Abortion

[निताइ dasa]

They were a citizen of SOME state. A fetus can't get to this country on its own. What country calls a zygote a citizen? Some women don't even know they're pregnant until the baby plops out. Do we mandate monthly pregnancy tests for all women (do the virgins too, since Mary, after all, proves that virginity ain't 100% effective)?

so? A state as no moral obligation to protect the human rights of citizens from even another state. The question is that a state should protect the human rights of all those who have a right to it.

Like I said, I believe the rights of citizenship would extend to potential citizens as well. Because as far as I know, infants are not citizens by any means (they can't carry out the responsibilities of a citizen), yet they are still given legal protection due to their potentiality.

 

[Peter Stone]

It is very simple do as you want but remember what you do may not be what you need and will impact who you are and others in your life or generations to come. If you kill you will become morally less, morally distorted, it will make you blind to love, It takes away more innocents from you and greatly increases the chances of this all being passed around to others in your life or after your life. You make your bed and will sleep in it. Though you may feel it will bring self choice in fact it increases your inner beast and begins a destructive path that in most cases become irreversible. I am pro life personally but I will not judge those who make a choice to kill but will em braise them and pray for them and others who will become a part of this terrible sin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

so you can completely ignore it... ...again?

You are going to have to take my word for it, I don't have time or motive to disprove the Moon is made of cheese. If this is really what you believe, please don't teach in any classrooms. Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The fact that the Moon has accumulated a layer of dust and rock over billions of years doesn't exclude the possibility that it's cheesy below this layer.

And what "good estimates of its interior" are you referring to? How can they exclude the possibility of cheese without unsubstantiated inference about the qualities of this cheese?

Just for clarity: my definition for "cheese" is simply "pressed curds". I don't make any claims about what the characteristics of ancient space cheese might be, but I think it would be foolish to limit our thinking about "cheese" to terrestrial cheeses from cows, goats and similar animals, especially since they evolved long after the moon formed.

The core and mantle of the moon is under intense pressure, so I think it's a given that anything below the Moon's surface qualifies as "pressed" - one point for me. To win here, you would have to make a case based on valid justification that nothing within the Moon can be reasonably considered "curd". Can you?

I'm not looking for a "win" as you wrote, nor am I precluding the possibility that there is some cheese "overseas".

So, if you are open-minded enough to realize there could be cheese inside the Moon, are you open enough to the possibilities that:

1. abortion is immoral and unethical?

2. Jesus Christ saves?

3. God made all without mechanistic evolution, but allowed for evolutionary adaptation?

Thanks,

 

[McBell]

You are going to have to take my word for it, I don't have time or motive to disprove the Moon is made of cheese. If this is really what you believe, please don't teach in any classrooms. Thanks!

Fact is you have not proven the moon is not made of cheese.
All you have done is claimed that a whole bunch of people agree with you that the moon is not made of cheese.

That you can not tell the difference between bold empty claims and facts is something YOU have to work on, not me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not looking for a "win" as you wrote, nor am I precluding the possibility that there is some cheese "overseas".

So, if you are open-minded enough to realize there could be cheese inside the Moon, are you open enough to the possibilities that:

1. abortion is immoral and unethical?

2. Jesus Christ saves?

3. God made all without mechanistic evolution, but allowed for evolutionary adaptation?

Thanks,

I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm arguing that we can reasonably conclude that thinking the Moon is made of cheese is deluded - something you've agreed to - although we can't prove it or even provide positive justification that the claim is false. Your failure to do so underscores my point.

OTOH, when it comes to something like evolution vs. creationism, we actually have boatloads of evidence for evolution and against special creation. In terms of evidence and justification, special creation has less going for it and more against it than the claim that the Moon is made of cheese. If you're happy to call one a delusion, why not the other?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Fact is you have not proven the moon is not made of cheese.
All you have done is claimed that a whole bunch of people agree with you that the moon is not made of cheese.

