe that my conscience is rooted in God's distinction between good and evil). I could become an atheist tomorrow and would still not agree with those that are pro-choice.

I just want consistency. For example, some people opposed to research using fetal derived stem cells are fine with in vitro fertilization. This is not consistent. For in vitro fertilization, often a dozen or so eggs are fertilized. Several are implanted in an effort to impregnate a female. If implantation is successful, those fertilized eggs are then kept frozen indefinitely or are discarded. To me, this two positions are juxtaposed to one another.

I also don't agree with the Roe V Wade definition. There are several groups of people that cannot have a meaningful life outside of a mother's womb BUT if they were killed...it would be murder plain and simple.

Also, the legal system isn't consistent either. For example, a woman can take the abortion pill if she decides to terminate a pregnancy. However, there was a case where a man slipped this pill into his girlfriend's drink in order to cause an abortion. Now, he should have only been charged with endangering his girlfriend by slipping something into her drink. He was also charged with premeditate murder of a fetus. If it is just a ball of cells, why would be charged with murder?

This is a valuable contribution. I was convinced that abortion was wrong years before I became a Christian. My faith has supported that conviction, but had nothing to do with it becoming MY conviction.

I do not consider myself to be pro life. That term has been hijacked by the pro abortion party with so many dumb things added to make it useless. I am anti abortion. Anti abortion folks have done so much to make "unwanted" babies wanted and supported. The dishonest claim that anti abortionists don't care about the baby after it is not aborted is just that - dishonest. In other words it is a lie flat out.

carpedm9587
05-17-2018, 12:02 PM
This is a valuable contribution. I was convinced that abortion was wrong years before I became a Christian. My faith has supported that conviction, but had nothing to do with it becoming MY conviction.

I do not consider myself to be pro life. That term has been hijacked by the pro abortion party with so many dumb things added to make it useless. I am anti abortion. Anti abortion folks have done so much to make "unwanted" babies wanted and supported. The dishonest claim that anti abortionists don't care about the baby after it is not aborted is just that - dishonest. In other words it is a lie flat out.

I will stay away from the second part of your post - but I concur with the first. Abortion is a travesty. We should be taking more action to make the occurrence of this in our society rare. I doubt we can ever get to non-existent, but close would be nice.

37818
05-17-2018, 01:59 PM
Forensically after the 17th day of conception it would be possible to be deemed murder. But at this time the law . . . .

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:29 PM
You do know that is actually the Judaic interpretation, right? So apparently at least the OT supports this position, though I have to admit, I'm just citing what rabbinical thought reflects. I do not claim to be an OT expert. I'm assuming rabbinical scholars are.
You can find 'scholars' for almost anything - but this flies in the face of Levitical law.

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:32 PM
Yes, I like that. So can we make the syllogism logically bulletproof?I'm hesitant to call anything bulletproof but it would be far stronger in my opinion.

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:37 PM
Ok...

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a human being?Legally yes. In reality, the law recognizes the humanity of the child - the legal issue is 'personhood' which is defined arbitrarily (why should 21 weeks, one day make a child more of a person than 20 weeks,6 days?).

Science gives us the same answer (not surprising since law stole it from science) - there is never a time when a human child is not human. From zygote to 99 yr old geezer - all human, all the time both in law ans science.

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:39 PM
The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.BINGO!!!! This is exactly what's wrong with the currant legal status.

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:42 PM
Obviously it is. Breath is life. If it lives, it breathes. Human Beings failing to breathe for several minutes transition to corpse.Um, no. All life has some form of respiration but not all life breathes. Fish don't, plants don't and nothing without lungs (like single celled organisms) - yet all are alive and do have respiration.

First grade science class for the win!!!!

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:46 PM
So this is where I break from my Christian brothers and sisters. I don't base my view on abortion on the Bible. I base it on my scientific background and my conscience (obviously I believe that my conscience is rooted in God's distinction between good and evil). I could become an atheist tomorrow and would still not agree with those that are pro-choice.

I just want consistency. For example, some people opposed to research using fetal derived stem cells are fine with in vitro fertilization. This is not consistent. For in vitro fertilization, often a dozen or so eggs are fertilized. Several are implanted in an effort to impregnate a female. If implantation is successful, those fertilized eggs are then kept frozen indefinitely or are discarded. To me, this two positions are juxtaposed to one another.

I also don't agree with the Roe V Wade definition. There are several groups of people that cannot have a meaningful life outside of a mother's womb BUT if they were killed...it would be murder plain and simple.

Also, the legal system isn't consistent either. For example, a woman can take the abortion pill if she decides to terminate a pregnancy. However, there was a case where a man slipped this pill into his girlfriend's drink in order to cause an abortion. Now, he should have only been charged with endangering his girlfriend by slipping something into her drink. He was also charged with premeditate murder of a fetus. If it is just a ball of cells, why would be charged with murder?


FYI - Roe used the semester system to determine when the state had the right to intervene - not to define the right to live. Weird (and wrong) yes - but the issue there is when the mother's rights supersede her child's (still stupid, still wrong). This is why the goalpost is a moving target and always has been.

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:49 PM
I suggest it is about reaching the summit as opposed to being on the slope. There is a special name for those who reach the top. That is why personhood is not given to everything.
Not even Roe defines personhood even remotely like this - the state in Roe had the right to intervene (prevent the abortion) in the second trimester - long before breathing air was at issue.

Teallaura
05-17-2018, 06:51 PM
I agree with BtC

Someone could just as easy choose a beating heart to be THE sign of personhood.

If that is the case, a 6 weeks old fetus is a human person.I have to disagree - the state should not get to tell us when a human being ceases to be a person - you hit this yourself earlier. If the state can say Baby isn't a Baby until it's heart first beats then the state can also say Granny isn't a human when she can no longer figure out how to eat Cheerios.

Tassman
05-17-2018, 09:21 PM
That is without medical intervention. Does medical intervention count as breathing? In other words, is a baby that has not taken its own breath but is kept alive by a machine a human being?

They are "human beings" from the moment of conception, that's not the issue. The issue is whether not they are "persons" with all the rights and privileges that go with it.

Traditionally, for the Jews (and presumably Jesus), this was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace. It is only relatively recently that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion and regard its total banning as a litmus test for true Evangelicals.

element771
05-18-2018, 05:47 AM
I have to disagree - the state should not get to tell us when a human being ceases to be a person - you hit this yourself earlier. If the state can say Baby isn't a Baby until it's heart first beats then the state can also say Granny isn't a human when she can no longer figure out how to eat Cheerios.

I was not suggesting that this position be taken. This was a critique of FF's argument about breathing. My point was that breathing was an arbitrary characteristic that FF chose that was necessary for life. You could just as easily choose any other characteristic such as heart beat.

element771
05-18-2018, 05:51 AM
They are "human beings" from the moment of conception, that's not the issue. The issue is whether not they are "persons" with all the rights and privileges that go with it.

Traditionally, for the Jews (and presumably Jesus), this was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace. It is only relatively recently that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion and regard its total banning as a litmus test for true Evangelicals.


This human being terminology was not one that I wanted to use. It was terminology that FF was using that I had to switch to in order for him to answer my question.

I also indicated earlier that the Bible is not the source of my definition of at what stage of development that the fetus becomes a person with all of the rights and privileges that go with it.

Also, I am not concerned with the Evangelical movement nor what they view to be a litmus test for anything. IMO, a large number of them appear to be paralleling the Pharisees of Jesus' day.

Sparko
05-18-2018, 07:28 AM
They are "human beings" from the moment of conception, that's not the issue. The issue is whether not they are "persons" with all the rights and privileges that go with it.



person (https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516)
n. 1) a human being.

Human being (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being?s=t):
n. a person

All human beings are persons.

carpedm9587
05-18-2018, 07:33 AM
They are "human beings" from the moment of conception, that's not the issue. The issue is whether not they are "persons" with all the rights and privileges that go with it.

Traditionally, for the Jews (and presumably Jesus), this was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace. It is only relatively recently that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion and regard its total banning as a litmus test for true Evangelicals.

I think we all agree that they are human from the moment of conception. Frankly, a human sperm and egg are "human." To be human, you simply need human DNA. A severed human thumb is "human." A corpse of a human being is "human."

"Human being" is synonymous with "person" or "human personal" and suggests a distinct individual with rights. It takes us out of science and into philosophy, law, and religion.

That being said, we are not always all that precise with our language, we humans. :wink:

Tassman
05-18-2018, 09:11 PM
person (https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516)
n. 1) a human being.

Human being (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being?s=t):
n. a person

All human beings are persons.

