The Abortion Issue

[Robbie Stewart]

Robbie, no point in trying to save face. Man up and admit you used a quote out of context to legitimize your position. 

 

What were you trying to prove then? Using pro-choice arguments to bolster your pro-birth position. 

 

I am not trying to save face. I pointed out that a person who is FOR abortion even concedes that science supports the supposition that life begins at conception, as I was asked so many times over as to why I believe it.

 

But yet, because I am a CHRISTIAN is the reason why I am being attacked / rejected. Personally, I don't care either way. You can bash me all you want. I was giving an honest answer to an honest question. And no, I did not quote Peter Singer out of context. The context of the original question asked by 6th Mass Extinction was when do I believe life begins. I chose to quote a non-Christian's perspective, so that I would not be accused of bias. Obviously I was mistaken, seeing as no matter what evidence I bring to the table, I will be rejected and accused of being a liar, even though I am not.

 

But that aside. I did not make that statement. Peter Singer did - don't believe me? Go buy the book and disprove his quote. Now, you have to ask yourself why a PRO-CHOICE, abortion supporter would make such a loaded statement?

 

Seems to me, because deep down, as soon as life is identified as irrevocably human, to end it would be tantamount to murder, and no-one wants to be a murderer, right?

[Stretch]

Except, it does not exist.

 

And yes, I have in fact read the whole book. Many times. And currently, I am about half way through again.

You have read all of those books not included?

 

What is your take on the acts of Thecla and the reason why it wasn't included in the Bible because it promoted power in women which was not accepted by the men compiling the bible?

[Robbie Stewart]

Ding ding ding...

 

Fact checking - there's a novel idea 

 

I agree. You should give it a go sometime 

[Edition 507]

When God creates a new life, and for whatever reason that life ends, or never begins as you are trying to imply, the eternal part of that life returns to Him.

OK, so when I die my eternal part returns to God. Is this eternal part absorbed by God and I effectively cease so exist, or do I still retain some sort of an identity as myself and will I be conscious of this identity and will I be aware and knowledgeable? 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I quoted Peter Singer himself. You quoted Wikipedia...go figure.

 

That aside, I did not say he was not pro-choice. Go read my statement again, particularly the bit where I mentioned that he was an Abortion A D V O C A T E - go look it up if the meaning of advocate evades you?

 

I am confused now...

Dude, you're doubling down on a losing position. You were caught out, and now you're digging in doggedly. 

 

Wiki is a very well curated source of verifiable information that lists all the sources that the curators use to fill in the information. It's the modern-day Encarta / Britannica. You cannot dismiss it out of hand as you're attempting to do so. 

 

Even from a research perspective, it's extremely useful as it lays out the source material very neatly and concisely. If it wasn't referenced, then you'd have a leg to stand on. But Odie is right - you're quoting very selectively (chery picking) to suit your argument. 

[Edition 507]

Because of that sin, all of creation is subject to the effects thereof, including decay, disease and death.

So humans can die and cease to exist?

[cat-i]

Dude, you're doubling down on a losing position. You were caught out, and now you're digging in doggedly. 

 

Wiki is a very well curated source of verifiable information that lists all the sources that the curators use to fill in the information. It's the modern-day Encarta / Britannica. You cannot dismiss it out of hand as you're attempting to do so. 

 

Even from a research perspective, it's extremely useful as it lays out the source material very neatly and concisely. If it wasn't referenced, then you'd have a leg to stand on. But Odie is right - you're quoting very selectively (chery picking) to suit your argument. 

 

I fairness, he did say the same as the wiki quote. Singer is not a christian, pro-abortion but what Robbie quoted was Singer's idea on when life begins.

 

That said, 'when life begins' or 'is alive' can't be an argument for not aborting. There's got to be more to the definition/argument than being'alive' - otherwise we can't eat carrots because plants are also 'alive'.

 

Edit: Typo

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I am not trying to save face. I pointed out that a person who is FOR abortion even concedes that science supports the supposition that life begins at conception, as I was asked so many times over as to why I believe it.

 

But yet, because I am a CHRISTIAN is the reason why I am being attacked / rejected. Personally, I don't care either way. You can bash me all you want. I was giving an honest answer to an honest question. And no, I did not quote Peter Singer out of context. The context of the original question asked by 6th Mass Extinction was when do I believe life begins. I chose to quote a non-Christian's perspective, so that I would not be accused of bias. Obviously I was mistaken, seeing as no matter what evidence I bring to the table, I will be rejected and accused of being a liar, even though I am not.

 

But that aside. I did not make that statement. Peter Singer did - don't believe me? Go buy the book and disprove his quote. Now, you have to ask yourself why a PRO-CHOICE, abortion supporter would make such a loaded statement?

 

Seems to me, because deep down, as soon as life is identified as irrevocably human, to end it would be tantamount to murder, and no-one wants to be a murderer, right?

He (Singer) was asking a question on the beginning of human life, from a philosophical perspective. If you read further, you'll read that he expands on that point a bit further, and goes into different stages of life being formed. YOU are using a very specific quote to support your view. 

