Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[PruePhillip]

The blame for that lies with prejudice and discrimination against social structures that Christianity does not sanction. Basically, you create a problem and then blame the people who suffer for the problem. Like when Christians throw their gay teens out of the house and isolate them from all social support and then try to blame being gay for the suicide rates among gay teens. You profit from the risk that you create.

At least try to be honest. Your reference was to physician assisted suicide. Not imply suicide. And yes, I do approve bog people having that option. I don't know if I would take the option if I were terminal, but I would want to have the choice.

Polygamy encompasses both polygyny and polyandry. The thruples I know have been together for years, have their own professions, and produced children who prosper.

The thing is, PruePhilip, most of the things you complain about are only problems because Christianity creates attitudes that penalize any deviation from the social structures that it sanctions. And then blames the victims for the problem that Christianity creates as justification for itself.

I wonder (in my country) when the first teenager, suffering from depression, loss of a girlfriend, boredom whatever, demands to be terminated by a doctor. And when the doctor refuses, he is vilified and cancelled. Like what has happened with doctors and 'trans' people.
I read somewhere that 47% of euthenasia cases now involved elderly people feeling they just don't want to be a burden. Soon, if not now, we could be telling them they are a burden. This wasn't supposed to happen - and who do we go after in the euthenasia movement for this?
Yes, you can have polygamy. That's not the point. It's when it's mainstream. What of the man who wants to have a weekend marriage with a consenting 12 year old boy and his 13 year old sister? Think it will happen? I reckon it will.

 

[ppp]

I wonder (in my country) when the first teenager, suffering from depression, loss of a girlfriend, boredom whatever, demands to be terminated by a doctor.

You went from terminal cancer to "boredom". You are either being intentionally cartoonist or profoundly irrational

 

[ElishaElijah]

If you're against all abortions then your post was pretty disingenuous, as it was a response to my post pointing out that no abortions involve babies. You then falsely tried to imply that post 24 week developing foetus was a baby, but now you admit you want to stop all abortions, and most of them involve a blastocyst. This is a blastocyst:

You then started talking about dismembered bodies, who knows why. The fact remains, abortions do not involve babies.

I am pro choice, as it seems immoral to me to enslave people by taking away their bodily autonomy, and absurd to grant a clump of insentient cells, the right to use a fully sentient woman's body against her will, and we certainly would not grant this right to individual sentient fully formed human beings, so why would we do this for an insentient blastocyst, or foetus?

Still waiting for where you draw the line? My line is clear being pro life. These are the stages of baby development.

 

[Sheldon]

The point is to show changing social attitudes to moral issues.

And how are you claiming those stats do this, and where is the link to the poll? Like herding cats.

 

[Sheldon]

You went from terminal cancer to "boredom". You are either being intentionally cartoonist or profoundly irrational

I'm not sure those are mutually exclusive, especially after reading his posts. His disjointed rants just leap around like a frog on amphetamines. He lumps harmless actions with the most deeply pernicious acts, and then proclaims them immoral, and then leaps to conclusion atheism or secularism is somehow to blame in some vague unexplained way. Any protests are swept away in the wake of his next disjointed rant. I am rapidly losing interest in responding to be honest, there's a spot on my ignore list that might just fit this one soon.

 

[Sheldon]

Still waiting for where you draw the line? My line is clear being pro life. These are the stages of baby development.View attachment 63955

Draw the line for what, I won't ever need an abortion? If your line is clear why are you focusing on a tiny minority of late term abortions, is that where your line is? Only I am dubious, thus your are being disingenuous.

These are the stages of baby development.

No they're not, they are clearly illustrating foetal development in the womb, do you think repetition will make your claim any less absurd, or change it from baseless emotive rhetoric to biological fact?

 

[Sheldon]

At least try to be honest. Your reference was to physician assisted suicide. Not imply suicide. And yes, I do approve bog people having that option. I don't know if I would take the option if I were terminal, but I would want to have the choice.

Jesus wept, is that what he was talking about? We don't let animals suffer unnecessarily, so it baffles me why anyone would want humans who are terminally ill to suffer unnecessarily, when there is no prospect of recovery or even quality of life.

