Originally posted by Bisto
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Biblical morality & domestic violence
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo matter what actual argument you make against abortion, Tassman ignores it and claims that you are against it because of "religious dogma" - it is his go-to strawman argument. Because he is unable to actually engage the real argument. Even though in all of these abortion threads, no Christian has ever argued that abortion is wrong because of religion.
The SCOTUS, in Roe vs Wade, got the balance right when it allowed women to make their own decisions about pregnancy during the first two trimesters, but prohibited abortion after fetal viability...except in exceptional circumstances. This protects the rights of both parties.
The only real objection is among those who believe the fertilised human egg is infused with divine essence and therefore sacred from the very beginning...which explains why 75% of white Evangelical Protestants oppose ALL abortion as compared to only 25% religiously unaffiliated people who find it morally wrong. (Pew Research.)
So, in short, it IS primarily a religious issue.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bisto View PostI associate that with Terminator primarily. (English isn't my first language.) Are fetuses not put to death when they are aborted by their mothers? It is just one of several ways to describe it. Whether it sounds dramatic to you or not, the act is the same nonetheless.
My objection was to your emotive phrase “put to death” as applied to insensate embryos. It’s as inappropriate as ”putting to death” cancer cells...or any other innate living body tissue.
I'll be honest with you here. I haven't read or thought through all the implications of this topic. This "soul-assumption-at-the-bottom" you speak about, I just don't see it in my thought process as strongly or clearly as you imply. Maybe I will get it eventually, I don't know, but I do think it's not an assumption I'm making at present. I'm just trying to understand both sides' logic.
Hey, I haven't said people will all of a sudden go full pro-life. Fetuses predicted to have crippling disabilities are aborted already by your secular policy, even after birth in the Dutch case. My point was really simple, it won't change your life, though it might eventually make your wife not want an abortion if you have one (and the technology develops fast). I think it will decrease overall abortion rates by hitting on several mothers' and fathers' hearts, and as far as marginal benefits go in terms of human lives, I guess that's a win.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYour English is excellent considering it’s not your first language.
My objection was to your emotive phrase “put to death” as applied to insensate embryos. It’s as inappropriate as ”putting to death” cancer cells...or any other innate living body tissue.
I doubt there are many people that “want abortions”. It’s a serious decision for anybody, religious or “secular”.
By the way, have you dedicated any time to read about the secular pro-life groups? I was checking out their positions the other day. Interesting stuff. In your opinion, is a Christian capable of arguing pro-life their way, without drawing upon this "soul-assumption" you think underlies Christian pro-life speech?We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'- 2 Corinthians 5:20.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo matter what actual argument you make against abortion, Tassman ignores it and claims that you are against it because of "religious dogma" - it is his go-to strawman argument. Because he is unable to actually engage the real argument. Even though in all of these abortion threads, no Christian has ever argued that abortion is wrong because of religion.We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'- 2 Corinthians 5:20.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bisto View Post
Well, that's the claim at stake, isn't it?
I would think twice about dismissing cancer cells if I knew they would eventually develop into a grown human being
True, I didn't use the word's common meaning I guess. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.
By the way, have you dedicated any time to read about the secular pro-life groups? I was checking out their positions the other day. Interesting stuff. In your opinion, is a Christian capable of arguing pro-life their way, without drawing upon this "soul-assumption" you think underlies Christian pro-life speech?
Have YOU "dedicated any time to read about" the Christian Pro-Choice groups? Is a Christian like you capable of arguing pro-choice their way?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bisto View PostI get you. After reading through these threads, I don't think I remember him bringing up the secular pro-life position, other than calling it a minority -- which is why I asked my latest question, to see what he thinks about it and whether us Christians are physically/psychologically/etc. capable of employing their (hopefully religiously-neutral) arguments :)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHe will dodge or dismiss your question with a comment that shows he doesn't actually understand the secular prolife argument and go back to his old strawman. Very predictable.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostTypical dismissive bald-assertion! Why do the secular 'pro-life' secular arguments convince you and yet the 'pro-choice' Christian arguments do not? Please explain.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwhat convinces me has no bearing on my argument to you. But I was prolife before I was a Christian. Because I believe a fetus is a human being
The real issue is when the fetus is granted full civil rights, this is considered by many (including the SCOTUS) to be when it develops a functioning brain and becomes a viable entity...at around week 25.
who deserves to live his life without being murdered for the convenience of the mother.
It’s not for you to judge why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy; to say it’s to about “convenience” trivialises a difficult situation for any woman. As well, a woman has rights of her own to be considered...or does she lose ALL rights over her own body once she’s pregnant, in your opinion?
This was before I even believed in "souls". Based purely on biology. Which I have been arguing with you, and you keep claiming I am only arguing from a religious agenda.
Because you can't deal with the actual argument because you know science proves you wrong.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes a human fetus is human, what else would it be a goldfish?
The real issue is when the fetus is granted full civil rights, this is considered by many (including the SCOTUS) to be when it develops a functioning brain and becomes a viable entity...at around week 25.
Come now! One can’t “murder” an insensate entity any more than one is “murdering” say, a basal cell carcinoma when it’s removed.
It’s not for you to judge why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy; to say it’s to about “convenience” trivialises a difficult situation for any woman. As well, a woman has rights of her own to be considered...or does she lose ALL rights over her own body once she’s pregnant, in your opinion?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo. We know that fetal brain activity only begins to exhibit regular wave patterns at around week 25. Previous to that the pre-natal entity is innate...the EEG only shows small bursts of involuntary activity.
...and most people “think twice” about having an abortion, because of the fetuses potential, but again, potential is not actuality...it's not a viable human being yet.
You have said the 'potential vs. actuality' bit before; I get it. I sometimes think about it.
What you meant, perhaps not consciously, was the use of judgemental language typical of religious pro-life advocates, e.g. “putting to death” as applied to insensate embryos and my wife “wanting” to have an abortion.
Now, what do you really think I meant there?
Why do you find it interesting, do their arguments convince you? They seem Appeals to Emotion fallacies to me.
Have YOU "dedicated any time to read about" the Christian Pro-Choice groups? Is a Christian like you capable of arguing pro-choice their way?We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'- 2 Corinthians 5:20.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostA parent doesn't have the right to kill their offspring. The baby doesn't even exist except as a result of the choices of the mother and father. That makes them responsible for the life they created. It is not like the baby just crawled inside the mother and and squatted there.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostDoes God have the right to kill? I ask because I have seen Christians justify Biblical genocides by saying that he created us, therefore he has the right to destroy us. Here you seem to say the exact opposite of that; that the creator of life has aresponsibility to protect it.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
176 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
427 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,510 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 05:49 PM
|
Comment