Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
"He" can be generic, so I don't know about being sexists...
The Christian Right Is Back And Ready To Dominate The 2012 Campaign
- Thread starter sailingaway
- Start date
"He" can be generic, so I don't know about being sexists...
I've talked to Evangelicals who think that Ron is "pro-abortion" because he wants it left up to the states. So, he will have a difficult time convincing the Evangelicals that his position is the right position. They also don't agree with him on homosexuals marrying; he wants it left up to the states. And, they don't agree with him on his position to end the "War on Drugs".
Also, the issue of abortion is "dead". The Republicans killed it. The Republicans, under Bush, controlled our government, lock stock and barrel, for 5 1/2 years, and did absolute nothing; zero, nada, about ending abortion. Those who claim to be against abortion had their chance, and they did nothing because they want abortion to remain an issue that will continue to divide the Republicans and the Democrats. They don't care about unborn babies, because if they did, the Republicans would have ended abortion when they had the power to do so.
Last edited:
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
Actually, to say that there is not a living being inside a pregnant woman is being disingenuous. I agree that someone who is pro-choice is protecting liberty -- their own. Unfortunately, they don't give a shit about the liberty of the innocent life inside of the pregnant woman. Expediency, perhaps. Selfishness, maybe. A lack of being responsible for one's own actions, absolutely.
Last edited:
That is not true of all "pro-choice" people. Unlike China, where abortions are mandatory, people in America still have the right to make a "choice" to not have an abortion.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
You nor I know when life really starts. There is no clear time when the "thing" goes from a parasite to a living being. Is sperm life? What about an egg? At what point does the combination of the two form a life.
Life starts with the sperm. I remember it well. It was like swimming up the entire Mississippi in half-an-hour.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Everyone knows that life begins at conception, even the doctors who perform abortions.
Abortion doctors don't murder sperm or eggs, they murder the biological result of the sperm and the egg, a living baby who is biologically different than the mother.
There is no way to win this argument. Abortion doctors themselves know that they are murdering a living baby, not just some random mass of tissue or an egg or some sperm.
amy31416
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 22,978
New rule: those who deny that science has any validity can not use it to bolster their arguments. Yeah, I mean you AquaBuddha. I'm bitter that you'll pull out the biological argument for your pro-life tussles, but completely deny biology (and physics and chemistry) when it comes to evolution.
Get a grip on your logic and realize that if god exists, it also "made" science.
Get a grip on your logic and realize that if god exists, it also "made" science.
TER
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 17,946
The Christian who believes that life begins at conception is not because of science, but because this is what God has revealed to mankind.
The person who believes that life begins at birth is not because of science, but because that is what their minds have decided to believe.
The person who believes that life begins at birth is not because of science, but because that is what their minds have decided to believe.
Right. So, why do you keep arguing?
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
It wasn't an argument from biology, it was an argument from the law of identity. A is A, and A is not non A.
Besides, I don't "deny biology", I don't deny science either. Science can be very useful, but it can never be TRUE in the final sense. Science is approximation, not finality. Arguments purely from observations are inductive, and therefore always fallacious.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Very well said.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I should have known this is what this announcement of campaign activity turned into.
I wonder sometimes if some people are more dedicated to saying other people are wrong in their personal beliefs than they are interested in Ron getting new supporters. This group is outreach, why spit in the face of those the campaign is trying to encourage to join us?
That isn't to the entire discussion, of course, much of which is thoughtful, but it probably belongs in the religion section.
I wonder sometimes if some people are more dedicated to saying other people are wrong in their personal beliefs than they are interested in Ron getting new supporters. This group is outreach, why spit in the face of those the campaign is trying to encourage to join us?
That isn't to the entire discussion, of course, much of which is thoughtful, but it probably belongs in the religion section.
Last edited:
amy31416
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 22,978
Go back and read your post. And HELL YEAH you deny science...you just did in this very post. You either deny all of it as the bullshit you've said it is, or you goddamned well better study it. If you don't, then you ought to shut the hell up about it. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in Christianity when it suits my needs--that would be dishonest.
I will, however, defend your right to believe whatever you want, even when it's absolutely ridiculous.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
It was an argument using the law of identity. The baby is not the mother and the mother is not the baby. The baby is not the sperm and the sperm is not the baby. Etc.
You just had a baby, right Amy? What a blessing! Did people come up to you while you were pregnant and congratulate you on your new "mass of tissue"? Of course not.
Most importantly, I hope you can see the difference between
1) using science to understand approximations about the world we live in, and
2) using science as the basis for making statements of universal truth.
One is valid and the other is not valid.
amy31416
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 22,978
Here's the thing you fail to realize: both science and religion can be valid reasoning for the anti-abortion position. However, you are quite consistent in denying that science has any validity, and therefore you do not have any business in using it as any semblance of an argument for a pro-life position. While I am openly agnostic, I also frequently promote that religious people should study science as a direct study of God.
Challenge yourself, challenge atheists and agnostics. At this point you are failing, and attempting to appeal to emotion will not work with me. Yes, I just had a baby recently, but that is not relevant to the argument, except if you are interested in my opinion. The bible is far too flawed to make any statement of universal truth--you have got to know that.
Hmmmmmm, and you would deny the party with the greatest stake (aka the inutero child) a voice........because??????????
If in fact you REALLY can't figure out that an inutero child is alive then YOU are either being utterly disingenuous or you are just plain too thick to be allowed out in public without a handler.
Last edited:
Last edited:
2/3 of attempted pregnancies fail, so should that woman be charged with manslaughter? What about miscarriage? That's a new life according to you.
Fail.
Similar threads
