The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran

[Jumi]

North Korea does not have on open internet, they have a North Korea only internet, from what I have read.

Only the elites are allowed real internet, the same people who are allowed to go foreign countries while their families are basically hostage in their homeland. The rest, well, if you don't have a computer or even a smart phone or electricity most of time...

 

[1robin]

Then by your reckoning, Hitler is innocent if he was never convicted. OJ is also innocent (of murder).

Oh come off it. Hitler himself laid claim to enough things to justify a hundred life sentences. I don't know whether OJ is guilty of murder or not.

Why don't you stop trying to take off ramps and instead deal with the person you brought up? There is no case and so far no evidence against Moore. However Jones willingly admits to supporting the murder of human life in the womb on an industrial scale.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that this is not a court of law, that there is no legal action against Moore yet.

Yep, no legal action, no admission, no case, no evidence, no-anything that makes voting for Moore morally unjustifiable.

You haven't brought logic to the discussion. You're committing a special pleading fallacy. You have a different standard for Hitler than for Trump and Moore.

1. Yes I have.
2. No I have not.
3. and no I do not.

The facts are that there is a credible case against both Trump and Moore, and many of your own agree. The facts are that many people agree that neither of those men are fit for public office. That facts are that it is unwise to put people like that in positions of power or authority. No other facts pertain.

No there is not however it is for the people of my state to determine concerning Moore and it appears most of Moore's original supporters don't believe the accusations. Of course many people don't like who ever it is that gets elected. So what? That has been true of every person ever elected in our entire history. What a ridiculous argument.

The hypocrisy coming from the American right these days could gag a maggot.

The hypocrisy of just the Clinton's alone (not to mention the left in general) could gag a Spinosaurus. There is zero hypocrisy in voting for a candidate from one's own party whom they consider allegations about as complete lies and lacking any evidence.

 

[1robin]

I cited IANS post that you poured derision on.

No derision was poured out on anything. This discussion requires no drama queens or sensationalists.

Fyi, why do you think yourself so important that someone s going to backtrack the thread reading your posts?

Your burden has nothing to do with my importance. If you respond to something someone says it is your responsibility to know hat was said and it's context.

Wrong, the internet is global, not just state controlled. Although many state leader's would like control and are creeping in bit by bit to take control, its some time off yet.

The internet is not a globe of any kind and countries can easily restrict it. In fact my own company along with most secure facilities control internet content.

Actually you are correct, referring to fox as a source is funny, that's why i laughed.

What the heck?

In North Korea, the Constitution provides for "freedom of religious belief"; the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a secular state. The US and South Korean governments are the main sources of information on religion in North Korea.

I am referring to reality in what actually occurs in North Korea and have provided overwhelming evidence for my conclusions. Is a piece of almost universally accepted propaganda the best response you could muster.

Hence the reason your links are considered propaganda.

Your gullibility and/or intentional bias is so appalling our discussion is becoming unjustifiable. It is the consensus view that NK is among (if not the) most propagandized nations to have ever existed. My links (among the thousands I could have given and which you would not have read either) are correct, your views are derived from the lunatic fringe.

Once again from the top:
Not that freedom of religion was ever the issue anyway but,
Rare Video of North Korean Underground Christians
North Korea: The World's Worst Religious Persecutor | HuffPost
Ask a North Korean: is religion allowed?
Christian Persecution in North Korea | Open Doors USA
See JUMI's last post as well.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

However Jones willingly admits to supporting the murder of human life in the womb on an industrial scale.

Murder is the legal term for the premeditated killing of a person. Foetuses are not legally people. Try again.

 

[james bond]

This is why theistic states are so dangerous.



More brutal authoritarian regimes just like the Jews of the Old Testament. Gott mit uns, right? Stalinism is just more religion with Stalin as the god.

Secular humanism is the answer. Enlightenment values have brought the greatest benefits to the world it has ever known, including the modern, liberal, democratic state with its limited, divided, transparent government and guaranteed personal liberties. Christianity orders people to submit to the whim of kings, and had no use for either limited power or rights.

And while theists were tearing the beating hearts out of living people, or throwing acid into peoples, sacrificing children to various gods, and burning witches at the stake to appease imagined gods made in their own brutal images, enlightenment values taught us to shed those superstitions, question authority and dogma, apply reason, examine evidence, and to tolerate:

• "We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence" - Affirmations of Humanism

>>IANS: Secular humanism is the answer.<<

Communism is never the answer. Already you're headed towards Communism via Marxist humanism. I would think this would lead to the apocalypse.

The Biblical prophecy is of the end of the world due to a battle between God and sin (Satan). It seems Sir Isaac Newton and I think the end will come around 2060 (our lifetime). Mine is swag based on hodgepodge of what JW think, Nostradamus and the Nash Equilibrium. It's a strange coincidence that we both came up with 2060 ha ha.

http://triumphpro.com/isaac-newton-and-end-time-prophecies-of-daniel.pdf

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no case and so far no evidence against Moore.

Yet somehow, even Republicans including Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney have disavowed Moore. Interesting that they did so with no evidence. One might think that they would need credible evidence to do that. But I guess not, huh?

The evidence is substantial. You've got corroborated eye-witness testimony and multiple complainants, as well as year book entry and a banning from a mall. Would you allow such a person to date your 14-year old?

Of course not. Nobody would.

But to about half of the state, he can Alabama's senator.

However Jones willingly admits to supporting the murder of human life in the womb on an industrial scale.

No. Abortion is not murder if done legally. Look up what murder means.

Yep, no legal action, no admission, no case, no evidence, no-anything that makes voting for Moore morally unjustifiable.

Your standards for moral fitness are not mine.

No there is not however it is for the people of my state to determine concerning Moore and it appears most of Moore's original supporters don't believe the accusations.

It appears that much of Alabama doesn't care if Moore is a child molester. Many, including Alabama's governor, have said so in so many words. Many of these same people that will be voting for him would object to him groping their 14-year old daughter

The hypocrisy of just the Clinton's alone (not to mention the left in general) could gag a Spinosaurus. There is zero hypocrisy in voting for a candidate from one's own party whom they consider allegations about as complete lies and lacking any evidence.

