- Thread starter kcbird
- Start date
That's an interesting take. You seem to pitch it as an if it were an emotionless, almost sociopathic, mindset with no regard whatsoever for the person's feelings ... just identifying sinners, like witches, that need to be put in buckets and stoned to death.
Some of the words used to "categorize" some of these people were words like "whore" (modern translation) which is certainly a charged, even vitriolic, word today. It's difficult for me to imagine a society where this kind of labeling and group bludgeoning activity was no more emotionally charged than hanging the laundry.
But I guess where you're coming from on this is you're saying it was not the intent of the words in the bible to dehumanize the opposition, just identify them and cull them out.
If a person has cancer, telling them so does not dehumanize them. Its almost certainly hard for them to hear. Would it be kind not to tell them? Of course there may be some ways that are better than others to communicate the fact in question. Doing so with respect should be the intent. Your response to me seems an attempt to bait me. I can't read minds, so perhaps that's not true - I certainly hope its not.
Now for a more interesting (at least to me) question: Do you want the existence of the Christian God to be true? You may or may not believe, but even if you believe He does not exist, do you believe it would be better if He did?
No bait, I just don't personally see how killing someone simply for what they believe could ever be right or putting people in categories of those who should be brutally slaughtered can't be viewed as dehumanizing on some level. I assume there are some labels you might view as tools of dehumanization especially labels intended for identifying people who are allowed to be treated different or brutalized but maybe not.
I want answers for where all this came from. And I like the idea that there might be something to look forward to after this life. But I can't say I "want" the existence of any god to be true any more than I "want" the big bang and evolution to be true. I just want the truth.
Would the existence of a christian god make "it" better. If the "it" is this life on this earth then the answer would seem to be no but it's hard to say because maybe the answer is yes. The problem is there is no proof of existence for any god and therefore no proof of any active role by any god either good or bad. The question has no context for me.
Protection is not 100% effective but it is definitely underutilized.
There would still be "accidents".
We've already derailed the OP's post quite a bit, in hindsight, and while scrolling through the forum list I noticed the prohibition on religious topics in The Pit, so I'm gonna move on, but it has been a pleasure discussing things with you. I wish you well on your quest for truth. However, if all of this is not designed by a rational mind and is instead a meaningless and random product of chance and time then there is really no reason to seek truth as there is no basis for truth. There would also be no basis for right or wrong and therefore being concerned about abortion or slavery or potentially dehumanizing thoughts and actions would be meaningless. Even Nietzsche knew this to be true.
I should reread the rules then.
Enjoyed the exchange, maybe continue it over a beer some time.
Not at all trying to reconcile the two. Stating very plainly I believe they are separate. Except, of course, in some medieval, socially devolved cultures that still believe the rule of religion should be the rule of law.
The laws of man rule over all earthly dealings and people are free to raise themselves, and only themselves, to the "higher standard" of "laws" as deemed so whatever spiritual force they believe punches their ticket to get their spiritual reward.
People who believe they can or should try to "save" everyone else by forcing them to adhere to some "higher standard" based on some "laws" in their "holy book" can fuck all the way off.
People who believe they can or should enforce the will of their guiding spiritual force by stoning/killing/beating "sinners" without due process or not within the laws of man can fuck all the off faster at the end of a rope or the end of a needle or a reserved front row seat to the electric or smoke show.
Please feel free to articulate in great detail exactly what it is you believe I dont' understand.
What a world we live in today. Long conversations deliberating if abort is good or evil.
People who weren’t abort are saying aborting should is a woman’s right and nothing wrong with killing a child. It’s obvious many do not appreciate life and no enjoying as they want us to believe. Such a fake ass world.
People who weren’t abort are saying aborting should is a woman’s right and nothing wrong with killing a child. It’s obvious many do not appreciate life and no enjoying as they want us to believe. Such a fake ass world.
Well, in this particular post, you're not at all describing the conversation I've been trying to have.
