Pro-Life: The Logical Stance

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#31

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:27 pm

BryanH wrote:If [eugenics] doesn't worry you, then why do you care about abortion and euthanasia?
Eugenics has nothing to do with abortion and euthanasia; it isn't even a related topic. If you want to discuss eugenics, start another thread.
BryanH wrote: Again you are AVOIDING the main issue. It's hard for almost anyone to acknowledge that sometimes we have to choose directly/indirectly who dies and who lives.
Unless you're an MD, few of us will have to make this type of decision. Pregnant women are an exception because they now have the legal authority to terminate the life of another person.*

So, I asked you a clear question: Would you put down your mother if she became a burden to you? Here is my original question:
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You are the legal guardian of your mother who is suffering from Alzheimer's. She's helpless and totally dependent on you. This is a great burden for you and your family. So...do you ''off'' your mother if you can do it legally? What makes this situation any different from aborting a baby?
The answer you gave me,
BryanH wrote: It's not that I don't want to help her, but can I? ...
is probably one many pregnant women ask themselves when considering an abortion. So, based on the answer you gave me, I presume you would euthanize your mother.

Why not call her up and ask her to participate in this discussion?

FL

*in most Western countries.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#32

Post by Jac3510 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:57 pm

BryanH wrote:
No it doesn't. If parents can't or don't want to take care of their children, they have an OBLIGATION to take them to social services where they can be cared for. They cannot just neglect their well-being. If they do, they are rightfully punished by society.
SOCIETY CHANGES. [I don't need to remind you what they did with some of the children in Ancient Sparta, right?]
Of course, but that has nothing to with my point. We are discussing whether or not secularists ought to consider abortion immoral and push for it to be illegal. You are allowing a "way out" for secularists by arguing that women should not be required to care for their children. I am showing you why you are wrong on that. It is called providing a counterexample. There is no principled difference between a woman being required to care for her child prenatal and postnatal. Of course, you could always just be consistent and argue that women ought to be allowed to starve their children to death if they so choose, but somehow, I don't see you making that argument. Because you know such a thing would be irrational. Society knows it to be irrational, too, which is why society forbids it. If they were to change to allow it, society would degenerate. Just so, the society that allows its women to kill their prenatal children has degenerated as well. In your example, Sparta was a degenerated society, and in that respect, they were very wrong.
And by the way, current law proves your argument wrong in another way. Absentee fathers are still required to pay child support even if they don't want the child--even if they took measures to avoid having the child. Therefore, you are wrong when you say that we cannot force someone to take care of another human being. On the contrary, one of the basic premises of society is that parents are required by law to take care of their children. They don't get to "opt in" for that responsibility, and the sure as heck don't get to "opt out" of it.
All I can say about your comment is: LOL.

Paying money? Who cares about money when your father isn't there for you? So I am not wrong at all. You can force the father to pay, but you can't force the father to actually raise the child. That is what I am talking about. Financial compensation? Really? So actually fathers can opt-out and PAY.

Never heard of mothers opting out and paying child support. Have you?
If all you can say is "LOL" then you have no business discussing this issue, because you are showing a breathtaking naivete and frankly a childish intellectual capacity and response.

Unfortunately for you, it would have been better to have left it at "LOL," because the remainder of your response (such as it was) demonstrates just such inability to think clearly.

So you ask about who cares about paying money? How about the mother and child receiving that money so that they can actually afford to live? Or do you think that men should be able to abandon their children and not pay child support? I certainly don't, and society has rightly agreed with me. So we, as a society, care.

And no, we can't force the father to raise the child. In fact, society has (again rightly) taken the right upon themselves to disallow some men from raising their children after concluding that such men would be a threat to those very children. But even those men are still required to support the child. To confuse raising and supporting a child is unforgivable. It also goes to a terribly insufficient view of both manhood and parenthood. As I have heard it said, "Son, any boy can make a baby. It takes a man to be a father." If you want to continue to defend a "boyish" -- that is, a childish -- approach to society and ethics, then feel free to do so. The rest of us adults who wish to actually be rational about these things will carry on without you and will write you off for exactly what you are.
Look Jac, you are arguing with me for PERFECT LAWS in a society that is far, far, far away from being perfect. So coming back to what you said to me on the other thread where we were talking about using the RIGHT TOOLS when trying to prove the existence of GOD, what tools do you want to use in this society? Utopic tools?
Again, your reading comprehension seems to be failing you. I've not argued for perfect laws, and even if I were, that wouldn't change matters one bit. I have argued that the principle you are espousing--namely, that no one can force you to care for another person--is wrong. It is wrong philosophically and ethically, and it is wrong legally. It is wrong legally because society has recognized that it is wrong, and they have done so correctly.

