[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Katganistan]

If it is objectively true, then prove it.

I define rights as those inalienable privileges which all humans have by nature of their human souls. As such, the idea of rights doesn't really make sense without a God. These rights are as much universal laws of things with human souls as gravity is a universal law of things with mass.

They may not make sense to YOU without a god, but they do make sense to people who actually take responsibility for their actions and reason out what is moral rather that abdicating responsibility and saying "They told me to."

Which ironically, didn't work well at Nuremberg either.

Prove a soul exists. I'd like to see an experimental write-up with sufficient measurements and documentation so that I can repeat the process myself.

Your Aquinas copypasta was insufficient.

Souls are by definition unmeasurable. What postulate or postulates do you reject from my former proof?

Then there is zero proof they exist.

It is, by definition, not murder where it is legal.

I'm sorry, It was just an expression, I'm just outraged. What kind of health policy is one in which two living beings enter a clinic and only one comes out alive while another is thrown into a bag of pathogenic waste.

The one in which you don't destroy two or more lives.

Then they don't exist.

No. If you want to go there, nothing exists, because measurement only exists through our senses, and we can't prove our senses are accurate.

Wrong.
Huge ass differece between "we believe on faith" and "this is repeatable and measurable by everyone who measures it and they all, by golly, come up with the same answer! If I put this US $1.00 banknote against a properly calibrated ruler, it's going to be six inches long. And it's going to be six inches long no matter who measures it, so long as their ruler is properly calibrated. A million people with accurate twelve inch rulers will ALL get the same answer of six inches, because it is measurable, and quantifiable."

Ridiculous assertions without proof, just loaded with emotion and gish galloping, is still ridiculous.

[Galloism]

No. If you want to go there, nothing exists, because measurement only exists through our senses, and we can't prove our senses are accurate.

Wrong.
Huge ass differece between "we believe on faith" and "this is repeatable and measurable by everyone who measures it and they all, by golly, come up with the same answer! If I put this US $1.00 banknote against a properly calibrated ruler, it's going to be six inches long. And it's going to be six inches long no matter who measures it, so long as their ruler is properly calibrated. A million people with accurate twelve inch rulers will ALL get the same answer of six inches, because it is measurable, and quantifiable."

Ridiculous assertions without proof, just loaded with emotion and gish galloping, is still ridiculous.

A dollar bill is actually 6.14 inches, a little over 6 1/8.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Kat, can you not Octuple post?

[Katganistan]

I'm sorry, It was just an expression, I'm just outraged. What kind of health policy is one in which two living beings enter a clinic and only one comes out alive while another is thrown into a bag of pathogenic waste.

Don't apologize. If the dictionary says that murder requires illegality, the dictionary is dead wrong. Whether or not something is murder is determined by the same who gave everyone the right to life, God Himself.

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

[Kowani]

Then they don't exist.

No. If you want to go there, nothing exists, because measurement only exists through our senses, and we can't prove our senses are accurate.

Irrelevant. Tell a starving child that they’re not really hungry. Nope, they’re still gonna die. It doesn’t matter whether we can prove that our senses are real or not, because they are the only thing we have to interact with reality with. Even if all my senses were wrong, it wouldn’t matter, because there wouldn’t be anything I could do about it.

[Luminesa]

Don't apologize. If the dictionary says that murder requires illegality, the dictionary is dead wrong. Whether or not something is murder is determined by the same who gave everyone the right to life, God Himself.

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

[Luminesa]

Kat, can you not Octuple post?

B-But so many people who are WRONG on the INTERNET!1!1! We must take down the ZEALOTS!1!1

Not to mention that this convo would be better suited for the Christian thread...but apparently going there is too hard, and threadjacking is a mod privilege only.

[NewLakotah]

Don't apologize. If the dictionary says that murder requires illegality, the dictionary is dead wrong. Whether or not something is murder is determined by the same who gave everyone the right to life, God Himself.

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

It is always funny when atheists attempt to quote the Bible in order to "prove" their point.

The Psalm quote is entirely misread, "murder" has already been defined, thus it cannot be murder, according to your own arguments at that...

[Necroghastia]

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

It doesn't look like Kat made any statements on why your god did those things, just pointing out that they happened. Your god, according to your own holy book, has the blood of innocents on its hands, so why should it be the arbiter of morality?

[Thepeopl]

Yes, apparently that is how it works. If you are pro death penalty, but against abortion; you make this distinction as well.

Well, I am anti-death penalty. However, then when you say, abortion isn't wrong, that's only true until it is defined by law as being wrong, then what, you pack up and go home because "well, im not for murder, so I guess I'm not pro-choice anymore?"

It is human nature to resort to murder/ killing, and (ab)using the environment ( both natural and social)

We as a species don't hold life "holy". We eat plants, animals, we pollute.

Laws just tell you the consequences of breaking arbitrary rules which reflect the social moral majority of that time.

I am very extreme. If we think life is "holy" how can we justify killing bacteria? Parasites? Animals?

