Clarifying Question

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
On the basis that these are human persons. Most normal people do not require the Bible to tell them what is right or wrong. Much less do they require a Bible-basher such as yourself to do so.
Becasue a majority of people have decided that these are human persons----they are human persons? That is your argument?

In other words---you are---seriously attempting to make the argument---that one's personhood---depends---on---what the majority believe? Put another way: personhood---is not an objective value but entirely subjective, dependent on the whims of the majority?

And this is not dark? Sheesh! And abortion supporters claim they are not pro-death?

And again, sir, when did I bring in the Bible here? When did I say "We can't support abortion because the Bible says so" or "We can't support abortion becasue my religion says so" or "We can't support abortion becasue the god or gods that I worship say so?"

I would argue the Bible with abortion supporters-----who----attempt to abuse the Bible and use to justify abortion. Outside of that-----I steer clear of religion.

Sir, what happens when your very arguments are turned against YOU and government shows up at your house to take you away--because the majority have arbitrarily decided--you are not human and therefore not subject to rights?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Ahh, in other words you have cottoned on to the fact that you were making yourself look rather foolish. Thanks for the typical Christian apology.
Well, I would not go THAT far.

I would say talking to you is like talking to a 12 year old. ;)

Actually--I give you credit. Unlike most abortion supporters, at least you are willing to make some argument. Most abortion supporters I have dealt with just want to yell, scream, throw temper-tantrums, shout you down, and otherwise melt down, rather than discuss this rationally.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Slippery slope fallacy.

Disproven by the fact that rights equality among (born) persons has increased, not decreased, throughout history.
Good. This is EXACTLY what pro-lifers want to do: expand rights even further by extending them to the unborn.

So if your argument is that as society becomes more and more advanced and enlightened, society broadens rights , then with even more advancement and enlightenment, people will come to see that the unborn are human persons worth defending and protecting. Pro-lifers today, then are ahead of their time, much the same way abolitionists were ahead of their time when American was founded, but hopefully paving the way for the recognition of rights for the unborn.
 

BMS

Well-known member
What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
The point being made here, what else? The point is the offspring is attached to the mother so 'my body my choice' is not applicable to the offspring because its not the woman's body. So 'my body my choice' is not a convincing argument, if valid at all.
The other point is I gave a link to pro-abortion protesters using 'my body my choice' which shows you were wrong to claim they dont use it
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Becasue a majority of people have decided that these are human persons----they are human persons? That is your argument?

In other words---you are---seriously attempting to make the argument---that one's personhood---depends---on---what the majority believe? Put another way: personhood---is not an objective value but entirely subjective, dependent on the whims of the majority?
It depends on what society decides. This is better than it depending on what arbitrary extremists decide an arbitrary god has decided.
And this is not dark? Sheesh! And abortion supporters claim they are not pro-death?
No. This is not dark. What is dark is your lack of faith in humanity. Which perfect or not, is all we've got.
And again, sir, when did I bring in the Bible here? When did I say "We can't support abortion because the Bible says so" or "We can't support abortion becasue my religion says so" or "We can't support abortion becasue the god or gods that I worship say so?"

I would argue the Bible with abortion supporters-----who----attempt to abuse the Bible and use to justify abortion. Outside of that-----I steer clear of religion
Jolly good.
Sir, what happens when your very arguments are turned against YOU and government shows up at your house to take you away--because the majority have arbitrarily decided--you are not human and therefore not subject to rights?
Then I will know that I have inadvertently moved to China. Or America under people like you.
 

BMS

Well-known member
It depends on what society decides. This is better than it depending on what arbitrary extremists decide an arbitrary god has decided.
Its not so much the problem with what the majority decide, but who considers what as extremist. We have surely enough posts here to see that we each consider each others worldview as extremist
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Its not so much the problem with what the majority decide, but who considers what as extremist. We have surely enough posts here to see that we each consider each others worldview as extremist
That is why it is society that decides, through the medium of democracy. Extreme views are evened out or exposed as outliers.

It is hardly extremism to support a stance taken by a free vote in Parliament 60 years ago and supported on all sides since. In the UK, abortion as an issue is settled. There are a few puny voices in the wilderness, but the vast majority of the population at large and of the institutions of public life, including most religious bodies, accept and support the status quo. The situation is quite different in the USA, where abortion is an active political issue, now more so than ever, and where views are polarised along party lines. The moderates there have no voice, and until they find it no solution to the impasse is likely.
 

BMS

Well-known member
That is why it is society that decides, through the medium of democracy. Extreme views are evened out or exposed as outliers.

It is hardly extremism to support a stance taken by a free vote in Parliament 60 years ago and supported on all sides since. In the UK, abortion as an issue is settled. There are a few puny voices in the wilderness, but the vast majority of the population at large and of the institutions of public life, including most religious bodies, accept and support the status quo. The situation is quite different in the USA, where abortion is an active political issue, now more so than ever, and where views are polarised along party lines. The moderates there have no voice, and until they find it no solution to the impasse is likely.
Depends what you mean by extremist views. Also we see socities with different ideas about what is or isnt extremism. Your own ideas dont always align yet you seem to be oblivious to that.