More whataboutery? "Look over there! It's a Clinton!"

That's old news and irrelevant. You're dwelling in the past as a distraction. The Clintons are private citizens.

Trump sits in the White House now and Moore want to be on the senate soon. Their moral character matters in the present and future.

 

[1robin]

Murder is the legal term for the premeditated killing of a person. Foetuses are not legally people. Try again.

No one knows if an unborn child has a soul or not. Making up arbitrary stages of development pulled out of thin air resulting in the death of human life in an industrial scale. Based simply on convenience is about as evil an act as a person could possibly engage in.

1. Christians do not know when a child receives a soul (perhaps in the womb) or when it has inalienable rights to due process before being chopped to pieces. So we gamble on life.
2. Secularists do not know when a child receives a soul (perhaps in the womb) or when it has inalienable rights to due process before being chopped to pieces. So secularists make up variable stages at which the fetus can be murdered. They gamble for life.

You can play semantic games all you want but if objective morality exists group 2 is about as deeply entrenched on the wrong side of the line as they could be.

1. How do you (or any leftist) know when a Fetus has inherent rites?
2. How do you knew if or when it has a soul?

Your the one that must rationalize the absolute evil you support, not me. Is the semantic technicality you coughed up to kill millions of human lives really the best you could do? This type of moral insanity is absolutely disgusting. Want to give it another shot?

One last question, do you believe that any act of any kind is actually good or evil?

 

[1robin]

Yet somehow, even Republicans including Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney have disavowed Moore. Interesting that they did so with no evidence. One might think that they would need credible evidence to do that. But I guess not, huh?

They did so for the exact same reason the liberals do so, they do not want a heavily right wing member of Congress. And I do not care if the rest of the world believed Moore was guilty the case against him stinks.

The evidence is substantial. You've got corroborated eye-witness testimony and multiple complainants, as well as year book entry and a banning from a mall. Would you allow such a person to date your 14-year old?

There is very little corroboration among Moore's accusers, usually just more of the same unsubstantiated statements. This whole thing is political from A - Z, in the same way the completely empty Russian collusion case is. First of all signing a year book is not a crime last I checked and second every request it be turned over or submitted to handwriting experts has been denied. The only reason to withhold evidence is that the evidence sucks. Also the woman with the year book issue admitted to be the author of the non-signature text herself.

Why are you so concerned about a guy who is not in office, from another state, who denies the allegations, and on whom no one will produce any actual evidence instead of people like Franken where there is photographic evidence and who is in office. Or the Clinton's who have a string of over a hundred mysterious deaths that track their careers and whom (despite Hillarie's smear campaigns) have settled more sexual misconduct suites (including actual rape) that I can count. Your being unbelievably hypocritical.

Of course not. Nobody would.

Asking a question you answer indicates you do not understand how to debate and have no actual point.

But to about half of the state, he can Alabama's senator.

What?

No. Abortion is not murder if done legally. Look up what murder means.

To avoid the meaningless semantic technicality lets call it the killing of human life for the sake of convenience. Your for a guy who willingly stands for that but against a guy who emphatically denies any sexual misconduct. You do not get all the facts I do because I listen to local news coverage everyday and live in Alabama but this is just a political tactic. They waited decades only to come out right before an election when in Alabama the ballot can't be changed and a trial can't be concluded. I will give it to leftists, their usually evil but they are very good at it. It is as if Saul Alinsky rules for radicals is read at leftist seminars, nurseries, or something like that.

Your standards for moral fitness are not mine.

Fortunately between us the only person's morals that matter in this case are mine.

Do you believe that morality is objective or simply equal to what you prefer?

It appears that much of Alabama doesn't care if Moore is a child molester. Many, including Alabama's governor, have said so in so many words. Many of these same people that will be voting for him would object to him groping their 14-year old daughter

That is pathetically untrue and you know it. Half of us just don't consider the accusations true but I am for having the trial that the leftists purposefully denied us. However, something entirely different is true. Half the state does not care if their candidate is for killing off human life for the sake of convenience on an industrial scale. The hypocrisy and moral insanity of this is disgusting.

More whataboutery? "Look over there! It's a Clinton!"

That's old news and irrelevant. You're dwelling in the past as a distraction. The Clintons are private citizens.

Trump sits in the White House now and Moore want to be on the senate soon. Their moral character matters in the present and future.

No, you obviously do not know what actual hypocrisy looks like so I gave you one of the greatest examples of it in political history. I didn't say anything about Moore's being any more or less guilty because the Clinton's are among the most corrupt politicians in US history. Their picture should literally be next to the words hypocrisy and corruption in encyclopedias. Obama and Nixon combined can't even hold a candle to the Clintons.


BTW you keep saying Trump this and Trump that (which is the same whataboutery you accused me of ) but I have not defended or attacked him. I have pretty much ignored him because I am actually trying to stick to the original issue more than you are.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one knows if an unborn child has a soul or not.

Nobody knows what a soul is, or has ever seen a soul, or has any reason to believe that such a thing exist. At this point, soul is just a word without a known referent in reality.

if objective morality exists group 2 is about as deeply entrenched on the wrong side of the line as they could be.

There is no more reason to believe in an objective morality than in a soul, or that you would know what that objective moral code was if it did.

Your the one that must rationalize the absolute evil you support, not me.

Nothing is evil because an ancient holy book has declared it such. Try again.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No one knows if an unborn child has a soul or not.

As the presence or lack of a soul is not used to determine the legal definition of personhood, your point is irrelevant.

Making up arbitrary stages of development pulled out of thin air resulting in the death of human life in an industrial scale.

Incorrect. This is really identifying key stages of foetal development based on very observable physical growth in the womb.

Based simply on convenience is about as evil an act as a person could possibly engage in.

