Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for Anti -Abortion folks

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:49:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

No, because they are not unlawful.

There is also a difference between actively murdering someone and refusing to help them. Abortion is a woman refusing to contribute her physical resources to assist another life. As it happens, her refusal results in the death of the fetus.

Actually, given that there are children who are dying as we speak from malnutrition, easily curable diseases and toxic water supplies, we are refusing to help them by keeping our excess wealth for ourselves. This computer I'm typing on now could have saved several children. I don't think that you and I are murderers, technically speaking. Morally, though, we could probably do more to help.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:50:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:49:36 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

No, because they are not unlawful.

There is also a difference between actively murdering someone and refusing to help them. Abortion is a woman refusing to contribute her physical resources to assist another life. As it happens, her refusal results in the death of the fetus.

Actually, given that there are children who are dying as we speak from malnutrition, easily curable diseases and toxic water supplies, we are refusing to help them by keeping our excess wealth for ourselves. This computer I'm typing on now could have saved several children. I don't think that you and I are murderers, technically speaking. Morally, though, we could probably do more to help.

If you are not pro-life and anti- abortion, why are you tying to derail my thread?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:51:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:50:48 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:49:36 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

No, because they are not unlawful.

There is also a difference between actively murdering someone and refusing to help them. Abortion is a woman refusing to contribute her physical resources to assist another life. As it happens, her refusal results in the death of the fetus.

Actually, given that there are children who are dying as we speak from malnutrition, easily curable diseases and toxic water supplies, we are refusing to help them by keeping our excess wealth for ourselves. This computer I'm typing on now could have saved several children. I don't think that you and I are murderers, technically speaking. Morally, though, we could probably do more to help.

If you are not pro-life and anti- abortion, why are you tying to derail my thread?

sorry. :(
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 5:58:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

No, because they're not unlawful.


2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 9:56:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?
That's not my definition of murder.
Murder is the willful and intentional killing of another.
If I kill you in self-defense, it isn't a criminal act, but it is still murder.

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

I don't want to see them banned, though.
My work here is, finally, done.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 6:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

If the mother risks her life by carrying the fetus to term, or if the fetus is severely deformed, then I think abortion should be an option. I wouldn't support it for any other reason, though.

Also, the mother should never be penalized for obtaining an illegal abortion. The blame for that falls on the surgeon.

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 7:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

The whole abortion issue is pretty much a red herring, i.e. an issue that social dominance-oriented* conservatives avail themselves of to exert social and cultural dominance; i.e., a casus belli of the culture war that they wage to win cultural hegemony away from "liberals". That is, it's all about power, not life. (It, the abortion issue and the whole culture war, also works nicely to distract us from the economic issues and inequities that it would make more sense for us to focus on; that is, a culture war diverts our thought and energies away from class struggle and has the effect of dividing and conquering the working class. At any rate, if conservative anti-abortion types genuinely cared about life they'd exhibit a more life-affirmingly compassionate nature. Yes, his/her lack of simple kindness and compassion toward the poor seriously diminishes the credibility of the conservative's claim to be someone taking an enlightened ethical stance. Take note, conservatives, authentic decency = compassion.)

* The conservative's social dominance orientation, which is inculcated by our capitalist society's thinly-veiled system of domination, goes a long way toward explaining the affinity of conservatives for capitalism, i.e. for a system featuring a dominant economic class whose members the conservative vicariously identifies with. Yes, therein lies the true, largely unconscious or dissembled-by-ideology reason why the American right is so staunchly pro-capitalist and anti-compassion for the poor (the poor being disrespected fundamentally because of their lack of social power). If anyone is interested in learning more about the theory of social dominance orientation and its usefulness in understanding the conservative movement, here are a few links,
http://www.dailykos.com...#

http://www.google.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why are you (pro-abortion) guys posting on this thread? These questions are being asked of pro-life and anti-abortion members. They are not being directed towards you.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:14:37 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Why are you (pro-abortion) guys posting on this thread? These questions are being asked of pro-life and anti-abortion members. They are not being directed towards you.

They have that right. You're discussing a topic that they feel strongly about; it's unreasonable to expect that they won't join in.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 9:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

In the eyes of the law, something may not be considered murder, but it still is murder.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:22:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 9:00:18 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

In the eyes of the law, something may not be considered murder, but it still is murder.

Um... no it isn't. The definition of "murder" requires that the killing be illegal.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:22:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/26/2014 9:00:18 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

In the eyes of the law, something may not be considered murder, but it still is murder.

Um... no it isn't. The definition of "murder" requires that the killing be illegal.