Incidentally your views on abortion would have been considered extremist to those who passed the Abortion Act 1967. The instigator David Steel indicated that. It wad set up for women in exceptional circumstances, not for the reasons you have, so dont bother citing to us because we know about it and about your views
 

BMS

Well-known member
That is why it is society that decides, through the medium of democracy. Extreme views are evened out or exposed as outliers.

It is hardly extremism to support a stance taken by a free vote in Parliament 60 years ago and supported on all sides since. In the UK, abortion as an issue is settled. There are a few puny voices in the wilderness, but the vast majority of the population at large and of the institutions of public life, including most religious bodies, accept and support the status quo. The situation is quite different in the USA, where abortion is an active political issue, now more so than ever, and where views are polarised along party lines. The moderates there have no voice, and until they find it no solution to the impasse is likely.
We have already seen how polls show that you arent in touch with what society wants. Remember a few weeks ago where you said the public are perfectly happy with abortion laws and I had to show you polls indicating a majority would support a reduction in the 24 weeks limit.
Posturing behind your own ideas is only hardening your heart to reality
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Depends what you mean by extremist views. Also we see socities with different ideas about what is or isnt extremism. Your own ideas dont always align yet you seem to be oblivious to that.

Incidentally your views on abortion would have been considered extremist to those who passed the Abortion Act 1967. The instigator David Steel indicated that. It wad set up for women in exceptional circumstances, not for the reasons you have, so dont bother citing to us because we know about it and about your views
I am content to go with any dictionary definition of extremism. Or with this definition that applies in the UK :
vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

Your understanding of the reason behind the UK Abortion Act is different from mine. No matter. It is a fact that the Act works well, that abortion rates are reducing and that abortion is now a totally safe procedure, which has lost the stigma it once attracted. I am very happy that it isn't necessary to protest on the streets to defend the rights of British women to have abortions. Democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty are safe here, in this respect at least.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You are talking through the wrong orifice. Nobody says that the foetus is the woman's body. "My body, my choice" refers to the uterus, not the occupant.
My point was the pro-choice use the phrase and you said they didnt. Your obsession with orafices is your own.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I am content to go with any dictionary definition of extremism. Or with this definition that applies in the UK :
vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

Your understanding of the reason behind the UK Abortion Act is different from mine. No matter. It is a fact that the Act works well, that abortion rates are reducing and that abortion is now a totally safe procedure, which has lost the stigma it once attracted. I am very happy that it isn't necessary to protest on the streets to defend the rights of British women to have abortions. Democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty are safe here, in this respect at least.
As I pointed out to you, people have different opinions as to what entails extremism. Posting your own view tells us what you think but not what others think. Since you said different societies determine what extremism is, had it not occured to you that you liking one paricular society's definition isnt shared by many others.
You are openly intolerant of different faith beliefs yet you offer a definition that you say you agree with when its proven by yourself you dont.
The point was the original Act which you cited is distinctly different from what happens now and from what you believe. I would say I am a lot more in line with the 1967 act than you are which should give you some idea of what extremism is.
Your post was a waste of time because it shows you dont even inderstand what you are posting.
 

BMS

Well-known member
It depends on what society decides. This is better than it depending on what arbitrary extremists decide an arbitrary god has decided.

No. This is not dark. What is dark is your lack of faith in humanity. Which perfect or not, is all we've got.

Jolly good.

Then I will know that I have inadvertently moved to China. Or America under people like you.
And US society has decided that abortion is not a constitutional right which you dont agree with.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
And US society has decided that abortion is not a constitutional right which you dont agree with.
Wrong. I have no opinion, and no right to an opinion, on what is or is not constitutional in the US. It is my opinion that women should have access to abortion if they feel they need it, irrespective of what any constitution says about it. It is the American Way to decide such issues by considering what a small group of wealthy, white, male traitors thought 200 years ago. This inevitably throws up the occasional odd decision, but human dignity will prevail in the end, I'm sure.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Wrong. I have no opinion, and no right to an opinion, on what is or is not constitutional in the US. It is my opinion that women should have access to abortion if they feel they need it, irrespective of what any constitution says about it. It is the American Way to decide such issues by considering what a small group of wealthy, white, male traitors thought 200 years ago. This inevitably throws up the occasional odd decision, but human dignity will prevail in the end, I'm sure.
You do have an opinion. You said societies decide and your views are not in line with the US decision.
You need to learn the world doesnt revolve around Temujin.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You do have an opinion. You said societies decide and your views are not in line with the US decision.
You need to learn the world doesnt revolve around Temujin.
I have an opinion on abortion. I have no opinion on what is in the American constitution. Nor do I care particularly. Americans decide for themselves how to run their society. Neither they nor you get to decide what I think is morally right.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I have an opinion on abortion. I have no opinion on what is in the American constitution.
Except that you said societies decide, so you do have an opinion.

Nor do I care particularly.
except that you believe societies decide, so you do care in that respect
Americans decide for themselves how to run their society.
Which is your opinion.
Neither they nor you get to decide what I think is morally right.
So how can societies decide what is extremist then?

You just keep contradicting yourself. you have your own ideas and cant be bothered to think them through
 
Top