The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 29

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

As someone who generally appreciates theism, your theology still makes me sad.

I think it's makes perfect sense.

If you take the Bible even remotely to be the story of God's interaction with humanity then everthing we attribute to 'the Devil' is done by the Old Testament God.

He wipes out whole civilisations, visits plagues and death on even his most devoted followers, urges people to rape and murder and even to murder their own children.

Jesus is in total opposition to all that and as the word for adversary is Satan one could make a perfectly good reading of the Biblical text where God is the Devil and Jesus is his rebellious son.

In fact it makes more sense that way.

The Eden Serpent whispers the Word "rebellion" into the ear of Eve and urges man to embrace free will.

Jesus urges man to not fear death on the promise of a new eternal incorruptible Kingdom with himself as ruler.

Embrace Gnosticism kids. You know it makes sense...sort of

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/fact-check-does-the-bible-really-support-rape-and-polygamy-theblaze-explores-atheists-critiques/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Religion/post/704502/#TopicPost704502

Someone needs to spend more time reading the Bible and less reading critiques from others clearly out simply to tear it down.

 That's more of a call to read your links. The Bible God clearly requests rape, murder and infanticide (though an angel saves the day in one case).

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Well He is kind of cool irregardless, I was talking to God the other day and like he turned around and said without a hint of irony. "I was going to smack you in the mouth but that foreskin on your foot so becoming" Crazy times he then smote me with a Urinary Tract Infection.

BTW a clump of cells can be a viable fetus, all viable fetuses were at some point a clump of two cells. But a fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a person.

 A brilliant justification for infanticide.  Nice.

Why stop there you might as well eat them as well. Newborn calves and lambs aren't people either. Say would you like a jellied baby?

 Not sure how this strengthens any of your arguments.  Have I not drawn the parallels with you in the past?  You complain about Warbler's execution of non-person vermin, yet justify the killing of non-person people.  Hmmm....

You call them vermin I call them rodent persons, they have desires, they have arguably a personality (no two mice are the same), they fear pain and death.

Little mice people.

A fetus is more like a prawn. I don't kill them either but I don't expect much in the way of interaction. If I had to kill a prawn to save a mouse I would have to give it a good think but I probably would.

 Ah, but a newborn child has no desires, no personality, and has no instinctive fear of pain and death.  Sounds like someone who has not spent a lot of time with babies.  It helps if you have twins.  Then you can see the divergences in personalities from day 1, even amongst identical twins.

Babies aren't people? Pfff...

Probably your weakest argument I've ever read.

It sounds more like you are over romanticising the wiggles, farts and screams of the babies you know.

They feel pain yes, they feel cold or hungry but they have no concept of where to go with these impulses other than instinctively make a loud noise.

Over time they begin to develop into people so by the time they are eating solids and labeling things with sounds they are along same lines as a kitten but not quite as smart and aware as a chicken.

Those who eat chicken are worse than abortionists, they are eating a toddler's worth of awareness.

This is was all started by you saying a very silly thing.

That a fetus is a person.

You can insist this until you are blue in the face but it just plain isn't.

That doesn't instantly make it right to churn them up chuck them away in the same way that infanticide is not a generally done thing but dumbing down and emotively stewing the issue by saying something as clearly incorrect as a fetus being a person is doing the debate a disservice.

Solent Green however..l.

      ^ So then, when you are sound asleep or passed out drunk, you're cool with having anyone who finds you inconvenient tear you to shreds instead of waiting whatever period of time is necessarry for you to awake and display these qualities of personhood?

         Dude, I sure wouldn't let the gang pushing the global warming fraud and Agenda 21 hear you say that! 

Bingowings said:

It sounds more like you are over romanticising the wiggles, farts and screams of the babies you know.

They feel pain yes, they feel cold or hungry but they have no concept of where to go with these impulses other than instinctively make a loud noise.

Over time they begin to develop into people so by the time they are eating solids and labeling things with sounds they are along same lines as a kitten but not quite as smart and aware as a chicken.

Those who eat chicken are worse than abortionists, they are eating a toddler's worth of awareness.

This is was all started by you saying a very silly thing.

That a fetus is a person.

You can insist this until you are blue in the face but it just plain isn't.

That doesn't instantly make it right to churn them up chuck them away in the same way that infanticide is not a generally done thing but dumbing down and emotively stewing the issue by saying something as clearly incorrect as a fetus being a person is doing the debate a disservice.

Solent Green however..l.

 And how many children do you and your significant other have?

Now I don't mean that to sound rude, but clearly you have not produced offspring, and I find it hard to believe you know better than I do.

Now let me use your insanely tough logic.  You can insist that a fetus is not a person till you are blue in the face, but it just plain is.