If the law does not consider abortion to be murder, then the law is wrong.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:48:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:38:50 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 10:22:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/26/2014 9:00:18 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

In the eyes of the law, something may not be considered murder, but it still is murder.

Um... no it isn't. The definition of "murder" requires that the killing be illegal.

If the law does not consider abortion to be murder, then the law is wrong.

That doesn't make abortion murder, because murder must violate the law. Change the law by all means, but don't try to redefine words (that just confuses people).
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:48:31 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/26/2014 10:38:50 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 10:22:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/26/2014 9:00:18 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

In the eyes of the law, something may not be considered murder, but it still is murder.

Um... no it isn't. The definition of "murder" requires that the killing be illegal.

If the law does not consider abortion to be murder, then the law is wrong.

That doesn't make abortion murder, because murder must violate the law. Change the law by all means, but don't try to redefine words (that just confuses people).

It violates God's law.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:55:03 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:14:37 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Why are you (pro-abortion) guys posting on this thread? These questions are being asked of pro-life and anti-abortion members. They are not being directed towards you.

They have that right. You're discussing a topic that they feel strongly about; it's unreasonable to expect that they won't join in.

Okay, well their sh.it is going to be ignored too. I have no interest in what the pro-aborts responses are to these questions.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:38:01 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
1. As "murder' is by definition "the unlawful killing of one person by another. . ." - do you believe (as I do) that most (if not all) abortions are murders?

2. If you are opposed to abortions and you would like to see abortions banned or criminalized - but you do NOT think abortions are murders. . . WHY then do you oppose abortions and want them banned?

Let me see if I can help with this. Question number one requires only a Yes or No answer.

Question Two should have an answer that starts with something like "I oppose abortions because. . . "
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:30:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:49:41 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

It violates God's law.

And if God was the one running the police, courts and prison system, his laws would matter. Alas, he isn't, so God's law doesn't matter.

Also, point to the passage in [your holy book] where abortion (i.e. surgical removal of the fetus) is expressly forbidden.

At 9/26/2014 10:59:33 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Okay, well their sh.it is going to be ignored too. I have no interest in what the pro-aborts responses are to these questions.

Let me see if I can help with this. Question number one requires only a Yes or No answer.

Question Two should have an answer that starts with something like "I oppose abortions because. . . "

Mini-modding is not cool. If people want to derail your thread, that's their choice. Don't get butt-hurt about it.

In fact, if you're that obsessed with getting "correct" answers, you should use the Opinons/Polls sections instead.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:22:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 11:30:55 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/26/2014 10:49:41 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

It violates God's law.

And if God was the one running the police, courts and prison system, his laws would matter. Alas, he isn't, so God's law doesn't matter.

Also, point to the passage in [your holy book] where abortion (i.e. surgical removal of the fetus) is expressly forbidden.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill." That is a passage which I think we can all agree is in the Bible.
Then...
Exodus 21:22-23
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay as the Judges decide. But if their is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."
ANY FURTHER INJURY includes an injury to the fetus, and thus if the fetus is harmed, the violator may have to pay life for life. There you go.
And I am sure that plenty of other passages support this conclusion; I am just too lazy to look them up for the benefit of a hostile Anti-Theist who would only proceed to mock the Bible after I'm done.
And since God created humans, it's not unreasonable to assume that He should have a right to tell us what we can and cannot do.


At 9/26/2014 10:59:33 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Okay, well their sh.it is going to be ignored too. I have no interest in what the pro-aborts responses are to these questions.

Let me see if I can help with this. Question number one requires only a Yes or No answer.

Question Two should have an answer that starts with something like "I oppose abortions because. . . "

Mini-modding is not cool. If people want to derail your thread, that's their choice. Don't get butt-hurt about it.

In fact, if you're that obsessed with getting "correct" answers, you should use the Opinons/Polls sections instead.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:41:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:22:33 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill." That is a passage which I think we can all agree is in the Bible.
Then...
Exodus 21:22-23
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay as the Judges decide. But if their is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."
ANY FURTHER INJURY includes an injury to the fetus, and thus if the fetus is harmed, the violator may have to pay life for life. There you go.

That refers to an assault, possibly resulting in miscarriage. It does not refer to a surgical procedure to remove the fetus, and cannot be twisted to mean that.

And I am sure that plenty of other passages support this conclusion; I am just too lazy to look them up for the benefit of a hostile Anti-Theist who would only proceed to mock the Bible after I'm done.

I don't need to mock the Bible; the Bible is a mockery by itself.