I am pro choice because I think you really need to choose to raise a child. You have to be able to put its needs before yours. Waking up 4 times a night because it needs feeding, or if it is ill. Consoling a child when a loved one died and you are grieving as well, but you put that aside to take care of your child.
If you are divorcing the parent of your child and really hate the guts of said parent, you still have to realise that it will always be the parent of your child. So you will have to be polite to the ex, work together in the upbringing, don't blame the children. You can tell the truth as you see it, but keep in mind the age of the children and keep in mind that it is your view. The children are allowed to see things differently. Unless the person is physically/ mentally abusive of the children (they really fear the other person) you really should be supportive of visitation rights and happily ask how their time was with the other parent.
You need to love your children and want them to be happy and become a responsible, independent person.
If you really love someone, set them free. If they return, only love, understanding, acceptance and if asked, your advice should be waiting for them.

So no, even if the laws change, I will always be pro choice. You are not responsible for the damage done to you by your parents. If you feel you don't want to repeat their mistakes, don't have a child. Work on yourself to strife to get to this stage where you can truly love. So maybe in future you can raise a child as it should be done.

Teaching children love, morals, to critically think for themselves takes lifelong dedication. And ofcourse you are going to make mistakes, ofcourse you won't be able to always put your children before yourself. For that you need to forgive yourself. But it shouldn't be the excuse to just let babies be born and let them suffer a miserable youth

[Kowani]

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened.

It didn’t. The evidence is clear.

Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event.

No it isn’t.

Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world.

No it wasn’t.

Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart

The one God hardened?

, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations.

Nope. We know very well how life starts. No need for God.

[The Free Joy State]

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

Don't want to speak for Kat, but pretty sure she is a Christian.

As am I.

Now, how would you like to explain the Ordeal of Bitter Water, God's prescription for the first abortion in Numbers 5:11-31 -- where the woman drinks a substance guaranteed to force miscarriage if she has been unfaithful?

Or Exodus 21:22-25 -- which states a foetus is not of equal worth as -- if two men strive and hurt a woman with child -- and the woman miscarries, the attacker only pays a fine, whereas (if the woman herself is injured) the attacker suffers eye for an eye.

[Galloism]

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

It doesn't look like Kat made any statements on why your god did those things, just pointing out that they happened. Your god, according to your own holy book, has the blood of innocents on its hands, so why should it be the arbiter of morality?

Notably, even accepting the premise as true, this also excludes basically every form of human authority ever tried, without any significant exceptions.

[Luminesa]

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

It doesn't look like Kat made any statements on why your god did those things, just pointing out that they happened. Your god, according to your own holy book, has the blood of innocents on its hands, so why should it be the arbiter of morality?

This is still not a convo for the abortion thread, but more for the Christian thread. Also I was only pointing out that either on this version or another, all three of those points have already been answered. For a short answer, however, a painter has the freedom to take back or hide whatever they themselves have made. God made us. Therefore God can take us back or do what He wants. Kinda like how a parent might say, “I put you in this world, and I can take you out of it!” But literally. Especially since Christians believe He created everything. But again, Christian thread. Thanks.

[Katganistan]

Intent is irrelevant. All that matters to me is that a harm has been presented.

And technically, that is all that matters to the law, as well.

You're missing the point. Popular opinion doesn't change anything, no matter how popular.

Poppycock. The Betamax was the superior video tape technology of the day, but because more people bought the lower priced VHS machines, VHS became the video technology of the 70s-80s.

[Luminesa]

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

Don't want to speak for Kat, but pretty sure she is a Christian.

As am I.

Now, how would you like to explain the Ordeal of Bitter Water, God's prescription for the first abortion in Numbers 5:11-31 -- where the woman drinks a substance guaranteed to force miscarriage if she has been unfaithful?

Or Exodus 21:22-25 -- which states a foetus is not of equal worth as -- if two men strive and hurt a woman with child -- and the woman miscarries, the attacker only pays a fine, whereas (if the woman herself is injured) the attacker suffers eye for an eye.

Maybe in the Christian thread. Also, these verses have also been addressed, I’m pretty sure, in this thread. Why should I answer if nobody reads what I say?

[The Free Joy State]

It doesn't look like Kat made any statements on why your god did those things, just pointing out that they happened. Your god, according to your own holy book, has the blood of innocents on its hands, so why should it be the arbiter of morality?

This is still not a convo for the abortion thread, but more for the Christian thread. Also I was only pointing out that either on this version or another, all three of those points have already been answered. For a short answer, however, a painter has the freedom to take back or hide whatever they themselves have made. God made us. Therefore God can take us back or do what He wants. Kinda like how a parent might say, “I put you in this world, and I can take you out of it!” But literally. Especially since Christians believe He created everything. But again, Christian thread. Thanks.

We're discussing strictly within the context of abortion and the arguments for and against.

Abortion thread, I think.

[Galloism]

You're missing the point. Popular opinion doesn't change anything, no matter how popular.

Poppycock. The Betamax was the superior video tape technology of the day, but because more people bought the lower priced VHS machines, VHS became the video technology of the 70s-80s.

Possibly related, the porn industry broke hard for vhs.