I look forward to the day when self proclaimed 'pro-lifers'

• start blaming your god for the perfectly healthy women who go through the tragedy of a miscarriage;
• start being consistently 'pro-life' and don't argue against welfare programs that help poorer families or vulnerable people such as new mothers;
• start being consistently 'pro-life' by campaigning against war, environmental exploitation, lax gun controls and the like which results in loss of life;
• recognise their approach is inconsistent because while they croak about defending peoples' rights, they're actually stepping on them;
• recognise that as people women have a right to bodily autonomy, and stop trying to shame them for exercising this by picketing abortion clinics;

Until they do all of this, 'pro-lifers' are just virtue-signalling.

1. Christians do not know when a child receives a soul (perhaps in the womb) or when it has inalienable rights to due process before being chopped to pieces. So we gamble on life.
2. Secularists do not know when a child receives a soul (perhaps in the womb) or when it has inalienable rights to due process before being chopped to pieces. So secularists make up variable stages at which the fetus can be murdered. They gamble for life.

Again, since a soul or lack thereof is not a defining factor in attributing legal rights nor the legal definition of personhood, this point is moot. Also, I'm not sure what "they gamble on/for life" means in this context but it sounds like self-satisfying nonsense.

You can play semantic games all you want but if objective morality exists

And there's no reason to assume it does.

group 2 is about as deeply entrenched on the wrong side of the line as they could be.

This statement is both hilariously self-satisfying and hypocritical in the extreme. I'll explain why at the bottom of my post.

1. How do you (or any leftist) know when a Fetus has inherent rites?

It has rights when it legally becomes a person; and that happens when the foetus is born.

2. How do you knew if or when it has a soul?

I don't and neither do you. I leave such questions regarding the nature of souls and when they enter or leave a body to philosophers who can articulate their position without ad hominems.

Your the one that must rationalize the absolute evil you support, not me. Is the semantic technicality you coughed up to kill millions of human lives really the best you could do? This type of moral insanity is absolutely disgusting. Want to give it another shot?

Okay, this is where I take your arrogance apart.

1. On the accusation of semantics: if I'm being semantic because I challenge your deliberate mis-defining of words (in this case, 'person') and your attempts to shoehorn this strange definition into an argument as if it is commonly agreed upon, then I take full ownership of the accusation 'semantic' and wear it proudly. I refuse to let your attempts to muddy the waters go unchallenged. Your trying to define the definition of personhood as a moral definition instead of a legal one is disingenuous and makes you seem untrustworthy;
2. You act as if your side (the pro-life anti-choice) of the argument is squeaky clean in terms of morals when this is far from the case. You've yet to explain the elephant in the room which is why you care so much about abortions performed by humans but not those performed by your god. Don't bother though because we both know the only way you can come close to justifying this double standard boils down to nothing more than 'because he's God' which is special pleading;
3. Since you're so interested in defending the rights of 'people', consider this:

• Under anti-choice logic: foetuses are people. Because they are people they inherently deserve rights such as to bodily autonomy and to life;
• Yet women are also people, but your position involves undermining their right to bodily autonomy and putting their lives at risk;
• Anti-choice logic would see womens' right to bodily autonomy stripped away to the point where they actually have less rights over themselves than a cadaver. 'Why a cadaver?', I hear you ask? Because it is illegal to harvest organs from a cadaver without the person's prior permission while they're alive. Since women will resultingly have less control over their own body than someone who is dead, your position is not 'pro-life';
• Anti-choice logic has actually resulted in the entirely preventable deaths of women in cases where pregnancy placed their health in jeopardy. Case in point: Savita Halappanavar, an Indian woman who died in Ireland in October 2012 because doctors refused her a life-saving abortion which would have saved her from the septic miscarriage that killed her. The foetus wasn't going to survive any way but doctors forced her to endure this miscarriage for 7 days. Savita's death could have been avoided but the law placed an equal value on the life of her miscarried foetus as it did on hers and said she wasn't allowed to decide what should happen with her own body.
• As a result, the anti-choice logic involves granting greater legal protection and rights to a non-viable (outside the womb) foetus than those granted to any breathing, sentient person. This is foolishness.
• Further, your self-righteous crusade to 'protect the rights of people' involves trampling on the rights of people. The pro-choice side of the argument does not do this because foetuses don't have rights since they're not born and, resultingly, aren't legally recognised as people. The legal definition of 'person', in this case, has been deliberated and argued over for quite some time - with the result being arrived at by consensus & compromise... and by a pragmatic recognition that this stance will minimise the harm involved, even if it can't stamp it out altogether.

One last question, do you believe that any act of any kind is actually good or evil?

Yes. I believe murder is evil. Just so we're clear: murder is the premeditated killing of someone who is legally a person. I also believe that forcing

• rape victims,
• women who were tricked into unprotected sex,
• women who were unable to obtain adequate sexual health services & amenities,
• or women who can't afford to have (any more) children

into living with the resulting consequences for the rest of their lives is deeply immoral.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Personally find this interesting that when based on a analytical perspective, it says the Jews have far more violent beliefs than Muslims; thus should either book be endorsed in society anymore, when they encourage such disgusting acts?

Like shouldn't we move on from the barbaric past that humans have had, instead of teach it to our children as religious values to live by.

In my opinion.

Well first before criticizing something, you should get an understanding of what and why certain things were done.

 

[1robin]

Nobody knows what a soul is, or has ever seen a soul, or has any reason to believe that such a thing exist. At this point, soul is just a word without a known referent in reality.

The same way with most of experimental science, but if there is a soul then you are depriving both God and the pitiful human life of it's purpose. However to make things easier on you and simpler over all. Lets forget the soul for a moment.

1. In almost all societies the moment a child is free of the room it is given or considered to possess numerous and sacred rights.
2. Can you give me a real, tangible, and justifiable reason to assume that 24hrs previous to birth it lacked those same rights?
3. And even if you accomplish that impossible task can you explain how you knew the answer?

There is no more reason to believe in an objective morality than in a soul, or that you would know what that objective moral code was if it did.

