NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

I object to the use of the phrase "pro-life" to describe the anti-abortion groups. It's a factually incorrect descriptor.

I object to the use of the phrase "pro-life" to describe the anti-abortion groups. It's a factually incorrect descriptor.

Additionally one I've only seen used in the US, so that an Irish poster chooses it is strange, not to mention that claim that abortions "kills".

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

the story is that people are nitpicky about what parts of their holy scripture/moral authority they choose to follow, and which parts they take literally or not

I object to the use of the phrase "pro-life" to describe the anti-abortion groups. It's a factually incorrect descriptor.
I don't care what you call it, although I do not believe it to be incorrect, once the group in question is consistently pro-life (which is what this thread is complaining about).

Additionally one I've only seen used in the US, so that an Irish poster chooses it is strange, not to mention that claim that abortions "kills".
No, pro-life is very much used here to describe anti-abortion views.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

I don't know... I oppose war, but I'm pro-choice.

I don't think it is hypocritical but I think it does take a certain type of person.

I guess it depends. There are people like me who are pro-choice with limits (i.e. up to the first trimester) who don't fall in to either camp.

Of course, I also consider the Iraq war to be a mistake.

I don't think it is hypocritical but I think it does take a certain type of person.
How is it not hypocritical? I also agree that it takes a certain type of person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism).

How is it not hypocritical? I also agree that it takes a certain type of person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism).

Yeah, that type. Because I don't think that abortion is murder and I don't think that soldiers killed in war is murder either. I mean, so maybe it is hypocritical to themselves to hold those views but ironically, by the way I view things, they are not being hypocritical. But I would find it hypocritical if somebody thought that smashing babies after being born was wrong but thought that civilian casualties brought on by war was just delightful. Or vice versa.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?
Misleading education and information is the cause of the problem. They are more often than not taught that life begins at the very moment of contraception, even before the egg is implanted in the lining of the uterus. Contradictory, they are informed that there is an enemy lurking out there, in a place none of them can imagine and the only way to defeat it is to launch a military offensive, aka - a war that has absolutely no point, and that civilian deaths, aka, collateral damage is an inevitability.

What's the story?

Many of them are troubled not by the destruction of the fetus so much as by the atmosphere of sexual liberalism that abortion reinforces and is reinforced by.

Misleading education and information is the cause of the problem. They are more often than not taught that life begins at the very moment of contraception, even before the egg is implanted in the lining of the uterus..

Well, technically that is correct; those cells are alive. The question is when those cells become a human being that is the focus of the debate.

Yeah, that type. Because I don't think that abortion is murder and I don't think that soldiers killed in war is murder either.
I don't mean soldiers so much as the civilians that are usually the majority of war dead.

Many of them are troubled not by the destruction of the fetus so much as by the atmosphere of sexual liberalism that abortion reinforces and is reinforced by.
As I suspected they don't give a shit about the children at all.

The question is when those cells become a human being that is the focus of the debate.

Not even that, really. No one really denies that the fetus is a "human being" insofar as it has human DNA and will become an entity capable of reproducing with other human beings.

The question is when the traits of the fetus entitle it to the rights we generally grant to morally relevant persons - like the right to life.

Not even that, really. No one really denies that the fetus is a "human being" insofar as it has human DNA and will become an entity capable of reproducing with other human beings.

The question is when the traits of the fetus entitle it to the rights we generally grant to morally relevant persons - like the right to life.

That's more along the lines of what I meant; when does the fetus attain the kind of "personhood" that grants it the same rights as any other person?

I don't mean soldiers so much as the civilians that are usually the majority of war dead.


.

Then I would say that they are being hypocritical.

As I suspected they don't give a shit about the children at all.

It's one of the reasons the question of abortion is so much a religious and cultural question, when the philosophical question underlying it really isn't.

That's more along the lines of what I meant; when does the fetus attain the kind of "personhood" that grants it the same rights as any other person?
I would rather keep this thread focused on my questiona about the contradiction. If you want to have a straight-up abortion debate I suggest making another thread.

I would rather keep this thread focused on my questiona about the contradiction. If you want to have a straight-up abortion debate I suggest making another thread.

Oh, I was just responding to Soheran.

I would rather keep this thread focused on my questiona about the contradiction. If you want to have a straight-up abortion debate I suggest making another thread.

I believe his question was rhetorical.

I'm pro-choice, but for the sake of argument:

You can avoid contradiction by engaging in only justifiable wars, just as it's justifiable homicide is not ethically wrong. However, abortion is not justifiable as in the vast majority of cases, the women had a choice in whether or not she wished to partake in activity which could put her in danger of pregnancy.

It's also hypocrasy to be pro-death penalty and a christian. Lot's of things in the world are hypocrasy. Everybody's a f.cking hypocrite. I dare you to find one person who's not.

It's also hypocrasy to be pro-death penalty and a christian. Lot's of things in the world are hypocrasy. Everybody's a f.cking hypocrite. I dare you to find one person who's not.
Possibly true, but there's definitely something wrong with persistently and knowingly being a hypocritical activist.

I object to calling a blob of non-sapient cells a "person".

I object to calling a blob of non-sapient cells a "person".
Worse are the hard-nosed, compassionless people who brand them as "parasites".

Possibly true, but there's definitely something wrong with persistently and knowingly being a hypocritical activist.

There are worse things in the world.

Worse are the hard-nosed, compassionless people who brand them as "parasites".

Why? That's an accurate biological description of the fetus. Any negative connotation put on it is put there because the user doesn't understand the definition of the word "parasite." There's no moral meaning attached to the word, or there shouldn't be anyway.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

See the thing is in the US right-wing evanlegical christians have a lot of political power. They claim to do a lot in the name of their faith like hating abortion but in reality they are right wing tools that advocate very unChristian things like being insanely pro-war, hating the idea of social welfare( something jesus would hate if he were around today), and thinking global warming is a "myth" or something. It would be nice if we could just ignore them on the account of them being crazy, but they have backing in the white house:(

Why? That's an accurate biological description of the fetus. Any negative connotation put on it is put there because the user doesn't understand the definition of the word "parasite." There's no moral meaning attached to the word, or there shouldn't be anyway.

Yeah, but a lot of people who use it don't mean it that way; it's the same as terms like allegory, myth, theory, and a dozen other terms that are misused to have negative connotations when applied to certain things.

Anyone who uses "parasite" in an intentionally negative way is disgusting.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

Yes, it's hypocrisy.

Their view is that abortion is killing innocent people.

If killing people is wrong, then abortion is wrong.
War kills innocent people.
Therefore, war is also wrong.

Of course, abortion isn't killing people anyway, but that's another matter. From the point of view of their logic, they should be pacifists.

Yeah, but a lot of people who use it don't mean it that way; it's the same as terms like allegory, myth, theory, and a dozen other terms that are misused to have negative connotations when applied to certain things.

Anyone who uses "parasite" in an intentionally negative way is disgusting.
Since it's often difficult to determine just how a person is using a word, perhaps it would be better if we took words to mean what they mean until given a reason otherwise.

Since it's often difficult to determine just how a person is using a word, perhaps it would be better if we took words to mean what they mean until given a reason otherwise.

Especially in writing. If someone says it, you can guess based upon how and in what context they use it, but judging someone in their writing is wrong.

Especially in writing. If someone says it, you can guess based upon how and in what context they use it, but judging someone in their writing is wrong.

There was a recent study done on sensing things like sarcasm in emails--turned out most people sucked pretty bad at it. That's why, even though I think they're childish, I use smileys around here, especially when I write something biting.

I think we have already established that I am a hypocrite, so who cares anymore?

I think we have already established that I am a hypocrite, so who cares anymore?

Who ever cared?

There was a recent study done on sensing things like sarcasm in emails--turned out most people sucked pretty bad at it. That's why, even though I think they're childish, I use smileys around here, especially when I write something biting.

Same here. I can pick up sarcasm pretty well, but apparently a lot of people can't for one reason or another.

I think we have already established that I am a hypocrite, so who cares anymore?

so you are pro-war and anti-abortion?

Same here. I can pick up sarcasm pretty well, but apparently a lot of people can't for one reason or another.

I often find posting here can be very sarcasmic. I get sarcasms pretty easily, though.

The question is when those cells become a human being that is the focus of the debate.

I'm almost entirely certain Bottle disagrees strongly on this.

I'm almost entirely certain Bottle disagrees strongly on this.

As do I. I'm of the opinion that until that fetus makes the jump out of the mother's body, it's only a potential life, and that the mother should have complete discretion to do what she wishes with it, no matter how distasteful that may be to me. I also recognize that I hold an extreme view on this and that very few people agree with me, and I can deal with that.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

War is not merely a method of killing people, it has its noble pursuit as well.

Well, it's stupid to be pro-life, and stupid to be pro-war.


So no, it's not hypocritical at all.

If killing people is wrong, then abortion is wrong.
War kills innocent people.
Therefore, war is also wrong.


This does show that anyone who things abortion is inherently bad and civilian deaths in war is inherently good is hypocritical, but very, very few individuals would hold these opinions.

Most of those who hold that abortion is wrong will support it to protect the life of the mother (some radicals would not). Most of those who hold that war is good do so for some greater good that outweighs the death of civilians.

This does show that anyone who things abortion is inherently bad and civilian deaths in war is inherently good is hypocritical, but very, very few individuals would hold these opinions.

I disagree; it shows that people who believe that "killing innocents is wrong" are hypocrites if they support actions which kill innocents. There is no need for them to think that civilian deaths in war is good.

Most of those who hold that abortion is wrong will support it to protect the life of the mother (some radicals would not). Most of those who hold that war is good do so for some greater good that outweighs the death of civilians.

Well, "radicals" and such are in greater number than I think you give credit for, if we define radicals as people who think as already defined (killing = wrong, i.e Judao-Christian ethics). If killing is wrong, then it really doesn't fly if you go to the Ethics Bank and say, "killing is wrong, except I'm cashing in on Greater Good, so my balance is still positive."

I disagree; it shows that people who believe that "killing innocents is wrong" are hypocrites if they support actions which kill innocents. There is no need for them to think that civilian deaths in war is good.

And war is not simply a method for killing innocents.

The Allies killed a lot of innocent Germans in WWII, would you say that was their goal and rationale?

"killing is wrong, except I'm cashing in on Greater Good, so my balance is still positive."

Complex moral judgements are always a weighing of pro and con. It is hard to imagine any action that has only benevolent reprecussions.

How would that be hypocritical?

After all, you're going to need those kids for cannon-fodder in eighteen years or so. Damn these freedom-loving pro-choice women for denying our country the bodies it needs to die in the name of freedom!!

:mp5:

And war is not simply a method for killing innocents.

The Allies killed a lot of innocent Germans in WWII, would you say that was their goal and rationale?



Complex moral judgements are always a weighing of pro and con. It is hard to imagine any action that has only benevolent reprecussions.

I would imagine that if you asked the people in the US who are opposed to the war in Iraq if they were pacifists, opposed to any use of force anywhere, you'd get a resounding no from most of them. That's part of the reason why I don't like these kinds of thought experiments--they focus on unrealistic positions. If I oppose the Iraq War and support intervention in Darfur or Afghanistan, does that make me a hypocrite? I don't believe so.

Umm, the fact that Scripture gives 3 times when killing is commanded: self-defense (personal and national), defense of the defenseless (including the unborn) and excecution.

God decided when He it's justifiable to kill another person, and He told us what He decided. We don't decide (or if we do, we are in great sin).

Umm, the fact that Scripture gives 3 times when killing is commanded: self-defense (personal and national), defense of the defenseless (including the unborn) and excecution.

God decided when He it's justifiable to kill another person, and He told us what He decided. We don't decide (or if we do, we are in great sin).

HEY! We have another right wing christian fundementalist here!

You can tell because when he refers to god with the word he, he capitilises the h.

HEY! We have another right wing christian fundementalist here!

You can tell because when he refers to god with the word he, he capitilises the h.

Umm, no.

I'm an Evangelical. I guess I fit the definition of a fundamentalist, but I don't associate myself with them (they've given themselves over too much to anti-intellectualism).

And there are a good many "liberal Christians" who use a majascule "H" when referring to God.

I would imagine that if you asked the people in the US who are opposed to the war in Iraq if they were pacifists, opposed to any use of force anywhere, you'd get a resounding no from most of them. That's part of the reason why I don't like these kinds of thought experiments--they focus on unrealistic positions. If I oppose the Iraq War and support intervention in Darfur or Afghanistan, does that make me a hypocrite? I don't believe so.

Are many people inconsistent in how much they value human life? Of course.

However, the comparison put forth in the OP is apples and oranges. I am opposed to war and very supportive of abortion, but I certainly realize that at least war is a much more complex issue than "will an innocent person die?"

Are many people inconsistent in how much they value human life? Of course.

However, the comparison put forth in the OP is apples and oranges. I am opposed to war and very supportive of abortion, but I certainly realize that at least war is a much more complex issue than "will an innocent person die?"

As is abortion. If it were a cut-and-dried issue, we wouldn't have been fighting over it for lo these many years.

HEY! We have another right wing christian fundementalist here!

You can tell because when he refers to god with the word he, he capitilises the h.

Addressing arguments is preferred over tossing insults on NSG.

Well at least I prefer it when arguments are addressed.

HEY! We have another right wing christian fundementalist here!

You can tell because when he refers to god with the word he, he capitilises the h.

No, that's called proper religious language. In modern religious texts, the pronouns referring to God have been traditionally capitalized and have been traditionally masculine. That's no more fundamentalist than capitalizing the term "God" to begin with.