You are describing your own preconceived, inflexible, black and white version of what you think the outcome of the conversation should be and passing judgment on anyone who disagrees.
To enter a discussion with the predetermined mindset that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and call it a "conversation" is disingenuous and deceitful. It's the verbal equivalent of a jihad.
Abortion Was Leading Cause of Death Worldwide for Fifth Consecutive Year in 2023
The global abortion statistics for 2023 are in, and they make grim reading for those who believe in the sanctity of life.
www.thegatewaypundit.com Abortion Was Leading Cause of Death Worldwide for Fifth Consecutive Year in 2023
The global abortion statistics for 2023 are in, and they make grim reading for those who believe in the sanctity of life.
Almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.
Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality
Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Last edited:
Alaska
Abortion is Legal with no limit165k women of reproductive age
Alaska's state constitution recognizes the right to abortion, the state's highest court ruled in 1997.
Colorado
Abortion is Legal with no limit1.4m women of reproductive age
In 2022, Colorado's state legislature enacted the Reproductive Health Equity Act, which enshrines the right to abortion and contraception in state law.
New Jersey
Abortion is Legal with no limit2.1m women of reproductive age
New Mexico
Abortion is Legal with no limit459k women of reproductive age
Oregon
Abortion is Legal with no limit958k women of reproductive age
Oregon law protects the right to abortion.
Puerto Rico
Abortion is Legal with no limit727k women of reproductive age
Technically, abortions are only legal if they're given by "therapeutic prescription by a physician duly authorized to practice medicine".
Vermont
Abortion is Legal with no limit136k women of reproductive age
Washington DC
Abortion is Legal with no limit215k women of reproductive age
Why do we pay whores for making illegitimate babies?
Eliminate welfare and the problem goes away.
Legal and moral are not synonyms. It used to be legal to horse whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one, but was it ever right? It used to he legal to sterilize or lobotomize the mentally ill, but was it ever right?
You should ask you parents why they never taught you any morality.
Last edited:
Morality has all but disappeared for a large segment of the population. Killing babies is as easy has breathing. There is no hesitation and they actually desire to do it like they get a thrill out of it. The young lady in the video makes no excuses and if she can’t perform a long term abortion then she will just throw a fit and leave. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath? What she said in that video clip is quite simply demonic.
DUH!
Clown.
I love it when dumbasses quote me and throw kindergarten insults at me in the same post.
Which version? There are multiple today, many schools have their own.
But it doesn't really matter because SCOTUS ruled the one you're likely referring to was worthless bullshit decades ago.
Scotus also ruled killing someone over a rape or incest is unconstitutional in Coker and Kennedy.
Why not just admit the truth that you're too inept to run your own life w/o forcing the consequences of your actions onto others.
Tell me how it's moral to kill a baby to avoid the consequences of being a whore.Clown.
Just the basic concept of do no harm. In today’s society we have become so morally bankrupt that killing babies and mutilating children is accepted. That’s the sad world we live in. Disgusting.
If you ever make an intelligent comment without projecting you might earn a reply.
But the past shows it will never happen because you are too narrow-minded.
I know you're slightly stupid, so let me explain it so even you might understand.
In some areas abortion is still legal, but since legal and moral are not synonyms, that doesn't mean it's moral. So, once more, how is it moral to kill a baby to avoid the consequences of being a whore?
Intelligent reply? I'm not the one who can't answer very basic questions and instead posts emojis.If you ever make an intelligent comment without projecting you might earn a reply.
But the past shows it will never happen because you are too narrow-minded.
It's a noble ideal. I don't *think* the original oath, the "I swear by Apollo" version, included anything about "do no harm". There are versions that include similar phrases but where "harm" and "malfeasance" are concerned litigation and legislation have insured the legal definition prevails and not the moral definition.
It should please you that there are many states which legally back your view. Even though this is no guarantee of compliance.