One thing is for certain, since most of the world's human population has abjectly disagreed with you. In one of the two cases 100% (including you act contrary to what you say you believe about morality). Then their existence should be taken far more seriously than you are. If I was a member of the group howling for the right to kill human life in the womb based on preference I would hope to have a far better justification than anything you have provided so far.

Nothing is evil because an ancient holy book has declared it such. Try again.

You do not even try and hide you hideous bias do you? What you responded had nothing to do with any ancient texts.

Your supporting mass killing of the most innocent of our own species for the sake of convenience. Your the one that is supposed to have to an air tight justification for it, not me.

Your starting to sound like Ivan from that famous play called "The Grand Inquisitor" who said: If God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want.
Saint Anselm Philosophy Blog » If God does not exist, is everything permitted?

You see how this is supposed to work: I make a claim, then I post a short excerpt from the larger work that contains my excerpt, then I give the link in case the other person in the discussion wants to do more research. The last step is almost certainly a waste of time in your case but why not do things right just because they are right?

 

[1robin]

As the presence or lack of a soul is not used to determine the legal definition of personhood, your point is irrelevant.

I know preference is used to determine that. My argument was not about what drives the fickle and corrupt legal system in this country but about what is theoretically at stake.

Lets make it even simpler.
1. Most cultures including the specific one we are talking about, the US, grants all manner of inherent rights and protection to a child the moment it free of the womb.

Forgetting for the moment that nature can not possibly grant of be the foundation for the inherent rights of anything.

2. What justification do you have to claim that 24hrs previous to leaving the womb the same child had none of those rights and protections for the sake of convenience?

Be warned I wouldn't use the bodily autonomy argument as a response. I will just shred it to pieces and watch it implode under it's own weight.

Incorrect. This is really identifying key stages of foetal development based on very observable physical growth in the womb.

No viable fetal state of an infant who's mothers life it doesn't threaten is relevant to that human being's right to life.

You probably already stated but could you please restate which arbitrary state of a fetus separates determines it's right to life? And where did you get it from?

Sorry, running out of time. I will try and go back and respond to the rest soon. Try to not get out in front of me too far until I catch up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if there is a soul then you are depriving both God and the pitiful human life of it's purpose

Sorry, but that's not an idea that has any meaning to me. What's a soul? Why do you think such a thing exists? Why do you believe that it does? Why should I?

And if I can deprive a god of anything, it'd certainly not omnipotent.

Can you give me a real, tangible, and justifiable reason to assume that 24hrs previous to birth it lacked those same rights?

That's how it is. Take it up with whoever made it that way. My entire interest in the abortion issue is this: Who in America decides if a pregnancy will be carried to term, the pregnant woman, or the Christian church using the force of the American government?

If I was a member of the group howling for the right to kill human life in the womb based on preference I would hope to have a far better justification than anything you have provided so far.

Howling? You must have me confused with a werewolf.

What justification do you have to claim that 24hrs previous to leaving the womb the same child had none of those rights and protections for the sake of convenience?

I haven't seen anybody making that argument but you.

 

[1robin]

I look forward to the day when self proclaimed 'pro-lifers'

• start blaming your god for the perfectly healthy women who go through the tragedy of a miscarriage;
• start being consistently 'pro-life' and don't argue against welfare programs that help poorer families or vulnerable people such as new mothers;
• start being consistently 'pro-life' by campaigning against war, environmental exploitation, lax gun controls and the like which results in loss of life;
• recognise their approach is inconsistent because while they croak about defending peoples' rights, they're actually stepping on them;
• recognise that as people women have a right to bodily autonomy, and stop trying to shame them for exercising this by picketing abortion clinics;

Until they do all of this, 'pro-lifers' are just virtue-signaling.

Continuing from the point I ran out of time:

1. In many cases we do blame God for miscarriages but I do not see any relevance to this. Comparing the deliberate act of killing human life in the womb and unintentional and undesirable biological tragedies is just silly. We desire neither but can only stop one of the two.
2. Conservative Christians are the most generous demographic on earth so your whole premise falls apart on your second point. We are not against helping the poor and the bible commands us to do so over and over again. We are just against the way the liberal nanny state that has arisen along with the secular revolution, functions. Charity is no longer used as a hand up, but has become a way to get votes and create dependence.
3. We do campaign against war but we also have the courage of our convictions which saved the world from tyranny at least twice. Environmental issues are more of a left right thing than a Christian secular thing. Guns save way more lives every year than are used in murders.
4. Our position is consistent we believe both the mother and the child have a right not to be murdered. It's your side that only extends that right to one of those groups.
5. So women have a sacred right to deprive human life of that exact same right in the womb based upon convenience. What happened to the bodily autonomy of the fetus? He receives a death sentence besides being the only innocent party involved.

If abortion is simply the removal of an unwanted biological anomaly why do so many women later suffer so many psychological problems associated with having one? They do not do so with tumors, skin tags, or varicose veins.

This is not a defense of anything, it is moral insanity and a pathetic attempt to rationalize that which can't be rationalized.

Again, since a soul or lack thereof is not a defining factor in attributing legal rights nor the legal definition of personhood, this point is moot. Also, I'm not sure what "they gamble on/for life" means in this context but it sounds like self-satisfying nonsense.

I already allowed the pathetic tactic of attempting to avoid the point by referring to a semantic technicality. You can take the word soul out of what you responded to and the core argument remains the same. You know, the part you didn't even attempt to respond to.

And there's no reason to assume it does.

Oh yes there is. The fact that every person that has ever lived has acted as if at least some objective moral values and duties do exist is a pretty big one to start with. See my point above about women having horrific psychological problems even years having an abortion.

If there are no objective moral values and duties then where do you get your ethics from?
If objective morality doesn't exist then I guess the gas chambers at Auschwitz were merely unfashionable, so no one should have risked their lives in attempts to stop the camp's functions.

This statement is both hilariously self-satisfying and hypocritical in the extreme. I'll explain why at the bottom of my post.

Your on such a great roll so far I can't wait.

It has rights when it legally becomes a person; and that happens when the foetus is born.