 

[Sheldon]

I wonder (in my country) when the first teenager, suffering from depression, loss of a girlfriend, boredom whatever, demands to be terminated by a doctor. And when the doctor refuses, he is vilified and cancelled. Like what has happened with doctors and 'trans' people.
I read somewhere that 47% of euthenasia cases now involved elderly people feeling they just don't want to be a burden. Soon, if not now, we could be telling them they are a burden. This wasn't supposed to happen - and who do we go after in the euthenasia movement for this?
Yes, you can have polygamy. That's not the point. It's when it's mainstream. What of the man who wants to have a weekend marriage with a consenting 12 year old boy and his 13 year old sister? Think it will happen? I reckon it will.

One step closer to ignore, it simply isn't worth the thankless task of unravelling that nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

You went from terminal cancer to "boredom". You are either being intentionally cartoonist or profoundly irrational

Oh I thought that these were the real low point.

PruePhillip said: ↑
I read somewhere that 47% of euthenasia cases now involved elderly people feeling they just don't want to be a burden. Soon, if not now, we could be telling them they are a burden. This wasn't supposed to happen - and who do we go after in the euthenasia movement for this?

PruePhillip said: ↑
Yes, you can have polygamy. That's not the point. It's when it's mainstream. What of the man who wants to have a weekend marriage with a consenting 12 year old boy and his 13 year old sister? Think it will happen? I reckon it will.

It simply is not worthwhile to try and decipher this nonsense into rational discourse.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Draw the line for what, I won't ever need an abortion? If your line is clear why are you focusing on a tiny minority of late term abortions, is that where your line is? Only I am dubious, thus your are being disingenuous.



No they're not, they are clearly illustrating foetal development in the womb, do you think repetition will make your claim any less absurd, or change it from baseless emotive rhetoric to biological fact?

If you use a search engine they say stages of a baby development and not only that but 5-6 thousand is a lot at 24 weeks and after. If you actually observe the baby at 15 weeks guess how many of those are aborted and killed? So tiny minority to you is 5-6 thousand huh? An emotional plea you say?

 

[Sheldon]

If you use a search engine they say stages of a baby development

So what, this is clearly rhetoric and not a factual use of the word. Ever called a girlfriend or wife baby, did you imagine she was really a baby at the time? Abortions don't involve babies, ever.

and not only that but 5-6 thousand is a lot at 24 weeks and after.

Compared to what? Again you are focusing on the tiny minority of late term abortions, when you know you want to ban them all, so again this is disingenuous. Since the vast majority are short term, involving an insentient blastocyst. I already explained I think making abortions more freely available so they occur as early as possible is something I am in favour of. That would help reduce that number of late term abortions, yes?

If you actually observe the baby at 15 weeks guess how many of those are aborted and killed?

It's not a baby, it's a developing foetus, and what relevance does the number have to my being pro choice? All I see are the number of women you want to enslave by removing their bodily autonomy.

So tiny minority to you is 5-6 thousand huh? An emotional plea you say?

Yes, of course it is, do you not know what minority means, or emotion come to that?

Minority
noun

1. the smaller number or part, especially a number or part representing less than half of the whole.

So how is my factual statement that late term abortions represent a tiny minority, an appeal to emotion exactly? Or is this just an attempt to muddy the waters from your disingenuous attempts to focus on this tiny minority of abortions, when you clearly want to ban them all?

 

[ElishaElijah]

So what, this is clearly rhetoric and not a factual use of the word. Ever called a girlfriend or your wide baby, do you imagine she was really a baby at the time? Abortions don't involve babies, ever.



Compared to what? Again you are focusing on the tiny minority of late term abortions, when you know you want ban them all, so again this is disingenuous. Since the vast majority are short term, involving an insentient blastocyst. I already explained I think making abortions more freely available so they occur as early as possible is something I am in favour of.



it's not a baby, it's a developing foetus, and what relevance does the number have to my being pro choice?



Minority
noun

1. the smaller number or part, especially a number or part representing less than half of the whole.

How is my factual statement an appeal to emotion exactly?

Fetus and baby development are used interchangeably, they mean the same. Seems you’ve done no research on the subject or listened to the doctors who stopped doing the abortions because of the horror of what they saw.

 

[Sheldon]

Fetus and baby development are used interchangeably, they mean the same.

No, one word is used in an accurate biological context, the other is used as rhetoric, sometimes harmlessly, but in the instance of abortion debates the word is often misapplied in order to make an emotive argument, as you are doing.

Seems you’ve done no research on the subject or listened to the doctors who stopped doing the abortions because of the horror of what they saw.

