Are You A Good Man....

[Sparko]

I am a Christian and I oppose abortion. The problem with this from your perspective is that I was still an atheist when I realized that abortion is actually the killing of a child. At that point, years before I became a Christian, I rejected abortion. I am inclined to think the Bible opposes abortion, but my real rationale is the scientific facts - and the purely arbitrary excuses of the pro abortion side.


What does the "woman" have the right to choose? She has the right to kill something, nothing else.

Same here I opposed abortion before I was a Christian.

and his "the majority of those who oppose abortion are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they oppose it for presumably religious reasons." is idiotic but who expects better from Tassman?

The majority of those who drive cars are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they drive cars for presumably religious reasons.

[Sea of red]

your criteria for determining that a human being is or is not an "actual person" is arbitrary and not scientific. It is emotional claptrap that you try to rationalize your nonscientific views with. "Personhood" is not even a scientific term. It is a legal one. Your entire argument for abortion is emotional not scientific.

We are all making judgements as to what life is more valuable than others. You don't find animal life to be as valuable as human life for the simple reason that you're... human.

Nice to see you.

[Sea of red]

When someone continues to try to attack others for moral failures while advocating for the slaughtering of infants, it's perfectly reasonable to point out the giant log jammed firmly in their eye. If you want to continue to make excuses for someone advocating killing infants though, King Herod could use your defense. Does your hatred of me really matter so much that you'll make excuses for child killing? Wow, that tells me all I need to know about you.

Please, you do it regardless of the OP, and regardless of Starlights rhetoric. You type out that he's evil about every four days, and follow him around from thread to thread. People can check your post history and see just how obsessed you are with him. It's the same thing you've done to every nontheist that's come to this forum at one point or another, and then you wonder why you're hated.

[Sparko]

We are all making judgements as to what life is more valuable than others. You don't find animal life to be as valuable as human life for the simple reason that you're... human.

Nice to see you.

Welcome back SoR!


Yeah we are all making judgments about value of human life as a species. But that isn't the discussion. It is the fact that Tassman accuses Christians of only arguing anti-abortion because of religious beliefs when his entire argument FOR abortions is an arbitrary and non-scientific line in the sand that he made up for himself. I have never used a religious arguement against abortion, even once, and neither has any other Christian. We argue biology. That a fetus is a human being, is individual and not part of the mother. The argument that all human beings have rights is pretty much accepted by everyone and that is the only part that is not scientific. Tassman basically argues "personhood" which is not a scientific term or determination. He arbitrarily decides that a fetus isn't a person until it has a brain. That is not any scientific determination (heck it isn't even a legal one. he just makes it up)

[Sea of red]

Welcome back SoR!


Yeah we are all making judgments about value of human life as a species. But that isn't the discussion. It is the fact that Tassman accuses Christians of only arguing anti-abortion because of religious beliefs when his entire argument FOR abortions is an arbitrary and non-scientific line in the sand that he made up for himself. I have never used a religious arguement against abortion, even once, and neither has any other Christian. We argue biology. That a fetus is a human being, is individual and not part of the mother. The argument that all human beings have rights is pretty much accepted by everyone and that is the only part that is not scientific. Tassman basically argues "personhood" which is not a scientific term or determination. He arbitrarily decides that a fetus isn't a person until it has a brain. That is not any scientific determination (heck it isn't even a legal one. he just makes it up)

Everyone is using their own benchmark to determine when life is valuable. For some it's the moment of conception, for others it's when an organism obtains a unique EEG. While both use scientific findings, neither are actually the 'correct' way of looking at the science. It's the conclusions that people differ on, and that's not a scientific issue, but a philosophical one.

[Sparko]

Everyone is using their own benchmark to determine when life is valuable. For some it's the moment of conception, for others it's when an organism obtains a unique EEG. While both use scientific findings, neither are actually the 'correct' way of looking at the science. It's the conclusions that people differ on, and that's not a scientific issue, but a philosophical one.

I agree, arguments on both sides come down to ethics. I am specifically talking about Tassman who wants to falsely characterize ProLife as "emotional" or "religion" and himself as "scientific" - when the truth is the ProLifee actually have a biological basis to their ethical arguments and Tassman merely uses an arbitrary demarcation he decided in his own head should be the 'limit'. Science comes nowhere in it.

[Zymologist]

I agree, arguments on both sides come down to ethics. I am specifically talking about Tassman who wants to falsely characterize Prolifers as "emotional" or "religion" and himself as "scientific" - when the truth is the Prolife actually have a biological basis to their ethical arguments and Tassman merely uses an arbitrary demarcation he decided in his own head should be the 'limit'. Science comes nowhere in it.

I think you mean "prolife." Your post means something a bit different otherwise.

yup. LOL. I will edit it.

Moderator Notice

Beat you to it

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Jedidiah]

We are all making judgements as to what life is more valuable than others. You don't find animal life to be as valuable as human life for the simple reason that you're... human.

Gulty! I value human life above animal life, at all stages.

[seer]

Gulty! I value human life above animal life, at all stages.

Then you are in fact guilty of speciesism. Off to reeducation camp!

[lilpixieofterror]

Please, you do it regardless of the OP, and regardless of Starlights rhetoric. You type out that he's evil about every four days, and follow him around from thread to thread. People can check your post history and see just how obsessed you are with him. It's the same thing you've done to every nontheist that's come to this forum at one point or another, and then you wonder why you're hated.

Would you also defend a white supremacist, as long as he hated me?

[Sea of red]

Would you also defend a white supremacist, as long as he hated me?

Whether I attacked or defended them it would have nothing to do with you.

[Tassman]

I suggest you investigate the correlation / causation fallacy.

Indeed. But correlation suggests causation in this instance.

[Tassman]

Of course it is arbitrary you just demonstrated that in your quote. When does one become a person - when she has brain waves or when she becomes self aware? And what degree of self-awareness? Does the new born have to pass the mirror test before she has human rights and is allowed to live?

[Jedidiah]

Indeed. But correlation suggests causation in this instance.

Only to a bigot.

[Jedidiah]

Not at all logical. Determining death is one thing, but determining life is totally unnecessary in the case of the unborn.