I often capitalize them, and I'm no fundamentalist and no Christian.

As is abortion. If it were a cut-and-dried issue, we wouldn't have been fighting over it for lo these many years.

Well, I was going to say abortion as well, but the central question for abortion in most cases is "will an innocent person die?"

Abortion is a very complex moral issue because we have not yet conclusively defined what an "innocent person" actually is or begins.

In terms of war "will an innocent person die" is a very straightfoward part of a much more complex moral calculation.

I think it depends what you mean by "pro-war." If you mean supporting EVERY war that ever existed, then yes, it would be rather contradictory. However, if you supported uses of force so as to save lives (say, stopping genocide in Rwanda or Darfur), then I think it would be logically consistent. However, I don't think that the various states really have interest in a foreign policy that truly protects lives, but rather what they think is politically beneficial at the moment.

I think abortion is wrong, the cells will become a baby anyway, so it is considered killing an innocent human in my mind. And in my opinion you are not a hypocrite if you are pro-war.
Think about how the U.S. nuked Japan in WW2, Japan surrendered, and less people would have died in the future. (There was a plan to invade Japan that was estimated to kill way more people than the nukes did)

I think abortion is wrong, the cells will become a baby anyway, so it is considered killing an innocent human in my mind. And in my opinion you are not a hypocrite if you are pro-war.

The cells may become a baby. They may also die at any time inside the womb.

Think about how the U.S. nuked Japan in WW2, Japan surrendered, and less people would have died in the future. (There was a plan to invade Japan that was estimated to kill way more people than the nukes did)

Yea, but the baby might grow into a mass murderer, so aborting it at the start makes sure less people will die in the future. Also, it means the baby doesn't have to die in the future (isn't the future great?)

Is it hypocrisy to be pro-life (on abortion) and pro-war?

Yeah, pretty much.

It's also hypocrasy to be pro-death penalty and a christian. Lot's of things in the world are hypocrasy. Everybody's a f.cking hypocrite. I dare you to find one person who's not.

:confused:

Where in the Bible does it say that you shouldn't have the death penalty?

Answer? It doesn't. In fact, God institutes the death penalty. Jesus speaks against violence between individuals and against revenge, but He never takes away the command given to the civil government to use the death penalty.

Well, it's stupid to be pro-life, and stupid to be pro-war.


So no, it's not hypocritical at all.
Zing!

Zing!

Is that a Humorous Zing, or a Sarcastic Zing?

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

I guess their point is that wars kill innocent civilians "by accident" while abortion kills fetuses directly. Of course, I'm pro-abortion and anti-war, but I just want the arguments about these things to be logical.

And war is not simply a method for killing innocents.

It doesn't matter. War causes the death of innocents. That's what it does. Abortion isn't "simply a method of killing innocents" either - but, from the point of view of "pro-lifers," that's what it does. Supporting either one has the consequence of supporting the killing of innocents - so how can one consistently assert that since killing innocents is wrong, supporting abortion is wrong - but supporting war isn't? This is just inconsistent, again if one believes that abortion "kills innocent people."

Complex moral judgements are always a weighing of pro and con. It is hard to imagine any action that has only benevolent reprecussions.

There's nothing complex about it. If killing innocents is wrong, then it's wrong. The merits of morally "wrong" actions is another subject - there may be a lot of merit in me stabbing random people on the bus, but it's wrong.

It doesn't matter. War causes the death of innocents. That's what it does. Abortion isn't "simply a method of killing innocents" either - but, from the point of view of "pro-lifers," that's what it does. Supporting either one has the consequence of supporting the killing of innocents - so how can one consistently assert that since killing innocents is wrong, supporting abortion is wrong - but supporting war isn't? This is just inconsistent, again if one believes that abortion "kills innocent people."

But this isn't true for many anti-abortionists.

I believe all humanity deserves death: even the baby conceived this very moment. But, only God can judge and determine who will receive what how. He has judged and told us that we are to behave in certain ways and those ways require/permit killing in three instances only: self-defense (personal or national), execution (at times God prescribes only), and defense of the defenseless (including the unborn).

Whoever rejects abortion for killing the "innocent" and then supports war, even thought the "innocent" are often killed with the guilty is in great danger of be hypocritical.

But you're over generalizing.

As I suspected they don't give a shit about the children at all.

Indeed. What I have found of most "Pro-lifers" is that they only care about a child up until it is born. After that, who gives a damn? They are usually the same people against universal health care, even for children. So... after the baby is born, it can suffer or die. They really don't give a damn. Well, most. I have met one person who is Pro-life, and pro-healthcare. The exception.

Is that a Humorous Zing, or a Sarcastic Zing?
There are two types of Zing? :confused: Um, the first one?

Indeed. What I have found of most "Pro-lifers" is that they only care about a child up until it is born. After that, who gives a damn? They are usually the same people against universal health care, even for children. So... after the baby is born, it can suffer or die. They really don't give a damn. Well, most. I have met one person who is Pro-life, and pro-healthcare. The exception.

Or, it could be that we don't want the government doing anything more that it's supposed to (protect through police and military) and would rather that healthcare be provided for through money earned through work (*gasp!*) and through charities (*gasp!*).

Honestly, so many of you think that anyone who believes the government is not the answer to everything is the spawn of Satan!

Or, it could be that we don't want the government doing anything more that it's supposed to (protect through police and military) and would rather that healthcare be provided for through money earned through work (*gasp!*) and through charities (*gasp!*).

Honestly, so many of you think that anyone who believes the government is not the answer to everything is the spawn of Satan!

Two problems:

1. Not everyone can afford healthcare, as it is extraordinarily expense these days.
2. Most people aren't exactly charitable.

And the hypocracy lies in the idea that they "care" so much about the life of the child before it is born, yet don't give a damn after.

Two problems:

1. Not everyone can afford healthcare, as it is extraordinarily expense these days.
2. Most people aren't exactly charitable.

And the hypocracy lies in the idea that they "care" so much about the life of the child before it is born, yet don't give a damn after.I've never heard of an anti-abortion person offering to pay a woman to keep her child--not offer to adopt, just pay a woman to keep her child and raise it, no strings attached. I mean, if the life of the fetus is the important thing, they'd be ready to support any woman who's getting an abortion for financial reasons, right?

Two problems:

1. Not everyone can afford healthcare, as it is extraordinarily expense these days.
2. Most people aren't exactly charitable.

And the hypocracy lies in the idea that they "care" so much about the life of the child before it is born, yet don't give a damn after.

1. Which is why there are charities, and why judges and the general populace must become much more hostile to frivolous lawsuits.

2. Which is no excuse for putting the responsibility on someone/thing else. Start telling the people and teaching them that it's their responsibility to care for their fellow Man, and they will eventually begin to do it. Just give that power to the state, and no one will do it, but it will become choked up in a massive, useless, beauracracy which could easily become tyrannical.

If there are persons who truly stop caring about the child once it is born, then, yes, there is hypocrisy.

But you are quite incorrect that not wanting universal healthcare is equivalent to not caring about them.

I've never heard of an anti-abortion person offering to pay a woman to keep her child--not offer to adopt, just pay a woman to keep her child and raise it, no strings attached. I mean, if the life of the fetus is the important thing, they'd be ready to support any woman who's getting an abortion for financial reasons, right?

Your ears must not be open very much.

There are several charities which my family support when we can (which is not very often thanks to all the wonderful taxes) that do just that: help the mother support herself and her child.

Your ears must not be open very much.

There are several charities which my family support when we can (which is not very often thanks to all the wonderful taxes) that do just that: help the mother support herself and her child.

Well, there ya go. I have a great deal of respect for you. Others: Not so much. I have met plenty of pro-lifers who you would have to pry coins from their cold dead fingers if you wanted it to go to such a cause. Like I said: I this is from my experience, and from my experience, there are quite a many who don't exactly have a charitible heart.

Well, there ya go. I have a great deal of respect for you. Others: Not so much. I have met plenty of pro-lifers who you would have to pry coins from their cold dead fingers if you wanted it to go to such a cause. Like I said: I this is from my experience, and from my experience, there are quite a many who don't exactly have a charitible heart.

Which is why persons like you and me must work to make them see their responsibilities. :)

Your ears must not be open very much.

There are several charities which my family support when we can (which is not very often thanks to all the wonderful taxes) that do just that: help the mother support herself and her child.
Names of charities, please? I'd be willing to bet a donation to one of them that there are strings attached.

But you are quite incorrect that not wanting universal healthcare is equivalent to not caring about them.

Not wanting to make sure that people have health insurance is a pretty good example of not caring about them.

But this isn't true for many anti-abortionists.

I believe all humanity deserves death: even the baby conceived this very moment. But, only God can judge and determine who will receive what how. He has judged and told us that we are to behave in certain ways and those ways require/permit killing in three instances only: self-defense (personal or national), execution (at times God prescribes only), and defense of the defenseless (including the unborn).

Oh, well I believe all humanity deserves death, and by speeding it along we're doing God's work. Especially if they're fetuses. Each to his own, I suppose.


Whoever rejects abortion for killing the "innocent" and then supports war, even thought the "innocent" are often killed with the guilty is in great danger of be hypocritical.

That's my only point.

But you're over generalizing.

I don't think so.

I find most "pro-life" rhetoric to be hypocritical. These are the people who demand that unwanted children be brought into the world and then refuse their portion of the responsibility for them. What they say is, essentially, "you got pregnant, you're stuck with it, and if you can't afford to take care of it, tough shit, so it starves." The extremists of this group bombs the offices of doctors they suspect give abortions, killing people in the process. And they justify this by saying they're doing God's will. Hypocritical, self-righteous and delusional.

I think being pro-life is okay to an extent.

Take my views. I'm not exactly sure how a person from either side would classify them.

I support abortion in the case of rape victims, or if the health of the mother or child is at risk from the birth.

I do not support it if it was consentual sex without a condom or some other form of birth control. I'm sorry, but you knew the consequences when you thought it was so necessary to have sex.

However, I also support whatever means it takes to make sure the father has to support the mother. If it ever gets to the stage where constant armed escorts are required, I shall be the first to volunteer.

Oh, and I'm also anti-war. So say about me what you will.

Names of charities, please? I'd be willing to bet a donation to one of them that there are strings attached.

I actually don't know the names....

I make a check out to my mother and she adds that to her donations to them at the end of the year. I really have to ask her the next time I talk to her.

Which could be part of the problem: I donate (though I do so indirectly) and I don't know their names, so how can someone who doesn't donate to them be expected to support them? They need more publicity, I guess.

Not wanting to make sure that people have health insurance is a pretty good example of not caring about them.

Actively working against universal healthcare through the government is not a good example of not caring.

Especially if those same persons are supporting healthcare for those unable to support themselves through charity.

It's been said plenty of times already, but the "pro-life" label is bunk all around.

People who support legal access to safe, medical abortions are pro-life. Countries where abortion is legal and safe are also the countries with the lowest rates of infant and maternal mortality. They are the countries where the fewest women are injured or die as a result of abortion procedures (which women will still have or perform themselves regardless of whether or not it's legal). They are the countries where individual human beings are recognized as having the fundamental right to bodily autonomy, even if they are female or pregnant. It's possible to be alive even if you aren't permitted to own your own body, but it's damn near impossible to have a life under those circumstances.

Anti-choice beliefs, however, are perfectly consistent with being pro-war. Particularly if you're pro-war but also not enlisted. That's pretty much the same as men who oppose the legal right to abortion. They aren't ever going to face an unwanted pregnancy of their own, just like they're never going to actually face an enemy gun pointed at their head, so it's very nice and easy for them to suggest that OTHER people endure such hardships.

Misleading education and information is the cause of the problem. They are more often than not taught that life begins at the very moment of contraception , even before the egg is implanted in the lining of the uterus. Contradictory, they are informed that there is an enemy lurking out there, in a place none of them can imagine and the only way to defeat it is to launch a military offensive, aka - a war that has absolutely no point, and that civilian deaths, aka, collateral damage is an inevitability.

Think you probably meant that life begins at the moment of conception, but I prefer your version.

Is it ok to declare war on a terrorist fetus?

I think being pro-life is okay to an extent.

Take my views. I'm not exactly sure how a person from either side would classify them.

I support abortion in the case of rape victims, or if the health of the mother or child is at risk from the birth.

I do not support it if it was consentual sex without a condom or some other form of birth control. I'm sorry, but you knew the consequences when you thought it was so necessary to have sex.

However, I also support whatever means it takes to make sure the father has to support the mother. If it ever gets to the stage where constant armed escorts are required, I shall be the first to volunteer.

Oh, and I'm also anti-war. So say about me what you will.

That's rather interesting....
Basically, you view pregnancy as a form of punishment, then? And if raped, the woman has been punished enough alteady, but if it was consential she needs more punishment?
You can't be arguing the "the foetus is a human being" side, really, as you would agree with abortions after rape, which doesn't make any difference whatsoever for the foetus in question.

That's rather interesting....
Basically, you view pregnancy as a form of punishment, then? And if raped, the woman has been punished enough alteady, but if it was consential she needs more punishment?
You can't be arguing the "the foetus is a human being" side, really, as you would agree with abortions after rape, which doesn't make any difference whatsoever for the foetus in question.
Yep. Babies are punishments to inflict upon sluts who dare to have consensual sex. They shoulda known better than to go around fucking as if they had the right or something.

The value of "life" is measured in how effectively it can be used to punish women who need punishing. A conceptus that results from rape is not needed, because the woman in question has already been punished enough, so we don't value its life. However, a conceptus that results from a 25 year old female choosing to have consensual extramarital intercourse...now THAT is a life we need to protect at all costs! We must immediately pass legislation safeguarding the sanctity of that blessed punishment device--I mean, that sacred unborn child!