That you can not tell the difference between bold empty claims and facts is something YOU have to work on, not me.

If the resolution is:

The Moon Isn't Cheese

and you are taking the opposing position, do you feel you can conclusively prove:

The Moon Is Cheese (Or Contains Some Cheese)?

Do you not understand what the definition of "wasting time" is? Please stop wasting my time. Especially if every time I say facts like:

Most people who've ever lived believe God is real...

Which is a known fact, you make some sort of ad populum argument, just like you are doing above, misapplying it... "SURE, MOST LOGICAL, FACTUAL PEOPLE "THINK" THE MOON ISN'T CHEESE, BUT..."

You may "safely" misapply logical fallacies all you like. I want go "ad populum". I'll just tell you my witness, Jesus is real. I interact with Him. You should also!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm arguing that we can reasonably conclude that thinking the Moon is made of cheese is deluded - something you've agreed to - although we can't prove it or even provide positive justification that the claim is false. Your failure to do so underscores my point.

OTOH, when it comes to something like evolution vs. creationism, we actually have boatloads of evidence for evolution and against special creation. In terms of evidence and justification, special creation has less going for it and more against it than the claim that the Moon is made of cheese. If you're happy to call one a delusion, why not the other?

I certainly concede the first point with a modifier, we can use the scientific method to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the moon isn't cheese. Based on the data, including the established known gravitational pull of the Moon...

The jump you made has to do with creationism and evolution. I think there's far more data for creationism and against evolution than you give credence to, so we're at an impasse. We do not have people on both sides of the issue struggling to understand some essentials in the Moon's case! Dr. Behe didn't write a book suggesting the Moon was cheese before getting attacked, he wrote a book saying "I completely believe in evolution, but what has evolved seems to indicate a complexity beyond mere mechanistic processes to design it, execute it, and at the original presumed unicellular level" and got attacked, and attacked, and attacked, for daring to think about challenging the existing "gospel" and for calling other scientists to aid him in his quest...

The Bible indicates that for some of this there may be spiritual blindness involved. Take away some of mechanistic evolution, not macro-changes but say, initial creation, and we have to believe in higher powers, alien or gods. I don't think resistance to the gospel of Jesus Christ, with its implications that you and I are immoral and need self-control and reform, and that we can do ANYTHING and get away with it now and later, has a bearing on believing the Moon is a giant dairy farm!

 

[McBell]

If the resolution is:

The Moon Isn't Cheese

and you are taking the opposing position, do you feel you can conclusively prove:

The Moon Is Cheese (Or Contains Some Cheese)?

Do you not understand what the definition of "wasting time" is? Please stop wasting my time. Especially if every time I say facts like:

Most people who've ever lived believe God is real...

Which is a known fact, you make some sort of ad populum argument, just like you are doing above, misapplying it... "SURE, MOST LOGICAL, FACTUAL PEOPLE "THINK" THE MOON ISN'T CHEESE, BUT..."

You may "safely" misapply logical fallacies all you like. I want go "ad populum". I'll just tell you my witness, Jesus is real. I interact with Him. You should also!

It is not any fault of mine that you make assumptions not based on evidence.
I made no claim of what the moon is or is not made of.
I merely pointed out the fact that you have not supported your claim that the moon is not made of cheese.

That you insist not only that you have, but also that I must be claiming the moon is made of cheese reveals your faulty thinking processes, not mine.

Yes, it is a fact that most people who have ever lived believed some deity exists.
However, that belief in no way indicates that a deity exists outside the beliefs of those who believe one does.

I am not the one making the appeal to numbers or the appeal to popularity fallacies.
that would be you.

In fact, I even pointed out your use them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is not any fault of mine that you make assumptions not based on evidence.
I made no claim of what the moon is or is not made of.
I merely pointed out the fact that you have not supported your claim that the moon is not made of cheese.