We are not talking about the dictionary definitions of “human” and “person” as you well know. We are talking about legal concepts of “personhood” and when a fetus becomes entitled to the protection and privileges of the law.

Jedidiah
05-18-2018, 10:44 PM
We are not talking about the dictionary definitions of “human” and “person” as you well know. We are talking about legal concepts of “personhood” and when a fetus becomes entitled to the protection and privileges of the law.

The only real purpose for a legal definition of personhood is to allow some persons to be declared non persons. It has been done often before.

carpedm9587
05-19-2018, 05:48 AM
The only real purpose for a legal definition of personhood is to allow some persons to be declared non persons. It has been done often before.

Or, it is to determine who/what is entitled to protections under the law, and who/what is not. It includes trying to determine when someone is actually dead, because there are some gray areas. It also applies to the question, "when does personhood begin?" As we learn more about sentience in animals, as we develop AI, those questions will also come center stage.

Hopefully, we are past excluding people because of skin color, ethnicity, sex, etc. But the price of that freedom is constant vigilance.

37818
05-19-2018, 07:36 AM
Or, it is to determine who/what is entitled to protections under the law, and who/what is not. It includes trying to determine when someone is actually dead, because there are some gray areas. It also applies to the question, "when does personhood begin?" As we learn more about sentience in animals, as we develop AI, those questions will also come center stage.

Hopefully, we are past excluding people because of skin color, ethnicity, sex, etc. But the price of that freedom is constant vigilance.

Theologically at conception. Yet we know that right after cells begin dividing, if a cell or cells separate we get what are called identical twines. Now the Mosaic Law defines murder in terms of killing a human in distinction to killing some other animal, a human being of the creation being made in God's image. Now also according to the Mosaic Law the life, that is the soul is in the flesh by way of the blood. And the blood, the life, the soul which it provides the flesh is sacred whether human or animal. The Mosaic Law required Israel to present the blood of any animal that was killed to the Temple to the God of Israel. . . .

Distinct souls of a human is not evident until there is blood to distinguish the person. (Identical twines, case in point.)

Now it is known that the human has his/her own blood separate from the mother by and after the 17th day of conception. So without question abortion is murder at that point on according to the Mosaic Law.

carpedm9587
05-19-2018, 08:04 AM
Theologically at conception. Yet we know that right after cells begin dividing, if a cell or cells separate we get what are called identical twines. Now the Mosaic Law defines murder in terms of killing a human in distinction to killing some other animal, a human being of the creation being made in God's image. Now also according to the Mosaic Law the life, that is the soul is in the flesh by way of the blood. And the blood, the life, the soul which it provides the flesh is sacred whether human or animal. The Mosaic Law required Israel to present the blood of any animal that was killed to the Temple to the God of Israel. . . .

Distinct souls of a human is not evident until there is blood to distinguish the person. (Identical twines, case in point.)

Now it is known that the human has his/her own blood separate from the mother by and after the 17th day of conception. So without question abortion is murder at that point on according to the Mosaic Law.

Last I checked, I was living under U.S. law. But thanks for providing some background I was unfamiliar with. Always nice to learn something.

37818
05-19-2018, 08:22 AM
Last I checked, I was living under U.S. law. But thanks for providing some background I was unfamiliar with. Always nice to learn something.

Yes. I am of a minority opinion that abortion should be allowed only within the first 2 weeks of conception. And after the two weeks, someone should be prosecuted for the murder of the child. And the required evidence would not exist until by at least the 17th day. As to who would be prosecuted that would have to be decided in some way. I have my ideas.

carpedm9587
05-19-2018, 09:19 AM
Yes. I am of a minority opinion that abortion should be allowed only within the first 2 weeks of conception. And after the two weeks, someone should be prosecuted for the murder of the child. And the required evidence would not exist until by at least the 17th day. As to who would be prosecuted that would have to be decided in some way. I have my ideas.

It is not an idea I can get behind. But I understand your rationale. I think we should be acting before the pregnancy to put measures in place that make this choice rare/unlikely.

KingsGambit
05-19-2018, 06:03 PM
I do not consider myself to be pro life. That term has been hijacked by the pro abortion party with so many dumb things added to make it useless. I am anti abortion. Anti abortion folks have done so much to make "unwanted" babies wanted and supported. The dishonest claim that anti abortionists don't care about the baby after it is not aborted is just that - dishonest. In other words it is a lie flat out.

I think this mindset is part of what's wrong with the pro-life movement. They spend almost all their time talking about what they're against and hardly any talking about what they are for. So many pro-life Christians quietly do a lot in adopting kids, helping pregnant single mothers, etc., but the focus on a political level seems to just be about banning abortion. We need more of a focus on being in favor of such things as families, helping those who need it, etc. Identifying just as anti-something isn't going to help, especially when there are pregnant women out there in dire situations.

carpedm9587
05-19-2018, 08:11 PM
I think this mindset is part of what's wrong with the pro-life movement. They spend almost all their time talking about what they're against and hardly any talking about what they are for. So many pro-life Christians quietly do a lot in adopting kids, helping pregnant single mothers, etc., but the focus on a political level seems to just be about banning abortion. We need more of a focus on being in favor of such things as families, helping those who need it, etc. Identifying just as anti-something isn't going to help, especially when there are pregnant women out there in dire situations.

Here...here...

Tassman
05-19-2018, 10:24 PM
The only real purpose for a legal definition of personhood is to allow some persons to be declared non persons. It has been done often before.

That's simply not true, the "real purpose for a definition of Personhood is to provide reasonable guidelines in law for the protection of individuals. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and therefore subject to being protected by the state.

37818
05-20-2018, 07:54 AM
It is not an idea I can get behind. But I understand your rationale. I think we should be acting before the pregnancy to put measures in place that make this choice rare/unlikely.

Well from the theological perspective that the human life begins from conception. Maybe it should be considered that rape in which it results in a pregnancy become statutory murder by reason that it could result in the death of a human being.

carpedm9587
05-20-2018, 08:04 AM
Well from the theological perspective that the human life begins from conception. Maybe it should be considered that rape in which it results in a pregnancy become statutory murder by reason that it could result in the death of a human being.

I think we have adequate laws against rape. We need more cooperation to further reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Teallaura
05-20-2018, 10:09 PM
I think we all agree that they are human from the moment of conception. Frankly, a human sperm and egg are "human." To be human, you simply need human DNA. A severed human thumb is "human." A corpse of a human being is "human."

"Human being" is synonymous with "person" or "human personal" and suggests a distinct individual with rights. It takes us out of science and into philosophy, law, and religion.

That being said, we are not always all that precise with our language, we humans. :wink:
Actually, no, language usage does not bear this out. In both cases human is the adjective standing in the place of the noun - HOWEVER - in vernacular English human alone is ALWAYS understood as 'human being' and never as human body part. This is not a rational position.

Teallaura
05-20-2018, 10:12 PM
I think this mindset is part of what's wrong with the pro-life movement. They spend almost all their time talking about what they're against and hardly any talking about what they are for. So many pro-life Christians quietly do a lot in adopting kids, helping pregnant single mothers, etc., but the focus on a political level seems to just be about banning abortion. We need more of a focus on being in favor of such things as families, helping those who need it, etc. Identifying just as anti-something isn't going to help, especially when there are pregnant women out there in dire situations.
This strikes me as a straw man. It's also pointless - being 'pro' family DOES NOT CHANGE LAW. Since the political movement is about changing law, you're effectively criticizing them for not hamstringing themselves politically.

KingsGambit
05-21-2018, 05:00 AM
This strikes me as a straw man. It's also pointless - being 'pro' family DOES NOT CHANGE LAW. Since the political movement is about changing law, you're effectively criticizing them for not hamstringing themselves politically.

I don't see in the slightest how it is a strawman. Justified or not, there is a perception that pro-life people don't actually care about women. (And frankly, many of the leading pro-life advocates do come across as heartless. One of the top ones berated me publicly on Facebook for not supporting the execution of homosexuals.) Imaging matters whether you like it or not.

Sparko
05-21-2018, 11:14 AM
We are not talking about the dictionary definitions of “human” and “person” as you well know. We are talking about legal concepts of “personhood” and when a fetus becomes entitled to the protection and privileges of the law.

I gave you the definition from a LAW dictionary. :duh:

Try checking the link next time. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516

One Bad Pig
05-21-2018, 11:17 AM
I read in the WaPo Express this morning that a Virginia doctor pled guilty to fetal homicide for slipping his pregnant g/f an abortifacient in her tea.

rogue06
05-21-2018, 11:31 AM
I read in the WaPo Express this morning that a Virginia doctor pled guilty to fetal homicide for slipping his pregnant g/f an abortifacient in her tea.
Similar charges have been brought when a pregnant woman gets shot resulting in the unborn babies death.