At least until the sacred unborn child becomes a non-sacred born child. Then it will get all goopy and start squalling and pooping and stuff. And then it will grow up and get pimples and body hair and not be cute any more. And that's where wars come in!

Anti-choice beliefs, however, are perfectly consistent with being pro-war. Particularly if you're pro-war but also not enlisted. That's pretty much the same as men who oppose the legal right to abortion. They aren't ever going to face an unwanted pregnancy of their own, just like they're never going to actually face an enemy gun pointed at their head, so it's very nice and easy for them to suggest that OTHER people endure such hardships.

Quoted for thruth.

Men have nothing to do in abortion debates. It's a topic that should be left exclusively to the women, since they're the ones left to face the consequences of a choice in this matter.

Quoted for thruth.

Quoting Bottle for truth is kind of redundant. Considering the names are synonomous ;)

Besides god has killed more infants than abortion ever could. Let's not forget Moses' little adventure where god so benevolently killed the first born of Egypt. Then there was Noah's voyage, as positive as the bible tries to spin it, nearly wiped out everything on earth. Then there's the wonderful story of Job where god, in a bet with Satan, kills the good man's entire family and then pays no restoration...what a prick.

God frowning on abortion is just down right hypocrisy.

Quoting Bottle for truth is kind of redundant. Considering the names are synonomous ;)

Besides god has killed more infants than abortion ever could. Let's not forget Moses' little adventure where god so benevolently killed the first born of Egypt. Then there was Noah's voyage, as positive as the bible tries to spin it, nearly wiped out everything on earth. Then there's the wonderful story of Job where god, in a bet with Satan, kills the good man's entire family and then pays no restoration...what a prick.

God frowning on abortion is just down right hypocrisy.

If I remember that particular story correctly, Job was repaid ten-fold for his troubles ;)

If I remember that particular story correctly, Job was repaid ten-fold for his troubles ;)
And if I remember it correctly, part of this "repayment" is that God decides to give Job ten new children to replace the ones he killed.

Not the same kids brought back to life, mind you. Just ten new ones--prettier ones!--to replace the old ones that God killed.

Lovely respect for life, isn't it? All children are interchangeable. Who cares that those ten kids were murdered? God made some new ones, right? And that's an even trade!

If I remember that particular story correctly, Job was repaid ten-fold for his troubles ;)

So god split his winnings from the bet with Job?

What was the spread anyway?

So god split his winnings from the bet with Job?

Exactly. That's how God works; it's a gambling racket.

Lovely respect for life, isn't it? All children are interchangeable. Who cares that those ten kids were murdered? God made some new ones, right? And that's an even trade!

Yeah, I hate kids too.

Lovely respect for life, isn't it? All children are interchangeable. Who cares that those ten kids were murdered? God made some new ones, right? And that's an even trade!

Followers of that kind of logic should support pro-choice then right?

I mean, abort an unwanted child or risk to the mother so that later a healthier more nurished (under a stable family structure by then) will be born.

Followers of that kind of logic should support pro-choice then right?

I mean, abort an unwanted child or risk to the mother so that later a healthier more nurished (under a stable family structure by then) will be born.
*shrug* Most people who follow the Job-style 'logic' tend to be anti-choice. I couldn't tell you why, since it all makes very little sense to me.

*shrug* Most people who follow the Job-style 'logic' tend to be anti-choice. I couldn't tell you why, since it all makes very little sense to me.

And we reach the heart of the problem.

People taking parts of the bible that suit their cause and dismissing others as "Don't take it literally." Nevermind that they will claim the earth was created in seven days and are convinced Eden is still around somewhere. Honestly, outside of philosophy, religion has no place in this arguement or many others for that matter. In other words, the only use the bible has in debating is a shield for a person without any ground to hold.

Also if life begins at the moment of conception, why not begin defending other single celled organisms? Lord knows the protozoa need help.

And we reach the heart of the problem.

People taking parts of the bible that suit their cause and dismissing others as "Don't take it literally." Nevermind that they will claim the earth was created in seven days and are convinced Eden is still around somewhere. Honestly, outside of philosophy, religion has no place in this arguement or many others for that matter. In other words, the only use the bible has in debating is a shield for a person without any ground to hold.

Are you saying only Christians can be of the "pro-life" "pro-war" idiology? That's wrong. So very wrong. But I agree; religion should not be brought to this argument.

As an aside, I don't think it's right to say "pro-war". No one goes around saying, "Oh yeah! Let's start another war!" But some people think that war is the only option when dealing with other peoples/nations.

As an aside, I don't think it's right to say "pro-war". No one goes around saying, "Oh yeah! Let's start another war!" But some people think that war is the only option when dealing with other peoples/nations.

I don't know about that. I've seen some people who were pretty eager to think about going to war. There are those who think we should be attacking practically every country out there. They do exist, unfortunately.

As for the original question, I'd say it depends on the particular stance towards war (pro-"specific war" or pro-"war in general"). If a person is opposed to abortion because they see human life as worthy of protection, and they see the embryo/fetus as human life, then a truly pro-war stance would be incompatible with that position. However, that doesn't mean they have to be a pacifist. Fighting to protect others would be protecting life, so support for a defensive war would make sense.

Eh, the only time I see people really psyched to go to war is when something has happened that warranted that agression. I don't think anyone actually thinks war is a "good" thing. It's simply neccessary.

I love that this thread, like most every other thread having anything at all to do with abortion, has predictably degenerated into rancor and strawman attacks.

Are you saying only Christians can be of the "pro-life" "pro-war" idiology? That's wrong. So very wrong. But I agree; religion should not be brought to this argument.

I'm saying that those who are make up a majority of the anti-choice arguements, and it would be very nice to see some solid facts to back up any evidence.

I'm a little off right now, trying to write a paper defending Helen of Troy assuming she had no right to abandon Sparta :(

As for the original question, I'd say it depends on the particular stance towards war (pro-"specific war" or pro-"war in general"). If a person is opposed to abortion because they see human life as worthy of protection, and they see the embryo/fetus as human life, then a truly pro-war stance would be incompatible with that position. However, that doesn't mean they have to be a pacifist. Fighting to protect others would be protecting life, so support for a defensive war would make sense.
Yeah, I kind of feel like being "pro-war" and "pro-life" are incompatible, in the big senses of the terms. I mean, if you are "pro-war only in cases where it is absolutely necessary to protect people," then maybe. But being "pro-war" in and of itself isn't really going to be compatible with being pro-life, unless you've figured out a way to have wars that don't kill people, in which case you should kindly run for President Of The World immediately.

I'm saying that those who are make up a majority of the anti-choice arguements, and it would be very nice to see some solid facts to back up any evidence.


It's a sweeping generalization and therefore wrong. There is no such thing as an "always". That's "fact" enough to not say it. "Majority" was correct tho', absolutely. But there are some Christians who aren't 100% against abortion is my point.

One problem that I have with the "pro-life" label is that it carries this implication of quantity being more important than quality. I happen to know, first hand, that simply being alive is not really all that great if the quality of your life sucks. I'm not saying this to fish for pity or anything, but I've had some medical complications in my life that really brought this point home to me.

I don't simply want to remain alive. There are some situations in which I would prefer to stop being alive, if the quality of that life were poor enough. Now, this is a personal choice on my part, and I absolutely positively do NOT consider myself in any way qualified to make such a decision for somebody else. I can't possibly know how another person values their own life.

I also know that nobody else is qualified to make such decisions for me. Medical choices about what does or does not happen to my body are best made by ME, hopefully with some good doctors helping to provide me with the information I need to make informed decisions.

This is why I both support the right to abortion and oppose things like the draft. I believe that I am the person most qualified to decide what will or will not happen to my own body. I don't think any other person has the qualifications required to judge whether or not I "should" have a baby, or whether or not I "should" have to put myself in front of enemy bullets. They should make those choices in regards to their own body, and should not presume to make them for me about mine.

Well, those medical problems might save you from any supposed draft.

But honestly, we'd only reinstate the draft if we really needed it (ie: WW3; you know it's comming...).

I believe that I am the person most qualified to decide what will or will not happen to my own body.

What about the fetus? Does it get the chance to determine what will happen to its own body?

Or do we simply sacrifice the needs of the greater for the lesser in the same way a draft would?

Well, those medical problems might save you from any supposed draft.

As far as I know, past drafts have not applied to female citizens of the US. Thanks to the entrenched sexism in my country, it is likely that I would only have to worry about my lover, my brother, and my friends being drafted.

Strangely enough, however, I also think that male human beings deserve the right to decide whether or not their body will be placed in harm's way.


But honestly, we'd only reinstate the draft if we really needed it (ie: WW3; you know it's comming...).
I will not remain a citizen of any country that tries to impose a draft, and I will do everything in my power to help people avoid the draft if one is imposed. If we are fighting a war and "need" to draft people to maintain our efforts, then that's a sign we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. If the cause is not enough to motivate people to volunteer to fight, then forcing people to do so is pathetic.

As an aside, I don't think it's right to say "pro-war". No one goes around saying, "Oh yeah! Let's start another war!" But some people think that war is the only option when dealing with other peoples/nations.

Umm. Bill Kristol and his happy band of neocons do. They're salivating at the potential for a go at Iran right now, and have been for a couple of years. Of course, they're salivating at having people other than themselves actually going into battle, but they're hot for it all the same.

What about the fetus? Does it get the chance to determine what will happen to its own body?

Or do we simply sacrifice the needs of the greater for the lesser in the same way a draft would?
(Setting aside the fact that fetuses are not capable of making such determinations, and would probably be considered legal minors at the very least...)

The fetus should have precisely the same right to determine what happens to its own body that any born human does. And no born human has the right to decide to use ANOTHER human's body to sustain their own life.

I do not have the right to choose that my body will get to use your kidney, even if I needed it to live. A fetus does not have the right to choose that its body will get to use a woman's uterus, feed off her body's fuel, and use her body's respiratory, circulatory, and excretory systems, even if it needs them to live.

Eh, the only time I see people really psyched to go to war is when something has happened that warranted that agression. I don't think anyone actually thinks war is a "good" thing. It's simply neccessary.

But, for some people, that "something happened" is a pretty low bar. I've heard people calling for the US to go to war with France and/or Germany, because they don't agree with our foreign policy. "Let's go to war because this country might be doing something bad and [/i]might[/i] one day be a threat to us," is a pretty low bar. Then there are those with the, "whatever, just nuke 'em," mentality.

"Let's go to war because this country is attacking our cities/ships/etc." is a different story.

(Setting aside the fact that fetuses are not capable of making such determinations, and would probably be considered legal minors at the very least...)

The fetus should have precisely the same right to determine what happens to its own body that any born human does. And no born human has the right to decide to use ANOTHER human's body to sustain their own life.

I do not have the right to choose that my body will receive your kidney, even if I needed it to live. A fetus does not have the right to choose to live inside another person's uterus, even if it needs it to live.

(Minors, unwanted by their parents immediately become responsiblity of the state. Parens Patriae and whatnot.)

A fetus never decided to take up residence in your womb like a parasite. You and the father helped put it in their beyond its own will. As you said a fetus doesn't determine anything because it was put their by its parents.

(Minors, unwanted by their parents immediately become responsiblity of the state. Parens Patriae and whatnot.)

(There are tons of minors who are unwanted by their parents and yet still belong to those parents. You should meet my cousins.)


A fetus never decided to take up residence in your womb like a parasite.

And a kidney patient didn't decide to go into renal failure.


You and the father helped put it in their beyond its own will. As you said a fetus doesn't determine anything because it was put their by its parents.
Even if I hit somebody with my car and cause organ damage that results in them urgently needing an organ transplant, I still cannot be forced to donate any of my organs to them against my wishes. Hell, they can't even force me to give blood.

It doesn't matter who's "fault" it is for an individual being in their current medical situation. They still don't have any right to another person's body or any piece of it.

Similarly, I don't care who's "fault" it is for a given military situation to exist...I still don't think anybody has the right to "donate" my body (or anybody else's) against their wishes.

(There are tons of minors who are unwanted by their parents and yet still belong to those parents. You should meet my cousins.)

The state is supposed to step in. Child services isn't exactly efficient.


Even if I hit somebody with my car and cause organ damage that results in them urgently needing an organ transplant, I still cannot be forced to donate any of my organs to them against my wishes. Hell, they can't even force me to give blood.

Given the current scenario you would have been recklessly drunk driving, but that's besides the point. No, you shouldn't have to do donate your kidney, but morally (given the accident was your fault) you should feel responsible and hopefully at least donate blood for the poor bastard.

While I'm pro-choice I would love to see people avoid 'accidents' at all costs and at least take some responsiblity for what they do. I.E. my friend left her newborn in a dumpster and fled when I would have been more than happy to take the child.

That was fun. I'm off to class now. *sob*

I will not remain a citizen of any country that tries to impose a draft, and I will do everything in my power to help people avoid the draft if one is imposed. If we are fighting a war and "need" to draft people to maintain our efforts, then that's a sign we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. If the cause is not enough to motivate people to volunteer to fight, then forcing people to do so is pathetic.

Right. Because virtually every war we've been a part of was totally worthless. Fact is, if we ever go to another major war, we'll have another draft.

In response to the original question: probably, if you're taking those words literally.

Pro-life means you consider abortion wrong in any case (anti-abortion is where you might give a little slack for life-threatening pregnancies, in my opinion).

Pro-war means you think that war is an acceptable solution to most conflicts between factions (again in my interpretation of the literal meaning).