Below is what is required to make this a viable, just, and equitable process.

1. At some time a human being with infinite knowledge figured out exactly when every person that has ever been conceived becomes a person. A. No such being ever has nor ever will exist. B. This chronological point where a fetus becomes a person changes by person, state, nation, Empire, and over time.
2. Once this genius figures out that a fetus becomes a person he goes to the rights vault gathers up the child's rights and takes them to the pregnant Mom and magically gives them to the back. A. There is no vault full of rights. B no man possesses another's inherent rights.

I guess both requirements needed to make your process viable are non existent. Your just doing the equivalent of gambling on death based on a roll of the dice.

I don't and neither do you. I leave such questions regarding the nature of souls and when they enter or leave a body to philosophers who can articulate their position without ad hominems.

That's right neither me nor you know where the line between unjustified murder, and justifiable killing is concerning a fetus. The difference is how we react.

1. You react by arrogantly playing God and gambling on death.
2. I react by humbling admitting I do not know and gambling on life.

Okay, this is where I take your arrogance apart.

Arrogance (where it actually exists) can't be taken apart, only what it produces can be shown to be wrong.

1. On the accusation of semantics: if I'm being semantic because I challenge your deliberate mis-defining of words (in this case, 'person') and your attempts to shoehorn this strange definition into an argument as if it is commonly agreed upon, then I take full ownership of the accusation 'semantic' and wear it proudly. I refuse to let your attempts to muddy the waters go unchallenged. Your trying to define the definition of personhood as a moral definition instead of a legal one is disingenuous and makes you seem untrustworthy;

Labeling something a non-person does absolutely nothing to justify killing it. I was raised in the bible belt and we take the killing of some rodents more seriously than you do a human life. Not that personhood has anything to do with abortion but you not using it right either. Person = a human being regarded as an individual. Google. There are individual fetus', there is no collective fetus.

You act as if your side (the pro-life anti-choice) of the argument is squeaky clean in terms of morals when this is far from the case. You've yet to explain the elephant in the room which is why you care so much about abortions performed by humans but not those performed by your god. Don't bother though because we both know the only way you can come close to justifying this double standard boils down to nothing more than 'because he's God' which is special pleading;

No I do not, you just invented that out of this air. Christianity is a group composed of individuals bound be the characteristics of admitted moral failure, reliance of Christ to save us from our sins, and faith in God.

Since you're so interested in defending the rights of 'people', consider this:Under anti-choice logic: foetuses are people. Because they are people they inherently deserve rights such as to bodily autonomy and to life;Yet women are also people, but your position involves undermining their right to bodily autonomy and putting their lives at risk;

Wrong. One party is being deprived of convenience while the other party is being deprived of everything including it's life.

Anti-choice logic would see womens' right to bodily autonomy stripped away to the point where they actually have less rights over themselves than a cadaver. 'Why a cadaver?', I hear you ask? Because it is illegal to harvest organs from a cadaver without the person's prior permission while they're alive. Since women will resultingly have less control over their own body than someone who is dead, your position is not 'pro-life';

It is moral insanity to demand autonomy of self at the expense of the autonomy of another. Especially since the whole situation was the result of the formers actions, not the latter's and because the latter can't defend it's self.

Anti-choice logic has actually resulted in the entirely preventable deaths of women in cases where pregnancy placed their health in jeopardy. Case in point: Savita Halappanavar, an Indian woman who died in Ireland in October 2012 because doctors refused her a life-saving abortion which would have saved her from the septic miscarriage that killed her. The foetus wasn't going to survive any way but doctors forced her to endure this miscarriage for 7 days. Savita's death could have been avoided but the law placed an equal value on the life of her miscarried foetus as it did on hers and said she wasn't allowed to decide what should happen with her own body.

That's like demanding a bloodless war or complete surrender. No position is 100% free of error. This is a terrible argument.

As a result, the anti-choice logic involves granting greater legal protection and rights to a non-viable (outside the womb) foetus than those granted to any breathing, sentient person. This is foolishness.

In these cases I am pro-choice. I do not support the rights of the fetus over the mother's LIFE, but I do over the mother's CONVENIENCE.

Further, your self-righteous crusade to 'protect the rights of people' involves trampling on the rights of people. The pro-choice side of the argument does not do this because foetuses don't have rights since they're not born and, resultingly, aren't legally recognised as people. The legal definition of 'person', in this case, has been deliberated and argued over for quite some time - with the result being arrived at by consensus & compromise... and by a pragmatic recognition that this stance will minimise the harm involved, even if it can't stamp it out altogether.

Come off it man. What is with the drama queen stuff? I am having a discussion not leading any crusade. Regardless, see the above for this point.

Yes. I believe murder is evil. Just so we're clear: murder is the premeditated killing of someone who is legally a person. I also believe that forcing

I thought you said that objective moral values and duties didn't exist.

rape victims,
[*]women who were tricked into unprotected sex,
[*]women who were unable to obtain adequate sexual health services & amenities,
[*]or women who can't afford to have (any more) children

into living with the resulting consequences for the rest of their lives is deeply immoral.

There are circumstances I would be in favor of choice but going through them all would require too much time. I am sticking with the original context of my post you can come along or keep obsessing about a tiny minority alone, if you wish.

Please post shorter, emphatically, and efficiently if possible. I have about 10 of you guys I have to respond to in round after round. Formatting a post like this takes forever.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but that's not an idea that has any meaning to me. What's a soul? Why do you think such a thing exists? Why do you believe that it does? Why should I?

It does not matter if something holds any meaning for you, it only matters whether it is true. If we were discussing Earth threatening asteroids and I said most of them are gobbled up by Jupiter's unimaginably strong gravity and size. If you responded with Jupiter is meaningless, would that have any effect on Jupiter's existence or how many asteroids it eats each year?

So does the soul exist? Since of the vast majority of mankind has always believed in a non-material self including many neuroscientists, neurologists, neuropharmacologists, and neurosergeons. You can't explain consciousness by materialism alone, about-ness has no natural explanation, as well certain near death experiences. I think the evidence is all on my side.