Alabama
Abortion is Banned after conception1.1m women of reproductive age
American Samoa
Abortion is Banned after conception12k women of reproductive age
Arkansas
Abortion is Banned after conception668k women of reproductive age
Idaho
Abortion is Banned after conception406k women of reproductive age
Rather than clearly allowing abortions in cases of medical emergencies, Idaho's ban gives providers what's known as an "affirmative defense" – that is, if they are charged, providers can use the threat to a patient's health as a defense in court. The US supreme court is set to hear a case that touches on Idaho's ban and emergency abortions.
Exceptions: Rape and/or incest (only if reported to law enforcement)
Indiana
Abortion is Banned after conception1.5m women of reproductive age
Exceptions: Rape and/or incest
Kentucky
Abortion is Banned after conception995k women of reproductive age
In November 2022, voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have established that Kentucky's state constitution does not recognize abortion rights.
Louisiana
Abortion is Banned after conception1.1m women of reproductive age
In 2020, Louisiana voters agreed to amend the state constitution to clarify that it does not support abortion rights.
Mississippi
Abortion is Banned after conception669k women of reproductive age
Missouri
Abortion is Banned after conception1.4m women of reproductive age
North Dakota
Abortion is Banned after conception171k women of reproductive age
Exceptions: Rape and/or incest (only in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy)
Northern Mariana Islands
Abortion is Banned after conception11k women of reproductive age
Oklahoma
Abortion is Banned after conception886k women of reproductive age
South Dakota
Abortion is Banned after conception187k women of reproductive age
Tennessee
Abortion is Banned after conception1.6m women of reproductive age
Texas
Abortion is Banned after conception7.0m women of reproductive age
West Virginia
Abortion is Banned after conception371k women of reproductive age
Minors who are victims of rape and/or incest can get an abortion up until 14 weeks of pregnancy, as long as they have either reported the assault to law enforcement or received medical treatment for it.
Exceptions: Rape and/or incest (if reported to law enforcement, and only within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy)
If you could *think* you'd know the original hippocratic oath specifically forbade giving women a pessary for abortion.
Hippocratic oath | Definition, Summary, & Facts
Hippocratic oath, ethical code attributed to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, adopted as a guide to conduct by the medical profession throughout the ages and still used in the graduation ceremonies of many medical schools. Learn more about the Hippocratic oath in this article.
www.britannica.com If you could *think* you'd know the original hippocratic oath specifically forbade giving women a pessary for abortion.
Hippocratic oath | Definition, Summary, & Facts
Hippocratic oath, ethical code attributed to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, adopted as a guide to conduct by the medical profession throughout the ages and still used in the graduation ceremonies of many medical schools. Learn more about the Hippocratic oath in this article.
Again, cultural norms. You don't approve of criminals being punished? Our punishments are too harsh, or too lenient? Mosaic law is the basis of our law. The idea that the individual not only matters, but is the prime unit of political force, comes directly from the Bible. When we say, "This is a Christian nation", what that means is that our founding documents and highest law of the land reflect, directly, the largest ideas of the Christian Bible put into a universal form that doesn't require any faith beyond that they are true.
The fact of the matter is, putting all faith aside, that beyond interpretation of the Bible (or any religious codex for that matter) leaving man alone to determine what is moral and immoral has a VERY bad track record, very bad. The sort of culture and society that people want to live in is one that follows a fixed moral code, not a situational one, and unless it punishes those who break it there is no "society". Otherwise your back at an anarchist misunderstanding of what laws and enforcement actually accomplish.
Yes, some slaveholders tried to use a couple of passages of the bible to justify the practice, but where did the thrust of the abolitionist movement come from? I think it is historically clear that the impetus for abolition was religious zeal, even to the point of a fanatical, murderous, maniac like John Brown. While there were churches who definitely sided with the South and condoned slavery, there are churches this very day that openly celebrate sin, and broadcast it to the world, as if Christ's message of love comes with no strings attached. This is every bit as much a Christian heresy as condoning chattel slavery. Oddly enough these are also the churches in decline.