So those two really don't work together.

My opinion:
Abortion for life-threatening/dangerous pregnancies is fine by me, as it is for victims of rape if it's decided that it could be psychologically damaging and they're in their first trimester. Basically, to preserve mother and/or child.

I support choice, though I don't find it morally right in any other cases. Basically, I won't tell people what to do, but I have my own limits as to what I'd be comfortable with.

War just sucks and should be avoided as much as possible. Intervention in preexisting circumstances to prevent as much bloodshed as possible is a decent goal and there ARE times a nation or group of people have to fight to protect themselves. Wars such as Iraq or Vietnam (to name the most well known) are pointless and could likely have been prevented with better diplomacy.

People on the whole need to learn to be more accepting of each other and each other's cultures and customs. We have more access than ever to knowledge. Kids should not be indoctrinated to certain beliefs. They should be encouraged to discover many different views and formulate their own opinions. Progress does not come from the stagnation of thought. If we can all learn to deal with our differences rather than fight over them, life will be much more pleasant. There will still be conflicts, but not as many and not to the same scale.

Right. Because virtually every war we've been a part of was totally worthless.

I didn't say worthless, just not worth fighting. There are plenty of things in life that have worth, and yet are not worth killing each other over.


Fact is, if we ever go to another major war, we'll have another draft.
The fact that my government may do something does not mean that it is the right thing to do. My government is tending strongly toward the boneheaded these days, even more so than in the past.

Pro-life means you consider abortion wrong in any case (anti-abortion is where you might give a little slack for life-threatening pregnancies, in my opinion).

A "pro-life" person who wouldn't allow abortion in the event of life-threatening pregnancy is, in fact, advocating the most likely situation in that case - that both the fetus and mother will die. Sounds more like pro-death, to me.

A "pro-life" person who wouldn't allow abortion in the event of life-threatening pregnancy is, in fact, advocating the most likely situation in that case - that both the fetus and mother will die. Sounds more like pro-death, to me.
Well, virtually all of the self-identified "pro-life" groups are actually supporting policies that would result in more women and children and fetuses/embryos dying.

I mean, most of the "pro-life" groups oppose some or all forms of contraception. Most of them oppose comprehensive sex ed. This means more conceptions, more implantations, and more miscarriages if nothing else. Hence, more "unborn children" dying. Not to mention that increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies will increase the number of abortions. And STDs and related deaths. Etc.

And, let's not forget, CHILDBIRTH has a higher mortality rate than abortion. Even if you could magically ensure that nobody would try to have illegal abortions, you'd STILL be increasing the number of women who die simply because they would be at greater risk giving birth than if they aborted.

That's more along the lines of what I meant; when does the fetus attain the kind of "personhood" that grants it the same rights as any other person?

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, the answer to that question is "when you're in the phone book."

And, let's not forget, CHILDBIRTH has a higher mortality rate than abortion. Even if you could magically ensure that nobody would try to have illegal abortions, you'd STILL be increasing the number of women who die simply because they would be at greater risk giving birth than if they aborted.

That's a fact that will go utterly ignored by pro-lifers. Lord knows howto rebut that.

Drafting: Very simple solution. Everyone of drafting age is issued a short questionaire askingthem whether they support the "blank" conflict or not. Those who mark yes will be drafted and sent off to fight, those who mark no will get to stay home.

I think you'd find people less willing to go to war.

It doesn't matter. War causes the death of innocents. That's what it does. Abortion isn't "simply a method of killing innocents" either - but, from the point of view of "pro-lifers," that's what it does. Supporting either one has the consequence of supporting the killing of innocents - so how can one consistently assert that since killing innocents is wrong, supporting abortion is wrong - but supporting war isn't? This is just inconsistent, again if one believes that abortion "kills innocent people."

As I have said numerous times, war is not justified solely on the question of whether innocents will be killed, there are many other complex considerations.

The entire argument surrounding abortion is whether the fetus has gained the rights to personhood and causing abortion to be the killing of an innocent person.

Very, very few consider the killing of innocents to be good and justify war because of it, as it not the central consideration concerning war.

There's nothing complex about it. If killing innocents is wrong, then it's wrong. The merits of morally "wrong" actions is another subject - there may be a lot of merit in me stabbing random people on the bus, but it's wrong.

It is complex because wars generally have their noble pursuits as well (whether they actually are).

While almost everyone will agree that killing civilians is a moral wrong, there are extenuating circumstances that cause many to consider the wrong worth a greater good.

There are worse things in the world.
Yeah, like being raped in a field.

Why? That's an accurate biological description of the fetus.
No it isn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite)

Parasitism is one version of symbiosis ("living together"), a phenomenon in which two organisms which are phylogenetically unrelated co-exist over a prolonged period of time, usually the lifetime of one of the individuals.

From the point of view of their logic, they should be pacifists.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I think we have already established that I am a hypocrite, so who cares anymore?
The fuck? You don't support war and abortion do you??? *my world falls apart*

I disagree; it shows that people who believe that "killing innocents is wrong" are hypocrites if they support actions which kill innocents. There is no need for them to think that civilian deaths in war is good.
I agree, for all the good it does they may as well think civilian deaths in war is good.

How would that be hypocritical?

After all, you're going to need those kids for cannon-fodder in eighteen years or so. Damn these freedom-loving pro-choice women for denying our country the bodies it needs to die in the name of freedom!!

:mp5:

Umm, the fact that Scripture gives 3 times when killing is commanded: self-defense (personal and national), defense of the defenseless (including the unborn) and excecution.

Most wars are not about self-defence.

HEY! We have another right wing christian fundementalist here!

You can tell because when he refers to god with the word he, he capitilises the h.
There's nothing unusual about referring to God as He.

I guess their point is that wars kill innocent civilians "by accident" while abortion kills fetuses directly.
But nobody would argue that civilian deaths are certain consequence of all wars.

Or, it could be that we don't want the government doing anything more that it's supposed to (protect through police and military)
Why should government be limited

1. Which is why there are charities, and why judges and the general populace must become much more hostile to frivolous lawsuits.

2. Which is no excuse for putting the responsibility on someone/thing else. Start telling the people and teaching them that it's their responsibility to care for their fellow Man, and they will eventually begin to do it.
That was tried and didn't work for centuries.

Just give that power to the state, and no one will do it, but it will become choked up in a massive, useless, beauracracy which could easily become tyrannical.
That's unrealistic. The most tyrannical states of history have lacked healthcare systems.

But you are quite incorrect that not wanting universal healthcare is equivalent to not caring about them.
It is equivalent. James 2:16

Which is why persons like you and me must work to make them see their responsibilities. :)
No, you're just another one of the heartless ones who wants to appear compassionate. You say you want to help others but you can't even muster up the willpower to actively care that so many - even among atheists - have no problem doing.

That's a fact that will go utterly ignored by pro-lifers. Lord knows howto rebut that.
Bottle ignores the notion that the unborn child and the mother have an equal right to life. Given this, abortion causes much more death than childbirth does.

Drafting: Very simple solution. Everyone of drafting age is issued a short questionaire askingthem whether they support the "blank" conflict or not. Those who mark yes will be drafted and sent off to fight, those who mark no will get to stay home.

I think you'd find people less willing to go to war.
Yes! If they declared a war and nobody came, I would die a happy man.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

Welcome to the Orwellian realm of Doublethink!

Doublethink (known in Oldspeak but never used as reality control) is an integral concept in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both, despite being notionally aware of their incompatibility – rather, being willfully unaware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Bottle ignores the notion that the unborn child and the mother have an equal right to life. Given this, abortion causes much more death than childbirth does.

She's not ignoring it--she's dismissing it as crap, as do I. Both organisms do not have an equal right to life. One, the mother, is already here and alive--the other is nothing but potential life until it gets out of the mother and starts breathing on its own. The two are not equal until they are separated.

No it isn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite)

Parasitism is one version of symbiosis ("living together"), a phenomenon in which two organisms which are phylogenetically unrelated co-exist over a prolonged period of time, usually the lifetime of one of the individuals.

Seriously, you want to use a wikipedia article with a single citation, and no evidence of direct quotes, as an authoritative source?

Let's look at some equally or more authoritative sources, shall we?

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769

1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

http://www.answers.com/topic/parasite

An animal or plant that gets nutrients by living on or in an organism of another species. A complete parasite gets all of its nutrients from the host organism, but a semi-parasite gets only some of its nutrients from the host.

http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=44310

(Science: biology) An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism (for example giardia).

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasites

And I can tell you that no biology book I have ever seen has required the two organisms to be phylogenetically unrelated or specified that the parasitic relationship must exist between a given host and parasite for the lifetime of one of them. In fact, that would cut out quite a few organisms recognized in biology as parasites.

So can we just cut this debate? The word, when used as a technical term, can apply to a fetus. It is useless in the debate, however, because the fetus is parasitic regardless of the feelings of the mother towards it. A wanted pregnancy results in a parasitic relationship just as surely as an unwanted one. So the only reason to even bring it up is the negative connotation of the word, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?
I don't know, but I DO think it's hypocrisy to be pro-life (abortion), yet pro-death penalty. But that's just me.

Most wars are not about self-defence.

I never said the opposite. What I said, was that one of the justified times to kill is in national self-defense, or in other words, a war of self-defense. War for any other reason is not justified.

That was tried and didn't work for centuries.

Did we try it? Or was it that "Christianity" was merely the cover for intolerance and personal agendas?

That's unrealistic. The most tyrannical states of history have lacked healthcare systems.

That does not change that national healthcare puts the government's hand to far into the lives of the people and increases the chance of it becoming tyranical. Especially since nationalized healthcare is a recent idea, history would not show too many dictatorships with national healthcare.

It is equivalent. James 2:16

Wonderful. This does not refute my stance by any means.

No, you're just another one of the heartless ones who wants to appear compassionate. You say you want to help others but you can't even muster up the willpower to actively care that so many - even among atheists - have no problem doing.

Matthew 7:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:17-20&version=47)

Do you see my fruits? Then how do you pretend to judge me?

Have I disobeyed the Law of God? Without seeing my actions, you don't know. Therefore, you cannot carry out the judgement which God has prescribed in Scripture.

You are getting caught up in emotionalism. I support the homeless, sick, downtrodden, etc. through my time, talents, and treasures. The fact that you want to discount everyone who disagrees with your political persuasion as a hypocrite (and that you take Scripture out of the context of the whole to do it) reflects badly on you.

Bottle ignores the notion that the unborn child and the mother have an equal right to life.
I don't think you can accuse me of "ignoring" something that is factually untrue. In my country, a fetus and a woman do not have "an equal right to life."

Furthermore, my point was that "pro-life" individuals tend to support policies that DO NOT reduce the number of abortions, and DO increase the number of women who die as a result of abortions or pregnancy and childbirth. And even if only women died (not the precious fetuses), it STILL would be bullshit to call yourself "pro-life" if you support saving fetus-lives while increasing the number of women-deaths. You're only "pro-life" in that situation if you believe that women's lives don't count.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

Simple

Abortion = Intentional killing of the innocent

War = Intetnitonal killing of those guilty of intending to kill you, unintentional killing of the innocent

No one wants the innocent to die in a war, as much as possible should be done to pevent it (and when it isn't, there should be punishments in place). However in the case of abortion, the innocent are intentionally being killed. Its that simple

Simple

Abortion = Intentional killing of the innocent

You clearly are unaware of the fact that many abortions are performed when the fetus is already dead, and therefore there is no killing of any "innocent."

Simple

Abortion = Intentional killing of the innocent

War = Intetnitonal killing of those guilty of intending to kill you, unintentional killing of the innocent

No one wants the innocent to die in a war, as much as possible should be done to pevent it (and when it isn't, there should be punishments in place). However in the case of abortion, the innocent are intentionally being killed. Its that simple

If simple = moronic

The Vietnamese had no intentention of killing Americans until the US decided to involve itself with the bullshit "Domino theory" pretext, same with Korean War.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Protecting innocent people does not mandate pacifism.

If simple = moronic

The Vietnamese had no intentention of killing Americans until the US decided to involve itself with the bullshit "Domino theory" pretext, same with Korean War.

Regardless of whether the North Vietnamese had intentions of attacking the US, are you willing to argue that we entered Vietnam solely in order to napalm villages, or would you actually admit that there was a rationale that the warhawks used to justify the death of civilians?

Seriously, you want to use a wikipedia article with a single citation, and no evidence of direct quotes, as an authoritative source?

Let's look at some equally or more authoritative sources, shall we?
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769

So can we just cut this debate? The word, when used as a technical term, can apply to a fetus. It is useless in the debate, however, because the fetus is parasitic regardless of the feelings of the mother towards it.
Thanks for educating me. However, it's noticeable that the term parasite is always used by pro-choice people in debates, who clearly want to maximise the use of the negative connotations of the word.

I never said the opposite. What I said, was that one of the justified times to kill is in national self-defense, or in other words, a war of self-defense. War for any other reason is not justified.
Oh good, for a while there I thought you were one of those Iraq war supporters.

Did we try it? Or was it that "Christianity" was merely the cover for intolerance and personal agendas?
Often it was, but I didn't blame Christianity. (why would I when I am one?) I mean, in the 18th and 19th centuries in particular, Europe and America were becoming more prosperous and charities were improving, but they still failed to achieve what governments achieved in the 20th century.

That does not change that national healthcare puts the government's hand to far into the lives of the people and increases the chance of it becoming tyranical.
No it does not, this is plain ridiculous. Healthcare is no more intrusive than a military.

