It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[Sheldon]

No... I just don't answer irrational and unsupported statements (which you so commonly give).

Quote one...

 

[Kenny]

Quote one...

Google mermaids are real, it's your criteria, so one assumes you now believe mermaids are real?

"I've seen a miracle" is no different than "I've seen mermaids", and miracles are defined to infer an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, they are irrational by definition.

They are medically verified. Comparing it to googling mermaids?

to an insentient clump of cells that is part of her body.

How do you know if it is insentient? When is it sentient?

I am not pro abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I am against enslaving women by removing their bodily autonomy.

Enslaving?

 

[viole]

Strawman? Moving goal posts? is it because I showed that your position wasn't a good one?

You are looking desperate to me. Which is OK if I believed what you believe, I would very well expect the same.

So, again very simple question. Which you failed to answer. Do you agree that a one hour old embryo, and a three years old girl, are subject to the same exact moral considerations? Yes, or no?

What is so difficult about that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

You are looking desperate to me. Which is OK if I believed what you believe, I would very well expect the same.

So, again very simple question. Which you failed to answer. Do you agree that a one hour old embryo, and a three years old girl, are subject to the same exact moral considerations? Yes, or no?

Ciao

- viole

Perspective on who is desperate?

Should an embryo and 3 year old have the same moral considerations? yes.

 

[Sheldon]

They are medically verified. Comparing it to googling mermaids?

That's just a claim, you offered no medical verification, and I offered a comparable claim. Which principle of logic does that violate? Also miracle is defined as an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. So the claim that medical science can verify a miracle is a pretty obvious contradiction. Either way my response was neither unverified nor irrational. I don't believe your bare unevidenced claims of course. it's preposterous nonsense.

Here is your original claim, without any evidence whatsoever, and my response, the inference is pretty obvious, so what you needed verified there, or what is irrational must be just in your mind.

You ought to google "verified medical miracles" Objective, empirical and verifiable.

Google mermaids are real, it's your criteria, so one assumes you now believe mermaids are real?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know if it is insentient? When is it sentient?

Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

"...connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation...

Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus."

So again you will have to explain how you the claim is unverified or irrational?

Enslaving?

Enslave
...cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action.

Oh dear...Now you need word definitions verified. Again this claim was neither unverified nor irrational.

No... I just don't answer irrational and unsupported statements (which you so commonly give). Thus... get back to me when you have something substantive.

You made it up, and it's bs used to obfuscate and evade answering challenges to your claims. Then this does seem to be your raison d'etre.

 

[viole]

Perspective on who is desperate?

Should an embryo and 3 year old have the same moral considerations? yes.

So, assuming you live in a place where death penalty is issued when killing a three years old girl, do you agree that the same penalty should be applied to a woman who aborted a few hours old human embryo? Or because she took the day after pill?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sheldon]

You are looking desperate to me. Which is OK if I believed what you believe, I would very well expect the same.

So, again very simple question. Which you failed to answer. Do you agree that a one hour old embryo, and a three years old girl, are subject to the same exact moral considerations? Yes, or no?

What is so difficult about that?

Ciao

- viole

He likes to reel off claims, then when they are refuted resorts to vapid hand waving and ad hominem. Mostly the posts are tediously passive aggressive, when his beliefs and claims are subjected to critical scrutiny.

 

[Sheldon]

Should an embryo and 3 year old have the same moral considerations? yes.

A three year old girl is a sentient human being, an embryo is not, and is part of and dependant on the woman's body it is developing in.

 

[Kenny]

A three year old girl is a sentient human being, an embryo is not, and is part of and dependant on the woman's body it is developing in.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't prove the girl in the body isn't sentient. All you did was state an opinion. I can deduct that the other two points also supported my statement to get back to me when you have a substantive question or discussion.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't prove the girl in the body isn't sentient. All you did was state an opinion. I can deduct that the other two points also supported my statement to get back to me when you have a substantive question or discussion.

The evidence for the lack of sentience in a developing foetus has been presented, (#205). Get back to me when you have something other than smug biased hand waving.

 

[Heyo]

Abortion is not natural. It is a manmade or synthetic procedure. If we take way science, the tools of the doctor and the money of the bean counters, abortion would become very limited.

Abortion does not grow on trees.

Not exactly trees but there are a few herbs which are abortifacients. They are neither as effective nor as secure as pharmacological abortifacients. These plants have been known by women at least back in ancient times, probably earlier.

They wish to go natural, but not all the way.

As I said, often artificial is better.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I just saw this on youtube. Do any Christians have a response to it? It also mentions the verse @KenS brought up on page 1. But the creator uses the same verse to argue against the Bible featuring a positive valuation of unborn life. According to him, if a man was seen by God to have taken a life, the penalty would be death.

 

[Kenny]

I just saw this on youtube. Do any Christians have a response to it? It also mentions the verse @KenS brought up on page 1. But the creator uses the same verse to argue against the Bible featuring a positive valuation of unborn life. According to him, if a man was seen by God to have taken a life, the penalty would be death.

I see this as a misapplication of a verse (although as a believer in Christ it doesn't apply to me) and just a little over dramatized. did you notice a slight anti-bible hue to his video?

Notice the verse it quotes, words to be looked at in bold:

"13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;"

When you are pregnant, it isn't hid and nowhere does it say she was pregnant. As a matter of fact look at this verse:

28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she will be free and conceive children.

Notice that if she were pregnant it doesn't quite fit the verse. If she is already pregnant the statement "free and conceive children" has an understanding of "future" and not "present" for otherwise it would have said "and be free to conceive her child".

So a little twisting of wording for whatever purpose is behind his statement.

As a side note, we understand that grace is what God gives through Jesus Christ and to love the person who committed adultery as well as those who experienced abortions.

 

[ppp]

Get back to me when you have real questions and substantive answers.

He did. You are just ducking and running when called on your hollow claims.

 

[Truth in love]

There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.

No more hypocrisy than a surgeon objecting to a stabbing.

 

[Kenny]

He did. You are just ducking and running when called on your hollow claims.

Dream on.

 

[ppp]

Dream on

Dreaming stuff up is your thing. I am comfortable with reality.

 

[Kenny]

Dreaming stuff up is your thing. I am comfortable with reality.

I think we have a scripture for that:
PHILLIPS
The preaching of the cross is, I know, nonsense to those who are involved in this dying world, but to us who are being saved from that death it is nothing less than the power of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exodus 21:22, 23
22 “If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely*a but no fatality* results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges.b 23 But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life,*

The principle here is that we choose life and not abortion... hardly hypocritical.

This verse doesn't deal with abortion at all.

 

[Kenny]

This verse doesn't deal with abortion at all.

You are correct... it deals with the value of an unborn child and its unnatural ejection from the womb.