I no longer consider myself pro-life

[Cow Poke]

You are consistent, unlike most liberals/atheists. What makes your views worse than those who "only" advocate for abortion is that you brazenly admit that you're taking a life when advocating infanticide. They at least salve their consciences by clinging to the idea that it's merely a part of the mother's body that's excised.

Which is why I often wonder if he's just doing this for attention.

[guacamole]

No idea - but I understand why you would feel threatened by it.

Lest anyone forget, LPOT is on record as characterising impaling 1-year-old orphans as self defense.

I've long held that most Christians consider it moral, at some point, to take an action that directly results in deaths of infants/children.

[lilpixieofterror]

No idea - but I understand why you would feel threatened by it.

Lest anyone forget, LPOT is on record as characterising impaling 1-year-old orphans as self defense.

[Roy]

...which is pretty much all of it, unless you get really inventive with the writing process. There are only two books generally ascribed to non-Jews.

Luke and Acts?

I have no idea whether 'Luke' was Jewish or not, and I don't think it can be proven either way. But there are people who claim that "Luke is the only Gentile writer within the New Testament".

[lilpixieofterror]

I've long held that most Christians consider it moral, at some point, to take an action that directly results in deaths of infants/children.

Life is sometimes messy. Take the Vietnam war where children were strapped with explosives and sent after Americans. What else could be done is such a situation.

[One Bad Pig]

No idea - but I understand why you would feel threatened by it.

Lest anyone forget, LPOT is on record as characterising impaling 1-year-old orphans as self defense.

Wow, that sounds horrible! Thank you for ripping it out of context.

[carpedm9587]

The purpose of poking the cow (with a trocar) is to relieve her of bloat. In this, she feels little or no pain, but experiences great relief.

(I usually don't have a trocar with me, so I use my pocket knife)

You have actual cows?

I have a large rat masquerading as a dog...

[guacamole]

Life is sometimes messy. Take the Vietnam war where children were strapped with explosives and sent after Americans. What else could be done is such a situation.

I'm not against that point; however, it is strange to me to whip up moral outrage against someone for saying that, in some circumstances, we can morally kill infants and children when we think that, in some circumstances, we are morally justified in killing infants and children.

[Adrift]

Man, what a wreck this thread is. The OP is disgusting (par for the course for DE), and completely and absolutely unChristian. Demonic even... That more Christians aren't reacting to it in horror is just...I don't know. Is it just that you're all not taking him seriously. Surprised to see Obsidian of all people being the only one to forcibly come out against it.

Aside from that, I don't know why people have forgotten what Starlight has said about his infanticide nonsense. He has, in fact, stated in the past that there could be moral justification for killing a child as old as three,

Regardless of the reasons for it, I understand that human babies do not exceed the IQ of animals until approximately the 2-3 year mark. A typical 2 year-old child has roughly the same level of intelligence as a dog. Most adults I have talked to, their earliest memories are from when they were about 3 years of age. This is approximately the time when children start to talk coherently. According to my friends who have studied psychology, about this age is where the infant's brain is completing the major process of development and wiring that began at birth, and now resembles an adult brain in all major respects and functions.

Thus, at some point around the time of age 3 or so (again, I honestly barely care about the exact point, and if you were to tell me that new science revised that figure down to 1 or up to 4, I would shrug and say "okay"), the developing infant has reached the moral level of being a full human person, due to its now fully-developed mental functions. Thus any actions taken to harm it are fully as wrong as actions taken to harm an adult human, and any moral justification for harming it after this time would therefore need to be as compelling as would justify harming an adult human. eg voluntary euthanasia to prevent extreme pain and suffering or somesuch.

It follows that my overall view on abortion/infanticide is as follows:
- Under ~25 weeks or so, there is no brain function and thus no consciousness, thus the fetus does not have moral relevance, and thus any action can be freely taken to kill it. Such acts do not register on the scale of morality, because like chopping down a tree, they involve no harm to a entity possessing consciousness or higher mental functions.
- After ~25 weeks or so, the fetus is apparently a conscious being, and therefore any action taken to kill it involves harm to a conscious being and is therefore a moral wrong. Such action would need to be morally justified by some other harm being prevented or good gained. While still close to 25 weeks, "because the mother wants to" is pretty much a good enough reason, just like killing a fly because its buzzing is annoying us is a good enough reason. However, as the fetus further develops its mental capabilities, the requirements for the moral justification of doing so likewise develops.
- By 3 years or so, it is a conscious being with fully developed human mental capabilities, and the requirements for the moral justifications of harming it have maxed out at adult-human levels.

