Roe vs Wade benefits everybody

Temujin said:
Shrug. I express my opinion on this opinion board. I only object when people lie about or misrepresent my point. I've come to expect it from some posters. I seem to communicate okay with those that matter.
Click to expand...
No you don't, you object when posters ask you to clarify your opinion or challenge it.
 
Temujin said:
To answer your question, no, I don't consider the number of abortions to be remotely equivalent to genocide or the Holocaust. For two reasons

Firstly the Holocaust, like all genocide, was aimed at removing a particular class of people.
Click to expand...
So 'people' is just your preferred word, ours is 'human beings'. Indeed it is also correct that genocide is aimed at removing a particular class of human beings, whether by race as in Jews or by political classes or unborn offspring.
You see the only basis for your argument is your own 'likely words' or 'hurty wordy' feelings based ideology

and there's no attempt to discriminate against a particular group of people.
Click to expand...
But it discriminates against a particular group of human beings, the unborn. Same entities, just your word for it or our word for it.

On the contrary. Abortion access is there to help and support vulnerable women .
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If they havent been raped they arent vulnerable. What makes you say they are vulnerable? I asked you this on the other thread and you just responded with a load of waffle and insults. If the woman has consented to sex and conceived by not using contraception then she isnt vulnerable.
 
Temujin said:
My position on abortion, and indeed everything else, is not based on the Bible. The Bible is one book amongst many. It has nothing to say to me about any moral question at all. I note that people use the Bible to justify any and every position, but you need to believe that it has some power or influence to do that. I don't. I don't care what the Bible says and any argument based on it will be discounted by me.

To answer your question, no, I don't consider the number of abortions to be remotely equivalent to genocide or the Holocaust. For two reasons

Firstly the Holocaust, like all genocide, was aimed at removing a particular class of people. The decision was made by government, and the policy was enabled by and enforced by government. Abortion is aimed at ending a specific pregnancy for individual reasons. The decision vis made by an individual, every case is different, and there's no attempt to discriminate against a particular group of people. On the contrary. Abortion access is there to help and support vulnerable women .

Secondly, the unborn are not people. They are potentially people . For 1800 years Christians accepted that they are not people. A great many still do accept this. Vegetarians who argue that animals are people and compare meat eating with the Holocaust, are obviously making a flawed argument. So are anti-abortionists. It's for you to show that the unborn are people, not humans, I accept that fully, but people.
Click to expand...
Interesting that kiwimacnz liked the idea that something isnt based on the Bible.
 
Temujin said:
My position on abortion, and indeed everything else, is not based on the Bible. The Bible is one book amongst many. It has nothing to say to me about any moral question at all. I note that people use the Bible to justify any and every position, but you need to believe that it has some power or influence to do that. I don't. I don't care what the Bible says and any argument based on it will be discounted by me.

To answer your question, no, I don't consider the number of abortions to be remotely equivalent to genocide or the Holocaust. For two reasons

Firstly the Holocaust, like all genocide, was aimed at removing a particular class of people. The decision was made by government, and the policy was enabled by and enforced by government. Abortion is aimed at ending a specific pregnancy for individual reasons. The decision vis made by an individual, every case is different, and there's no attempt to discriminate against a particular group of people. On the contrary. Abortion access is there to help and support vulnerable women .

Secondly, the unborn are not people. They are potentially people . For 1800 years Christians accepted that they are not people. A great many still do accept this. Vegetarians who argue that animals are people and compare meat eating with the Holocaust, are obviously making a flawed argument. So are anti-abortionists. It's for you to show that the unborn are people, not humans, I accept that fully, but people.
Click to expand...
You say the unborn arent people but you havent asked anyone else's opinion or interpretation. So how can you know?
 
kiwimacnz said:
What are you on about?
Click to expand...
To the remark "It's plainly stated in the bible that the people who destroy the world, and the human race are those who want nothing to do with God and Jesus."

You posted 'twaddle' did you want some scriptures ?
 
BMS said:
You say the unborn arent people but you havent asked anyone else's opinion or interpretation. So how can you know?
Click to expand...
Try reading court judgements or parliamentary proceedings. Plenty of people believe that the unborn are people, but the weight of opinion is definitely against the idea. Which accounts for laws made and legal judgements handed down.
 
