The average Fox News viewer has an IQ 20 points lower than the US average

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
Jesus Himself addressed the issue of "Christians," performing evil deeds in a rather chilling prophecy:"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" One should note that Jesus said that "many" people who think they are His followers will be rejected by Jesus when at the judgment when they attempt to claim that they are His disciples. Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people have been truly born again (see John chapter 3) Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of the actions of people who merely claim to be Christians.

Like I said before, "Christians" have committed atrocities against other religious and non-religious people. However, atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined. Even so, the key factor in these atrocities has been totalitarian power, rather than religion, which has resulted in these hundreds of millions of murders. The Bible says that people are evil (and the statistics on this page support this claim), but that they can become transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to live lives of love and peace.

I mostly agree with your comments. In fact, I would totally agree if you included one little thing: There are VERY GOOD people who, by following their conscience, rather than "RELIGIOUS" dogmas, very successfully meet the criteria of what should be a "real Christian," and many "show off Christians" who are so far from Jesus Christ's teaching that they would NEVER be recognized by Jesus as following his intent, but instead are turning away good people who are sickened by such hypocrisy.
 
Werbung:

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
And do you say the same to the "pro-life" crowd who attempts to impose THEIR will on women?
Every man has the right to ignore his own rights but he does not have a right to violate the rights of others....In my mind abortion is violating someones life...
 

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
And do you say the same to the "pro-life" crowd who attempts to impose THEIR will on women?
Every man has the right to ignore his own rights but he does not have a right to violate the rights of others..In my mind it does violate someones right to life..
 

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
Every man has the right to ignore his own rights but he does not have a right to violate the rights of others....In my mind abortion is violating someones life...

And we are back again to the same old argument!

I do not believe that the "right" of an undifferentiated cluster of cells with the "potential" of becoming human trumps the right of a woman to make her own decision on whether or not to carry that cluster of cells until it becomes a viable human.

But, I understand what you mean. . .because for me, the right I have to feel safe in my community is violated in my eyes by the fact that some ass holes' love affair with their guns and semi-automatics is making feel very unsafe, and is taking the life of children.
 

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
And we are back again to the same old argument!

I do not believe that the "right" of an undifferentiated cluster of cells with the "potential" of becoming human trumps the right of a woman to make her own decision on whether or not to carry that cluster of cells until it becomes a viable human.

But, I understand what you mean. . .because for me, the right I have to feel safe in my community is violated in my eyes by the fact that some ass holes' love affair with their guns and semi-automatics is making feel very unsafe, and is taking the life of children.
NO you don't know what I mean...For once Science agrees with christians on this issue.In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.”
How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.
Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.This is called personhood theory, and it implies a dangerously divided view of the human being. On one hand, the physical body, knowable by science, is trivialized as a form of raw material that can be tinkered with, manipulated, experimented on, or destroyed with no moral significance. Human life is reduced to a utilitarian calculus subject only to a cost-benefit analysis.

Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.

In First Things, law professor Stanley Fish sets the record straight: “It is pro-lifers who make the scientific question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one.” By contrast, “pro-choicers want to transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’ one”—using those terms to mean disconnected from any scientifically knowable reality.”
Nancy Pearsay said...Of course, people are much more than biological organisms. Yet biology gives an objective detectable marker of human status.What this means is that pro-choicers have lost the argument on the scientific level—and so they are repudiating science. In the New York Times, Yale professor Paul Bloom informs us that abortion “is not really about life in any biological sense.”Likewise Jennie Bristow, editor of Abortion Review, dismisses science as irrelevant: “With anti-abortionists pushing ‘scientific evidence’ on fetal viability, it is time to restate the moral case for a woman’s right to choose.” Her article is titled, “Abortion: Stop Hiding behind the Science.”
Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant. Individuals must earn the status of personhood by meeting an additional set of criteria—the ability to make decisions, exercise self-awareness, and so on, depending on the ethicist setting the criteria.Those who do not make the grade are demoted to non-persons, even though they are still biologically human.The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live.