A newborn demonstrates more intelligence than a chicken or mouse in all its years, and it merely lacks experience and motor skills.  Intelligence is not a matter of knowledge gained, but capacity to gain.

I can see the argument that an embryo with no developed nervous system is not a person, but I still disagree because I do not define a person the way you do.  And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

As someone who generally appreciates theism, your theology still makes me sad.

I think it's makes perfect sense.

If you take the Bible even remotely to be the story of God's interaction with humanity then everthing we attribute to 'the Devil' is done by the Old Testament God.

He wipes out whole civilisations, visits plagues and death on even his most devoted followers, urges people to rape and murder and even to murder their own children.

Jesus is in total opposition to all that and as the word for adversary is Satan one could make a perfectly good reading of the Biblical text where God is the Devil and Jesus is his rebellious son.

In fact it makes more sense that way.

The Eden Serpent whispers the Word "rebellion" into the ear of Eve and urges man to embrace free will.

Jesus urges man to not fear death on the promise of a new eternal incorruptible Kingdom with himself as ruler.

Embrace Gnosticism kids. You know it makes sense...sort of

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/fact-check-does-the-bible-really-support-rape-and-polygamy-theblaze-explores-atheists-critiques/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Religion/post/704502/#TopicPost704502

Someone needs to spend more time reading the Bible and less reading critiques from others clearly out simply to tear it down.

 That's more of a call to read your links. The Bible God clearly requests rape, murder and infanticide (though an angel saves the day in one case).

 I didn't have time to do much this morning, as I had to head out the door to work (where I am now).  But I can say that there is more to the Bible than "clearly" a request to rape, murder, and kill one's adult child.  Those links might help, but so can a frame of mind not bent on convincing others the Old Testament is pure evil.  The last link is worth a read.  The author is brilliant.  ;)

In all seriousness, if you consider the surrounding cultures of the times, the Israelites lived in a very liberal, progressive culture.  Many of the things we find so reprehensible today were miles ahead of their neighbors' standards.

Reread the passages you hate in light of that context (and note where it does not say rape, though women are taken to be married and obviously subsequently have sexual relations with their husbands).   You will see that God did not condone rape.  The culture of the time did hold women in lower regard with certainly far less freedom of choice than the men, but if God can command his prophets to write scriptures that condemn the perpetrator of rape to death, surely he did not advocate for such behavior later.

Perhaps we should take this aspect of the conversation to the religion thread.

Yay for using the term Pro Abortion!  We want them and love to have them!  And we definitely have sex with the aim of getting them!  Yay!

Pushing abstinence is much more practical and effective than teaching the proper use of contraception anyway, right?

and Bingo's anti Christian broken record is still playing, I see.

TV's Frink said:

Yay for using the term Pro Abortion!  

 So you've never used the term anti abortion and always refer to the other side with the term, pro life?

TV's Frink said:

We want them and love to have them! And we definitely have sex with the aim of getting them!  Yay!

 where did Ender say that?

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Yay for using the term Pro Abortion!  

 So you've never used the term anti abortion and always refer to the other side with the term, pro life?

 "Pro life" is as misleading as "pro abortion."

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Yay for using the term Pro Abortion!  

 So you've never used the term anti abortion and always refer to the other side with the term, pro life?

 "Pro life" is as misleading as "pro choice."

 ?

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Yay for using the term Pro Abortion!  

 So you've never used the term anti abortion and always refer to the other side with the term, pro life? Yet

 "Pro life" is as misleading as "pro choice."

 ?

 Oops, replace pro choice with pro abortion.  I've fixed it.

What about those who are pro-life is not pro-life?

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

RicOlie_2 said:

What about those who are pro-life is not pro-life?

 Who are a what?

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done.  Sex is primarily for baby creation, and the pleasures involved ensure survival of the species.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 that would be logical.  At the very least, use some form of protection during sex.   If you do end up with an unwanted pregnacy, what about putting the child up for adoption? 

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done. 

 yes, it can be done.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Yay for using the term Pro Abortion!  

 So you've never used the term anti abortion and always refer to the other side with the term, pro life?

 "Pro life" is as misleading as "pro abortion."

 pro life is not misleading from the point of view of those who are pro life.

Hooray for them.  I'm pro life too.

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done.  Sex is primarily for baby creation, and the pleasures involved ensure survival of the species.

 Sex is for whatever you want as long as you have a willing partner who has the ability to consent without coercion.  If a couple has a condom fail and they don't wait thirty weeks, I see no problem with abortion.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 that would be logical.  At the very least, use some form of protection during sex.   If you do end up with an unwanted pregnacy, what about putting the child up for adoption? 

 I guss you missed the part where most religions are anti-contraception.  And all kids up for adoption find homes, right?