Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump Tax derail - Abortion
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Trump Tax derail - Abortion
"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert EinsteinTags: None
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post...which doesn't mean you're necessarily liberal. It just means that I don't have a whole lot of data to go on. I have 1) your claim you voted for Republican presidential nominees who won (until Trump), and, recently, your stance on abortion - which seems rather more centrist than conservative.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou don't read very carefully. Which has a lot to do with why you and others pick fights. I am against abortion. I would not call that a 'centrist' position. The debate we were having was a technical one over a specific interpretation of a specific Hebrew text that is sometimes used to justify abortion, which came from me being asked how I would define when the developing fetus becomes human. I approached that answer more from the scientific side, which is how it would have to be approached LEGALLY, which is the only way it can be approached as a matter of law. We do not allow laws to be made that reinforce the religious positions of one religion over another. Keeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception. So no law that outlaws abortion from conception for religious reasons could ever stand a legal test. The only possible law restricting abortion would necessarily need to be based on a scientific definition of when the fetus takes on full or nearly full human characteristics.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou don't read very carefully. Which has a lot to do with why you and others pick fights.
I am against abortion. I would not call that a 'centrist' position. The debate we were having was a technical one over a specific interpretation of a specific Hebrew text that is sometimes used to justify abortion, which came from me being asked how I would define when the developing fetus becomes human. I approached that answer more from the scientific side, which is how it would have to be approached LEGALLY, which is the only way it can be approached as a matter of law.
We do not allow laws to be made that reinforce the religious positions of one religion over another.
Keeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception.
So no law that outlaws abortion from conception for religious reasons could ever stand a legal test. The only possible law restricting abortion would necessarily need to be based on a scientific definition of when the fetus takes on full or nearly full human characteristics.
JimVeritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostKeeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception.
So as a Christian I always found it difficult to care at all about the abortion issue, because I couldn't see any reason to think God didn't have the issue well in hand, and the Bible doesn't place any emphasis on anti-abortion views to the extent that it even mentions the subject at all."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI don't pick fights (well, with non-trolls; I don't consider you a troll).
And now I'm not sure what you mean by 'against abortion'. Is it only abortion, in your opinion, after the fetus meets your 'scientific' criteria for being human?
Then why are you arguing from Judaism?
Judaism is not our source faith. Judaism is a hostile Jewish reaction to the Christian faith.
From the standpoint of science, a person is a unique individual from the moment of conception.
So if the zygote attaches to the mother's uterus and is allowed to grow and develop, and does not die for the reasons babies die in gestation, it will become a baby and a unique individual. And it is that potential to become a person that makes killing it wrong from a religious perspective. But our laws are not structured that way, and any arguments to change them must proceed from some secular basis. At least, that is how the courts interpret the establishment clause.
If you were arguing from a Christian point of view - which is, after all, your religion, abortion would also be outlawed from the moment of conception; the canons of the early church were quite consistent in that regard.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostWhen I was a Christian I took the view that if indeed "a soul" was something that existed in and of itself that created inside of / put inside of humans, then God would decide a sensible time to do that based on his omniscience and general competence. Since over half of conceived embryos die naturally and do not survive to term, it would seem a bit silly for God to put souls into them at conception, and it would seem more sensible for him to wait until they had survived the part where they were likely to die. Depending on his level of foreknowledge (open theism etc) he may know exactly whether a fetus would survive to term and so presumably wouldn't bother to put a soul into a fetus that was going to die pre-birth. Alternatively he could simply recycle the soul of a fetus that didn't get a chance at life back into a new fetus, until it got to live a length of life he deemed acceptable.
So as a Christian I always found it difficult to care at all about the abortion issue, because I couldn't see any reason to think God didn't have the issue well in hand, and the Bible doesn't place any emphasis on anti-abortion views to the extent that it even mentions the subject at all.
For more details:
https://www.cultureoflife.org/2008/0...-biden-part-i/
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostBut abortion has long been an unacceptable practice in the church
although early arguments were not so much based on when the baby becomes human, but rather that because the child is what sanctifies the sexual act. Lust alone is wrong. The purpose of sexual desire is for making babies. Sex for the sake of sex then is wrong.
IMO part of human love is physical intimacy and shared pleasure. Couples often enjoy holding hands, and it strengthens the bond between them, but it doesn't create children. Hand holding, hugging, cuddling, kissing, and sexual acts are all part of the general range of physically enjoying each others company and strengthening the love between them that couples engage in. To say that it would be wrong for a couple to have sex out of enjoyment of each others presence and a desire to be intimate with each other and to share their love for each other, in a context where they knew a child wasn't going to be created (e.g. using conception, post-menopause, non-penetrative sex etc), strikes me as about the same as saying it would be wrong for them to sit on the beach and hold hands and watch the sunset together.
this was the argument of Augustine.