As a result, I feel I can see why so many societies in history who practiced infanticide saw it as justified. If, for example, their community was facing a famine and there was not enough food to go around, it would be the action of least-harm to kill an infant rather than have one of the adults starve to death. And I am okay with the idea of our society having laws allowing for infanticide in cases where there is sufficient moral justification for it - such as what the Netherlands currently does in cases where parents and doctors agree to actively end the infant's life in cases where the child is born with extreme medical problems that would lead to extreme suffering.

No matter how he dresses this up, his view on infanticide is utter insanity, and it's very sad to see some otherwise reasonable skeptics, and even some Christians buying into the argument, or at least thinking it's not so bad. Also, Starlight has been softening the blow by pretending that he's only for infanticide in cases of physical health issues, but that doesn't necessarily follow from his or Singer's view if they're being logically consistent. As seen above, he seems to believe it's morally justified in cases of possible starvation, but why not in common cases used in normal abortions? As the political scientist Peter Berkowitz once put it,

"Singer is right that on the basis of his premises there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of 'severely disabled infants.' But why does he confine the comparison to newborn infants who are severely disabled? He certainly does not confine abortion to severely disabled fetuses. If newborns, like unborn children, are not persons, and it is permissible to abort unborn children regardless of whether they are afflicted or healthy, then newborns, afflicted or healthy, should be subject to killing too, provided of course that 'on balance, and taking into account the interests of everyone affected,' their killing will increase the total amount of happiness or satisfied preferences in the world. Singer certainly offers no good utilitarian reason to confine the killing to severely disabled newborns."

Singer's reply was that there would naturally be parents who would love the child, so therefore it would be wrong to kill a healthy child, but still not as wrong as killing a fully cognitive person.

Also, I don't understand why no one is responding to Tassman's nonsense about Jews and abortion, which has been dealt with so many times that this should be wrote memorization by now. Below are a number of times I've personally dealt with the arguments. Others have taken him to task as well (in particular, Bill the Cat). Are you all just tired of arguing about it, or have you forgotten what was previously discussed? Not only do we have early Christian writings specifically condemning abortion (going back to as early as the 1st century with the Didache), but we also have the writings of 1st century Jewish writers who concur.

Jesus likely didn't go against common thought on the concept of abortion of his time. The only evidence that Tassman has offered for a difference in perspective on abortion doesn't come till the Babylonian Talmud in the late Classical/early Middle Ages (and then other writings in the later Middle Ages). In fact, Jewish thought in the 1st century (and before), as has been repeated over and over again, seems to see the unborn child as something sacred and human, and that abortion should not be done (or only to be done to save the mother's life in later Mishnah). So, there is absolutely no reason to give Tassman an inch on this subject. If you're interested, here's a decent article on the subject: http://internetbiblecollege.net/Less...nfanticide.htm

To add to the Talmudic/Halachic confusion about the status of unborn children, and the penalty of their murder, there's this from Sanhedrin 57b concerning Noahides,



The Noahide command in view here comes from:

Genesis 9:5-6Genesis 9:5-6

It's the same claim he's made time and time again; That the only reason that anyone would want to prevent abortion is because they believe that fetuses have souls, and only religious people believe in souls. It's been explained to him about a dozen times or more that one need not consider the existence of a soul in order to argue against abortion on the basis that human life has intrinsic value. It's even been demonstrated to him that there exists secular and atheist groups who are against abortion. But like a mad pitbull, once he's bitten into something like this, no matter how many times his argument has been thrashed, he just won't let go. He does this all the time with whatever goofy theory he's come across on some skeptic website or wherever. Like his argument that 1st century Jews were okay with abortion, or several years ago when he couldn't stop talking about Baptists and slavery. He gets something in his head, and he just can't shake it.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum already, but here we go again,

Source: Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan

The key issue is this: should the hebrew word yalad be translated "give birth prematurely" or "have a miscarriage"? If the mother miscarries, then the offender only has to pay a fine; the implication in this case is that the unborn child isn't as valuable and therefore isn't deserving of care normally given to a person outside of the womb. Apparently, this Old Testament passage shows a low(er) regard for unborn life.

Let's skip to another passage, Psalm 139, which strongly supports the value of the unborn:

Keep this text in mind as we go back to the Exodus 21 passage.