That you insist not only that you have, but also that I must be claiming the moon is made of cheese reveals your faulty thinking processes, not mine.

Yes, it is a fact that most people who have ever lived believed some deity exists.
However, that belief in no way indicates that a deity exists outside the beliefs of those who believe one does.

I am not the one making the appeal to numbers or the appeal to popularity fallacies.
that would be you.

In fact, I even pointed out your use them.

You are missing the subtleties here. There is a difference between "ad populum!" and 99% of all people who've ever lived believed in God with a few dissenters as rebels. A sizable difference. You are confusing correlation and causation IMHO. We don't see every human eating to survive, point to the correlation and say, "Humans must eat to live is an ad populum appeal!" But we can dissect the stomach and digestive system and then demonstrate causation. Causation of anything, however, is technically, classically, devious to prove. We might be mistaken about the eating and survival processes, if we think about the nature of proof and so on.

God and causation are partly in your corner. If you like, I can send you the writings of a dozen different Bible authors who said you must participate in this exploration. But if you do not see an immensely strong correlation between the numinous and man, you are in denial.

We can go further than "most people believe" to say that most people believe God is within their conscious, interacts with them from outside also, and further, that his existence is self-evident. We can even find Bible scriptures linking a denial of God's existence to moral degeneracy. I've yet to meet an atheist who denied they were making moral choices regarding atheistic living--I've never met an atheist who said they want to live a Christian lifestyle, or who even said they were committed to marriage and family in exactly the same way Christians are--born again Christians. Again, though, the ball is in your court.

I merely pointed out the fact that you have not supported your claim that the moon is not made of cheese.

Have you supported this claim successfully, either?

That you insist not only that you have, but also that I must be claiming the moon is made of cheese reveals your faulty thinking processes, not mine.

To paraphrase my own words, I said I don't have time to prove the Moon's composition, I didn't say I couldn't... but if you think I'm wrong about the Moon, I must say, I still know Jesus Christ and fervently desire for you to know Him, too. He is marvelous, Savior!

Thanks!

 

[McBell]

You are missing the subtleties here. There is a difference between "ad populum!" and 99% of all people who've ever lived believed in God with a few dissenters as rebels. A sizable difference.

Completely irrelevent.
It matters not if 100% of people believe something.
Their belief has absolutely zero effect on it being true or not.

That you cannot/will not accept that fact is on you, not me.

You are confusing correlation and causation IMHO. We don't see every human eating to survive, point to the correlation and say, "Humans must eat to live is an ad populum appeal!" But we can dissect the stomach and digestive system and then demonstrate causation. Causation of anything, however, is technically, classically, devious to prove. We might be mistaken about the eating and survival processes, if we think about the nature of proof and so on.

God and causation are partly in your corner. If you like, I can send you the writings of a dozen different Bible authors who said you must participate in this exploration. But if you do not see an immensely strong correlation between the numinous and man, you are in denial.

We can go further than "most people believe" to say that most people believe God is within their conscious, interacts with them from outside also, and further, that his existence is self-evident. We can even find Bible scriptures linking a denial of God's existence to moral degeneracy. I've yet to meet an atheist who denied they were making moral choices regarding atheistic living--I've never met an atheist who said they want to live a Christian lifestyle, or who even said they were committed to marriage and family in exactly the same way Christians are--born again Christians. Again, though, the ball is in your court.



Have you supported this claim successfully, either?



To paraphrase my own words, I said I don't have time to prove the Moon's composition, I didn't say I couldn't... but if you think I'm wrong about the Moon, I must say, I still know Jesus Christ and fervently desire for you to know Him, too. He is marvelous, Savior!

Thanks!

*yawn*
please wake me when the sermon is over.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You are missing the subtleties here. There is a difference between "ad populum!" and 99% of all people who've ever lived believed in God with a few dissenters as rebels. A sizable difference.