However you can remove the word soul from my core argument and it still functions just fine. Just so you don't waste our time chasing your own semantic tail in post after post. Lets find a word that we can both accept.

I know you don't seem to care to human life in the womb but hopefully you do care about it after birth. What quality inherent to a person would you say makes murder wrong. IOW we do not consider the killing of animals for sport as wrong, in your words why is killing humans for sport among the greatest of possible wrongs. That is as long we are talking about Human life in the womb 1 minute prior to your imaginary line where killing become murder.

And if I can deprive a god of anything, it'd certainly not omnipotent.

In any world where freewill exists God's will, will be thwarted. This has nothing to do his power to stop you, just his willingness to stop you.

That's how it is. Take it up with whoever made it that way. My entire interest in the abortion issue is this: Who in America decides if a pregnancy will be carried to term, the pregnant woman, or the Christian church using the force of the American government?

That is not how it is, the points in time when people are allowed by law are different and all over the spectrum. They are all over the place because no one knows where (or even if) they exist.

Again we are back in the same place.

1. I do not know when or if it is ever morally justified to kill a human life in the womb so I vote for life. Except in the tiny fraction of these cases where rape of the mother's health are involved.
2. You do not know when or if it is ever morally justified to kill a human life in the womb but you vote for death.

You take a position based on selfishness, convenience of the guilty over the innocent, and a lack of moral responsibility for which millions of lives are snuffed out before their voices can be heard, and call it a virtue. The morality train hasn't just left the tracks, it's left the planet.

Howling? You must have me confused with a werewolf.

Ok skip over the word howling and the rest of the excuses not to respond to my claim and try again.

I haven't seen anybody making that argument but you.

It wasn't an argument it was a question and even if I was the only person (and I am no) making asking that question your lack of having an answer is noted.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I know preference is used to determine that. My argument was not about what drives the fickle and corrupt legal system in this country but about what is theoretically at stake.

Well your argument is aimed at defining when a foetus should be legally recognised as a person so you're arguing the wrong thing here. And for "fickle and corrupt legal system" read, 'a legal system that deviates from my own personal dogma in the slightest way'.

Lets make it even simpler.
1. Most cultures including the specific one we are talking about, the US, grants all manner of inherent rights and protection to a child the moment it free of the womb.

Forgetting for the moment that nature can not possibly grant of be the foundation for the inherent rights of anything.

Why can't it? You accused me of making up 'arbitrary stages of development that I pulled out of thin air' to justify not granting a foetus legal personhood; now when I point out that this is based on very observable stages of development & natural processes, all of a sudden we can't use those processes? How is that in any way less reasonable than using an unevidenced concept such as a soul to determine whether or not someone ought to be legally recognised as a person?

2. What justification do you have to claim that 24hrs previous to leaving the womb the same child had none of those rights and protections for the sake of convenience?

They aren't legally people because they're not yet born and rely directly on someone else's body to sustain their life functions. That is why it is more important to grant bodily autonomy to the mother than the foetus.

Be warned I wouldn't use the bodily autonomy argument as a response. I will just shred it to pieces and watch it implode under it's own weight.

I think you're bluffing. No, that's the polite way of saying it; I think you're bull****ting. Given the fact that trying to reason with you thus far has been far more like pigeon chess than anything else I've experienced... yeah. You're definitely bull****ting.

No viable fetal state of an infant who's mothers life it doesn't threaten is relevant to that human being's right to life.

Why not? Because it's inconvenient to your notion that people (except pregnant women) deserve the right to bodily autonomy?

You probably already stated but could you please restate which arbitrary state of a fetus separates determines it's right to life? And where did you get it from?

Birth. Because once born, a baby is no longer directly relying on another person's body to survive.

Continuing from the point I ran out of time:

1. In many cases we do blame God for miscarriages but I do not see any relevance to this. Comparing the deliberate act of killing human life in the womb and unintentional and undesirable biological tragedies is just silly. We desire neither but can only stop one of the two.

Really? That's news to me. And the relevance is this: if your god is all-powerful then he has direct control over whether miscarriages happen or not. Er go miscarriages are not "unintentional and undesirable biological tragedies". So until you show the same level of contempt for your god because he aborts foetuses that you do for humans, you're hypocritical and virtue-signalling.

2. Conservative Christians are the most generous demographic on earth so your whole premise falls apart on your second point. We are not against helping the poor and the bible commands us to do so over and over again. We are just against the way the liberal nanny state that has arisen along with the secular revolution, functions. Charity is no longer used as a hand up, but has become a way to get votes and create dependence.

This is hilarious but I do need to ask you for a source to support your first assertion here. I readily believe that conservative Christians are generous when it comes to backing homophobic preachers pushing 'kill the gays' laws in Africa, or if you're campaigning for paedophilic/rapey politicians to 'stop Killary' or whatever the latest excuse is. But "the most generous" generally speaking? Nope, sorry. I'm not buying it. Evidence or retract.

3. We do campaign against war but we also have the courage of our convictions which saved the world from tyranny at least twice.

What wars are you talking about and, more importantly, what planet were they fought on? Because you are not describing any wars fought on Earth.

Environmental issues are more of a left right thing than a Christian secular thing.

So much for caring for the things your god apparently gave you dominion over.

Guns save way more lives every year than are used in murders.

I'd find this assertion hilarious if it wasn't so tragically bull**** and impossible to evidence. The sheer number of people killed every day in war, domestic shows you are really not paying attention.

4. Our position is consistent we believe both the mother and the child have a right not to be murdered. It's your side that only extends that right to one of those groups.

Your position is inconsistent because you insist that both mother & child deserve human rights, but your position involves consistently undermining the mother's right to bodily autonomy and puts her right to life at jeopardy. I've already given you a real world example of this being the case. And you've yet to give a reasoned argument as to why we should consider a foetus a person. All you've said so far is 'because it's human'.

So if I were to inject human DNA into a bacterium and let it replicate for a little bit, would you stop me from killing that bacterial culture 'because it's human'?