Jedidiah
05-21-2018, 01:36 PM
In any case it is murder being ignored by the law. It is also dehumanization of the unborn 'person'.

carpedm9587
05-21-2018, 04:08 PM
Actually, no, language usage does not bear this out. In both cases human is the adjective standing in the place of the noun - HOWEVER - in vernacular English human alone is ALWAYS understood as 'human being' and never as human body part. This is not a rational position.

Actually - upon reflection - I agree with your breakdown. I was failing to separate human as a noun and human as an adjective.

Nicely put. :thumb:

Tassman
05-21-2018, 09:59 PM
I gave you the definition from a LAW dictionary. :duh:

Try checking the link next time.

"Person" has a broader definition then merely equalling "human". It does that too, but it also does more. The definition of 'Person' is to provide guidelines in law for the protection of individuals. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state. In biblical times it was when the 'person' took it's first breath.

Tassman
05-21-2018, 10:11 PM
In any case it is murder being ignored by the law. It is also dehumanization of the unborn 'person'.

No it’s not. The proposal of some extremists in the ‘Personhood Movement’ to attach the rights and protections associated with legal "Personhood" to any human being from the moment of fertilisation is relatively recent, even among Evangelicals. It has overtones of a religious agenda, namely “ensoulment” and is quite unacceptable in a secular country like the USA.

Sparko
05-22-2018, 08:45 AM
In any case it is murder being ignored by the law. It is also dehumanization of the unborn 'person'.

oh but that kind of dehumanization is OK because if they admit the baby is a person, then they would have to feel guilty. Can't have that.

Sparko
05-22-2018, 08:47 AM
"Person" has a broader definition then merely equalling "human". It does that too, but it also does more. The definition of 'Person' is to provide guidelines in law for the protection of individuals. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state. In biblical times it was when the 'person' took it's first breath.

Don't quit your day job. You make a horrible lawyer, or a theologian.

Bill the Cat
05-22-2018, 11:07 AM
"Person" has a broader definition then merely equalling "human". It does that too, but it also does more. The definition of 'Person' is to provide guidelines in law for the protection of individuals. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state. In biblical times it was when the 'person' took it's first breath.

Define "generally"

Cow Poke
05-22-2018, 04:08 PM
I read in the WaPo Express this morning that a Virginia doctor pled guilty to fetal homicide for slipping his pregnant g/f an abortifacient in her tea.

That would be an interesting case. If she WANTED the baby dead, it would be perfectly legal, but if she doesn't....

Tassman
05-22-2018, 06:36 PM
oh but that kind of dehumanization is OK because if they admit the baby is a person, then they would have to feel guilty. Can't have that.

It is not a "person" except in the minds of those with a religious agenda. “The brain pattern is the "person". When it goes you go and before it develops there is no "you".


Define "generally"

In this instance, "majority opinion".

Sparko
05-23-2018, 06:57 AM
It is not a "person" except in the minds of those with a religious agenda. “The brain pattern is the "person". When it goes you go and before it develops there is no "you".



In this instance, "majority opinion".

I am glad you are not the arbiter of who is a person Tassman. You would have made Hitler proud. You dismiss a baby as inhuman garbage to be disposed of on a whim, but get upset if Trump calls murdering gang members "animals"

Bill the Cat
05-23-2018, 07:25 AM
In this instance, "majority opinion".

You are wrong. Fetuses DO have legal protection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Cow Poke
05-23-2018, 07:31 AM
You are wrong. Fetuses DO have legal protection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Wait! Tassman is WRONG??? This would be the FIRST TIME in the HISTORY of the WORLD!!!! :stunned:

Littlejoe
05-23-2018, 08:29 AM
Wait! Tassman is WRONG??? This would be the FIRST TIME in the HISTORY of the WORLD!!!! :stunned::lmbo:

Tassman
05-23-2018, 06:23 PM
You are wrong. Fetuses DO have legal protection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

So predictable BtC, we've dealt with this old chestnut before. This Law explicitly contains a provision excepting abortion, stating that it cannot "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion which has the consent of the pregnant woman..."

Tassman
05-23-2018, 06:31 PM
I am glad you are not the arbiter of who is a person Tassman. You would have made Hitler proud. You dismiss a baby as inhuman garbage to be disposed of on a whim, "

Spare me the guilt trip. Sheesh! :lol:

Nobody is referring to "disposing of babies" as "human garbage" on "a whim'. The definition of 'Person' is to provide guidelines in law for the protection of individuals. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state.

Sparko
05-24-2018, 06:04 AM
Spare me the guilt trip. Sheesh! :lol:

Nobody is referring to "disposing of babies" as "human garbage" on "a whim'. The definition of 'Person' is to provide guidelines in law for the protection of individuals. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state.

Tassman, you just don't know the law. but that doesn't stop you from pontificating and advocating the murder of innocent human beings while pretending to care about what names people call murdering gang members. Hypocrite.

seer
05-24-2018, 06:30 AM
Tassman, you just don't know the law. but that doesn't stop you from pontificating and advocating the murder of innocent human beings while pretending to care about what names people call murdering gang members. Hypocrite.

:thumb:

Tassman
05-24-2018, 09:52 PM
Tassman, you just don't know the law. but that doesn't stop you from pontificating and advocating the murder of innocent human beings .

"Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal under specific conditions". - Cited Wiki.

“When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role.”...“The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.”

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

So what's changed?

Cow Poke
05-25-2018, 04:47 AM
"Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal under specific conditions". - Cited Wiki.

“When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role.”...“The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.”

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

So what's changed?

Even having been called out on it, in typical Tassman fashion, you simply play the same broken record over and over.

seer
05-25-2018, 05:16 AM
Even having been called out on it, in typical Tassman fashion, you simply play the same broken record over and over.

Things would go a lot easier is we all just realized that Tass is NEVER wrong...

Cow Poke
05-25-2018, 05:18 AM
Things would go a lot easier is we all just realized that Tass is NEVER wrong...

It's just that he's NEVER wrong so ineptly!

Bill the Cat
05-25-2018, 05:31 AM
So predictable BtC, we've dealt with this old chestnut before. This Law explicitly contains a provision excepting abortion, stating that it cannot "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion which has the consent of the pregnant woman..."

So, it simply makes a stipulation for WHO can kill you and get away with it. It still disproves your entire theory that a fetus does not have rights.

Sparko
05-25-2018, 06:03 AM
"Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal under specific conditions". - Cited Wiki.

“When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role.”...“The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.”

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

So what's changed?
The point flying over your head:

:whoosh:

Are you really this clueless or do you just pretend to be?

One Bad Pig
05-25-2018, 07:50 AM
The point flying over your head:

:whoosh:

Are you really this clueless or do you just pretend to be?
I've seldom seen anyone more straitjacketed to their own point of view. It's like he's incapable of seeing anything else.

seer
05-25-2018, 08:03 AM
I've seldom seen anyone more straitjacketed to their own point of view. It's like he's incapable of seeing anything else.

And yet he calls Christians closed minded...

Tassman
05-25-2018, 09:48 PM
Even having been called out on it, in typical Tassman fashion, you simply play the same broken record over and over.

Not at all! I’m adopting the position in 1973 of W. Barry Garrett, the Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.” Namely:

“When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role.”...“The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,”

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

So what’s changed over the past 45 years to make you lot so adamantly opposed to abortion under any circumstances? You seem unable to address this straightforward question.

Tassman
05-25-2018, 09:52 PM
So, it simply makes a stipulation for WHO can kill you and get away with it. It still disproves your entire theory that a fetus does not have rights.

Stop being so dramatically outraged. A fetus does have rights. Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state.

Cow Poke
05-26-2018, 11:12 AM
Stop being so dramatically outraged.

Oh, the Iron E.

Cow Poke
05-26-2018, 11:13 AM
Not at all!

Stop being so dramatically outraged.

carpedm9587
05-26-2018, 11:14 AM
I've seldom seen anyone more straitjacketed to their own point of view. It's like he's incapable of seeing anything else.

:stunned:

Cow Poke
05-26-2018, 12:33 PM
This is fun....


Even having been called out on it, in typical Tassman fashion, you simply play the same broken record over and over.

So what does Tassman do? Plays the same broken record over again!


Not at all! I’m adopting the position in 1973 of W. Barry Garrett, the Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.” Namely:

“When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role.”...“The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,”

One Bad Pig
05-26-2018, 05:48 PM
:stunned:
Every once in a while, you change your mind based on further input. Rare, but I've seen it happen.