So, in fact, people can and should be required to care for others. To answer the age old question, yes, you are your brother's keeper. Of course, it is an open debate as to what your responsibility to your brother is. And the answer to that will always depend on the nature of the relationship. In the case of mothers, at a minimum, they are required to care for the child at least long enough for them to find a better place. It is quite right that perhaps the best thing a mother can do for her children is to give them to someone else so that those children can have a better chance at life. It is quite wrong to say that a mother can therefore go ahead and kill her child because it is an inconvenience to her.

All I want is for you to be consistent. Like all childish thinkers, you will not be, but I want that all the same. I want you to either argue that women should not be allowed to murder their unborn children, or I want you to be consistent with your own logic for allowing the possibility of murdering their children and go ahead and allow them the possibility of murdering their born children. If one is an inconvenience and can so be "terminated," then so, too, can the other. There is simply no principled difference.

edit:

And as an aside, not only are you demonstrating a foolish naivete, you are also demonstrating remarkable ignorance only surpassed by the arrogance with which you defend it. Case in point, you argue that euthansia does exist. FL was too kind to you by allowing a de facto and de jure distinction. For on that point, you are wrong in all but 47 states. It is true that four states (OR, VT, WA, and MT) have legalized physician assisted suicide, which is euthanasia. Yet in 47 states, it does not exist, and yet in those same 47 states, abortion does. Once cannot consistently say that we do not have the right to take people's life with their consent and then argue that we do have the right to take a child's right to life when they are incapable of giving such consent. In fact, if you wanted a real parallel, you would do well to point out that under current law, if any child's caretaker makes decisions for the child that go directly against its interest, then society has rightly decided that it has the authority to take away that caretaker's parental authority and transfer it to someone who will look out for the best interests of the child. The same principle, by the way, is true at the other end of the spectrum. If it can be shown that any given person's healthcare agent (including the person themselves) is making decisions that are against the best interest of the person, then their right to make those decisions can be stripped by society (via the court system) and given to another who will make decisions in the best interest of the person. And, yet again, the same principle holds in financial interests for daily life as well (that is called fiduciary responsibility).

On this, you can trust me. I am a hospital chaplain who works in an LTAC (long-term acute care) with an acuity rate of about 70%. I deal extensively with end of life issues, advance directives, DNRs, etc. So, yet again, you are just wrong.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Oxford, UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#33

Post by BryanH » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:44 am

@FL
So, I asked you a clear question: Would you put down your mother if she became a burden to you? Here is my original question:
Your question is wrong and there is no point in answering it. I have already provided you with a clear example of why it is wrong.
is probably one many pregnant women ask themselves when considering an abortion. So, based on the answer you gave me, I presume you would euthanize your mother.

Why not call her up and ask her to participate in this discussion?
Funny, but acting like an ignorant doesn't change anything.


@jac
Of course, but that has nothing to with my point. We are discussing whether or not secularists ought to consider abortion immoral and push for it to be illegal.
This is a CHANGE.
There is no principled difference between a woman being required to care for her child prenatal and postnatal. Of course, you could always just be consistent and argue that women ought to be allowed to starve their children to death if they so choose, but somehow, I don't see you making that argument. Because you know such a thing would be irrational. Society knows it to be irrational, too, which is why society forbids it. If they were to change to allow it, society would degenerate.
I totally agree with you have said, but you are talking about a general case. The problem is that when you actually analyze unique cases, the ramifications of a choice can lead to other even more "wrong" choices. That is what I said in my original comment. Every case is unique. You can't just say: this is wrong or you can, but at the same time you don't want to acknowledge the consequences.

It's easy to say "keep the baby" without thinking about how the woman feels, what she wants, her situation and so on...
So you ask about who cares about paying money? How about the mother and child receiving that money so that they can actually afford to live? Or do you think that men should be able to abandon their children and not pay child support? I certainly don't, and society has rightly agreed with me. So we, as a society, care.
Unfortunately you are the one being childish. Why should the mother actually depend on the father to make ends meet?

