Arguing About Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanitasVanitatum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
What you are missing is that God may know of outcomes (owing to his omniscience) and have the power to bring them about in his own time (owing to his omnipotence) that far outweigh what we (owing to our limited knowledge and power of how the universe works) can conceive.
Click to expand...
This is worse because this taken as fact and combined with god in a creator capacity means that this god deliberately planned and created every vile thing in history. The holocaust. Every crime against a child you’ve ever heard about. Everything.

In fairness, this god deliberately planned and created all the good stuff too. But this means that while it’s the god of love, it’s also the god of rape.
Ergo, what we as human beings “logically” determine (based upon limited knowledge, limited power and a limited conception of the good) does not constrain God because his knowledge, power and goodness are infinite.
Click to expand...
Special pleading here, but historically tolerated. Just as a note.
Allowing or permitting a loved one to suffer evil does not imply a tolerance (not minding) for evil.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what it means unless the agent is powerless to stop it - as is typically the case in humans.
Being the “ultimate authority” implies that we — limited by time, space and capacity — are in no position (owing to our limited capacity) to LOGICALLY determine what God “minds” or doesn’t “mind” merely because stuff happens.
Click to expand...
But we can imply from a sovereign creator-god that it made the stuff to happen. Else is a violation of the power of that god.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yet, you have never been able to prove your assertion. I spent over a week watching you avoid proving it, in fact watching you not even attempting to prove it.

So, I am comfortable in my claim.
Click to expand...
Because it’s a fundamental aspect of psychology and zoology. Asking me to prove that we have sex for multiple reasons is like asking me to prove the sky is blue while we’re both standing under it on a clear day. If you don’t want to accept it, how do I prove I exist?

Enjoy something from WebMD based on just people, though I doubt you’ll take any of the reasons seriously. You don’t want to.

 
Last edited:
Stephen168 said:
Reproduction is the only need for intercourse; only biological purpose.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
I speak for biological science.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Food for thought: There are men and women who never have sex, and live to tell the tale.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hume said:
You keep saying that reproduction is the only purpose of intercourse and that’s just simply not true. Primates have sex for lots and lots of reasons and for sake of reproduction probably isn’t among them except in humans.
Click to expand...
Yet, you have never been able to prove your assertion. I spent over a week watching you avoid proving it, in fact watching you not even attempting to prove it.

So, I am comfortable in my claim.
Hume said:
Enjoy something from WebMD based on just people, though I doubt you’ll take any of the reasons seriously. You don’t want to.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are talking about people. You finally attempted to support your assertion, but you failed. Intent is not a biological purpose for having intercourse. And sexual activity is not necessarily intercourse.
The Top 20 Reasons People Have Sex: Sexual motives go far beyond the 'Big Three' -- love:
A 2010 Sexuality & Culture review of sex motivation studies states that people are offering “far more reasons for choosing to engage in sexual activity than in former times.” And we’re doing it more often too. It’s a stark contrast from historical assumptions, which cited only three sexual motive : To make babies, to feel good, or because you’re in love.
Click to expand...
One reason from the article for sexual activity is making money.

While, making money might be a reason or motivation to have intercourse, there are other ways to make money. It is an economic reason or motivation to engage in sexual activity, it is not a biological purpose for having intercourse.

I am still confident in my claim.
 
You claim in incumbent on biology having telos. It doesn’t. That’s just a category error.

Had fun, thanks.
 
Abrosz said:
Let me make a suggestion.
  1. God is the ultimate authority.
  2. God allows abortion (and also the Holocaust).
  3. God could prevent them if he so desired.
  4. God does not.
  5. Therefore the only logical and rational conclusion is, that God does NOT mind them.
Savvy?
Click to expand...
I don’t use religion so that’s irrelevant.
 
Stephen168 said:
Reproduction is the only need for intercourse; only biological purpose.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
I speak for biological science.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Food for thought: There are men and women who never have sex, and live to tell the tale.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hume said:
You keep saying that reproduction is the only purpose of intercourse and that’s just simply not true. Primates have sex for lots and lots of reasons and for sake of reproduction probably isn’t among them except in humans.
Click to expand...
Yet, you have never been able to prove your assertion. I spent over a week watching you avoid proving it, in fact watching you not even attempting to prove it.