BMS said:
Have you asked anyone how they 'interpret' those?

Not sure that is correct. Have you got any sources on that?
Click to expand...
That's what court judgements are, interpretation of statute law.

I just gave you sources. Look it up yourself if you're interested. I'm not here to spoon feed you.
 
Temujin said:
That's what court judgements are, interpretation of statute law.
Click to expand...
Of course they are, but that isnt what I asked you. I know what the court judgements say, and I have shown you dont on a number of them, just like I know what the Bible says. But I am using your thinking back on you. Have you asked other people what their 'interpretation' is?
 
BMS said:
Of course they are, but that isnt what I asked you. I know what the court judgements say, and I have shown you dont on a number of them, just like I know what the Bible says. But I am using your thinking back on you. Have you asked other people what their 'interpretation' is?
Click to expand...
Just like the 'interpretations' always being attributed to the bible, eh? :rolleyes:
 
BMS said:
Of course they are, but that isnt what I asked you. I know what the court judgements say, and I have shown you dont on a number of them, just like I know what the Bible says. But I am using your thinking back on you. Have you asked other people what their 'interpretation' is?
Click to expand...
Why should I? I'm capable of thinking for myself. What persuades me to change my mind is additional evidence, not the fact that someone else thinks differently about the evidence I already have. If someone interprets a situation differently to me, then I would expect them to say so. This is a discussion and opinion forum after all.
 
Temujin said:
Why should I? I'm capable of thinking for myself. What persuades me to change my mind is additional evidence, not the fact that someone else thinks differently about the evidence I already have. If someone interprets a situation differently to me, then I would expect them to say so. This is a discussion and opinion forum after all.
Click to expand...
Well one would expect you to seeing as you do that with scripture texts..
Indeed, seeing as you also say 'someone else thinks differently', shows you are taking into account other views.
A debating forum is not just about different people's opinions, but the validity of them.
 
BMS said:
Well one would expect you to seeing as you do that with scripture texts..
Indeed, seeing as you also say 'someone else thinks differently', shows you are taking into account other views.
A debating forum is not just about different people's opinions, but the validity of them.
Click to expand...
The situation is exactly the same with scripture texts. My opinion of scripture texts is that they are worthless for making or supporting an argument. My evidence for this opinion is that contradictory arguments are made by different people using scripture texts. This is a perfectly valid reason for discounting scripture texts. There are others, but this is sufficient.
 
Temujin said:
The situation is exactly the same with scripture texts. My opinion of scripture texts is that they are worthless for making or supporting an argument. My evidence for this opinion is that contradictory arguments are made by different people using scripture texts. This is a perfectly valid reason for discounting scripture texts. There are others, but this is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I note that you responded here with a worthless load of waffle, but so far haven't responded to a question put by myself and another poster on the other current thread, namely who are the vulnerable and innocent that you are saying people claim.

Anyhow, the texts are texts, your opinion of one text as opposed to another doesnt mean they no longer say what they say, and it is that which is the point being put to you.
 
BMS said:
I note that you responded here with a worthless load of waffle, but so far haven't responded to a question put by myself and another poster on the other current thread, namely who are the vulnerable and innocent that you are saying people claim.

Anyhow, the texts are texts, your opinion of one text as opposed to another doesnt mean they no longer say what they say, and it is that which is the point being put to you.
Click to expand...
I have responded several times. That you don't like my response is your problem not mine.
 
Temujin said:
I have responded several times. That you don't like my response is your problem not mine.
Click to expand...
You didn't respond to the question. To the question who are the vulnerable and innocent, you first referred to 'the moral urge' which is the 'who'. You then proceeded to refer to ask us what we mean by 'innocent' and 'vulnerable.'
So you use the words, we challenge you on them and you ask us what we mean by them.
Furthermore you have not responded several times as you now claim, so it is your problem

Ok. My reply is on the other thread, but for the record here seeing as you didnt repsond as you should have done on the other thread.
You agreed that the unborn is vulnerable and innocent, so we are agreed there, so all that remains is whether the woman is vulnerable and innocent. Clearly not if she has chosen and consented to sexual intercourse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top