If pro-abortionists want to commit intellectual suicide and deny scientific facts, that‘s their problem. But there’s no reason a civilized society should fund their anti-scientific outlook—or accept its inhumane consequences
 

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
NO you don't know what I mean...For once Science agrees with christians on this issue.In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.”
How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.
Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.This is called personhood theory, and it implies a dangerously divided view of the human being. On one hand, the physical body, knowable by science, is trivialized as a form of raw material that can be tinkered with, manipulated, experimented on, or destroyed with no moral significance. Human life is reduced to a utilitarian calculus subject only to a cost-benefit analysis.

Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.

In First Things, law professor Stanley Fish sets the record straight: “It is pro-lifers who make the scientific question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one.” By contrast, “pro-choicers want to transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’ one”—using those terms to mean disconnected from any scientifically knowable reality.”
Nancy Pearsay said...Of course, people are much more than biological organisms. Yet biology gives an objective detectable marker of human status.What this means is that pro-choicers have lost the argument on the scientific level—and so they are repudiating science. In the New York Times, Yale professor Paul Bloom informs us that abortion “is not really about life in any biological sense.”Likewise Jennie Bristow, editor of Abortion Review, dismisses science as irrelevant: “With anti-abortionists pushing ‘scientific evidence’ on fetal viability, it is time to restate the moral case for a woman’s right to choose.” Her article is titled, “Abortion: Stop Hiding behind the Science.”
Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant. Individuals must earn the status of personhood by meeting an additional set of criteria—the ability to make decisions, exercise self-awareness, and so on, depending on the ethicist setting the criteria.Those who do not make the grade are demoted to non-persons, even though they are still biologically human.The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live.

If pro-abortionists want to commit intellectual suicide and deny scientific facts, that‘s their problem. But there’s no reason a civilized society should fund their anti-scientific outlook—or accept its inhumane consequences

Yes, just as a drop of blood can be human, and a fetus can be canine.
And, once again, that "pro-abortionist" comment is as disrespecful of the truth as "Anti-choice" would be for the "pro-life" people.
It is NOT because a person is respecful of the right of a woman to choose that he/she is in favor of abortion, and even less, in favor of EVERY abortion, at EVERY stage of pregnancy, and in EVERY circumstances (i.e., abortion as a "birth control" device is not acceptable in my opinion).
 

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
This is from an athiest...he tells it in a way I could not...

It can be said without argument that all who are against abortion have at least one thing in common. Be that as it may, the process in which we come to that conclusion is oftentimes a result of many different factors, thus our beliefs, while similar in principle, can be quite different in theory.
Dozens of people have asked me why I am pro-life.
In the past it didn't seem like such a hard question to answer. After all, if I have the ability to form a belief then surely my answer to such a question should come without forethought. However, I have never been asked by a pro-life Christian to clarify my position as a pro-life Atheist. Admittedly, the question has become a bit more difficult to answer because of the unnecessary adaptation. It was my presumption that this was not a confusing concept, but once I began to compile my thoughts I soon realized where confusion could emerge. The purpose of this article is to clear up some of the misconceptions about pro-life non-believers by providing a general comparison between Theism and Atheism in relation to the abortion issue and contributing a personal account of my own journey to the pro-life movement. An argument from morality has been purposely omitted.
To state the obvious, the only difference between my label as a pro-life Atheist and your label as a pro-life Christian is our outlook on the existence of a deity. Similarly, the difference between a pro-life Jew and a pro-life Muslim is once again rooted in religious differences. That being said, we can easily deduct that an anti-abortion position is not dependent upon adhering to a specific religion; thankfully. For example, one can be religious without ever taking a position on the abortion issue. Likewise, one can be pro-life without being religious. Because the two labels are independent from one another, it is not hard to imagine the diversity of personal convictions within the pro-life community. This may become a confusing concept to those who base their pro-life position on the belief that they could not differentiate between right and wrong without guidance from their respective deity. This is where I believe some confusion and hesitation may occur.
ir
The Christian religion, for the most part, has adopted a position on the abortion issue. Churches which have chosen to take a position on the issue have subsequently suggested that its followers do the same. To the contrary, Atheism asserts one thing and one thing only. That assertion makes no mention to the the issue of abortion or any other social issue for that matter and therefore does not require that Atheists accept any more or any less. An Atheist's position on any other topic is simply a personal opinion.