Tassman
05-26-2018, 06:40 PM
This is fun...

It's blatant evasion.


So what does Tassman do? Plays the same broken record over again!

I'll try again and see if you lapse into standard CP avoidance tactics. What’s changed over the past 45 years to make Evangelicals so adamantly opposed to abortion under any circumstances? When Roe v Wade was first handed down “The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision". Now opposition to Roe v Wade has morphed into the litmus for Evangelical orthodoxy.

What's changed? Answer the question.

Littlejoe
05-26-2018, 06:53 PM
It's blatant evasion.



I'll try again and see if you lapse into standard CP avoidance tactics. What’s changed over the past 45 years to make Evangelicals so adamantly opposed to abortion under any circumstances? When Roe v Wade was first handed down “The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision". Now opposition to Roe v Wade has morphed into the litmus for Evangelical orthodoxy.

What's changed? Answer the question.Science informing the public. We've learned more about how a fetus develops and have gotten that out to people. It's why even many atheists are anti abortion. It's no longer just a religious issue. I was anti abortion years before I was a Christian.

Cow Poke
05-26-2018, 08:01 PM
It's blatant evasion.

No, it's giving your post all the respect it deserves.

Tassman
05-26-2018, 09:57 PM
Science informing the public. We've learned more about how a fetus develops and have gotten that out to people. It's why even many atheists are anti abortion. It's no longer just a religious issue. I was anti abortion years before I was a Christian.

There is nothing known now about the development of fetuses that was not known 45 years ago. This is when Evangelicals praised the Roe v Wade decision saying that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,”

But thanks for at least answering the question. Unlike some you are a person of integrity.


No, it's giving your post all the respect it deserves.

What a card! :rofl:

Cow Poke
05-26-2018, 10:45 PM
There is nothing known now about the development of fetuses that was not known 45 years ago

45 years ago we didn't have actual video of the baby in the womb. 45 years ago, a mother couldn't watch a sonogram of the new person growing inside her.

rogue06
05-27-2018, 01:09 AM
45 years ago we didn't have actual video of the baby in the womb. 45 years ago, a mother couldn't watch a sonogram of the new person growing inside her.
It was ultrasound technology which caused one of the most strident abortion supporters, Bernard Nathanson co-founder of National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), to reverse course and become staunchly pro-life and converted to Christianity.



27989


Sorry ma'am but that's just an invasive clump of tissue. :ahem:

carpedm9587
05-27-2018, 06:37 AM
Every once in a while, you change your mind based on further input. Rare, but I've seen it happen.

It has been rare here, no question about it. I don't usually take a stand on a position until I have significantly researched it. So when someone presents new "evidence" related to a position I already hold, I look to see if it is grounded, and how it measures up against the body of evidence I already have on the subject. I would expect most people to do the same. The challenge, for all of us, is to avoid "confirmation bias." It's one of the reasons I post to sites like this one, where pretty much everyone disagrees with me.

Tassman
05-27-2018, 09:12 PM
45 years ago we didn't have actual video of the baby in the womb. 45 years ago, a mother couldn't watch a sonogram of the new person growing inside her.

This doesn’t alter the fact that when Roe v Wade was decided Evangelicals praised the decision saying that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision". Sonograms do not change the reality of what was known about fetal development 45 years ago when this Landmark Decision was made.

Cow Poke
05-28-2018, 05:53 AM
This doesn’t alter the fact that when Roe v Wade was decided Evangelicals praised the decision saying that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision".

They were just as wrong about slavery. Both incorrect positions have been corrected.


Sonograms do not change the reality of what was known about fetal development 45 years ago when this Landmark Decision was made.

It helps lay people to realize they've been lied to, and there's actually a human life in the womb - not just a clump of tissue.

rogue06
05-28-2018, 09:19 AM
They were just as wrong about slavery. Both incorrect positions have been corrected.
They fell for the same lies that most of us did. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and one time director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (who later found God and became a very vocal Pro-Life supporter) exposed how the pro-abortion movement relied on made-up statistics and outright lies (such as wholly fabricating figures concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions) to garner support. His book Aborting America reveals this in excruciating detail. He noted that they constantly fed the media the lie that 10,000 women a year died as a result of botched illegal abortion when in fact it was but a tiny fraction of that (in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, 28 deaths were reported from illegal abortions).

Those fabricated statistics are still repeated in pro-abortion circles.

Bill the Cat
05-28-2018, 04:43 PM
Stop being so dramatically outraged.

No. It's warranted when idiots like you can't admit they are wrong.


A fetus does have rights.

Yes. At ANY stage of development according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Do you deny that?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


Currently, in the US, this is generally when the life of the fetus is its own and viable and therefore subject to being protected by the state.

Wrong. It does not stipulate there are exclusions to when the conduct that harms the child in utero takes place


Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.


You are wrong Tassy.

Bill the Cat
05-28-2018, 04:46 PM
45 years ago we didn't have actual video of the baby in the womb. 45 years ago, a mother couldn't watch a sonogram of the new person growing inside her.

And the Op-Ed itself stated there were many opinions on the subject. The Op-Ed was not an official proclamation by the SBC, so why Tassy is bandying it about like it was a papal decree is beyond me...

Bill the Cat
05-28-2018, 04:50 PM
This doesn’t alter the fact that when Roe v Wade was decided Evangelicals praised the decision saying that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision".

No, stupid. ONE evangelical said that. There were some that agreed and some that disagreed.


Sonograms do not change the reality of what was known about fetal development 45 years ago when this Landmark Decision was made.

Sure it did. That's why there is a collapse clause, and if we ever got a SCOTUS that wasn't populated by the rabidly pro-abortion female trio of morons, we'd get a logical decision based on actual science instead of the selfish abuse of the word "privacy"...

Cow Poke
05-28-2018, 05:05 PM
And the Op-Ed itself stated there were many opinions on the subject. The Op-Ed was not an official proclamation by the SBC, so why Tassy is bandying it about like it was a papal decree is beyond me...

It's Tassman, so... :shrug:

Tassman
05-28-2018, 10:35 PM
No. It's warranted when idiots like you can't admit they are wrong.

I’m not wrong. Currently in the US according to the law of the land, as per the SCOTUS Roe v Wade Landmark decision, the rights of the fetus begin when the life of the fetus is its own and viable. This is when it warrants protection by the state.


Yes. At ANY stage of development according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Do you deny that?

Except in the case of abortion as approved by the mother! Do you deny that?


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Wrong. It does not stipulate there are exclusions to when the conduct that harms the child in utero takes place

See above.


And the Op-Ed itself stated there were many opinions on the subject. The Op-Ed was not an official proclamation by the SBC, so why Tassy is bandying it about like it was a papal decree is beyond me...

The OP-Ed by W. Barry Garrett, Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief, was in "The Baptist Press", a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organisation in the US. It can be reasonably assumed to represent the opinion of Evangelicals 45 years ago when it was written. Namely, that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision” in Roe v Wade. Garrett reassured his readers that the decision had been made not by “a Warren type or ‘liberal’ Supreme Court,” but “a ‘strict constructionist’ court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.”

In short, the rigid, universal anti-abortion stance we see among Evangelicals today is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Cow Poke
05-29-2018, 04:53 AM
The OP-Ed by W. Barry Garrett, Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief,

ONE guy, who was a liberal.


was in "The Baptist Press", a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention

As his OPINION.


— the biggest Evangelical organisation in the US. It can be reasonably assumed to represent the opinion of Evangelicals 45 years ago when it was written. Namely, that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision” in Roe v Wade. Garrett reassured his readers that the decision had been made not by “a Warren type or ‘liberal’ Supreme Court,” but “a ‘strict constructionist’ court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.”


And, as usual, you dishonestly omit a very crucial truth.... When asked the official SBC position... (I'll bold it and embiggen it for you so you don't miss it)

Question: What is the Southern Baptist position on abortion?

Answer: There is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion, or any other such question. Among 12 million Southern Baptists, there are probably 12 million different opinions.


In short, the rigid, universal anti-abortion stance we see among Evangelicals today is a relatively recent phenomenon

Certainly not according to the source you mutilate.

Littlejoe
05-29-2018, 07:34 AM
Meanwhile, my denomination, the Assemblies of God, with it's 3 million US members and 67 million worldwide, (even though it like the SBC churches are also composed of autonomous bodies), still takes a very Anti-abortion stance.