Hosea 13:16 (NIV)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

This is the same God who supposedly hates abortion.

And since God created humans, it's not unreasonable to assume that He should have a right to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Since humans created God, it's no surprise that he conforms to his believers' prejudices.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:47:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:41:25 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/27/2014 12:22:33 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill." That is a passage which I think we can all agree is in the Bible.
Then...
Exodus 21:22-23
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay as the Judges decide. But if their is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."
ANY FURTHER INJURY includes an injury to the fetus, and thus if the fetus is harmed, the violator may have to pay life for life. There you go.

That refers to an assault, possibly resulting in miscarriage. It does not refer to a surgical procedure to remove the fetus, and cannot be twisted to mean that.

The passage shows that the Bible considers a fetus to be a life, and thus according to that logic thou shalt not kill applies.

And I am sure that plenty of other passages support this conclusion; I am just too lazy to look them up for the benefit of a hostile Anti-Theist who would only proceed to mock the Bible after I'm done.

I don't need to mock the Bible; the Bible is a mockery by itself.

Thank their for thy words of wisdom, oh all-knowing atheist.

Hosea 13:16 (NIV)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

This is the same God who supposedly hates abortion.

And since God created humans, it's not unreasonable to assume that He should have a right to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Since humans created God, it's no surprise that he conforms to his believers' prejudices.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:20:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:47:40 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/27/2014 12:41:25 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/27/2014 12:22:33 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill." That is a passage which I think we can all agree is in the Bible.
Then...
Exodus 21:22-23
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay as the Judges decide. But if their is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."
ANY FURTHER INJURY includes an injury to the fetus, and thus if the fetus is harmed, the violator may have to pay life for life. There you go.

That refers to an assault, possibly resulting in miscarriage. It does not refer to a surgical procedure to remove the fetus, and cannot be twisted to mean that.

The passage shows that the Bible considers a fetus to be a life, and thus according to that logic thou shalt not kill applies.

"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman"s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Quoted from BibleGateway.

This clearly refers to a violent assault where the husband's offspring is harmed. It does not preclude the husband from disposing of his unborn children if he chooses, nor does it prescribe a penalty if the mother takes something to induce miscarriage - both of which have been common practices since the Stone Age.

You are trying to assert that the Spirit of the Law is X because it is also Y, without first proving that the Lawmakers intended to legislate X. Either meet BOP or STFU.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:24:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:14:37 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Why are you (pro-abortion) guys posting on this thread? These questions are being asked of pro-life and anti-abortion members. They are not being directed towards you.

Are you essentially saying that you're not inclined to challenge yourself to reply to my above post? Well, I'll give you one more chance, here it is again:

The whole abortion issue is pretty much a red herring, i.e. an issue that social dominance-oriented* conservatives avail themselves of to exert social and cultural dominance; i.e., a casus belli of the culture war that they wage to win cultural hegemony away from "liberals". That is, it's all about power, not life. (It, the abortion issue and the whole culture war, also works nicely to distract us from the economic issues and inequities that it would make more sense for us to focus on; that is, a culture war diverts our thought and energies away from class struggle and has the effect of dividing and conquering the working class. At any rate, if conservative anti-abortion types genuinely cared about life they'd exhibit a more life-affirmingly compassionate nature. Yes, his/her lack of simple kindness and compassion toward the poor seriously diminishes the credibility of the conservative's claim to be someone taking an enlightened ethical stance. Take note, conservatives, authentic decency = compassion.)

* The conservative's social dominance orientation, which is inculcated by our capitalist society's thinly-veiled system of domination, goes a long way toward explaining the affinity of conservatives for capitalism, i.e. for a system featuring a dominant economic class whose members the conservative vicariously identifies with. Yes, therein lies the true, largely unconscious or dissembled-by-ideology reason why the American right is so staunchly pro-capitalist and anti-compassion for the poor (the poor being disrespected fundamentally because of their lack of social power). If anyone is interested in learning more about the theory of social dominance orientation and its usefulness in understanding the conservative movement, here are a few links,

http://www.dailykos.com...

http://www.google.com......

http://en.wikipedia.org......
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:44:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:24:18 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:14:37 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Why are you (pro-abortion) guys posting on this thread? These questions are being asked of pro-life and anti-abortion members. They are not being directed towards you.