Especially since nationalized healthcare is a recent idea, history would not show too many dictatorships with national healthcare.
Communism is a recent idea, but we already saw how bad that can be less than thirty years after it was first implemented. Dictatorships can happen fast. No country with healthcare is even showing signs of becoming a dictatorship, so you had better produce some better arguments if you don't want me to dismiss this one.[/URL]

Wonderful. This does not refute my stance by any means.
Of course it does. You're supporting ineffective methods for a healthcare system. The majority of people neither have the expertise nor the inclination to give enough money to support enough healthcare for everyone. Only the government or the business sector can handle the necessary costs, and with the latter you have most of the same problems as the "charity" thing. Fact is, charity doesn't work for this instance.

Do you see my fruits? Then how do you pretend to judge me?
I'm not judging you. I'm judging history.

You are getting caught up in emotionalism.
No, I'm saying that I want the government to stand up for morality.

I support the homeless, sick, downtrodden, etc. through my time, talents, and treasures. The fact that you want to discount everyone who disagrees with your political persuasion as a hypocrite (and that you take Scripture out of the context of the whole to do it) reflects badly on you.
"out of context"???

Your materialistic obsession with hoarding money from the needy (and let's face it - whether you know it or not - this is what you are supporting) goes against the spirit of generosity that I believe my religion to be about.

You clearly are unaware of the fact that many abortions are performed when the fetus is already dead, and therefore there is no killing of any "innocent."
And most aren't. If a fetus is dead then the abortion is not urgently necessary anyway. Abortion is primarily used when when a living child would be a problem.

Simple

Abortion = Intentional killing of the innocent

War = Intetnitonal killing of those guilty of intending to kill you, unintentional killing of the innocent

No one wants the innocent to die in a war, as much as possible should be done to pevent it (and when it isn't, there should be punishments in place). However in the case of abortion, the innocent are intentionally being killed. Its that simple
Abortion = guaranteed killing of the innocent
War = guaranteed killing of the innocent

Doublethink and lies must make things so hard for you.

I don't think you can accuse me of "ignoring" something that is factually untrue. In my country, a fetus and a woman do not have "an equal right to life."
Then your argument is quite redundant (and a classic case of preaching to the choir) if you're unwilling to take account of this view.

Furthermore, my point was that "pro-life" individuals tend to support policies that DO NOT reduce the number of abortions, and DO increase the number of women who die as a result of abortions or pregnancy and childbirth.
That is unfortunate, see the argument I'm having with Chietuste above.

And even if only women died (not the precious fetuses), it STILL would be bullshit to call yourself "pro-life" if you support saving fetus-lives while increasing the number of women-deaths. You're only "pro-life" in that situation if you believe that women's lives don't count.
If the net amount of lives saved is maximised, how is it not pro-life?

Abortion = guaranteed killing of the innocent
War = guaranteed killing of the innocent

Doublethink and lies must make things so hard for you.


Abortion = guaranteed killing of the innocent vs. the desire and right of the mother to not give birth

War = guaranteed killing of the innocent vs. removing a dictator, protecting your own society, gaining new territory and riches, ending genocide.


These are complex moral decisions and would only be analogous if both the pros and cons were the same.

Since the cons are of different moral weight, it is simply not true to cast all anti-abortion and pro-war stances as hypocritical.

We can say that a majority of those that are anti-abortion do actually support abortion if pregnancy causes a great risk to the woman's health.

Why is this? Because they are weighing the pros and cons by saying that the death of an innocent person is bad, but protecting the health of the mother is justification for it.

We can also say that a majority of those that are "pro-war" would not support a war simply for conquest, rather they approve it on the pretences of toppling tyrants and national defence. This is because they believe the death of civilians outweighs is a great enough moral wrong to outweigh the benefits of conquest, while the end of a tyrannical and dangerous regime is worth the cost of civilian life.


This continued dismissal of the complex moral judgements that go into abortion and war appears to be a willfully obtuse attempt to demonize those who do not stand in agreement with you.

Abortion = guaranteed killing of the innocent vs. the desire and right of the mother to not give birth

War = guaranteed killing of the innocent vs. removing a dictator, protecting your own society, gaining new territory and riches, ending genocide.

These are complex moral decisions and would only be analogous if both the pros and cons were the same.

Since the cons are of different moral weight, it is simply not true to cast all anti-abortion and pro-war stances as hypocritical.

We can say that a majority of those that are anti-abortion do actually support abortion if pregnancy causes a great risk to the woman's health.

Fair enough but would you not agree that "war kills innocent people unintentionally" is a bullshit argument given that 100% of wars kill innocent people?

And most aren't. If a fetus is dead then the abortion is not urgently necessary anyway. Abortion is primarily used when when a living child would be a problem.

Actually, the instance in which the fetus is dead is one case in which an abortion would be urgently necessary. Said fetus will begin to decompose within the womb and can lead to all sorts of infections - which can quite often cause sterility - if not quickly removed.

Oh good, for a while there I thought you were one of those Iraq war supporters.

I am, though it's for much more complicated reasons.

We truly thought that Sadaam had WMD's. He had oppressed his people and had attempted genocide on the Kurds. Quite justified: protecting ourselves and the defenseless.

Then it turns out he "never had WMD's" (which I am not yet convinced of). Well, we're there already, and we can't leave until there is some stability for the protection of the defenseless. Do I agree with all the policies and strategies of the war? No, not at all. But I do agree with us being there.

Often it was, but I didn't blame Christianity. (why would I when I am one?) I mean, in the 18th and 19th centuries in particular, Europe and America were becoming more prosperous and charities were improving, but they still failed to achieve what governments achieved in the 20th century.

And those governments have done nothing worth doing. They have done more to convince the peoples that they deserve something more than death, that they need not contribute to society because they will always have support, and that they can do what they want because there will be support if something goes wrong. And they have done more to alienate the rich (who are those most capable of helping the defenseless) and causing them to resent the downtrodden. So instead of helping, many of them have the Scrooge mentality: "My taxes support those institutions; they must go there."

Charities did not do so well as they could because the people were not properly encouraged to remember their commands from God, not because they are ineffective in and of themselves.

No it does not, this is plain ridiculous. Healthcare is no more intrusive than a military.

Is it? No. Does it lend itself to being so? Yes, most definitely. And if the military needs to be less intrusive, then we must make it so, not add more intrusive institutions.

Communism is a recent idea, but we already saw how bad that can be less than thirty years after it was first implemented. Dictatorships can happen fast. No country with healthcare is even showing signs of becoming a dictatorship, so you had better produce some better arguments if you don't want me to dismiss this one.

So you say.

Healthcare /=/ dictatorship. Healthcare indicates socialization which indicates more interference in the lives of the people which indicates a greater risk of control of the masses. Better to avoid it altogether.

Of course it does. You're supporting ineffective methods for a healthcare system. The majority of people neither have the expertise nor the inclination to give enough money to support enough healthcare for everyone. Only the government or the business sector can handle the necessary costs, and with the latter you have most of the same problems as the "charity" thing. Fact is, charity doesn't work for this instance.

Why doesn't it work? Because I don't have enough money to support myself. Why? Because the government takes money from me to support me. Why? Because I don't have money to support myself. Why?

It's a cycle. Will eliminating government taxes/aid the problem? No, of course not. But it will aid it, and there will be many persons who are willing and able to support the defenseless with their money. And it is also the fault of the Church for not pushing individual participation in helping the poor. They would rather slit their own throats by calling for more government interference (which they are not to be doing to begin with) than to call for the people to have a living faith.

I'm not judging you. I'm judging history.

You're not judging me?

You're words suggest otherwise:
No, you're just another one of the heartless ones who wants to appear compassionate. You say you want to help others but you can't even muster up the willpower to actively care that so many - even among atheists - have no problem doing.

No, I'm saying that I want the government to stand up for morality.

They are hardly supporting morality. They're taking away the responsibility of the people, so that they become lazy and do even less.

"out of context"???

Your materialistic obsession with hoarding money from the needy (and let's face it - whether you know it or not - this is what you are supporting) goes against the spirit of generosity that I believe my religion to be about.

Again, you're juding without seeing my fruit.

Do I hoard my money? No. The only thing I do which might be interpreted as that is that I hold back my tithe until I have a larger amount to tithe in one check so I'm not constantly putting $5 bills in the offering plate.

Christianity is not about generosity. It's about God reaching down to Man and taking the penalty of sin for us. Generosity is important, but hardly central, at least no more than obeying any other part of the moral Law.

Fair enough but would you not agree that "war kills innocent people unintentionally" is a bullshit argument given that 100% of wars kill innocent people?

It depends on what you mean by "unintentionally". Killing civilians is an unavoidable consequence of war, but it isn't the intent of war.

I will agree with you that there is a general inconsistency towards the value of the innocent person amongst conservatives, and that doublethink is a part of mainstream conservatism.

But I do think that there are many who hold those positions (especially on NSG) who are far from hypocritical.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

No story, really.
Just inherent hypocrisy.

Yes.

Next!

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

Erm, when was the last war we fought against fetuses? If so....who supported it.....*shivers*

40 posters have come on here and declared the answer to be yes without ever even bother to back it up or rebut explanations of why the answer is actually no.

And most aren't. If a fetus is dead then the abortion is not urgently necessary anyway. Abortion is primarily used when when a living child would be a problem.

Completely wrong, as Demi has already pointed out. Please, before you presume to decide what healthcare other people can receive, at least trouble yourself to learn about the consequences of your choices.


Then your argument is quite redundant (and a classic case of preaching to the choir) if you're unwilling to take account of this view.

What argument is that? I simply point out that it's stupid for somebody to say that I'm "ignoring" a fact which is not actually fact. Abortion is not murder in my country. Should I really ignore fact in favor of paying attention to untruths?


If the net amount of lives saved is maximised, how is it not pro-life?
Well gorsh, then it would be "pro-life" for you to murder 10 people in order to provide life-saving organs for 20 people, right? I mean, you've increased the net amount of life, haven't you?

40 posters have come on here and declared the answer to be yes without ever even bother to back it up or rebut explanations of why the answer is actually no.

Kind of like what you have just done.

Fair enough but would you not agree that "war kills innocent people unintentionally" is a bullshit argument given that 100% of wars kill innocent people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War
?

we could always declare war on fetuses, and see how people who think abortion is bad but war good react.

Does anybody support the death penalty for people who murder people by bombing abortion clinics?

Does anybody support the death penalty for people who murder people by bombing abortion clinics?

Yes.

Those who perform abortions, willingly undergo abortions (except for cases where the mother will die), and those who murder these persons ought all to be excecuted.

It depends on what you mean by "unintentionally". Killing civilians is an unavoidable consequence of war, but it isn't the intent of war.


Aside from the times it is. I can name quite a few wars in which civilians were purposefully targeted.

Yes.

Those who perform abortions, willingly undergo abortions (except for cases where the mother will die), and those who murder these persons ought all to be excecuted.

And that's "pro-life," ladies and gentlemen! Thank you, and good night.

And that's "pro-life," ladies and gentlemen! Thank you, and good night.

Have I called myself pro-life? The answer is "no"

Because I'm not pro-life. I don't believe that it is never right to kill. There are times when God had commanded us to kill, so why would I take the label "pro-life?"

The correct term for me is "anti-abortion"

Being Pro-Life and Pro-War at the same time means you want to protect the unborn until they are mature enough to be deployed to Iraq.

It's one solution to the proposed Surge.

:D

Have I called myself pro-life? The answer is "no"

Because I'm not pro-life. I don't believe that it is never right to kill. There are times when God had commanded us to kill, so why would I take the label "pro-life?"

The correct term for me is "anti-abortion"

Anti-abortion does not imply that you want to kill others, only that you are opposed to abortion. You need a better term.

I am anti-excessive drinking, but I don't think all excessive drinkers, or those who sell them alcohol, should be executed.

Have I called myself pro-life? The answer is "no"

Because I'm not pro-life. I don't believe that it is never right to kill. There are times when God had commanded us to kill, so why would I take the label "pro-life?"

The correct term for me is "anti-abortion"
I beg your pardon. However, whether or not you intend it, you are actually a glowing example of the "pro-life" mentality in my country. If you are searching for fellow "anti-abortionists," you will be right at home among American "pro-life" groups.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

One might argue, the object of war is to either defend one self, or elminate the enemy soldiers... the loss of innocent lives is an unintended reality (one does not go to war hoping to kill innocent people).

While in an abortion, the innocent life is the target. It is a matter of intent. A small distinction, yet a distinction none the less, which I would say could pose an argument.

I beg your pardon. However, whether or not you intend it, you are actually a glowing example of the "pro-life" mentality in my country. If you are searching for fellow "anti-abortionists," you will be right at home among American "pro-life" groups.

Would I be at home?

Yes, most definitely.

Should I be at home?

No, not at all.

It just shows the hypocrisy (conscious or unconscious) of those involved in those groups. Which is what we are discussing.

And there's no need to beg my pardon. I probably came off more harsh than I meant to be. My patience is short today, and I apologize.

Anti-abortion does not imply that you want to kill others, only that you are opposed to abortion. You need a better term.

I am anti-excessive drinking, but I don't think all excessive drinkers, or those who sell them alcohol, should be executed.

And I am anti-abortion. The label speaks only to whether there should be abortion or not, not how we respond to those who engage in abortions.

And I am anti-abortion. The label speaks only to whether there should be abortion or not, not how we respond to those who engage in abortions.

Most who are anti-abortion wouldn't want to be associated with a person advocating such psychopathic action as yourself. You'd be best describing yourself as pro-execution or even pro-death, since that seems to be the focus of your viewpoint.