On the other hand if you're going to use the presence of a soul as an argument, but you admit to not knowing what a soul is or even if it exists, you cannot then say 'this lifeform has a soul and this one does not' with any meaningful conviction.

5. So women have a sacred right to deprive human life of that exact same right in the womb based upon convenience. What happened to the bodily autonomy of the fetus?

The foetus doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy because, not being born, it is:

1. not yet legally a person;
2. directly reliant on the mother's body to support it's life functions;

He receives a death sentence besides being the only innocent party involved.

I really hope you weren't including rape victims in this inferred status of not being innocent because to imply otherwise is absolutely abhorrent.

If abortion is simply the removal of an unwanted biological anomaly why do so many women later suffer so many psychological problems associated with having one? They do not do so with tumors, skin tags, or varicose veins.

For a number of reasons:

1. Women (and humans generally) haven't evolved a strong emotional attachment to tumours, skin tags or varicose veins as a method of ensuring our survival as a species;
2. The health risks of maintaining tumours aren't thrown out the window in any attempts to turn the issue of cancer into an emotive issue where the tumour has as much of a 'right to life' as the person it's slowly killing;
3. People aren't shamed as 'murderers' for going through chemo or whatever to get rid of a tumour by self-righteous jerks who would rather defend the 'right to life' of a ball of cells rather than a breathing, sentient person;

This is not a defense of anything, it is moral insanity and a pathetic attempt to rationalize that which can't be rationalized.

You can stop holding that 'Make Fun Of Me Now' sign.

I already allowed the pathetic tactic of attempting to avoid the point by referring to a semantic technicality.

Preventing you from misusing language & misrepresenting the meanings of words is not a "pathetic tactic"; it's called honesty. You know, 'Thou shalt not lie' and all that?

You can take the word soul out of what you responded to and the core argument remains the same.

I actually agree; take the word soul out and your argument is still self-righteous bull****. Keep telling yourself you've got the moral high ground while rape victims, pre- and early pubescent girls whose bodies aren't ****ing ready for something as strenuous as pregnancy & birth, and women who can't abort miscarrying/miscarried foetuses to save their own lives slowly bleed out on hospital beds.

You know, the part you didn't even attempt to respond to.

I must have gotten a little distracted. Which part are you referring to?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Oh yes there is. The fact that every person that has ever lived has acted as if at least some objective moral values and duties do exist is a pretty big one to start with.

That's not a fact; it's an assertion. One you cannot possibly evidence without time travel.

See my point above about women having horrific psychological problems even years having an abortion.

I've already given you reasons as to why that happens. Selfish, conceited anti-choicers who shame women daily for their choices are, strangely enough, part of the problem. If anti-choicers are really so concerned over women having psychological problems then maybe they shouldn't be standing outside abortion clinics screaming things like 'murderer' or 'spawn of Satan' or 'whore' at any women going in - i.e. contributing to those problems directly!

If there are no objective moral values and duties then where do you get your ethics from?

By observing what causes the greatest amount of benefit/least amount of harm to humanity and life generally. More often than not it's a trade off between causing as little harm as possible and protecting people's rights. Which is why black-and-white views on ethics such as yours make literally no sense. Being 'pro-life' doesn't mean much of anything when your position kills women and girls around the world.

If objective morality doesn't exist then I guess the gas chambers at Auschwitz were merely unfashionable, so no one should have risked their lives in attempts to stop the camp's functions.

If the only thing stopping you from going out committing genocide is the moral system you've had spoon-fed to you and told what to believe then you are not moral. Quite obviously the sheer amount of pointless harm and waste of living, breathing, sentient people is the worst thing about the Holocaust. Also, you've just shown your assertion that your conservative Christianity means you value life to be a lie. You are definitely anti-choice, not pro-life.

Below is what is required to make this a viable, just, and equitable process.

1. At some time a human being with infinite knowledge figured out exactly when every person that has ever been conceived becomes a person. A. No such being ever has nor ever will exist. B. This chronological point where a fetus becomes a person changes by person, state, nation, Empire, and over time.
2. Once this genius figures out that a fetus becomes a person he goes to the rights vault gathers up the child's rights and takes them to the pregnant Mom and magically gives them to the back. A. There is no vault full of rights. B no man possesses another's inherent rights.

I guess both requirements needed to make your process viable are non existent. Your just doing the equivalent of gambling on death based on a roll of the dice.

That might just have been the single greatest strawman I've ever seen. And you built it all by yourself. I am genuinely impressed. Well done.

That's right neither me nor you know where the line between unjustified murder, and justifiable killing is concerning a fetus. The difference is how we react.

1. You react by arrogantly playing God and gambling on death.
2. I react by humbling admitting I do not know and gambling on life.

The line between "unjustified murder and justifiable killing concerning a foetus" is not determined by the presence or lack of a soul. No matter how many times you insist it does, it will never be true simply for being asserted.

Arrogance (where it actually exists) can't be taken apart, only what it produces can be shown to be wrong.

Ha! How shallow your accusations of being semantic sound now...

Labeling something a non-person does absolutely nothing to justify killing it.

I'm not disputing that aborting a foetus is killing it. I'm disputing your misapplication of the legal term 'murder'. What you call 'semantics', other people call 'nuance'.

I was raised in the bible belt and we take the killing of some rodents more seriously than you do a human life. Not that personhood has anything to do with abortion but you not using it right either.

Except when it comes to minorities like trans people or blacks. Get off your high horse.

Person = a human being regarded as an individual. Google. There are individual fetus', there is no collective fetus.

Google does not trump lawmakers in defining the legal definition of 'personhood'.

No I do not, you just invented that out of this air. Christianity is a group composed of individuals bound be the characteristics of admitted moral failure, reliance of Christ to save us from our sins, and faith in God.

I invented it from what you're posting in this thread, actually. For example:

Fortunately between us the only person's morals that matter in this case are mine.

That's you saying your morals are greater than ours simply because we disagree.