Are you essentially saying that you're not inclined to challenge yourself to reply to my above post? Well, I'll give you one more chance, here it is again:

The whole abortion issue is pretty much a red herring, i.e. an issue that social dominance-oriented* conservatives avail themselves of to exert social and cultural dominance; i.e., a casus belli of the culture war that they wage to win cultural hegemony away from "liberals". That is, it's all about power, not life. (It, the abortion issue and the whole culture war, also works nicely to distract us from the economic issues and inequities that it would make more sense for us to focus on; that is, a culture war diverts our thought and energies away from class struggle and has the effect of dividing and conquering the working class. At any rate, if conservative anti-abortion types genuinely cared about life they'd exhibit a more life-affirmingly compassionate nature. Yes, his/her lack of simple kindness and compassion toward the poor seriously diminishes the credibility of the conservative's claim to be someone taking an enlightened ethical stance. Take note, conservatives, authentic decency = compassion.)

* The conservative's social dominance orientation, which is inculcated by our capitalist society's thinly-veiled system of domination, goes a long way toward explaining the affinity of conservatives for capitalism, i.e. for a system featuring a dominant economic class whose members the conservative vicariously identifies with. Yes, therein lies the true, largely unconscious or dissembled-by-ideology reason why the American right is so staunchly pro-capitalist and anti-compassion for the poor (the poor being disrespected fundamentally because of their lack of social power). If anyone is interested in learning more about the theory of social dominance orientation and its usefulness in understanding the conservative movement, here are a few links,

http://www.dailykos.com...

http://www.google.com......

http://en.wikipedia.org......

Please stop derailing my thread with this. I am not interested in any of it as it has nothing to do with the questions of my fellow anti abortion members found in my first post.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:10:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:49:41 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

It violates God's law.

God actually supports abortion.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:12:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:44:53 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Please stop derailing my thread with this. I am not interested in any of it as it has nothing to do with the questions of my fellow anti abortion members found in my first post.

Chuz this is a public forum, not a space for you to gather an anti-abortion circle jerk. Besides how many other anti-abortion folk are even here? LogicalLunatic who thinks he speaks for God?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:34:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:44:53 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:24:18 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:14:37 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Why are you (pro-abortion) guys posting on this thread? These questions are being asked of pro-life and anti-abortion members. They are not being directed towards you.

Are you essentially saying that you're not inclined to challenge yourself to reply to my above post? Well, I'll give you one more chance, here it is again:

The whole abortion issue is pretty much a red herring, i.e. an issue that social dominance-oriented* conservatives avail themselves of to exert social and cultural dominance; i.e., a casus belli of the culture war that they wage to win cultural hegemony away from "liberals". That is, it's all about power, not life. (It, the abortion issue and the whole culture war, also works nicely to distract us from the economic issues and inequities that it would make more sense for us to focus on; that is, a culture war diverts our thought and energies away from class struggle and has the effect of dividing and conquering the working class. At any rate, if conservative anti-abortion types genuinely cared about life they'd exhibit a more life-affirmingly compassionate nature. Yes, his/her lack of simple kindness and compassion toward the poor seriously diminishes the credibility of the conservative's claim to be someone taking an enlightened ethical stance. Take note, conservatives, authentic decency = compassion.)

* The conservative's social dominance orientation, which is inculcated by our capitalist society's thinly-veiled system of domination, goes a long way toward explaining the affinity of conservatives for capitalism, i.e. for a system featuring a dominant economic class whose members the conservative vicariously identifies with. Yes, therein lies the true, largely unconscious or dissembled-by-ideology reason why the American right is so staunchly pro-capitalist and anti-compassion for the poor (the poor being disrespected fundamentally because of their lack of social power). If anyone is interested in learning more about the theory of social dominance orientation and its usefulness in understanding the conservative movement, here are a few links,

http://www.dailykos.com...

http://www.google.com......

http://en.wikipedia.org......

Please stop derailing my thread with this. I am not interested in any of it as it has nothing to do with the questions of my fellow anti abortion members found in my first post.

Translation: "Such insights are too subversive of the legitimacy of my political point of view and I simply can't face them. Please leave me alone to discuss the topic of abortion in bad faith, you naughty leftist you."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:42:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:47:40 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:


Never mind. God actually gives instructions on how to perform an abortion.

Numbers 5:11-31

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: "If a man"s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure"or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure" 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 ""The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband"" 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse""may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

""Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."

23 ""The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 ""This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.""
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 10:27:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:42:57 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/27/2014 12:47:40 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:


Never mind. God actually gives instructions on how to perform an abortion.

Numbers 5:11-31

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: "If a man"s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure"or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure" 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 ""The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband"" 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse""may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

This verse does not condone abortion.

""Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."

23 ""The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 ""This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.""
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...