I repeat and hopefully this time you will understand what I actually want to convey: a father paying child support is a SINE QUA NON. I am not discussing that. I am discussing the fact that society allows the father to get away from being a parent while a mother continues being a parent. A father SHOULD be FORCED to raise his own child and EDUCATE him and INTERACT with him and invest TIME and building a RELATIONSHIP.

Hope this time I have been more clear.
I want you to either argue that women should not be allowed to murder their unborn children, or I want you to be consistent with your own logic for allowing the possibility of murdering their children and go ahead and allow them the possibility of murdering their born children. If one is an inconvenience and can so be "terminated," then so, too, can the other. There is simply no principled difference.
If there is no difference for you, feel free to support and fight for your own point of view. I for one am not supporting such a simplistic approach on abortion. You just want to make things simple when they are not.
And as an aside, not only are you demonstrating a foolish naivete, you are also demonstrating remarkable ignorance only surpassed by the arrogance with which you defend it. Case in point, you argue that euthansia does exist. FL was too kind to you by allowing a de facto and de jure distinction. For on that point, you are wrong in all but 47 states. It is true that four states (OR, VT, WA, and MT) have legalized physician assisted suicide, which is euthanasia. Yet in 47 states, it does not exist, and yet in those same 47 states, abortion does. Once cannot consistently say that we do not have the right to take people's life with their consent and then argue that we do have the right to take a child's right to life when they are incapable of giving such consent. In fact, if you wanted a real parallel, you would do well to point out that under current law, if any child's caretaker makes decisions for the child that go directly against its interest, then society has rightly decided that it has the authority to take away that caretaker's parental authority and transfer it to someone who will look out for the best interests of the child. The same principle, by the way, is true at the other end of the spectrum. If it can be shown that any given person's healthcare agent (including the person themselves) is making decisions that are against the best interest of the person, then their right to make those decisions can be stripped by society (via the court system) and given to another who will make decisions in the best interest of the person. And, yet again, the same principle holds in financial interests for daily life as well (that is called fiduciary responsibility).

On this, you can trust me. I am a hospital chaplain who works in an LTAC (long-term acute care) with an acuity rate of about 70%. I deal extensively with end of life issues, advance directives, DNRs, etc. So, yet again, you are just wrong.
Jac, you need you need to understand one very important thing about me. I totally agree with you 100%, but we don't live in a world governed by morality. You arguing for moral values and laws in a world governed by MONEY. Money has nothing to do with moral values.

So I can't just ignore reality. That is why I am supporting my own point of view which is not childish at all. I am just arguing for a point of view that is in strict correlation to the laws that govern our society, mainly ECONOMIC GAIN. As long as nothing changes is that direction, there will be no success for people who are militating/fighting/advocating against abortion.

I am not a supporter of a society governed by MONEY, but this is the world we live in today. Unless you want to totally change how society works, well, good luck with your SOLID point of view.

As sad as it might sound, in current times your solid point of view is not as solid as solid gold.

Sometimes I am just too pragmatic. Hope you can forgive me for that.

User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#34

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:03 pm

BryanH wrote: Your question is wrong and there is no point in answering it. I have already provided you with a clear example of why it is wrong.
No...you have provided a confused and nonsensical example. Here is my question again,
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: You are the legal guardian of your mother who is suffering from Alzheimer's. She's helpless and totally dependent on you. This is a great burden for you and your family. So...do you ''off'' your mother if you can do it legally? What makes this situation any different from aborting a baby?
I assume you just don't want to come out and say that you would euthanize your sick mother. I also assume that you are a consistent thinker, so if you approve abortion you would normally be OK with ''mercy killing.'' But...perhaps I'm too generous. Perhaps Jac is right,
Jac3510 wrote: All I want is for you to be consistent. Like all childish thinkers, you will not be, but I want that all the same. I want you to either argue that women should not be allowed to murder their unborn children, or I want you to be consistent with your own logic for allowing the possibility of murdering their children and go ahead and allow them the possibility of murdering their born children. If one is an inconvenience and can so be "terminated," then so, too, can the other. There is simply no principled difference.
So, which are you? Are you consistent in your moral judgements or do you go with what is socially acceptable at the moment?

FL
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +

domokunrox
Valued Member
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:52 am
Christian: Yes
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#35

Post by domokunrox » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:25 pm

After reading everything Bryan wrote. I can only conclude that he agrees that abortion is a moral abomination but because we live in a world governed by money and everything including murder is allowed if its for economic gain.