How very Christ-like of you, considering that Christ went around executing people rather than attempting to teach them compassion.... Oh, wait. Scratch that, reverse it.

Yes.

Those who perform abortions, willingly undergo abortions (except for cases where the mother will die), and those who murder these persons ought all to be excecuted.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." (John 8:7)

Aren't you all too willing to deal with death and judgment when your religion explicitly states that such matters are beyond the realm of humanity?

How very Christ-like of you, considering that Christ went around executing people rather than attempting to teach them compassion.... Oh, wait. Scratch that, reverse it.

Christ is God and God gave the civil government commands to follow, commands which include the excecution of murderers, which is the killing of any human outside of the times God says it is justified.

Christ can work above and beyond the Law when He wishes. We cannot.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." (John 8:7)

Aren't you all too willing to deal with death and judgment when your religion explicitly states that such matters are beyond the realm of humanity?

We are only to give out death when God tells us to, and we are only to carry out the judgements of God when He tells us to do so.

Read the Old Testament some time.

And as for the verse: Christ can work above, against, or beyond the Law when He wants. We cannot do so.

We are only to give out death when God tells us to, and we are only to carry out the judgements of God when He tells us to do so.

Read the Old Testament some time.

And as for the verse: Christ can work above, against, or beyond the Law when He wants. We cannot do so.

So you're going to follow the Bible and your religious leader like a blind sheep, and decide to take the life of another because someone told you that an invisible magic space pixie told you to?

BTW, did you notice Jesus throwing any stones in that chapter? Apparently he had sin too.

Read the Old Testament some time.


The same Old Testament that says that fetuses and embryos are not human?

BTW, did you notice Jesus throwing any stones in that chapter? Apparently he had sin too.

Or, He, as the Creator of the Law, could have chosen to not use it at that time.

Or, He, as the Creator of the Law, could have chosen to not use it at that time.

I now understand the shortest verse in the Bible.

The same Old Testament that says that fetuses and embryos are not human?

Book, chapter, and verse?

I now understand the shortest verse in the Bible.

Do you?

Kind of like what you have just done.

*ahem*

Please refer to post 139:

Abortion = guaranteed killing of the innocent vs. the desire and right of the mother to not give birth

War = guaranteed killing of the innocent vs. removing a dictator, protecting your own society, gaining new territory and riches, ending genocide.


These are complex moral decisions and would only be analogous if both the pros and cons were the same.

Since the cons are of different moral weight, it is simply not true to cast all anti-abortion and pro-war stances as hypocritical.

We can say that a majority of those that are anti-abortion do actually support abortion if pregnancy causes a great risk to the woman's health.

Why is this? Because they are weighing the pros and cons by saying that the death of an innocent person is bad, but protecting the health of the mother is justification for it.

We can also say that a majority of those that are "pro-war" would not support a war simply for conquest, rather they approve it on the pretences of toppling tyrants and national defence. This is because they believe the death of civilians outweighs is a great enough moral wrong to outweigh the benefits of conquest, while the end of a tyrannical and dangerous regime is worth the cost of civilian life.


This continued dismissal of the complex moral judgements that go into abortion and war appears to be a willfully obtuse attempt to demonize those who do not stand in agreement with you.

Do you?

Yes. You, on the other hand, probably don't even know what it is.

Yes. You, on the other hand, probably don't even know what it is.

Oh, please. Let's not be petty. My question was an invitation for you to expound.

Here is the shortest verse in the Bible: John 11:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&verse=35&version=47&context=verse).

Now what do you understand about it? Or would you prefer to make petty, childish remarks?

Christ is God and God gave the civil government commands to follow, commands which include the excecution of murderers, which is the killing of any human outside of the times God says it is justified.

(a) Christ said all sorts of things that are opposed to the Levitical law.

(b) You haven't read the Levitical law, have you? Killing people was ok for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, execution was the punishment. Sometimes, it was a fine or livestock. Some laws would have required a woman who was raped to be stoned along with her rapist (or to marry him). Some laws commanded priests to attempt to cause an abortion, in order to determine whether or not a woman had been cheating.

Christ can work above and beyond the Law when He wishes. We cannot.

Christ gave us instructions to follow. You seem to think we should follow the writings of ancient priests, rather than Christ's words. Why is that?

Or, He, as the Creator of the Law, could have chosen to not use it at that time.

About that...

Why must Jesus be divine for you to have any faith in him? Is what he said not enough? Must he be divine to have any worth?

Exactly where in the Bible does it say that human life begins at conception? Or is that just another one of those Church interpretations?

(a) Christ said all sorts of things that are opposed to the Levitical law.

(b) You haven't read the Levitical law, have you? Killing people was ok for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, execution was the punishment. Sometimes, it was a fine or livestock. Some laws would have required a woman who was raped to be stoned along with her rapist (or to marry him). Some laws commanded priests to attempt to cause an abortion, in order to determine whether or not a woman had been cheating.



Christ gave us instructions to follow. You seem to think we should follow the writings of ancient priests, rather than Christ's words. Why is that?

Because the words to the ancient priests are Christ's words.

And He does not speak against any of the Law.

(a) Christ said all sorts of things that are opposed to the Levitical law.

(b) You haven't read the Levitical law, have you? Killing people was ok for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, execution was the punishment. Sometimes, it was a fine or livestock. Some laws would have required a woman who was raped to be stoned along with her rapist (or to marry him). Some laws commanded priests to attempt to cause an abortion, in order to determine whether or not a woman had been cheating.

Christ gave us instructions to follow. You seem to think we should follow the writings of ancient priests, rather than Christ's words. Why is that?

Not to mention that God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide on several occaisions. Three thousand years later, everyone is going nuts about Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews et. al., but so many people put absolute faith in the words of a three thousand year old text the defines a god that seems to live off of human blood.

About that...
Why must Jesus be divine for you to have any faith in him? Is what he said not enough? Must he be divine to have any worth?

If Jesus were not divine, He would not be able to intercede for us. To be a perfect sacrifice, He must be God. To be a perfect sacrifice, He must be Man. If He were not divine, He would not be holy enough to approach God. If He were not Man, He would not be representing us as the second Adam.

Exactly where in the Bible does it say that human life begins at conception? Or is that just another one of those Church interpretations?

The child is brought forth in iniquity (it's sinful at birth, not that it becomes sinful at birth). But, more than that, the child is sinful at conception. How can that be if it is not a person, does not have a soul?

Psalms 51:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=51&verse=5&version=47&context=verse)

Because the words to the ancient priests are Christ's words.

And He does not speak against any of the Law.

38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was the law in the OT. Christ, on the other hand, instructs us not to stoop to the level of those who would commit crimes against us - to instead find nonviolent means of resistance.

Meanwhile, do you really think that genocide, slavery, and the denigration of women is compatible with Christ's message? It is certainly present in the OT. Do you think that Christ would condone stoning a raped woman along with her rapist (or forcing her to marry him)? Do you think Christ would condone selling your daughter into slavery? Do you think Christ would order priests to give women suspected of adultery a poison that would cause them to abort if they were currently pregnant?

All of these things and more are scattered throughout the OT. All are incompatible with Christ's message, which was one of love and compassion.

The child is brought forth in iniquity (it's sinful at birth, not that it becomes sinful at birth). But, more than that, the child is sinful at conception. How can that be if it is not a person, does not have a soul?

Psalms 51:5

The verse says that the child was conceived in sin, not that a fertilized egg is sinful. In other words, the mother was sinful.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was the law in the OT. Christ, on the other hand, instructs us not to stoop to the level of those who would commit crimes against us - to instead find nonviolent means of resistance.

Context, context.

He is speaking to the interaction between persons, not to the policy of the civil government.

This is why persons bombing abortion clinics is wrong: they are usurping the authority of the civil government.

Meanwhile, do you really think that genocide, slavery, and the denigration of women is compatible with Christ's message? It is certainly present in the OT. Do you think that Christ would condone stoning a raped woman along with her rapist (or forcing her to marry him)? Do you think Christ would condone selling your daughter into slavery? Do you think Christ would order priests to give women suspected of adultery a poison that would cause them to abort if they were currently pregnant?

All of these things and more are scattered throughout the OT. All are incompatible with Christ's message, which was one of love and compassion.

Christ is God, and God commanded these things. Therefore, Christ's message and God's commands must agree.

The verse says that the child was conceived in sin, not that a fertilized egg is sinful. In other words, the mother was sinful.

Well, of course the mother was sinful. But the baby was also. He inherited his sinful nature from his parents and it was there from conception. He was conceived in sin: not by sin, not by sinful parents, but truly in sin.

Context, context.

He is speaking to the interaction between persons, not to the policy of the civil government.

Is the civil government not made up of persons?

Christ is God, and God commanded these things.

Really? I don't think so. I think the ancient Hebrews thought that God commanded these things.

Therefore, Christ's message and God's commands must agree.

Nice circular logic there. Now show me how they agree. Or are you just going to say, "I know it is completely and utterly illogical to say that they agree, as they clearly do not, but I'm going to say they agree anyways, because I might actually have to question my faith otherwise."??

Well, of course the mother was sinful. But the baby was also. He inherited his sinful nature from his parents and it was there from conception. He was conceived in sin: not by sin, not by sinful parents, but truly in sin.

That isn't what the text says. You are reading that into the text, because that is what you want to believe.

Tell me, how does an infant sin? How does a fetus sin? How does an embryo sin? How does a zygote sin?

Is the civil government not made up of persons?

It is, but God placed two institutions over individuals. The Church and the State. Each has different roles and powers that is particular to itself and that individuals do not have.

Really? I don't think so. I think the ancient Hebrews thought that God commanded these things.

Scripture is infallible. It is the Word of God. But, you reject that, apparently.

Nice circular logic there. Now show me how they agree. Or are you just going to say, "I know it is completely and utterly illogical to say that they agree, as they clearly do not, but I'm going to say they agree anyways, because I might actually have to question my faith otherwise."??

Did Christ preach love and compassion? Truly, did He? Or did He say that the Law was being abused and that the people were following the Law in action, but not in heart?

The answer is "No, He didn't preach love and compassion. He preached total obedience to God both in action and in spirit and love to God and fellow Man." This idea that Christ was "all nice, no unpleasant" is quite contrary to Scripture. We love God by following His commands (and all His commands) and we love our fellow Man in the same way.

Therefore, I must obey. Even if it seems to me to be unpleasent, I must obey.

That isn't what the text says. You are reading that into the text, because that is what you want to believe.

Tell me, how does an infant sin? How does a fetus sin? How does an embryo sin? How does a zygote sin?

Or you're subtracting from it because that is what you want to believe.

He was conceived in sin. What does that mean? It means that his conception was in a state of sin. And if he was conceived in a sinful state, he is sinful.

What is sin? Sin is any want of conformitiy unto or any transgression of the Law of God. The fetus, zygote, etc. is averse to God. It does not want God, anymore than any other natural person.

We may are not necessarily conscious of our hate for God, though many are, but the hate is still there, in our souls. The same with the unborn.

Actually, the instance in which the fetus is dead is one case in which an abortion would be urgently necessary. Said fetus will begin to decompose within the womb and can lead to all sorts of infections - which can quite often cause sterility - if not quickly removed.
That is of course true, though I am having trouble believing that the majority of abortions remove dead foetuses, as Bottle has implied.

I am, though it's for much more complicated reasons.

We truly thought that Sadaam had WMD's. He had oppressed his people and had attempted genocide on the Kurds. Quite justified: protecting ourselves and the defenseless.
Protecting the defenseless? Why not a thought for the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion? It's not like we couldn't forsee that.

If you are of a pro-life mindset (which is your reason for opposing abortion, apparently) why do you have no problem with so many Iraqis being killed? Are American lives more valuable than Iraqi lives?

Why did so many of us oppose the war from the outset? Most anti-war people are not dogmatic pacifists, nor do we oppose defending the defenseless. Did you perhaps feel bound to your conservative ideology? That US supremacist ideology that puts so little value on human life if it gets in the way of the government?

I can't believe you ever saw the Iraq war as defensive.

And those governments have done nothing worth doing. They have done more to convince the peoples that they deserve something more than death,
This sounds bizarre... saying that everyone deserves death is redundant, since God has decided that we all receive it anyway. Elaborate, please because I don't really understand what you are getting at.

that they need not contribute to society because they will always have support
This doesn't match up to reality. People contribute, lots, and health services keep the work force healthy and productive.

and that they can do what they want because there will be support if something goes wrong.
Is freedom a bad thing?

And they have done more to alienate the rich (who are those most capable of helping the defenseless) and causing them to resent the downtrodden.
The existence of health services proves that the rich and middle classes do not resent the downtrodden. I don't know about you, but I think that the downtrodden should be helped, effectively. Altruism is as healthy as ever among the rich today (while in Victorian England, surely your ideal society, the rich as a whole did not do much for the poor).

So instead of helping, many of them have the Scrooge mentality: "My taxes support those institutions; they must go there."
Hardly, there is plenty for charities left to do, and there are people who support them. In America where people are so materialistic maybe it's different.

Charities did not do so well as they could because the people were not properly encouraged to remember their commands from God, not because they are ineffective in and of themselves.
In the past many countries had near 100% church attendance. How were the people not encouraged to remember their commands from God?

Charities are not effective because they simply cannot command the necessary resources for the job at hand.

Is it? No.
That's good enough for me. I don't want the military to be abolished simply because a draft is an outside possibility.