It's didn't just come from American Christianity either. The Slave Trade Act of 1807 was passed by men like William Wilberforce. Look up any major abolitionist in any Western country and you will most likely find deeply religious people who believe that owning people is an afront to God. Your thesis that they were just making it up based on your shallow understanding of Christian theology is simply wrong. Past that, what little you can find to justify chattle slavery was pretty much blown up by the radical teachings of one Jesus Christ. Pretty hard to enslave someone when you are commanded to love that person.
One Roman senator, while strolling through the market with his friend who was a general, remarked to his companion that it was vexing to him that he could not tell the difference between the slaves and the plebian citizens, and that slaves should be compelled to wear arm bands so that they would know who is who. The general laughed, and said that was quite impossible. If we could tell then so could the slaves, and upon the slaves seeing how vastly they outnumbered Romans they would commence violent rebellion immediately. Pharo also certainly understood this principal, and murdered children regularly when the slaves became to numerous to effectively control.
Our Founding documents and the Bible make it very clear that all human beings have a right to life, full stop. In order for you to think murdering babies is A-OK you have to completely dehumanize an unborn baby, exactly as they did to the African chattel slaves. The moral equivalency is direct and unassailable. The ONLY difference is that instead of saying a human being is not a legal person because of how they look, you are now saying they are not a legal person because of their stage of development (chosen just as randomly), and you are not saying they are of so low value that they can be one of your possessions, but that they are of no value at all and they can just be murdered if you think they would cramp your style. Both are evil on their face, but I find the illogical lengths you go to in order to justify the murder of babies even more repugnant, because unlike a slave a baby can neither speak in their own defense nor defend him or herself in any way at all. It is not merely choosing to do with the weak as you will, but choosing the weakest possible human beings to eliminate for the basest reasons of all.
Edit: I'll add that all our knowledge tells us that a living being is indeed a human being as soon as the zygote is differentiated and forms a complete DNA strand. This is when this life is measurably and provably a unique in all the world human being, period. Oddly enough, this comports exactly with what the Bible and the typical Christian doctrine that "life begins at conception" (or a few minutes afterward...) teaches. That is the bright and congruent line of both science and the Christian religion. I suspect you mostly don't like it because it was accepted as truth thousands of years before it was actually proven, and therefore you reject it and place personhood at some random point that allows you to keep on keeping on thinking you are a moral and good person. Which is another metric for which we entirely disagree.
Last edited:
Not sure if you're addressing me directly with the question about criminal punishment. If my position on this isn't clear or you don't know my feelings about punishing criminals then you just weren't paying attention. To be clear, I'm for punishing criminals. Independent of being pro-punishment, I believe some current laws and some punishments are unjust as well as believing some punishments are not severe enough and some legal activities shouldn't be.
"Comes from" is not the same as "equivalent to", we do not follow ALL the OT laws or bible laws in general. Also, the bible or old testament does not have a monopoly on "don't kill", "don't steal", "dont yada yada" ... the founders separated law from religion for a reason. Just because they stole a subset of ideas from a set of documents it doesn't mean everything in the set of documents is or should be applicable to "law". As a nation we don't rest on sabbath, or any day for that matter.
100% ... the fact that U.S. law is perceived to be one of the examples of man's highest level of achievement in blending morality with law speaks volumes about the direction societies in general have moved.
Again, the "you". I have never attempted to justify slavery, chattel or otherwise, only pointed out that slavery has existed and been legal/condoned in many cultures throughout history and is still legal in some places today. Even cultures on which christianity is based has embraced slavery and the abuse of slaves. Once again, I am not condoning slavery or saying it should be legal.
Why do people keep throwing the word "chattel" in front of slavery in defense of religion. Do they believe slavery is OK and beating/whipping slaves is OK as long as it's not "chattel" slavery? Slavery is morally OK as long as it's not "chattel"?
"And the Lord said, ... the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."