ABORTION

This document reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery. Why does the Assemblies of God oppose abortion?
The Assemblies of God is unashamedly pro-life (https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Abortion). Even though a United States Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in 1973, abortion is still immoral and sinful. This stand is founded on the biblical truth that all human life is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). From that truth issues the long-standing Christian view that aborting the life of a developing child is evil.
Those who defend abortion claim that an unborn child in the early stages of development is merely fetal tissue, not a person. But neither science nor medicine can declare an arbitrary time during pregnancy when human life begins. The Bible indicates that human life begins at conception (Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16). Because of the sacredness of human life, the matter is settled by theological statement of Scripture, not by a medical determination of viability outside the mother’s womb.

Tassman
05-29-2018, 09:34 PM
ONE guy, who was a liberal.

He was the bureau chief of 'Baptist Press', which is the official news service of the Southern Baptist Convention and responsible for providing regular news releases about Southern Baptists, serving as the Convention's press representative.


As his OPINION.

It was his editorial as bureau chief of the official organ of the Southern Baptist Convention. His role was to reflect the views of the SBC.


And, as usual, you dishonestly omit a very crucial truth.... When asked the official SBC position... (I'll bold it and embiggen it for you so you don't miss it)

Question: What is the Southern Baptist position on abortion?

Answer: There is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion, or any other such question. Among 12 million Southern Baptists, there are probably 12 million different opinions.

So abortion supposedly being about “murdering innocent babies in the womb” is merely one opinion among 12 million different opinions? OK!

Interestingly, following on directly from your quote, he goes on to say:

“Question: Does the Supreme Court decision on abortion intrude on the religious life of the people?

Answer: No. Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion it they so choose.

In short, if the state laws are now made to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, the decision to obtain an abortion or to bring pregnancy to full term can now be a matter of conscience and deliberate choice rather than one compelled by law. Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade/

Bill the Cat
05-30-2018, 06:38 AM
I’m not wrong.

Yes you are. You are making the single exception to the fetus' legal rights the only situation applicable. YOU - ARE - WRONG.


Currently in the US according to the law of the land, as per the SCOTUS Roe v Wade Landmark decision, the rights of the fetus begin when the life of the fetus is its own and viable.

No. Currently in the US according to the law of the land, as per the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the rights of a fetus begin at conception, and are 100% protected from being harmed, except for by the mother and her doctor.


This is when it warrants protection by the state.

Wrong.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/peterson/venue121503dmot.pdf

On November 12, 2004, a jury convicted Peterson of two counts of murder: first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci, and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.




Except in the case of abortion as approved by the mother! Do you deny that?

No. That's what I said in the first place. The only one who can legally murder their fetus is the mother and her doctor. ALL other instances and perpetrators are breaking the law by harming the fetus. Ergo, fetuses have rights under all but 1 circumstance.



See above.

See above.




The OP-Ed by W. Barry Garrett, Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief, was in "The Baptist Press", a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organisation in the US.

Do you even know what an Op-Ed is?


Definition of op-ed for English Language Learners

: an essay in a newspaper or magazine that gives the opinion of the writer and that is written by someone who is not employed by the newspaper or magazine



It can be reasonably assumed to represent the opinion of Evangelicals 45 years ago when it was written.

because that's how op-eds work... :duh:


Namely, that “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision” in Roe v Wade. Garrett reassured his readers that the decision had been made not by “a Warren type or ‘liberal’ Supreme Court,” but “a ‘strict constructionist’ court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.”

He was wrong. It was his opinion. And they were relatively ignorant on matters of science.


In short, the rigid, universal anti-abortion stance we see among Evangelicals today is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Doesn't make that stance wrong though.

Cow Poke
05-30-2018, 06:55 AM
He was the bureau chief of 'Baptist Press',

You are REALLY doubling down on ignorance, Tass. No, he was ONE bureau chief of ONE office of the Baptist Press. He worked in the DC office - the HOME office of the SBC is Nashville, not DC. Just a few years later, his predecessor was even denied credentials to attend the annual meeting, because that office was pretty much a rogue office.


which is the official news service of the Southern Baptist Convention and responsible for providing regular news releases about Southern Baptists, serving as the Convention's press representative.

Baptist Press is the news organization, with bureaus all around the world - the home office is Nashville.


It was his editorial as bureau chief of the official organ of the Southern Baptist Convention. His role was to reflect the views of the SBC.

ABSOLUTELY wrong - and just repeating it over and over, as is your game, doesn't change the truth.

Either you are incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest. Or both.

One Bad Pig
05-30-2018, 07:01 AM
Just a few years later, his predecessor was even denied credentials to attend the annual meeting, because that office was pretty much a rogue office.
:hrm:

rogue06
05-30-2018, 07:05 AM
...a rogue office.
:glare:

Cow Poke
05-30-2018, 07:09 AM
:hrm:

Yeah, his .. um... the guy that took over his job. :grin:

At the rogue office.

Where MUCH controversy continued to flow, having to do with the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, which the SBC funded in part, and which we ended up DEfunding. Cause we kinda thought they must have been sitting around smoking joints or something, cause their 'policy' and activities were often at odds with the SBC.

(get it, the "joint" committee?)

rogue06
05-30-2018, 07:38 AM
At the rogue office.
:brood:

Cow Poke
05-30-2018, 07:39 AM
:brood:

You really should go there and clean things up. :smile:

Cow Poke
05-30-2018, 10:04 AM
He was the bureau chief of 'Baptist Press',

Absolutely false, as already demonstrated.

And he's not the "boss" of the SBC. He's simply a reporter, and a theological liberal expressing his opinion at a time when the SBC conservative resurgence was fully under way.

In FACT, two years PRIOR to that, in our 1971 annual meeting St. Louis, Missouri, we (15,000 of us) passed the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

Tassman
05-30-2018, 09:51 PM
You are REALLY doubling down on ignorance, Tass. No, he was ONE bureau chief of ONE office of the Baptist Press. He worked in the DC office - the HOME office of the SBC is Nashville, not DC. Just a few years later, his predecessor was even denied credentials to attend the annual meeting, because that office was pretty much a rogue office..

There are many such examples, not just one "rogue reporter" as per your selective rewriting of history. It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Conservatives.

"When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

In short, he's adopting the traditional Jewish view.

Cow Poke
05-31-2018, 06:42 AM
There are many such examples, not just one "rogue reporter" as per your selective rewriting of history.

Wait, WHAT??? Proving that you were flat out wrong about "A bureau chief" of ONE of our bureaus is "rewriting history"? You really ARE a dishonest jackass. You were WRONG, Tassman, just as WRONG as you were to accuse your fellow homosexual of being FOR NAMBLA when he was speaking against it.

You just kept posting the same thing over and over, which, if you would have actually read it, would have made you realize how WRONG you were. You get things so terribly wrong, then you double down on it, dig in your heals, then after a long battle, come up with something asinine like "you're rewriting history". That, sir, is a flat out lie. Was I "rewriting history" when I finally got you to see you were WRONG on that NAMBLA thing?

I'm beginnning to think you're EASILY the most morally decrepit poster we have.


It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Conservatives.

It's only relatively recently that the Southern Baptist Convention realized they were ALSO wrong about slavery, as I'll point out with your next example....


"When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

In short, he's adopting the traditional Jewish view.

W. A. Criswell was ALSO on the wrong side of the slavery issue....

As pastor, Dr. Criswell first came to national attention in 1956 with his fiery sermon in South Carolina that linked the fight against integration with evangelism.

In his remarks, he attacked preachers who supported integration and particularly railed against both the National Council of Churches and the NAACP, calling them “good-for-nothing fellows who are trying to upset all of the things that we love as good old Southern people and as good old Southern Baptists.”

The sermon was so well received that Dr. Criswell was invited to give it again to the South Carolina legislature, which reprinted the speech and distributed it widely, particularly among White Citizen Councils.

There was a backlash in Dallas, where Dr. Criswell faced tart criticism from other prominent Baptist leaders for his views and received hundreds of critical letters from professors and students at his Southern Baptist alma mater, Baylor University.

Please note - the "tart criticism" he got from "other prominent Baptist leaders" was a pretty intense issue at the time.

He (and a number of other Southern Baptist leaders) were just as wrong about abortion as they were about slavery.

Bill the Cat
05-31-2018, 06:44 AM
There are many such examples, not just one "rogue reporter" as per your selective rewriting of history. It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Conservatives.

"When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

In short, he's adopting the traditional Jewish view.

Criswell changed his mind about it. Here are his own words on the topic:

https://www.wacriswell.com/sermon-topic/abortion/

You will hear staunch pro-life words.

