How would we enforce new abortion laws?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NM505StKate said:
How about proto-human?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. đź‘Ť

Define human person and what the difference is, clearly, between a human and a proto-human person.
Because you are outraged when it is a handful of cells in the first trimester. Almost like a double standard.
Click to expand...
I’d be just as outraged if a human person killed another human person when it’s a handfull of cells or a billion cells.

The number of cells shouldn’t matter, unless you are going to tell us that someone with 14 billion cells is less of a person than someone with 140 billion cells?

Is that your position?
 
PRmerger said:
Fair enough. đź‘Ť

Define human person and what the difference is, clearly, between a human and a proto-human person.

I’d be just as outraged if a human person killed another human person when it’s a handfull of cells or a billion cells.

The number of cells shouldn’t matter, unless you are going to tell us that someone with 14 billion cells is less of a person than someone with 140 billion cells?

Is that your position?
Click to expand...
No it isn’t my position but it is still funny to me because you are going after a specific medial procedure where natural abortion is a okay.
 
NM505StKate said:
No it isn’t my position but it is still funny to me because you are going after a specific medial procedure where natural abortion is a okay.
Click to expand...
What’s a medial procedure?

And you do realize that the problem is that it’s one person killing another which we’re opposed to, right?
 
PRmerger said:
Really? You think there’s something between: it’s a human being or it’s not a human being?

What’s the other option?

Why should I be outraged? Did a human person kill another human person here? :confused:
Click to expand...
Right.
The confusion betrays an ignorance of elementary moral thinking.
Morality is an evaluation of human acts. A woman passing an unborn child through miscarriage is not a human “act”.
really, 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
What’s a medial procedure?

And you do realize that the problem is that it’s one person killing another which we’re opposed to, right?
Click to expand...
Oops medical. My bad.

The SCOTUS found, through the evidence, that a woman has autonomy over her body.
 
NM505StKate said:
Oops medical. My bad.

The SCOTUS found, through the evidence, that a woman has autonomy over her body.
Click to expand...
Also, wasn’t it a law that homosexuals could be discriminated against?

What do you think of that, Kate?
 
PRmerger said:
Also, wasn’t it a law that homosexuals could be discriminated against?

What do you think of that, Kate?
Click to expand...
Laws can change through evidence. Look if you don’t like abortion, don’t get one. Let a woman make up her mind.
 
NM505StKate said:
The bible is okay with slavery
Click to expand...
That’s just a vague gloss. What does the heavy duty philosophical/theological term “okay” mean? What is that? The bible is “okay with” slavery. 🤷
Have you ever read a book that documents slavery? Did you automatically assume the author endorses slavery because the book documents it?
Again, you have a fundamentalist view. You rigidly incorporate literalist views into your belief system. That’s a really odd position for a skeptic.
and that is part of god’s eternal, unchanging wisdom.
Click to expand...
Huh?
  1. you don’t believe in God, so…🤷 why would you assert something God wills in you don’t even believe in God.
  2. why could you ever possibly think slavery is part of God’s “eternal wisdom”?
 
goout said:
It’;s less than incorrect, it’s meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yep.

My blog post on this, written way before Kate made this meaningless assertion:

threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2012/09/did-catholic-church-support-slavery-at.html

" that the Bible mentions slavery (Ephesians 6:5, for example) and does not specifically refer to it as an inherently evil institution is true. That is because slavery in the ancient world was a different animal, so to speak, than the relatively modern form of racial slavery that we’re familiar with. Slaves in Roman and Biblical times could own property, run businesses, earn their freedom, and were considered to be inherently worthy of human rights. It was a form of indentured servitude that, while restricting the liberty of individuals, was of a different quality than that which we think of today.

Today, when we discuss slavery we mean enslaving an individual who is regarded as nothing more than the property of another, and as a being without inherent human dignity; in other words, as an object rather than a human person. Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person ought to be reduced to the status of a mere object and property of another person."
 
PRmerger said:
Yep.

My blog post on this, written way before Kate made this meaningless assertion:

threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2012/09/did-catholic-church-support-slavery-at.html

" that the Bible mentions slavery (Ephesians 6:5, for example) and does not specifically refer to it as an inherently evil institution is true. That is because slavery in the ancient world was a different animal, so to speak, than the relatively modern form of racial slavery that we’re familiar with. Slaves in Roman and Biblical times could own property, run businesses, earn their freedom, and were considered to be inherently worthy of human rights. It was a form of indentured servitude that, while restricting the liberty of individuals, was of a different quality than that which we think of today.

Today, when we discuss slavery we mean enslaving an individual who is regarded as nothing more than the property of another, and as a being without inherent human dignity; in other words, as an object rather than a human person. Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person ought to be reduced to the status of a mere object and property of another person."
Click to expand...
The slavery accusation is an old, tired canard that every new atheist digs out, reflexively, without realizing that only a fundamentalist reading of biblical literature finds an embrace of slavery by Christianity.

It just makes the accuser look silly.
 
goout said:
That’s just a vague gloss. What does the heavy duty philosophical/theological term “okay” mean? What is that? The bible is “okay with” slavery. 🤷
Have you ever read a book that documents slavery? Did you automatically assume the author endorses slavery because the book documents it?
Again, you have a fundamentalist view. You rigidly incorporate literalist views into your belief system. That’s a really odd position for a skeptic.

Huh?
  1. you don’t believe in God, so…🤷 why would you assert something God wills in you don’t even believe in God.
  2. why could you ever possibly think slavery is part of God’s “eternal wisdom”?
Click to expand...
Easy to answer. If god was against slavery why didn’t it outright say to in like the ten commandments? How about in Leviticus…oh wait that has rules on how to keep a slave as well as treatment of slaves. Wouldn’t Yeshua say things against slavery? I don’t remember if he did but it was never brought up during my catholic schooling.
 
NM505StKate said:
Easy to answer. If god was against slavery why didn’t it outright say to in like the ten commandments? How about in Leviticus…oh wait that has rules on how to keep a slave as well as treatment of slaves. Wouldn’t Yeshua say things against slavery? I don’t remember if he did but it was never brought up during my catholic schooling.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you’ve forgotten you are in dialogue with Catholics on a Catholic forum, and not on a fundamentalist Christian forum?

As such, we do not get our morality from a book, no matter how holy.

You might want to sae the above for dialogue with Bible Alone Christians.
 
NM505StKate said:
Easy to answer. If god was against slavery why didn’t it outright say to in like the ten commandments? How about in Leviticus…oh wait that has rules on how to keep a slave as well as treatment of slaves. Wouldn’t Yeshua say things against slavery? I don’t remember if he did but it was never brought up during my catholic schooling.
Click to expand...
God isn’t against all slavery. The slavery of the Bible is different from the slavery of America in the 1800s. Slavery in the Bible did not have to do with the color of your skin or your nationality. In Biblical times, you could sell yourself as a slave if you could not pay your debts or had a family that you could not provide for. This would be more the equivalent of making people work to earn welfare benefits. There were people in Biblical times that even chose slavery, so that their needs were provided for. This is why the Bible does not condemn slavery, but does provide instructions on how slaves should be treated.

The Bible does condemn slavery based on skin color or nationality as it states that all men are made in His image (Genesis 1:27). It also condemns the practice of kidnapping a man and selling him for money, which was what was going on between Africa and America (Exodus 21:16).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top