Personally, my pro-life beliefs belong to the discoveries in science. While I am sympathetic to women's rights and would even consider myself a Feminist as would any man who believes in gender equality, the right to life outweighs our personal discomforts. I will hesitantly concede that had I been born 10 years earlier I most likely would have considered myself pro-choice based upon the absence of scientific evidence within the pro-life movement at the time. More so, if science had proven that life began at birth I would have had no foundation for an anti-abortion belief. Thankfully for the pro-life movement, science has reemphasized the movement's argument that abortion takes the life of an unborn child. Today, the movement has realized that science is much more likely to reach an audience which is increasingly looking for demonstrable evidence from which to base their position on social issues; not just the church's suggestion.
It's worth mentioning that the internet also had a substantial effect by allowing me to better research fetal development and share information and ideas with others. When I began exploring the issue as a seventeen year old back in 2006, the internet allowed me to see the larger picture, unlike the tri-fold pamphlet provided by my Catholic church. The pamphlet provided me with no context or arguments from the opposition. Heck, I didn't even know there was an opposition.
I am not sure why the issue ever captured my attention, but it evolved beyond into a passion. After a couple years of researching the issue I decided that I would adopt an anti-abortion position based on the scientifically accepted conclusion that conception was the formation of a unique and living member of the human species. This was done absent of religious arguments and by 2008 I was beginning to question a different position - Theism. That year I wrote a pro-life blog which turned out to become the catalyst for my pro-life activism. The MySpace blog [insert joke here] titled The American Holocaust, was my first attempt at arguing against abortion from a secular perspective. The amateurishly written blog received hundreds of comments and at times was the third most active blog on MySpace. At that moment I was convinced that the incorporation of religion was unnecessary to make a point against abortion and instead allowed readers to view the issue as a scientific and moral obligation rather than just a Catholic issue. The internet had allowed me to understand the various ways the issue affected people, something I would have never understood within the walls of the Catholic church.
I am currently concluding the final chapters of God is Not Great by the late Atheist, Christopher Hitchens; a post-abortive father himself. Hitchens, a hero to many non-believers, also noticed the reality of the unborn human life. I would imagine it took a great deal of courage to advocate the value of the unborn human despite the overwhelming number of supporters whom he knew would quickly voice their disapproval. For unfortunate yet obvious reasons, theists were just as reluctant to commend him. Undoubtedly, Hitchens has taught many non-believers and believers to rethink their position on the issue for purely scientific reasons. Like myself and the thousands of other pro-life secularists, Hitchens recognized that science had demonstrably proven that life does exist before viability and therefore deserved proper acknowledgement from the pro-choice side.
"As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words 'unborn child,' even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality." —Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)
It seems to me that the confusion many people have when I tell them I am a pro-life Atheist happens to originate from their perception that Atheism and pro-life activism are incompatible. This is a half-century old product of religion's disproportionate obsession with the issue and the subsequent and illogical 'We want to be everything you're not!' attitude of Atheists. The middle ground, a pro-life Atheist (or a pro-choice theist), doesn't seem to suit either side. I think it is fair to call us the step-child of the pro-life movement. Arguing against abortion goes beyond the policies or teachings of any religious text. It is not an issue restricted only to the religious but rather an issue concerning human rights and therefore defies the labels of religion, political affiliation, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. If we can agree that abortion wrongfully takes the life of a living human being, then all other labels which define our individuality should be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
- A pro-life[r] Atheist
Patrick Ptomey
 

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
Yes, just as a drop of blood can be human, and a fetus can be canine.
And, once again, that "pro-abortionist" comment is as disrespecful of the truth as "Anti-choice" would be for the "pro-life" people.
It is NOT because a person is respecful of the right of a woman to choose that he/she is in favor of abortion, and even less, in favor of EVERY abortion, at EVERY stage of pregnancy, and in EVERY circumstances (i.e., abortion as a "birth control" device is not acceptable in my opinion).
No disrespct intended..This is an issue that I find it hard to remain civil..
 

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
This is from an athiest...he tells it in a way I could not...