[Luminesa]

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened.

It didn’t. The evidence is clear.

Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event.

No it isn’t.

Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world.

No it wasn’t.

Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart

The one God hardened?

, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations.

Nope. We know very well how life starts. No need for God.

Okay, then don’t answer if you know everything.

[Luminesa]

This is still not a convo for the abortion thread, but more for the Christian thread. Also I was only pointing out that either on this version or another, all three of those points have already been answered. For a short answer, however, a painter has the freedom to take back or hide whatever they themselves have made. God made us. Therefore God can take us back or do what He wants. Kinda like how a parent might say, “I put you in this world, and I can take you out of it!” But literally. Especially since Christians believe He created everything. But again, Christian thread. Thanks.

We're discussing strictly within the context of abortion and the arguments for and against.

Abortion thread, I think.

Not really, when the flood and Pharaoh come up. *Shrugs.*

[The Free Joy State]

We're discussing strictly within the context of abortion and the arguments for and against.

Abortion thread, I think.

Not really, when the flood and Pharaoh come up. *Shrugs.*

Within the context of arguing against an anti-abortion argument that abortion must always be wrong because God would never allow the killing of literally anyone. The discussion was not actually about either the flood or the Pharaoh -- merely examples of contradictory evidence.

My examples, however, are strictly on foetuses. And I'm not going to the Christian thread.

[NewLakotah]

Well, I am anti-death penalty. However, then when you say, abortion isn't wrong, that's only true until it is defined by law as being wrong, then what, you pack up and go home because "well, im not for murder, so I guess I'm not pro-choice anymore?"

It is human nature to resort to murder/ killing, and (ab)using the environment ( both natural and social)

We as a species don't hold life "holy". We eat plants, animals, we pollute.

Laws just tell you the consequences of breaking arbitrary rules which reflect the social moral majority of that time.

I am very extreme. If we think life is "holy" how can we justify killing bacteria? Parasites? Animals?

Are you talking in a religious sense, aka Christian sense? And if laws only reflect that, then, basically, the law can and will be wrong, as the pro-life movement states. Thus, maintaining the "high ground" that the law doesn't state that it is illegal, thus its not murder, thus ok, is shaky ground to stand on to say the least.

I am pro choice because I think you really need to choose to raise a child. You have to be able to put its needs before yours. Waking up 4 times a night because it needs feeding, or if it is ill. Consoling a child when a loved one died and you are grieving as well, but you put that aside to take care of your child.
If you are divorcing the parent of your child and really hate the guts of said parent, you still have to realise that it will always be the parent of your child. So you will have to be polite to the ex, work together in the upbringing, don't blame the children. You can tell the truth as you see it, but keep in mind the age of the children and keep in mind that it is your view. The children are allowed to see things differently. Unless the person is physically/ mentally abusive of the children (they really fear the other person) you really should be supportive of visitation rights and happily ask how their time was with the other parent.
You need to love your children and want them to be happy and become a responsible, independent person.
If you really love someone, set them free. If they return, only love, understanding, acceptance and if asked, your advice should be waiting for them.

Just because someone choses to keep their child, doesn't mean that any of the above will be followed.

So no, even if the laws change, I will always be pro choice.

So you are saying, even if the law calls something murder, you will always be pro choice. Thus meaning that even if the law says something isn't murder, a person can still consider it as such, and be opposed to it?

You are not responsible for the damage done to you by your parents. If you feel you don't want to repeat their mistakes, don't have a child. Work on yourself to strife to get to this stage where you can truly love. So maybe in future you can raise a child as it should be done.

Nor are you able to decide whether or not you want to or do not want to have life. Your mother is the only one, apparently, that can chose whether or not you will be granted those rights.

[Thepeopl]

It doesn't look like Kat made any statements on why your god did those things, just pointing out that they happened. Your god, according to your own holy book, has the blood of innocents on its hands, so why should it be the arbiter of morality?

This is still not a convo for the abortion thread, but more for the Christian thread. Also I was only pointing out that either on this version or another, all three of those points have already been answered. For a short answer, however, a painter has the freedom to take back or hide whatever they themselves have made. God made us. Therefore God can take us back or do what He wants. Kinda like how a parent might say, “I put you in this world, and I can take you out of it!” But literally. Especially since Christians believe He created everything. But again, Christian thread. Thanks.

So, you just said you can take a child out of this world, because you made it.

[Katganistan]

When it comes to determining what is acceptable by the population, popular opinion is rather specifically EVERYTHING.

What is acceptable by the population isn't morality, and the two have little to do with each other. What if I define morality as an objective standard of conduct? Then will you admit that you are amoral, under that definition?

Nope.

I find amoral the people who say "Oh, I'll pray for you" when someone is in desperate need because they've lost their job. The atheist who pays the rent for them with no expectation of anything in return and certainly no precious little sayings about God's plan is FAR more moral.

But this thread is NOT about God, so move on.

[Luminesa]

All else said, I do like that OP opened the floor to discussion on ways to lower abortion numbers. I felt that was quite thoughtful and interesting.