I do grant your general point however, that Roman Catholics, by use of their... quirky... teleological logic can come up with reasons for being against abortion that don't have to do with it being an ensouled being. (Though I think the response of the average person in the street on hearing those arguments would be to scratch their heads and ask if you were actually serious.) But I think in the protestant theological framework that typically operates on more widely accepted views of logic, it's a lot harder to adequately justify an anti-abortion position. This is, of course, why being anti-abortion used to be viewed as a "Catholic thing", and why the Southern Baptist Convention endorsed abortion a couple of years before Roe v Wade did.Last edited by Starlight; 02-12-2019, 11:42 PM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe scientific criteria is the legality. It is legal to get wasted drunk if you don't drive a car. I believe it is wrong to get wasted drunk period. But that is not an opinion I can legislate.
It comes from my religious views. Likewise, my moral, religious opinion is that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. But I can't legislate that religious opinion. But if I can establish a point where the developing zygote is clearly indistinguishable in matters of defining what is a person from a full term baby, then our laws that prevent murder can be (or could be) used to prevent abortion past that point.
"But in any event, the argument that fetuses lack constitutional rights is simply irrelevant. For it has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed to justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, whether or not that activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the life or the constitutional rights of another person. Dogs are not "persons in the whole sense" nor have they constitutional rights, but that does not mean the state cannot prohibit killing them: It does not even mean the state cannot prohibit killing them in the exercise of the First Amendment right of political protest."
Because legally in the USA we don't enforce religious views with the law. Whatever reason we have for limiting abortion can't be based on a religion's teachings about that issue.
Even if I didn't have anyone to point to as a specific example, however, one is absolutely capable of passing laws based on a religious view of something, so long as they also serve some kind of secular purpose, as was demonstrated in McGowan v. Maryland. And the desire to protect potentiality of life is absolutely a compelling interest even from a non-religious standpoint. Even Roe v. Wade, in spite of its many errors, was willing to admit that.Last edited by Terraceth; 02-13-2019, 12:39 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe scientific criteria is the legality. It is legal to get wasted drunk if you don't drive a car. I believe it is wrong to get wasted drunk period. But that is not an opinion I can legislate. It comes from my religious views. Likewise, my moral, religious opinion is that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. But I can't legislate that religious opinion. But if I can establish a point where the developing zygote is clearly indistinguishable in matters of defining what is a person from a full term baby, then our laws that prevent murder can be (or could be) used to prevent abortion past that point.
YIKES! Judaism is not a 'hostile reaction'. Judaism is Judaism. Excepting the destruction of the Temple, they practice (at least the orthodox) essentially the same faith Christ was raised in.
Celebrate the same holidays, recite the same prayers.
Judaism is the continuation of the Jewish faith from Christ's day until our own by the Jewish people who were not convinced Christ was Messiah. Calling it the 'hostile Jewish reaction to the Christian faith' is not far from the "Christ killers" cry that has resulted in much persecution of the Jewish people.
No - at conception you have a zygote. That is not a person or an individual - yet. It is one unspecialized cell that can become a human being. It is the very first stage of a developing human baby. But when that baby is fully developed, AFAIK, it will not contain any copies of the original zygote.
So if the zygote attaches to the mother's uterus and is allowed to grow and develop, and does not die for the reasons babies die in gestation, it will become a baby and a unique individual.
I'm not arguing about whether my religion regards the developing child as a person, I am talking about what our laws will allow. You can't make abortion illegal based solely on religious dogma in this country.
JimVeritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
The zygote is not an individual, yet. Proof? One word:
Twins
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe zygote is not an individual, yet. Proof? One word:
Twins
JimThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostAs I've said, a zygote is fully distinguishable as a separate human person from the moment of conception. No one else has that unique, complete set of DNA.
This process, which occurs in about 1 pregnancy in 300, is such a common, well-known phenomenon that anyone who claims "human life begins at the moment of conception" has no excuse for ignoring it.
Every single cell contains copies of the DNA from the original zygote; they've developed from it, but the content which makes each individual unique remains the same.
Edited to add: Ack! NinjaedLast edited by Roy; 02-13-2019, 08:58 AM.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYou mean Monozygotic (Identical) Twins? Yes, truly a unique and not-understood phenomenon that in no way invalidates the claim of personhood of the zygote. All that changes is the number of persons, due to unknown circumstances.
Or more.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
Without the Temple, Judaism is necessarily massively different.
Same holidays, yes. Same prayers, sorta. Prayers were specifically added to exclude Christians.
Historically, the practitioners of Judaism persecuted the nascent Christian faith. I'm sorry that history horrifies you. And no, I don't think that Christians should return the favor; they need Christ no less than anyone else, and persecution is a terrible way to communicate that.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 02-13-2019, 10:46 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Today, 09:50 PM
|
0 responses
4 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:50 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 04:03 AM
|
23 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 12:19 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 12:51 PM
|
97 responses
522 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 09:31 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
|
5 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by mossrose
Yesterday, 12:18 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:36 AM
|
5 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 07:37 AM
|
Comment