It can be said without argument that all who are against abortion have at least one thing in common. Be that as it may, the process in which we come to that conclusion is oftentimes a result of many different factors, thus our beliefs, while similar in principle, can be quite different in theory.
Dozens of people have asked me why I am pro-life.
In the past it didn't seem like such a hard question to answer. After all, if I have the ability to form a belief then surely my answer to such a question should come without forethought. However, I have never been asked by a pro-life Christian to clarify my position as a pro-life Atheist. Admittedly, the question has become a bit more difficult to answer because of the unnecessary adaptation. It was my presumption that this was not a confusing concept, but once I began to compile my thoughts I soon realized where confusion could emerge. The purpose of this article is to clear up some of the misconceptions about pro-life non-believers by providing a general comparison between Theism and Atheism in relation to the abortion issue and contributing a personal account of my own journey to the pro-life movement. An argument from morality has been purposely omitted.

pro-life.gif
- A pro-life[r] Atheist
Patrick Ptomey
Shortened to reduce the post to less than the 10,000 words allowed by this forum.

This is a nice, thoughtful opinion. I respect it, I do not agree with it.
And I feel very strongly that, people who value the life of a less than 12 weeks embryon so much should be willing to provide for all the needs of that embryon AFTER its birth, and not consider that, once it is born, it is solely the responsibility of the mother . . especially if she was brow beaten or forced to carry the fetus for 9 months against her will.

I also believe that children born in abject poverty and condemn to an early death due to starvation and illness have MORE fight and should be MORE of a concern to the human race than embryons who have not yet developed a brain stem. Yet, we let 100,000s of thousands of those children die every year because of our lack of caring and because OUR COMFORT in this country is more important than saving the life of BORN children any place in the world.

We also do not hesitate (in fact some of us applaud) to provide some "friendly" countries with the power to kill children in "not so friendly" countries. . (i.e., te continued conflict between the Israelis whom we support with arms of death, and the people of Gaza, who have lost 10 times more children by OUR ARMS than the Israelis).

I will ALWAYS believe that effective and free birth control (not just for women, but for MEN) is the answer to reducing the number of abortions here and across the world. And I am absolutely revolted by the stand of too many "religious" people who would discourage the use of effective birth control, and even threaten their flock of "believers" with excommunication if they use birth control.
 

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
This is a nice, thoughtful opinion. I respect it, I do not agree with it.
And I feel very strongly that, people who value the life of a less than 12 weeks embryon so much should be willing to provide for all the needs of that embryon AFTER its birth, and not consider that, once it is born, it is solely the responsibility of the mother . . especially if she was brow beaten or forced to carry the fetus for 9 months against her will.

I also believe that children born in abject poverty and condemn to an early death due to starvation and illness have MORE fight and should be MORE of a concern to the human race than embryons who have not yet developed a brain stem. Yet, we let 100,000s of thousands of those children die every year because of our lack of caring and because OUR COMFORT in this country is more important than saving the life of BORN children any place in the world.

We also do not hesitate (in fact some of us applaud) to provide some "friendly" countries with the power to kill children in "not so friendly" countries. . (i.e., te continued conflict between the Israelis whom we support with arms of death, and the people of Gaza, who have lost 10 times more children by OUR ARMS than the Israelis).

I will ALWAYS believe that effective and free birth control (not just for women, but for MEN) is the answer to reducing the number of abortions here and across the world. And I am absolutely revolted by the stand of too many "religious" people who would discourage the use of effective birth control, and even threaten their flock of "believers" with excommunication if they use birth control.
No more from me on this subject...
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
And do you say the same to the "pro-life" crowd who attempts to impose THEIR will on women?
Nothing relevant to the validity of my statement.

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Initiating the use of force against others is always immoral. Any civilization that actually wishes to be civilized should deal with one another through reason, not by force. Reason and force are opposites. Anyone who claims to believe in dealing with others through reason should never resort to the use of force to "win" any argument.
 

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
Nothing relevant to the validity of my statement.

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Initiating the use of force against others is always immoral. Any civilization that actually wishes to be civilized should deal with one another through reason, not by force. Reason and force are opposites. Anyone who claims to believe in dealing with others through reason should never resort to the use of force to "win" any argument.

We will just have to disagree.
But I do realize it is uncomfortable to be called on one's hypocrisy, so I will let it go at that.
 
Werbung:
Top