Contrary to the above claims, Exodus 21 actually supports the value of unborn human life. The word yalad means "go forth" or "give birth," describing a normal birth (Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30; Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer. 1:5; 20:18). It's always used of giving birth, not of a miscarriage. If the biblical text intended to refer to a miscarriage, the typical word for "miscarry/miscarriage" (shakal/shekol) was available (e.g., Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 21:10; Hosea 9:14). Miscarry isn't used here.

Furthermore, yalad ("give birth") is always used of a child that has recognizable human form or is capable of surviving outside the womb. The Hebrew word nepel is the typical word used of an unborn child, and the word golem, which means "fetus," is used only once in the Old Testament in Psalm 139:16, which we just noted: God knew the psalmist's "unformed body" or "unformed substance."

This brings us to another question: Who is injured? The baby or the mother? The text is silent. It could be either, since the feminine pronoun is missing. The gist of the passage seems to be this:

If two men fight and hit a pregnant woman and the baby is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury [to the child or the mother], then the offender must be fined whatever the husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [to the baby or the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye.

© Copyright Original Source

Bill the Cat dealt with that Jewish Learning link here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...383#post272383
And before Josephus we have passages from manuscripts like the 1st-2nd century BCE Sibylline Oracles, "The godless furthermore shall to all ages perish, all who did evils aforetime, and committed murders, And all who are accomplices therein,...All who caused abortions, and all who their offspring cast unlawfully away..."

And the turn of the century BCE/CE work Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, "Do not let a woman destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and the vultures as a prey."

Within very early Christianity we have passages like these from the 1st century Didache "And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

And the 2nd century Apocalypse of Peter, "And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion."

And also the 2nd century writings Athenagoras of Athens, "And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it."

So, no. This sort of goofy skeptical argument to get orthodox Christians to accept abortion by playing around with passages dealing with breath life isn't going to stick.

[Cow Poke]

You have actual cows?

I have a large rat masquerading as a dog...

I don't at this point. Sold the farm and moved to a new area. I have a partnership managing some cows of a friend, but for now, I'm out of the cow business.

[One Bad Pig]

Luke and Acts?

I have no idea whether 'Luke' was Jewish or not, and I don't think it can be proven either way. But there are people who claim that "Luke is the only Gentile writer within the New Testament".

Yes. I agree, it can't be proven either way. "Luke" is, AFAIK, not a Jewish name, although some Jews also took Gentile names to facilitate interaction with the Gentile world (i.e., "Paul" for "Saul"). Hebrews is anonymous, but given its heavy dependence on the Tanakh, is most likely a Jewish writing IMO.

[Cow Poke]

Man, what a wreck this thread is. The OP is disgusting (par for the course for DE), and completely and absolutely unChristian. Demonic even... That more Christians aren't reacting to it in horror is just...I don't know. Is it just that you're all not taking him seriously. Surprised to see Obsidian of all people being the only one to forcibly come out against it.

Like you said, 'par for the course for DE'.

[KingsGambit]

Man, what a wreck this thread is. The OP is disgusting (par for the course for DE), and completely and absolutely unChristian. Demonic even... That more Christians aren't reacting to it in horror is just...I don't know. Is it just that you're all not taking him seriously. Surprised to see Obsidian of all people being the only one to forcibly come out against it.

I've called his views out on many occasions over the years. He's being so flippant that it doesn't seem like a productive use of time to call out somebody that isn't taking discourse seriously in the first place. I do think this general line of thinking has been explicitly articulated as why the alt-right isn't pro-life though.

[Roy]

Lest anyone forget, LPOT is on record as characterising impaling 1-year-old orphans as self defense.

Note Roy ignores times of war where children are used as weapons to kill ones enemies with and even ignores the examples I gave him of this happening.

Note that LPOT is using examples of babies being used as weapons as an excuse for butchering babies that aren't.

[carpedm9587]

Man, what a wreck this thread is. The OP is disgusting (par for the course for DE), and completely and absolutely unChristian. Demonic even... That more Christians aren't reacting to it in horror is just...I don't know. Is it just that you're all not taking him seriously. Surprised to see Obsidian of all people being the only one to forcibly come out against it.

I have to admit that I have forgotten the entire point of the OP. My engagement with that topic pretty much ended with my suggestion that people put their index finger into their right cheek and pull. The OP was as fine an example of trolling as I have seen, and I simply elected to not engage or respond to it.

Talking to CP about his cows is much more refreshing.

And yes - most of the rest of the discussion is pretty vile.