That's not research it is a claim, and another appeal to emotion. Again you are focusing on the tiny minority of late term abortions, again this is still a disingenuous tactic. As the vast majority are early time and involve an insentient blastocyst. Do you imagine women being forced to seek illegal abortions will involve less horror? I seriously doubt it, why would you want to increase what you call horror?

Can we assume you now know what minority means, and understand your previous error? So you now accept my factually correct statement that late term abortions represent a tiny minority, and was not an emotive argument at all, as you claimed?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Compared to what? Again you are focusing on the tiny minority of late term abortions, when you know you want to ban them all, so again this is disingenuous. Since the vast majority are short term, involving an insentient blastocyst. I already explained I think making abortions more freely available so they occur as early as possible is something I am in favour of. That would help reduce that number of late term abortions, yes?

They have been freely available and after 15 weeks it’s 50,000-60,000 per year! You’re calling me disingenuous at 5,000-6,000 killed per year after 24 weeks.
If you used that same logic in some other areas and people would call you some real winners of a name I can tell you that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, one word is used in an accurate biological context, the other is used as rhetoric, sometimes harmlessly, but in the instance of abortion debates the word is often misapplied in order to make an emotive argument, as you are doing.

So in talking about what is a male or female we can ditch the biology? This unborn baby in development of allowed to full term will be a what 100% of the time? A baby, a separate human being. Again, where are you drawing the line, what month?

 

[Sheldon]

They have been freely available and after 15 weeks it’s 50,000-60,000 per year!

So what?

You’re calling me disingenuous at 5,000-6,000 killed per year after 24 weeks.

I am saying your argument was disingenuous because you are focusing on the tiny minority of late term abortions, when you know you want to ban them all.

If you used that same logic in some other areas and people would call you some real winners of a name I can tell you that.

Name calling doesn't impress me, and this is hardly an argument, since my statement was factually correct, late term abortions represent a tiny minority of abortions. Did you not see the definition of minority?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
No, one word is used in an accurate biological context, the other is used as rhetoric, sometimes harmlessly, but in the instance of abortion debates the word is often misapplied in order to make an emotive argument, as you are doing.

So in talking about what is a male or female we can ditch the biology?

I have no idea what you're asking or why?

This unborn baby in development of allowed to full term will be a what 100% of the time? A baby, a separate human being.

So what? Abortions involve a blastocyst or a developing foetus, this is a simple biological fact, what it might develop into doesn't change that.

Again, where are you drawing the line, what month?

Again I won't ever need an abortion, so what line are you talking about?

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have no idea what you're asking or why?



So what? Abortions involve a blastocyst or a developing foetus, this is a simple biological fact, what it might develop into doesn't change that.



Again I won't ever need an abortion, so what line are you talking about?

Then why are you entering into the conversation? You don’t seem to have an understanding of the issue

 

[Sheldon]

Then why are you entering into the conversation? You don’t seem to have an understanding of the issue

This is a public debate forum, and I am entitled to debate here, I suggest you get over it, and I am prepared to bet I know at least as much about this issue as you, so please stoop with the handwaving and ad hominem, it's not a sound argument, since I am not culpable for your inability to offer cogent points.

For example what on earth does this:

ElishaElijah said: ↑
So in talking about what is a male or female we can ditch the biology?

...have to do with my post you responded to, or any issue on abortion?

 

[PruePhillip]

One step closer to ignore, it simply isn't worth the thankless task of unravelling that nonsense.

'Slippery slope' is a logic fallacy. But I see nothing BUT slippery slopes with social agendas.
Back in the 1980's gays were saying they wanted to be left alone by the police, they had no marriage agenda, gay promotion agenda or teach-it-in-the-schools agenda. Fair enough. But within a heatbeat of 'decriminalization' that's what the gay lobby did.
Same with euthenasia. The fiction that they would move the goal posts to a new spot and firmly anchor them into place was soon demolished by the same people who made the claims. Now there's no goal post at all. You can get a euthenasia kit from New Zealand over here - no public oversight.
Same with divorce, trans and abortion issues. Who would believe people have lost their jobs or careers over a pronoun, or a man can call yourself a woman and enter women's sports, toilets and dressing rooms. Or a rapist can delare himself a woman, be placed in a woman's jail, and rape again. State this just five years ago and 'trans' people would say you are exagerating.
With ANY issue it's not the immediate point to watch, but where radicals will take it.