Not if you're using that "99% of all people who've ever lived" (which I'll get to in just a second) as a way to argue for the plausibility of God's existence. (For the record, I don't know if you are).

As for your rather questionable statistic there, what on earth makes you think it's accurate considering monotheism has only been around consistently for the last 3000 years or so? That leaves close to 10,000 years where humans didn't believe in the Abrahamic god or, indeed, in One God. Even after monotheism came on the scene, the vast majority of the world's population was polytheistic for the longest time. China, Japan, the New World, Australasia, Africa, Arabia, Europe. All these places have kept faith with their own gods. Some still do.

 

[viole]

Most people who've ever lived believe God is real...

Which God? Apollo, the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, Thor, or maybe Zeus, among the various thousands gods and goddesses?

What is more likely. That all these people just made their god up, or that god is such a poor communicator about who he really is?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Completely irrelevent.
It matters not if 100% of people believe something.
Their belief has absolutely zero effect on it being true or not.

That you cannot/will not accept that fact is on you, not me.


*yawn*
please wake me when the sermon is over.

So it matters not if 100% of persons (except you) have a belief, because of your superiority and intellect? Or...?

Your problem is pride.

Their belief has absolutely zero effect on it being true or not.

I'm not arguing causation, I'm arguing correlation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which God? Apollo, the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, Thor, or maybe Zeus, among the various thousands gods and goddesses?

What is more likely. That all these people just made their god up, or that god is such a poor communicator about who he really is?

Ciao

- viole

It's neither everyone made their gods up nor is it God is a poor communicator.

The scriptures are explicit here, that God hides Himself from sinners, but uses power and influence so that anyone wanting to know the reality can know it! It worked for me--when will you open yourself, rather than close yourself, to God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I certainly concede the first point with a modifier, we can use the scientific method to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the moon isn't cheese. Based on the data, including the established known gravitational pull of the Moon...

What data? What assumptions are you making about the properties of cheese?

Please don't just argue against a straw man version of what "cheese" can entail. Of course we aren't talking about terrestrial cheese made from cow or goat milk. What justification do you have to say that celestial cheese can't be a similar density to rock or magma?

You say that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Moon isn't cheese, but here's what we really have:

- some observations that are consistent with the premise that the Moon is made of cheese (e.g. we've established that the Moon is a physical object made of matter. If it had turned out that the Moon was an optical illusion, then this would refute the claim that it's made of cheese).

- some observations that are consistent with the premise that the Moon is not made of cheese (e.g. going to the Moon and finding no cheese).

- no observations that imply the Moon must be made of cheese.

- no observations that imply the Moon cannot be made of cheese.

- no identified plausible mechanism for the Moon to be made of cheese.

This is scientific proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the Moon isn't made of cheese?

Would any of these points be different if we considered, say, the existence of God instead of the Moon's cheesiness?

The jump you made has to do with creationism and evolution. I think there's far more data for creationism and against evolution than you give credence to, so we're at an impasse. We do not have people on both sides of the issue struggling to understand some essentials in the Moon's case! Dr. Behe didn't write a book suggesting the Moon was cheese before getting attacked, he wrote a book saying "I completely believe in evolution, but what has evolved seems to indicate a complexity beyond mere mechanistic processes to design it, execute it, and at the original presumed unicellular level" and got attacked, and attacked, and attacked, for daring to think about challenging the existing "gospel" and for calling other scientists to aid him in his quest...

Don't pretend that the Intelligent Design movement was nothing more than re-jigging "scientific creationism" to get it into public school science classrooms.

And "scientific creationism" was nothing more than re-jigging Biblical creationism to get it into public school science classrooms.

Intelligent Design is nothing more than the latest attempt at an end run around the First Amendment that's as religious as possible while not being so transparently unconstitutional that it gets rejected.