So, I am comfortable in my claim.
Hume said:
Enjoy something from WebMD based on just people, though I doubt you’ll take any of the reasons seriously. You don’t want to.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you finally attempted to support your assertion, but you failed. Intent is not a biological purpose for having intercourse. And sexual activity is not necessarily intercourse.
The Top 20 Reasons People Have Sex: **Sexual motives** go far beyond the 'Big Three' -- love:
A 2010 Sexuality & Culture review of sex motivation studies states that people are offering “far more reasons for choosing to engage in sexual activity than in former times.” And we’re doing it more often too. It’s a stark contrast from historical assumptions, which cited only three sexual motive : To make babies, to feel good, or because you’re in love.
Click to expand...
One reason from the article for sexual activity is making money.

While, making money might be a reason or motivation to have intercourse, there are others ways to make money. It is an economic reason or motivation to engage in sexual activity, it is not a biological purpose for having intercourse.

I am still confident in my claim.
Hume said:
You claim in incumbent on biology having telos. It doesn’t. That’s just a category error.

Had fun, thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes, your excuse for not being able to support your assertion is:

A) Intercourse has many biological purposes.

B) Believing that intercourse has a biological purpose is a category error.

You assert A and when you fail you move to B.

I am still very confident in my claim that reproduction is the only need for intercourse; only biological purpose.
 
Sure, it’s very difficult to dislodge people from Ideology. Muslims are very confident they’re right. So are Mormons, Catholics, Druids, ad infinitum…
 
The informal fallacy of division, which occurs when someone erroneously argues that what is true of a whole (the average) must also be true of its parts (every individual situation). Because an act is more dangerous on average than another, it does not mean it is more dangerous in every case. It might be very dangerous for a very bad driver in a large city to leave home to buy food, but it is not dangerous for a good driver in a small town to leave home to get food. We have a moral obligation to get food. We do not let a family die, because on average it is more dangerous to get food than stay home. Or murder them because there is some risk to work to get food. We are not moral obligated to always do the safest thing.
 
Hume said:
Sure, it’s very difficult to dislodge people from Ideology. Muslims are very confident they’re right. So are Mormons, Catholics, Druids, ad infinitum…
Click to expand...
Yes, but someone has to be right.

Everything points to Rome…

Science, reason and philosophy logically end up supporting Christianity and the Catholic Church.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yet, you have never been able to prove your assertion. I spent over a week watching you avoid proving it, in fact watching you not even attempting to prove it.

So, I am comfortable in my claim.
Click to expand...
Your claim isn’t working though.
 
catholic03 said:
Science, reason and philosophy logically end up supporting Christianity and the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but that is only true for Catholics. Every other religion will make the same argument for their religious system…otherwise, we’d all be Catholics. No one wants to believe untrue things so each feels that what he/she believes is the true thing. On a catholic site, your answer is correct. On different religious sites, see what happens when you declare that!
 
Last edited:
I would have to disagree.

I see little logic for any other religion.

They all have Truth in them but none have as much as Catholicism. Everything points to the Catholic Church. Anyone who studies it will eventually see it.
 
catholic03 said:
I would have to disagree.

I see little logic for any other religion.

They all have Truth in them but none have as much as Catholicism. Everything points to the Catholic Church. Anyone who studies it will eventually see it.
Click to expand...
Saying things like that usually changes nothing.
 
I’ve studied it. I don’t agree.

Of course you agree with it. Why would someone be a Hindu if they thought Catholicism was the complete truth?

Some truths are objective…everyone can agree with 1+1=2.
Some truths are subjective…not everyone agrees with you.

I agree that that Catholicism is true for you. I don’t agree that it is true for me. If I did, I’d be Catholic. It just wind up being he said/she said…subjective! :hugs:
 
Last edited:
The problem with that argument (and no offense is intended!) Is that it is relativistic, I.e. ‘what’s right for you isn’t right for me’.

I believe that some people do come to the wrong conclusions. That’s between them and God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top