In that case, I have a hefty amount of debt. Who should I hire to go brutally murder my creditors? Paying rent isn't good for my economic situation either, so I need to hire someone to murder the homeowner and all his relatives. Paying taxes isn't to my economic benefit, either. Perhaps we all need to hire someone to murder the IRS employees.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#36

Post by Jac3510 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:35 pm

Sorry, Bryan, I just don't have the energy to deal with you. You just have no idea what you are talking about, and it's just painful to watch you make such ridiculous errors. And, truly, the worst part is that when you come up with your posts, you are convinced before you hit the submit button that you are saying something meaningful and substantive.

It isn't going to do anybody one lick of good for me to continue going through this with you. My best advice for you is to go back and read the thread very slowly, and when you come across something you don't understand, shake your head and reread it again more slowly, and keep doing that until it clicks. Because I'm just telling you--Bryan, I am informing you--that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You can write this off as whatever you want--a personal attack, as me being scared of your amazingly sophisticated arguments, as me just being bored. I don't care. Or you can take it for the meaningful, pastoral advice it is. Stop talking about stuff you don't understand and start learning. Because the more you talk, the less you hear, and the less you hear, the less of a service you are providing yourself. And you certainly aren't providing the board with any service by way of serious and meaningful objections. Really, all you are doing is illustrating K's original point, I think.

Sorry to be so blunt, but really . . . you should change your approach, dramatically. Maybe FL or dom or K or whoever are willing to continue this with you. I'm not.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Thadeyus
Established Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:45 am
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#37

Post by Thadeyus » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:35 pm

*Continues to look in and read posts...*

So....that kind of went down hill in tone.

Very much cheers to all.

User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Oxford, UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#38

Post by BryanH » Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:38 am

@FL
Your example with the mother is pointless because offing your mother or not is not the actual choice yoy need to make as pointed out. You are actually choosing between your kids and your mother.

@jac

I need to change dramatically or you need to take a very good look around you and start getting real. People don't live according to philosophical theories on paper.

@dom

You and Jac are both smart people when it comes to philosophy, logic and argumentation but both of you seem to have a problem understanding that your superior logic does not work in everyday life. People do not act according to your conclusions on paper. Your theoretical assertions although correct have no actuality to say so. They are merely "pure potential".

PS: Your ironic answer is quite funny, but sadly very true. Everything you saud there has happened and continue to happen.

User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#39

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:17 am

Thadeyus wrote:*Continues to look in and read posts...*

So....that kind of went down hill in tone.

Very much cheers to all.

I'm sure that on some level, BryanH sees his incongruity but pride and the desire to not lose face makes it hard for him to admit it. I understand that: been there, done that.

You may want to consider the story of Herod and the beheading of John the Baptist in Mark 6:14-28. Herod knew it was wrong to kill John but went ahead and ordered the execution anyway.

FL
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#40

Post by Jac3510 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:43 am

BryanH wrote:I need to change dramatically
I'm glad we agree.
or you need to take a very good look around you and start getting real.
I am being real. You would do well to take your own advice. There are over 3,000 children murdered every day by people who refuse to be consistent in their thinking. They decide they don't want to be inconvenienced and so they declare a person not a person after all so that they have the "right" to murder them.

That's real. The blood of generations is on your hands. There is little more real than that. You should be absolutely appalled at your immoral apathy towards infanticide.
People don't live according to philosophical theories on paper.
Quite right. People are not living by the truths we're explaining to you and that you are just refusing to admit. On the contrary, 3,000 a day are dying by your "philosophical theories on paper." Good job, you accomplice to murder.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Thadeyus
Established Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:45 am
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#41

Post by Thadeyus » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:07 pm

*Waves*

Just a question, where do you get this figure,
Jac3510 wrote:There are over 3,000 children murdered every day
from?

Very much cheers to all.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#42

Post by Jac3510 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:30 pm

Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Thadeyus
Established Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:45 am
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#43

Post by Thadeyus » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:01 pm

Interesting and thank you for the link.

So...having previously commented that 'Life' is complicated my stance is that both 'ends' of Life are also complicated.

Do I subscribe to 'Abortion'? Short, simple (too simple) answer is: 'Yes'.

Do I subscribe to 'Euthanasia'? Again the short, too simple reply answer is: 'Yes'

As for "Eugenics'? I believe this practice should be left behind, much with the Spartans who were known and vocally proud to practice such things.

Of course longer answers and explanations can/should/will be more forthcoming should any one be interested. :)

Very much cheers to all.