We have a fundamental disagreement about the definition of "human" and "baby" for legal purposes but, again I can't tell if you're addressing me directly, I've never said it was "A-OK" to kill babies.
Last edited:
“Chattel”, specifically as it relates to slavery means that the human being being enslaved is legally not a person. They are reduced to being property, a thing, with no inherent rights, and certainly no legal protections. That is exactly how you see unborn babies, is it not?
This is specifically to differentiate between the form of slavery as practiced in antebellum America, and other forms of indentured servitude (slavery) wherein the human being is still considered a person and of value beyond what he/she can be traded for, but they are compelled to obey their master by force of law. Chattel slavery is slavery in one of its most extreme forms.
You do not consider an unborn baby legally a person? Correct? This is the absolute crux of the disagreement, which is why it keeps coming up. I’m not trying to convince you not to have babies. I’m trying to convince you that a baby is not “a mass of cells”, an appendage like a finger, or anything but a person, and denying them their personhood is where you go horribly awry. Why should personhood not begin with a human being? There really isn’t an argument about where personhood begins if it isn’t where we can prove it’s a human being. There’s nothing religious theoretical about it.
This is specifically to differentiate between the form of slavery as practiced in antebellum America, and other forms of indentured servitude (slavery) wherein the human being is still considered a person and of value beyond what he/she can be traded for, but they are compelled to obey their master by force of law. Chattel slavery is slavery in one of its most extreme forms.
You do not consider an unborn baby legally a person? Correct? This is the absolute crux of the disagreement, which is why it keeps coming up. I’m not trying to convince you not to have babies. I’m trying to convince you that a baby is not “a mass of cells”, an appendage like a finger, or anything but a person, and denying them their personhood is where you go horribly awry. Why should personhood not begin with a human being? There really isn’t an argument about where personhood begins if it isn’t where we can prove it’s a human being. There’s nothing religious theoretical about it.
So you believe slavery the way it was documented in the bible is OK? Otherwise what is the point of making a distinction?
I've never said that and not accurate. Similar to the way I don't recall you saying slavery is OK but I can twist what you didn't say to project on you the belief that slavery is OK as long as it's not chattel slavery because it's the only one you say is bad.
Not precisely correct. You have only succeeded in reducing what you think you understand about my position into one of the two pigeon holes you believe to be the only valid positions. Something called reductio absurdio in Harry Potter speak.
I never said it shouldn't. I did say for legal purposes we should use a legal definition of person. There have been attempts to change that definition in recent history.
Maybe pick a place to start. A "baby" is an infant or newborn. I am not aware of any formal accepted definition of the word that includes the the thing developing in the womb except for pregnant women who think it's cute to wear a t-shirt that says "baby on board" but they all like cats so ... there's that.
Last edited:
You ever see a female friend you haven't seen in a while, obviously expecting, and say OMG when is your fetus due?
Any female family ever throw or attend a fetus shower for a friend?
Ever go to Walgreens or CVS and find a fetus shower card?
Since it's a baby if wanted and fetus if not, fetus is not much different than the n-word.
A dehumanizing term used to assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them.
Further, how does it feel to have dozens of posts in a thread and being so muddleheaded that no one understands (by your own admission) what you are saying?
Definition of BABY
an extremely young child; especially : infant —sometimes used of an adult daughter or son to express parental nostalgia or affection; an extremely young animal; the youngest of a group… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com 
Look at a book version instead of the internet version that keeps getting edited.Definition of BABY
an extremely young child; especially : infant —sometimes used of an adult daughter or son to express parental nostalgia or affection; an extremely young animal; the youngest of a group… See the full definition
Example:
Vaccine
Quarantine
These are just a couple that have been worked over in the last few years.
R
Definition of BABY
an extremely young child; especially : infant —sometimes used of an adult daughter or son to express parental nostalgia or affection; an extremely young animal; the youngest of a group… See the full definition
Similar threads
- Locked