Tassman
06-01-2018, 12:12 AM
Criswell changed his mind about it. Here are his own words on the topic:

https://www.wacriswell.com/sermon-topic/abortion/

You will hear staunch pro-life words.

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Christian Conservatives. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion for a variety of reasons. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

Cow Poke
06-01-2018, 04:58 AM
That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Christian Conservatives. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion for a variety of reasons. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

I swear you must be overdosing on the stupid pills - AGAIN you very dishonestly cite ONLY the portion you want to see, and I had JUST posted the entire Resolution. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?17564-Abortion-Is-Equal-To-Murder&p=547080&viewfull=1#post547080) Let me do it again, and try really hard to read the bolded part.... Heck, I'll even make it bigger and underline part!

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

After resolving that we work to defend fetal life, we noted some EXCEPTIONS to a ban on abortion. And note that they are pretty restrictive exceptions.

Roy
06-01-2018, 05:32 AM
There is nothing known now about the development of fetuses that was not known 45 years ago.I severely doubt that - not least because MRI scanning isn't that old.

Cow Poke
06-01-2018, 05:33 AM
That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Christian Conservatives. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion for a variety of reasons. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/about/abortion

1971 - Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves;

1974 - Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that we reaffirm the resolution on the subject adopted by the messengers to the St. Louis Southern Baptist Convention meeting in 1971...

1976 - WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons want-only destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life, and WHEREAS, Every decision for an abortion, for whatever reason must necessarily involve the decision to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

A clarification, so I'll include the entire resolution

1977 - RESOLVED that this Convention reaffirm the strong stand against abortion adopted by the 1976 Convention, and, in view of some confusion in interpreting part of this resolution we confirm our strong opposition to abortion on demand and all governmental policies and actions which permit this.

The 1976 resolution on abortion is as follows:

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and

WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and

WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and

WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons wantonly destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life.

Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June, 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and

Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and

Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and

Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.)

1978 - Be it therefore RESOLVED, that we the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta in June 1978, reaffirm the resolution passed by the 1977 Kansas City Southern Baptist Convention.

1979 - Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June, 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and

And, pretty much 1980, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1989, 1991...


You just keep being so stubbornly and thoroughly WRONG.

Tassman
06-01-2018, 09:18 PM
I severely doubt that - not least because MRI scanning isn't that old.

MRI scans help diagnose disease or damage, but I doubt that it would have told us anything about a normal fetus in the womb that wasn't already known.

Tassman
06-01-2018, 09:43 PM
I swear you must be overdosing on the stupid pills - AGAIN you very dishonestly cite ONLY the portion you want to see, and I had JUST posted the entire Resolution. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?17564-Abortion-Is-Equal-To-Murder&p=547080&viewfull=1#post547080) Let me do it again, and try really hard to read the bolded part.... Heck, I'll even make it bigger and underline part!

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

After resolving that we work to defend fetal life, we noted some EXCEPTIONS to a ban on abortion. And note that they are pretty restrictive exceptions.

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that it is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been a major issue and the test of true Christian Conservative values. The standard Evangelical narrative that Evangelicals were so morally outraged by Roe v Wade that they resolved to do all in their power to overturn it is fake news. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion.

“What galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.

In other words, as Randall Balmer has succinctly put it: “the religious right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination.”

Only after the movement was underway did it begin advocacy on abortion. It did so, in large part, based on highly dubious arguments advanced by the popular writer Francis Schaeffer.”

http://religiondispatches.org/the-not-so-lofty-origins-of-the-evangelical-pro-life-movement/

In short, Evangelical opposition to abortion is as much for political power as an appeal to the high moral ground. But, then, this is why they voted for Trump.

Cow Poke
06-02-2018, 05:51 AM
That may well be.

It is. So you were clearly wrong. Again. As is the rest of your post, which I'll ignore.

carpedm9587
06-02-2018, 06:22 AM
That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that it is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been a major issue and the test of true Christian Conservative values. The standard Evangelical narrative that Evangelicals were so morally outraged by Roe v Wade that they resolved to do all in their power to overturn it is fake news. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion.

“What galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.

In other words, as Randall Balmer has succinctly put it: “the religious right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination.”

Only after the movement was underway did it begin advocacy on abortion. It did so, in large part, based on highly dubious arguments advanced by the popular writer Francis Schaeffer.”

http://religiondispatches.org/the-not-so-lofty-origins-of-the-evangelical-pro-life-movement/

In short, Evangelical opposition to abortion is as much for political power as an appeal to the high moral ground. But, then, this is why they voted for Trump.

I have to say that this does not align with my experience at all. I was an evangelical Christian in my youth, and that was from the early 1970s through the early 1980s - then I became a more progressive Christian. Our community was instantly against abortion when the RvW ruling was handed down in 1973, and immediately got active resisting it. It is also untrue that we had no idea what was in the womb. The same pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) were being circulated in 1973 as in 2018.

I also think the claim that the evangelical right is focused on perpetuating racial discrimination is way off the edge. Yes, some of the things the right does has the effect of perpetuating some forms of discrimination, and I have certainly noted on more than one occasion that many on the right are too quick to deny that racism continues to be a problem in our world. But I have no reason to believe that perpetuating racism is the intentional focus of the right.

A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

I think your post goes WAY too far....

element771
06-02-2018, 07:29 AM
A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

There have actually been several Republicans that have specifically said their intent was to suppress the minority vote.

However, this is where it is hard to separate a racist agenda versus a tactic to suppress the minority vote because they typically vote for Dems.

rogue06
06-02-2018, 12:11 PM
I have to say that this does not align with my experience at all. I was an evangelical Christian in my youth, and that was from the early 1970s through the early 1980s - then I became a more progressive Christian. Our community was instantly against abortion when the RvW ruling was handed down in 1973, and immediately got active resisting it. It is also untrue that we had no idea what was in the womb. The same pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) were being circulated in 1973 as in 2018.

I also think the claim that the evangelical right is focused on perpetuating racial discrimination is way off the edge. Yes, some of the things the right does has the effect of perpetuating some forms of discrimination, and I have certainly noted on more than one occasion that many on the right are too quick to deny that racism continues to be a problem in our world. But I have no reason to believe that perpetuating racism is the intentional focus of the right.

A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

I think your post goes WAY too far....
One thing to keep in mind is that there has always been a strain in the pro-abortion side which has seen abortion as a viable way of lowering the birth rate from "undesirables"


28057

carpedm9587
06-02-2018, 02:08 PM
There have actually been several Republicans that have specifically said their intent was to suppress the minority vote.

However, this is where it is hard to separate a racist agenda versus a tactic to suppress the minority vote because they typically vote for Dems.

Agreed.

carpedm9587
06-02-2018, 02:12 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that there has always been a strain in the pro-abortion side which has seen abortion as a viable way of lowering the birth rate from "undesirables"


28057

When RBG said that during an interview...the right pounced (as both sides do when the opposing side utters a poorly structured sentence that can be lifted out of context and used as a meme). A more full explanation of her statement was in a follow-up interview (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortio n_population_control_and.html). I found it with a quick search.

KingsGambit
06-02-2018, 07:40 PM
When RBG said that during an interview...the right pounced (as both sides do when the opposing side utters a poorly structured sentence that can be lifted out of context and used as a meme). A more full explanation of her statement was in a follow-up interview (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortio n_population_control_and.html). I found it with a quick search.

I don't think the supposed clarification absolves her. She used the word "we", which includes her with those that agreed with the goals of Zero POpulation Growth.

Tassman
06-02-2018, 10:13 PM
It is. So you were clearly wrong. Again.

Oh well then, if you say so...:lmbo:


As is the rest of your post, which I'll ignore.

But of course you will.

Tassman
06-02-2018, 11:43 PM
I have to say that this does not align with my experience at all. I was an evangelical Christian in my youth, and that was from the early 1970s through the early 1980s - then I became a more progressive Christian. Our community was instantly against abortion when the RvW ruling was handed down in 1973, and immediately got active resisting it. It is also untrue that we had no idea what was in the womb. The same pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) were being circulated in 1973 as in 2018.

I also think the claim that the evangelical right is focused on perpetuating racial discrimination is way off the edge. Yes, some of the things the right does has the effect of perpetuating some forms of discrimination, and I have certainly noted on more than one occasion that many on the right are too quick to deny that racism continues to be a problem in our world. But I have no reason to believe that perpetuating racism is the intentional focus of the right.

A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

I think your post goes WAY too far....