 

Where your religion comes into play is in trying to force your ethical standards on to others, based on your interpretation of a collection of stories. Your religion is informing your standpoint, and you're disregarding other viewpoints when they don't fit your pre-prepared narrative. 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I fairness, he did say the same as the wiki quote. Singer is not a christian, pro-abortion but what Robbie quoted was Singer's idea on when life begins.

 

That said, 'when life begins' or 'is alive' can't be an argument for not aborting. There's got to be more to the definition/argument than being'alive' - otherwise we can't eat carrots because plants are also 'alive'.

 

Edit: Typo

Yeah, agreed. But he stopped at a point that "proved" his standpoint. Singer went on to define the various points of "beginning of life". He's also not pro abortion. He's PRO CHOICE. There's a difference, one that Robbie and the rest of the anti-abortion crown seems hell bent on not recognising. And THAT is the problem. 

 

You can not like something, yet allow people the choice to decide for themselves. 

[Robbie Stewart]

You have read all of those books not included?

 

What is your take on the acts of Thecla and the reason why it wasn't included in the Bible because it promoted power in women which was not accepted by the men compiling the bible?

No, I meant I have read the Bible many times over, and Jemimah is not a book in the Bible, nor does your quoted verse exist anywhere else in it.

 

 

Either God is the author of the Bible, or He is not. There is no third option. If He is the author, then He makes no mistakes, as God is perfect. He does not “forget” things. He does not “accidentally” leave books out. So thus the Bible is infallible and verifiable true if this supposition holds weight.

 

If God is not the author of the Bible, then it stands to reason that man is. Who would be authorized to compile the Canon of Scripture? The early church leaders would. So, thus they would be the final authority of what qualifies as Scripture. If there is now a claim that ‘lost books’ of the Bible exist, then by what standard are those books now qualified as lost? If the Bible is a collection of beliefs of the early church fathers, and some books were excluded, it stands to reason that those excluded books were rejected due to inconsistencies with the beliefs of the early church. Remember that for the sake of this argument, the Bible was a human construct, not God’s, so the original authors had the full right to decide what is included, and what not.

 

It is ironic that many of the so-called ‘lost books’ community point out that these books were discovered by them and were “suppressed” by the early church fathers. It is akin to accusing them of throwing these ‘lost books’ out, trashing them. The accusation stands as charged. The early church did throw them out. Now, critics such as yourself seems to think this bolsters your argument. In fact, it does the opposite, because it proves that these books were not included for the simple reason that they were not accepted by the early church fathers as representative of their beliefs, so therefor the ‘lost books’ cannot be part of the their Bible.

 

So, despite your view of the Bible – God Authored, or Man authored, there is no sense in which it makes any sense to refer to ‘lost books’ of the Bible. It is simply not rationally possible that there can be any ‘lost books’ of the Bible. That argument does not stand. There are other books of antiquity, but they are not, nor were never intended to be part of the Bible.

[Stretch]

 

 

.

 

You can not like something, yet allow people the choice to decide for themselves.

I cannot stress how important this concept is.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

[Piston ZA]

It seems to me that some of us are hiding behind bible bashing, religion ridiculing rhetoric, and avoiding taking a standpoint as to when we believe life should be protected. Here are some options, in chronological order.

1. Conception, because that is when life begins according to science.

2. Implantation, because in layman’s terms that is really when pregnancy starts.

3. Heart starts beating, which is what the USA Republican Party seem to be trying to legislate for where they have a majority.

4. Sentient life, or consciousness (ability to feel pain, awareness of impulses)( I had to google it, CBlake’s position.)

5. Viability, chance of surviving if born prematurely, which obviously would depend on the facilities available.

6. Birth

7. Only if the biological mother wants the baby to live, even if it should survive an attempted abortion. This seems to be the USA Democratic Party’s stance, trying to pass legislation allowing abortion surviving babies to be left to die if the “mother” does not want it.  

Been falling for Trump and the GOPs lies and propaganda?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/10/republicans-are-pushing-another-false-claim-about-abortion-rile-up-voters/?utm_term=.838451ca1324

 

http://time.com/5579685/trump-late-term-abortion-false-claims/

[Robbie Stewart]

OK, so when I die my eternal part returns to God. Is this eternal part absorbed by God and I effectively cease so exist, or do I still retain some sort of an identity as myself and will I be conscious of this identity and will I be aware and knowledgeable? 

 

You will be conscious,aware and knowledgeable, yes.

 

You will die in as much as your earthly body ceased to exist. Death as we know it, ergo, no heartbeat.

 

Your spirit lives on, as it is from God to begin with. Your spirit is made in His Image, eternal, conscious, self-aware, and able to reason and think. This returns to Him, and He will decide that spirit's fate.

[Robbie Stewart]

 

You're telling me in a roundabout way to shut up?

[gummibear]

You will be conscious,aware and knowledgeable, yes.

 

You will die in as much as your earthly body ceased to exist. Death as we know it, ergo, no heartbeat.

 

Your spirit lives on, as it is from God to begin with. Your spirit is made in His Image, eternal, conscious, self-aware, and able to reason and think. This returns to Him, and He will decide that spirit's fate.

We are already in hell and will all go to a place where we will sing kumbaya together [emoji106]