Healthcare /=/ dictatorship. Healthcare indicates socialization which indicates more interference in the lives of the people which indicates a greater risk of control of the masses. Better to avoid it altogether.
All expressions of government "indicate socialization" from the existence of a military (especially its use across the world) to outlawing abortion. Unless you're advocating anarchy, you don't really have a point here.

They are hardly supporting morality. They're taking away the responsibility of the people, so that they become lazy and do even less.
How it is moral to condemn those who can't afford healthcare to chronic sickness and premature death?

Taking away responsibility? By that logic criminalising abortion (which as far as I know is what we both agree on) is taking away the responsibility of the people not to get abortions. Do you see how you're not making sense?

Yes.

Those who perform abortions, willingly undergo abortions (except for cases where the mother will die), and those who murder these persons ought all to be excecuted.
Shedding blood isn't something you recoil at, is it?

I don't think that the answer to killing is more killing.

So you're going to follow the Bible and your religious leader like a blind sheep
If you have a problem with this concept, why did you try to use John 8:7 against Chestuite? (who is, btw, making Christians look really bad in this thread)

Being Pro-Life and Pro-War at the same time means you want to protect the unborn until they are mature enough to be deployed to Iraq.
I believe we call this the ''Stalin argument''. ;)

Christ can work above and beyond the Law when He wishes. We cannot.
He also told us to try to be perfect, as the Lord is perfect.

That is of course true, though I am having trouble believing that the majority of abortions remove dead foetuses, as Bottle has implied.

Bottle has implied nothing of the sort, and I'm calling you out as a liar for saying so. Bottle very carefully phrased that statement--she said many, not most, and her statement is an accurate one.

Protecting the defenseless? Why not a thought for the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion? It's not like we couldn't forsee that.

If you are of a pro-life mindset (which is your reason for opposing abortion, apparently) why do you have no problem with so many Iraqis being killed? Are American lives more valuable than Iraqi lives?

Why did so many of us oppose the war from the outset? Most anti-war people are not dogmatic pacifists, nor do we oppose defending the defenseless. Did you perhaps feel bound to your conservative ideology? That US supremacist ideology that puts so little value on human life if it gets in the way of the government?

I can't believe you ever saw the Iraq war as defensive.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I have a great problem with so many civilians and "innocents" being killed. I have a great problem with the way that the war is being conducted. But I don't have a problem with the fact that we are there. I think we ought to be there.

This sounds bizarre... saying that everyone deserves death is redundant, since God has decided that we all receive it anyway. Elaborate, please because I don't really understand what you are getting at.

We earn death from our sin. That's the only thing we deserve. The fact that the government hands everything out to everyone promotes the idea that you deserve something more than that death.

I don't help persons because they deserve it. I help them because God commands me to, because I want to show God's love to them, and because I want to be God's vessel of mercy for them.

But, instead, the government says "These people deserve housing and we will give it to them." It's no longer mercy; it's no longer obeying God's commands. It is instead a false (and sinful) declaration by the government of what humanity is.

This doesn't match up to reality. People contribute, lots, and health services keep the work force healthy and productive.

You're speaking of where there is no socialism. I'm earning something to support me, so I will contribute. Right or wrong, that's the mentality. If we eliminate the need to earn, there is no need to contribute. I work harder to make more. But if I can have the basics and work less, why should I work harder. The fact that we are commanded by God to work 6 days a week and work to the best of our abilities is not considered.

Is freedom a bad thing?

You misunderstand. I'm talking about the lack of consequenses.

"I don't need to worry about gambling, because even if I lose all my money, I won't starve or be without shelter," is the mentality I'm speaking to here.

The existence of health services proves that the rich and middle classes do not resent the downtrodden. I don't know about you, but I think that the downtrodden should be helped, effectively. Altruism is as healthy as ever among the rich today (while in Victorian England, surely your ideal society, the rich as a whole did not do much for the poor).

I do think that the poor should be helped effectively. I think that using the government is not the most effective way and causes more problems than it solves.

Victorian England is hardly my ideal.

Hardly, there is plenty for charities left to do, and there are people who support them. In America where people are so materialistic maybe it's different.

Well, I'm speaking of what I see, and I'm in America.

In the past many countries had near 100% church attendance. How were the people not encouraged to remember their commands from God?

Going to church /=/ hearing the faithful preaching of the Gospel

Charities are not effective because they simply cannot command the necessary resources for the job at hand.

Whose fault is that? The charity's or the greedy people's which refuses to give over all it can?

That's good enough for me. I don't want the military to be abolished simply because a draft is an outside possibility.

I don't understand this.

All expressions of government "indicate socialization" from the existence of a military (especially its use across the world) to outlawing abortion. Unless you're advocating anarchy, you don't really have a point here.

I support Biblical anarchy: there's a state. It has a miltiary, police, and diplomats and the things necessary to support these. Its powers are to protect its people from other states and from each other. That's it.

How it is moral to condemn those who can't afford healthcare to chronic sickness and premature death?

We're not condemning them. We just don't want the government having its hand in it.

Taking away responsibility? By that logic criminalising abortion (which as far as I know is what we both agree on) is taking away the responsibility of the people not to get abortions. Do you see how you're not making sense?

I see that you're taking things out of proportion. It is the responsibility of the people to care for their children (born or not). It is the responsibility of the state to uphold the Law of God which forbids killing outside of exceution and self-defense.

The government is obeying its responsibility by outlawing abortion. By taking on healthcare and such, it is not fulfilling its responsibility, but rather taking over someone else's.

Shedding blood isn't something you recoil at, is it?

Recoil? No. Dread and hope I must never do it? Yes.

I don't think that the answer to killing is more killing.

God disagrees: Levitcus 24:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17&version=47)

He also told us to try to be perfect, as the Lord is perfect.

Yes. And what has God given us to measure up to? The Law.

Scripture is infallible.

So God isn't omnipotent then. Scripture is pretty clear on that point.

Yes. And what has God given us to measure up to? The Law.
And even more, He gave us His son. I think the appropriate thing is to emulate Christ's actions.

So God isn't omnipotent then. Scripture is pretty clear on that point.

Well, that's wrong.

Again, I ask you for book, chapter, and verse.

You never supplied those for the other thing, either: your claim that Scripture plainly says that the unborn are not human.

And even more, He gave us His son. I think the appropriate thing is to emulate Christ's actions.

Yes, so far as we are allowed.

We are not allowed to work against, above, or beyond the Law.

Abortion = guaranteed killing of the innocent
War = guaranteed killing of the innocent

Doublethink and lies must make things so hard for you.


You missed what I said though is the importnat diffrence. Which is more morraly reprensable, intentionally or unintentionally killing the innocent?

It is, but God placed two institutions over individuals. The Church and the State. Each has different roles and powers that is particular to itself and that individuals do not have.

Sounds to me as if you are equating the writings of Augustine with Scripture.

Christ, on the other hand, seems to have made a distinction between Church and State, when he instructed His followers to give unto God what is God's and unto Caesar (the state) what is Caesar's.

Scripture is infallible. It is the Word of God. But, you reject that, apparently.

Says who? If Scripture itself is infallible, how does one deal with the contradictions? Why are you opposed to abortion, when Scripture requires it in cases of suspected adultery?

God is infallible. Human beings are not, and neither is anything written, compiled, and interpreted by human beings.

Did Christ preach love and compassion? Truly, did He?

Yes.

Or did He say that the Law was being abused and that the people were following the Law in action, but not in heart?

One statement is not opposed to the other. He also made it clear that it is more important to follow the spirit of the law than the letter of it.

The answer is "No, He didn't preach love and compassion. He preached total obedience to God both in action and in spirit and love to God and fellow Man." This idea that Christ was "all nice, no unpleasant" is quite contrary to Scripture. We love God by following His commands (and all His commands) and we love our fellow Man in the same way.

I didn't say that Christ was "all nice, no unpleasant." That's a nice strawman you built there. But he did preach love and compassion. To say otherwise is to miss the message entirely.

Therefore, I must obey. Even if it seems to me to be unpleasent, I must obey.

You don't seem to obey God, however. You obey the words of man, rather than listening to what God can tell you directly. You twist the words inspired by God to fit a theology that makes you feel better, despite being both illogical and largely unsupported by Scripture.

Or you're subtracting from it because that is what you want to believe.

I'm not subtracting anything. I am looking at the text itself, instead of trying to conform it to a preconceived theology.

He was conceived in sin. What does that mean? It means that his conception was in a state of sin. And if he was conceived in a sinful state, he is sinful.

Really? I was born in a hospital. Does that mean I was born a hospital? Being conceived in sin does not mean that one is, himself, sinful. One cannot be sinful without committing sin.

What is sin? Sin is any want of conformitiy unto or any transgression of the Law of God. The fetus, zygote, etc. is averse to God. It does not want God, anymore than any other natural person.

It doesn't want anything, nor is it capable of doing so. How can it be averse to God when it has no control whatsoever?

Does your faith really require you to be so devoid of logic?

We may are not necessarily conscious of our hate for God, though many are, but the hate is still there, in our souls. The same with the unborn.

If the hate is there from the beginning, then the hate is a direct result of God's actions, not of our own. We are forced to hate God, according to your theology, and then held responsible for something we cannot help.

Yes. And what has God given us to measure up to? The Law.

And the perfect life of Christ.


That is of course true, though I am having trouble believing that the majority of abortions remove dead foetuses, as Bottle has implied.

Where did Bottle imply any such thing?

Sounds to me as if you are equating the writings of Augustine with Scripture.

I've never read Augustine, so that would be no.

And since you refuse to believe in the infallbility of Scripture, there is absolutely nothing for me to argue your points with.

Everything moral comes down to God. And how do we know what He wants?
By the Spirit through Scripture.

Under your system, you can just do what you feel like, because "the Spirit guided you to accept this and refute that."

Everything else you said gets into predestination, which I was trying unsuccessfully to avoid because it is not the point of this thread.

Well, that's wrong.

Again, I ask you for book, chapter, and verse.
Judges 1:19.


You never supplied those for the other thing, either: your claim that Scripture plainly says that the unborn are not human.
You've been supplied that already. You dismissed it out of hand.

Edit: It's Exodus 21:22-23, for the record.

I've never read Augustine, so that would be no.

No, but Calvin's theology was directly based in Augustine's, and you certainly subscribe to that.

And since you refuse to believe in the infallbility of Scripture, there is absolutely nothing for me to argue your points with.

Everything moral comes down to God. And how do we know what He wants?
By the Spirit through Scripture.

By the guidance he grants us through the Spirit. Scripture is a guide. Much like any preacher, those who wrote the Scripture were just as fallible as we are, but they were doing what they could to follow God's guidance. We all make mistakes at doing so, however, and we all filter that guidance through our own mindset, which is altered by the society we live in.

Under your system, you can just do what you feel like, because "the Spirit guided you to accept this and refute that."

Under my system, I follow God, rather than a set of books or the human beings who wrote and compiled them. I place my faith in God. I cannot "just do what I feel like." God's guidance is not always easy to follow.

Everything else you said gets into predestination, which I was trying unsuccessfully to avoid because it is not the point of this thread.

You brought it up. You obviously cannot consider Christ's message without reading it through Calvin's (and, by proxy, Augustine's) eyes.

Judges 1:19.

Read it in context of the chapter, and you will have a clearer picture: Judges 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=1&version=47).

It's not that God was not strong enough. Rather He was aiding Judah so much as He wanted. Judah was not able to drive them out. God could certainly have given Judah the strength to, had He wanted to do so. This is not speaking of God having limited power.

You've been supplied that already. You dismissed it out of hand.

Umm, no, I haven't been.

Their have been vague references to verses saying that the child is not a child until felt in the womb, but this is adding to the verses I know of, because they say no such thing.

EDIT: Exodus 21:22-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25;&version=47;)

Again, in context. If there is harm done (no indication that this refers to the mother only) then the punishment is to be equal to the harm. And this is accidental harm. Are we to assume that it's all okay if we intentionally harm the unborn? No, of course not.

Read it in context of the chapter, and you will have a clearer picture: Judges 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=1&version=47).

It's not that God was not strong enough. Rather He was aiding Judah so much as He wanted. Judah was not able to drive them out. God could certainly have given Judah the strength to, had He wanted to do so. This is not speaking of God having limited power.


Which is why it explicitly states that God does not have the power to do that. Context damns you even more here.

Of course, I could also pull up the place where the Bible claims that pi is 3, or that locusts have four legs, or that rabbits chew cud, or that bats are birds, or that the Earth is flat, or that the stars are lights imbedded in the firmament, or any of the other things that the Bible fucked up on.

No, but Calvin's theology was directly based in Augustine's, and you certainly subscribe to that.

No, I agree with Calvin's theology. I do not subscribe to it.

By the guidance he grants us through the Spirit. Scripture is a guide. Much like any preacher, those who wrote the Scripture were just as fallible as we are, but they were doing what they could to follow God's guidance. We all make mistakes at doing so, however, and we all filter that guidance through our own mindset, which is altered by the society we live in.

Umm, no. God divinely inspired the writers and has preserved His Word. And we must take this on faith, convinced of it by the Spirit of God.

Under my system, I follow God, rather than a set of books or the human beings who wrote and compiled them. I place my faith in God. I cannot "just do what I feel like." God's guidance is not always easy to follow.

Of course not. But you have no guide for your feelings. So it is truly whatever you feel like doing. How do you know that it is truly what God wants, and not what you want? If you have no infallible guide, then you don't.

That is why you must put your faith in God and trust that the Spirit will guide you through the Word.

You brought it up. You obviously cannot consider Christ's message without reading it through Calvin's (and, by proxy, Augustine's) eyes.