This is your opinion based upon your experience. It does not equate to the opinions and experiences of those in the several links I've previously posted in this thread: e.g.:

https://www.salon.com/2013/02/09/the_founding_of_evangelical_anti_abortion_campaign _wasnt_pretty_partner/

There are others.

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 03:52 AM
This is your opinion based upon your experience. It does not equate to the opinions and experiences of those in the several links I've previously posted in this thread: e.g.:

https://www.salon.com/2013/02/09/the_founding_of_evangelical_anti_abortion_campaign _wasnt_pretty_partner/

There are others.

Most of which you pervert or very selectively site, or are just absolutely flat out wrong. You have a hateful anti-Christian bias, and you will descend to any depth to try to support that.

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 03:54 AM
Oh well then, if you say so...:lmbo:

Not only have I said it, but I have proven it on numerous occasions.

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 04:58 AM
I don't think the supposed clarification absolves her. She used the word "we", which includes her with those that agreed with the goals of Zero POpulation Growth.

As I have said over and over again here, I am not a fan of telling someone else what they think and feel. The original statement is pretty bad. I accept her clarification at face value. I have no reason to think she would lie. I can easily see myself saying something like, "at the time of Oberefell v. Hodges, there was concern that same-sex marriages would encourage immoral behavior between people we don't find morally acceptable," in which the latter part of the sentence is referencing those who hold that position (picture someone doing air-quotes as they say the last phrase).

RBG should have been more careful with her original wording, of that there is no doubt. She clarified her position thereafter and I accept her clarification. I only reject a clarification if I have cause to believe the person speaking is generally not honest, or if there is a pattern of repeated belief that is being denied. As far as I know, RBG said this one time in one place, clarified it, and it has not been part of her speech or any position she has vocalized before or since.

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 05:02 AM
This is your opinion based upon your experience. It does not equate to the opinions and experiences of those in the several links I've previously posted in this thread: e.g.:

https://www.salon.com/2013/02/09/the_founding_of_evangelical_anti_abortion_campaign _wasnt_pretty_partner/

There are others.

I think I said that - it does not align with my experience. I read your article, and noted it is from Salon - which leans pretty hard to the left. That raises my "dubiousness" quotient a bit. It doesn't mean it's wrong (genetic fallacy), it just means I need to do a little digging to validate (or refute) the claims it makes. I don't have time for that right now, but perhaps later today.

KingsGambit
06-03-2018, 06:03 AM
As I have said over and over again here, I am not a fan of telling someone else what they think and feel. The original statement is pretty bad. I accept her clarification at face value. I have no reason to think she would lie. I can easily see myself saying something like, "at the time of Oberefell v. Hodges, there was concern that same-sex marriages would encourage immoral behavior between people we don't find morally acceptable," in which the latter part of the sentence is referencing those who hold that position (picture someone doing air-quotes as they say the last phrase).

RBG should have been more careful with her original wording, of that there is no doubt. She clarified her position thereafter and I accept her clarification. I only reject a clarification if I have cause to believe the person speaking is generally not honest, or if there is a pattern of repeated belief that is being denied. As far as I know, RBG said this one time in one place, clarified it, and it has not been part of her speech or any position she has vocalized before or since.

She clarified it after an intense media firestorm. It's quite common in politics for people to use clarifications to alter the meaning of statements that on face value meant something very different after falling under pressure, so I'm not inclined to take her original statement as non-literal.

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 06:09 AM
As I have said over and over again here, I am not a fan of telling someone else what they think and feel.

Reminds me of my youngest daughter, whose favorite motto seems to be....

"I'm not bossy - I just happen to know what everybody else should be doing (and thinking)". :smile:

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 11:53 AM
She clarified it after an intense media firestorm. It's quite common in politics for people to use clarifications to alter the meaning of statements that on face value meant something very different after falling under pressure, so I'm not inclined to take her original statement as non-literal.

I don't use what "people" generally do to make a judgement about what a specific person is likely to do (or at least I try not to). RBG does not have a reputation for lying, and has never said anything even remotely similar. I'm inclined to believe her. We'll have to leave it at that.

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 11:54 AM
Reminds me of my youngest daughter, whose favorite motto seems to be....

"I'm not bossy - I just happen to know what everybody else should be doing (and thinking)". :smile:

That's a common illness around here, I've noticed. I get told what I think, feel, meant, and want on a regular basis.

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 11:55 AM
I don't use what "people" generally do to make a judgement about what a specific person is likely to do (or at least I try not to). RBG does not have a reputation for lying, and has never said anything even remotely similar. I'm inclined to believe her. We'll have to leave it at that.

On the other hand, people sometimes reveal their true thoughts in an unguarded moment. :shrug:

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 11:56 AM
That's a common illness around here, I've noticed. I get told what I think, feel, meant, and want on a regular basis.

Come on, Carp, that's not what you really think at all. :smug:

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 01:38 PM
Come on, Carp, that's not what you really think at all. :smug:

:bonk:

KingsGambit
06-03-2018, 02:03 PM
On the other hand, people sometimes reveal their true thoughts in an unguarded moment. :shrug:

Or when they're drunk :outtie:

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 02:17 PM
On the other hand, people sometimes reveal their true thoughts in an unguarded moment. :shrug:

As I have said several times...when someone I have no reason to doubt tells me what they meant when they said X, I accept it as such. To do otherwise is to try to read minds and makes it likely I'm going to impose my own beliefs on them.

If I have not been consistent on that here - then I invite people to call me on it. It's something I feel fairly passionately about (unlike slogans on money... :ahem:).

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 03:02 PM
Or when they're drunk :outtie:

That's an unguarded moment generator. :yes:

Cow Poke
06-03-2018, 03:04 PM
As I have said several times...when someone I have no reason to doubt tells me what they meant when they said X, I accept it as such. To do otherwise is to try to read minds and makes it likely I'm going to impose my own beliefs on them.

If I have not been consistent on that here - then I invite people to call me on it. It's something I feel fairly passionately about (unlike slogans on money... :ahem:).

I was just messin with you, cause you said you'd leave it at that. I knew you couldn't. :smug:


I don't use what "people" generally do to make a judgement about what a specific person is likely to do (or at least I try not to). RBG does not have a reputation for lying, and has never said anything even remotely similar. I'm inclined to believe her. We'll have to leave it at that.

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 03:18 PM
I was just messin with you, cause you said you'd leave it at that. I knew you couldn't. :smug:

:glare:



:bonk:




:cp::whip:

Tassman
06-03-2018, 06:42 PM
I think I said that - it does not align with my experience. I read your article, and noted it is from Salon - which leans pretty hard to the left. That raises my "dubiousness" quotient a bit. It doesn't mean it's wrong (genetic fallacy), it just means I need to do a little digging to validate (or refute) the claims it makes. I don't have time for that right now, but perhaps later today.

Perhaps you should have done that before you inserted your two-penneth worth on a topic that is so emotionally fraught.

Tassman
06-03-2018, 06:47 PM
Most of which you pervert or very selectively site, or are just absolutely flat out wrong.

Or to put it another way, you just don’t like it. All the linked to articles are supported by facts and quotes from the relevant sources, which you cannot deny. Your only rebuttal has been to say that the relevant authorities quoted have subsequently changed their mind.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2014/05/the-late-first-baptist-dallas-pastor-w-a-criswell-was-pro-choice/

http://religiondispatches.org/the-not-so-lofty-origins-of-the-evangelical-pro-life-movement/

https://www.salon.com/2013/02/09/the_founding_of_evangelical_anti_abortion_campaign _wasnt_pretty_partner/


You have a hateful anti-Christian bias, and you will descend to any depth to try to support that.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating your anti-atheist bias. Yet again!

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 07:14 PM
Perhaps you should have done that before you inserted your two-penneth worth on a topic that is so emotionally fraught.

No...I don't think so. We can all offer our insights based on our experiences, Tass. When someone offers evidence against those insights, it's worth examining. However, there is no way to examine it until someone offers the insights. In response to your post, I offered my experience. In response to that you offered a Salon post. As soon as I have some time, I'll dig into the salon post.

If that is not adequate for you...well... :shrug:

carpedm9587
06-03-2018, 07:16 PM
Or to put it another way, you just don’t like it. All the linked to articles are supported by facts and quotes from the relevant sources, which you cannot deny. Your only rebuttal has been to say that the relevant authorities quoted have subsequently changed their mind.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2014/05/the-late-first-baptist-dallas-pastor-w-a-criswell-was-pro-choice/

http://religiondispatches.org/the-not-so-lofty-origins-of-the-evangelical-pro-life-movement/

https://www.salon.com/2013/02/09/the_founding_of_evangelical_anti_abortion_campaign _wasnt_pretty_partner/

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating your anti-atheist bias. Yet again!