User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Oxford, UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#44

Post by BryanH » Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:19 am

@jac
I am being real. You would do well to take your own advice. There are over 3,000 children murdered every day by people who refuse to be consistent in their thinking. They decide they don't want to be inconvenienced and so they declare a person not a person after all so that they have the "right" to murder them.

That's real. The blood of generations is on your hands. There is little more real than that. You should be absolutely appalled at your immoral apathy towards infanticide.
I am afraid that you are quite inconsistent. You say that 3000 children get murdered everyday. Have you done any research what so ever for each and every case? Do you know any of the conditions that have lead to such a choice? You just blame on inconvenience. Just take the easy way out and continue bashing others with your morality.

So you get real. Maybe some of those cases were because of inconvenience and that shouldn't happen, but what about the rest? Do you think that all people choose abortion just because of a little inconvenience? I told you once and I will tell you again: you can't just put everybody on the same line.

That's real. The blood of generations is on your hands. There is little more real than that. You should be absolutely appalled at your immoral apathy towards infanticide.

Actually the blood of generations is on ALL of our hands. We are ALL responsible for the way society is today. If we had a better society then people wouldn't have to contemplate abortion. But when I tell you that our society is governed by MONEY and that is why things are how they are, you mock me and call me childish.


Quite right. People are not living by the truths we're explaining to you and that you are just refusing to admit. On the contrary, 3,000 a day are dying by your "philosophical theories on paper." Good job, you accomplice to murder.
Actually I didn't refuse to admit the truths you were explaining. I did admit that you are right.

On the other hand, I clearly explained you that your truths can't be used in today's society without changing the entire foundation of how our society is shaped.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times

Re: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief

#45

Post by jlay » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:19 am

BryanH wrote:@jac
I am being real. You would do well to take your own advice. There are over 3,000 children murdered every day by people who refuse to be consistent in their thinking. They decide they don't want to be inconvenienced and so they declare a person not a person after all so that they have the "right" to murder them.

That's real. The blood of generations is on your hands. There is little more real than that. You should be absolutely appalled at your immoral apathy towards infanticide.
I am afraid that you are quite inconsistent. You say that 3000 children get murdered everyday. Have you done any research what so ever for each and every case? Do you know any of the conditions that have lead to such a choice? You just blame on inconvenience. Just take the easy way out and continue bashing others with your morality.

So you get real. Maybe some of those cases were because of inconvenience and that shouldn't happen, but what about the rest? Do you think that all people choose abortion just because of a little inconvenience? I told you once and I will tell you again: you can't just put everybody on the same line.

That's real. The blood of generations is on your hands. There is little more real than that. You should be absolutely appalled at your immoral apathy towards infanticide.

Actually the blood of generations is on ALL of our hands. We are ALL responsible for the way society is today. If we had a better society then people wouldn't have to contemplate abortion. But when I tell you that our society is governed by MONEY and that is why things are how they are, you mock me and call me childish.


Quite right. People are not living by the truths we're explaining to you and that you are just refusing to admit. On the contrary, 3,000 a day are dying by your "philosophical theories on paper." Good job, you accomplice to murder.
Actually I didn't refuse to admit the truths you were explaining. I did admit that you are right.

On the other hand, I clearly explained you that your truths can't be used in today's society without changing the entire foundation of how our society is shaped.

Why is that hard for you to understand?
Bryan, you are right in the sense that we are all culpable. But you, like so many, refuse to look at the practical truth of what is going on. Jac and others like him would gladly end these atrocities if it were not for the big $$ busniess of abortion and those like you who stand in the way.
But, before we go any further, I think you owe it to us to define what you mean by "truth."
Thadeyus wrote:Interesting and thank you for the link.

So...having previously commented that 'Life' is complicated my stance is that both 'ends' of Life are also complicated.

Do I subscribe to 'Abortion'? Short, simple (too simple) answer is: 'Yes'.

Do I subscribe to 'Euthanasia'? Again the short, too simple reply answer is: 'Yes'

As for "Eugenics'? I believe this practice should be left behind, much with the Spartans who were known and vocally proud to practice such things.

Of course longer answers and explanations can/should/will be more forthcoming should any one be interested.
Forgive my candor, but your continued comment that life is complicated is annoying and is NOT an answer.
When you say the practice SHOULD be left behind, (which I agree) by what basis do you judge it to be wrong?
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious

Post Reply