The Bible indicates that for some of this there may be spiritual blindness involved. Take away some of mechanistic evolution, not macro-changes but say, initial creation, and we have to believe in higher powers, alien or gods. I don't think resistance to the gospel of Jesus Christ, with its implications that you and I are immoral and need self-control and reform, and that we can do ANYTHING and get away with it now and later, has a bearing on believing the Moon is a giant dairy farm!

 

[BilliardsBall]

What data? What assumptions are you making about the properties of cheese?

Please don't just argue against a straw man version of what "cheese" can entail. Of course we aren't talking about terrestrial cheese made from cow or goat milk. What justification do you have to say that celestial cheese can't be a similar density to rock or magma?

You say that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Moon isn't cheese, but here's what we really have:

- some observations that are consistent with the premise that the Moon is made of cheese (e.g. we've established that the Moon is a physical object made of matter. If it had turned out that the Moon was an optical illusion, then this would refute the claim that it's made of cheese).

- some observations that are consistent with the premise that the Moon is not made of cheese (e.g. going to the Moon and finding no cheese).

- no observations that imply the Moon must be made of cheese.

- no observations that imply the Moon cannot be made of cheese.

- no identified plausible mechanism for the Moon to be made of cheese.

This is scientific proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the Moon isn't made of cheese?

Would any of these points be different if we considered, say, the existence of God instead of the Moon's cheesiness?


Don't pretend that the Intelligent Design movement was nothing more than re-jigging "scientific creationism" to get it into public school science classrooms.

And "scientific creationism" was nothing more than re-jigging Biblical creationism to get it into public school science classrooms.

Intelligent Design is nothing more than the latest attempt at an end run around the First Amendment that's as religious as possible while not being so transparently unconstitutional that it gets rejected.

I didn't say anything about the ID movement, nor did Dr. Behe identify with the ID movement when he published his work. He did "receive" the kind of assault you're putting out, however.

But, since you wrote:

Don't pretend that the Intelligent Design movement was nothing more than re-jigging "scientific creationism" to get it into public school science classrooms.

I will agree that there was some agenda to a movement (although there was no one leader or even recognized governing body of said movement) to influence science classrooms, sure. But what happened before this is people were questions certain evolution assumptions and data.

If you don't understand why reasoning people have moved beyond reasonable doubt that the Moon is not made of cheese, you should not be arguing in any kind of formal or informal debate.

 

[columbus]

This sort of thing kinda makes me crazy.
People who, like myself, vehemently oppose elective abortion also oppose effective steps to reduce them. What is with that?
From defunding PP to acting like
sex ed is encouraging irresponsible behavior, it's almost like people want abortion to continue so they have something to feel self righteous and angry about. This makes me very annoyed.
Tom

@BilliardsBall
I posted this last year, but I never got a response from you (who I quoted) or any other religious poster who opposes elective abortion.
I want to see elective feticide go away. I'm a hard core pro-lifer, I am opposed to human beings choosing death for other human beings.
Two of the best, statistically speaking, ways of reducing abortion as a form of birth control are Planned Parenthood and age appropriate sex education. So I support those efforts.
If you have better ideas please tell us all about them.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't understand why reasoning people have moved beyond reasonable doubt that the Moon is not made of cheese, you should not be arguing in any kind of formal or informal debate.

I understand why. My point all through this is that you don't seem to understand why, because you haven't applied the same reasoning to other beliefs that you hold.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall
I posted this last year, but I never got a response from you (who I quoted) or any other religious poster who opposes elective abortion.
I want to see elective feticide go away. I'm a hard core pro-lifer, I am opposed to human beings choosing death for other human beings.
Two of the best, statistically speaking, ways of reducing abortion as a form of birth control are Planned Parenthood and age appropriate sex education. So I support those efforts.
If you have better ideas please tell us all about them.
Tom

I'm sorry I neglected to reply. Statistically speaking, the fastest way to significantly reduce abortions isn't via more education and more spending, but by overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortions not saving the life of the mother utterly illegal.