You're on a theology forum. Are you really surprised there is an anti-atheist bias? :huh:

Tassman
06-03-2018, 09:32 PM
No...I don't think so. We can all offer our insights based on our experiences, Tass. When someone offers evidence against those insights, it's worth examining. However, there is no way to examine it until someone offers the insights. In response to your post, I offered my experience. In response to that you offered a Salon post. As soon as I have some time, I'll dig into the salon post.

If that is not adequate for you...well...

I've posted numerous links on the topic. If you're concerned about the bias of Salon you might prefer Politico:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133#.U4d_e_ldW2E

I look forward to your response.


You're on a theology forum. Are you really surprised there is an anti-atheist bias?

Of course not! It's the all too common spiteful language of that bias to which I’m referring. E.g., in this instance CP's "You have a hateful anti-Christian bias, and you will descend to any depth to try to support that". A tad hyperbolic don’t you think?

seer
06-04-2018, 04:33 AM
https://www.facebook.com/ChoiceFor2/videos/2143321705883391/

carpedm9587
06-04-2018, 04:43 AM
I've posted numerous links on the topic. If you're concerned about the bias of Salon you might prefer Politico:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133#.U4d_e_ldW2E

I look forward to your response.

Heading for a day of class right now. This week is pretty dedicated to the program I'm teaching, but I may find some time. BTW, I didn't go back and read the entire thread. I just responded to the one post (and our exchange since then, of course).


Of course not! It's the all too common spiteful language of that bias to which I’m referring. E.g., in this instance CP's "You have a hateful anti-Christian bias, and you will descend to any depth to try to support that". A tad hyperbolic don’t you think?

Hyperbole is not exactly rare around here, I've noticed. I have come to wonder if it is not endemic to the atheist/theist encounter. After all, the idea of god is not an abstraction to them - it is a personal relationship they experience as very real. Then along comes the atheist. The very name "atheist" essentially suggests that they are in a relationship with a fantasy. If someone told me my relationship with my wife was an illusion, I would wonder about their sanity. I might even get a bit hyperbolic.

And hyperbole is not exactly unique to theists... :wink:

Cow Poke
06-04-2018, 04:43 AM
Or to put it another way, you just don’t like it. All the linked to articles are supported by facts and quotes from the relevant sources, which you cannot deny. Your only rebuttal has been to say that the relevant authorities quoted have subsequently changed their mind.

That's a flat out lie. I proved you wrong by showing the parts of your cites that you omitted. You included PARTS of resolutions from the SBC that argued for exceptions for abortion - the part you omitted was about the sanctity of human life. That was a even a couple years BEFORE RvW.

The resolutions cited the sanctity of human life - INCLUDING THE FETUS - then allowed for some very limited exceptions.

Your citation of "The bureau chief of the Baptist Press" turned out to be the very liberal OPINION of ONE bureau chief of SBC's most liberal and troublesome office.

You are just as wrong about this as when you falsely accused the homosexual man of supporting NAMBLA, when he was, indeed, speaking AGAINST NAMBLA.

How do you get so much wrong so often? :huh:

Cow Poke
06-04-2018, 04:46 AM
Of course not! It's the all too common spiteful language of that bias to which I’m referring. E.g., in this instance CP's "You have a hateful anti-Christian bias, and you will descend to any depth to try to support that". A tad hyperbolic don’t you think?

That's not spiteful at all, Tassman. Merely accurate observation based on solid evidence. :wink:

Roy
06-04-2018, 05:11 AM
MRI scans help diagnose disease or damage, but I doubt that it would have told us anything about a normal fetus in the womb that wasn't already known.So you think we knew what a normally developing foetus's MRI scan looked like before MRI scanners were invented???

Yttrium
06-04-2018, 01:16 PM
This is a syllogism by a cyber friend from New Zealand, Bnonn Tennant. I think the logic is solid.

1.It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons (because it is murder)

2.A human zygote or fetus is a human being

3.Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons

https://bnonn.com/why-abortion-is-irrefutably-equivalent-to-murder/

The argument relies too much on semantics.

If a human zygote or fetus is a human being,

then it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons (because it is not necessarily murder).

One Bad Pig
06-04-2018, 01:18 PM
The argument relies too much on semantics.

If a human zygote or fetus is a human being,

then it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons (because it is not necessarily murder).
Your issue is not, then, with the argument but with the first premise.

Yttrium
06-04-2018, 01:35 PM
Your issue is not, then, with the argument but with the first premise.

Yes. What is a "human being"? Oh look, the second line helps define the term. That's not how it should work. The terms "human being" and "murder" should be well defined before we get to the second line, so that the first line makes sense independently.

One Bad Pig
06-04-2018, 01:37 PM
Yes. What is a "human being"? Oh look, the second line helps define the term. That's now how it should work. The terms "human being" and "murder" should be well defined before we get to the second line, so that the first line makes sense independently.
I agree, those two should be flipped.

carpedm9587
06-04-2018, 02:32 PM
The argument relies too much on semantics.

If a human zygote or fetus is a human being,

then it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons (because it is not necessarily murder).

Agreed. The syllogism is valid, but for the argument to be sound the premises have to be true. The first premise is dicey because of semantics. "Personal reasons?" If someone is attacking my son, and I kill them, I would suggest I am doing so for "personal reasons." It is not clear to me that this would be murder. A human zygote or fetus is most definitely human (by definition), but "human being" is not merely a scientific term - it is a philosophical term as well and open to debate. Not all people agree that the second premise is true.

Tassman
06-04-2018, 09:59 PM
So you think we knew what a normally developing foetus's MRI scan looked like before MRI scanners were invented???

Obviously not. But the point remains that the primary role of MRI's is is to check for abnormalities and potential problems.

Tassman
06-04-2018, 10:23 PM
That's a flat out lie. I proved you wrong by showing the parts of your cites that you omitted. You included PARTS of resolutions from the SBC that argued for exceptions for abortion - the part you omitted was about the sanctity of human life. That was a even a couple years BEFORE RvW.

The resolutions cited the sanctity of human life - INCLUDING THE FETUS - then allowed for some very limited exceptions.

Your citation of "The bureau chief of the Baptist Press" turned out to be the very liberal OPINION of ONE bureau chief of SBC's most liberal and troublesome office.

Yeah, sure!

“W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased [re Roe v Wade]: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” In short he was pro choice.

The fact that members of the Southern Baptist Convention are now obliged to toe the party line doesn’t alter the fact of previous dissent in the ranks.


You are just as wrong about this as when you falsely accused the homosexual man of supporting NAMBLA, when he was, indeed, speaking AGAINST NAMBLA.

How do you get so much wrong so often?

Here we go again. :lmbo:

I have no intention of re-litigating a previous debate from a different thread the only purpose of which is to deflect from your discomfit at unwelcome facts.

Cow Poke
06-05-2018, 06:29 AM
Yeah, sure!

“W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased [re Roe v Wade]: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” In short he was pro choice.

The fact that members of the Southern Baptist Convention are now obliged to toe the party line doesn’t alter the fact of previous dissent in the ranks.

And he was soundly blasted by fellow Baptists. He was wrong on that, as he realized later. And your dishonest misrepresentations of the various Southern Baptist statements on abortion even PRIOR to RvW was also debunked.


Here we go again. :lmbo:

I have no intention of re-litigating a previous debate from a different thread the only purpose of which is to deflect from your discomfit at unwelcome facts.

Yes, I can understand why you'd want to forget being proven so incredibly and profoundly wrong.

Jedidiah
06-05-2018, 10:04 AM
yes, i can understand why you'd want to forget being proven so incredibly and profoundly wrong again.

fify

Tassman
06-05-2018, 10:23 PM
And he was soundly blasted by fellow Baptists. He was wrong on that, as he realized later. And your dishonest misrepresentations of the various Southern Baptist statements on abortion even PRIOR to RvW was also debunked.

He was forced to toe the party line, as were any Baptist dissidents in the abortion debate who adopted a similar line to that of 'W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century", namely: "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

A perfectly reasonable approach and commonplace among Baptists until 'abortion' became a political rallying cry 45 years ago.


Yes, I can understand why you'd want to forget being proven so incredibly and profoundly wrong.

You delude yourself, Preacher, but your intention to deflect is understandable given the unscrupulous origins of the abortion debate. .

http://religiondispatches.org/the-not-so-lofty-origins-of-the-evangelical-pro-life-movement/

...as authored by Jonathan Dudley, a graduate of Yale Divinity School.