Abortion because of severe health issues

[Hope_Philomena]

Christians for Abortion. Mocking those who are pro-life as not knowing facts.
Check. Got it.
unsubscribing.

Are we reading the same thread?

 

[goout]

Don’t try to force your beliefs upon the rest of the world. They don’t think they’re playing God, and they think they are doing the right thing. So how about you not attempt to presume who will be going to hell and who won’t be? You don’t know, I don’t know.

People who don’t believe in God don’t need to “play God”. They just want to survive and do what’s right.

Let’s all avoid playing God then…what you are saying is that killing is up to the whim of the individual.

And now you will protest with your own standard of human dignity that appeals to you, and by your own measure you are accused of playing God with your standard.

Can you see the bottomless pit that moral relativism is? You dismiss others as playing God by asserting a moral standard, while at the same time asserting your own binding standard.
That’s called dictatorship.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Let’s all avoid playing God then…what you are saying is that killing is up to the whim of the individual.

Now you will protest with your standard of human dignity that appeals to you, and by your own measure, you are accused of playing God with your standard.

Can you see the bottomless pit that moral relativism is?

Moral relativism is wonderful, it inspires a great many debates among society.

Some women who get abortions do not see it as killing as they may not believe that life begins at conception. It all depends on your worldview, which can be so incredibly varied. That’s why I advocate for not forcing your philosophical worldview onto the laws of society unless there is a mass consensus on said proposed law.

 

[goout]

Moral relativism is wonderful, it inspires a great many debates among society.

Some women who get abortions do not see it as killing as they may not believe that life begins at conception. It all depends on your worldview, which can be so incredibly varied. That’s why I advocate for not forcing your philosophical worldview onto the laws of society unless there is a mass consensus on said proposed law.

Great then. My neighbor annoys me and he should be dead.
You won’t object if you’re consistent in your view.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Great then. My neighbor annoys me and he should be dead.
You won’t object if you’re consistent in your view.

Mass consensus agrees that murdering people for reasons other than self defense and similar reasons is wrong. That’s why it’s against the law. So I do disagree

 

[Sy_Noe]

I am referring to faith in God. His will not mine.

There are many different religions that teach error. There is only one true faith.

Plenty of people have faith in God and are religious who do not subscribe to your faith and religion nor its view that only yours is the one true faith. And that includes people in denominations that even your church considers to be Christian.

 

[goout]

Mass consensus agrees that murdering people for reasons other than self defense and similar reasons is wrong. That’s why it’s against the law. So I do disagree

Real history proves that mass consensus endorses the murder of people for many reasons. Why is that “wrong”?

And when you answer this question with some sort of moral standard, you are self accused of playing God and forcing your philosophy on others.

The line of thinking is nothing but a-moral swiss cheese.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Real history proves that mass consensus murders people for many reasons. Why is that “wrong”.

And when you answer this question with some sort of moral standard, you are self accused of playing God and forcing your philosophy on others.

The line of thinking is nothing but a-moral swiss cheese.

I’m sorry, what history are you referring to?

If you mean things such as “In the 12th century, _______ were murdered because mass consensus decided they were _______” well, you merely have to consider cultural context. You can use the past as a guideline all you want, but it is never going to act as an exact comparison to modern day issues.

Pray tell, what moral standard did I use?

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Plenty of people have faith in God and are religious who do not subscribe to your faith and religion nor its view that only yours is the one true faith. And that includes people in denominations that even your church considers to be Christian.

Agreed

 

[goout]

I’m sorry, what history are you referring to?

If you mean things such as “In the 12th century, _______ were murdered because mass consensus decided they were _______” well, you merely have to consider cultural context. You can use the past as a guideline all you want, but it is never going to act as an exact comparison to modern day issues.

Pray tell, what moral standard did I use?

Seriously? I will refrain from laughing out loud.

Let’s be honest.
Mass consensus endorses heinous things. So your assertion that mass consensus is a good moral barometer doesn’t begin to work.

But the point in all of this is, that you are the one playing God. And you are using faulty logic to try and discredit the moral standards of those you disagree with.

 

[regression]

Moral relativism is wonderful, it inspires a great many debates among society.

Some women who get abortions do not see it as killing as they may not believe that life begins at conception. It all depends on your worldview, which can be so incredibly varied. That’s why I advocate for not forcing your philosophical worldview onto the laws of society unless there is a mass consensus on said proposed law.

Actually when life begins is a scientific fact, so no matter what someone believes, science tells us a new human being is created at conception.

 

[Memaw]

Slow down Memaw, I’m not disagreeing with you.

Just trying to make the Church’s teaching clear. Why must we always find fault with someone responding to a post. I did not say you were disagreeing with me. I think we all need to lighten up a bit for the truth, no matter who states it. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Seriously? I will refrain from laughing out loud.

Let’s be honest.
Mass consensus endorses heinous things. So your assertion that mass consensus is a good moral barometer doesn’t begin to work.

But the point in all of this is, that you are the one playing God. And you are using faulty logic to try and discredit the moral standards of those you disagree with.

Mass consensus is extremely important and should always be taken into account. Our worldviews are conflicting, so I don’t think this conversation is very productive. Neither of us are going to believe anything other than what we believe. It’s rather futile, being at a standstill.

 

[goout]

Actually when life begins is a scientific fact, so no matter what someone believes, science tells us a new human being is created at conception.

Don’t enforce you philosophies and your god on us!
(sarcasm)

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Actually when life begins is a scientific fact, so no matter what someone believes, science tells us a new human being is created at conception.

I wasn’t discussing scientific fact, I was discussing differences in opinions. I stated nothing about what is actually true.

 

[goout]

Mass consensus is extremely important and should always be taken into account. Our worldviews are conflicting, so I don’t think this conversation is very productive. Neither of us are going to believe anything other than what we believe. It’s rather futile, being at a standstill.

There is no argument.
You claim one should not force philosophies and “Gods” on others while you go on enforcing your philosophies on us.

There is no argument, all you have is the dictatorship of relativism, which has no reasonable ground to discuss from.
So, yea…

 

[Memaw]

I wasn’t discussing scientific fact, I was discussing differences in opinions. I stated nothing about what is actually true.

So what IS your point!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[goout]

I wasn’t discussing scientific fact, I was discussing differences in opinions. I stated nothing about what is actually true.

Um, yea, you have talking about what is impermissible in the name of gods and philosophies, while at the same time making moral assertions. (I assume you actually believe what you say is true? Correct if I am wrong)

 

[Hope_Philomena]

There is no argument.
You claim one should not force philosophies and “Gods” on others while you go on enforcing your philosophies on us.

There is no argument, all you have is the dictatorship of relativism, which has no reasonable ground to discuss from.
So, yea…

I’m not forcing mine upon you, I’m sharing mine. I’m trying to get you to consider other’s opinions, not to change your opinions, but to consider that you may not be able to define an entire group of people (i.e. women who have had abortions) as having the same results and the same feelings.

If I were forcing my views, they would be law. Which is what you are trying to do, by making Christian beliefs be put into law.

 

[regression]

I wasn’t discussing scientific fact, I was discussing differences in opinions. I stated nothing about what is actually true.

In post number 41 you said: “Some women who get abortions do not see it as killing as they may not believe that life begins at conception.”

Whether a woman (or man) believes life begins at conception or not doesn’t change the fact that life does begin at conception.