:rolleyes: I agree with Calvin, because I read Scripture. I have read nothing of Calvin's nor of Augustine's. I only read Scripture and agreed with them because of what I saw in Scripture. Then, I began reading Reformed theology and that clarified it and I understand it much better, but I only agree with what I read because I see it taught in Scripture, not because they inform me of how Scripture ought to be read.

Which is why it explicitly states that God does not have the power to do that. Context damns you even more here.

I don't know what Bible you're reading, because the one I'm reading does not say that.

I don't know what Bible you're reading, because the one I'm reading does not say that.

I'm reading the one to which you linked.

Of course, I could also pull up the place where the Bible claims that pi is 3, or that locusts have four legs, or that rabbits chew cud, or that bats are birds, or that the Earth is flat, or that the stars are lights imbedded in the firmament, or any of the other things that the Bible fucked up on.

All of which are inconsequential, not because they are incorrect, but because these criticisms are all straw-men.

Bats are birds? Or could it be that the word translated as "bird" did not have such a set-in-stone meaning when it was written and meant "flying animal"

Pi is 3? Or could it be that it's a rounded figure?

Don't know about the rabbits or locusts.

Earth flat? Where does it say that?

Well, you can never say "stars in the sky" can you, because it means the same thing "imbedded in the firmament"

I'm reading the one to which you linked.

And I'm not seeing where it says that God was not strong enough to do anything.

No, I agree with Calvin's theology. I do not subscribe to it.

I highly doubt that is true. Your inability to even consider any verse from a different light makes it clear that you first swallowed Calvin's theology, and then began to try to fit the Scripture to it.

Umm, no. God divinely inspired the writers and has preserved His Word. And we must take this on faith, convinced of it by the Spirit of God.

Divine inspiration does not make a person infallible. We are all divinely inspired by God, but we all make mistakes as well.

Of course not. But you have no guide for your feelings.

God is not a guide?

So it is truly whatever you feel like doing.

Hardly. God has guided me to do things that were not what I felt like doing.

How do you know that it is truly what God wants, and not what you want? If you have no infallible guide, then you don't.

God is my infallible guide - the only infallible guide. I, myself, am fallible, so I will not always get it right, but the guidance is always there.

That is why you must put your faith in God and trust that the Spirit will guide you through the Word.

I do. I do this instead of putting my faith in other human beings, as you have clearly done.

:rolleyes: I agree with Calvin, because I read Scripture. I have read nothing of Calvin's nor of Augustine's. I only read Scripture and agreed with them because of what I saw in Scripture. Then, I began reading Reformed theology and that clarified it and I understand it much better, but I only agree with what I read because I see it taught in Scripture, not because they inform me of how Scripture ought to be read.

Your words make it clear that this isn't the case. You read a great deal of extra meaning into Scripture that is not there. It can be interpreted that way if one is convinced of Calvinist theology first, but it it certainly isn't explicitly stated.

I highly doubt that is true. Your inability to even consider any verse from a different light makes it clear that you first swallowed Calvin's theology, and then began to try to fit the Scripture to it.

I do consider the verses from the light you propose. And I reject that view, because it is simply not Biblical.

Divine inspiration does not make a person infallible. We are all divinely inspired by God, but we all make mistakes as well.

Make the person infallible? No. Preserve him so that God might speak through Him? Yes.

We are not all divinely inspired, at least not as you mean.

God is not a guide?

No, hardly. He is the author of the guide: the Bible.

Hardly. God has guided me to do things that were not what I felt like doing.

We already had this discussion: you only do what you want to do.

God is my infallible guide - the only infallible guide. I, myself, am fallible, so I will not always get it right, but the guidance is always there.

Oh, all right. I disagree with your use of the word guide, but I can agree with how you're using it, I guess.

I do. I do this instead of putting my faith in other human beings, as you have clearly done.

How is my faith in human beings? I admit that Man is fallible and it is only through God that I can know anything that I need to know. And that is why I put my faith in Him that He divinely inspired the Apostles and Prophets.

Your words make it clear that this isn't the case. You read a great deal of extra meaning into Scripture that is not there. It can be interpreted that way if one is convinced of Calvinist theology first, but it it certainly isn't explicitly stated.

Oh, but it is. Ephesians 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=11&version=47&context=verse)

He works all things according to His will. No other way around it, but Reformed theology or robots, and Scripture teaches that we are not robots.

I do consider the verses from the light you propose. And I reject that view, because it is simply not Biblical.

No, you don't. If you did, you would see that they are no less Biblical than yours. They are simply approached from a different starting perspective.

People who aren't convinced of their own infallibility realize that there are different perspectives, and that the same passage can sound one way to one person and a rather different way to someone else.

Make the person infallible? No. Preserve him so that God might speak through Him? Yes.

If the person is not infallible, then their writings are not infallible. Those who compiled the Scripture they wanted to include and rejected that which they didn't are not infallible. Those of us who read and interpret the Scripture are not infallible.

We are not all divinely inspired, at least not as you mean.

Yes, we are. We can all have a personal relationship with God. And, through that relationship, God inspires us - guides us.

No, hardly. He is the author of the guide: the Bible.

God personally wrote every word of the Bible? God personally compiled it out of the numerous texts used by the early Church? God personally translated it? God personally came down from on high and did all of this?

We already had this discussion: you only do what you want to do.

And that statement was just as ridiculous then as it is now.

Oh, all right. I disagree with your use of the word guide, but I can agree with how you're using it, I guess.

You disagree how? You think that God does not guide us through the Spirit?

How is my faith in human beings? I admit that Man is fallible and it is only through God that I can know anything that I need to know. And that is why I put my faith in Him that He divinely inspired the Apostles and Prophets.

Divine inspiration != infallibility. You would obviously take the words written by other men who were divinely inspired over the guidance that God can offer you directly. That is putting faith in human beings.

Oh, but it is. Ephesians 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=11&version=47&context=verse)

He works all things according to His will. No other way around it, but Reformed theology or robots, and Scripture teaches that we are not robots.

Reformed theology amounts to all people being robots, conforming completely and totally to the will of God, taking no action for which they are personally responsible.

No, you don't. If you did, you would see that they are no less Biblical than yours. They are simply approached from a different starting perspective.

People who aren't convinced of their own infallibility realize that there are different perspectives, and that the same passage can sound one way to one person and a rather different way to someone else.

There may be many applications, but there can be only one correct interpretation.

If the person is not infallible, then their writings are not infallible. Those who compiled the Scripture they wanted to include and rejected that which they didn't are not infallible. Those of us who read and interpret the Scripture are not infallible.

That is why God divinely inspired them, keeping them from error. If it were themselves, there would be errors throughout.

But, it being God's revelation, and God caring enough that we understand what He wants us to understand, kept the Apsotle's and Prophets from error when they wrote it.

Yes, we are. We can all have a personal relationship with God. And, through that relationship, God inspires us - guides us.

Guide /=/ inspire.

And even if it did, the divine inspiration God used for Scripture is not the same as the common inspiration you say we all have.

God personally wrote every word of the Bible? God personally compiled it out of the numerous texts used by the early Church? God personally translated it? God personally came down from on high and did all of this?

:rolleyes:

You disagree how? You think that God does not guide us through the Spirit?

Matter of personal taste. "Guide" sounds too human and too direct to me. I prefer prompt. But, I agree with your definition.

Divine inspiration != infallibility. You would obviously take the words written by other men who were divinely inspired over the guidance that God can offer you directly. That is putting faith in human beings.

:confused:

The writings in Scripture are the ones which are divinely inspired. There are no others.

And that's putting faith in God that He has made known to me the things He wants me to know through Scripture and that He will guide (I think I'm becoming more comfortable with this word, I don't know why I found it so distasteful before) me by His Spirit through His Word.

Reformed theology amounts to all people being robots, conforming completely and totally to the will of God, taking no action for which they are personally responsible.

Well, you misunderstand Reformed Theology, then. I've tried to explain it to you and have failed. Try a book: Chosen by God by RC Sproul is a good explanation.

There may be many applications, but there can be only one correct interpretation.

That's probably true. Why are you so sure that you are infallible, and your interpretation is therefore absolutely correct?

That is why God divinely inspired them, keeping them from error. If it were themselves, there would be errors throughout.

There are errors throughout, especially in the OT law. The writers of the OT law obviously thought that a woman who did not have a hymen or did not bleed on her wedding night was not a virgin, which is biologically inaccurate. They listed a rabbit as an animal which chews the cud - also biologically inaccurate. They claimed that any woman in a large city who was not rescued from rape was not raped at all - which is just stupid. They claimed that beating your slave to death, so long as he survived at least one night, wasn't murder. And so on.....

But, it being God's revelation, and God caring enough that we understand what He wants us to understand, kept the Apsotle's and Prophets from error when they wrote it.

God cares enough that we learn what God wants us to learn that God guides us individually to that revelation. The words of others are places to start, just as any preacher provides what guidance he can. But the ultimate guide is God.

Guide /=/ inspire.

Yes, it does. God inspires all of us in our daily lives. God inspires some to go on missions to other places. God inspires some to write their revelations down.

And even if it did, the divine inspiration God used for Scripture is not the same as the common inspiration you say we all have.

According to you.

:rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you want, but that is what it would have meant for God to have written Scripture. As it is, human beings, who are fallible, wrote it. They wrote what they thought God wanted, just as all who follow God do what they think God wants. But we are all fallible and we all make mistakes.

:confused:

The writings in Scripture are the ones which are divinely inspired. There are no others.

Is that why the early church used numerous others? Do you really trust a bunch of politicians to determine what is and is not "truly inspired", especially when they later cut part of the canon out anyways?

Well, you misunderstand Reformed Theology, then. I've tried to explain it to you and have failed. Try a book: Chosen by God by RC Sproul is a good explanation.

No, I follow it to its logical conclusions, something which you refuse to do.

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

Yes...Next...

I can't see how it is not. Wars always kill large numbers of (innocent) people just like abortion, and yet America is plagued with people who support wars and violent government policies in general, while also hollowly opposing abortion. What's the story?

I wish I could remember who said it, but I remember a commentary on pro-war, anti-abortion types that summarised their thinking on protecting life as "life begins at conception... and ends at birth," whereby once someone's out of the womb they're on their own, and all those virtuous people who were championing for that "precious" life pre-birth couldn't care less about what happens to it once it's out of its mother. If the war's still going in 18 years, well, then they care again because it's another kid-- specifically someone else's kid-- to send off to die in the crusade. Some people really just aren't happy unless they're exerting as much self-righteous control over everyone and everything else in the world around them as possible.

Healthcare /=/ dictatorship. Healthcare indicates socialization which indicates more interference in the lives of the people which indicates a greater risk of control of the masses. Better to avoid it altogether.

I'll tell you where your iron-clad logic fails here. Look at Canada and the US. Canada has healthcare, yet in terms of societal attitudes towards authority Canadians are becoming increasingly skeptical and suspicious of government, more conscious of individual rights, and less deferential to authority, while in the US (no healthcare, allegedly 'less at risk of control by the masses') the government is becoming more authoritarian and the populace more compliant, more inclined to cow-tow to 'the leader,' less free to question or challenge those in power... well, with the exception of all those uppity libertarians and democratic trouble-makers that the far right-wingers ironically blame for everything. So, yeah. Iron-clad logic.

The willful disconnect from a rational conception of reality scares the crap out of me.

Christ is God and God gave the civil government commands to follow, commands which include the excecution of murderers, which is the killing of any human outside of the times God says it is justified.

Christ can work above and beyond the Law when He wishes. We cannot.

Well, there is this thing called separation of church and state. Reading your posts reminds me why it is so important that religion isn’t the basis for law.

Bottle has implied nothing of the sort, and I'm calling you out as a liar for saying so. Bottle very carefully phrased that statement--she said many, not most, and her statement is an accurate one.
Thanks, Nazz. It really cheese my cracker when somebody so obviously lies about what I've said. Though, I suppose I should be happy, since it indicates to me that they are scrambling because they've got nothing honest to work with.

Read the Old Testament some time.

Why?

Honestly, why should I bother? If, as you claim, your God does not recognize my right to own my own body, why should I worship it? Why shouldn't I spend every waking moment fighting it, the way I would fight slavery and slave-owners on Earth? Sure, maybe I'll lose, but isn't that a shitload better than "winning" by groveling before a slave master?

If you have a problem with this concept, why did you try to use John 8:7 against Chestuite? (who is, btw, making Christians look really bad in this thread)

Because I was trying to get him/her to take a critical look at scripture, and not a one-dimensional look at it.

Scripture is infallible. It is the Word of God. But, you reject that, apparently.

He was conceived in sin. What does that mean? It means that his conception was in a state of sin. And if he was conceived in a sinful state, he is sinful.

What is sin? Sin is any want of conformitiy unto or any transgression of the Law of God. The fetus, zygote, etc. is averse to God. It does not want God, anymore than any other natural person.

We may are not necessarily conscious of our hate for God, though many are, but the hate is still there, in our souls. The same with the unborn.

Why is scripture inerrant? What proof or reasoning have you?

And then you defend your position by arguing original sin? So now you're stating that all people are inherantly evil because their creator fucked up the first time and didn't teach Adam & Eve moral sense, which allowed them in their naivete to go against god's prohibition against eating fromt he tree of knowledge. Sounds like a real great philosophy to me. :rolleyes:

Yes.

Those who perform abortions, willingly undergo abortions (except for cases where the mother will die), and those who murder these persons ought all to be excecuted.

I really hope you are a troll, and do not really believe such hateful nonsense. This really is a twisted perversion of the basic tenets of the message of love and forgiveness that Jesus preached.