Wrong. One party is being deprived of convenience while the other party is being deprived of everything including it's life.
It is moral insanity to demand autonomy of self at the expense of the autonomy of another. Especially since the whole situation was the result of the formers actions, not the latter's and because the latter can't defend it's self.
That's like demanding a bloodless war or complete surrender. No position is 100% free of error. This is a terrible argument.

This is nonsense. In the case of a foetus, it depends entirely on its mother's body for survival while it's developing; why not prioritise her needs over those of the foetus? If the mother dies, the foetus will die too - if the foetus dies, the mother can still survive.

In these cases I am pro-choice. I do not support the rights of the fetus over the mother's LIFE, but I do over the mother's CONVENIENCE.

No. You're not pro-choice. You're sitting here advocating a position where you get to tell women what to do with their bodies. You are actively seeking to prevent them from making choices in regard to what happens with their bodies. You do not get to call yourself pro-choice. This is exactly the sort of disingenuous, dishonest twisting of the meanings of words & terms I was referring to earlier. If calling you out on this means I'm a semantic then I'll wear that label proudly.

Come off it man. What is with the drama queen stuff? I am having a discussion not leading any crusade. Regardless, see the above for this point.

Saying "Fortunately between us the only person's morals that matter in this case are mine." is not having a discussion. You are preaching while showing contempt for any views that challenge your own. Also, none of that is drama queen stuff; it's based on observations made of the anti-choice movement. You claim to be pro-life but how many times has this position resulted in completely avoidable deaths? It rings hollow.

I thought you said that objective moral values and duties didn't exist.

That isn't an objective moral value; it's my opinion. Which you asked for.

There are circumstances I would be in favor of choice but going through them all would require too much time.

Clarifying your position would take too much time...

This is why I'm now realising that debating with you is like playing pigeon chess.

I am sticking with the original context of my post you can come along or keep obsessing about a tiny minority alone, if you wish.

This "tiny minority" is more numerous than you think. Furthermore, how can you be so callous to their suffering that you won't even factor them into your points?

Please post shorter, emphatically, and efficiently if possible. I have about 10 of you guys I have to respond to in round after round. Formatting a post like this takes forever.

No. I'll take as much time and space to make my response as I see fit. This is actually the second time I've wrote this whole post out - I wrote part of it out, saved the draft and for some reason my browser/RF decided to delete it. If you've got yourself into a position where you're arguing against about ten of us then I have no sympathy for you. That said, you're not under any sort of time-related constraint to respond to me or anybody. Take as much time as you need.

 

[1robin]

I think you're bluffing. No, that's the polite way of saying it; I think you're bull****ting. Given the fact that trying to reason with you thus far has been far more like pigeon chess than anything else I've experienced... yeah. You're definitely bull****ting.

Sure, why be polite when you can be disgusting? I will give you at least one reason. When I was in the military I had put up with foul language and debauchery of all forms, but in a debate I can just tune you out. If (and only if) you go through both this and your next post and edit out all the actual or implied vulgarity will I respond to anything of substance that survives the purge. If not I will just ignore you and move on.

The unnecessary and over indulgent usage of disgusting language suggests a lot about you and your arguments.

1. It says your arguments are based on emotion and therefore facts, evidence, and reason are of no use. And that your trying to use sensationalism to make a point, where you couldn't make it using reason.The typical standards of any card carrying lefty.
2. What it says about you personally I will leave un-typed.
3. I also believe it probably violates forum rules but your arguments are too trivial to illicit the care required to bother checking.

So it's up to you. Go back and edit your post and the next (in full) for decency, appropriateness, and relevance or I will ignore you and leave you wallowing in your own misery and dissatisfaction with the world in general.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sure, why be polite when you can be disgusting? I will give you at least one reason. When I was in the military I had put up with foul language and debauchery of all forms, but in a debate I can just tune you out. If (and only if) you go through both this and your next post and edit out all the actual or implied vulgarity will I respond to anything of substance that survives the purge. If not I will just ignore you and move on.

The unnecessary and over indulgent usage of disgusting language suggests a lot about you and your arguments.

I actually wondered if you'd take this path. I'm sorry to see my intuition was proved right in this case.

If you're going to resort to snobbishly pretending my arguments hold no weight simply because I use swears occasionally then you're just copping out. An intelligent person can look past such petty complaints as swear words and focus on the issue being discussed. But as you've already established in previous posts you aren't interested (or even capable) of discussing this issue rationally.

It's not surprising in the least that you'd resort to tone policing given the fact you've already resorted to double-standards; and you've now doubled down on this hypocrisy with the following:

1. It says your arguments are based on emotion and therefore facts, evidence, and reason are of no use. And that your trying to use sensationalism to make a point, where you couldn't make it using reason.The typical standards of any card carrying lefty.
2. What it says about you personally I will leave un-typed.
3. I also believe it probably violates forum rules but your arguments are too trivial to illicit the care required to bother checking.

So it's up to you. Go back and edit your post and the next (in full) for decency, appropriateness, and relevance or I will ignore you and leave you wallowing in your own misery and dissatisfaction with the world in general.

You've got some nerve accusing anyone of making emotive arguments considering your position thus far has consisted of:

1. calling everyone who disagrees with you 'immoral', 'morally insane' or whatever snide ad hominem you can think of;
2. consistently using emotive language and appeals to moral authority;
3. dismissing observable evidence, the scientific process and reason-based thinking simply because it disagrees with your beliefs;
4. getting uppity because I swear occasionally.

It's impossible to take you or your position seriously. Right-wingers who get offended by a little foul language have no right to call anybody else 'snowflakes' when the presence of the F-bomb is enough to send them into hysteria as above.

If a swear word here or there puts your back up so badly then I suggest you remove yourself to an environment where you won't have to worry about such things. The Internet is clearly no place for you.

P.S. That stuff about me "wallowing in my own misery and dissatisfaction with the world in general" is some fantastic projection coming from someone who literally believes humans are sinful, benighted creatures and a legal system has to be corrupt if it makes laws which don't square with your moral outlook.